[Closed] The church and homosexuality

Respect is earned, and I reject absolutely that religion has a 'divine right' to demand special treatment.

Me too. It's no different to any other sensitive personal belief.

pointing out how irrational/bigoted/wrong someone's beliefs are is perfectly fine.

Not when it's unsolicited.

Others have answered already but in in the hope that it might sink in - if you don't want your views. criticised - don't get involved in trying to defend them.

Except that on this forum, people just kick straight off with the attacking. This is what I do not like, and I don't believe it's fair or very nice.

as an aside its worth considering that if you cant defend your views rationally. then maybe it's because they are actually wrong?

Thanks for patronising - I've actually considered quite a lot. So much in fact, that I don't toss words like 'right' and 'wrong' around in such a glib manner. There's more to the human condition than that. Even if you don't quite get it.

Furthermore this reference to Bishop, whoever said and Cardinal whoever said, is a representation of the opinions of some senior members of the church. It no more represents the faith than the pronouncements of a cabinet memeber represents the views of the average citizen.

That's not really true though is it. When a senior member of the church speaks out then they are most definatly speaking for the church and by extension the members of that church (although I know that many memebers of the church who do not follow all the teachings of the church, cognative dissonance is I think the term). When a cabinet minister speaks they speak for the government but here is the thing what if I didn't vote for that party then they aren't speaking for me as I'm not a memeber of that group.

If you want to know what the Catholic church teachings are then you have to get informed. Reading the documentation of Vatican II is a very good place to start. It was the last up date to dogma and articles of faith. You might be surprised at how many of the ideas which you associate with the Catholic church exist only in your head.

You are making the same mistake that others make by assuming that criticism comes from a place of ignorance, a point made earlier, when in fact many of us have direct experience of the teachings of the church. In my case is certainly from there that my criticisms come from.

That's not really true though is it. When a senior member of the church speaks out then they are most definatly speaking for the church

But what the say is not an article of faith. You might say Bishop whoever says "all left-handers should burn in hell". It wouldn't mean that Catholicism hates left-handers

You've missed the point. Whether or not the Pope advocates the use of of condoms has nothing to do with the Catholic faith. The only time the pope expresses something which becomes dogma is when he makes an 'ex-cathedra' statement.

The pope is revered by all who follow his brand, no criticism is tolerated, is a no no according to my contacts in side the faith.
you seem to want it both ways(no pun)-- sorry but its hypocritical--

You are making the same mistake that others make by assuming that criticism comes from a place of ignorance, a point made earlier, when in fact many of us have direct experience of the teachings of the church. In my case is certainly from there that my criticisms come from.

Well from what I've read, most people are expressing views based on hearsay rather than doctrine. To think that quoting the Old Testament is an argument against views of Catholicism, as some do, is showing a lack of knowledge of the teachings of the Catholic church with respect to the OT. So, that is ignorance

In a similar way that we all realise that someone saying "all Catholic priests are kiddy-fiddlers" is also a generalisation.

Just so we're clear, can we also assume that you're not implying anyone's ever seriously said that here?

we only ever get to hear about the stuff that's gone wrong.

Well, true enough. But the media being prawnsuckers is an entirely different subject.

If the Bible is the Spirit-inspired word of God (as any real Christian would agree), then their understanding of it is from the same source.

It never ceases to amaze me how many different 'obvious' interpretations there are around this. Only a couple of pages back, someone was saying exactly the opposite, that we all agree it was written by men. As "organised" things go, many religions do seem to be quite disorganised.

There must be some key foundational elements to the Bible that don't change just because society decides, otherwise you're reducing the Word of God to just some things written but some blokes thousands of years ago.

Bingo.

face it, religion has had its hegemony, it's past it's sell- by date, and is an increasing irrelevance

Of course, that's only one opinion.

An example of the other side of the coin ... there's a Christian church near me who have been specifically asked by local MPs and Police to increase their profile/involvement in the area because they (the MPs/Police) have attributed a significant drop in crime rates, underage drinking and drug problems to stuff the church has been doing.

There are now a number of kids off drink and drugs.

Nobody else was or is doing much to help these people in this area, only the local irrelevant and out-dated church 😀

The pope is revered by all who follow his brand, no criticism is tolerated, is a no no according to my contacts in side the faith.
you seem to want it both ways(no pun)-- sorry but its hypocritical--

Perhaps, but those who 'follow his brand' also know that not everything he says is true. They know that they are the views of a man, albeit a senior official. They also know that it is not the same as an article of faith, or a part of catechism.

Do you?

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that i want it both ways

Not when it's unsolicited.

That may be so, but I'd suggest that it's not unsolicited if parties are both taking an active part in a debate.

does he advocate condom use in preventing disease ?

Not when it's unsolicited

Furthermore this reference to Bishop, whoever said and Cardinal whoever said, is a representation of the opinions of some senior members of the church. It no more represents the faith than the pronouncements of a cabinet memeber represents the views of the average citizen

e.g the nature of prayer, the Gnostic Heresy, transubstantiation. Not simple at all

There was a rather dim nun who used to front a show on Beeb2 some years ago on which she attempted to be an Art Critic. Sister Wendy something-or-other. Professional art critics used to tune in and watch when they wanted a bit of a laugh...

Anyway, she recently surfaced into this debate by saying that atheists "can't argue for the existence or non-existence of god because they don't have any theology, poor lambs."

A remarkable statement for being both stupid and patronising both at the same time.

Although it's true I don't have any theology, it's also true that I don't have any Santa Claus-ology, Leprechaunology or Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-gardenology either yet strangely enough, I have no problem saying with confidence that those things don't exist either.

Theology is a non-subject all about nothing.

I'll happily criticise the catholic church in particular on it's stance and teachings on homosexuality, contraception, divorce and most of all on the fact that it's whole basis is a non falsifiable premise, without having to resort to any old testament teachings. In fact I think you'll find that I, and many others, have never made such criticisms although they are often ignored and what you present is little more than a straw man argument.

I'd also point out that if you don't accept the churchs teachings on things like the transubstantiation, women priests, married priests then you're not really a catholic and your personal beliefs fit much better with the protestant faith.

Perhaps, but those who 'follow his brand' also know that not everything he says is true. They know that they are the views of a man, albeit a senior official.

To think that quoting the Old Testament is an argument against views of Catholicism, as some do, is showing a lack of knowledge of the teachings of the Catholic church with respect to the OT. So, that is ignorance

This problem is not helped by people also claiming to be Catholics using non-canon from the bible as justification for their views! There needs to be a bit more of a vigorous enforcement of who is, and isn't Catholic. Maybe it could be copyrighted? Or maybe a Cheif Whip could be employed to make sure the Catholic line is the correct one whether it's espoused by those arguing for or against Catholicsism!

Either way, clarification on this issue does seem to crop up as an issue on these threads quite regularly.

molgrips
you've hit the nail on the head. I don't agree with unsolicited abuse either. But it's not unsolicited when you use your opinions to interfere with the rights of other people in a society.

Hold whatever opinions you want about any subject you care to fit in your head. (faeries, goblins, gods, elves, angels or unicorns). Do it with my blessing and with my guaranteed lack of interest and argument.

But don't bring those ideas into a discussion about the rights of others unless you want rational people to look at the basis for your claims, point fingers and possibly have a bit of a giggle.

We are not talking about "unsolicited" abuse. You are really genuinely asking for it.

The fact that you don't like it, and that your main defence is to demand "respect" (meaning silence from your critics) is not our problem.

This religious stuff is peculiar, people who appear and act in rational ways in other parts of their lives, seem to go irrational when talking /engaging about mysticism -- i suppose it means you have a get out clause for anything.....

That may be so, but I'd suggest that it's not unsolicited if parties are both taking an active part in a debate.

But it's not unsolicited when you use your opinions to interfere with the rights of other people in a society

Quite so.

There have been several threads ON HERE where someone's mentioned religion in passing and people all jump up telling the world what brainless cretins religious people are.

That is arrogant and offensive and not very nice. That is what I am complaining about.

In short - be nice to each other. It's not rocket science.

The fact that you don't like it, and that your main defence is to demand "respect" (meaning silence from your critics) is not our problem.

Whoah there, back up. Do you think that I am a religious person who is against gay marriage? Cos I'm not.

I've actually considered quite a lot. So much in fact, that I don't toss words like 'right' and 'wrong' around in such a glib manner. There's more to the human condition than that. Even if you don't quite get it.

It is about right and wrong whether you think these terms are glib or not.
You are aware that there is no evidence to support god
you are a physicists so you dont believe in things that dont have evidence or any physical basis.
Its gibberish and you know it so why do you do this?

I dont really get why you do such a staunch defences of the rights of the religious - that is those who are wrong - to ask us to respect their views which means allowing the whole society to dsicriminate against gays just because they dont like them. we are meant to elevate thier own personal bigotry of principles to some sort of pedestal we cannot debate lest we be disrespectfu; - WTF is what they are saying if not disrespectful?

It is hardly like their message of burning in hell for eteernity is a positive or tolerant one to those who choose to life their lives differently. However judgemental i get i am not daming their soul for disagreeing with me which is about as offensive and arrogant as it gets

in short if they wish to tell me what to do they can expect that i will tell them what to do.

if they want to do things in private then i will say nothing

That is arrogant and offensive and not very nice. That is what I am complaining about.

In short - be nice to each other. It's not rocket science.

Its a myth to suggest that the religious are a tolerant bunch they are not and they mor edeserve my tolerance than the BNP or the EDL as they just want to impose their view and discriminate

Look there is either a god or there is not a god there is no half way house
It is about right and wrong whether you think these terms are glib or not.
You are aware that there is no evidence to support god
you are a physicists so you dont believe in things that dont have evidence or any physical basis.
Its gibberish and you know it so why do you do this?

On a similar vein how about Free Will?
There's no scientific evidence of it's existence, but would you class a belief in it as gibberish?

Terms like 'the church' and 'Christians' aren't particularly helpful. There are lots of different kinds of Christians, as you all know. Often the ones that are the catalyst for debate are the fundamental ones, which generally only exist in America and are generally unrepresentative of the day to day Christians in the UK.

Many of the examples given in this thread are of UK christians, from mainstream churches such as the CofE. It is essentially the CofE which is preventing equal marriage from becoming legal in England and it is the catholic church essentially doing the same in Scotland.

Not extremists.

There also seems to be a treatment of Christianity as a monolithic body, quoting passages from the Old Testament as examples of intolerance or hypocrisy is a meaningless approach, for Catholics at least. Catholics are not asked to believe the Old Testament as a literal text and it is recognised as a metaphorical text for the a specific time and place. Of course, Catholics are allowed to take it literally if they like, very few do.

Yet christians, catholics included, use quotes from the old testament to justify their stance.

One day I'm going to sit down with a christian, a bible and some highlighters so they can show me which bits are literally true, which bits are allegorical and which bits can be discarded altogether.

On a similar vein how about Free Will?
There's no scientific evidence of it's existence, but would you class a belief in it as gibberish?

Depends upon how you define free will, surely. Our behaviour and responses are a result of our genes and our environment.

FFS you used to be killed for blaspheming or denying their was a god

Not just denying there was a god, but believing that there was a different one. In the name of enlightenment and spreading the good word, Europe marched into other continents committing genocide against peoples who didn't convert. How many Incas do you see these days? That Andrew Marr bloke was talking about it on the tellybox a couple of days back, fascinating stuff.

Of course, that's all ancient history, and I'm not suggesting that we should be damning current theists for the sins of their ancestors (even if some strains would do it to themselves, Original Sin and all that). But even then, it's not all that long ago that Xtians were at each others' throats for worshipping the same god in a slightly different way.

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.” - Hitchens.

Fundamentalists would be far fewer in number and far less visible if it were not for the huge body of moderate believers that distort reality sufficiently to create an environment in which extremist views can exist. The fundamentalists are only able to exist because otherwise normal people believe in 'some' of the stories that provide the common basis for a religion.

I do not understand how any moderate, modern, vaguely intelligent Christian can cope with knowing that the institutions that they support have been (and continue to be) so destructive, malevolent and divisive to the people that they claim to be able to 'save'. Moral authorities like the Churches should be held to a higher standard than individuals and they have dismally failed to meet the standards of decency required by normal secular human beings.

Religion has no place in this world and it is our duty to fight it with truth, reason and logic. In that at least we would be morally head and shoulders above the institutions who we are historically capable of horrific acts of cruelty to those who did not offer themselves and their wealth to the service of the Church.

molgrips
"Whoah there, back up. Do you think that I am a religious person who is against gay marriage? Cos I'm not."
Fine .. I'll edit that to
"The fact that [religious people] don't like it, and that [their] main defence is to demand "respect" (meaning silence from [their] critics) is not our problem."

If all you want is to agree that we should be excellent to one another, then I agree 🙂

But (and theres always a but 🙂 )it does depend on the context in which people "mention it in passing".

It's hard to say without examples but if someone mentions it in the same way that they might mention being a trainspotter, birdwatcher, or singlespeeder, then fine.

But if they mention it as a surrogate for "I/We are special" or "You're morally degenerate" or to in any way protect their views from critical analysis then all bets are off.

Perhaps its because a lot of the "anti's" on here have been religious at some point themselves. As a result, they (we) recognise that religious people tend not to mention it at all unless they are trying to make some sort of point (however subtle).

paddy power doing odds on the next head honcho in da vatican .

baffling smoke signals, in the city of inequity -- lee perry

Yet christians, catholics included, use quotes from the old testament to justify their stance.

One day I'm going to sit down with a christian, a bible and some highlighters so they can show me which bits are literally true, which bits are allegorical and which bits can be discarded altogether.

What the results you get will depend very much on the denomination of Christian you sit down with and then vary within that to

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.” - Hitchens.

Beautiful. (Christopher, of course. Not his idiot High-Church brother.)

The gay thing has been a religious issue for quite a while, about time it was repealed don't you think?

Can you clarify what you mean by repealed, specifically in this context?
What is it you actually want repealed and from where?

Anyway, she recently surfaced into this debate by saying that atheists "can't argue for the existence or non-existence of god because they don't have any theology, poor lambs."

A remarkable statement for being both stupid and patronising both at the same time

I'm not claiming that there is a causal relationship between intelligence and Catholicism. Ok, you have an example of a catholic who said something daft. That doesn't undermine the intelligence of other Catholics.

Not his idiot High-Church brother

Seriouisly? You think you are smarter than Peter Hitchens?

Seriouisly? You think you are smarter than Peter Hitchens?

I'll happily criticise the catholic church in particular on it's stance and teachings on homosexuality, contraception, divorce and most of all on the fact that it's whole basis is a non falsifiable premise,

Ok, but first you would need to show that you understand what it's teachings are in these areas. The Catholic church teachings, not the statements of some of its bishops or priests or even the pope, the Church teachings.

i'm off to the bookies......

first you would need to show that you understand what it's teachings are in these areas.

We've had a few anecdotal examples of their teachings by church-goers on this very thread.

I appreciate that under normal circumstances anecdotes aren't really evidence, but given that we're discussing religion I think we can allow it as it's greater proof than we're used to dealing with. (-:

More seriously; are you actually suggesting that our understanding of the churches' views on same-sex marriage are in fact woefully inaccurate?

[quote=Cougar ]it's not all that long ago that Xtians were at each others' throats for worshipping the same god in a slightly different way.
Last Saturday night in fact. In Glasgow.

Catholic church teachings, not the statements of some of its bishops or priests or even the pope, the Church teachings.

Doesn't the church teach that the pope is infallible? - Genuine question BTW.

I think that's a monumentally arrogant stance, TBH. You're assuming that a position of atheism is a position of ignorance, which may be true for some but most certainly isn't a blanket statement you can apply to everyone.

Amusingly, atheism is a position of ignorance.
Some people are happy to hold their hands up and comfortably state that they do not know the reason for existence (if there is one), these people are atheists.
Some people are terrified of that thought and simply refuse to admit the possibility of it and invent/latch onto the crutch that is god.

I use the word invent as THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT A GOD EXISTS.

More seriously; are you actually suggesting that our understanding of the churches' views on same-sex marriage are in fact woefully inaccurate?

Which church? Catholic church, no, probably not. Why don't you tell me what your understanding of it is, and where you got that information?
Nevertheless, that wasn't one of the issues that was mentioned. I think there may be some 'misconceptions' around some of the other issues

*EDIT* Though it does interest me why there is such emphasis on the teachings of the Churches, Catholic or otherwise, by people for whom religion is largely irrelevant when in fact they live in a country, with a democratic process, which also forbids same sex marriage. Surely that would be the greater issue

[quote=miketually ]
One day I'm going to sit down with a christian, a bible and some highlighters so they can show me which bits are literally true, which bits are allegorical and which bits can be discarded altogether.

Amusingly, atheism is a position of ignorance.

Nonsense.

Some people are happy to hold their hands up and comfortably state that they do not know the reason for existence (if there is one), these people are atheists.

No, these people are Agnostics.

Which church?

The one that's whispering in the Government's ear.

Why don't you tell me what your understanding of it is, and where you got that information?

Most recently, a letter received from her local MP by a user of this very forum, stating that he didn't want to support changing marriage laws for fear of upsetting the church. Perhaps he's misguided as well.

I don't have a long list of citations and dated references, sorry. I didn't know there was going to be a test.

Oooh still going on. I wonder how people feel about this douchebaggery-in-the-name-of-religion:

"I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that's something God intended to happen."
-- http://news.sky.com/story/1001896/republican-rape-baby-is-gift-from-god

Which church?
The one that's whispering in the Government's ear.

Just say it, go on. Why so coy?

Most recently, a letter received from her local MP by a user of this very forum, stating that he didn't want to support changing marriage laws for fear of upsetting the church. Perhaps he's misguided as well.

Can i just clarify. Your understanding of this unnamed church's teaching on gay marriage, is based on what you read on this forum about a letter a letter written by an MP to a person on this forum?

May i suggest you look for some better sources?

I don't have a long list of citations and dated references, sorry. I didn't know there was going to be a test.

Not a test, only that I would expect you to have actually found out about something before you criticised it

Though it does interest me why there is such emphasis on the teachings of the Churches, Catholic or otherwise, by people for whom religion is largely irrelevant when in fact they live in a country, with a democratic process, which also forbids same sex marriage. Surely that would be the greater issue

Because the church carries power within the government. Without this intervention, that law would be considerably easier to revoke.

Here's a question, because you were asking about misconceptions. Can you educate me as to which Christian churches officially support same-sex marriage?

Doesn't the church teach that the pope is infallible? - Genuine question BTW.

Only in the very rare case of ex-cathedra statements, well other bits as well I think, but this is the only relevant one, I think

Are they always nice to us or to non believers

Mostly, they are, yes.

Junkyard - let me put it another way.

What's wrong with simply being wrong?

Here's a question, because you were asking about misconceptions. Can you educate me as to which Christian churches officially support same-sex marriage?

Nope

*edit* but here's a list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches

Because the church carries power within the government. Without this intervention, that law would be considerably easier to revoke.

Right, so because your government won't change the law, you blame 'the church'?
That's easy

What's wrong with simply being wrong?

When wrong constitutes 'educating' people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.

That's easy

Well, it's factual. It's far from easy.

When wrong constitutes 'educating' people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.

And when it involves prejudice against a group of people who would quite like the same rights as everyone else.

When wrong constitutes 'educating' people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.

Who does this?

That's easy
Well, it's factual. It's far from easy.

You live in a democracy. If you don't like it work to change it. But change that first before you try to change the churches' views.

Who does this?

Christian missionaries in Africa, for a start.

When wrong constitutes 'educating' people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.

You're conflating many issues.

The church does stuff, religious people do stuff, but that's not in any way the same thing as believing in God.

Anti gay rights, anti condom etc etc are all very demonstrably wrong because they have serious negative consequences. However these are things that PEOPLE do in the NAME of God.

If I believe the moon is made of cheese, why on earth would you try and persuade me otherwise?

If I try and get vulnerable old women to hand over cash to fund my cheese moon mission, that's clearly wrong. But that's a different action and issue.

That's why I asked what's wrong with [i]simply being wrong[/i]?

If you don't like it work to change it.

What exactly do you think we're doing?

However these are things that PEOPLE do in the NAME of God.

As opposed to what, exactly? Gibbons? Lamp-posts?

We wouldn't choose a house or car on such flimsy knowledge but most people seem happy to write off religion as man-made nonsense without ever making a proper effort to find out what it's really all about for themselves, first hand.

Hmmm, I suspect many (most?) of us were brought up in a manner which fairly well indoctrinated us into religion.

The points have never heard properly raised or answered by Christians who are against homosexuality, is what about all the other stuff in the bible that has now been conveniently forgotten/ignored because it's irrelevant or just daft in the modern world? Why is homosexuality such a major issue? There's really not much about it in the bible is there?

Surely any sensible person can see that there were some rules which at the time might have been considered useful for 'survival of the tribe' but are now completely outdated.

And ditch_jockey's comments about only doing good things for religious reasons is pretty telling IMO. Why do you have to have religion to tell you to be a decent person?

Or indeed gibbons up lamp posts....

If you don't like it work to change it.
What exactly do you think we're doing?

I think you're arguing the toss on an Internet forum. Did you vote? Did you vote for a party whose views on same-sex marriage reflected your own?

Christian missionaries in Africa, for a start.

Really? Where? What kind of Christians? Evidence?

I think you're arguing the toss on an Internet forum. Did you vote? Did you vote for a party whose views on same-sex marriage reflected your own?

Good point, well made. However, it's perhaps arguably more productive for me to challenge prejudiced views held by people in my immediate circle of influence than simply registering a single vote which will get lost amongst millions. The crux is that millions of people are being treated as inferior citizens with fewer rights, and that isn't right. Would they be best served by us nodding and smiling and keeping quiet? That's how we got into this mess in the first place.

Also, the medium isn't relevant. Does the fact that it's on the Internet inherently devalue the discussion? Would it have more credibility in a national newspaper or on a TV channel?

But change that first before you try to change the churches' views.

This task would be made easier if the church minded its own business, something that they have failed to do

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19386655

Also, the medium isn't relevant. Does the fact that it's on the Internet inherently devalue the discussion?

Yes

Really? Where? What kind of Christians? Evidence?

How about the last Pope, does he count as a Christian? He gave a speech in Africa saying condoms were sinful and they should prevent the spread of HIV by not having sex.

Didn't the current one also say something about it being ok to use condoms but only if you were a prostitute, or something? I may be misremembering, I'd have to look it up.

However, it's perhaps arguably more productive for me to challenge prejudiced views held by people in my immediate circle of influence than simply registering a single vote which will get lost amongst millions.

This, I think is a very salient point. People, and in particular peoples behaviour and prejudices are "heavy", they have a lot of inertia and are difficult to change. Legislation on the other hand is easier and far more simple to sort out. Low level challenging of unacceptable behaviour by respected peers and equals is arguably going to effect a bigger change in a shorter period than voting for the appropriate party who will then change the law.

Ah, here we go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_AIDS

From the above (emphasis mine),

In September 1990, John Paul II visited the small town of Mwanza, in northern Tanzania, and gave a speech that many believe set the tone for the AIDS crisis in Africa. Being unequivocal, [b]he told his audience that condoms were a sin in any circumstances.[/b] He lauded family values and praised fidelity and abstinence as the only true ways to combat the disease.

In December 1995, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued guidelines saying that [b]parents must also reject the promotion of so-called "safe sex" or "safer sex"[/b], a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS.

In March 2009, the Pope [Benedict] was sharply criticized after he stated that "if there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behaviour], [b]the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it[/b]"
...
in response to the charge that "It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms", Pope Benedict stated:
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality. "

Are we suggesting that the Vatican's views can be safely ignored for the purposes of discussing Xtianity as a whole, now?

No, these people are Agnostics.

I was trying to keep it simple, for the sake of below:

Nonsense.

Really?
Both atheism and agnosticism are positions of ignorance, one because it is a logical fallacy, the other by open admission.

ive met and had to endure christians saying and bellieving HIV is gods retribution for being gay, sadly brainwashing is part of the chriostian church as is holding the same line and not devaiting from it.

Both atheism and agnosticism are positions of ignorance, one because it is a logical fallacy, the other by open admission.

An odd argument.

It is a big universe. There are a lot of things out there we don't know about.
We're [i]all[/i] "ignorant" in that regard.

...one because it is a logical fallacy...

I have three questions.

Which one is guilty of the fallacy?
What fallacy is it that they are guilty of?
Why are they guilty of it?

Really? Where? What kind of Christians? Evidence?

In 1997, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family stated:

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable

In 2010 the Pope stated:

She [the Catholic Church] of course [u]does not regard it as a real or moral[/u] solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

So it appears that the position of the church has changed in a mere 13 years from irreformably against contraception to reluctantly accepting it.

You think they reached this position through revelation and the word of god? Or that they face compromise or death in the face of modern secular standards?

Can you clarify what you mean by repealed, specifically in this context?
What is it you actually want repealed and from where?

As to cougar changing the government if he doesn't like how things are, well the church has a bit of a head start here. Cardinal this or bishop that says "we're against gay marriage" and have helpful stats of the number of catholics or CoE peeps in this country. The fact that plenty of those catholics and CoE-ers reckon that gay marriage is perfectly fine doesn't really matter. [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11297461 ]Apparently there's 41million christians in the UK[/url] (tho only about 2million who actually go to church - hmmmm) That's a whole lot of voters, but I bet a whole shedload of them disagree with what religion HQ say to the government.
Which atheist representative has a direct line to the government to get our views across?

Though it does interest me why there is such emphasis on the teachings of the Churches, Catholic or otherwise, by people for whom religion is largely irrelevant when in fact they live in a country, with a democratic process, which also forbids same sex marriage. Surely that would be the greater issue

I live in a country whose head of state and head of the state church are one and the same person. It is also a country in which senior figures in this state church hold unelected positions within the upper chamber of the legislature.

That's why the position/teachings of the christian church bother me. Perhaps you live in a different country?

Really?
Both atheism and agnosticism are positions of ignorance, one because it is a logical fallacy, the other by open admission.

I think I see where you're going with that now, but I think perhaps it's a little disingenuous.

The logical fallacy you refer to, presumably, is that you cannot disprove a negative. We're back to my skirting-board unicorns again. I think though that it's a bit of a leap to suggest this is 'ignorance'. Isn't ignorance of something which isn't there ostensibly the same logical fallacy?

Broadly saying it's ignorance implies that atheism is simply the state in which we're in because we've not learned the truth yet. This isn't really a fair assessment. For all practical purposes I'm sure beyond reasonable doubt that I know the truth where divine creators are concerned, but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong and revise my viewpoints accordingly.

If you're suggesting that we're ignorant of knowing for definite how the universe was created etc., then that's fair enough, but that's not merely true of atheism, it's applicable to the entire human race.

Also, which political party is calling for say, then end of the official status as a religious country, where the Queen is head of the church and state, and senior bishops sit unelected in the House of Lords, getting to rule on our laws? It's a ridiculous anachronism. Is there a party I can vote for that agrees with me?

Which atheist representative has a direct line to the government to get our views across?

Well, there's Nick Clegg 😆

Well, there's Nick Clegg

I don't believe in mythical heads of political parties.

I have three questions.

Which one is guilty of the fallacy?
What fallacy is it that they are guilty of?
Why are they guilty of it?

The atheist (depending on personal definition).
That they can prove the negative.
Because they can't.

That they can prove the negative.

Rejection of a non falsifiable belief is not ignorance. It is not for those of us who do not believe to prove that there is no god it is for those that do believe to prove that there is.

Once they do that then I'll happliy convert, although I may never use a zebra crossing again.

I think most people who consider themselves atheists actually think:

'there is almost certainly no god, but the possibility is so tiny that it's really not worth thinking about'

@cougar

I wasn't using ignorance in a derogatory way, I'm in the Huxley camp, albeit in a tent that is pretty damn certain. 🙂