Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Bill S on 19/06/2020 19:05:09
-
Has there been any time between the Reformation and the enactment of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, when religious gatherings were prohibited by Law in England?
-
It's possible that they were previously restricted by common sense.
-
Or by mutual prejudice. Not sure whether any previous administration banned all superstition, but catholics and protestants have outlawed one another from time to time in Jesus' name, and Jews (other than Jesus) have been expelled. I think the Romans took a dim view of Christianity until they adopted it and banned everything else.
The Pilgrim Fathers successfully exported their own brand of intolerance when it wasn't tolerated here, and Quakers have been given the occasional bashing for being kind and good.
-
Romans took a dim view of Christianity
Had to have lion food.
-
Quakers have been given the occasional bashing for being kind and good.
Must be your “kindest” comment about any religious group. Is that because they make good breakfast cereal?
Had to have lion food.
What did they feed their lions on after Caesar decided to try to save his Empire by changing sides?
-
What did they feed their lions on after Caesar decided to try to save his Empire by changing sides?
The people who didn't change sides fast enough.
-
Quakers have been given the occasional bashing for being kind and good.
Must be your “kindest” comment about any religious group. Is that because they make good breakfast cereal?
I prefer Scotts porage, but having lived with both a Scot and a Quaker I wouldn't dare to criticise either. And I usually make the breakfast.
However when I am king, I will ban any teaching that puts religion in a good light. It has probably killed more people than syphilis, the fons et origo of Anglicanism. But without the rise of Protestantism, it is quite likely that Catholics would still be torturing and forcibly converting others. That job has now been subcontracted to a few branches of Islam, along with a fair bit of butchery from occasional Hindu sects, Buddhists killing Muslims in Myanmar, and so on. Faith is the enemy of intellect, and intellect is what keeps animals with large brains and small muscles (us) alive.
And was the Roman empire really attacked by Christian hordes? Saved by prayers to the Trinity? Or just fell apart after they adopted Christianity?
-
Rome under Nero and others changed the human face of Italy by making many martyrs. They mismanaged their economy and the great library in Egypt burned down. When they became a Christian state, there were not so many bishops and pastors left to make the full genuine conversion of Rome.
Why blame enlightened Christians of today for old world bad behaviour? Christians helped the enlightenment.
-
Christians helped the enlightenment.
In what way?
The point of the enlightenment was, in part, that they stopped looking at the Bible and started looking at reality.
-
I think of Descartes and Swedenborg and how in those days most westerners were Christian. The enlightenment didn't only focus on the scientific method which is too simple.
There are enlightenment changes in how to see the Bible and Papal authority, and church relations.
People in the enlightenment or after could also have extreme views about for example taking Germany further as a united secular nation. Or as a Muslim nation.
-
I think of Descartes and Swedenborg and how in those days most westerners were Christian.
The mass murderers of the day were also Christian, but it wasn't caused by the church.
The Church still opposed reason; it was still of the view that Galileo was wrong.
-
There were disagreements, Galileo and Descartes were Catholics. Descartes may have been worried to publish his treatise on Metaphysics and treatise on light shortly after Galileo was penalized.
The fights between Christians would have been due to the wrong education, insincere conversion and lack of education. Concepts like love, rights, justice, respect, well I doubt they'd survive with human nature driven religion in Europe, warring parties having the rule. It comes from the Bible and the graces by faith. I think part of the enlightenment was waking up to true conversion, to appreciate benevolence... To study the Bible in one's native tongue with academic rigour.
For the churches, reason is firstly about reasoning with God to obtain a clean heart as from Isaiah 1. The creeds have only a little value.
-
There were disagreements,
Yes, with the Church on one side and the truth on the other.
For the churches, reason is firstly about reasoning with God
What about reasoning with the tooth fairy?
God isn't "reasonable". It is, for example, impossible to have some of the properties He is said to have.
In most monotheist religions He is said to be all powerful.
Can He set himself a task he can't accomplish?
-
It comes from the Bible
That's just silly isn't it?
The idea that there was no love before the Bible is a childish suggestion.
-
To study the Bible in one's native tongue with academic rigour.
I don't think it matters much which language you use.
Read the first page (say, Genesis Ch1) or so carefully (with academic rigour) and see how long it takes you to spot the contradiction.
-
Religius gatherings are illigal if the religion is against the one which is in power, papal excommunications, crusades against islam, burning catholics, against communism, against personality cults of supreme leaders. If you call north korea religion you will find it allmakes sense, fascism is power through belief, so is religion, christians buddhists and any religion that professes peace whilst demanding belief is a contradiction to itself, at least good old sun worship and human sacrifice had an honest face. Pray to the bomb .
YOU MANIACS. YOU BLEW IT UP. DAMN YOU. GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL.
-
There were disagreements,
Yes, with the Church on one side and the truth on the other.
For the churches, reason is firstly about reasoning with God
What about reasoning with the tooth fairy?
God isn't "reasonable". It is, for example, impossible to have some of the properties He is said to have.
In most monotheist religions He is said to be all powerful.
Can He set himself a task he can't accomplish?
People in history reasoned with God, even young ones like Wilberforce, making him a clean man with care, eventually ending the slave trade and reducing cruelty to animals and granting free education. Who cares? The Trinity is the only wise god. Which concept compares to Christ for benevolence?
The old church was changing. There were the high church ranks and the common people, but who were educated. The free press was essential for fast change. The RCC could have done better and the Protestant churches.
-
It comes from the Bible
That's just silly isn't it?
The idea that there was no love before the Bible is a childish suggestion.
The Bible is extremely old. It is not that only people who heard loved anyone, with regards to natural love, husbands and wives, children, brothers... But under pagan and atheists, love was not worshiped. Love as a low priority and sometimes you would have to set it aside for cultural affairs. Roman legions, Mars, Bacchus, pederasty.
And now the secularist the new atheism does not always cherish the unborn, the aged, the disabled, and poor unemployed woman may be told they ought to prostitute themselves by governors. And the new slavery, sex slavery was established in Eastern Europe and the model of such pimping is taking off well in the US, Mexico and the Philippines.There is no love in that. If you love people, you may face terrible odds in the future. You don't have to care, unless it means something may happen to you or a friend, in which case taking life cold may feel better.
Natural love is supported in Scriptures but another greater love comes out of it. Agape. This is only attained by faith.
Remarkably, such people lived under Nero and cold popes. Sometimes it was agonizing. Unless the Bible is free and expressed and love is worshiped loving people is difficult. It could be impossible. By law you have to abort your conceptions if you have more than one sometimes. The killing is not prosecuted. Someone may be able to pederise you son, daughters can be forced to prostitue, you could be called up to fight and defend the system, you could be required to worship a politician or a pagan deity, or another misconcept of God... Preach love to some and you are called a bigot, because the supernatural love we see in Newton and Wilberforce to name two, is not natural.
-
There are things God can't do, like, lie, cast a shadow, be tempted, except for the Christ, and He would know how He could over apply Himself, but not be the fool to step of the ledge. God can't change from the love nature.
-
It is when money and pleasures are first priority that there is a danger of loss of freedom towards painful restrictions.
-
And now the secularist the new atheism does not always cherish the unborn, the aged, the disabled, and poor unemployed woman may be told they ought to prostitute themselves by governors. And the new slavery, sex slavery was established in Eastern Europe and the model of such pimping is taking off well in the US, Mexico and the Philippines.
None of that has anything to do with atheism, does it?
-
The old church was changing.
Because the sensible people were pointing out that the Church was wrong.
Yet it's the word of God.
Do you really not see the problems here?
-
And now the secularist the new atheism does not always cherish the unborn, the aged, the disabled, and poor unemployed woman may be told they ought to prostitute themselves by governors. And the new slavery, sex slavery was established in Eastern Europe and the model of such pimping is taking off well in the US, Mexico and the Philippines.
None of that has anything to do with atheism, does it?
What people value and hold most worthwhile, in particular the majority and the elected governors, determines the practices. Liberal Christians still have the Bible and may value wisdom and love and honour and compassion, but not all do. They don't believe God exists. Atheists are free from faith, bound to natural desires. They love themselves, their wives, children, cars, houses, jobs, money, pleasures, entertainments and maybe their countrymen. To differ from Nazi Germany, they may like peace itself and foreign people. In it there is a kind of wisdom.
John Lennon and the hippie movement makes a mark. Interesting to see what became of it.
I am looking at Communist China and policies from the USA, Belgium. And the letting go of the rejection of Nazism.
What are your values as an atheist?
-
Liberal Christians still have the Bible and may value wisdom and love and honour and compassion, but not all do. They don't believe God exists.
Did you just say that liberal Christians don't believe God exists?
-
Atheists are free from faith, bound to natural desires. They love themselves, their wives, children, cars, houses, jobs, money, pleasures, entertainments and maybe their countrymen. To differ from Nazi Germany, they may like peace itself and foreign people. In it there is a kind of wisdom.
Not really.
The only thing you can reliably say about atheists as a group is that they don't believe in God.
In it there is a kind of wisdom.
Well, the only thing in atheism is not believing in God.
It's interesting that you cal that "wisdom".
What are your values as an atheist?
The only value that I have "as an atheist" is that I don't believe there's a God.
You really don't seem to understand what the word means.
You keep reading all sorts of other stuff into it.
-
And the letting go of the rejection of Nazism.
Read that through a few more times.
-
Liberal Christians still have the Bible and may value wisdom and love and honour and compassion, but not all do. They don't believe God exists.
Did you just say that liberal Christians don't believe God exists?
What I have heard is that they don't believe Jesus literally died and rose again, maybe some doubt the account of his life as well. Yes I think they don't believe God exists, maybe some are agnostic and some atheist.
-
Christians who believe in Christ risen, have eternal values, regarding the human spirits, souls and bodies. When some doubt and become agnostic or atheists, their values change. What is worth the most to them changes.
-
Christians who believe in Christ risen, have eternal values, regarding the human spirits, souls and bodies.
And armies have chaplains who explain that the eternal value of the enemy is less than the eternal value of the people on their side.
hen some doubt and become agnostic or atheists,
Let's get this straight.
People start off atheists until they are told that there's a God- generally by the same people who tell them there's a tooth fairy.
It's not a matter of "turning to atheism", it's a matter of growing out of fairy stories.What is worth the most to them changes.
Really?
So you don't think that atheists value their friends and families?
I can only presume you are an idiot.
-
Christians who believe in Christ risen, have eternal values, regarding the human spirits, souls and bodies.
And armies have chaplains who explain that the eternal value of the enemy is less than the eternal value of the people on their side.
hen some doubt and become agnostic or atheists,
Let's get this straight.
People start off atheists until they are told that there's a God- generally by the same people who tell them there's a tooth fairy.
It's not a matter of "turning to atheism", it's a matter of growing out of fairy stories.What is worth the most to them changes.
Really?
So you don't think that atheists value their friends and families?
I can only presume you are an idiot.
Just up this page I mentioned atheists value their friends and family. But the values are different if you think once you die, you cease to exist.
Some people in these forums wrote that they are patriotic, others thought it better not to be. To play safe, because it can be taken too far. Yes, ambition for each other is not good like a love for each other however is. But some people see love as religion and dangerous. There is the mocking of the giving ones life for a brother, and the same for two cousins... The suspicion of altruism and eugenics.
You can value your friends and family, but if they exist for 80 years and then are gone, no eternal destiny and consequences, then abortion seems to matter less, and ending old age suffering makes more sense to some, disabled children may not be worth while. In Iceland they abort all Downs Syndrome children. In Belgium a Schizophrenic man in his twenties opted to be euthanized.
It is good that atheists hate wars.
-
Atheists have the wisdom of hindsight. But associate war with religion. If people were not religious in history, would there have been peace? And now after the enlightenment and better education, not only in science but with history and Vatican 2 and Pentecostalism... don't we all have the same sight to reject wars? Or to know some need be?
-
Atheists have the wisdom of hindsight.
So have theists.
But the values are different if you think once you die, you cease to exist.
Well, most people don't want their loved ones to die.
Most religion makes it seem less of a problem- "they aren't dead and you will see them later in the afterlife".
In doing so, religion promotes death as more acceptable.
And, in doing that it devalues life.
So, yes, there may be differences in values, Atheists are more likely to think people's lives are important.
That, to get back to the original question, is why some religious organisations are opposing the closure of churches.
They don't see death as a problem.
Which is an unorthodox viewpoint.
-
If people were not religious in history, would there have been peace?
Hard to say.
But it's actually quite difficult to get most people to kill people.
You need to convince them that the enemy is somehow sub-human.
Look at just about any wartime(and war) propaganda and you will see that.
You need to make a clear distinction between them and us.
Religion is just another way to make that easy.
-
What I have heard is that they don't believe Jesus literally died and rose again, maybe some doubt the account of his life as well. Yes I think they don't believe God exists, maybe some are agnostic and some atheist.
And how are you defining "liberal" Christian? I sure hope you aren't saying that Christians who have liberal political values don't believe in God. What is the point of even being a Christian if you don't believe in God? Then you don't have any sins against Him that need to be absolved via Jesus' death.
-
Atheists have the wisdom of hindsight.
So have theists.
But the values are different if you think once you die, you cease to exist.
Well, most people don't want their loved ones to die.
Most religion makes it seem less of a problem- "they aren't dead and you will see them later in the afterlife".
In doing so, religion promotes death as more acceptable.
And, in doing that it devalues life.
So, yes, there may be differences in values, Atheists are more likely to think people's lives are important.
That, to get back to the original question, is why some religious organisations are opposing the closure of churches.
They don't see death as a problem.
Which is an unorthodox viewpoint.
If life is eternal and the next life has rewards, life now is worth living and has a sense of mission.
An atheist I think GS Mollen asked that if babies go to Heaven when they die, why is it wrong to abort them? I'd say they gain something from life. Pro lifers say, cherish life, keep it.
It is not a current day Christian train of thoughts: abortion, euthanasia, Nazism, idolatry, money is god, prostitution and make love not war. Old Christianity was in the wrong.
Death hopefully is something not to fear. But which Christian will commit suicide because of hope? Only mad ones. Long ago some clergy in Constantinople preferred suicide to capture by soldiers.
Some churches don't want churches closed, maybe they think they will be healed. Others think that since you always meet the same people at church that it means it is easily possible to track the spread of infection. They don't think life doesn't matter. We don't believe suicide, the easy way out must lead to Heaven. If so, only by God's mercy. You can't love someone else if you don't love yourself. You must value your life and try win through hardship. Some love money more than life and suicide if they go broke.
We should honour our grand parents and prolong their life and health. It a loss of faith that could lead to a desire to be euthenised or an acceptance of it. We have rights to kill animals and eat them, but not other people.
Creation scientists, don't like the theory of evolution because it leads to what they think is a lesser sense of human dignity. And as one song goes, "you and me baby aint nothun but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel."
John Lennon gave up on his sense of honour when he gave up on warring. So it seems to me.
-
What I have heard is that they don't believe Jesus literally died and rose again, maybe some doubt the account of his life as well. Yes I think they don't believe God exists, maybe some are agnostic and some atheist.
And how are you defining "liberal" Christian? I sure hope you aren't saying that Christians who have liberal political values don't believe in God. What is the point of even being a Christian if you don't believe in God? Then you don't have any sins against Him that need to be absolved via Jesus' death.
They do not speak of politics when saying they are liberal.
They value some aspects of the Bible and Christian philosophy but they are not sure about Christ's existence.
-
If people were not religious in history, would there have been peace?
Hard to say.
But it's actually quite difficult to get most people to kill people.
You need to convince them that the enemy is somehow sub-human.
Look at just about any wartime(and war) propaganda and you will see that.
You need to make a clear distinction between them and us.
Religion is just another way to make that easy.
Religion and spirituality can make it harder to call others sub human. All of us are equal before the cross. It is for all races and classes...
I think it was Christian for the US constitution to come by: "All men are equal." Inspiration pushing through human nature in a violent place.
-
They do not speak of politics when saying they are liberal.
Okay, thank you for clearing that up.
-
Religion and spirituality can make it harder to call others sub human. All of us are equal before the cross. It is for all races and classes...
Can you cite an example of that working- where a war was stopped because someone pointed at the Bible and said "We are all brothers" or something?.
Or is it just wishful thinking?
I think it was Christian for the US constitution to come by: "All men are equal."
It was largely written by slave owners.
But, of course, that's OK. Christianity didn't have a problem with that.
Well, not until civilisation pointed out that the Book was morally wrong.
(You do know that the Bible tells you where to get your slave and how to keep them, don't you?)
-
the model of such pimping is taking off well in the US, Mexico and the Philippines.
...all deeply Christian countries, as were the homelands of the black slave traders. And AFAIK the tribal elders who sold their kinsmen into slavery were deeply religious too.
-
But the values are different if you think once you die, you cease to exist.
Plenty of atheists believe in an afterlife. And I guess a lot of priests hope there isn't one.
-
Creation scientists, don't like the theory of evolution because it leads to what they think is a lesser sense of human dignity.
It's a curious form of dignity that preaches hatred of the intellect and denial of the obvious.
Evolution is not a theory, it's an everyday observation. Darwin merely hypothesised the underlying mechanism.
-
Religion and spirituality can make it harder to call others sub human. All of us are equal before the cross. It is for all races and classes...
Can you cite an example of that working- where a war was stopped because someone pointed at the Bible and said "We are all brothers" or something?.
Or is it just wishful thinking?
I think it was Christian for the US constitution to come by: "All men are equal."
It was largely written by slave owners.
But, of course, that's OK. Christianity didn't have a problem with that.
Well, not until civilisation pointed out that the Book was morally wrong.
(You do know that the Bible tells you where to get your slave and how to keep them, don't you?)
The present day Pope aims to keep peaceful relations with the Muslims and inside the community of Catholics and other Christians. The Catholics and Pentecostals are struggling in China, and there is much persecution in Nigeria and other countries. The churches care but we don't like the idea of fighting much. I think some of the Christians are sick of all this but would want the regular army to protect them and otherwise what can they do? Can they buy armoured vehicles?
In old Europe efforts were made to keep nations from fighting each other. By mistake one army attacked the Hungarians mistaking them for Turks.
One has to look back a long way, I think to the time when the tribe of Benjamin became corrupt. They were wiped out in anger, but then they realised they'd gone too far and tore their robes, and looked into it and found some had been away from the city at the time and they were able to restart their numbers.
Old Christian Europe had some unity, sometimes for the benefit of Spain and sometimes for Hungary when Christians were attacked. In Northern Ireland the only helps I have heard them receive are Christian peace makers. I can remember the name Alister E McGrath. I heard others preach but did not take down their names.
WW2 army chaplains convinced some German soldiers to give up. Bonhoeffer sided against his own country's government while loving Germany. Not all Germans were Nazis. Some Christians were traitors and the Pope in the war was weak.
St Francis was amazing in his day. 12th century.
I think but I am not sure if the RCC and the Greek Orthodox despite the old world lack of grace and love managed to avoid fighting with swords in hand.
Of course William Wilberforce and his young team and their fellow petitioners saw more in Africans than slaves.
True the Old Testament, was directed to the hard hearted Hebrews, but the New Testament, book of Philemon calls slaves in some cases, "brothers". Paul did not want to start a fight, but wanted the whole of Rome to turn slowly.
Jesus was said to be, one man, dying for the nation instead of many dying. He is the grand example.
David Brainerd stands out in US history as a back bone of education example, as missionary to the native Americans where he lived.
The US constitution was an example, when being written of ideals put forward to be the way of the near and distant future. Eventually in the North and then the south slavery ended.
The US and Australia are similar, the ethnicity, the language and parts of culture, and yet there is more crime and violence there in the US and more prisons, tougher sentences. There are big pockets of very lovely civil life. But there is Chicago and once upon a time the Bronx. The police are rough in the US. In Australia without riots people protesting for change here for the Aboriginals, such as the prisoners. Over here life is less violent, including our history, especially locally. Australia was formed after the English Enlightenment. We had historical revival of faith. A time with no crime rate as Barry Chant writes. To the point that somehow we don't have much problem with slavery as they do in the States.
A woman in Brisbane fell victim to a pimp. He learned from a pimp text book based on the East European and US models, of violently intimidating a woman. But she made it through.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/pimp-who-preyed-on-australian-women-faces-life-20140929-10nfu1.html
But slavery is not Australian. Without a heavy police presence, we don't have the underworld trade here like they do in the US even per capita. US Christians are not to blame but rather are victims, unless they were to take to arms to go out with the law in their own hands and fight the men who kidnap their daughters.
-
But the values are different if you think once you die, you cease to exist.
Plenty of atheists believe in an afterlife. And I guess a lot of priests hope there isn't one.
Do You mean Buddhists?
-
Jesus was said to be, one man, dying for the nation instead of many dying. He is the grand example.
I have bad news for you. It didn't work.
. In Northern Ireland the only helps I have heard them receive are Christian peace makers.
One of the main figures in that was Maggie- a dedicated follower of Mammon, not God.
-
But slavery is not Australian.
You don't need slaves if you have convict labour.
I'm not sure how much more morally right it is.
-
Jesus was said to be, one man, dying for the nation instead of many dying. He is the grand example.
I have bad news for you. It didn't work.
. In Northern Ireland the only helps I have heard them receive are Christian peace makers.
One of the main figures in that was Maggie- a dedicated follower of Mammon, not God.
Maggie's dad and early life practice was Wesleyan. Mr Roberts was a preacher.
Jesus' generation of Israelites survived. Now they do not have to die for their sins or bring animal sacrifices.
-
Maggie's dad and early life practice was Wesleyan.
So?
I also don't care what her second cousin twice removed did.Now they do not have to die for their sins
They never really did.
-
But slavery is not Australian.
You don't need slaves if you have convict labour.
I'm not sure how much more morally right it is.
After Federation, I do not think we had convict labourers. Point is, Australia and the US are similar and yet pimping is a bigger industry in the US. It is not something about the presence of the faithful that energises it. Unless maybe over tolerance?
-
Australia and the US are similar and yet pimping is a bigger industry in the US.
Well, Perhaps that's because the US population is about 74% Christian (with about 18 % atheists) while the Australian population is about 52% Christian (with about 30% atheists).
-
Religion and spirituality can make it harder to call others sub human.
The one thing all religions have in common is that each one teaches you to despise all the others.
The sooner the national curriculum drops "religious tolerance" in favor of intellect and logic, the better. Meanwhile, as a brief interlude in the Catholic-Protestant war, we have Sunnis and Shias killing one another and Boko Haram taking schoolgirls into slavery for the greater glory of the Abrahamic God and his Prophet. India and Pakistan having been partitioned on religious grounds, the slaughter continues from time to time.
Religion, of course, deals with eternal truths and unchanging morality. Such as whether women are fit to be priests and whether priests should molest children.
-
Australia and the US are similar and yet pimping is a bigger industry in the US.
Well, Perhaps that's because the US population is about 74% Christian (with about 18 % atheists) while the Australian population is about 52% Christian (with about 30% atheists).
How does this make a difference to crime rates?
-
How does this make a difference to crime rates?
It does it ironically.
-
the model of such pimping is taking off well in the US, Mexico and the Philippines.
...all deeply Christian countries, as were the homelands of the black slave traders. And AFAIK the tribal elders who sold their kinsmen into slavery were deeply religious too.
Looking back with the eyes of today. The slaves of yesteryear where war prisoners, better to be a slave than given no quarter. This was endemic among all peoples.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter
Among other lovely mindsets of yesteryear, genocide ok if you won the war, killing unwanted babies, starvation for economics, virtual slavery of the lower classes, etc.
-
The slaves of yesteryear where war prisoners,
Really? I thought they were travelers' children.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever:
But, I guess that's only what the Bible says, so there's no reason to take it seriously.
-
These days slaves are drawn from whichever young women are most attractive and not sufficiently protected.
The US is a big country, and the language and culture comes from England and Europe. But it has it's own developments amidst a lot of violence and racism. There are many drivers and buyers of slaves. From a culture of violence and hot media. 50% in the US live at or below the poverty line. The prisons are full. Despite them being our cousins they are a unique country.
What option do they have for elections and, what do they do if unemployed? There are villains there. I don't know what the church can do other than protect youth and reform some of the villains who had faith.
-
These days slaves are drawn from whichever young women are most attractive and not sufficiently protected.
Not really. though that's part of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
What option do they have for elections
Anyone but Trump.
But he's the one exploiting religion.
Simplistically, he's the one keeping the churches open during a a plague whereas science wants them closed.
Religion is putting people in danger, and Trump is exploiting it- with the collusion of the churches.
The evil man is the religious one.
-
In most recent slavery prosecutions in the UK the victims were middle-aged men "employed" as farm laborers. 'Twas ever thus.
-
These days slaves are drawn from whichever young women are most attractive and not sufficiently protected.
Nope.
"In the year ending March 2019, where the age and sex of the victim were known in modern slavery offences, the data showed 58% were male and 42% were female (Table 23)."
from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/modernslaveryintheuk/march2020
Why do you persist in putting forward your views on a science site, in spite of the reality that the facts don't agree with you?
-
These days slaves are drawn from whichever young women are most attractive and not sufficiently protected.
Not really. though that's part of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
What option do they have for elections
Anyone but Trump.
But he's the one exploiting religion.
Simplistically, he's the one keeping the churches open during a a plague whereas science wants them closed.
Religion is putting people in danger, and Trump is exploiting it- with the collusion of the churches.
The evil man is the religious one.
I thought the churches in the USA were closed. I remember seeing one preacher in a mug shot for attending church.
-
These days slaves are drawn from whichever young women are most attractive and not sufficiently protected.
Nope.
"In the year ending March 2019, where the age and sex of the victim were known in modern slavery offences, the data showed 58% were male and 42% were female (Table 23)."
from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/modernslaveryintheuk/march2020
Why do you persist in putting forward your views on a science site, in spite of the reality that the facts don't agree with you?
I know about slave labour but what I dislike most are young women forced to work as prostitutes.
-
In most recent slavery prosecutions in the UK the victims were middle-aged men "employed" as farm laborers. 'Twas ever thus.
They got food and shelter, what more do you want ?
-
These days slaves are drawn from whichever young women are most attractive and not sufficiently protected.
Not really. though that's part of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
What option do they have for elections
Anyone but Trump.
But he's the one exploiting religion.
Simplistically, he's the one keeping the churches open during a a plague whereas science wants them closed.
Religion is putting people in danger, and Trump is exploiting it- with the collusion of the churches.
The evil man is the religious one.
I thought the churches in the USA were closed. I remember seeing one preacher in a mug shot for attending church.
-
These days slaves are drawn from whichever young women are most attractive and not sufficiently protected.
Nope.
"In the year ending March 2019, where the age and sex of the victim were known in modern slavery offences, the data showed 58% were male and 42% were female (Table 23)."
from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/modernslaveryintheuk/march2020
Why do you persist in putting forward your views on a science site, in spite of the reality that the facts don't agree with you?
I know about slave labour but what I dislike most are young women forced to work as prostitutes.
Did you somehow think that your dislike of it made 42 bigger than 58?
I know about slave labour
You quite plainly do not know.
-
I thought the churches in the USA were closed.
Most notably, when the Idiot President marched to a church and posed outside, waving his Little Black Book, it was plain for all to see that the church was boarded and barricaded. Even those whose business is forgiving sinners, don't want him on the premises.
-
IIRC most London prostitutes are self-employed and many are unionised. This is politically necessary as money spent on prostitution is included in the Gross Domestic Product, and in times of serious governmental incompetence (like now) this may be the only active area of The Holy Economy, so their tax returns are very important.
-
I agree, slave labour in the form of manual labour and such does also matter a lot. I have focused on sex slavery since 2003. Not religious but natural care for lovely women. From the morality looking at marriage, and caring for the woman I may marry, and hating for someone to enslave her.
Since most slavery is manual, I should take an interest in that. There is in England a NGO Stopthetraffik.
It does not look like Trump is scientific minded. Dealing with a virus it seems he is mistaken. We can pray from home.
-
It does not look like Trump is scientific minded.
Well, we might not always agree, but I think you got that right.
-
We can pray from home.
To whom, for what? Will you be asking the Creator of the Universe to change His mind about something? Hubris is a sin.
-
To what continent does England belong? , I always thought that geographically at least the British isles were part of Europe
-
To what continent does England belong? , I always thought that geographically at least the British isles were part of Europe
Apparently 52 % of those who voted didn't understand that.
-
Religion and spirituality can make it harder to call others sub human.
The one thing all religions have in common is that each one teaches you to despise all the others.
The sooner the national curriculum drops "religious tolerance" in favor of intellect and logic, the better. Meanwhile, as a brief interlude in the Catholic-Protestant war, we have Sunnis and Shias killing one another and Boko Haram taking schoolgirls into slavery for the greater glory of the Abrahamic God and his Prophet. India and Pakistan having been partitioned on religious grounds, the slaughter continues from time to time.
Religion, of course, deals with eternal truths and unchanging morality. Such as whether women are fit to be priests and whether priests should molest children.
Surely some religions and spiritualities teach love. I think of reconciliation with first peoples. Mother Theresa of Calcutta, charities, CFAN going from Germany, once military, to Africa and loving pagans and Muslims, appealing to them to love Jesus. Sure some people tragically love Jesus but hate His enemies. But that is not what Jesus wanted. The Christians are a different lot from the Muslims and Hindus.
It seems the RCC finished with bad priests secretly just over thirty years ago, with the last reports of abuses seeming to stop then. But they were sluggish.
I don't hate Catholics and Anglicans. We fellowship. I get on with Buddhists and Muslims also.
I think instead of tolerate religion, embrace spirituality. Worship light and love and compassion and honour and wisdom. Instead of money and cars, and pleasures... which can lead to greed.
The churches are conscientious and are able as a whole to repent. The church laws change.
Terms like Human and subhuman are 20th century ideas coming to fame in Nazi Germany. The churches refer to souls and the cross is for all of them. The medieval church was greatly in the wrong with some shining stars, the saints. And the revivalists.
-
Surely some religions and spiritualities teach love. I think of reconciliation with first peoples.
Do you mean the surviving remnant of native Americans and Australians who were deprived of their land and rights and forcibly "converted" to christianity?
Mother Theresa of Calcutta, charities, CFAN going from Germany, once military, to Africa and loving pagans and Muslims, appealing to them to love Jesus.
I repeat, all religions teach you to despise all the others. And you have just given the perfect example. "Loving" my arse.
Sure some people tragically love Jesus but hate His enemies. But that is not what Jesus wanted. The Christians are a different lot from the Muslims and Hindus.
"How odd of God to choose the Jews, but odder still are those who choose the Jewish God and spurn the Jews"
It seems the RCC finished with bad priests secretly just over thirty years ago, with the last reports of abuses seeming to stop then. But they were sluggish.
On the contrary, there are civil and criminal prosecutions currently ongoing. "Sluggish" is a poor euphemism for "criminally complicit".
I don't hate Catholics and Anglicans. We fellowship. I get on with Buddhists and Muslims also.
How awfully decent of you. No mention of Jews, Zoroastrians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, Quakers, Anabaptists....All of whom at some time have been or still are being persecuted by one or other, not for what they do, but for what they are.
I think instead of tolerate religion, embrace spirituality. Worship light and love and compassion and honour and wisdom. Instead of money and cars, and pleasures... which can lead to greed.
If you can invent a greed-free substitute for money, a better way of travelling than a car, and a pleasurable substitute for pleasure, I'm sure the world will be a better place (though you won't profit from your inventions, of course). Meanwhile, the stuff we have seems to work OK.
The churches are conscientious and are able as a whole to repent. The church laws change.
repentance may make you feel better but it won't bring your victim back to life. The stain of sin is indelible.
Terms like Human and subhuman are 20th century ideas coming to fame in Nazi Germany.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis, and the Quran. Human and subhuman applies to pretty well every religion other than Buddhism (though some modern Buddhists are happy to slaughter Muslims) and has done so for at least 4000 years.
The churches refer to souls
now and again. The Hebrew Genesis grants a nefesh (soul) to all animals, but it was removed by the christian churches when bear baiting was popular. It seems to have crept back in more recent versions as the eco-vote has increased.
and the cross is for all of them.
I hope not. I find worshipping an instrument of torture and singing songs about the Blood of the Lamb to be repugnant. Not to mention Sunday's ritualised cannibalism.
The medieval church was greatly in the wrong with some shining stars, the saints. And the revivalists.
Which revival? Witch burning? The Dutch Reform Church supporting apartheid? Mormon racism?
-
quote author=alancalverd link=topic=79882.msg607942#msg607942 date=1594116620]
Surely some religions and spiritualities teach love. I think of reconciliation with first peoples.
Do you mean the surviving remnant of native Americans and Australians who were deprived of their land and rights and forcibly "converted" to christianity?
Mother Theresa of Calcutta, charities, CFAN going from Germany, once military, to Africa and loving pagans and Muslims, appealing to them to love Jesus.
I repeat, all religions teach you to despise all the others. And you have just given the perfect example. "Loving" my arse.
Sure some people tragically love Jesus but hate His enemies. But that is not what Jesus wanted. The Christians are a different lot from the Muslims and Hindus.
"How odd of God to choose the Jews, but odder still are those who choose the Jewish God and spurn the Jews"
It seems the RCC finished with bad priests secretly just over thirty years ago, with the last reports of abuses seeming to stop then. But they were sluggish.
On the contrary, there are civil and criminal prosecutions currently ongoing. "Sluggish" is a poor euphemism for "criminally complicit".
I don't hate Catholics and Anglicans. We fellowship. I get on with Buddhists and Muslims also.
How awfully decent of you. No mention of Jews, Zoroastrians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, Quakers, Anabaptists....All of whom at some time have been or still are being persecuted by one or other, not for what they do, but for what they are.
I think instead of tolerate religion, embrace spirituality. Worship light and love and compassion and honour and wisdom. Instead of money and cars, and pleasures... which can lead to greed.
If you can invent a greed-free substitute for money, a better way of travelling than a car, and a pleasurable substitute for pleasure, I'm sure the world will be a better place (though you won't profit from your inventions, of course). Meanwhile, the stuff we have seems to work OK.
The churches are conscientious and are able as a whole to repent. The church laws change.
repentance may make you feel better but it won't bring your victim back to life. The stain of sin is indelible.
Terms like Human and subhuman are 20th century ideas coming to fame in Nazi Germany.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis, and the Quran. Human and subhuman applies to pretty well every religion other than Buddhism (though some modern Buddhists are happy to slaughter Muslims) and has done so for at least 4000 years.
The churches refer to souls
now and again. The Hebrew Genesis grants a nefesh (soul) to all animals, but it was removed by the christian churches when bear baiting was popular. It seems to have crept back in more recent versions as the eco-vote has increased.
and the cross is for all of them.
I hope not. I find worshipping an instrument of torture and singing songs about the Blood of the Lamb to be repugnant. Not to mention Sunday's ritualised cannibalism.
The medieval church was greatly in the wrong with some shining stars, the saints. And the revivalists.
Which revival? Witch burning? The Dutch Reform Church supporting apartheid? Mormon racism?
[/quote]
The remnant of Native Americans in Canada. There has been some effort to reconcile with them.
The spurning of the Jews by Christians has changed. I don’t agree with my grand parents. It is popular now to learn Hebrew and fellowship with the Jews.
The RCC is sluggish, they take long to change church wide. But aren’t those cases of bad priests thirty years old? I think the confessional is used to determine who can and who can’t become a priest…
I was concise about getting on with others, the short list being my neighbours.
Worshipping something other than love itself and the benevolent qualities can lead to a greed for pleasure, money and cars… out of proportion. So a husband tells his wife their conception best be aborted to save money for a new car and for a better sex life. A matter of presence versus feeling and materials.
The stain of sin matters. Christ Jesus paid for it by the work on the cross, which we worship instead of the wood. The Creator of life can fill losses. He can restore and pardon.
We have dominion over animals and plants, but not each other. And in practice kindness to animals is favourable.
Revival is revival of pre-dark ages practice. The gifts of knowledge and healings, worship in Spirit and in Truth, love, ending witch hunts and violence. Receiving grace, seeking the sinners, preaching in the native tongue.
We respect blood transfusions, how much easier the blood of Jesus? No needles.
-
I think the confessional is used to determine who can and who can’t become a priest…
You seem to have your own idea as to how the confessional “works”. Strange!
-
The remnant of Native Americans in Canada. There has been some effort to reconcile with them.
I see no great exodus of the white people occupying native land, and at least in Quebec, Christians get preferential tax rates.
So a husband tells his wife their conception best be aborted to save money for a new car and for a better sex life.
Abortion is always distasteful and an admission of poor planning, but is it a Good Thing to make babies you can't feed? Or to demand that a 10-year-old girl carry to term?
The stain of sin matters. Christ Jesus paid for it by the work on the cross,
Does his "work" exonerate all sins, only those committed before AD, or only those committed thereafter? Committed by whom? And what definition of sin? Isn't your statement a licence to do any damn thing you like, because the price has been paid in advance?
He can restore
Evidence? and pardon
Why? What's wrong with just retribution and punishment, if only to deter others?
We respect blood transfusions,
So "we" excludes Jehovah's Witnesses and a few others.
-
But aren’t those cases of bad priests thirty years old?
No.
-
To what continent does England belong? , I always thought that geographically at least the British isles were part of Europe
Apparently 52 % of those who voted didn't understand that.
Geographically, these islands are on the European continental shelf. Politically, the inhabitants have been at war with some or other part of mainland Europe for most of the last 2100 years - I blame the Romans for attempting to destroy a prehistoric coastal trade route. Culturally, most of us are more closely aligned with the civilised remnants of the British Empire than anything else.
-
But aren’t those cases of bad priests thirty years old?
No.
Do you have a link?
-
The remnant of Native Americans in Canada. There has been some effort to reconcile with them.
I see no great exodus of the white people occupying native land, and at least in Quebec, Christians get preferential tax rates.
So a husband tells his wife their conception best be aborted to save money for a new car and for a better sex life.
Abortion is always distasteful and an admission of poor planning, but is it a Good Thing to make babies you can't feed? Or to demand that a 10-year-old girl carry to term?
The stain of sin matters. Christ Jesus paid for it by the work on the cross,
Does his "work" exonerate all sins, only those committed before AD, or only those committed thereafter? Committed by whom? And what definition of sin? Isn't your statement a licence to do any damn thing you like, because the price has been paid in advance?
He can restore
Evidence? and pardon
Why? What's wrong with just retribution and punishment, if only to deter others?
We respect blood transfusions,
So "we" excludes Jehovah's Witnesses and a few others.
No girls can’t carry full term, I don’t know what they can do if worst comes to worst. I think I’d rather be a thin boy than be aborted.
People who mostly value pleasures may leave their spouse after time for another when it suits their pleasures, like after a few babies and the birth passage is stretched. And they have the honours to maintain, but it is not honours that matter to them.
St Paul raised the licence to sin issue in Romans. “Should we sin more so that God’s grace increases”, and “if sinning glorifies God, then why am I in the wrong?”
Sin is usually injustice, and disobedience, with Christ as the Way to follow. All sins are covered by the blood from upon the cross. The original likeness of God is the Way, and we need grace to be regenerate. Inwards grace.
By the Bible we expect Uriah the Hittite, killed by King David is restored. God has unlimited resources. And there are present day people being restored, like Jan Eriksen, the testimony of pimp to preacher. Billy Graham, like many, from ancient pagan times to recent past full life evangelist. There is the ancient story of Job. The literal example of the Hebrews being freed and endowed with wealth in Exodus and the meaning by interpretation today.
Jesus' blood for a sinner dishonoured restores honour. There is the term, "born again virgin", coined by Lisa Bevere, a second chance to get married after being a fornicator. And to teach…
Joy is restored to those receiving Holy Laughter the phenomena under Rodney Howard Browne Ministries. I met one person who overcame depression with such laughter. I experienced some of this manifestation myself.
To receive these things one must repent or be prepared to change from bad ways.
Bad priests have no salt, no testimony of how God changed their lives. Repentance usually has this. They don’t repent, they only confess, probably the same sins over and over again.
Pardoned people still get discipline and sometimes are punished by the law. The law is okay.
Pardoning can also change a person’s path.
I don’t make exhaustive lists to include JWs...
-
The literal example of the Hebrews being freed and endowed with wealth in Exodus
Apart, that is, from those who had already died in slavery, died en route to the Promised Land, or tortured to death some years later in the Name of Jesus.
Life is to short to pick holes in the rest of your argument, but if it were a boat, I'd rather fly.
-
But aren’t those cases of bad priests thirty years old?
No.
Do you have a link?
The Pope confidently expects the problem to continue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/world/europe/pope-francis-child-abuse-summit.html
Why do you not believe it?
-
The literal example of the Hebrews being freed and endowed with wealth in Exodus
Apart, that is, from those who had already died in slavery, died en route to the Promised Land, or tortured to death some years later in the Name of Jesus.
Life is to short to pick holes in the rest of your argument, but if it were a boat, I'd rather fly.
I suppose the continually disagreement I have with you stems from the nature of the church in medieval times. False church or faulty teaching churches.
-
The literal example of the Hebrews being freed and endowed with wealth in Exodus
Apart, that is, from those who had already died in slavery, died en route to the Promised Land, or tortured to death some years later in the Name of Jesus.
Life is to short to pick holes in the rest of your argument, but if it were a boat, I'd rather fly.
I suppose the continually disagreement I have with you stems from the nature of the church in medieval times. False church or faulty teaching churches.
The problem is that you haven't noticed that the church is still medieval.
Hence- for example-
The Pope confidently expects the problem to continue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/world/europe/pope-francis-child-abuse-summit.html
-
When I say the Church it can mean the RCC but I refer to all Trinitarian churches. The RCC says they have been changing. And the problem is human meaning, the problem of people becoming abusers is independent of the church. They abuse the offices. Maybe they are complete pretenders. They should resign depending on honest confessionals.
I do not choose to be Roman Catholic. The Reformation means we have a choice. And We are friends, the warring between Catholics and Protestants is mostly over.
I am eclectic between Catholic and Protestant. Free.
Sorry my argument only comes from an average intellect.
-
the problem of people becoming abusers is independent of the church. They abuse the offices.
And, if those offices of the Church didn't exist, they wouldn't be abused.
But the real failing of the church is that, when they discover these evil people, their instinct is to protect the church officers, rather than the victims.
They should resign
No.
They shouldn't be allowed to resign.
They should be sacked, and reported to the police.
But, because they are part of a church, they think it's OK if they say that they will try not to do it again.
And then another man in a frock tells them it's OK because his invisible friend has forgiven them.
the warring between Catholics and Protestants is mostly over.
Yes and no...
-
I refer to all Trinitarian churches.
Like that helps...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion_sexual_abuse_cases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32909444
https://www.emmottsnell.co.uk/blog/sexual-assault-in-islamic-institutions-the-silent-victims
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/bjwd8w/the-ultra-orthodox-jewish-communitys-sex-abuse-crisis-has-finally-reached-a-tipping-point
-
But the real failing of the church is that, when they discover these evil people, their instinct is to protect the church officers, rather than the victims.
They should resign
No.
They shouldn't be allowed to resign.
They should be sacked, and reported to the police
The confessional, I don't believe in it myself, but if people are turned in for confessing, then the will not confess and should abuse begin in the mind of the confessor before it starts and becomes crime, then it can be prevented by the sinner resigning of mutual conscience with the hearer or he could be sacked secretly and told to see a counselor.
Where else to sinners bear their hearts? The insight priests have covers a range of things psychologists don't get to hear, such as phantasies...
-
In the article about the Pope and bishops, they are addressing the matter of best practice for defrocking bad priests.
-
Where else to sinners bear their hearts?
Why do you think it helps that they do so?
The insight priests have covers a range of things
Like the importance of burning witches and the sinfulness of eating shellfish.
How did you come to the conclusion that a priest actually knows more than anyone else?
One of the world's biggest problems is rooted on the fact that lots of people take advice on contraception from a celibate octogenarian.
then it can be prevented by the sinner resigning of mutual conscience with the hearer or he could be sacked secretly and told to see a counselor.
That is exactly the problem.
That's what they do to child molesters. they suggest that they move away and seek counselling.
They should report them to the police- but they don't.
And they don't because they think that to do so would "harm the church".
Well, yes it would.
But a church that shelters criminals shouldn't just be "harmed" it should be disbanded.
-
In the article about the Pope and bishops, they are addressing the matter of best practice for defrocking bad priests.
Best practice is simple, and applies in every other business on the planet. If you bring the Company into bad repute, break civil or criminal law whilst acting for the Company, or act contrary to Company policy and best interests, you are sacked instantly.
What's the problem that requires "addressing"? Just a continuing history of immorality and perversion that runs through this entire Company and its policies. Its product is lies, it survives by extortion, and it has always protected malefactors.
-
the sinfulness of eating shellfish.
As a decidedly nonpractising member of one of the few faiths that eschews shellfish, I should point out that we don't have priests, or attach a notion of sin to diet - it's just one of those things that "we don't do". As Clement Freud asserted, no faith is worth giving up the pleasure of eating crab, and I did not ascribe a nasty bout of oysterborne norovirus to a wrathful deity, any more than did my Anglican lunch guest.
-
The Reformation means we have a choice.
Being an intelligent human gives you an even better choice.
-
The Reformation means we have a choice.
Being an intelligent human gives you an even better choice.
The choice to choose what you believe, what you can think and publish, even right here. The pagans and the popes and the imperial may have have forbidden some things.
-
Priests have an education and listening to confessions gives them, over centuries, insights normal people don't have. It is in part in the catechism, on phantasy.
Psychologists have to do surveys as do marketers.
-
I dislike churches that like any kind of witch hunt. It is a thing of the past, almost unanimously condemned by by today's Christians.
-
The priests who do evil, confess, but the same sins over and over have no valid testimony of what Christ has done for them. They should not be trusted again and need a counselor like a psychologist... Not moved on. The psychologist can handle them on legal matters.
-
I dislike churches that like any kind of witch hunt. It is a thing of the past, almost unanimously condemned by by today's Christians.
Not witches, whose only sin was to question the authority of the church, but paedophiles who ruin people's lives.
-
The priests who do evil, confess,
Confession is good for the soul. Hanging is good for society (it's cheaper than imprisonment and doesn't require the church to negotiate pension and redundancy payments).
Where there is evidence that a church has failed to report criminal activity to the police, the entire Company should be fined and its officers debarred and imprisoned. Why has this not happened?
-
I dislike churches that like any kind of witch hunt. It is a thing of the past, almost unanimously condemned by by today's Christians.
Not witches, whose only sin was to question the authority of the church, but paedophiles who ruin people's lives.
I mean any kind of witch hunts, terrorists, pedophiles, communists, necromancers...
Witch hunts and old police typography, instead of patient and human rights respectful, and scientific methods, they are backward. Police should not use race types and should not be too heavy handed. Police should not use types but can work with scientists. Top psychiatrists and psychologists, like Dr Peter Fenwick.
Hunting people is backward, it is hateful. Leave it with the medieval dead, in the graves.
Any people who were obnoxious sinners should be able to change with help, little of hate, instead with wisdom and discipline... and testify of their new life. Excluding them should only be for a time.
I hate along with some of the press naming and shaming. I find it comes from not principals, but grudges that are maintained long term.
Grudges are nothing, making the grudge holder mean spirited. And maybe it does some good, if the tempted know there is hardship for them if they go ahead.
Not defund the police, abolish police erring methods.
-
The priests who do evil, confess,
Confession is good for the soul. Hanging is good for society (it's cheaper than imprisonment and doesn't require the church to negotiate pension and redundancy payments).
Where there is evidence that a church has failed to report criminal activity to the police, the entire Company should be fined and its officers debarred and imprisoned. Why has this not happened?
The priests hear confessions and can make use of that. The priests won't hear confessions if they are not secret. Confessors can confess in mass without a priest. Priests speak to the confessors, and the successes are not famous.
Convicts are expected to reform. They have rights as humans. Not to be cut, a fair trial, the right to life. Some reform, some go back to crime.
-
The psychologist can handle them on legal matters.
It's not really their role.
But that's only tangentially related to the point.
The psychologists are qualified to do psychology.
The lawyers are qualified to practice law.
And the priests are... here's what you seem to be missing... not actually any damned use at all.
They are just self serving scroungers.
-
The psychologist can handle them on legal matters.
It's not really their role.
But that's only tangentially related to the point.
The psychologists are qualified to do psychology.
The lawyers are qualified to practice law.
And the priests are... here's what you seem to be missing... not actually any damned use at all.
They are just self serving scroungers.
I have found the priests help sometimes. But that never makes the news. Except for Mother Theresa of Calcutta.
-
Mother Theresa of Calcutta
Not a priest but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
-
The priests won't hear confessions if they are not secret.
So a priest could become an accessory to a crime, and should then be prosecuted as such.
There being no god, there is no such thing as sin, only crime.
-
There seems to be some strange assumption that "confessing" to a priest achieves anything useful.
It's possible that the priest gets some vicarious pleasure from it, which is hardly a good thing.
It may make the criminal feel better about themself- which is a bad thing.
-
There seems to be some strange assumption that "confessing" to a priest achieves anything useful.
It's possible that the priest gets some vicarious pleasure from it, which is hardly a good thing.
It may make the criminal feel better about themself- which is a bad thing.
As a Catholic I never met a priest who was happy with confessions details. One was angry. One I heard of stopped someone else from treating me unjustly, and there must be many such stories but they are not sensational, so the press ignores them.
-
many such stories but they are not sensational,
Which shows there's nothing special about priests.
-
The priests won't hear confessions if they are not secret.
So a priest could become an accessory to a crime, and should then be prosecuted as such.
There being no god, there is no such thing as sin, only crime.
Sin is to fall short of the character of God, in Christ and through Him the Old Testament. His honour, love and compassion. From a theistic view, that is more important than the constitution, being where it comes from and what sustains it. We could do with more religion in schools for the values placed on human life, that go missing too often nowadays. Race riots, abortion, euthanasia, human trafficking, TV sex and violence... reason it out with reason alone and some rather like the latter. They need philosophy and you will not read of Socrates super star.
I left the RCC for more spiritual development, doubting the Eucharist and the degree of benefit in confession compared to repentance and Jesus's blood... From my own life, there is more outside of the old church traditions but also more intense sinners in the contemporary church congregation. People who want healing and the change of life, overcoming drugs, and vices, healings... Some leave disappointed not seeking and waiting long enough.
-
many such stories but they are not sensational,
Which shows there's nothing special about priests.
To me, nothing admirable about the press.
I find only a handful of priests are powerful. Other ministers are better.
-
We could do with more religion in schools
Yes. Look at all the good it has done in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Nigeria, the partition of India......
Until people learn to despise religion, and the scum who profit from it, they will despise each other because of it.
-
I find only a handful of priests are powerful.
And that's a handful too many.
-
I find only a handful of priests are powerful.
And that's a handful too many.
By powerful I mean they have beneficial wisdom and spirituality, uplifting, justifying, giving peace and confidence...
-
We could do with more religion in schools
Yes. Look at all the good it has done in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Nigeria, the partition of India......
Until people learn to despise religion, and the scum who profit from it, they will despise each other because of it.
The quality of the religious education is crucial.
-
I find only a handful of priests are powerful.
And that's a handful too many.
By powerful I mean they have beneficial wisdom and spirituality, uplifting, justifying, giving peace and confidence...
They probably had those qualities before they joined the priesthood and wasted their time on old books.
I don't have a problem with competent counsellors. I have a problem with people who think they are the spokesman for the creator.
-
We could do with more religion in schools
Yes. Look at all the good it has done in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Nigeria, the partition of India......
Until people learn to despise religion, and the scum who profit from it, they will despise each other because of it.
The quality of the religious education is crucial.
Yes.
It is,therefore far too important to be left to anyone involved in any church.
But you seem to have tried to move the goalpost there.
We may need better religious education in schools.
We certainly do not need more religion.
Ideally, we would have none.
-
The quality of the religious education is crucial.
The objective of religious education is crucial.
It used to be to persuade children not to think critically about whatever nonsense was peddled by the parasites who funded the school.
In the UK it has changed towards persuading children to tolerate any and every kind of nonsense and rejoice in the diversity of lies.
It should be about explaining how much damage irrational belief and persuasive parasitism has wrought and continues to inflict on human beings.
-
Religion and better, spirituality, puts things in perspective better, since even atheists have a sense of the supernatural and are fascinated by it in the cinemas. I mean sound Christian teaching.
-
There is a sound logic to the ideas the fair and good Christian teaching. In the cross as the cap on the Bible narrative, good health, good conduct and power over death are needed for eternal life to make a paradise.
-
Religion and better, spirituality, puts things in perspective better, since even atheists have a sense of the supernatural and are fascinated by it in the cinemas. I mean sound Christian teaching.
Don't try to tell people that atheists don't have perspective or what they think and feel.
It makes you look like a spiteful liar or an idiot.
Can you let us know what you think is actually supernatural?
There is no such thing as "sound Christian teaching" since even the Christians fight over it.
There is a sound logic to the ideas the fair and good Christian teaching.
There is sound logic to the ideas of fairness and goodness.
The Christians would do well to learn about them, rather than preaching hate and xenophobia.
-
the cross as the cap on the Bible narrative
After thousands of years of war, famine, slavery and all the other stuff, the Jews were occupied by the Romans who tortured a revolutionary rabbi to death to please the religious establishment. Not a cap on the narrative, just another sordid chapter in the unending tale of misery caused by religion and politics.
power over death
You jest, surely. There are cemeteries full of dead christians, some of whom were killed by others of the same faith.
-
Religion and better, spirituality, puts things in perspective better, since even atheists have a sense of the supernatural and are fascinated by it in the cinemas. I mean sound Christian teaching.
Don't try to tell people that atheists don't have perspective or what they think and feel.
It makes you look like a spiteful liar or an idiot.
Can you let us know what you think is actually supernatural?
There is no such thing as "sound Christian teaching" since even the Christians fight over it.
There is a sound logic to the ideas the fair and good Christian teaching.
There is sound logic to the ideas of fairness and goodness.
The Christians would do well to learn about them, rather than preaching hate and xenophobia.
Supernatural, and fiction. X files, and Harry Potter... There are many such films and TV shows. Also the idea of there being humanoid aliens that have matching DNA with ours.
Christians now fight over teaching in debate. People are free to choose. I suppose Luther led to this freedom, after a lot of physical fighting. The Popes became dictators, they went into gross error. Not all of them were poor examples. Some people were exceptional in each era.
Which Christians today, long after the enlightenment practice hate and xenophobia? It is not according to the Gospel, in which concepts of fair and good come from.
Christians often do promote the fair and the good.
Atheists, what bearings do they have in the supernatural? Powers of unseen entities? Do they come and go? What do they want with you? What is supernatural malevolence? Do any spirits without bodies have a good nature? Can they come into a person and afflict them? There is a lot of difference between Buddhism which is atheist, and Hinduism and Christianity.
-
the cross as the cap on the Bible narrative
After thousands of years of war, famine, slavery and all the other stuff, the Jews were occupied by the Romans who tortured a revolutionary rabbi to death to please the religious establishment. Not a cap on the narrative, just another sordid chapter in the unending tale of misery caused by religion and politics.
power over death
You jest, surely. There are cemeteries full of dead christians, some of whom were killed by others of the same faith.
The Christians do not die spiritually after they leave their bodies. And death is overcome, there will be a resurrection.
The 20th century was secular showing that without much religion influencing things and with secular government still there was war and plague and famine.
-
The Christians do not die spiritually after they leave their bodies. And death is overcome, there will be a resurrection.
Funny that the only resurrection that Christians believe to have actually happened, was of a Jew.
The 20th century was secular showing that without much religion influencing things and with secular government still there was war and plague and famine.
Unlike all previous centuries of crusades, pogroms, wars, plagues and famines, eh? Thank Allah that's all over in the 21st century, when people of faith show their mutual tolerance with AK47s and ritual beheadings. And now even the godless communists are persecuting homosexuals.
-
Supernatural, and fiction. X files, and Harry Potter... There are many such films and TV shows. Also the idea of there being humanoid aliens that have matching DNA with ours.
So, all that made up stuff that we recognise isn't actually true.
It's entertaining, possibly, at some level, educational, but that's about all.
Christians now fight over teaching in debate.
That's just not true.
I was woken up one morning by this. (specifically, the Paddington one.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombings_of_Paddington_and_Victoria_stations
And this one was a few hundred yards from my office
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Staples_Corner_bombing
They weren't a "debate"; they were Christians fighting and killing eachother.
Which Christians today, long after the enlightenment practice hate and xenophobia?
The ones condemning homosexuality, for a start.
But we can add the ones that don't accept women into the priesthood if that helps.
Did you somehow think I was going to have any difficulty answering that question?
Were you blind to the actions of Christians, today, because you can't accept that the faith is essentially evil?
Christians often do promote the fair and the good.
So, they sometimes get it right?
Well a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The point is they sometimes get it right in spite of, or independently of, being Christians.
Not because they are Christians.
Atheists, what bearings do they have in the supernatural? Powers of unseen entities? Do they come and go? What do they want with you? What is supernatural malevolence? Do any spirits without bodies have a good nature? Can they come into a person and afflict them?
You seem to have missed something.
The defining characteristic of atheism is a lack of belief in God
So, all atheists reject at last one aspect of the "supernatural".
Most atheists realise that, like God, the unicorns, spirits and fairies at the bottom of the garden are just made-up stories.
I asked you this
Can you let us know what you think is actually supernatural?
And I'm still waiting for a meaningful answer.
What REAL thing is supernatural?
-
Supernatural, and fiction. X files, and Harry Potter... There are many such films and TV shows. Also the idea of there being humanoid aliens that have matching DNA with ours.
So, all that made up stuff that we recognise isn't actually true.
It's entertaining, possibly, at some level, educational, but that's about all.
Christians now fight over teaching in debate.
That's just not true.
I was woken up one morning by this. (specifically, the Paddington one.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombings_of_Paddington_and_Victoria_stations
And this one was a few hundred yards from my office
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Staples_Corner_bombing
They weren't a "debate"; they were Christians fighting and killing eachother.
Which Christians today, long after the enlightenment practice hate and xenophobia?
The ones condemning homosexuality, for a start.
But we can add the ones that don't accept women into the priesthood if that helps.
Did you somehow think I was going to have any difficulty answering that question?
Were you blind to the actions of Christians, today, because you can't accept that the faith is essentially evil?
Christians often do promote the fair and the good.
So, they sometimes get it right?
Well a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The point is they sometimes get it right in spite of, or independently of, being Christians.
Not because they are Christians.
Atheists, what bearings do they have in the supernatural? Powers of unseen entities? Do they come and go? What do they want with you? What is supernatural malevolence? Do any spirits without bodies have a good nature? Can they come into a person and afflict them?
You seem to have missed something.
The defining characteristic of atheism is a lack of belief in God
So, all atheists reject at last one aspect of the "supernatural".
Most atheists realise that, like God, the unicorns, spirits and fairies at the bottom of the garden are just made-up stories.
I asked you this
Can you let us know what you think is actually supernatural?
And I'm still waiting for a meaningful answer.
What REAL thing is supernatural?
Cold Play and Phil Collins mention paradise in their lyrics. People are inclined to think there is more to life than scientism. There are stories of excorcism and the popularity of New Age practices. Dr Peter Fenwick considers the reality of the soul leaving the body as real. Due to NDE observations and those of people in hospital with loved ones who pass in their presence. He is a much experienced Psychiatrist.
And Dr Raymond Moody wrote about NDE commonalities and since then many such books have been written. It is the obvious supernatural phenomena, just having a mind, that does not cease to exist at death. Can such a thing be explained by evolution. I think there is too much that came to be for evolution to explain it all.
The faith in Christ captures the supernatural, that sense of things. The Christ's example, faith hope and love as most important, love as head. Wisdom as the principal thing. The existence of an unseen enemy. Galatians 5:22, the fruit of the Spirit, the ideal. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control. This idea is supernatural. Testimonies of freedom and fruition are supernatural. They are found among some Christians.
Papal theocracy did not work well. Paul warned that after him would come evil men into the church. The church being of a nature to love Christ and each other. Willing to die for the good. Sometimes actually doing it. Surely this was the best bet for a utopia?
If the benevolence of Christ and the apostles and saints and the openness to use Socrates and other greats, and since the followers loved each other and were sometimes prepared to die for Christ, if this did not work, as Paul warned, what can, pure reasoning? Isn’t that going back to philosophy alone?
Better to learn from them and build on them than go back to reasoning and philosophy alone?
I think Jude taught us to earnestly contend for the faith. And they went wrong after Paul died as warned. They were too aggressive and not loving enough. Anathematizing opponents. "Debunking" others. Hard speeches. Later too heavy punishment for heretics. Loveless reasoning. Logic. But logic and no faith, does it do any better? No.
The true Christians are known by their love, it is supernatural. If this does not get things right, what will? Not simple logic or philosophy. Paul mentioned those to come with no conscience.
The US president in WW2 had to make decisions of unethical war or the loss of a hundred thousand of his own soldiers. I don't see how a Christian could handle that one myself.
About some Christians, there is a difference between religion and spirituality. Legalism and grace.
-
Cold Play and Phil Collins mention paradise in their lyrics.
Lyrics ae made up.
There are songs about dragons, but that doesn't make them real, does it?
People are inclined to think there is more to life than scientism.
Well, according to WIKI "Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. "
What better, or more objective, measures would you suggest?
There are stories of excorcism and the popularity of New Age practices.
I am aware that there are new religious or quasi religious beliefs.
They are also apparently baseless.
Dr Peter Fenwick considers the reality of the soul leaving the body as real.
Who is he and why should I care what they think?
Have the documented the process in some way?
Due to NDE observations and those of people in hospital with loved ones who pass in their presence.
So, he studies the most faulty brains in existence- dying ones.
He is a much experienced Psychiatrist.
There is serious debate about whether psychiatry is actually a science.
Can such a thing be explained by evolution.
Not much, because the near death experience has no effect on reproduction.
Why did you ask?
And Dr Raymond Moody wrote about NDE commonalities and since then many such books have been written.
And, no doubt many dollars earned by selling books.
Cars tend to fail in fairly similar ways, but that doesn't mean they have a soul. It means they are put together in the same way.
Why wouldn't you expect something similar with people?
The faith in Christ captures the supernatural, that sense of things.
Do you mean that supernatural means gullible?
testimonies of freedom and fruition are supernatural.
But they are indistinguishable from lies, delusions and mistakes.
Do you have anything that's verifiably real and also supernatural?
Surely this was the best bet for a utopia?
No.
We have roughly 2000 years of proof of that.
Democracy works a bit better than theocracy.
Better to learn from them and build on them than go back to reasoning and philosophy alone?
Why?
It's not as if you can actually learn anything from, for example, the Bible.
The bits of it that are wrong- like stoning witches- prove that.
You actually need logic and philosophy to stop the Bible being evil.
But logic and no faith, does it do any better? No.
Yes.
If this does not get things right, what will? Not simple logic or philosophy. Paul mentioned those to come with no conscience.
And again you display the characteristic arrogance of religion.
You think that conscience comes from religion.
Well, that is factually wrong, as well as insulting.
https://phys.org/news/2015-12-dogs-animals-conscience.html
Do you think the dogs are catholic or protestant?
-
Cold Play and Phil Collins mention paradise in their lyrics.
The Beatles claimed to live in a yellow submarine. I met a bloke who built several, which makes the concept more believable than paradise, but AFAIK they were never inhabited by musicians.
The US president in WW2 had to make decisions of unethical war or the loss of a hundred thousand of his own soldiers. I don't see how a Christian could handle that one myself.
And there you have the root of the problem. By attaching a label to yourself, you think you have limited your scope for thought and action, but you have no idea what those limits might be. Christians have killed thousands of others in the Name of Jesus, i.e. for no good reason whatever, so why should there be a limit on what can be done to defeat a real enemy?
-
Lyrics ae made up.
There are songs about dragons, but that doesn't make them real, does it?
Well, according to WIKI "Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. "
What better, or more objective, measures would you suggest?
I am aware that there are new religious or quasi religious beliefs.
They are also apparently baseless.
Who is he and why should I care what they think?
Have the documented the process in some way?
So, he studies the most faulty brains in existence- dying ones.
There is serious debate about whether psychiatry is actually a science.
Not much, because the near death experience has no effect on reproduction.
Why did you ask?
And, no doubt many dollars earned by selling books.
Cars tend to fail in fairly similar ways, but that doesn't mean they have a soul. It means they are put together in the same way.
Why wouldn't you expect something similar with people?
Do you mean that supernatural means gullible?
But they are indistinguishable from lies, delusions and mistakes.
Do you have anything that's verifiably real and also supernatural?
No.
We have roughly 2000 years of proof of that.
Democracy works a bit better than theocracy.
Why?
It's not as if you can actually learn anything from, for example, the Bible.
The bits of it that are wrong- like stoning witches- prove that.
You actually need logic and philosophy to stop the Bible being evil.
Yes.
And again you display the characteristic arrogance of religion.
You think that conscience comes from religion.
Well, that is factually wrong, as well as insulting.
https://phys.org/news/2015-12-dogs-animals-conscience.html
Do you think the dogs are catholic or protestant?
Dragons do not represent the continuing mind or conscience, conscientious ideals and essentials. Paradise is a milestone in idealism.
Eternal values, values on life as eternal. While also placing value on life as short for the biological years. Love as an ideal. The trained conscience. Both mention testimonies. The revelation of God. The family unit. Better than scientism.
Dr Peter Fenwick was once in charge of the criminally insane in I think a London hospital. Dying brains need not be faulty.
Psychiatrists have to obtain the highest matriculation, then do a whole medical degree, then study the psyche for years.
The mind and near death accounts can’t be explained by evolution, that is evolution could not result in the formation of the mind and account for NDE observations and testimonies.
The human spirit and soul. The revealing of others people’s secret thoughts. NDE observations of operation details. Perhaps revival phenomena? For real supernatural things.
The theocracy of the RCC and Eastern Orthodox was not the best Christians could do. But democracy is the best government I can find. The Papacy had faults as described by St Paul, some coming in among us with consciences seared as with hot irons. Christianity when genuine attracts the conscience, pricks the conscience, grows the conscience unlike any other religion or spirituality. Also it is when a psychopath comes to power such as in Germany that things go wrong again.
Hebraic or logical interpretation is necessary. Love is the key and conscience. For a true Bible practice.
The conscience is part of the mind or spirit, and is not viabley something that could come into existence by evolution. Evolution by chance alone should really only have resulted in asexual plants…
Atheists have conscience, trained a bit differently from Christians, in England and Australia. Other religions and spiritualities do not build out from and work by the conscience as Christians do. So true Christians not false. There have been many false Christians who fell well short of love and who drove non Christians to revile them on a conscience basis, and by compassion. Two things and the third, love that are meant to denote true Christianity.
-
Dragons do not represent the continuing mind or conscience, conscientious ideals and essentials.
Nor does religion.
Dying brains need not be faulty.
Why are they dying then?
Psychiatrists have to obtain the highest matriculation, then do a whole medical degree, then study the psyche for years.
Priests have to study before they are ordained.
It does not mean that what they study is science.
Are you deliberately posting stuff that makes no sense and can be knocked back this easily?
Why bother?
It's a waste of your time and ours.
-
Young people can die of cancer.
Paradise not dragons are a milestone of idealism.
-
Cold Play and Phil Collins mention paradise in their lyrics.
The Beatles claimed to live in a yellow submarine. I met a bloke who built several, which makes the concept more believable than paradise, but AFAIK they were never inhabited by musicians.
The US president in WW2 had to make decisions of unethical war or the loss of a hundred thousand of his own soldiers. I don't see how a Christian could handle that one myself.
And there you have the root of the problem. By attaching a label to yourself, you think you have limited your scope for thought and action, but you have no idea what those limits might be. Christians have killed thousands of others in the Name of Jesus, i.e. for no good reason whatever, so why should there be a limit on what can be done to defeat a real enemy?
I can't say I love Japan to the Japanese and also agree with using the bomb on them. Nor can I say I thing the USA should have spent an extra 100,000 soldiers invading Japan ethically. It is beyond me, because I am just a humble man.
-
Young people can die of cancer.
Paradise not dragons are a milestone of idealism.
Are you deliberately missing the point?
Paradise and dragons are both made up fairy tales.
They are not real.
So trying to make a point by saying
Cold Play and Phil Collins mention paradise in their lyrics.
is meaningless.
All it does is shows that you do not understand how rational thought works.
-
It seems Peter Fenwick is not a Dr but a Neuropsychologist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fenwick_(neuropsychologist)
In other sources he called a Dr.
-
Young people can die of cancer.
Paradise not dragons are a milestone of idealism.
Are you deliberately missing the point?
Paradise and dragons are both made up fairy tales.
They are not real.
So trying to make a point by saying
Cold Play and Phil Collins mention paradise in their lyrics.
is meaningless.
All it does is shows that you do not understand how rational thought works.
I am saying that hordes of people even atheists are sometimes expectant that there is more to reality and in people, than matter and energy. Or even that energy, that is what, in part, that people are, is indestructible.
-
Paradise is a precursor to utopia.
-
Young people can die of cancer.
Paradise not dragons are a milestone of idealism.
Are you deliberately missing the point?
Paradise and dragons are both made up fairy tales.
They are not real.
So trying to make a point by saying
Cold Play and Phil Collins mention paradise in their lyrics.
is meaningless.
All it does is shows that you do not understand how rational thought works.
I am saying that hordes of people even atheists are sometimes expectant that there is more to reality and in people, than matter and energy. Or even that energy, that is what, in part, that people are, is indestructible.
The term for this is "wishful thinking"
The churches have been relying on it for ages.
That doesn't mean it makes sense..
It's not rational, and you just proved my point.
-
Paradise is a precursor to utopia.
One made up idea is a precursor to another made up idea.
Did you think that was helpful?
-
It seems Peter Fenwick is not a Dr but a Neuropsychologist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fenwick_(neuropsychologist)
In other sources he called a Dr.
PhD
-
It seems Peter Fenwick is not a Dr but a Neuropsychologist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fenwick_(neuropsychologist)
In other sources he called a Dr.
It doesn't matter.
Unless he has died and come back he isn't an expert on the afterlife.
And if he's not an expert then all the discussion about him is irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_false_authority
-
Paradise is a precursor to utopia.
One made up idea is a precursor to another made up idea.
Did you think that was helpful?
Isn't there value for civil society to think on utopia in the living years? Isn't that part of why we are a free democracy?
-
Paradise is a precursor to utopia.
One made up idea is a precursor to another made up idea.
Did you think that was helpful?
Isn't there value for civil society to think on utopia in the living years?
It's a good idea for people to make this world better.
That's not got anything to do with whether there's an afterlife or not, not with what you choose to call the "best world".
But the belief that there is a "better world waiting for us" has led to religious groups doing a lot of harm in the only world that we know is real.
-
Dr Peter Fenwick was once in charge of the criminally insane in I think a London hospital. Dying brains need not be faulty.
But if you wanted to find a dying brain that had been proven faulty, where better to look?
-
I can't say I love Japan to the Japanese and also agree with using the bomb on them. Nor can I say I thing the USA should have spent an extra 100,000 soldiers invading Japan ethically. It is beyond me, because I am just a humble man.
Which is why there is no room for religion in politics.
Quite what constitutes an ethical invasion is beyond my comprehension, but I can imagine what the world would be like without D-day, the Red Army reaching Berlin, or the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I certainly wouldn't be here.
-
Here is an interview with Peter Fenwick:
It is about consciousness and death.
-
Here is an interview with Peter Fenwick:
The expert in faulty brains?
Here is a reason why we might not bother to watch it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
-
I recall from Websters dictionary that religion is the practice, maybe the habits that follow a spiritual high experience. It can be from one's own life or an ancestor or saint. So there are the Franciscans who are religious but not necessarily spiritual like St Francis of Assisi. Ideally the spiritual practice and highs are constant. Christianity is properly outworked into a spirituality. The other religions tend to be works of the flesh and natural strength and wisdom, to obtain right standing with God. There is a difference between religion and spirituality. The problem in history has been, the religious people attacking the spiritual Christians. The call us names and try to shut down meetings. They have stopped free assemblies before. So when church and state were linked they made assembling illegal, as from the OP.
From what I read from you guys, God is defined by the religious people not the benevolence in the New Testament. So whatever backs the crusades and thirty years war is god. Of course for me God is light and love and wisdom... I want to follow the spirituality. Like it was in the very beginning.
Since there is no state church and a separation of church and state we have freedom. The government can impose on us now with regards to preaching and Bible wording on sensitive matters. In China Christians are not free and the CCP wants to change the Bible wording...
And the film Boy Erased, seems to find fault with conservative cessationist practices. They have an over emphasis on the Bible as absolute and complete truth. They think the Spirit ceased to guide us considerably, after the death of the last Apostle. So they think the world was literally created in six days, all homosexual chose to become that way as they grew older, and the spiritual phenomena has be very much like it was in the Bible, they think God does nothing new...
So spiritual Christians practices have been illegal due to religious and atheist persecution. It seems also people who regard themselves as progressive also ban some Christian practices such as in California.
-
It seems also people who regard themselves as progressive also ban some Christian practices such as in California.
What practices are those?
-
It seems also people who regard themselves as progressive also ban some Christian practices such as in California.
What practices are those?
What comes under a broad definition of gay reversion therapy. As I mentioned cessationists have a belief that all homosexuals chose to be that way over time, hence "reversion". Other people choose Christ, and they are homosexual, but they are not allowed to openly admire the character of Jesus. Sy Rogers is an example. Some Pentecostals will apply Jesus name to help them change, if they want. But probably because of the hardness in the cessationist discipline, it is not permitted.
-
As I mentioned cessationists have a belief that all homosexuals chose to be that way over time,
And they are wrong.
Which is part of the reason why "therapy" is wrong.
But it's worth taking a moment to consider that idea.
They believe that some people choose a life of persecution at the hands of various groups of bigots for no discernable benefit.
It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that.
That "special kind of stupid" is what characterises religion.
-
As I mentioned cessationists have a belief that all homosexuals chose to be that way over time,
And they are wrong.
Which is part of the reason why "therapy" is wrong.
But it's worth taking a moment to consider that idea.
They believe that some people choose a life of persecution at the hands of various groups of bigots for no discernable benefit.
It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that.
That "special kind of stupid" is what characterises religion.
Having described religion as opposed to spirituality, I agree. But not that all the cessationist parents and pastors are bigots. And some of them are high IQ scorers.
Homosexuals are sometimes born that way. And being that way inclined is not a sin. Forcing boys to revert is a mistake. Based on false teachings.
Since some homosexuals chose that way or want to change, they may appreciate it and should be free to try.
-
Since some homosexuals chose that way
Which part of "the do not choose" are you failing to understand?
want to change
Why?
Is it, perhaps because they are persecuted for being themselves?
-
And some of them are high IQ scorers.
IQ is a measure of how well you do in IQ tests; not of anything else.
-
But not that all the cessationist parents and pastors are bigots.
Why do they think God made a mistake in creating homosexuals then?
-
Forcing boys to revert is a mistake. Based on false teachings.
Well, obviously; the true Biblical teaching is that they should be stoned to death.
-
Since some homosexuals chose that way
Which part of "the do not choose" are you failing to understand?
want to change
Why?
Is it, perhaps because they are persecuted for being themselves?
David Bowie and others I heard interviewed chose to become bisexual or homosexual. Some choose that way, and change later as with Bowie. Who wrote Changes.
Not all homosexuals are persecuted for being themselves. There is something very appealing about Jesus Christ. People love Him. He is the root of the term, "inspiring".
-
But not that all the cessationist parents and pastors are bigots.
Why do they think God made a mistake in creating homosexuals then?
I doubt they think God made a mistake. They want grand children. They care.
-
He is the root of the term, "inspiring".
No.
They want grand children. They care.
Specifically, they care about themselves and their desire for grandchildren. Not about others.
I doubt they think God made a mistake.
Well, God's in charge and the gay people didn't make the choice so who made the mistake?
Some choose that way, and change later as with Bowie.
He may have changed but that's not the same as choice.
I'm not choosing grey hair.
-
Forcing boys to revert is a mistake. Based on false teachings.
Well, obviously; the true Biblical teaching is that they should be stoned to death.
It is like Paul the apostle on slavery. He was a Jewish Pharisee. Paul knew the TANACH permitted slavery. Paul in Philemon calls a runaway slave a brother. He raises the status. Paul does not start a fight between slaves and the Roman or Greek states. But the inference is that the Bible wants slaves to be set free. That if you can peaceably be set free, then you should take the opportunity with both hands.
Slavery is cruel and can be even more cruel today than it was in Roman times. Today we have workers on schedule with contracts and freedom to change jobs... It was a Christian William Wilberforce who persuaded petitioners that slavery wasn't right or Christian. Right and Christian are part of the same thing. "The kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but righteousness or justice, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."
Slavery and stoning are obsolete. The meaning is just that for the Hebrews, obedience and worship three thousand years ago, found much fault with men lying with other men. The Hebrews rejected all other cultures, for a while then got into idolatry like the surrounding tribes, and started sacrificing the children and fornicating... The were taken captive from the resulting weakness.
Freedom is a prize from Christian spirituality. Wilberforce had that. Not only religion. He was a Real Christian as in the title of his book.
It is false teaching to stone people, and to have the Bible without grace.
-
He is the root of the term, "inspiring".
No.
They want grand children. They care.
Specifically, they care about themselves and their desire for grandchildren. Not about others.
I doubt they think God made a mistake.
Well, God's in charge and the gay people didn't make the choice so who made the mistake?
Some choose that way, and change later as with Bowie.
He may have changed but that's not the same as choice.
I'm not choosing grey hair.
In Spire, what is the root of this word inspire?
Caring for their children and caring for grandchildren, it is not selfish.
I do not know how people become homosexual.
Bowie in his documentary chose to become bisexual because of his first wife, but the relationship ended and he went on to marry Susan Sarandon. A man who kept re-inventing himself.
-
what is the root of this word inspire?
inspire (v.) mid-14c., enspiren, "to fill (the mind, heart, etc., with grace, etc.);" also "to prompt or induce (someone to do something)," from Old French enspirer(13c.), from Latin inspirare"blow into, breathe upon," figuratively "inspire, excite, inflame," from in-"in" (from PIE root *en"in") + spirare"to breathe" (see spirit(n.)).
It's all to do with autonomic oxygenation. The odd thing is that the verb has changed from something you do for yourself to something you do to others!
-
. It was a Christian William Wilberforce who persuaded petitioners that slavery wasn't right or Christian.
Only because others- those who didn't believe the Bible- explained that it was wrong.
It is false teaching to stone people,
Then the Bible taught falsely.
In Spire, what is the root of this word inspire?
To breathe in.
Did you know that you can check stuff before you post it?
Caring for their children and caring for grandchildren, it is not selfish.
So what?
It's not the same as wanting their children to be straight because they want Grandchildren.
That's selfishness on the part of the potential grandparents.
"I want you do do something my way because I want the outcomes of that" is selfishness.
Why lie about it?
I do not know how people become homosexual.
In general they don't.
When did you become straight?
(That's not the same as when did you realise you were).
Even better, when did you decide to become straight ? (Since you still seem to have this lingering failure to understand that people don't choose their sexuality)
"The kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but righteousness or justice,
So that's why homosexuals were denied basic human rights - like marriage. or even life- by the church.
Don't you see the contradiction?
Slavery and stoning are obsolete.
Great! Now you just have to recognise that the rest of the book is also obsolete.
-
Slavery and stoning are obsolete.
On the contrary. Slavery is rife across the Christian world
05 July 2019 UK Crown Prosecution Service A Polish human-trafficking ring have been jailed after the CPS concluded the UK’s largest ever modern slavery prosecution and what is believed to be the biggest of its type in Europe.
and stoning is making a comeback among persons of faith
As of September 2010, stoning is a punishment that is included in the laws in some countries including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Yemen and some predominantly Muslim states in northern Nigeria as punishment for Zina ("adultery by married persons").
which is why western politicians lick the arse of Saudi Arabia at every opportunity.
-
what is the root of this word inspire?
inspire (v.) mid-14c., enspiren, "to fill (the mind, heart, etc., with grace, etc.);" also "to prompt or induce (someone to do something)," from Old French enspirer(13c.), from Latin inspirare"blow into, breathe upon," figuratively "inspire, excite, inflame," from in-"in" (from PIE root *en"in") + spirare"to breathe" (see spirit(n.)).
It's all to do with autonomic oxygenation. The odd thing is that the verb has changed from something you do for yourself to something you do to others!
Mozart and Tolkien were inspired to write. That does not merely involve breathing. There is the anglicized meaning of inspiried. It's root is from spire as quoted. Breath or spirit, originally in Greece and Rome, the Holy Spirit, people took in the Spirit, and were of note for their new behaviour.
Point being that ordinary homosexuals are inspired by Jesus Christ and freely want Him.
-
. It was a Christian William Wilberforce who persuaded petitioners that slavery wasn't right or Christian.
Only because others- those who didn't believe the Bible- explained that it was wrong.
It is false teaching to stone people,
Then the Bible taught falsely.
In Spire, what is the root of this word inspire?
To breathe in.
Did you know that you can check stuff before you post it?
Caring for their children and caring for grandchildren, it is not selfish.
So what?
It's not the same as wanting their children to be straight because they want Grandchildren.
That's selfishness on the part of the potential grandparents.
"I want you do do something my way because I want the outcomes of that" is selfishness.
Why lie about it?
I do not know how people become homosexual.
In general they don't.
When did you become straight?
(That's not the same as when did you realise you were).
Even better, when did you decide to become straight ? (Since you still seem to have this lingering failure to understand that people don't choose their sexuality)
"The kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but righteousness or justice,
So that's why homosexuals were denied basic human rights - like marriage. or even life- by the church.
Don't you see the contradiction?
Slavery and stoning are obsolete.
Great! Now you just have to recognise that the rest of the book is also obsolete.
John Newton former slaver driver was repentant and wrote the hymn, amazing grace about how God changed him. He helped inspire Wilberforce to receive grace and work for slaves freedom. Wilberforce used the Bible in true teaching versus false in his day against other Christians, not real Christians. He succeeded in persuading most people that slavery was not right or Christian, from the Bible.
The Bible can teach falsely, as in King David's day, and Romans 9, people wanted to follow religion, the self effort plus the Torah. They hated David and his testimonies of what God did in and for him. They were proud and turned to what is "false" in Ps 40. And the false was the Torah and self effort, a religion contradicting David's spirituality.
The Bible came with an oral tradition and spirituality.
Surely loving family can wish their children success? Homosexuals themselves want children, but they have to adopt them.
Parts of the Old Testament are obsolete and were even by King David's day. King David and the prophets... were not straight out of the book by the judgment of proud and angry people. The latter were in sin according to David and Paul the apostle.
I suppose people become homosexual in the womb or as small children.
Christians don't stone people. Not real ones.
Homosexuals were not recorded to want to marry in ancient Rome were they? When there was no Gospel? It is a new thing. It is not about the Bible but secular human rights philosophy outside the old theocratic times. The old churches were not the best at spirituality and very slow to change and understand. Gay rights does threaten to take away some free speech. Not hate speech but even love for them and the inspiring of them. Homosexual find Jesus inspiring and desirable sometimes. But they are not entirely free to follow Jesus, because Jesus is not sensual.
There is no need to try to stop the benevolent spirituality.
-
Slavery and stoning are obsolete.
On the contrary. Slavery is rife across the Christian world
05 July 2019 UK Crown Prosecution Service A Polish human-trafficking ring have been jailed after the CPS concluded the UK’s largest ever modern slavery prosecution and what is believed to be the biggest of its type in Europe.
and stoning is making a comeback among persons of faith
As of September 2010, stoning is a punishment that is included in the laws in some countries including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Yemen and some predominantly Muslim states in northern Nigeria as punishment for Zina ("adultery by married persons").
which is why western politicians lick the arse of Saudi Arabia at every opportunity.
Real Christians don't drive slaves or stone people. It is not the revelation to King David or the NT. These people are not inspired to do so.
Polish authorities whether Christian or not are intended to imprison slave drivers.
Faith that is religion is not the same as faith that is spiritual and benevolent after the likes of Jesus and the Apostles.
-
Polish authorities whether Christian or not are intended to imprison slave drivers.
In spite of the fact that they are doing what the Bible tells them
It is not the revelation to King David or the NT.
No, but what is in the NT is Matthew's testimony that Jesus said to carry on with the old laws.
-
Polish authorities whether Christian or not are intended to imprison slave drivers.
In spite of the fact that they are doing what the Bible tells them
It is not the revelation to King David or the NT.
No, but what is in the NT is Matthew's testimony that Jesus said to carry on with the old laws.
The Polish are mostly Catholics, so no, they have an interpretation of the Bible that hates slavery.
Jesus revised the old laws, example being marriage and divorce. Jesus said in the negative that He wants soft hearted application of Moses's law.
Christianity more than Judaism appeals to the conscience, it is natural in that way. Christianity is a a conscience based faith. More than others I'd say.
-
So we are moving towards a definition of a real Christian as someone who rejects all the prior teachings of Christianity and activities of his forebears, invents new etymology for old words, and cannot draw inspiration from a Saxon church. Indeed since Norman architecture was unknown before the 11th century, we can discount most of Christian history and teaching, including the entire New Testament, as uninspired.
Pretty much narrows it down to Catholics and Anglicans, who have been stoning, boiling and beheading each other ever since the Church of England was invented.
-
The Polish are mostly Catholics, so no, they have an interpretation of the Bible that hates slavery is the opposite of what the Bible actually says.
Fixed it for you.
Jesus revised the old laws
Just not true.
What he said (reportedly) was
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Which is the exact opposite of what you claim.
But, even if it was true there's a problem.
It took well over a thousand years for people to actually stop doing it.
People were still stoning gays, burning witches, trading slaves and practicing trial by ordeal with the full backing of the Christian church(es) well into the second millennium and in some cases until the 19th century.
So why were they- closer in time to Jesus- not following His will, but we are following it better today?
That simply does not make sense.
The Romans didn't bring Judaism to the UK so the UK had practically no "tradition" of following the OT.
The people who brought Christianity, also brought those laws about slaves and witches.
Those laws are part of Christianity whether you want to face the fact or not.
-
So we are moving towards a definition of a real Christian as someone who rejects all the prior teachings of Christianity and activities of his forebears, invents new etymology for old words, and cannot draw inspiration from a Saxon church. Indeed since Norman architecture was unknown before the 11th century, we can discount most of Christian history and teaching, including the entire New Testament, as uninspired.
Pretty much narrows it down to Catholics and Anglicans, who have been stoning, boiling and beheading each other ever since the Church of England was invented.
As Pentecostals we believe in the style of the early church, mainly 1 Corinthians 12-14. The church of the first and second centuries. Not the bishops and saints, unless seen through the eyes of the apostles. The original likeness of Christ and the teaching, "they will know we are Christians by our love"...
-
The Polish are mostly Catholics, so no, they have an interpretation of the Bible that hates slavery is the opposite of what the Bible actually says.
Fixed it for you.
Jesus revised the old laws
Just not true.
What he said (reportedly) was
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Which is the exact opposite of what you claim.
But, even if it was true there's a problem.
It took well over a thousand years for people to actually stop doing it.
People were still stoning gays, burning witches, trading slaves and practicing trial by ordeal with the full backing of the Christian church(es) well into the second millennium and in some cases until the 19th century.
So why were they- closer in time to Jesus- not following His will, but we are following it better today?
That simply does not make sense.
The Romans didn't bring Judaism to the UK so the UK had practically no "tradition" of following the OT.
The people who brought Christianity, also brought those laws about slaves and witches.
Those laws are part of Christianity whether you want to face the fact or not.
Some of us Christians place emphasis hard on the original likeness of Christ Jesus, the first century church, and some of the second, and from Sola Scriptura an emphasis on the Bible, and not on the bishops and kings... with then phenomena some similar to 1 Corinthians 12-14 and this plus scriptures makes the back bone of our church, a big one.
Slowly progress has been made towards compassionate deliverance from demons. A value placed good character for ministry, love and wisdom. A value on power ministry, the gifts the fruit and the keeping of numbers by winning rather than fearing them. We endure persecution, being killed every day, such as in Nigeria. Conversion is not by a creed but by reverence, wisdom or love. By a moment of receiving by faith. But we retain Trinitarianism. And we learn from history without having to agree with errors.
Jesus taught "with authority" unlike the Pharisees. And corrected Moses, who said you must write a dismissal when divorcing. Jesus didn't condemn Moses but said he did this because their hearts were hard. And that it was not this way in the beginning. But that we may divorce only if there is infidelity. Also Genesis accounts Adam as having one wife and Noah. So no divorce and only one wife, as mentioned by Paul in Timothy.
Jesus is the authority behind and over Moses according to the apostles and so with us now.
-
The original likeness of Christ and the teaching, "they will know we are Christians by our love"...
Followed by 2000 years of actions that speak louder than words.
Jesus taught "with authority"
|Not really, because if he did, we would all accept it.
He claimed authority, but that's different.Slowly progress has been made towards compassionate deliverance from demons.
And away from the Church and the teachings of Christ ( who said that the old laws should prevail)
-
He claimed authority, but that's different.
And the only authority he claimed was the established Judaic law. People often forget that their model, Jesus, was not a Christian.
-
The original likeness of Christ and the teaching, "they will know we are Christians by our love"...
Followed by 2000 years of actions that speak louder than words.
Jesus taught "with authority"
|Not really, because if he did, we would all accept it.
He claimed authority, but that's different.Slowly progress has been made towards compassionate deliverance from demons.
And away from the Church and the teachings of Christ ( who said that the old laws should prevail)
So are you saying that the actual Jesus or His concept of God, was determined by the creedalists who heard the Gospel only in latin?
Jesus teaching with authority was in the context of Judaism. He did not refer to another or necessarily quote the Bible.
Jesus altered how the laws were to be interpreted and used.
-
He claimed authority, but that's different.
And the only authority he claimed was the established Judaic law. People often forget that their model, Jesus, was not a Christian.
No Jesus spoke claiming authority to alter Moses's teachings, and was accused by this means and put to death. He was a Jew and the first Christians were at the same time Jews.
-
So are you saying that the actual Jesus or His concept of God, was determined by the creedalists who heard the Gospel only in latin?
Unless you are two thousand years old, you don't know anything about Jesus except via the writings of those " creedalists who heard the Gospel only in latin".
No Jesus spoke claiming authority to alter Moses's teachings, and was accused by this means and put to death.
If he had actually had any valid authority, he wouldn't have been killed for it.
His crime was to claim authority he didn't actually possess.
-
The alleged crime was blasphemy.
His political problem was one of public expectation. The Messianic prophecies were all about military and political leadership bringing freedom, selfdetermination and territorial rights to a nation, but all he actually did was to preach an interpretation of religious law and practice within the existing temporal state. When prompted towards a secular revolution he said "render unto Casear...", accepting the Roman occupation as a fact, which is why Pilate "found no fault in him" - he had not transgressed Roman law, but clearly pissed off the religious professionals.
-
So are you saying that the actual Jesus or His concept of God, was determined by the creedalists who heard the Gospel only in latin?
Unless you are two thousand years old, you don't know anything about Jesus except via the writings of those " creedalists who heard the Gospel only in latin".
No Jesus spoke claiming authority to alter Moses's teachings, and was accused by this means and put to death.
If he had actually had any valid authority, he wouldn't have been killed for it.
His crime was to claim authority he didn't actually possess.
We have Bible commentaries, archaeology, the works of old and new academics, and toady's languages Bibles. Creedalists were people who lived by a summary of the Bible messages. They could not really practice the faith with both the word and the phenomena. They were sometimes violent.
The prophets and kings before Jesus were attacked by the religious people, some were killed, by "the proud who lift themselves up to what is false." The authoritative writers in Judaism were attacked and not respected during their life times. Even Moses struggled. It ill effected the laws' expression. The law was made for law breakers.
-
The alleged crime was blasphemy.
His political problem was one of public expectation. The Messianic prophecies were all about military and political leadership bringing freedom, selfdetermination and territorial rights to a nation, but all he actually did was to preach an interpretation of religious law and practice within the existing temporal state. When prompted towards a secular revolution he said "render unto Casear...", accepting the Roman occupation as a fact, which is why Pilate "found no fault in him" - he had not transgressed Roman law, but clearly pissed off the religious professionals.
Even Peter seemed to think the sword would render the answer, but Isaiah 53 was about the suffering servant, and the TANACH in some places mentions the gentiles becoming God's people and there is the idea the Messiah comes in two phases.
-
The prophets and kings before Jesus were attacked by the religious people, some were killed, by "the proud who lift themselves up to what is false."
So, Jesus was just one of a line of people who tried to claim that they were the prophet and were killed.
At last, you seem to have recognised that Jesus wasn't special.
Because he was just another prophet, he didn't actually have authority.
If he had- if he actually acted with God as backup- he would have been recognised.
-
Even Peter seemed to think the sword would render the answer, but Isaiah 53 was about the suffering servant, and the TANACH in some places mentions the gentiles becoming God's people and there is the idea the Messiah comes in two phases.
So the ragbag of ancient texts on which you base your morality, is selfcontradictory?
-
Even Peter seemed to think the sword would render the answer, but Isaiah 53 was about the suffering servant, and the TANACH in some places mentions the gentiles becoming God's people and there is the idea the Messiah comes in two phases.
So the ragbag of ancient texts on which you base your morality, is selfcontradictory?
No, he only says he gets his morality from those scriptures.
If he actually did then he would be saying that keeping slaves and burning witches are the right things to do, just like the Book says.
It's possible that he doesn't realise this, and actually believes he lives (or seeks to live) according to the Bible.
-
There was a certain woman taken in adultery and brought forth to be stoned, according to the Law.
Jesus intervened, standing beside the woman and saying "let one that is without sin cast the first stone".
A rock flew out from the crowd and felled the adulteress.
Jesus said "Oh, mum!"
'Twas ever thus.
-
you don't know anything about Jesus except via the writings of those " creedalists who heard the Gospel only in latin".
As I understand it, the Gospel writings attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were originally written in Greek. Greek copies exist, and are used for modern translations of the Bible.
These Greek texts were later translated into Latin, which became the "official" language of the Bible for over 1,000 years.
-
These days slaves are drawn from whichever young women are most attractive and not sufficiently protected.
Nope.
"In the year ending March 2019, where the age and sex of the victim were known in modern slavery offences, the data showed 58% were male and 42% were female (Table 23)."
from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/modernslaveryintheuk/march2020
Why do you persist in putting forward your views on a science site, in spite of the reality that the facts don't agree with you?
I know about slave labour but what I dislike most are young women forced to work as prostitutes.
Did you somehow think that your dislike of it made 42 bigger than 58?
I know about slave labour
You quite plainly do not know.
Here is a link to 2020 statistics from an NGO:
https://neutrinodata.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/a21/userimages/A21_Full_Impact_Report.pdf
In this one sex slavery is more common, in the pie graphs.
-
In some times of the Roman Empire, when Christians and other churches were persecuted, religious communities were outlawed and illegal.