BS: Church V State

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 12:15 PM

"atheist faith" - that's Pete trying to define the argument by suggesting that atheism is a form of religion. And since his religion is better than any other religion, he hopes to clarify to you what you believe and then have you on the run.

Dash his hopes. Dismiss his argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 11:51 AM

"Struggling with my atheist faith..." Hmmm. Well I don't know whether there's a God or not. I don't know whether there was a Jesus or not. Come to think of it, I don't know whether there was a Noah with an ark, whether there was a Robin of Sherwood, a Sir Lancelot or a Jason and the Argonauts. I'm a bit clearer with Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, the Hobbits and the Archers. But when I say I don't know, it doesn't mean I sit squarely atop the fence, one leg either side. Struggle wouldn't be the right word. A bit of doubt here and there if the evidence doesn't always quite stack up, and, as we know, truth can be stranger than fiction. But I'm happy with that. It means I'm using my brain. I recommend the approach. God would recommend it to you too, pete. After all, fancy him giving you a mighty brain that you then refuse to use. Put it right, pete. You're insulting the Big Man Upstairs, I reckon. As for the relevance of this to the topic at hand, well I don't want a bunch of bishops who also don't use their brains, or use them the wrong way, "helping" to run the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 11:43 AM

Hmmm. All Google can find is claims of Keith being a UKIP supporter or supporting UKIP policies. Claims from Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 11:36 AM

should have been "and where I have doubts about the bishops"

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 11:34 AM

Never quite copped that one

Nor me, or the weird 'logic' of 'the trinity'. That, rather then the supernatural bit, is where I would bother arguing with those who pretend to understand it and have doubts about the wisdom of bishops.

But friends who I was at school with became rabid Marxists; I never copped that either and they couldn't explain it to my satisfaction.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket smiling
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 11:26 AM

Err. Stop calling me a liar eh?

You really aren't a nice person, are you Keith?

Do you reserve your smiling for when you are in your church, or do you just drop what you claim are your Christian ideals for Mudcat?

I recall the UKIP post has been dragged into threads before when I found it again. You looked a right chump then, and still didn't apologise for calling me a liar.

Any toys left in your pram duck? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 10:31 AM

It's OK,Greg. You know me. Just tryin' to be inclusive... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 10:26 AM

Ah, but still clinging to the principle that a pointless, gory yet noble sacrifice can let us all off our sins. A Good Thing to do. Never quite copped that one, even when I was an obedient little Catholic boy. :-)

As for you, dearest pete, it's a thread about religion. You might not like it much, but arguing that people whose lives are constructed entirely around what I regard as a superstition might not be the best people to have a hand in running the country...

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 09:55 AM

"we still cling to Jesus having suffered a horrible death in order to absolve us from our sins"

That was the smart bit of marketing. Catching the mood that the messy stuff at the alter was getting old fashioned, so one more gory scene then call it quits.

I'm not making the idea up, but can't remember where I read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 09:54 AM

Ooops.

12 Jul 15 - 09:45 AM was in response to 12 Jul 15 - 09:22 AM

STEVE can't leave it alone? That's rich, pete. Oh, and pete- there's ususlly very little point in your replying, either properly or improperly.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 09:45 AM

What you mean "we", paleface?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 09:41 AM

Has anyone else noticed how Steve cannot leave it alone. I think he might be struggling with his atheist faith.   No point in me replying properly.......it will only get deleted, I fear !

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 09:41 AM

Not with the number of thgreads that have totally disappeared from this forum, it isn't

The deleting of threads is a fairly new thing.
Musket's lies are old.
He has been telling those same lies about me for a year or two.

If he is not lying, the "quotes" would be easily found.
He is lying.
It is what he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 09:22 AM

And the concept of sacrifice dies hard. It may no longer be goats or babies or virgins but we still cling to Jesus having suffered a horrible death in order to absolve us from our sins, don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 09:19 AM

"That should be simple."
Not with the number of thgreads that have totally disappeared from this forum, it isn't
I vaguely remember the incident, but wouldn't swear to it, though, in Kieth's defence, his arguments quite often leave Ukip's policies looking like Charlie Marx on speed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:53 AM

Your what-if is too much of a stretch, XX. Socialism exists as an abstract evolving political notion which does not belong to any particular person. Christianity exists as a notion predicated on the almost-certain lie that a particular holy man existed who laid down the tenets (and let's not start on how so many of his followers misuse those tenets for all manner of perfidious ends). Whatever you think of socialism, you can't say that about it. We're talking about legitimate vs illegitimate here. And we have to set aside that Christianity just happens to have a few good ideas embedded among all the nonsense. Many would say the same about socialism, if we could ever agree what it actually is. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:43 AM

Let's have links to what Keith is supposed to have said then. That should be simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:38 AM

Yes Rag.
Having someone tell blatant lies about you is annoying.
Do you think it OK Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:31 AM

Whoops .......... there goes the dolly ....... and the soft toy ........ and the rattle ............

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:28 AM

Remember when you said you didn't support UKIP till I gave a link to your post saying exactly that?

Another lie.
I am no supporter and have never supported them.

Curiously, you seemed to know the post was about you despite nobody saying it. Funny that...

No funny and not true.
Read my reply.
I assumed no such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:23 AM

I do recall you saying exactly that though.

You do not.
I would never say such a stupid thing and would challenge if anyone else did.
You are a liar.

You have no answer to what I do say, and just make up things so you can appear able to answer.
Pathetic, and a liar.

(If I said exactly that, a google search of Mudcat would find it in less than a second, liar.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 07:42 AM

Not that I am prejudiced against people with parents who did not marry of course, it's just a figure of speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 07:38 AM

Aside from agreeing with most here that they shouldn't have seats by right I don't see that Jesus having existed or not makes any difference. They now (forget the past, the reformed churches are quite good at eventually moving with the times) represent a view on how people ought to get on with one another that millions of people subscribe to (though the selfish b*st*rds may not actually do it).

Maybe Jesus didn't exist and that moral outlook has evolved from what 1st century philosophers and political thinkers convinced others was a good idea (getting rid of all tht messy sacrificing of things may have gone down well). What if Marx and Engels had presented their ideas 2,000 years ago leaving no written records but a strong and popular folk memory of socialism. It wouldn't matter now whether they had existed or not**. Would you bar socialists from having seats because the originators may not have existed ? Millions of people subscribe to their view on how people ought to get on together (though the selfish b*st*rds may not actually do it).

**Why invent them you may say. Yes indeed. Why invent Jesus ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 06:29 AM

Only 3% of the House of Lords are Spriritual Members so I would think that would make the religious make up of the House a smaller issue than the existence of the unelected House itself.

Well, maybe, but there are such things as matters of principle. That 3% toehold maintains the principle that the Church has a role in governing the nation. I don't like that very much because not only am I not a member of that church but also I oppose its influence, which is predicated on delusion. They may often be nice chaps with a benign veneer who often say good things, even against Tories, but they are only there because they believe in Jesus and seek to spread his good news (the fact that he probably never existed is beside the point, of course). Principles are important: suppose you were defending the royal family to me, a staunch republican, with the argument that the amount they cost us to keep them in the manner to which they're accustomed is minuscule set beside the revenue they bring in from tourism, etc. (as it happens, I disagree with that in any case). You'd be setting aside the whole pyramid of unearned privilege that they represent and sit atop, which is used tacitly to justify inequality in society. In other words, little things can matter a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket holding his sides
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 05:33 AM

How's the cap Keith?

Suits you, does it?

😂

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 04:04 AM

I recall one particular contributor on these pages staying last year, when trying as usual to denigrate Muslims that "Christians don't do that sort of thing."

I do not recall anyone saying any such thing, and I would remember if they had.
I think you are making things up and building straw men again.

Why can you not just respond to what people really say?
Is it because you can't?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:44 AM

Only 3% of the House of Lords are Spriritual Members so I would think that would make the religious make up of the House a smaller issue than the existence of the unelected House itself. The Church of Scotland are not represented because historically they fought against state intrusion on the church. The Church of England is ultimately influenced by the state to a far larger degree than any influence the said church has on the state!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket sans pocketing collection
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:30 AM

Some here shouldn't mix religion with reality, so your Guinness and port is no crime.

BBC News website this morning. The boss of the Church of England has been promising victims that he will have his church independently investigated over child abuse. The Methodist lot are still in the apology stage and the Catholics are getting back to pretending it doesn't happen.

I recall one particular contributor on these pages staying last year, when trying as usual to denigrate Muslims that "Christians don't do that sort of thing."

The same thi... Er person gets all self conscious and angry when I call his sanctimonious version of faith a delusion.

Quite....

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 07:13 PM

Shouldn't mix Guinness and Port !

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 07:12 PM

Bugger that should have said 110


No sod it 109!!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 07:11 PM

Hey Dave,

Another 111 posts and I'll have WON!!!!

Cheers

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 08:23 AM

"I hope that there is more to the job than what goes on where we can see them."
Do you - I don't
May as well dissolve parliament if the attendance is anything to go by
They are untrustworthy enough when you can see the, god knows what they get up to behind our backs
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 05:19 AM

I hope that there is more to the job than what goes on where we can see them. Just so long as we can see them doing the decision making.

So do I have it right then, that by not being in the upper house the church has no influence on government in Ireland ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 04:50 AM

I'm very suspicious of an unelected second house, however it is organised.
I find both the Lords, Parliament and The Dail an insult to the British and Irish people whenever I tune in and see the level of attendance - if so few workers turned up for work the country would grind to a halt within minutes - who do these people think they are?
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 04:29 AM

How would constitute a revising house Jim ? Do you like the Irish method (Seanad Éireann) better ?

That seems to give the church no automatic influence. So everyone is happy, right ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket in 70s pap pap
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 02:04 AM

Adam Smith would have liked the cortina. Henry Ford was a product of Smith's theory. It freed people up to go places and experience adventures that spur you on to consume.

Karl Marx would have liked the cortina. A true people's car and kept going wrong, wasn't efficient, cost more over years than it was designed to.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 01:48 AM

"On that basis, some might object to unqualified, non-elected trade unionists from being granted positions of power"
On the same basis, the unelected 'Captains of Industry' would have no place in the House of Lords, unless you would like to argue that Britain could run purely on the efforts of the bosses, without the workers.   
I often get the impression some people hold the view that working people are a bit of a fluff in the wheels of progress and should have no voice.
As I said, the church fulfils no practical role.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:02 PM

The Philosophers' Football Match

So, if Karl Marx is the footballer, that means Adam Smith must be driving the Cortina.

Yes?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 01:09 PM

You see, I'm talking football and he's talking Cortina MkIII.

And here was me thinking you were picking up on the Adam Smith v Karl Marx.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket sans gong
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 12:01 PM

I'm sure we had a baronet? It was on the wall in our last house. I reckon we left it with the light bulbs and spare bog roll.

Differing views are certainly needed to be aired. However, take this scenario..

Me: You know, he used to play left back for West Ham!

Him: In blue with the sloping dash running away from you and a chevron middled steering wheel.

You see, I'm talking football and he's talking Cortina MkIII.

A bit like bringing superstition into debates about reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:21 AM

XX, I stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:17 AM

Baronets are not Peers. They never sat in the House of Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:10 AM

Just returning briefly to Mark Thatcher, when the hereditary title was awarded to Denis Thatcher in 1990 baronets were entitled to take part in the workings of the House of Lords. It was only in 1999 that this was limited to 92 hereditary peers.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:00 AM

WHAAAT !! You mean there are TRADE UNIONISTS in that place. How can that be allowed ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 08:57 AM

On that basis, some might object to unqualified, non-elected trade unionists from being granted positions of power (by non-elected I mean they are elected only by their members, not the wider public).

To be clear, I don't object to either. However I do believe that the political process is benefited by allowing input from a body of people who can provide the widest range of wisdom, experience and expertise, something our elected representatives all too often lack. That includes both religious and trade union leaders, along with many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 08:35 AM

"If you are going to exclude people with deluded ideas from politics then that rules out most politicians."
It isn't "ruling out" anybody
It's objecting to unqualified, non-elected bodies from being granted positions of power - in this case a Church dedicated to propagating mysticism with a track record that would bar them holding a bus pass!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 07:51 AM

some people appear to hold that only viewpoints which they agree with have a right to be heard.

Yes. I think some people have difficulty with the situation of differening opinions all based on incomplete evidence.

Faith, belief without evidence, is an easy option for debate, and accusations of delusion, because most can agree that there is no evidence. Debating the pros and cons of the views of, say, Adam Smith and Karl Marx, often involves taking stances that can look like 'belief with incomplete evidence'. Delusions of certainty maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 07:30 AM

If you are going to exclude people with deluded ideas from politics then that rules out most politicians.

In the context of the British constitution, which has a second chamber whose role is to bring wisdom, experience and expertise to the legislative process, then that chamber should be drawn as widely as possible. Even if bishops did not sit as of right it would be extraordinary if some were not included for balance.

What happens in other countries, with different histories and different constitutional arrangements, is a different matter and quite possibly has different answers in each case.

What I find most objectionable is not the criticism of religion, much of which I agree with, but the idea which some people appear to hold that only viewpoints which they agree with have a right to be heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Rt Rev Musket
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:38 AM

CEO of one company which owned a few others actually. Oh, and still learning the guitar forty years on. You seem fascinated by me, which is odd because as Musket is three people, you might add Prof, MD, another PhD and I don't recall everything else Daarrnn Souf Musket has, but he hadn't to my knowledge posted lately. McMusket and Musket are obviously better than you, so I'd live with it if I were you.

Anyway, you forgot to mention my good looks and rather large willy. I'm sure I've mentioned both in passing.

The bit about theology? Sports science, media studies... A waste of a good education and normally seen as credits towards being commissioned to write a divinity doctorate if it has to be useful for anything and with one of those you can jump a few rings on the dog collar ladder. My brother in law is preparing his thesis apparently.

XX. I know you are Jim baiting and I could smile at some of the irrelevant or nonsensical things he occasionally says but essentially his heart is in the right place and let's face it, when he and Keith kick off, all it takes is to occasionally sprinkle petrol on the fire.

I love serious subjects to debate and find them in the music section here. But the BS bit? Does anyone take this shit to heart? Do the likes of Keith stand braying like that in the pub? Dear Clapton...,

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:37 AM

"Jim , no point challenging, you can't reason people out of things they have not been reasoned into."
Let me help - what you are trying to say is "I have no challenge to anything you have written".
Every single thig I stated is historically documented, has been aprt of my upbringing throughout my life (my 'thing' is 19th and 20th century European and social history) and is, I have no doubt, Googleable (not felt the need to do so here, a really believed it was common knowledge)
You wish to challenge anything I have said - Google away (that goes for your mates too).
Your starter for ten
Jim Carroll