Whilst not thrust down our collective throats, we are subjected to quite a lot of religious output. It starts with Thought for the Day on the radio, many schools have collective worship at the start of the day, there are religious observances, days, celebrations, tv programmes, etc so it is far from passive?
If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment
This is much the same as the previous, not sure how else i can make the difference any clearer. i'll try again. This is a description of how they see things happening. Much like "if you sit down, you will be safe, however if you jump from that ledge you will fall to your death".
I'm not sending anyone to their death merely descring what i think will happen in terms of how i understand the world around me. Even in the circumstances above, the church has never told an individual that they will go to hell. They don't know.
Whilst not thrust down our collective throats
Oh good, i'm glad we agree.
So who is it that's in a state of mortal sin when they die? Pretty sure that would be non-believers, homosexuals, people who've had abortions (even if they were raped). Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm surprised that you can be sure about these groups, the catholic church certainly isn't.
Regardless of peoples perverse opinions, it's 'mutilation' by dictionary definition.
Perhaps, but sticking to a straight semantic definition makes it pointless (npi) you surely meant that mutilation is a bad thing. I daresay if you ask maneople who have been circumicised if they feel that they have been mutilated, most will tell you that they do not.
This talk of hell, and whether or not the Church can send anyone there is far off the mark.
The very notion of hell is that it is a self-imposed state of blindness to the Good. The Church does not presume to say who 'goes there'. Only that it is a spiritual reality.
So essentially CharlieMungus is right.
I am forced to accept that whereas the law requires that animals have to be stunned before having their throats cut, UNLESS the religion card is played.....
My apologies. When it was said that .....
...religion is unfortunately thrust down everyone's necks in this country
I presumed it meant that, erm.... "religion is thrust down everyone's necks"
Rather than the fact there are some religious practices that some people disagree with.
So essentially CharlieMungus is right.
Excellent! That must mean that someone else is wrong! Let's find them!!!
Home now 🙂
I agree DD, and don't know what the few people on STW are on about when they suggest that religion is 'thrust down their throats' constantly in this country.
I'll type slowly so you can understand.....
Point 1: Religion is a compulsory subject in UK Schools.
Point 2: The head of state carries the title defender of the faith
Point 3: The national anthem goes "god save etc etc"
Point 4: The clergy have automatic right to membership of the upper house of government
Seems pretty pervasive to me already, how much longer do you want me to go on for?
The Church does not presume to say who 'goes there'.
Yes it does!
if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment
Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell
😕
What is that if not saying who will go to hell?
I'm not sending anyone to their death merely descring what i think will happen in terms of how i understand the world around me. Even in the circumstances above, the church has never told an individual that they will go to hell. They don't know.
It's not directly sending them to hell, no, but it's still telling them they will go to hell unless they follow the church's teachings. Claiming this is completely different is ridiculous IMO.
Claiming this is completely different is ridiculous IMO.
Perhaps so, but it has become clear that there is not much i can do about your opinion.
Seems pretty pervasive to me already, how much longer do you want me to go on for?
Just until you tell a convincing story that this has actually affected your life in a significant way
Berm Bandit - MemberI'll type slowly so you can understand.....
Point 1: Religion is a compulsory subject in UK Schools.
Point 2: The head of state carries the title defender of the faith
Point 3: The national anthem goes "god save etc etc"
Point 4: The clergy have automatic right to membership of the upper house of governmentSeems pretty pervasive to me already, how much longer do you want me to go on for?
Point 1: Religious [i]Education[/i] is a compulsory subject. That means that, at least in theory, you study religions in the same way that you study other aspects of human culture and history. If you didn't go to a Church school and someone forced [i]doctrine[/i] on you, then you might have cause to complain. Heck, even if you went to a Church school...
Point 2: That's an historic title that she hardly seems to wield much. I hardly think that that constitutes cramming religion down people's throats.
Point 3: So the country has a Christian history. Go biking and ignore it if you want. Again, I would hardly think that if I was living in Turkey I would be especially bothered by Islam just because the flag showed a crescent on it. I'm typing slowly. It's...history... Get...over...it.
Point 4: See point 2. And point 3. Though if it really bothers you, go work for the diestablishment of the Church of England. Many of its members would thank you.
grum - MemberIt's not directly sending them to hell, no, but it's still telling them they will go to hell unless they follow the church's teachings. Claiming this is completely different is ridiculous IMO.
What the Church is saying is that by not living in pursuit of what is good and true, one will find oneself separated from what is transcendantly Good and True. That would be God. This is not a vengeful thing as you describe, but consequential thing.
And of course, people are free to accept it or not, but there is no condemnation in it.
While I'm at it, can I say that, while I haven't read every page of this thread, the last few pages have been fairly congenial? Pats on the back for everyone.
How would you make an informed choice about religion if you don't learn anything about the world's religions either at school or from your family?
I am religious (Orthodox Christian) but I certainly haven't forced it on my partner or children. I have taken them to church with me a few times, answered their questions about my beliefs, and accepted that they do not want to be church-goers. I feel that they have made an informed choice and I'm happy with that.
Well, I've just finished my tea, and I am full of the lamb (of tesco, not God), and I felt smashing, until I read all this talk of mutilated todgers. Can we stop it please, it's bringing one of my bilious turns on.
Point 1: Religious Education is a compulsory subject. That means that, at least in theory, you study religions in the same way that you study other aspects of human culture and history.
Except they[ human culture odr history] are not compulsory so you dont need to study them at all never mind in the same way. Who thinks that maths english and RE are the three skills a child must have to equip them for life?
If you didn't go to a Church school and someone forced doctrine on you, then you might have cause to complain.
What like there had to be a daily act of worship that sort of thing?
Heck, even if you went to a Church school...
I assume that is the point of them tbh - its not like Jewish schools end up with loads converting to Islam or vice versa, I assume it is why they mention the schooll ethos and why they ask prospective staff to be able to support the religious ethos etc. It would seem odd that a religious school did not promote that religion.
Point 2: That's an historic title that she hardly seems to wield much. I hardly think that that constitutes cramming religion down people's throats.
You can say what you want but the head of our state is the head of our religion and the point was about pervassive.
Point 3: So the country has a Christian history. Go biking and ignore it if you want. Again, I would hardly think that if I was living in Turkey I would be especially bothered by Islam just because the flag showed a crescent on it. I'm typing slowly. It's...history... Get...over...it.
Beyond patronising folk i am not sure what your point is
Again we have a national anthem to unite that mentions God and the monarch, not the country, not the people , not our values not our aspirations. again can you negate this as an example of it being pervassive?
Point 4: See point 2. And point 3. Though if it really bothers you, go work for the diestablishment of the Church of England. Many of its members would thank you.
Saying we can campaign to remove them from this[ house of lords] hardly negates the point that they have an automatic right to be in the legislative system and therefore undue influence and a pervasive influence.
Except they[ human culture odr history] are not compulsory so you dont need to study them at all never mind in the same way. Who thinks that maths english and RE are the three skills a child must have to equip them for life?
RE is not compulsory, attendance is not anyway. Same with the act of worship.
Provision is compulsory, attendance is not.
You can say what you want but the head of our state is the head of our religion and the point was about pervassive
The point was baout having it imposed on you or shoved down your throat, the queen's position at the head of Church has little effect on you
Saying we can campaign to remove them from this[ house of lords] hardly negates the point that they have an automatic right to be in the legislative system and therefore undue influence and a pervasive influence.
When did this undue influence last sway legislation?
again can you negate this as an example of it being pervassive?
Yeah, i just don't sing it, barely hear the words when it is sung and don't let it govern or influence the way I live my life. In fact barely notice it.
You'd prefer one of the other songs people choose to sing on national occasions of unity?, say Jerusalem or Sweet Chariot?
Beyond patronising folk i am not sure what your point is
I think he was just reponding in kind
It's not semantics. There is the difference between the churches description is of what it believes will happen to a soul. It does not compel that to happen.
The point was regarding being insulted. Personally I find being told that I am condemned to hell because I'm not in their club and don't follow their rules is extremely insulting, mainly to my intelligence, but insulting non the less.
When did this undue influence last sway legislation?
No one said it did, but out of interest how about the current fudge over same sex marriage? you know, the one where we aren't going to apply the equality legislation to religious organisations.
Regarding the pervasive influence, I'm very pleased for you that you don't find the 4 quick things I listed to be influential, let alone forcing religion down my throat. That may be because you appear to be comfortable with the concept. Personally I find it highly offensive, buts that because I don't believe in fairies. It does however beg the question as to why it is necessary at all if its so meaningless and innocent.
How would you make an informed choice about religion if you [s]don't learn anything about the world's religions[/S] are brainwashed either at school or from your family?
TFTFY
Personally I find being told that I am condemned to hell because I'm not in their club and don't follow their rules is extremely insulting, mainly to my intelligence, but insulting non the less.
I was raised being educated as to the countless ways I might end up in hell. I kinda got over it once I realised it was all bollocks. In the "king for a day" scenario, I'd also have all religious influence taken out of schools in a heartbeat, starting with Northern Ireland. But seriously, being told you're going to hell upsets you that much?!? I could understand it if you believed the concept.
Personally I find being told that I am condemned to hell because I'm not in their club and don't follow their rules is extremely insulting
Why ?
You don't believe in Hell, and you don't believe that the "rules" that will supposedly send you there exist.
So how can you possibly find it insulting ?
Or is it just that you are so Anti-Religion that you are just looking for stuff to moan about.
So how can you possibly find it insulting ?
I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people, and that I am a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell. I don't see the relevance of whether I believe in hell or not.
It's not semantics. There is the difference between the churches description is of what it believes will happen to a soul. It does not compel that to happen.
I still don't see how there's any significant difference. Seems very tenuous to me.
And this doesn't really make sense either if that's the case.
In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often "preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell" (p. 183).
Personally I find being told that I am condemned to hell because I'm not in their club and don't follow their rules is extremely insulting, mainly to my intelligence, but insulting non the less.
Saxonrider explained this better than i could, on the previous page i think.
In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often "preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell" (p. 183).
Well, it seems to me he's saying that preachers etc.. . should let people know that hell is a threat. This is different from threatening them with hell. It's pretty much the same point which has been made a few times which you seem unable to see. I really don't know how else to phrase it. It seems clear,if not from my analogy of falling,then from SaxonRiders clarification.
Highly tenuous (polite way of putting it) semantics again.
I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people, and that I am a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell. I don't see the relevance I whether I believe in hell or not.
There are lots of other examples of folk out there using something or other to say that they're morally superior to you. Hell (oops), it happens on STW every day. Now if somebody is telling you that you're wicked, then yeah, knock yourself out and tell him that he's not very nice.
Highly tenuous (polite way of putting it) semantics again.
Well yes, semantics,there is a semantic difference between the two positions
I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people
Does this happen much?
I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people, and that I am a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell. I don't see the relevance of whether I believe in hell or not.
I feel superior to you because I have a glass case full of Air Guitars and a flying unicorn.
You will end up in Mordor when you die because you don't have enough Air Guitars
While I will will be living the high life at Hogwarts
Offended ??
grum - MemberI find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people, and that I am a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell.
How do you know what they think ..... do you spend your time talking to them ?
Or do you have a clever gadget which reads people's mind ?
RE is not compulsory, attendance is not anyway. Same with the act of worship.
Provision is compulsory, attendance is not.
So we agree that they legally have to provide it for you in education - is this not pervassive enough for you then?
Re hell and insulting me
Whilst I in no way think this is going to happen essentially they are saying to me that the way I live my life is so morally wrong that I will be punished for it when I die and in a quite unpleasant way.
yes it BS and I am not worried but it is pretty insulting.
So we agree that they legally have to provide it for you in education - is this not pervassive enough for you then?
But you can opt out of it, so it's only pervasive if you want it to be. I'm guessing you'd be one of those who would prefer that it wasn't and so opted out.
Whilst I in no way think this is going to happen essentially they are saying to me that the way I live my life is so morally wrong that I will be punished for it when I die and in a quite unpleasant way.
So, has anyone actually said this to you?
But you can opt out of it,
Can't opt out of having your todger mutilated though can you?
Can't opt out of serving meat that been slaughtered inhumanely (according to UK law) though can you?
Can't opt out of having to wear a motorcycle helmet even though someone else gets away with a turban can you? (well, you can, but you may be imprisoned)
I am not worried but it is pretty insulting
Very occasionally those very nice West Indian ladies from Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my front door to inform me that if I don't repent I'll never get to heaven.
I always politely thank them for their kind concern, as I am [i]genuinely[/i] touched that they should care so much about saving my soul.
I certainly don't feel "insulted", ffs.
I find the Catholic sycophantic fervour surrounding the Pope rather ridiculous.
There was a clergyman gushing about the outgoing pontif, how he had been a good shepherd of his flock. Frankly, if I was a Roman Catholic living in a modem world, the inference that I am a dumb as a lost sheep would be rather offensive.
That's the trouble with religious figureheads, they are delusional about their place in the world.
Religion should be irrelevant in a modern well informed world, but we are stuck with the attitudes of these religious flocks of sheep out there. Lots of fear, lots of guilt - a pointless preoccupation!
Barmy!
Can't opt out of having your todger mutilated though can you?
Erm...yes?
Can't opt out of serving meat that been slaughtered inhumanely (according to UK law) though can you?
What?
Can't opt out of having to wear a motorcycle helmet even though someone else gets away with a turban can you? (well, you can, but you may be imprisoned)
Is this something you want to do?
So, has anyone actually said this to you?
Yep they certainly have. As has already been pointed out it is a fundamental aspect of a number of religions, and I certainly was led to believe it was factual as a child. Pretty sure that still goes on today, albeit I can't claim current experience for obvious reasons
So, who said it?
Junkyard, there may well be some religious people who think the way you have just described. But religion is not primarily concerned about the way people behave morally, and this is one of the things I find most frustrating about any of these threads.
Religion is often construed on here (probably largely due to the way it is communicated by adherents) as some sort of moral barometer and/or instructional club. Yet for all that, morals are no more a part of the interest of religion than they were for Plato, Aristotle, or Marcus Aurelius.
In other words, the moral life as conceived within a religious context, is part of that context - and it may even play a big part in manifesting the other dimensions of the context - but it is not the [i]substance[/i] of the context.
Morals are incidental to the system of belief, and although I'm sure there are as many religious folk who get things backward, this is no different to the disciples of the great Greek thinkers who also misappropriated or misunderstood their philosophical systems. And as in any field of human thought, I think it is fair to dismiss any sycophant that shoots their mouth off and condemns others for not 'understanding' things the way they do.
Can't opt out of having to wear a motorcycle helmet even though someone else gets away with a turban can you? (well, you can, but you may be imprisoned)
Your point is that we are being forced for religious reasons to wear turbans ?
it's only pervasive if you want it to be
I dont choose for it to be legally delivered in every school with a legal duty for a daily act of worship. Now you can argue this is not pervassive [ I have a feeling you may just reply 😉 ] if you wish but I really think you will struggle to say that is not pervassive.
So, has anyone actually said this to you
Have you tried reading an abrhamic religoious book? and yes a few times tbh. Once at uni in theology class - the tutor defended me [a free presberyterian minister] and told them [ lay preacher methodist iirc] that they had no right to do this...they then added only god could judge me which made me chuckle. They then argued a bit about this as i got bored.
Ernie I am not insulted that they want to save my soul which is why I never mentioned it.
Could you epxlain why what i said is not insulting?
they are saying to me that the way I live my life is so morally wrong that I will be punished for it when I die and in a quite unpleasant way
let me refresh your memory of what I said
Saxonrider not really geting your point - its late and i am tired
The teachings are clearly moral teachings that need to be followed to show you believe. I suppose you could have one without the other but then you would be a very bad example of the faith.
I dont think you can seperate them tbh.
Ernie I am not insulted that they want to save my soul which is why I never mentioned it.
Excellent - I'm glad to hear it JY. Do you make a point of thanking them ?
CharlieMungus - Member
So, who said it?
Read the thread, already covered elsewhere, and not just by my last post.
You don't believe in Hell, and you don't believe that the "rules" that will supposedly send you there exist.So how can you possibly find it insulting ?
This deserves an answer: Pretty straightforward. Neither you nor I believe you are a ****, however I suspect both of us would feel pretty insulted if someone walked up to you and called you that. Same principle really.
I feel superior to you because I have a glass case full of Air Guitars and a flying unicorn.
You will end up in Mordor when you die because you don't have enough Air Guitars
While I will will be living the high life at HogwartsOffended ??
The thing is that's hardly comparable to what religion does - it's like comparing white racism to black racism - the first is worse in the west because it has/had power to back it up.
Religion is the same, it has power to back it's 'morality' up and plenty of psychotic followers that will listen to their puppet masters.
So, has anyone actually said this to you?
Yes, I've heard it in several sermons during my religious indoctrination as a child, and it's very prevalent in religious literature (some of which gets shoved through my door or handed to me by visiting Jehovah's Witnesses), as well as the shouty men with signs in the street in my local town centre.
It's not really a massive deal for me, but it's definitely unpleasant (and ridiculous).
I dont choose for it to be legally delivered in every school with a legal duty for a daily act of worship. Now you can argue this is not pervassive [ I have a feeling you may just reply ] if you wish but I really think you will struggle to say that is not pervassive.
Maybe its the word pervasi ve which is problematic. In the case of daily worship which we can chose to attend or not, there is no impact on our lives. So inmmy view that is not pervasive,but maybe by the fact that it is commonplace, that makes it pervasive by definition. Then pervasive is not really a problem.what actually matters is impact, how does it affect our daily lives. And surely if something is optional it oly affects your life if you want it.
The Catholic churchnhas an obligation to hold mass on Sunday, but you don't have to go. That's not a priblem is it?
Rarely ernie, like you, I specatacularily miss the point and rely on witty comebacks 😉
