Religion survives by indoctrination of children shocker...
Posted by: Mike Dudley on 08 January 2010
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
I;'ve just had an email from Peter Tatchell asking me to stop as you are making the Gay community look stupid.
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
That's the dumbest thing I've heard all week.
I sense we're done with the actual argument (stimulating though it was) so I'll leave you to your wit.
Gotta be careful now the Big Forum Pixie has returned.
Bye.
I sense we're done with the actual argument (stimulating though it was) so I'll leave you to your wit.
Gotta be careful now the Big Forum Pixie has returned.
Bye.
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
PS: Of course, you may have the last word...
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Mike, generally speaking it does help a discussion of the other party actualy answers questions asked, and does not go off in a hissy fit or get insulting when the the paucity of his arguments is exposed..
As you have done, continually.
I also expect that your exposition as a liar does not help your mood.
"PS: Of course, you may have the last word..."
Oh, you'll be back.
As you have done, continually.
I also expect that your exposition as a liar does not help your mood.
"PS: Of course, you may have the last word..."
Oh, you'll be back.
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Derry
quote:Originally posted by DanielP:quote:Originally posted by Derry:
Surely the point is that "sin" is a religious concept. The law is about what is not legal. There are not many sins that are illegal.
I don't think that's "the point"
Pierre Manent in "The City of Man" suggests that at one point they were probably the same, that in its original form in ancient times and primitive societies, religion was all pervasive and inseparable from notions of law. He argues that each subsequent step in religious development, the link became weaker, until we arrived at Christianity, from which point it became possible to imagine a world without a religion. And you can see the weakening in recent times, for example, homosexuality stopped being illegal in my country, Canada, in the seventies. So, in the western world, we see a weakening of the religious influence on the law, a movement away from the religious view. The gods are not as powerful as they once were.
But "hate the sin" still has consequences, when you read in the newspaper that some US soldiers don't have any choice but to beat a homosexual comrade to a pulp because they come from very strong Christian backgrounds, when you see that and the reports of teachers being fired in religious affiliated schools because they are practicing homosexual, for sure "hate the sin" has consequences.
-- Daniel
Sin is religious concept. Law is not.
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Dunno; the Ten Commandments? Jewish dietary laws? etc.
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Derry
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Dunno; the Ten Commandments? Jewish dietary laws? etc.
I don't think the commandments are called sins, they are called commandments. Can I be prosecuted for coveting my neighbours wife? Dietary laws are not sins, they are laws. Can a non-Jew be prosecuted for eating something proscribed? Where they do feature in legal statute? Why do you so often miss the point? Is it trolling or are you not vey bright?
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Derry, just because you did not understand my comment is no excuse to be rude.
You said that Law is not a religious concept, and I pointed out that some religions have laws such as the Ten Commandments and Jewish Dietary Laws. The rather obvious clue in the latter was the word "laws", I thought.
"Why do you so often miss the point?" indeed.
You said that Law is not a religious concept, and I pointed out that some religions have laws such as the Ten Commandments and Jewish Dietary Laws. The rather obvious clue in the latter was the word "laws", I thought.
"Why do you so often miss the point?" indeed.
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Interesting facts ( sorry to introduce this tiresome form of argument ) dealing with the one Church's view of gays. Mike D and others seems to be of the firm opinion that the Church is homophobic and cannot accept that they preach "Hate the Sin, love the Sinner."
Given that the Church of England ( amongst others, I suspect ) accepts Gay priests, how does that square with the accusation that Religion is homophobic?
I wonder if an answer will be forthcoming...
Church to vote on greater rights for partners of gay clergy
Church to allow Gay clergy to "marry"
Gay clergy must be made welcome
Given that the Church of England ( amongst others, I suspect ) accepts Gay priests, how does that square with the accusation that Religion is homophobic?
I wonder if an answer will be forthcoming...
Church to vote on greater rights for partners of gay clergy
Church to allow Gay clergy to "marry"
Gay clergy must be made welcome
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by winkyincanada
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Interesting facts ( sorry to introduce this tiresome form of argument ) dealing with the one Church's view of gays. Mike D and others seems to be of the firm opinion that the Church is homophobic and cannot accept that they preach "Hate the Sin, love the Sinner."
Given that the Church of England ( amongst others, I suspect ) accepts Gay priests, how does that square with the accusation that Religion is homophobic?
I wonder if an answer will be forthcoming...
Church to vote on greater rights for partners of gay clergy
Church to allow Gay clergy to "marry"
Gay clergy must be made welcome
Churches/religions are sometimes dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. It is largely secular pressure that results in these positive changes of view. Many (most?) churches are not so liberal as the C of E.
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
You are assuming its secular pressure bringing this about; I suspect this is your opinion, rather than being evidence-based. ( sounds more confrontational than its meant.)
Even so, it is IMO pretty compelling evidence that at least one Church is not homophobic, and as such nukes Mike Ds argument.
His comment that "religion survives by indoctrination of children" was based on an article describing how the Taliban recruit and brainwash children into becoming suicide bombers. Not only is that a really poor example, but the fact that suicide bombers tend not to live very long would tend to minimise their supposed effect on the longevity of religion.
In other words, a really, really poor example.
Even so, it is IMO pretty compelling evidence that at least one Church is not homophobic, and as such nukes Mike Ds argument.
His comment that "religion survives by indoctrination of children" was based on an article describing how the Taliban recruit and brainwash children into becoming suicide bombers. Not only is that a really poor example, but the fact that suicide bombers tend not to live very long would tend to minimise their supposed effect on the longevity of religion.
In other words, a really, really poor example.
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by winkyincanada
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
You are assuming its secular pressure bringing this about; I suspect this is your opinion, rather than being evidence-based. ( sounds more confrontational than its meant.)
Even so, it is IMO pretty compelling evidence that at least one Church is not homophobic, and as such nukes Mike Ds argument.
His comment that "religion survives by indoctrination of children" was based on an article describing how the Taliban recruit and brainwash children into becoming suicide bombers. Not only is that a really poor example, but the fact that suicide bombers tend not to live very long would tend to minimise their supposed effect on the longevity of religion.
In other words, a really, really poor example.
My opinion that it is secular pressure is informed by observation, but that it isn't to say that the pressure isn't exerted by the people within the church itself. Overall, mainstream churches must fit within broad bounds of societal norms in order to survive in a democratic secular society.
The indoctrination argument is evidenced by the overwhelming correlation between childrens' and their parents' particular brand of faith. If the "correct" faith existed, and people were choosing on the basis of objective evidence and rational evaluation, then we would presumably see strong trends towards the "correct" faith and away from other faiths. The correlation with the parent's beliefs would be minimal.
Would you propose another reason that children overwhelmingly "choose" their parent's religion?
You're right, extreme examples such as those that kicked this thread off don't help the discussion much.
Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
I agree with pretty much everything you say.
Time for some Earl Grey.
Time for some Earl Grey.