[Closed] I'm a Christian, unless you're gay

The reason? The Internet "promotes crime, disunity, unhealthy moral content, and atheism".

Seems fair enough.

Its the sex thing catholics seem to have problems with.

Its the sex thing catholics seem to have problems with.

I had an Irish Catholic boyfriend in my younger days. Oh, what a sexy accent (though I do prefer a nice soft Scottish one or, naturally enough, Welsh!).

He was screwed up inside in at least ten dimensions. Boy did that do my head in. He could do guilt for Ireland!

Strangely enough he had to have open heart surgery a short while after we split, I think too many bacon butties (he wasn't fat) and stress was doing him no good.

Most probably in a straight marriage you couldn't be more wrong as barnsleymitch says, if you're catholic. My catholic schoolfriends seemed to have lots of siblings!

Every sperm is sacred.

I don't think religion is to blame there. It's simply being used as a tool for those in power to stay in power. To me, that's the real problem.

scuzz - Member
I don't think religion is to blame there. It's simply being used as a tool for those in power to stay in power.

Strewing one's hard-won sea jewels past some of the contributors on this thread, is a guarantee that one will see them in tomorrow's bacon sandwich...

these people who want to stay in power are the clerics of the state religion that runs everything...[b]you think they dont actually believe the religion and have done it just for power?[/b]
Sure non religious authoritarian regimes do this but there is a clear link in this case between religion and their actions.

I don't think it's absurd to suggest that this may be the case.

What do you think religion is? Do you think the bible isn't written to maintain the power of the church?

This is in effect my point.
There needs to be a clearer differentiation between personal religion (such as one's beliefs) and power-through-religion.

The former is in my oppinion completely fine (see TJ's 'consenting adults in private') and is in accordance with the central 'love everyone' theme that the religious on these threads are pushing.

The latter is (to me) unacceptable - as soon as you extrapolate personal beliefs onto others, especially as a means of control, you've lost sight of (dare I say it) the personal philosophical parts and turned 'religion' into a hollow shell designed to manipulate and enslave.

Let's avoid ranting at people in the former category as if they were in the latter.

Scuzz
Hammer/Nail interface

Scuzz
Hammer/Nail interface

+ a lot

Let's avoid ranting at people in the former category as if they were in the latter.

In the same way that a tiny tiny tiny minute, almost invisible fraction of Muslims are of the terrorist Jihad sort, a tiny tiny tiny minute, almost invisible fraction of Christians are the "God hates Gays, burn in hell" sorts. Sadly, it is these microscopic numbers that are given all the press and so the world views the religions as what these people portray.

True and proper Christianity, as would be applied to the VAST majority of Christians out there, is not about doing things to gain favour with God, it is not about seeing yourself as above others, it is not about being intolerant to homosexuals or different races or whoever, it is not about pushing your ideas and beliefs on other people. It is quite simply about living your life caring for those who need it, loving whoever you meet and interact with, and just generally being decent. Which is also the same as the VAST majority of people on planet earth. Which kind of confuses me as to why there is such vitriol poured out on Christians some times?

On top of that Christians have the belief that we have a God who is looking out for us and helping us and cares for us and so there isn't anything in this life that we really have to worry about. Again, this is sometimes ridiculed as being a 'crutch' to lean on when things are bad. So if I carry on as normal and am not fazed by things such as potential redundancy at work, financial trouble, illness, death etc, that is a bad thing? It doesn't mean those don't cause me problems, of course they do and as much as anyone else, but for some reason the fact that I might be able to not get stressed and worked up about it (and caveat here that of course there are non-christians who do the same) is deemed a bad thing? It isn't ever meant by anyone as an 'ooh we are better than you' sort of thing, that's just our belief and you know what it is a great comfort to know it when times are hard.

Sorry for the slight thread derailment, just sticking it on the tracks as I finish. Just wanted to try and tidy up some misconceptions that people have.

I don't think it's absurd to suggest that this may be the case.

the rest of your post is a spot on.

it is not about seeing yourself as above others, it is not about being intolerant to homosexuals or different races or whoever, it is not about pushing your ideas and beliefs on other people.

Simply not true.

Its a basic tenet of faith that believers are superior to non believers - its so normal to the believers that they fail to see this but its obvious and evident to others You do it in your post.

Its all about pushing your ideas and beliefs onto other people - have you seen the pronouncements from the various faith leaders given airtime this last week?

There are examples of this everywhere and until religion is confined to consenting adults in private and they stop trying to influence the secular world then there will be people who oppose them.

To be a Christian is to believe we are commanded and authorised to say certain things to the world; to say things that will make disciples of all nations.
Rowan D. Williams

They are a bit preachy whatever your view on them

In the same way that a tiny tiny tiny minute, almost invisible fraction of Muslims are of the terrorist Jihad sort, a tiny tiny tiny minute, almost invisible fraction of Christians are the "God hates Gays, burn in hell" sorts.

I don't have figures so (like you) I'm guessing, but,

I suspect that's true in the UK. We tend to breed, mostly, fairly liberal Christians over here, and there aren't all that many radical Islamic terrorists in the UK (comparatively, there aren't all that many Muslims in the UK, something like 5% of the population IIRC).

Globally though, I wouldn't be so sure. For instance, if you were to walk through any small town in the south-eastern US carrying a big placard saying "I love fags" how far do you reckon you'd get? I'd wager your survival odds would be lower than if you visited ****stan wearing your best "Allah blows goats" tee-shirt.

I looked at some statistics. Something like 70% of the UK identify themselves as "Christian." Yet, regular church attendance (across all faiths) is about 10%. So, two thirds of the UK call themselves Christians yet don't attend church regularly. Over half of the UK [i]never [/i]attends a church.

Think about that for a minute. Somewhere around half of the UK's self-professed Christians [i]never go to church.[/i] I wonder how many of them actually believe in god at all, and how many just tick the box?

We make wishy-washy Christians in this country, and (as far as such a thing is possible) relatively liberal Muslims. I don't for a second believe that you can use the UK as a yardstick for everywhere else.

Refs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance

TJ - did you read my post?

[i]For balance, I feel speed12's post was measured and humble and didn't express any superiority like you claim.[/i]

Scuzz - yes I did. I disagree with what you put in italics there.

No matter what tone I apply to my internal monologue when reading his post, the worst I can come up with is smug self-satisfaction.
But that is with Will Self's voice.

Is it the way he says 'us', which includes You even though you do not wish to be spoken for?
Or is it the way he says 'us', which may mean 'Christians' and therefore excludes You?

Either way, this poster is someone on a mountainbiking forum and (given the world-wide scope of your argument) unlikely to be in a position of considerable influence within society such that it matters either way.

I'm trying to see it from your point of view, not deride you.

Scuzz

what yo are seeing as smug self satisfaction is what I am seeing as assumption of superiority I guess.

Best left alone now - I guess I have said too much already.

all I want is for them to leave the rest of us alone.

TandemJeremy - Member

Its a basic tenet of faith that believers are superior to non believers - its so normal to the believers that they fail to see this but its obvious and evident to others You do it in your post.

Any chance of a Koranic/Biblical/other reference to support that assertion?

Its all about pushing your ideas and beliefs onto other people - have you seen the pronouncements from the various faith leaders given airtime this last week?

So religious people aren't allowed to say what they think? How wonderfully oppressive of you.

There are examples of this everywhere and until religion is confined to consenting adults in private and they stop trying to influence the secular world then there will be people who oppose them.

I've got a funny feeling you've completely missed the hypocrisy in that statement.

a tiny tiny tiny minute, almost invisible fraction of Christians are the "God hates Gays, burn in hell" sorts

* tho not all christian faiths, as has already been pointed out, dunno if they've done revisions to their bibles

**in this case lets say congregation figures, if you are in that number you are backing up the behatted guys argument and quite often his political sway.

that is the official party line

And, whether you agree with it personally or not, you choose to follow and support an organisation that wants to repress and persecute - sorry, "save" - homosexuals. If you want something to worship and don't agree with an organised religion's policies, there's plenty of others out there. Buddhism's quite nice, I hear.

I think later I might go and join up with the BNP, it should be fine because I'm not actually racist.

it is not about pushing your ideas and beliefs on other people.

There is a difference between telling people about something and allowing them to make an informed decision about it, and forcing it on them.

I agree most churches will do some form of evangelism and in some cases this does mean the annoying door knockers or street shouters but again, that is a tiny minority of what most churches do. The majority will simply advertise what is going on in the church, Alpha courses etc and allow people to choose to come, or not. The rest is just people chatting about it with friends, colleagues etc. Not really different to chatting about how you find brand X of mountain bike kit better than brand Y.

I think what gets most agnostics/atheists so het up about religion is fear that its influence will grow again. It's taken a long time for the Church's influence to be eroded to the current position where IMO it still has too much influence but it's largely ineffective in the UK at least. I and many others don't want to see that trend reversed.

Unfortunately everyone knows that fear makes some people behave in quite unpleasant ways and that's what breeds the rabid atheists who are just as nasty as the people they shout about.

TJ's 'in private' only idea is silly - people should be free to say what they think (within the usual confines) but not when it extends to hatred of others (which is where this thread really started) or any direct influence on the lives of non-members.

The Church and its dogma will IMO cause its own downfall unless it manages to get back in a position where you have to be seen to be religious to be accepted. IMO, the UK's dislike for polticians who discuss god is a great positive but sadly being eroded recently it seems as maybe the US has some influence on our politics.

Not really different to chatting about how you find brand X of mountain bike kit better than brand Y.

The UK faithful not being to fussed again, used to be a bit more forthright about evangelism tho in the past if memory serves.

Sorry I seem to be having a pop at your posts a lot, not intentional, just the last thing I read, short attention span and all that 🙂

It's taken a long time for the Church's influence to be eroded to the current position where IMO it still has too much influence but it's largely ineffective in the UK at least

You do realise we have 26 bishops in the House of Lords (an unelected chamber I know) who have the ability to shape our laws to some degree.

that's what breeds the [s]rabid[/s] atheists

or any direct influence on the lives of non-members.

ah but theres the rub. The church has a disproportinate influence on those who do not share its world view, it has been instrumental in restricting research into ground breaking stem cell research in the states and benefits in the UK to the tune of millions of pounds int tax exemptions to give but two examples.

I think later I might go and join up with the BNP, it should be fine because I'm not actually racist.

Just been for a coffee. At the machine waiting and someone has printed out god-squad stuff for people to read and hung it near the machine.

So much for people keeping their religion to themselves.

Fortunately we have recycle bins nearby. 😀

You do realise we have 26 bishops in the House of Lords (an unelected chamber I know) who have the ability to shape our laws to some degree.

The church has a disproportinate influence on those who do not share its world view

Yes. As I said, I think it's largely ineffective (26/786 in the HoL which is IMO fairly ineffective these days) but I'd still like to see the erosion go further so it has no influence beyond what is representative.

that's what breeds the rabid atheists

rabid atheists say and do nasty things. Atheists generally don't (at least not in this context).

AdamW - Member
Just been for a coffee. At the machine waiting and someone has printed out god-squad stuff for people to read and hung it near the machine.

How about printing out some 'Are you gay? It's ok to come out' type info leaflets and stapling them to the god ones?

rabid atheists say and do nasty things

Can you give an example of the behaviour of "rabid atheists"?

Ref Bishops yes I understan they are even a relatively small number however they can sway votes.

Swaying votes is fine - that's what politics/debate is supposed to be about - convincing people of your point of view because it's a rational/reasonable argument.

Rabid atheists - people who use atheism as a reason to be nasty to people - as has been demonstrated a few times on this thread. Different side of the coin to rabid religionists who use god as an reason to be nasty to people.

How about printing out some 'Are you gay? It's ok to come out' type info leaflets and stapling them to the god ones?

Dagnabit, good idea. I should have done that.

Swaying votes is fine - that's what politics/debate is supposed to be about - convincing people of your point of view because it's a rational/reasonable argument.

But what if your "rational" argument is based on a work of fiction? Does that make it reasonable in your view?

Rabid atheists - people who use atheism as a reason to be nasty to people

Just struggling with the "rabid" bit really and you havent given an example that differentiates an "atheist" from a "rabid atheist" could it be that you dont have one and the whole this is just hyperbole?

the UK's dislike for polticians who discuss god is a great positive but sadly being eroded recently it seems as maybe the US has some influence on our politics.

Hm, that's a good point. I wonder how well we'd get on with the USA politically if we had an openly atheist head of state?

Rabid atheists

I blame the catholic church's stance on condoms for this sudden outbreak of rabies.

Oh no, wait.

That's babies.

surfer - Member

But what if your "rational" argument is based on a work of fiction? Does that make it reasonable in your view?

Of course not and that's why I think they're ineffective as they can't put together a rational, reasonable argument...

Just struggling with the "rabid" bit really and you havent given an example that differentiates an "atheist" from a "rabid atheist" could it be that you dont have one and the whole this is just hyperbole?

I've chosen not to as I don't think it's really necessary. I defined what differentiates atheists from rabid atheists. There are a couple of examples on this thread, plenty of others on others. If you can't see them then we'll clearly not agree on it.

rabies

I always think he's rather unhealthy looking. Maybe he's got rabies?

[img] [/img]

yeah but you don't burn in hell for eternity if you choose to run SRAM shifters. Mores the pity.

The UK faithful not being to fussed again, used to be a bit more forthright about evangelism tho in the past if memory serves.

Sorry I seem to be having a pop at your posts a lot, not intentional, just the last thing I read, short attention span and all that

Haha, no worries, wasn't taking it at as pops at all - very valid arguments, so just all part of the discussion on here(/argument/ranting/descent into chaos...).

I'll agree that probably wasn't the best analogy in the world but hopefully you sort of got the idea I was trying to put across! :S Basically, I think Christians have as much right to put across what they 'do' as any other group do. It's when putting that information across actively intrudes on peoples lives that it starts getting a bit ropey. Having a banner or poster up, or sticking something on a website or in a paper or even on TV/radio can hardly be constituted as forcing something on the population!

Been reading up on Catholics view on gays, and they basically say it's not the person it's the act, which is a bit ****ed up isnt it? Also ( and I didn't know this) DIY is a sin as well!! Harsh or what? No wonder theyre obssessed LOL

Everything is a sin for Catholics isn't it? 😉

Oh yeah, it's not the person, if you let jesus into your heart then you'll be cured of all that gayness that the devil put there.

Basically, it's a nifty clause where they'll not turn away a prospective new addition to the flock so long as you're going to do as you're told, you're only out on your ear if you persist in being gay despite it being wrong and evil, and being told that god loves you. Cool huh.

I actually wasn't aware that female DIY was a sin. I knew male was, because you're basically wasting all those little tadpoles that might otherwise be utilised in creating new followers. Can't see what harm a spot of tickling the puppy's nose is going to do though, unless it's just another means of making you feel guilty for being human.

So does that mean all the pdoe priests are actually ok by the catholic church as long as they don't act on their desires? Or have I misunderstood the act/person thing?

Kenny Senior - Member

TandemJeremy - Member

"Its a basic tenet of faith that believers are superior to non believers - its so normal to the believers that they fail to see this but its obvious and evident to others You do it in your post."

Any chance of a Koranic/Biblical/other reference to support that assertion?

Its all thru it. Attempting to get sinners to repent, the language used - righteous and sinners etc. The basic idea that you are the chosen peoples and its your duty to convert me.

Its so accepted to Christians they can no longer see how patronising this is. Can't see the wood for the trees

"Its all about pushing your ideas and beliefs onto other people - have you seen the pronouncements from the various faith leaders given airtime this last week?"

So religious people aren't allowed to say what they think? How wonderfully oppressive of you.

Not what I said - you can do and think as you want so long as you keep it out of the public sphere. When you start making public pronouncements and claiming a moral authority over everyone like Williams did in the quoted statement then you must accept being challenged. Its then you complain of intolerence. I am perfectly tolerant of what you do in private. I will challenge your medieval superstitions when you attempt to use them to tell me how to live my life.

"There are examples of this everywhere and until religion is confined to consenting adults in private and they stop trying to influence the secular world then there will be people who oppose them".

I've got a funny feeling you've completely missed the hypocrisy in that statement.

Where is the hypocrisy? the hypocrisy is in the churches who want the right to tell the secular world what is right and wrong but cannot accept the secular who challenge this

Keep it in private and you will be left alone. Take it out into public then expect to be challenged

Edit

I have looked after the religious and given up my own time to take them to church. I just sat at the back and snoozed while they enjoyed the service. I strongly support the right of freedom to worship - I strongly challenge the attempts by the religeous to rule the lives of the secular

clubber - Member
So does that mean all the pdoe priests are actually ok by the catholic church as long as they don't act on their desires? Or have I misunderstood the act/person thing?

I trust you're not equating "Gay" with "Paedophile"?

eh? no, of course not.