But that brings me to death bed confessions, always seemed a bit crap to me, you can be as much of a git as you want your whole life aslong as you say sorry (and mean it) right at the end. That and the “eye of a needle” thing always struck my cynical mind as a bit of a money earner for the churches.

How would these generate money for the church?

Wikipedia

During the 1990s, a discussion began in the Roman Catholic Church about blessings for same-sex unions. In the Roman Catholic Diocese of Aachen in Germany, five same-sex unions received a blessing in German town of Mönchengladbach.[83] In 2007, one same-sex union received a blessing in German town of Wetzlar in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Limburg.

The fact that this can happen shows that there is no Catholic doctrine on this, as such there is no Mainstream Catholicism in this context, there is a ‘majority’, but so what?

Whatever the flaws in the survey might be, it still clearly shows (as I claimed) that an overwhelming majority of christians (surveyed in America) believe that homosexuality is a sin.

No that’s right, but it’s not what you initially claimed is it?

How many Catholic churches actually do that? I strongly suspect the number is so few as to make it pretty much irrelevant.

No but it is existence proof that the catholic church will bless same sex unions

The fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe homosexuality is a sin, and that gay marriage is wrong.

This is based on my experience of being brought up a Christian, in a Christian country, having listened to the pronouncements of various Christian leaders, and knowing a fair bit about Christianity in certain parts of Africa through some work I’ve done.

No, basing on your experience makes it opinion. Finding and presenting the data on it would make it fact. But of course it would have to be true first.

Yes that doesn’t apply to every single Christian but it’s a reasonable generalisation to make – otherwise the concept of Christianity at all is meaningless.

No, it is not a reasonable generalisation, because it is not one of the characteristics which unifies that group. Generalisations which reference some unifying definition of the group would be a reasonable assumption

Do you think it’s also unfair to generalise that most Christians believe Jesus is the son of God,

No, ‘cos that’s pretty much one of the things that defines them as Christian.

or that they believe in the concept of hell?

dunno about that one, but i’d be surprised if all Christians had the same concept of hell

So you support it, or do you just think it should be legal despite your personal feelings?

I’m not trying to avoid the issue, but I’m not sure those are the only options. I guess I’m not clear on what it means to ‘support’ gay marriage. But i certainly think it should be allowed, and those are my personal feelings

No Singletracked, not an assumption.

you mean you hadn’t assumed i was brought up in a Catholic environment?

Out of interest, Singletracked, can I ask what your view on same-sex marriage is?

It should be legal

Singletracked, I’d already made several contribitions, with the benefit of a strict Catholic upbringing.

Is this becuase I called your recent contribution facile? If you’ve engaged in the threa, why did you represent it as ‘Yes he is / No he isn’t?’ It seemed a strange interpretation of the discussion. But now you say I lack a sense of humour, because of my response? Oh, ok “Yes he is / No he isn’t?” was a joke!!! haha I get it! good one!!

Is my sense of humour good enough to be a Catholic now?

Not sure why you are specifying Catholics, but are you suggesting the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians then? If so why is it frequently quoted by Christians seeking to justify certain arguments? Wasn’t it meant to be the direct word of God?

I’m only specifying Catholics because it demonstrates that it is not useful to talk about Christians as a whole. Some Christians may think the OT is the word of god, others don’t. Some Christians churches including Catholic ones, bless same-sex unions.

I’ve mostly found those raised in a Catholic environment to have an excellent sense of humour, God knows, we need one.
Nice to find an exception that proves the rule.

Bzzzzzt!! Making an assumption there, old boy.

Thanks mefty.
Also, depending on the level of generalisation you are applying, the Catholic church blesses same-sex unions, as do some other churches. Unless, you mean a specific church

The Bible according to singletrackers.

There was very little of this

Oh yes he is!
Oh no he isn’t!

There was none of this.

Did you just feel the need to make some contribution? No matter how facile?

Well, they don’t forbid it the way you English do

To pick a topic at random: gay marriage. If the general view of the population is that two people who love each other should be able to get married but an MP votes against this because of their religious beliefs, there is a channel through which the electorate can make their views know.

If the bishop votes against it there is no recourse.

Well, Bishops can change their mind, I don’t know the CoE, but I don’t think the case against gay marriage is doctrinal. In fact, as i understand it, most churches don’t actually perform marriages. Marriage is a civil procedure, and by definition within the law, only allows it to take place between a man and a woman. Priests are only blessing the union. This blessing can be applied to all such partnerships, and has been applied to same sex couples too. It seems that the injunction to gay marriage is not something which Christians forbid, it seems that it is something which the English forbid. Why do you English do that?

Fair comment. The only problem there is, if we stop generalising and start picking out individual groups like, say, Catholics, the discussion spirals into “why are we picking on the Catholics?”

But when you generalise, you leave large holes in your argument. No one would expect to get away with an argument say “why do Englishmen …”

Trust in a system of evidence, peer review and experiment is not faith. There is a world of a difference.

but then what do you call it when the belief system was shown to be wrong? It can only be belief, you can’t know something which is subsequently shown to be wrong

That certainly my position. All the would be required for me to change my mind is evidence. Just as I’d believe any scientific ‘truth’ to be false, if I were presented with evidence to the contrary

but would you need to understand that evidence and see it for yourself or would you be happy that the leading minds in science have recognised that their idea of the scientific concept was previously wrong? That just seems like faith in scientists to me

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?

I think I probably do, but many of the people in you legislature, are not senior figures in the state church. Work with them first, they are the people you can influence.

That’s a whole lot of voters, but I bet a whole shedload of them disagree with what religion HQ say to the government.

then they need to make their feelings known, it could be a simple vote winner for anyone looking to move into government

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?

Neither. I don’t think it was from the word of god, otherwise there would have been some kind of papal announcement. I don’t think it was from fear of ‘death’. I don’t think people were leaving the catholic church because of some of the views being expressed about condoms. I think they had a think about it and decided that they might need to change their mind. But it does demonstrate that any teachings were not a part of doctrine, and so not actually fundamental to catholicism.

Ok, bit by bit as i read it

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

I’m not sure why you ask this. I think we can see that discussing Christianity as a whole is not useful. The variety in the views on same sex marriage demonstrated that. Secondly, I’m not sure, but are you critical of the pope’s apparent change of mind, both between popes and within popes? I think it’s a good thing that he can change his mind. It also demonstrates that the view is not doctrine, not actually a part of the beliefs of the church. The link between the stance of the Catholic church with regard to condoms and Aids in Africa is often cited. This is strange as Catholicism is not the majority Christian religion in Africa. Then even in the countries with a large proportion of Catholics, AIDS is not noticeably more widespread. The seems to be almost no relationship between incidence of AIDS and the Catholic population. It seems the pope’s views on condoms resulting in high AIDS incidence cannot be supported by evidence.

Christian missionaries in Africa, for a start.

Really? Where? What kind of Christians? Evidence?

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Not his idiot High-Church brother

Seriouisly? You think you are smarter than Peter Hitchens?

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.

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

Fewer catholics I should imagin

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

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

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

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

is the pope the top dog in that crew ?

does he advocate condom use in preventing disease ?

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.

but surely you know all this

My opinion that religion is simple-minded drivel and the province of the ignorant, indoctrinated and easily-led is deeply held and sincere and I demand that you respect it and not criticise me for having it

If you can support that opinion with evidence then you are welcome to it. However, I think you may have difficulty in showing that the Jesuits, as a group are ignorant, indoctrinated and easily led. Equally, you may struggle to show that religion is simple minded drivel, there are many deep and rich philosophical debates around religion, which are far from simple. e.g the nature of prayer, the Gnostic Heresy, transubstantiation. Not simple at all

I’m not going to trawl through that whole thread, unless it appears that there are some strong arguments. But with a brief scan and at least looking at the title. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Hope that helps

Or are you saying that people who believe something irrational (religion) can make an irrational decision to stop being religious?

No

So how we interpret the world around us is not a conscious decision? How do you explain, well, all experimental science then?

I’m not sure why that is a contradiction. You believe the results of experimental science, because of the way you construct knowledge. There is no ‘choice’ involved. Take any belief you have, be it in social equality, racial equality, political view and see if you can choose to believe the opposite of your current belief. I reckon you can espouse the views of the other side, but deep within you, your belief will not have changed.

So any time someone changes their mind about something, that’s not their choice? When I changed my mind about what I had for breakfast, that was a change of mental state that was outside my control? Or is it only changes of mind about religious matters that are outside our control?

No, it’s change of beliefs which are outside our control.

People who stop believing in god don’t do it by choice? Wut? Care to expand on that?

Well, their beliefs change. this is not a choice, it’s based on a changing different interpretation of the world around them.

So no-one stops believing in god?

they do, but not by choice. Their beliefs change, and that’s not by choice either