BS: Christian segregationism, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 08:07 AM

what an exciting time to be alive!

I am a Science teacher, and cover evolution and the origin of the Universe.
I try to make them see how lucky they are to be given this extraordinary knowledge.
In the past, many would have willingly given up all they had to know these secrets.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 07:53 AM

Keith A.,

I think that I should make it absolutely clear that I, personally, don't want to "tear down religion" or anything so dramatic! "Live and let live" is my motto - tolerance and sympathy are important human characteristics. I can't speak for Richard Dawkins - but I doubt that he wants to "tear down religion" either. But I am glad that you and I agree that no area of human activity should be above criticism.

I also think that, at this stage in human history, we need to keep our outlook on the Universe, and our place in it, as flexible as possible. The scientific discoveries in physics, cosmology, astronomy, biology etc., etc. are comming thick and fast now - what an exciting time to be alive!

Unfortunately some (but by no means all) religious groups have made, and are still making, a habit of attempting to impose their views on others. Penny S. has given an example above - and as she puts it: "I really think it is atrocious that one religious group seeks to bind in secular law other groups which do not accept its definitions."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 07:34 AM

Like I said, Dawkins is not out to prove a God doesn't exist. He merely feels the argument has no place in scientific debate.

Now... his views on religion are somewhat strong. But as I said, he is not out to prove a God doesn't exist. If you read his works, and I have read just about the lot, you will see he is most taken, as many of us are, by Einstein, who I will paraphrase, not to twist it, but can't be arsed to find the exact quote;

"I am not an atheist. That would mean accepting chaos. The laws of physics hold in every event, and so if f=ma today yesterday, today and tomorrow, it cannot be chaos, and so atheism falls at the first hurdle."

Dawkins has issues, like any rational person, with accepting one or more of the flavours of established religions. I note that he has no issue with Einstein's take on atheism.

I suppose Dawkins and I have something in common if I can be bold enough to make comparisons between my fuddled brain and the insight of a genius; neither of us would segregate based on genetic makeup.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 05:36 AM

..isn't religion banned, by the US Constitution, from influencing government actions

No. The Constitution merely excludes the state from establishing an official church. That's rather different. In fact if anything, it's the other way round - the government is restricted from influencing religious actrivities.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 05:24 AM

To return to a previous diversion, there is a member of the House of Lords now seeking to overthrow the passed amendment about religions that want to be able to being able to carry out civil partnership ceremonies.

It muddies the distinction, and must be stopped.

Alternatively, partnerships between sisters living together should be registerable for taxation reasons.

The matter comes up on Thursdsy. I really think it is atrocious that one religious group seeks to bind in secular law other groups which do not accept its definitions.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 03:05 AM

Shimrod,
I just don't believe that religious faith is a prerequisite for doing great things.
Nor do I.

But, more fundamentally, the faithful believe that they are in possession of 'absolute truth' and that this truth is contained in ancient texts of dubious or obscure provenance.

Only some believers.
Be wary of those who display certainty.
Most of us constantly have doubts. Faith is not easy.

I see nothing wrong in subjecting such beliefs to scrutiny - especially if the holders of the beliefs demand respect or special privileges.
I agree completely, and would add that no-one has the right never to be challenged or offended.

Dawkins' quote "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

It teaches no such thing.
People of faith have given us some of the greatest insights.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 05:52 PM

Yes, J-t-S, I agree with you, in some of Dawkins's books and public pronouncements he has been highly critical of religion but in other books e.g. 'The Selfish Gene' and its successors, and no doubt in his academic work, he has amply demonstrated his scientific credentials.

Your Dawkins quotes represent powerful criticisms of religion and the religious outlook. They are so powerful because they are so logical and so reasonable - and I think that they should have been made long ago. I don't doubt, though, that those truisms will make many people who are committed to religion, and who have a religious outlook, very uncomfortable.

I'm not surprised that the city centre preacher, who I mentioned further up the thread, invoked the name of Dawkins in his stupid harangue!

Even so I'm not sure that Dawkins wants to do anything so dramatic as to "tear down religion". But I think that he does want to lessen its power and influence within human societies ... and I'm right behind him!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 03:05 PM

Shimrod are you being deliberately obtuse to take the piss with me?

This is the point I have been making about Dawkins.

"He is in the business of tearing down religion, not promoting science."

I believe that the quotes support that opinion.
You agreeing with the quotes is not relevant to that point.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 02:59 PM

"so whats wrong with subjecting the evolutionary story to the same scrutiny."

Nothing - it has been subjected to scrutiny and will continue to be subjected to scrutiny! The difference between scientific theories and religious 'truths' is that the former are, in some sense, always provisional and never absolute.

And J-t-S I cannot see how you can possibly object to any of those quotes from Dawkins - they all seem perfectly reasonable to me (although I'm not sure I understand the one about 'A Universe with God' etc. - I will have to think about it).

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 02:43 PM

What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_dawkins_2.html#ixzz1gLp5Pwpg

A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.
Richard Dawkins

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
Richard Dawkins

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that.
Richard Dawkins

One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all.
Richard Dawkins

Personally, I rather look forward to a computer program winning the world chess championship. Humanity needs a lesson in humility.
Richard Dawkins

Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.
Richard Dawkins

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_dawkins.html#ixzz1gLqNvos8

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 02:29 PM

so whats wrong with subjecting the evolutionary story to the same scrutiny.if theories were not examined we would still have defunct theories held by former scientists from centuries past.many scientists disbelieve darwinism and they may be a minority compared to those willing and eager to accept evolutionism,-just as galileo was in the minority with the scientists of his time.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 02:05 PM

Yes, the three figures you cite have all made a difference on the world stage. But if I had the opportunity to speak to one of them, and he told me that he was, in part, motivated by his religious beliefs then I would probably hear him out, nod politely and change the subject as soon as possible. I just don't believe that religious faith is a prerequisite for doing great things.

But, more fundamentally, the faithful believe that they are in possession of 'absolute truth' and that this truth is contained in ancient texts of dubious or obscure provenance. I see nothing wrong in subjecting such beliefs to scrutiny - especially if the holders of the beliefs demand respect or special privileges.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 11:10 AM

Yes Don, but I would argue that they are all worthy of being taken seriously, despite their deeply held "mumbo-jumbo" belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 11:04 AM

""Matin Luther King?
JFK?
Obama?""

If that is intended as an answer to Shimrod's ""Nevertheless, I would struggle to find a reason, in this day and age, why I should take anyone who believes in a lot of mumbo-jumbo seriously."" it is more than somewhat disingenuous.

I think you already know that Shimrod was saying that he could not take them seriously on that subject.

History is full of men who were at genius level on one subject of interest to them, and often quite whacky on other subjects.

Anyway, since you have chosen three political figures........isn't religion banned, by the US Constitution, from influencing government actions, and if so, shouldn't your examples have done what they did without invoking it?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 10:53 AM

""He had a whole book and book tour where he called belief in God a delusion. He has spent a lot of time arguing the point. What would it take to make you "sure?"""

In other words, he expressed his opinion, and gave a (possibly over long) rationale to explain the logical process by which he arrived at that opinion.

If he is open to castigation and ridicule for doing exactly what we are doing right now (some us with rather more logic than others), we might as well pack it in.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 08:09 AM

Well that makes sense. Intellectually challenged religious fanatics question the theory of evolution so you question the intent of Richard Dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 08:03 AM

Well, if evolution is insufficiently evidenced to be regarded as certain...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 08:01 AM

"Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist."

He had a whole book and book tour where he called belief in God a delusion. He has spent a lot of time arguing the point. What would it take to make you "sure?"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 06:27 AM

As usual I agree with McGrath - but I am alarmed to find myself again agreeing with a certain amount of what Mither has said ie "Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist." I've always been of the opinion that as a scientist he is rightly angry when people stifle scientific advance by weaving in superstition. He is out, if I read him rightly, to say that theological debate has no place in science which is another thing entirely. As a genes specialist, he has demonstrated that it is in the interest of our genes to exhibit what we would call moral traits, which makes the case for excluding superstition from science, as the only feasible reason for taking faith into account is the moral compass that old men in pointy hats claim is their territory. (Funny though, I don't follow them or their ideas, yet I seem to refrain from pillaging, raping and whatever they reckon a Godless society does.)

I share his frustration,"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 06:07 AM

Matin Luther King?
JFK?
Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 05:48 AM

"He does promote atheism, as in his book "The God Delusion.""

I would have to re-read the book to find out whether that is true or not. Nevertheless, I would struggle to find a reason, in this day and age, why I should take anyone who believes in a lot of mumbo-jumbo seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:48 AM

Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist."

He does promote atheism, as in his book "The God Delusion."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:36 AM

Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist." I've always been of the opinion that as a scientist he is rightly angry when people stifle scientific advance by weaving in superstition. He is out, if I read him rightly, to say that theological debate has no place in science which is another thing entirely. As a genes specialist, he has demonstrated that it is in the interest of our genes to exhibit what we would call moral traits, which makes the case for excluding superstition from science, as the only feasible reason for taking faith into account is the moral compass that old men in pointy hats claim is their territory. (Funny though, I don't follow them or their ideas, yet I seem to refrain from pillaging, raping and whatever they reckon a Godless society does.)

I share his frustration, but at the same time feel he is becoming embroiled in a rational versus surreal argument. That too can stifle the progress of scientific discovery by being a distraction.

We seem to have created God in our image. Having also given this God character omnipotence and other big cheese attributes, it is a bit vain to then compare him to us? Just one of the reasons I smile indulgently when our evangelical friends start rationalising their wonderful group delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 04:46 PM

God made it, Darwin explained it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 04:36 PM

""all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution"

I've never met any who'd disagree with that either. The thing is, it appears the USA really is in a strange place in these matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:55 PM

I know all about Creationists Don.
I have just never met any, apart from some Jehova's witnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:53 PM

"Dawkins is a scientist, and a good one.
That does not make him better placed than anyone else to pronounce on the existence of God."

Absolutely correct! Prof. Dawkins will know that it is logically impossible to 'prove a negative'. So no-one can say,"there is no God". Nevertheless, to talk or act in the name of God a scientist is entitled to insist that, first, you have to prove that He exists. But those of a religious persuasion prefer to bypass all that and smugly tell us that they have 'faith' in the existence of God and can, hence, speak and act in His name. To add insult to injury they also demand respect and special status!

It's high time that someone told them to "get lost!" I am pleased that Dawkins has done so!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:49 PM

""Don, all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution.
They were not created as "Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and all the minor religions, as well as agnostics and atheists.""

1. You obviously don't know about Creationists.

2. I didn't say he created them, the reverse in fact. What I said was that he would have been (assuming he existed) responsible for their presence on this planet, where they created him in their own image according to their colour an location.

Please try to read what is actually being said!!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""is that none except you and your evaluation of other peoples faith ,don!?""

No Pete, my faith and my prayers are between me and the one whom I consider my maker, unsullied by the agendas of men, frocked, turbanned or whatever, who profess to have the inside track to the Creator.

You make your own choices and I have nothing to say about YOUR beliefs until you try to make them MY beliefs.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:06 PM

I am sure any UK Christian here will have the same experience as me Frogprince.

Dawkins did write "The Selfish Gene" .

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 01:36 PM

"all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution."
My jaw about dropped when I read that; I really wish I could say the same thing. It may be true of the majority of the Christians in the area where I live here in the U.S., but it's damnably hard to establish a really reliable percentage, and the numbers of vocal anti-evoulutionists can be disheartening and frightening. The disconnect between beliefs here and in the U.K. is apparently greater than I ever realized.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 01:22 PM

The books Dawkins is famous for are not scientific. They are anti-religion polemics. He is a bigot in that he blames the worst of religion on all of religion rather than recognizing that there are good and bad in all persuasions. He calls fascism and communism religion so that he can make the ridiculous argument that atheists to not start wars.

He makes his living going on show's like Bill Mahers and running down religion to sell his books.

Brian Greene And Neil Tyson Degrassi promote science, Richard Dawkins is a professional shit disturber.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:59 PM

jack-we certainly agree as to dawkins agenda though in fairness to him ,he does like to get some prominent churchmen allied with him though admitting that they are compromisers of the faith they profess.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:52 PM

Dawkins is a scientist, and a good one.
That does not make him better placed than anyone else to pronounce on the existence of God.

Don, all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution.
They were not created as "Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and all the minor religions, as well as agnostics and atheists."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:47 PM

is that none except you and your evaluation of other peoples faith ,don!?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:35 PM

"He is in the business of tearing down religion, not promoting science."

If I remember correctly Dawkins questions the special status that religions enjoy within our societies. If someone tells you that he is possession of absolute truth, as a result of his interpretation of some ancient text of dubious provenance, that should not entitle him to any particular respect or special privileges.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:13 PM

Has everybody in this discussion forgotten that God, if such there be, did not stop short after creating Christians, in fact he didn't even create Christians.

God, as the creator of all things would be responsible for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and all the minor religions, as well as agnostics and atheists, and somewhere in there would be the group which grew out of Jews, Romans and others, and came to be called Christians, based on the teachings and identity of a prophet.

Such an all loving deity would hardly be likely to select a small minority of the human race, declare them as his chosen people and all the rest second class humans.

No folks, we created God in our own image, black, white, yellow etc, according the lottery of evolution and location, and none of us can sanely claim to have the one true example.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:07 PM

He is in the business of tearing down religion, not promoting science.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 11:43 AM

"No Richard Dawkins is in the business of eroding the faith that might save a drug addict."

But I thought he was in the business of promoting science, logic and rationality ... silly me!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 11:25 AM

No Richard Dawkins is in the business of eroding the faith that might save a drug addict.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 11:20 AM

"I've quoted the Bible to support a point too, but it's been years since I've done so thinking that I'd "proved" my point that way by
quoting an infallible source."

In the city centre, the other day, a bloke with a microphone claimed that the Bible had saved more drug addicts than Richard Dawkins.

I didn't know that Richard Dawkins took an interest in saving drug addicts ... you learn something new every day, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 12:46 PM

I have a pretty simple way of looking at it.

Biblical Commandments and teaching attributed to God and to Jesus I take as the Word of God. The rest of it I take interpretations of men doing their best for their time. The bible does not shirk from pointing out the flaws of its heroes. So we have the Ten Commandments, Love thy Neighbor, Love God, and Jesus' sermons. Paul was a man dealing with specific issues in his own day. He should be taken with a grain of salt. As also should a legal code developed while trying to shepherd an unruly mob of former slaves through the desert.

I don't agree with posting biblical commandments on public buildings. I believe that the Gospel should be spread in a loving way and not by force.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 12:15 PM

frogprince-i cant claim to have definitive answers to the things you raise as to the OT.A lot of things that probably seemed normative to ancients seem barbaric to our modern sensitivities .i can understand why you are not comfortable with it.without going into great discussion,i would just venture that the mosaic law [which i do accept as from God]was superior to other ancient codes.some of the provisions of OT law while seemingly very hard to our modern context were probably more understandable in their own time, and perhaps you have read some expositors who have conveyed this better than i could.
thanks for the civil way you state your position-pete

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 11:43 AM

jack-admittedly looking at this text in isolation a case could be made for womens servitude to men.it is unclear as to what their silence in church means since a few chapters earlier we find that women were praying and prophesying in church.
being"in subjection to their own husbands" is not demeaning      -Christ is spoken of,and of placing himself under the submission of the father
-husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church ie sacrificially.
i notice that my suggestion of the greater position given to women in the NT church was not challenged!?
in short i do accept both texts you quote-as well as any others which may illucidate those.

note to steaming willie
i recognize your rejection of scripture as Gods word to us,but the discussion relates to jack since i understand he is a believer of some description that however is not fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 09:42 AM

Incidental thought: I would challange anyone to find more than a very small fraction of dispensationalists who would not object to the removal of a diplay of the ten commandments from a civic building.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 09:29 AM

Jesus is credited with saying, "It is written...but this is what I say" - that is, quoting the "Bible" as he knew it in his day, and disagreeing with some of it. He also made it plain that he didn't accept the Old Testament standard of capital punishment for a moral lapse. More often, Jesus quoted the Hebrew Scriptures approvingly.
I've quoted the Bible to support a point too, but it's been years since I've done so thinking that I'd "proved" my point that way by
quoting an infallible source.

It's easy enough to say that the brutality of the Old Testament was the way God chose to deal with man in a prior "dispensation". Easy enough if you are willing to accept a god who thought it was a good idea for a woman to be forced into marriage with her rapist, and a god who rewarded a man because he would have slaughtered his son "because God told me to". I'm much more comfortable saying that a lot of the Old Testament content reflects the primitive concepts of God and his ways common to people of the period. Perhaps that was a prior "dispensation" in the moral consciousness of man.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 07:01 AM

Why cherry pick anything? Most of us or claim to have the ability to make rational decisions and morality comes from the evolutionary convenience of altruism.

Never have got on with the idea of creating Gods in order to answer questions we can't figure out for ourselves. The bible is a man made set of stories, nobody seems to disagree with that, or at least anybody capable of thinking rationally, so why get all hot and bothered over different forms of escapism?

If you hate gays, hate women, hate black people, then no problem. It follows that I will hate you, or perhaps pity you and I suspect many others on this thread may think similarly. But to invoke the same bible that nice old ladies hold dear as your excuse, that's despicable.
And cherry picking.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 07:18 PM

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

If you do not believe in the above but you do believe in

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

You are cherry picking. You are choosing the follow the guidance that suits you. Paul was a man with faults like the rest of us. He was not a license for modern bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 07:01 PM

jack-seems in generalizations we are in accord.but maybe in the specifics not so much.all i can venture to say is that i would not abuse anyone and would greet them whether they were hetero or homosexual.
jesus did speak of forming judgments
beware of false prophets....
by their fruits you shall know them matt 7v15ff-just down the page from "judge not.."
not clear how not agreeing with paul is not cherry picking the bible-rejecting the bits of scripture you disagree with?
i would be interested as to how much of the bible you do accept.
i would suggest that women in the early church were much better off than those in the grecoroman world in general.i am not sure which text you think teaches that woman is the servant of man,though there is teaching on the role of both genders and their responsibilities to each other,-revolutionary in its time IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 11:35 AM

Nothing "Christian" about bigotry. Ask any Gay Christian. or any female Christian. Or any male Christian who is uncomfortable with people cherry picking scripture in order to be sanctimonious about an odious viewpoint.

I have no problem with you believing the bible literally. I have a mate who believes anybody richer than him is a bastard and anybody poorer than him isn't trying hard enough. On the other hand, I have a mate who believes he can pull by smiling inanely at a woman. Bugger manages it too, bless him.

No, you believe what you want to believe. I believe in Sheffield Wednesday although my faith has been tested over the last few years.

But in the same way I don't expect you to sing on our kop, don't expect me to sing in your church. Or in other words, once your view affects others, stop it... It isn't nice and it isn't clever.

Anybody would think there was a God after all, the way some people rattle on.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 10:23 AM

Not all opinions are created equal.