BS: Church joins real world

Subject: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 12:11 PM

The Anglican church has at last ignored bigotry in their ranks and Church of England allows equality for women in senior management roles.

Of course, those who see women as inferior are being accommodated, but nobody expects religious clubs to make sense. One stone tablet at a time though...

Women bishops

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 12:49 PM

there are at least 3 misconceptions [deliberate or otherwise] in your post musket.
1 for most of those opposed to womens ordination/bishops it was not bigotry but an understanding of biblical teaching and church tradition [ I am not giving any personal opinion here].
some of those opposed were women also, and opposed for the same reason.
2 I doubt if bishops see themselves as senior management, but as spiritual overseers......though hopefully not in a "holier than thou" way.
3 Christian teaching is not that women are inferior but that together with men ,are made in the image of God.

genesis 1 v 27
so God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 02:04 PM

Pete... the problem has been that many church leaders in MANY churches HAVE used a debatable interpretation of numerous translations of assorted scriptures to assert that men should have a special position in theological debates. One reason was to have control over heredity and clan/culture/family situations. Being generally larger, stronger and not burdened by pregnancy, men were ABLE to achieve that dominant position.

It takes a long time for reason to overcome the drive for power & control.

As Musket says.."one stone tablet at a time."

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 02:28 PM

Would "mis-understanding of biblical teaching", (convenient, or not so) be a more appropriate term?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 02:29 PM

Err.. A bishop is a job, subject to UK employment law. The bigotry clause that religious organisations enjoy in order to discriminate is slowly being demolished.

Churches, like any large multinational companies are large enough to influence normal people and therefore should exhibit high moral standards. We expect it, though not get it, from banks and others, berating tax and living standards of producers of goods, so churches should be scrutinised too.

Quoting the bible is irrelevant from the minute you employ staff.

Are you rejoicing pete? Are you happy that the church has taken a stance to make itself more relevant to people?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: selby
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 02:35 PM

I am with Musket with this, it is rather strange that an organization who's boss for 60 years is a woman, has taken so long to let some of the staff be women.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 05:22 PM

As pete says, how can women be bigoted against women?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 05:40 PM

There seems as much religious politics, as other issues, involved in the issue in the recent past.

background on some of the related issues 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 05:48 PM

" how can women be bigoted against women?"

Ask Phyllis Schlafly

A lot of the answer 'seems' to lie in their indoctrination by men...particularly men in the church. Then, I suppose, we can debate whether it is 'bigoted' or just a difference of opinion... but Phyllis sure polarized the parties!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:01 PM

Not too many posts yet, but the opponents of equality appear to be a God botherer and a bigot.

I have just returned from the pub and our local vicar was in good cheer, celebrating in fact. His wife was ordained the same year as him yet his career progression, should he wish for promotion was always better than hers, and that upset them for many years apparently. Good for them. She wasn't with him, (her parish(s) are a few miles away and she was at a meeting) but he said she too was celebrating with members of her church council.

Not being religious, I have nothing personal to celebrate, but every decent person might feel that the world is moving in the right direction now that the most discriminating organised political fronts have a large chapter that realises how irrelevant they appeared to the vast majority of people.

Most people are too sophisticated to blindly accept divisive bigotry as something they wish to tolerate.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:13 PM

Who says that the organized church is the 'organism', the Body of Christ, as Jesus was referring to?

Who says our politicians are more concerned with their constituents, than they are to the 'special interest' groups??...and pretending that they're in it for OUR benefit??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 06:40 PM

" how can women be bigoted against women?"

How about this one?

""I think [women] should be armed but should not vote…women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it…it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.

It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 – except Goldwater in '64 – the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.""Ann Coulter

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 07:13 PM

But will it put bums back on pews?

Is that the question of the century?

Or is the question of the century "do I give a flying fart?"

One downside of having lady bishops is that one might no longer be able to say "Good morning, Your Grace! And how's your bishopric these days?"

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 07:30 PM

Thanks for the link Bill, but surely to be opposed to "feminism" and homosexual "marriage", does not equate to "bigotry against women"

Both of these positions appear to be highly debatable?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 07:49 PM

but surely to be opposed to "feminism" and homosexual "marriage", does not equate to "bigotry against women"

Being opposed to feminism and gay marriage (coo, that was hard to say!) definitely equates to bigotry against women. And against a lot of men to boot.

Try typing without all those speech marks. In the words of The Lord, let your speech be yay yay, nay nay. Some of us get bollocked by the moderators here for doing just that and get our posts deleted and our PMs blocked. You, the propagator of poisonous nonsense, simply get protected by them. No wonder you carry on like you do, bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 07:52 PM

I dunno, ake... those two women sure advance the attitude that men are 'superior'. We could debate all day whether that amounts to bigotry. It is not a matter of definitions, but of fairness & rights. Women are gradually obtaining rights and recognition they should have had all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 08:17 PM

I'm all for fairness Bill, but surely "feminism" is an ideology and as such can be debated without fear of being labelled a "bigot"

Many women see their premier role as bearers and nurturers of their offspring.... careers take second place. That does not make them "inferior" to men.
In fact, some cultures see motherhood as a positive life choice, unfortunately our money orientated society wants women as wage slaves first and foremost.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 08:29 PM

Christ on a bloody bike.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 08:33 PM

AnnCoulter on gay marriage, and divorce 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 08:42 PM

""Gay marriage won't lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn't lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the equal protection clause to salmon.""
― Bill Maher, 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 08:56 PM

I think the Bible doesn't have all that much to say about homosexuality, although it's on at least a few of St. Paul's lists of sins. Some scripture scholars say that what Paul condemned was the Roman practice of keeping young boys for sexual pleasure. Maybe so.

I prefer to think that scripture reflected the mores of the times. And the times are different now, so morals should also be.

I see morals as a matter of function, not rules. What's moral, is what functions well for the health and well-being of individuals and of society. I think there's an element of sacredness in morality - it is worthwhile to hold the human being as sacred, the union of human beings as sacred, and the earth and all its creatures as sacred. I think there is wisdom to be found in the moral principles expressed in the sacred writings of various cultures, and I don't think that decisions to disregard those ancient principles should be made lightly. But in the end, we have to follow principles that work best for our times.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 14 - 10:13 PM

"Many women see their premier role as ..."etc.

*sigh*..of course! That is not the issue! Anyone should be free to choose & define their 'role' as whatever they wish within the limits of ability and biology. It is when men choose & define women's roles FOR them that it becomes a problem.

A large % of women may always choose to stay at home and bear & raise children... but it is widely possible now to do that AND have careers. There's no particular reason a woman can't have children AND be a Bishop... or a bricklayer!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:18 AM

I agree with you on that Bill, but we were actually discussing whether or not Phyllis Schlafly was being bigoted to women by opposing "feminism".

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:29 AM

Many women in the feminist literature that I have read, see marriage and childbearing as "oppression".

There are always debatable points in any ideology.
Perhaps the woman in question sees a mothers "role" as taking precedence over a career, hence it becomes a point of debate, not simply masculine oppression.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:32 AM

Don't wish to press the subject, but you did suggest that Phyllis Schlafly was an example of a woman who was bigoted against other women?

Sorry about all the short posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:49 AM

Yes, indeed, "Phyllis Schlafly was being bigoted to women by opposing 'feminism.'"

One definition of bigoted might be "not being able to accept any ideas other than one's own." And Phyllis Schlafly was certainly guilty of that, rest her wicked soul.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:50 AM

Err... Many women, to use his phrase,want, deserve and rightly expect a career. The majority of doctors and solicitors in The UK are women, the vast majority of managers in the public sector and for tomorrow? The majority at university.

So far as this thread is concerned, it's about destroying misogyny, not celebrating it, moron.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:52 AM

"Church joins the real world" - isn't that a bit of a contradiction in terms?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:52 AM

Oh, Sweet Jesus, preserve me. Wikipedia says Phyllis is 89 and still alive, and that she's a Catholic.
Maybe I do need to resign from the Catholic Church....
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 03:22 AM

Well, you didn't expect her to be a Quaker?

Shimrod does have a literal point but I would point out that millions of real people to greater or lesser extent still cling to it as a quasi reality therefore to them it is real.

Hence you can either forcefully remove peoples' comfort blanket which isn't nice when you think about it, or you can encourage them to work within the bounds of decency, which this is about.

There's still a long way to go. Seeing gay people as people, removing facility for those still wedded to bigotry, disestablishment from the legislature and judging those not signed up to their club. I'd like to see more done to protect children and vulnerable adults for that matter. But as I said, one stone tablet at a time.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 04:12 AM

Oh bum. There I go agreeing with Mither again.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 04:50 AM

We'll have you quaffing my vintage of champagne next Bridge...

If I ask you what the time is and you give me an answer, you can put the bubbly down as tax deductible too....



On a more serious note, it doesn't surprise me that anyone would agree with me, or disagree for that matter. I find it odd that equality in the job market isn't seen as a fundamental agreement before looking any further?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:59 AM

By the way Bridge, anything from 2002 is worth having but make sure the cork is wet at that age.

2003 was a bad harvest year and the vintage was dull. My toast to Thatcher's demise was a brut of that vintage. A second bottle awaits Scargill's demise.

2009 is turni....



What's this thread about again?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 08:00 AM

Does any reasonable person see marriage and childbearing as "masculine oppression of women"?

I have no idea who the lady is, or her views, but I was debating the definition of "bigotry" with Bill.
Is it "moronic" to debate the definition of "bigotry"?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 08:16 AM

Oh, that's better. Scargill was a hero, even if misguided and outgunned by the bitch Thatcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 08:37 AM

It is interesting to take a historic look back on the poor state of the lives of women in the past, in celebrating the much more respectful and reasonable position women have in many of today's societies-though not all.

I suspect, even today, some folks would prefer to live in the "male dominated" societies of the past, such as in Rome where women had little decision-making power in their personal life choices, nor that in the general society.


Ancient Roman Women: A Look at Their Lives 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 08:48 AM

"Is it "moronic" to debate the definition of "bigotry"?"

Depends on your understanding of bigotry.

Or moron for that matter.

If the tam o'shanter fits....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:58 AM

Ake.. Joe Offer came as close as *I* can to fitting Phyllis into the classification. You kind of read into some remark of mine a definition *I* did not use.

And Musket just made the point that I would. Bigotry is not a clear and simple thing to provide a short definition of.

It is not important to pin a label on her... she is just a paradigm example of a women who wants to place limits on what *all women* are or should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 12:47 PM

I was on a train from New York the other day, and they seat you with other people who are alone, and I had lunch with a guy from Australia who was on his way to this conference. Glad his side won!

Not important to pin a label on her, then you label her, is kinda funny, you have to admit. Whoever She was.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:01 PM

Well, perhaps Phyllis is a "mad woman" or a woman who "hates" women, I don't know anything about her, but does opposing "feminism", make any ordinary woman who wants to get married, have a family and bring them up, a bigot?

Most women in my area would think it ridiculous to call marriage and childbearing "oppression".

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:06 PM

Ake, you need to listen to Phyllis Schlafly before you defend her. She's a feckin' ravin' lunatic! The likes of her, would make even you blush. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 02:24 PM

I'm not defending her Joe, I haven't read anything about her and she is only incidental to the point under discussion, which was, is it bigotry to oppose "feminism", or parts of "feminism", or someones opinions about "feminism"......if one is a woman?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 04:36 PM

Surely the church has never existed in the real world, but rather in a world invented by primitive men (!) who sought to explain the world around them by creating stories of super-beings with magical powers.
It's all too silly!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 04:38 PM

seems to me ,that finding the most extreme example to argue against a more moderate opinion is probably not very fair. that might be extreme feminists ,who, I would argue, do despise their own gender by equating motherhood and being a wife as oppression, or the lady that I had never heard of who seems to discourage career women......though evidently heading up her own organization !.
interesting that ed provides a link to roman women. paul, often characterized by bible skeptics as a woman hater, actually elevated their status in the church.....though a lot less than modern leanings.
I am surprised that joe thinks that biblical ethics reflect their era.
from what I understand of the secular and pagan practise of the time, I would expect homosexual practise to have been celebrated, were that the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 05:48 PM

ake--- you are in a cycle of continuously arguing against a position that no one here has actually made! You have somehow extracted the idea of 'bigotry' from other points and are beating on a "straw man".

And Pete... you are doing something similar. You guys need to take the comments of others as they are made and not make these fanciful jumps into positions that no one has actually held.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 05:57 PM

Good observations Bill D....and homosexuality frequently seems creep into many of the posts, regardless of the op topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 06:59 PM

Bill it was you who brought Phyllis into the discussion, with I suppose the purpose of supporting your contention that women can be bigoted against women; but the lady in question seems to be a bit of a "loose cannon" to say the least and nominating her as an example does not prove any point in regard to opposition to "feminism" being bigotry?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:05 PM

Any number of reasonable women can be against the excesses of "radical feminism" and certainly do not deserve to be labelled as bigots for their views

Sorry again for the multiple posts....PC is playing up.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:08 PM

I have seen misogyny committed by some women. When men hate women its horrid. When women do it sure seems far worse.

There were women who voted against women being able to be Bishops, the minds of which I fail to understand. For me the argument is not about treating men and women exactly the same, but with equal rights under the law. Men and women are vety different and have different needs beyond the basics of survival. But treating then equally under the law, with respect to each gender, is surely sensible and fairer than constantly setting them apart based on gender alone?

I cannot for the life of me see why femald Bishops should be such a challenge to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:12 PM

Ed, I think the other trolls have left the thread, hurry along and catch them up.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:32 PM

MP....Do you really think that the women who voted against women bishops did so because they were mentally deranged(hated their own sex)?
If you do, I would ask if you are a practicing Christian.
If you are not an expert on theology you are not in a position to defame these women, who base their opposition on biblical teaching, not hatred.
Personally, I do not agree with their stance, but it is fairly clear they do not take it through hatred or bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:39 PM

Cant find anyone to take your thinly disguised theories seriously, Ake? Did someone mention your name....or did you somehow see yourself in a post topic?

No anti homosexual content in your last nessage...are you mellowing?

Must be, as you are again resorting to name calling?

Makes one wonder what is your actual purpose here?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 07:49 PM

Where did I suggest that the women who voted against female bisho9s were misogynists or mentally deranged?

Where, pray, did I defame anyone?

One neither needs to be expert in theology or a Christian to be able to practice equality

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 14 - 11:42 PM

Tunesmith says:

Surely the church has never existed in the real world, but rather in a world invented by primitive men (!) who sought to explain the world around them by creating stories of super-beings with magical powers.
It's all too silly!

Well, yes, churches have their share of silliness; but many also have a long history of wisdom that has existed alongside the silliness, or perhaps in spite of it.
Your wide-reaching description of religious practices is oversimplified, and makes the mistaken assumption that religious tradition can only be understood literally.
I suggest you spend some time studying about the value and wisdom of myth and tradition, before you dismiss it all as "too silly."

Pete from seven stars link says, "I am surprised that joe thinks that biblical ethics reflect their era." What else would they reflect, Pete? How do you define morality? One of the first things I learned when I took courses in moral theology, is that moral principles have to make sense. They can't be arbitrary rules believed to be imposed by the Creator. Otherwise, people of faith believe in a Creator who doesn't make sense. Which, of course, is what Tunesmith thinks.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 01:58 AM

Joe Offer: "Oh, Sweet Jesus, preserve me. Wikipedia says Phyllis is 89 and still alive, and that she's a Catholic.
Maybe I do need to resign from the Catholic Church...."

If you look at her through political eyes, you may regard her as something to hate...but if you look at her through Christian eyes, she is something to love and forgive.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 02:23 AM

If you went through life expecting forgiveness, you could let your imagination run riot. Funnily enough, I hear what Goofus is saying for once (stronger coffee beans Goofus?) but it is a rather simplistic response. Still, better than the irreverent and irrelevant novels we get from him.

I started this thread to celebrate the fact that an institution that has huge influence in UK life has voted to observe and practice what is expected of the rest of us by law. It isn't so much interpretation of biblical justifications for gender topics as accepting that we do not expect glass ceilings in the job market.

Other faiths who employ and pay their staff may well look over their shoulder because the only faith with law making powers in The UK has decided to obey secular law, as they all eventually must if they wish to employ people.

Still a long way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 03:00 AM

MP...
"I have seen misogyny committed by some women. When men hate women its horrid. When women do it sure seems far worse.

There were women who voted against women being able to be Bishops, the minds of which I fail to understand."....?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 03:15 AM

Joe, you really do talk nonsense!
But, that is bound to happen if you follow religious texts, and then say that those text have to be interpreted to fit the times we live.
Silliness? craziness?
A lot of both, I'm afraid!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 05:23 AM

I have a theory.

Religion started once we evolved enough to realise that we are going to die and weren't sure what that meant in terms of what happens next.

It was all ok till, like most things, it started getting organised and forming groups.

Been a problem ever since.

However, this thread is about whether women are fit to have senior jobs in a large organisation with many employees, under UK law.

As of now, they can.

Hurrah!

Next step, ensuring the services to the wider community are based on equal access. I find it strange that a church near us did a wedding for a Sikh couple, but would refuse a gay couple. The Sikh couple aren't really religious and like many, keep their older family happy. However, most of their friends are British origin, so wanted to get married where most of their friends would feel comfortable. Then they invited us all a few weeks later to a temple nearby where they were blessed during the normal service.

According to Mrs Musket, the hate posts on their facebook page were nearly all from practicing Christians or Sikhs who felt they were wrong. Some of the posts were disturbing and they passed them to the police.

Perhaps one day, leaders of religious organisations might just come to terms with the tradition rather than the bullshit attraction of their buildings and services. As CofE make it quite clear that weddings, funerals and christenings are a necessary business for survival, they may wish to reflect on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 06:08 AM

But Religion surely stands above any earthly law!
Look, if God has said that women can't be priests and bishops then that's the end of it!
And those who disagree, are going to have a lot of explaining to do come the day of judgement!
Or, at least, that's what some people believe the Bible tells us!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 07:48 AM

Good job it isn't real then,

Phew!

I'd be outside The Pearly Gates conferring with my solicitor and hoping they use ACAS....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 08:00 AM

""seems to me ,that finding the most extreme example to argue against a more moderate opinion is probably not very fair.""

Pete, I believe those were extreme examples of women who do speak against rather basic womens rights in society, (no more than that) in response to another poster "putting words in your mouth", from your first thread post, for one reason or another- ("As pete says, how can women be bigoted against women?)"

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 08:41 AM

Tunesmith: "Look, if God has said that women can't be priests ....."

Guess what?..God didn't say that even men could be priests...that was something that men made up in the first place...but then, "In the beginning God created man in his own image...and ever since man has been trying to return the favor!"

Musket: "I have a theory.
Religion started once we evolved enough to realise that we are going to die and weren't sure what that meant in terms of what happens next."

I have, not a theory, but an obvious fact...Religion started because man wanted to get around what God commanded..and that is we should love Him above all THINGS, and love one another as ourselves....religion was just a way to get around that!...and control other people.
...sorta like politics...but that is another story, but VERY similar!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 09:04 AM

It is interesting, gfs, how some (so called) religious folk and organizations (Christian and otherwise), seem to act as if they have been somehow chosen to speak for "God", and put their specific spin on his/her words (or, what was intended to be said). Recommending a lifestyle is one thing-saying that God wanted it that way, (based on their personal interpretation), is another. As if to admit that God was not clever or thoughtful enough to say what He/She intended? (I use He/She, as I suspect a God would be above discrimination based on sex-my speculation, only).

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 09:15 AM

Err.. Goofus.. God commanded what people said he commanded. Putting God's commands before the reaction of people is putting the cart before the donkey.

I don't love him above all things any more than I love any other creative figment of fertile imagination, and as we find over the last hundred years, as people become better educated and more sophisticated, it isn't interpretation that alters but the whole idea of a controlling crutch.

Why have God when you can have beer, pork scratchings, pickled eggs and sex? It seems greedy to ask for more.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 11:31 AM

Quoted by Akenaton MP...
"I have seen misogyny committed by some women. When men hate women its horrid. When women do it sure seems far worse.

There were women who voted against women being able to be Bishops, the minds of which I fail to understand."....?

Separated by the paragraph gap and two entirely separate comments. STILL no mention of being mentally deranged or any defamation.

That I remain puzzled condemns no-one elses opinion or choice. I simply disagree with voting against but in no way implied that was an act of misogyny by the females that did it.

The fact remains that, to me, misogyny from anyone is bad but always appears worse from women. As with bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 11:36 AM

Why shame on you Musket...

Why have God when you can have beer, pork scratchings, pickled eggs and sex? It seems greedy to ask for more.

How could leave out CHOCOLATE??? THE most important proof that God loves us! ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 11:49 AM

I don't know about chocolate but I feel ashamed of accidentally leaving out Sheffield Wednesday.

Now there's a real religion.....

Anyway, if what I hear is true, chocolate is proof god loves women in particular.

True story - My mother in Law, straight laced, church going, retired classics teacher and scholar was staying with us and we were watching QI on the telly. Stephen Fry told a joke and whilst I was trying to stifle a laugh for fear of embarrassment, she laughed till tears appeared.

The joke?

If God was a woman, sperm would taste of chocolate...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 11:54 AM

OMG! That could make a gay girl wish she was straight lol

However, as its not so I will remain on my side of the fence lol

Naughty musket! ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 12:52 PM

bill - I thought I was making comments that followed from previous posts, but I guess we can agree to differ on that.
joe, maybe we are not understanding each other. I was thinking that you meant that the text merely followed the prevailing norms, whereas I believe God calls his people to a higher standard.
of course, that might not make sense to those of the prevailing culture....."the foolishness [as supposed] of God is wiser than the wisdom of men...."
ed,- re your comment to me - positions clarified, thankyou.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 03:18 PM

Hi, Pete - I think we're close to agreement. I'm sure there are important and fundamental differences in the way we see things, but I think we can disagree and still respect each other. I think that the morals of most religious groups, are an attempt to reflect the best conduct, the ideal - not just the prevailing norms or minimum standards. The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were written over a period of about a thousand years. Over that time, one can trace the development of the beliefs and practices of the Hebrew people - that's why you find so many contradictions in the Bible, and why most modern believers ignore prohibitions against pork and shellfish and a number of other things.

I really can't believe that the writers intended the Scriptures to be understood literally, or that the moral codes of ancient creeds were intended to be unchanging. There are too many problems and discrepancies in the Bible - and, for that matter, in the ancient sacred writings of many religious groups. The first two chapters of Genesis tell two very different creation stories, and both stories are written in poetic, non-scientific language. The same is true for the "infancy narratives" in Matthew and Luke that tell the story of the birth of Jesus - conflicting stories written in poetic language. These accounts are meant to convey a higher meaning and a sense of wonder and sacredness - they are not intended to be historic or scientific accounts.

And I think that's the purpose of religious belief - to seek a higher meaning and to preserve and celebrate a sense of sacredness. Part of that would to be to explore the questions of the origins and meaning of life, and to explore the question of how best to live life - morality. In her History of God and other works, Karen Armstrong says that most of the great religions developed in about 700 BC (they had many offshoots over the centuries, of course - but religions like Islam and Christianity have their roots in earlier sources). All had some sort of creation myth, and all were built on some sort of understanding of the Golden Rule (do unto others...). And at least in their beginnings, all religions that have stood the test of time, have been primarily benign and altruistic in their fundamental beliefs (granting the fact that there have been some horrible aberrations over the course of history).

Armstrong's thinking is very easy for me to accept. I see most people as good, and I see life and this world as basically good - although I encounter and acknowledge many bad things in life, too. I accept the reality of evil, but I continue to believe in good. I see and reverence wisdom in the ancient and still-living creeds of many different peoples. The only things I cannot tolerate, are hatred and intolerance.

I acknowledge that my philosophy of life may be hopelessly idealistic and optimistic, but it has served me well for 65 years. I see value in more cynical approaches and I look for the wisdom in those who take a cynical position, but I find their approach as unnecessarily negative. It's hard to get much accomplished in life, when most of what you see is negative.

---

Musket can't understand why a church can host a Sikh wedding, but not a gay marriage. Hosting a wedding implies that the host approves of the wedding - not merely toleration, but outright approval. The churches are coming out of a period where homosexuality met with near-universal disapproval, and the churches have many members who still vehemently oppose gay marriage. Most of them will come around, but they aren't there yet. So, the churches have to deal with the reality that a significant number of their members don't approve of gay marriage - and hosting gay marriages in those churches will bring about discord and demonstrations. Churches generally see marriage as sacred, and discord and demonstrations certainly detract from the sacredness of a wedding. And such disagreements can polarize and destroy a congregation that seeks to have people worship together in harmony. So, churches very often wait until they have a shared consensus on an issue before changing a tradition. A simple majority doesn't work in some matters.

Now that answer won't satisfy those who expect everything to be right, and right now. I don't think churches (and most other organizations) work very well that way. For organization to work well, the consensus of the members must be near-unanimous. If the organization cannot achieve consensus, then the issue must be set aside until consensus is attained. Many churches no longer have a consensus that supports the condemnation of homosexuality, so you'll notice that more and more churches have softened their language on the issue or that they quietly ignore the issue. They'll come around. And some churches, like the Unitarians, are at a point where they can freely accept gay marriage - and they do.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 04:05 PM

Joe, so the Bible is not the word of God?
And you feel that's it's fine for clerics to "bring it up-to-date"?
It's all a crazy - and very dangerous - fantasy!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 04:27 PM

Tunesmith, can it be that you are only capable of understanding things in absolutely literal terms? The Bible was written by a people who believed they lived in a relationship with God, and they were deeply inspired by that relationship. The Bible is their account of that relationship and it embodies that relationship and the message they heard through that relationship, warts and all. It is a most sacred writing that conveys the essence and reality of the relationship between a people and their God.

I don't believe God dictated the Bible to the writers. I do believe that the writers of the Bible and most ancient sacred writings (Koran, Baghdad Vita, Native American myths, Book of Mormon) were inspired by God. Since I come from the Christian tradition, it is the Bible that I hold most sacred; and for me, it is the Word of God. I also feel bound to respect and seek wisdom in the sacred writings of all religious traditions.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 04:46 PM

Makes sense to me Joe O.

Most of us have own sense of giid beliefs - religious or other. Some feel comfort from the social aspects of organized religion. Others do not share that need- I fall in that non-social camp.

I rarely take issue with anyones beliefs, except where I see they intersect with individuals and society in a negative way.

I especially find Budhism interesting, (though I am not a follower) which brings in the good common social messages (gathered through history)nwith only loose connections to a "kinda" deity.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 04:52 PM

Joe, I guess when you're in the middle of it, it's impossible to see how crazy it is!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 04:54 PM

I do wish you'd read what I put before answering Joe. Yes, I don't help by being occasionally flippant. But your assumption that I don't understand conflicts with my refusal to understand.

Church of England churches are barred by law from marrying gay couples. The clause in the law was to appease bigotry, ensuring (In theory) that no legal action can god taken when they refuse.

I totally refuse with every cell in my body to understand that. Understanding has a whiff of acceptance about it. No way.

Becoming a Bishop without your gender being a factor is positive though and although they have a long way to go before they respect the will of the people as expressed by parliament and common decency, I do wish to record that it was a difficult passage and took a long time. Hopefully, misogynists in the ranks, including other cults may wish to reflect on their decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 06:15 PM

I'm trying to figure out who's talking to whom. So far, I got that Musket wishes somebody (Tunesmith?) would read what he wrote before replying to Joe. Joe was replying to Tunesmith, so I can't in good faith (haha) infer a comma between "answering" and "Joe".

Mostly, what I see in this thread is that some have practiced their arguments against people who believe certain things, and that if someone believes something else, there's an attempt to shove them into the box that practiced arguments will work. Not too obvious... well, yes, it is. Here I am an atheist, but thinking that Joe makes more sense than the opposite side of the argument, who are obviously Satanists.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 06:47 PM

The only important part of the real world that the Church has joined is about the issue regarding the terminally ill and the right to end their suffering. This is more to do with what real people are having to deal with in their lives and at least being discussed in a more sensitive way. I am not making an opinion whether it should be or not everyone's experience in that situation. As for agonising over the ordination of female bishops to me personally it is just an ongoing waste of time. In a fair modern world I would have thought it would have changed by now as it did having women in the Fire brigade but then I don't attend church that often so it really makes no difference to me. If I really felt opposed to it as a regular attendee I would change faith convert to Catholicism and that would be that.

Talking of real worlds I note that Pope Frances has given the ok on Exorcisms. At first I did wonder about this having seen the film but I think I can see where he is coming from, if people need this and can only benefit by having this way of treating the mind directly it could prevent people rushing off to the GP for anti-depressants/medication or would this do more damage? I would be interested to hear other opinions about this however I can't imagine many female clergy volunteering for it somehow!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 06:47 PM

Welcomevto Mudcat BS religious discussion, Jeri...new around here?:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 07:06 PM

Et T: "It is interesting, gfs, how some (so called) religious folk and organizations (Christian and otherwise), seem to act as if they have been somehow chosen to speak for "God", and put their specific spin on his/her words (or, what was intended to be said). Recommending a lifestyle is one thing-saying that God wanted it that way, (based on their personal interpretation), is another. As if to admit that God was not clever or thoughtful enough to say what He/She intended? (I use He/She, as I suspect a God would be above discrimination based on sex-my speculation, only)."


Ever played a REALLY, REALLY soulful piece, with great emotional dynamics?.......Where do that come from?


mauvepink: "OMG! That could make a gay girl wish she was straight lol
However, as its not so I will remain on my side of the fence lol"

That could make a gay girl wish she was straight

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 07:48 PM

GfS... not sure if you are suggesting I have a narrow mind or live in hoping ;)

Great song no matter what :)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 08:35 PM

Hi, Jeri -
Musket was responding to a previous message where I addressed him. But Musket, I DID read what you said. I, too, would like the churches to bless gay marriage. But many of them would destroy their fragile unity if they did so, so they have to delay until they achieve consensus. You see it as appeasing bigotry. I see it as accepting the reality that many church members are not ready to accept and bless homosexual marriages. My thought is that if we wait and nudge gently, those people will come along eventually, and we will achieve consensus without destroying unity.

Several Episcopalian dioceses in the United States have seceded from the church because of their reluctance to accept ordination of homosexuals, and so the church is in a nasty state of schism. In those dioceses that seceded, the whole right-wing agenda has become dominant, and there is little room left for progressives. The American Methodists are also on the brink of schism, although it looks like they're working out a fairly nice compromise. And Patsy, when Anglicans flee to the Roman church, they add to the power of ultraconservative forces that are making it very uncomfortable for us progressive Catholics.

So, it's not a simple matter of simply saying that gay marriage and ordination of gays and women is the right thing no matter what. Churches exist in a delicate balance, and rapid change can polarize and destroy what once was a viable unity. Gays will NEVER be able to marry or be ordained in the U.S. Anglican dioceses that have seceded from the Episcopal Church.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Jul 14 - 08:50 PM

Thanks, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 12:48 AM

Dearest mauvepink,.."GfS... not sure if you are suggesting I have a narrow mind or live in hoping ;)"

I'm only saying, 'Fairy tales can come true...they can happen to you...' It's up to you to decide what they are.....

OR to quote you (from a post a couple of years ago, which I love and have quoted you)..."What's the matter? You can't live up to your double standards?"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 08:30 AM

These discussions are daft!
We might as well be talking about the lack of sexual equality with Santa Clause only having male helpers!
What does it matter if women aren't allowed to hold office in organisations that is based on an ancient fantasy!
But, of course, if you buy into the fantasy, then you have to be guided by what that fantasy decrees to be God's will!
And, the craziness continues!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 09:38 AM

If it were a club, I'd agree Tunesmith, but the Bishop vote was more than that, because in The UK, Bishops have the right to sit in the upper house, scrutinising government legislation, (Lords Spiritual.)

If we are serious about equality of all in this country, it's a bit of a bugger when we can't get it right at the very top of decision making....

I have no problem at club level. It's when, as they do, they wish to influence society that their hypocrisy makes them irrelevant. I actually like the idea of people thinking of moral philosophy and giving that angle to debate. It can enrich decision making. But when the moral element is based on bigotry, we have no moral compass decent people can listen to.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 09:47 AM

Surely, there is no equality in religion?
God is the boss and tells us how it should be!
And, if he has indicated that women shouldn't be given certain rolls then that is that!
Of course, my position is that the whole religion thing is ridiculous: a primitive fantasy!
And, as stated previously, getting upset about one's rights in a fantasy is...well..ridiculous!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 10:05 AM

A historic oddity:

""The British Monarch can now marry a Roman Catholic, but he or she cannot become one.In  recent years, someone in line for the throne could marry anyone, but not a Roman Catholic, and still retain his or her place in the line of succession. The person could marry a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Zoroastrian and retain that place, but though you COULD marry a Catholic, doing so would result in loss of one's place in the line. A number of people in the extended royal family have lost their places in the succession as a result of marrying Catholics or converting to Catholicism. 

The law has changed. In future, heirs will be able to retain their places in the line even if they marry Catholics. However, since the monarch, and head of the British Commonwealth, must be "in communion" with the Church of England, an heir cannot convert to another faith without giving up his or her place in the line, and the children will have to be raised C of E, lest they be ineligible for the throne. ""

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 10:20 AM

"Dearest mauvepink,.."GfS... not sure if you are suggesting I have a narrow mind or live in hoping ;)"

I'm only saying, 'Fairy tales can come true...they can happen to you...' It's up to you to decide what they are.....

OR to quote you (from a post a couple of years ago, which I love and have quoted you)..."What's the matter? You can't live up to your double standards?"

GfS

Got it! I think ;)

That's some memory you have there. I usually say "We are women, we have double standards to live up to" primarily as a joke but also realsing sometimes that we do appear to have a double standard.

Thank you for giving me cause to smile :)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 11:21 AM

"who are obviously Satanists"

They can't be - Satanists believe in God.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 01:26 PM

seems to me, that tunesmith , taking just the first 3 lines of his post, understands the issue.
those that voted against the motion, did I think, do so out of conviction of an understanding of the bible, not from bigotry.

joe, glad you think we are reaching some sort of agreement, though a lot of the things you go on to discuss thereon will not be reaching agreement.
I note, too, that you bought the creation accounts into it. I am happy to discuss what I believe are the wrong things you were taught at seminary, but I reckon the thread will soon be closed if that takes off !.

so, musket, what is your "moral compass" and how can you know it hasn't gone south ? !.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 03:04 PM

""those that voted against the motion, did I think, do so out of conviction of an understanding of the bible...""

Is that based on some evidence you have, Pete5*, or just an assumption? If you read the link I believe I provided early up, it mentioned some organized religious politics, not necessarily bible interpretation, as a significant factor. That would also be in line with Joe O's summation of how change occurs within churches.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 03:35 PM

the link, Pete, fod cobsideration 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 03:37 PM

Excuse my typos in the last link, I will try and do better:(

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 07:38 PM

Stu, why ya gotta be like that? Ok, they're obviously the reason the alien landlords are going to come back, and evict humanity before re-creating Earth as a Roachopolis... Roachtopia... whateverthehell.

Better?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 07:53 PM

""Debating statinists""

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jul 14 - 10:25 PM

mauvepink: ""We are women, we have double standards to live up to" primarily as a joke but also realsing sometimes that we do appear to have a double standard.
Thank you for giving me cause to smile :)"

'realising sometimes'?????..My God!!..A major breakthrough!!!!


"Thank you for giving me cause to smile :)"

Ditto!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 12:48 AM

My cardiologist has me taking Statins. Does that make me a "Statinist"?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 02:13 AM

No, but you should be taking CoQ-10, to offset the side effects! I recommend Qunol Liquid Co-Q10..('Qunol'IS the correct spelling)It's better, because it absorbs better, and more goes to work...just in case you needed to know....
...then again, if you were just doing satire....take it anyway!

GfS

P.S. A 'guardian angel' is looking out for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 02:14 AM

...AND.....100!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 02:49 AM

pete asks what my moral compass is and how do I know it hasn't gone south.

Well, lets's see now..

I don't oppress women. I don't see gay people as second class. I don't abuse children or vulnerable adults. I don't turn round to members of other clubs and say I'm right and you are wrong. I don't raise charitable funds for third world communities and spend it all on churches and mosques, leaving little or nothing for sanitation or irrigation. I don't rally to impose my superstition on others through Sunday trading laws. I don't claim charitable status for my club and then totally ignore The Charities Act requirements for equal access to my services. I don't let children die by persuading parents that prayer is stronger than scientific cure. I don't selfishly refuse to help top up blood banks for all. I don't hypocritically then accept blood on the quiet after persuading others not to. I don't promise young men a room full of virgins to rape if they commit terrorist acts. I don't use my club as an excuse for more temporal conflict and war.

I don't need an old man to tell me right from wrong.

I have a combination of experience and instinct. Just as any sociable species that requires to evolve a sense of altruism as per what Darwin and subsequent others discovered.


As this is post 101, we have somewhere to put Jesus...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 03:54 AM

You certainly insult and denigrate all women by your use of the word c**t as a term of abuse.
Usually a sign of misogyny.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 07:26 AM

Perhaps it takes a misogynist to think of a part of female anatomy when hearing the word "cunt" as a term of abuse?

Where did you learn the word "misogyny?" Are you at last taking on board peoples' opinion of your appalling posts?

I would extend the invitation to explain moral compasses, but perhaps wait for Akenaton to bugger off first. I doubt It'd make nice reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 01:41 PM

fair comment, ed. I concede that politics and tradition filtered into it as well.

what a good person you present yourself as, musket. some things I would qualify, but in general, no argument with your list.
of course I would say that even atheists are made in the image of God and therefore still posses a sense of right and wrong. the bible refers to the heathen doing by instinct those things contained in the law and their consciences either accusing or excusing them. this was in context of contrast with the religious who know to do good but don't do it.
oh, and you dont even meet your own compass points entirely. you do tell others whats right and wrong, when you don one or another of your club hats

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 01:58 PM

Yes, but two things pete.

I wasn't made in the image of God. First off, I have a belly button. Secondly I have a willy, a rather large one in fact, but I digress. Not that any of that is relevant because whilst one cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than one can prove it's turtles all the way, it is a fact that we have evolved over millions of years, so the image stuff is bollocks even if the rest of the bollocks isn't bollocks.

Yes, I judge others. If someone is a twat, it wouldn't be helpful to keep them blissfully unaware unless they weren't hurting others. I judge those who say that some pigs are more equal than others. I hope other sane people do too.

Tell you what. Here's proof that the bible doesn't say fuck all about morals. I have never read it and neither has my dog. We both exhibit altruism. I live by something not too dissimilar to the commandments that you know more about, yet I know they didn't exist as something given by a fairy story to a mythical man. They aren't too bad by the way, but how sad to think that without them we'd be shagging our neighbours' ox?

It is extreme arrogance to assume people need a crutch. Most people in The Uk are too sophisticated to actually be superstitious.

Love the traditions though. A wedding I was at a while ago was all Wesley hymns and lots of King James thee and thou. Keep to that formula and you might be onto something. The rock band and chants of love You Jesus! crap at a christening i was at though shows that without tradition, it is just self serving nonsense for the gullible.

There endeth the sermon.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 02:23 PM

There endeth the gibberish.......if only.. :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jul 14 - 02:36 PM

No it doesn't end unless you stop posting. I can't stop you posting gibberish, I can only attempt to stop you publishing incitement to hatred.

The moderators prefer for you to hang yourself by your own words. I am not in agreement with what was said to me in a pm about your posts, but I accept that you don't influence, you don't make an argument of merit and most people laugh off your bigotry as if it were an ironic parody.

Still, shouldn't mock the afflicted.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 12:57 AM

First off, I have a belly button. Secondly I have a willy, a rather large one in

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 01:30 AM

musket: "Secondly I have a willy, a rather large one in fact, ...blah blah blah.."

What is this???? Two like-minded windbags are yakking about their dick size!...so I'll repeat what I posted to the other limp minded blowhard:

"It's not the size, but how you use it...assuming you know how to use it at all!..However, that being said, you sound like that person I mentioned in another thread...."like trying to stuff an oyster into a slot machine!" ....and the more limp it is, the more frantically braggadocios they are about it!.....like your whole rap!"

Are ya' happy now??..You've steered the thread and called attention to your dick!...or 'willy' across the pond, there!

GfS

P.S....talk about trying to steer a bias.....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 03:07 AM

Better to have one than exhibit oneself as one.

This thread celebrates the fact that UK Anglican bishops no longer need one. (Or at least, not 24/7). Anything to contribute to the Synod resolution Goofus?

Prick

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 05:39 AM

Musket: "Better to have one than exhibit oneself as one."

Don't you wish either was working?....Then you wouldn't have to compensate!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 08:23 AM

I'd make your fucking eyes water boy.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 09:20 AM

I think Ian has finally come out of the closet. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 10:10 AM

. Most people in The Uk are too sophisticated to actually be superstitious.

If you mean not atheists, you are wrong.
British atheists are a minority and, in proportion, a shrinking one.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 10:12 AM

Back of the net.

And which closet would that be here in the twenty first century?

I thought you would be out cheering on the thousands of Scots parading in the gay march in Glasgow today?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 12:20 PM

You must be joking!   I'll be in Glasgow, but watching something which really makes ME proud, my brave hounds.

If heteros were to hold a "pride" march they would be hounded by idiots like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 12:32 PM

Musket: "I'd make your fucking eyes water boy."

Laughing my way to tears!

GfS

P.S. More deleted posts....but they must LOVE Musket talking about the size of his pecker!..Tells you something!!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 03:11 PM

Atheists are a minority?

Yes, they are.
We have had the discussion and you will remember the surveys.
Meanwhile, the growth of the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities, and the surge of Polish Catholics more than compensates for the fewer Anglicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 03:59 PM

"Atheists are a minority?"

"Yes, they are.

And that is just more proof of how pathetically stupid the human race really is!

Of course, most of the world's intelligentsia are atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 04:09 PM

in fact, I read recently that in a survey, somewhere, that the children of atheists were the least likely to retain their parents faith position.
and of course the contempory evangelicals that musket disdains are , I think, the churches that are growing, and maybe to some extent at the expense of traditionalists that water down christian teaching.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 04:30 PM

Atheism is not a faith!
I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty certain that, apart from those stupid humans, the word's animal kingdom is totally atheist!
Now, you wouldn't say that animals possess a faith, would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 05:09 PM

Err.. pete. Atheists don't have any faith position. In fact the term atheist is wrong as that means anti theist.

The huge mast majority of people in The UK, including those of heritage of Christian, Muslim, Temple dwellers whatever, are irreligious.

Or in other words, don't give a flying fuck for your apology for a pathetic God. He hasn't got a dick so he hasn't got any relevance to normal people. Superstitious fools can get on with saying how wonderful he is, but he doesn't even exist. He is an excuse for hating people who are different.

Forgive me for pointing out that makes the God concept laughable, as it is to most people.

Keith asserts he is relevant and puts forward doctored and tampered statistics to apparently prove it. This is the same Keith who said the other day that Israeli terrorists were working within the law when they murdered children playing on the beach.

Well done Mudcat. This is what the BS section is about. Criminal fascist thugs getting the oxygen of publicity. Goes well with the homophobic criminal scum.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 07:54 PM

Ian I wish you would try to be even a little consistent in your idiocy.

Homosexuals march to proclaim "pride" in their sexual orientation, so if we are to have the "equality" that you value so highly, surely it would be permissible for heteros to proclaim their pride in being heterosexual?......or does equality only work for sexual minorities in your crazy little world?

I mean, heteros have a lot to be proud about, don't they Ian. Without heteros the human race would disappear from the face of the earth.

But that's as nothing compared with the pride shown by homosexuals in being allowed to use the word marriage out of context. Wow! now that's cool!! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 08:07 PM

Tunesmith: "Atheism is not a faith!"

Do you believe that?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 08:31 PM

Gays can take pride in the fact that they are not adding to the burgeoning overpopulation of this planet. If they have children at all, they adopt, often children that their natural parents don't want. One gay couple adopted two children from a Chinese orphanage, and the kids have a far better life now than they would ever have had if left where they were.

And the accusation that they abuse these children is a scurrilous slander.

I know this from observing a number of gay couples within my rather wide sphere of acquaintances.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 09:23 PM

I might add that the rare case in which an adopted child might be sexually abuse by a gay adoptive parent is more than offset by the number of heterosexual parents who abuse their own children.

So don't even start.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 10:24 PM

""Without heteros the human race would disappear from the face of the earth.""
With developments in reproductive science, this may not be accurate any longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 14 - 11:28 PM

And it occurs to me that were it not for heteros, there wouldn't be any gays...."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 03:20 AM

And the presence of gay people isn't an excuse to slur them.

Funny that Akenaton says there aren't many where he lives. Thousands took part in a gay pride day on his doorstep yesterday. Such celebrations are needed whilst ever bigotry denies reality.

He reminds me of Iran saying they don't have that phenomenon, days after footage appeared of two 15 year old male children hanged for being lovers.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 04:53 AM

"Superstitious fools"

Nelson Mandela, JF Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, ...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 05:34 AM

I would add to that list, the "Equalities" Minister in the UK government.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 08:42 AM

Keith A of Hertford said

"Superstitious fools"

Nelson Mandela, JF Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, ...

Well, the fact that these men were "religious" simply tells us about the power of indoctrination!

There is no "common sense" to following a religion!

Take Christianity, it is impossible to prove the Jesus portrayed in the Bible ever existed!
That is the truth of the matter!
There are NO contemporary records of Jesus's existence!
All the stories about him emerge decades after he was supposed to have lived and died!

You've heard of urban legends? That was/is Jesus!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 10:17 AM

Yeah, I'd say that 99% of excellent people, the ones Keith should be blushing for having the gall to use such good people to push his odious point, are or were superstitious. In that sense, they ran the risk of being blinded somewhat in their judgement.

My local vicar knows fuck all about playing musical instruments but he is fairly good at lending a sympathetic ear when someone dies.

I fail to see the point. They weren't useful to society because they had an imaginary friend but because they wouldn't call Palestinian children legitimate targets, to give a random example.

Rolf Harris is still an excellent artist. Akenaton probably knows how to train dogs. My gardener isn't much cop at nuclear physics.



The UK government, by the way doesn't have an "equalities" minister. Get your facts right or shut up spreading lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 10:56 AM

{Sigh}
No children are a legitimate target Musket.
I have explained the law to you, and provided you with the Red Cross' explanation of it, and you still don't get it!
You must be as daft as a brush.

"Thick" does not come close to describing your obtuseness.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 11:00 AM


The UK government, by the way doesn't have an "equalities" minister. Get your facts right or shut up spreading lies.

Thick old Muppet is wrong again.
Daft as a brush.

Minister for Equalities - GOV.UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-for-equality
The Minister for Equalities has overall responsibility for policy on sexual orientation and transgender equality and is responsible for cross-government equality ...
Jo Swinson MP - GOV.UK

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 11:00 AM

News > UK > UK Politics...The Independent.
Tuesday 15 July 2014

The Prime Minister's announcement that Nicky Morgan has been promoted to the role of Education Secretary has been met with mixed reactions after it emerged she voted against legalising same-sex marriage.
Nicky Morgan: Education Secretary voted against same-sex marriage and for restricted abortion access. Ms Morgan is also Minister for Women and EQUALITIES!!! - but Nick Boles has been appointed to implement the same-sex marriage legislation

Oxford University graduate Ms Morgan worked as a corporate solicitor until her election as an MP for Loughborough in 2010, before her rapid ascension to the position of Minister for Women in April this year.

Her post now includes the added responsibility of equalities to her previous brief as minister for women. Mr Cameron has placed Nick Boles in charge of implementing the same sex marriage legislation.

Having a second minster comes after Ms Morgan, a trustee of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, said she voted against same-sex

Oxford University graduate Ms Morgan worked as a corporate solicitor until her election as an MP for Loughborough in 2010, before her rapid ascension to the position of Minister for Women in April this year.

Her post now includes the added responsibility of equalities to her previous brief as minister for women. Mr Cameron has placed Nick Boles in charge of implementing the same sex marriage legislation.

Having a second minster comes after Ms Morgan, a trustee of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, said she voted against same-sex marriage in 2013 on the basis that she could not reconcile it with her religion.

When asked by The Leicester Mercury why she voted against legalising same-sex marriage, she responded: "I think that was one of the issues people, especially those who asked me to vote against, found hardest to accept and it also tied in with my own Christian faith too.

"Marriage, to me, is between a man and a woman."

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 11:36 AM

OK. I repeat.

Contrary to what Akenaton wrote, The UK does not have an "equalities" minister.

Stop lying, the fucking pair of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 11:50 AM

Again, I will state that it is crazy to allow anyone with religious affiliations to hold any political power, because, when push comes shove, God's commands comes first! ( or rather what some primitive person wrote down what he thought God's commands would be).
If it wasn't such very dangerous stuff, I want to laugh out loud!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 12:11 PM

Contrary to what Akenaton wrote, The UK does not have an "equalities" minister.

Yes it does Musket.
Akeneaton was right, and you are (as usual) ignorant and wrong.

Minister for Equalities - GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-for-equality

The Minister for Equalities has overall responsibility for policy on sexual orientation and transgender equality and is responsible for cross-government equality ..

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 01:30 PM

it is absolutely daft in my opinion for anyone to say that atheists don't have a faith position. of course there is no god involved in their worldview, but it is a faith position anyway. they have faith, since , despite the observations of observable science , they believe that everything came from nothing via no one, and furthermore they have faith [or maybe desperation !] that science will one day account for such miracles without a miracle maker.
the "against God" definition is rather apt in many cases. the hateful, foul and aggressive lanquage used by the resident atheists here, would end them up in court if it was used against homosexuals ,imo.
the idea that Jesus may not have existed seems to me a very extreme position that discounts all the evidence. of course, based on the pre-conception that only scientifically attested phenomena is allowed [unless its origins of course !] most skeptics, I suspect, claim that the early Christians exaggerated his power and person.
as usual, there is the charge that Christianity is dangerous, but I should like to see the reasoning that evidences believers in Christ as being any more dangerous than atheists.
mind you, the message of sin, judgment, or salvation by Christ may well be dangerous to the atheist faith position !.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 02:14 PM

pete from seven stars link is playing with semantics!
Having a "Faith", with a capital letter, if you like, relates to a person who believes in some sort of supreme intelligent force; a force which - in Christian, Islam and Judaism traditions, also has the ability to know the deeds and inner-most thoughts of all humans ( yes, it is crazy, isn't it?).
And, their main reason for believing this is - wait for it - because someone in the past said that this supreme being - or one of his agents - visited them and passed on all the relevent info pertaining to how humans conduct themselves on Earth;
Yes, I know it's crazy, but that's what they believe!
Now, this "faith", that pete says atheists possess, is in fact just common sense based on science and a enquiring mind that can't find the slightest evidence for the existence of the God the various religious groups.
All the real evidence points to religion being created by ignorant, primitive man to explain the world around him; in other words, ancient mumbo-jumbo.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 04:23 PM

Pete states and restates daft in my opinion for anyone to say that atheists don't have a faith position. of course there is no god involved in their worldview, but it is a faith position anyway. they have faith, since , despite the observations of observable science , they believe that everything came from nothing via no one, and furthermore they have faith [or maybe desperation !] that science will one day account for such miracles without a miracle maker.

Pete you're using your own loaded words in a definition that has no requirement of things like "faith" and "miracles" and "miracle maker." It doesn't work that way. Atheists' worldview is open and enquiring, not bound by the paternalistic overlord. Not requiring a deity to live a moral life, and not requiring approval or acceptance from your religious leader in order to build sound secular communities and governments. Understanding that human agency is what it comes down to, without reference to hide-bound and in the last few decades, severely mis-read doctrine. You don't even know how to read your own religious text as an allegorical work, not a literal example.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 04:55 PM

Gosh, it must be handy to be able to read.

"Equalities Minister" and "Minister for Equalities" are different expressions.

IMHO the view as to what "atheism" is is best served by saying not that it means a position that god can be proven not to exist (proving a negative - not the thinking pathway), but that he (she or it) cannot be proven to exist so the most sensible position is to say that one does not believe that he (she or it) exists until it is so demonstrated.

It may go further to say that the belief that a god exists is irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 04:56 PM

Ian, what particular part of the following sentence do you not understand?

"Nicky Morgan: Education Secretary voted against same-sex marriage and for restricted abortion access. Ms Morgan is also Minister for Women and EQUALITIES!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 05:03 PM

Tunesmith says: Again, I will state that it is crazy to allow anyone with religious affiliations to hold any political power, because, when push comes shove, God's commands comes first!

Again I will say, you certainly have a distorted view of the reality of religious faith. You seem to be able only to understand things literally, and to have no capacity for abstract thinking, or symbolism, or myth. You're like an atheist mirror of fundamentalist Christians or Muslims.

Quite scary, really.

---

SRS says, in a far more tolerant manner: Atheists' worldview is open and enquiring, not bound by the paternalistic overlord. Not requiring a deity to live a moral life, and not requiring approval or acceptance from your religious leader in order to build sound secular communities and governments.

Joe Offer hopes that the same can be said for religious people who have a healthy perspective.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 01:42 AM

Joe, your reply is load of meaningless rubbish!
Which, in turn is not surprising as it consists of an attempt to justify a load of meaningless rubbish!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 02:08 AM

Tunesmith, am I correct in thinking that you do not believe there's a God?

And yet you say that for religious people, God's commands come first.

But if there is no God, how can there be any commands for you to worry about?

I think that God gave me common sense so I can figure things out for myself, so that's what I do - without relying on commands from anyone. Even if there is no God, I still have the common sense, so I've got all the bases covered. I think for myself.

I suggest you try the same.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 02:50 AM

Akenaton spoke of an "equalities" minister but was referring to the equalities minister.

In the same way as he uses the term gay "marriage" when referring to gay marriage.

Keith went on to support his term of reference.

Rather pathetic.

For everybody who tries to justify their belief by insisting not having any is in itself a faith position, I might point out that for many people, religion, lack of religion, faith, scientific discovery and contemplation are all something others get excited about.

It must be difficult for the Mudcat congregation to think that most people go through life without such convictions but they do. Delusion can be all consuming. Even for boutique Christians.

I'm not minded to cut and paste in these discussions as our more shallow members do, I tend to give my view without having to nervously justify it with selective quotes from others (Eyup Keith!) but this from the Office of National Statistics is a good starting point.

In a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the BHA, when asked the census question 'What is your religion?', 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked 'No religion'.

When the same sample was asked the follow-up question 'Are you religious?', only 29% of the same people said 'Yes' while 65% said 'No', meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious.

You see, it's a bit like parishes and parish churches. Average parish size is over 6,000 and average church attendance is less than 30.

Our local church insists on doing christenings as part of normal services to boost flagging numbers. If they had courage of conviction they'd count people for whom their club is relevant rather than those who partake if a family tradition once in a while. Presumably at funerals they count the people laid in coffins...

I went to a Sikh temple a few months ago for an equivalent of a christening and got talking to a man there when I said the place was busy. Yes, he said, but when the kitchens were being refurbished so the free meal was out of action, attendance was down to a quarter of what you see. He also said it was estimated that only 15% of Sikhs in the city attended either temple.

I reckon 15% is rather high. Churches would stop being turned into bingo halls if Jesus was half as popular.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:07 AM

I guess, Tunesmith, that I do have to concede that religious people do follow the "commandments," as opposed to "commands." But is there something in those commandments that's particularly objectionable, or that would make a religious person less able to perform equitably in political office?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:31 AM

"The number of Christians in England and Wales fell by more than four million in the last decade, the 2011 census has suggested, while the number of people identifying as atheists increased by six million over the same period.

The data from the Office for National Statistics showed there were 33.2million Christians last year, compared to 37.3million in 2001.

Christianity declines in census as atheism rises
Despite the figures, the Archbishop of Canterbury said the Church of England was not 'fading' (Picture: Getty)
The number of people declaring themselves to be atheists rose by more than six million to 14.1million meanwhile."

Atheists are a small minority, albeit a growing one.
Non-religious believers are not atheists.
Don T (is he OK?) for instance was a believer but would have nothing to do with churches or any religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:33 AM

Should have said, Don IS a believer.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 08:52 AM

Well, if your God commanded you to kill a family member, would you?
Of course, God probably would ask this of you directly, but rather he would inspire you to do his bidding?
In your commandments, God comes before everything!
Before family, friends, country etc.
Therefore, when push comes to shove, you are bound to abandon family, friends etc and follow the will of God.
Therefore, if you were a politician your first allegiance will always be to God, and not to your country or those who elected you.
I wouldn't want to be
represented by a politician with that mind set!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 08:57 AM

Tunesmith if you are English or American - alas you have been so represented - Dubya or Bliar. Oh dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 10:25 AM

Keith forgets that he calls anybody without any religious baggage an atheist in earlier threads. Now he seems to be saying otherwise.

Perhaps if he read what he cuts and pastes before putting it forward as his own, he might stop making an arse of himself.

Lack of religion is growing but it has not been a minority post war. Church attendances dropped off dramatically after the war, and new found freedoms, lack of cap doffing and the slow but sure dropping of social class as an overt barrier meant the oppressive nature of churches went west at the same time. Whether or not someone exercises their right to have a religious faith is neither here nor there. Having the right to exert the aims on a public that ignores it is another thing entirely. We are, as we have been for hundreds of years in some parts, a multi faith society in The UK. The idea of one having political influence on the basis of dodgy christian counting is not the answer. In some ways of counting, I would be classed as Christian. Convenient eh?

Joe, the bit about coveting your neighbour's ass. Always a tricky one.... At least as I was neither religious nor married at the time, I enjoyed breaking it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 10:57 AM

If you believe in God you are not an atheist, whether you go to church or not.
Actual atheists are still a small minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:00 AM

Hang on, I'll just hang my head out of the window.

"Oy, world! How many of you believe in the old bloke with the white beard who doesn't give a fuck about you after all?"

Hang on Keith. You yourself are living proof that not everybody is rational, sophisticated and able to think for themselves. Give it time, someone might answer.

"Not you vicar! You don't count. You are paid to make others believe what you are taught otherwise in vicar school!"

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 01:15 PM

An usual methodology for your survey, but if you used a large and representative sample of windows I expect your results will confirm the professional polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 02:02 PM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 02:16 PM

Well, of course, the real percentage of atheists is without doubt is a lot higher than any "official" figures will show.
For example, I believe that no elected politician in the House of Representatives ( or whatever it is called) claims to be an atheist!
That can't be right!
Based on the percentage of atheist in the USA as a whole, there must be many atheists among that body of politicians.
And, that situation will be repeated over and over again in the business sector, and, indeed, in all walks of life!
Would it wise- in relation to career advancement/opportunities, for example, for a public school teacher to state that he/she is an atheist?
Probably not!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 02:39 PM

I quoted our census data.
There is no reason why anyone would deny their atheism on a UK census return.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 02:56 PM

I cant prove it, of course, but I reckon ,that even though evolutionism is currently the ruling paradigm, that most people have got more sense than to believe that there was absolutely nothing, and then out of nothing, and via no one there was something.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:30 PM

Keith said

"I quoted our census data.
There is no reason why anyone would deny their atheism on a UK census return"

Think! Thousands of people who filled in the form said they belonged to the Jedi Knight religion!

Also, I know of a number of people - in my circle of friends - who filled the form in with their spouses - spouses who belong to religious organisations - and put themselves down as Christians for their partners "peace of mind"!

Also - as previously stated - being an atheist could most certainly work against a person in various employment situations, and one can't be sure that census info won't find its way into the open market/

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:41 PM

pete from seven stars link said

"cant prove it, of course, but I reckon ,that even though evolutionism is currently the ruling paradigm, that most people have got more sense than to believe that there was absolutely nothing, and then out of nothing, and via no one there was something"

Pete, there has always been something!

AND, evolution is the easiest principle to understand.
Take music! 10,000yrs ago music probably consisted of a bloke banging on something, and a hunter twanging the string of his bow.
But now - via evolution - we have the most complex of pieces of music from Mozart's Symphonies and Beethoven's Piano Sonata and Charlie Parker and...
If 10,000 yrs can produce such amazing changes, just imagine what billions of years can produce! Like us, for example!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:42 PM

""most people have got more sense than to believe that there was absolutely nothing, and then out of nothing, and via no one there was something.""

We'll, even with a deity, (as with science) there must'a been "a nothing" resulting from a "something" somewhere back there somewhere? In fact, there is plenty to puzzle all us humans "whatever" you speculate (or, believe) was the origin of it all. Why would you be so "smug" to say that others that are puzzled (with no, or less oc a religious belief) have less sense than a religious believer- one who can not really know it all- for certain, either , Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:53 PM

Perhaps pete, most people don't think in those terms at all. Must people think of where they are going for their holidays or how to pay the mortgage this month.

I have noticed how those too frail to get on with life without a crutch to lean on or a comfort blanket to suck on tend to assume that everyone else is as unstable as they are.

Mind you, those who feel very stable about their religion tend to he the ones to watch out for.

Tunesmith is correct when saying in The USA it is difficult to run for office without thanking Jesus for the opportunity, leading gullible voters into thinking they are religious regardless of whether that is a fish thrown to the clapping seals. You see it with TV evangelists asking their viewers to forgive them for using donations to pay for sex and drugs.

Here in The UK, neither the deputy prime minister nor leader of the opposition are superstitious and the Prime Minister only started professing faith after he got to lead his party. Newspapers have noticed he never goes to church unless it includes a political opportunity.

Many churches profess numbers they don't have and because of the appalling faith schools recent religious politicians have promoted and funded, many people quite rightly say they are religious just to get their children into a nearby school with good results. Ironically, faith schools are getting their comeuppance lately with both the Islamic debacle in Birmingham, a couple if schools caught teaching creationism as a fact and the school Tony Blair sent his son to has been caught asking parents to attend Catholic Church and produce baptism records as a condition of accepting their children. All highly illegal and liable to criminal prosecution.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, one stone tablet at a time. Secular education and ending religious bigotry on sexual orientation, abortion, genital mutilation of children and telling creationist lies to them as fact are the next milestones.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 07:28 PM

Tunesmith: "But now - via evolution - we have the most complex of pieces of music from Mozart's Symphonies and Beethoven's Piano Sonata and Charlie Parker and...
If 10,000 yrs can produce such amazing changes, just imagine what billions of years can produce! Like us, for example!"

Bravo!!....Now compare what you just said, to another post, that I just posted on another thread....hold on, I'll get it......gotta go 'next door'...(tippy tappy tippy tappy...)...OK, Got it!....

Here:

"When I think of Beethoven verses political activism, One can only be reminded that Austria and Germany have had lots of zealots on both sides of the spectrum, 'left' or 'right', Monarchs, Kaisers, several wars and political overhauls...and each time they were accompanied, with sincere and not-so-sincere activists....only to be overturned, by the next bunch, cut from the same cookie cutter, right?

Beethoven's music has outlasted ALL of them....unchanged!!
What is it that he was 'listening to', within him, that reached into the 'eternal'???.....or at least relative eternal, when compared to all the shit you political know-it-alls, think you know so much about?

I'd rather dial into what he was talking about.

GfS


P.S. WWII Nazi Germany was defeated, but Fascism survived, and you, and resembling ilk, though sincerely denying it, are still trying to promote it, though I'm convinced that it's presentation is well disguised....and though you might 'get it up' to be sincere, you're sincerely wrong...."

P.P.S.:
""Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy"
― Ludwig van Beethoven

"Don't only practice your art, but force your way into its secrets, for it and knowledge can raise men to the divine."
― Ludwig van Beethoven

"The vibrations on the air are the breath of God speaking to man's soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear his voice, we read his lips, we give birth to the children of God, who sing his praise. That's what musicians are."
― Ludwig van Beethoven

"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. Music is the electrical soil in which the spirit lives, thinks and invents."
― Ludwig van Beethoven

"Whoever tells a lie is not pure of heart, and such a person can not cook a clean soup."
― Ludwig van Beethoven

"A great poet is the most precious jewel of a nation."
― Ludwig van Beethoven

"The guitar is a miniature orchestra in itself."
― Ludwig van Beethoven

""Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life."
― Ludwig van Beethoven

There!...something to consider....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 08:10 PM

No big point, gfs, but, a word of caution, one of your posting brothers does not seem to like quotes, possibly except in gaelic (Brasoisg).

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 08:16 PM

"Well, if your God commanded you to kill a family member, would you?"

Ah... Abraham & Issac. Supposedly, God played that trick on Abraham directly. ('HE' tended to get personal with folks a lot more way back when.) These days, claims of hearing commands from God tend to involve psychotic episodes... and often, horrendous crimes.

--------

and, Pete.... whether there has 'always' been something is not a question that can ever be answered definitively. The musing about it is no easier ...or harder...than contemplating how or why there was 'always' a God who suddenly decided to 'make stuff'. It is all anthropomorphic creativity of humans who LIKED the idea of a caring, all-powerful Supreme Being, and who did NOT like the idea of trying to cope with ∞∞^∞. This is all so even IF there were a god who did all this.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 08:43 PM

Oh, what a world of woe and sin!
My head grows bald, but not my chin!
                                     --BurmaShave


Who created God?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 10:32 PM

EdT.: "No big point, gfs, but, a word of caution, one of your posting brothers does not seem to like quotes, possibly except in gaelic"..(you meant,'Gaelic', I presume)

Actually I have a pretty well known violinist friend who was trying to teach it to me..I must say, it is hard to figure it out, just on the printed page!!...BUT, she has made some progress!...(except how in the world do you pronounce some of the stuff the way it's spelled???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 04:09 AM

Before you get to pronouncing words Goofus, try understanding them.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 04:36 AM

tunesmith....hardly a valid comparison. the "evolution" of music starts with a player/vocalist , an instrument or vocal of some sort, and with an intelligent creator/performer of sound, forming music.
evolutionism as supposedly held by millions says that there was nothing at all, and then there was, and then progressing through more unobservable and untested steps . that is why I say it is a faith position....and of course I am not using that expression in the sense of a living god. bill is of course correct that there is much to ponder, but at the very least the stupidity you, tunesmith , lay at the door of the theist bounces back to your doorstep, when you accuse us of belief unwarranted.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 05:28 AM

Valid points indeed, pete. But the atheist position is predicated on the somewhat arbitrary nature of your [by whom I mean all theistic believers'] accounts of how it all came about. I don't see why it should have been God [however one pictures or conceives of Him] any more than that gila monster on the tortoise's back or whatever. If you go on, as some have, to urge that "God" is simply your formulation for The Primary Cause, whatever it may be, then one must rejoin that that is a complete begging of the question; as well as being entirely unsatisfactory, surely, from a theological POV, to any sort of theistically orientated person, whose beliefs must, by definition, subsume the existence of some sort of omnipotent supernatural Being? We don't know what did it; but we are pretty sure it was nothing that could be defined by the final phrase of my last sentence before this one; especially one that remains around, supervising what goes on within Its/His 'Creation", and thus susceptible to the concept of "prayer'.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 05:33 AM

Err.. actually pete, there is no evidence that it starts with a player / vocalist. The oldest instrument I have ever seen, believed to be at least 10,000 years old, (older than your God of course) was a hollowish boulder in Azerbaijan that was used as a percussion instrument, and there are cave paintings nearby to where it was found showing it being used.

Unless, of course, your God put it there to test us... Like he did with dinosaurs.

{Is there any alternative to taking the piss? Really? How can you have a discussion about reality without fantasy wanting to be heard on the same level?}

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:08 AM

""you meant,'Gaelic', I presume""

No, I have no problem with gaelic marriage:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:41 AM

Beethoven's main inspiration?
Those who came before him!
Without Handel, Mozart and Bach there would have been no Beethoven as we know him.
He evolved from his predecessors!
Just like Man evolved from ape-like creatures.

I think the main problem with many religious types when they argue about evolution, is that they have not bothered to get up to speed on how it works!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 08:46 AM

Oh for Clapton's sake, don't say that Tunesmith! pete is up to speed alright, he just doesn't know how it works.

If he reads what you just put, he might regurgitate a few hundred of his earlier posts on evolution that prove beyond all reasonable sanity that he doesn't understand it...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 08:48 AM

If you must ask questions of pete, perhaps scroll up to the beginning of this thread where he says that women aren't capable of obtaining senior posts and their career ladder must fall short of that of men.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 10:25 AM

"evolutionism as supposedly held by millions says that there was nothing at all, and then there was, and then progressing through more unobservable and untested steps."

Complete and utter bollocks. Read about it or shut up.


"AND, evolution is the easiest principle to understand."

But has fuck all do do with the development of music, the analogy is useless.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:20 AM

Stu said: "But has fuck all do do with the development of music, the analogy is useless"

Really, well the progress of life on Earth and the progress of art forms both are do with evolution, so it that respect they are connected!

They have both moved from the very simple beginnings to the not so simple!

They both move forward(if that is the correct thing to say) via "trial and error".

Therefore, how can you say that there is no connection!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:30 AM

Stu said:
"evolutionism as supposedly held by millions says that there was nothing at all, and then there was, and then progressing through more unobservable and untested steps."

But there was something there before "life" on Earth!
There was planet Earth, to start with.
And, all the material needed to create life was there! ( and maybe we were helped a bit by material coming in from space).

Nature has the ability to create something, were seemingly that "something" previously didn not exist!

For example, in the early days of the Earth there was no water! Not a drop!
Now, there is quite a bit!
Did that water come from nothing?
Oh, wait a minute, maybe God put it there!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:37 AM

For example, in the early days of the Earth there was no water! Not a drop!

The water has always been here, but not in liquid form until the temperature fell sufficiently.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:48 AM

The quote about 'evolutionism' was me quoting pete, not me.

"Therefore, how can you say that there is no connection!

The development of music isn't analogous to evolution because the fundamental structure of music is always there; it simply awaits discovery. Evolution doesn't "move forward"; unlike music it is a mindless and mechanistic process.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:58 AM

If music evolved, my mate Peter's singing would improve with time. That buggers that theory...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 12:09 PM

"evolutionism as supposedly held by millions says that there was nothing at all, and then there was.."

No, Pete...evolution, as a theory, does NOT make such a claim, even if 'some' of those millions who accept it do. That is a misstatement of what evolution as a science is concerned with. All the science is concerned with is learning as much as we can about what we can see, measure and calculate.

If you wish to claim that "something from nothing" is implied by accepting evolution as a probable hypothesis, I can only shrug and repeat what I have told you for perhaps 5-6 times... you CAN believe in a Supreme Creator and at the same time accept that evolution is merely the complex result of what HE/SHE/IT started. If you also wish to believe that HE/SHE/IT designed & planned every step of it all, you can do that also.... but if you also believe that HE/SHE/IT gave us intelligence & reason to appreciate and explore ITS creation, then you can't avoid the huge and daily growing evidence OF those step and details.
Things like The Burgess Shale (and that tricky dino DNA) are there... they are hard evidence of life that existed long before any organism ever imagined writing a Holy Book. Holy books are numerous and recent.... they are Man's attempt to make sense of existence and pass on 'stories' of what they remember and what they were told about amazing experiences and the **interpretations** of those experiences. Holy Books are important as subjective guides for many people... but they are NOT guides to the science we need to fully understand as much as possible of what we see.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 12:18 PM

By the way, Pete... "evolutionism" is a loaded word. It makes it sound like "Catholocism" or "Protestantism" or "Buddhism" , as if it were a set-in-stone semi-religious doctrine. It is not reasonable or fair to categorize it that way. Evolution is a word for a process, and that process is studied in many ways by various of the sciences.

(and "Darwinism" is even worse, because Darwin never published many conclusions about the implications of the relationships between the species he collected.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 05:47 PM

.....or "creationism" , bill!/?. but as you know bill, I think it [evolutionism] is a set in stone doctrine. it is true that it is a process of sorts , but necessitated by its story having to change when awkward discoveries invalidate the details of the story at some point. that "tricky dino DNA" is a case in point. correct me if I am mistaken but I understood that DNA has a set shelf life a long ways short of 65 plus myo. same with the various soft tissues.
but because evolutionists "know" dinos are that old, they now know that these perishable elements can last that long. the deep time and other Darwinist basics are set in stone, imo.
excuse me, but I find that hard to accept as science....more like fundamentalism.
and if your description of what evolutionism is, is all there is to it, it would make creation scientists evolutionists. all scientists measure data...it is the interpretation of the data that differentiates. do you have an argument with kerkuts definitions that traces the theory back to nothing?

hi mthemg,- how can you be "pretty sure" that there is not a creator " omnipotent, supernatural being " . the problem with the turtle on a turtle ad nausium scenario is that those turtles are material , and the regression must stop somewhere. the bible describes a God who is spirit and eternally existing, and so the old "who made God" challenge is redundant.
the new atheist challenges now seem to be more on the lines of " if God is good and powerful why.......you name the evil or suffering allowed..."
the biblical creationist can go so far in answering these challenges, but of course it will be nothing such atheists will consider, since their preconception is that the bible is a fairy story.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:07 PM

See? I warned you!

That the bible is a fairy story cannot be a preconception, as 1) it is a series of stories and 2) what it states as fact cannot actually happen, or fairy story as it is known in English.

If your God is eternal, the instance that time started existing tends to make such claims nonsense.

Here's a good one about time. It chisels away at the fantasy of religions each and every say. Each attempt to see scriptures as more than what they actually are, stories with morals for the masses to consider, makes them seem even more absurd.

Be like our boutique Christians and accept the history of the story, not the history the story relates.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:18 PM

From (Andrew) Christian Boutique:

""Hey honey, do you like G-strings?

How about booty-shorts? Jockstraps, thongs, boxer briefs, and elegant, Speedo-esque swimming trunks that lovingly support your junk?

Do you sometimes even like to wear regular clothes on top of your kinkified underwear?

Rhetorical questions, ALL, loverface.

Andrew Christian's got you covered.

Or rather, AC loves your shape so much that you'll want to UNcover it often, so that your unmentionables become a staple of your daily conversation.

"Dude, are you wearing a thong?"

"Hell yes, b!tch, and I've got the ass for it."

Mmm, hmm. MEOW.

Andrew Christian's got a huge assortment of men's underthings; think of it as a male version of Victoria Secret except with no lace, stockings, or surprisingly beefy, mean-looking sales girls who seem like they chop down trees or wrestle bears in their spare time.

That's not to say the workers at Andrew Christian are all hulking, Nordic underwear model specimens who will intimidate you or snicker at you behind your back as you fight every man's inner battle--"hipster brief, or thong?"

People of every age, physique, and sexual orientation shop at this store, so come on in, the G-strings are fine.

Non male hooker underwear offerings include jeans, pullover and button-up shirts, and some jackets, all ranging in price between $20 and $280 (for hawt, military style parkas).

Sleazy underwear choices usually range from between $15 to $40, and lots of things are on sale.

The store is small and cozy, so be prepared to be complimented on being beautiful.

Oh! And Rage is almost right next door, so after you spend some money at Andrew Christian, you can shake your moneymaker and earn some more, gorgeous.

xoxo""




(Andrew)Christian Boutique 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 10:24 PM

"...when awkward discoveries invalidate the details of the story .."

Oh indeed, Pete! Sort of like experts in language and ancient scripts discovering that many translations of biblical passages were in serious error? Surely God would have ensured that all who were 'inspired' to pass on the Word would get it right?...or at least agree.

"..I think it [evolutionism] is a set in stone doctrine."

Sorry Pete, but that is a misstatement of what the concept is about. It is not even a 'doctrine', much less 'set in stone'. Adding "I think" does not give the idea extra credence. There are many, many experts that have studied this more than you OR I who "think" it is sane, reasonable and the only fair way to determine possible answers to important concerns.
Why should a relatively small number of fundamentalist Christians who begin with a narrow, simplistic viewpoint, and thereafter interpret every issue, claim or discovery in terms of their arbitrary 'belief' be given credence in their attempt to also make sweeping statements about the basic formulations of science?

...and as formerly noted, your understanding of Dino DNA involves both factual & interpretative flaws. I and others have posted links to the story and explanations about whether & how ancient DNA 'might' be recoverable. NO ONE is actually asserting that genuine DNA has been successfully from many million year old fossils. Please read up on that story from some source other than Creationism.com

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 03:23 AM

""tricky dino DNA""

What case is this? Links?

"but I find that hard to accept as science."

Pete, you don't even know what science is mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 04:26 AM

the bible describes a God who is spirit and eternally existing, and so the old "who made God" challenge is redundant.

It's not a matter of challenge, Pete, rather observation, by which it may be shown that far from eternally existing, the Abrahamic God Concept is, in fact, a relative newcomer on the religious-mythological block and far from ubiquitous despite the bullying. Worth a look is the Wiki Timeline of Religion which indicates the processes by which Mankind created such a fiction, very much in his own image it must be said.   

the new atheist challenges now seem to be more on the lines of...

The Atheist concern is not over the ghastly all-too human nature of the Abrahamic God Concept(the whole utterly atrocious scheme is writ large enough in the bible after all) but rather how people can not only believe in such obviously fallacious pornographic jive, but persist in committing all manner of terror-action, atrocity, child-abuse and evangelising in its name. Still, following the example of Godly Behaviour in their holy book perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 09:37 AM

I was obviously getting ahead of myself when I started this thread.

The real world is still a foreign land to those with conviction.

On that subject, another priest got a conviction in court this week. Altar boys apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 01:28 PM

what do you mean, and could you give some examples of serious error, bill, so I know what you are referring to.
well bill, I prefer my experts and you prefer yours, it is the validity of the claims that matter, and I,m sure you would agree that it is a fallacy to say that a truth claim is verified by having more supporters. science has often advanced because someone questioned the status quo.
and I am sorry but I really do not remember how you accounted for soft tissue in dinos, other than saying you did not know it could last that long till it was found in dino bone. I do remember, as reported in CMI that there is an experiment with iron and ostrich bones, but who is going to check that in hundreds, let alone millions of years. prior to the discovery of soft tissue in those bones there was no thought of it lasting that long....quite the opposite , I reckon. dino DNA [ WHICH YOU BOUGHT UP] has not many reports yet so I guess the deep time story does not have to be adjusted just yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 01:43 PM

Back to the thread...

I presume pete is celebrating the announcement that women are equal to men and are capable of holding senior management posts such as bishop?

After all, what credibility can anyone have on any subject if they let their prejudice lead them?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 01:53 PM

now be consistent please, musket. you take keith to task for being a boutique Christian, and then you want me to be one!
and as for what cannot happen, is where I place the grand theory of evolution, until such time that it can be demonstrated to happen.
as has often been said...we may never know how.....but it continues to be an atheist article of faith that it did anyway.
well we're here aren't we, and we know God didn't do it........don't we...?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 02:48 PM

I'll take that as demeaning the capability of women then.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Stu, in the non-existent electron cloud
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 03:14 PM

Pete, I don't sat this lightly, but you are a quite dishonest individual. We've discussed soft tissues in dinosaurs on other threads, I've supplied explanations and links and yet you still profess ignorance.

You might fool some of the deluded fools on this site into thinking you're an ok bloke fighting your corner against those shallow, intolerant atheists but more fool them. You sir, are not a nice person.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:11 PM

As a "poor deluded fool", I take exception to those who assume they can determine the character of a person by their beliefs. I have debated Pete for several years, and I thoroughly disagree with him on most philosophical and logical points. His stated belief system almost demands that he dismiss or redefine reason & evidence that contradicts the narrow area he is most comfortable in.... (like the mother who angrily states "MY son could never do anything like that!".
But Pete remains polite and at least sticks to the point...even if I feel compelled to point out for the 10th time the flaws in his points.

-------------------

And Pete.. having defended YOU, I will echo Stu's remark that links & explanations HAVE been posted. You respond mostly by circling back and restating the positions we recently critiqued. I KNOW you base your beliefs on some supposed literal reading of the Bible...but you know what I have said about that. (Have you even looked at that article Jack Blandiver posted about the timeline of religion? How can you reconcile those carefully researched facts with your single source. ("Creation scientists" who also begin with absolute faith in one religious tract resolves into the logical equivalent of 'single source'.)

*IF* I get some time, I may dig up those old links... but I assure you, they WERE offered.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 01:56 AM

Hmmm..We should back up....Why not ask Beethoven, himself, where it came from...and when asked that very question THIS was reply...(I mean you'd think HE'D have a clue, RIGHT???

Ludwig van Beethoven: "The vibrations on the air are the breath of God speaking to man's soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear his voice, we read his lips, we give birth to the children of God, who sing his praise. That's what musicians are."

Maybe he EVOLVED to a higher level to be able to be that tuned in, and hear what he said he heard, and give that reply....and those on a lower level of evolution just can't understand or fathom that, because they haven't evolved that far.....unless Beethoven wrote all that stuff and had no clue, as to 'why' 'where it came from' or what he heard!...and IF he is wrong, I suppose one of you would demonstrate your point, by writing something heavier...and tell us 'why' and 'how' you did it!
If you CAN'T, then DON'T disregard his answer!!!

Evolution...what a shame to be stuck where you are, and left out!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 02:09 AM

My previous post was in reply to this one:

From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:41 AM

"Beethoven's main inspiration?
Those who came before him!
Without Handel, Mozart and Bach there would have been no Beethoven as we know him.
He evolved from his predecessors!
Just like Man evolved from ape-like creatures.

I think the main problem with many religious types when they argue about evolution, is that they have not bothered to get up to speed on how it works!"

GfS

P.S. Tunesmith..Is your first name 'Jim'?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 03:41 AM

Beethoven!
Again, he was a product of a religious background ( i.e indoctrination!). And like primitive man, he is going to give God the credit for anything that he doesn't understand.
The great 20th century atheist Russian composers didn't talk about God inspiring them.
Lots of us have had moments when we are "inspired", and produce a thought, a bit of melody,a lyric, and we might say to ourselves " where did that come from?"
To attribute such moments to a God is ridiculous!
Beethoven was great musician and he worked extremely hard at his art. That is where his "inspiration" came from.
Finally, did God inspire John Lennon to write the atheist anthem "Imagine"!
Did God inspire the amazing Charlie Parker to create Bebop, or was it the devil, as many trad jazz fans believe!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 05:57 AM

Tunesmith: "Finally, did God inspire John Lennon to write the atheist anthem "Imagine"!"

Maybe the atheists adopted it, because of the line, ...
"Imagine there is no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too"

Well I can't say that I believe in 'religion', either....but that doesn't make me an atheist...now does it?...nor does it void out what Beethoven was referring to, that even the contemporary 'religions' of his time, even had a clue about...

You said, "Beethoven was great musician and he worked extremely hard at his art. That is where his "inspiration" came from."

You missed it completely...What INSPIRED him to do that?..to bust his balls to be penniless most the time for the music???...SOMETHING must have impressed him!!!?? You think has was reading some Bach sheets, and said, "Gosh I could do better than that!....maybe if only he did 'this' instead of 'that'...."

Where did his imagination come from?? What even more did he hear that he didn't capture...What sparked it??....and unless you can do what he did, and claim otherwise, who would you expect to be believed?

To quote Dylan, "Don't criticize what you don't understand...."

He said, "The vibrations on the air...."...If he was talking about actual sound, he would have said, "I hear sounds, in the air..."..but 'vibrations ON the air' has rather different connotations, including things that were not known then...but are known now.
Perhaps he WAS tuned into something, that a lot of people don't tune into, because they have their antennas up their ass!..and then the say, "Fresh air doesn't exist!"
Now actually, that IS a fair analogy...also if you are talking about common misconceptions between God, as a life giving force, and 'Religion', as a life taking farce'

...and unless you're in his shoes, I don't think you can speak for him, especially when the politics of the day, are certainly perception altering!

Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 06:47 AM

Guest from Sanity, now first I insist that you change your name!
It is not appropriate, at all!

Following what you say - and you probably believe it! - a great deal ( all?) of human activity is inspired by your God.

What inspires an athlete to put his body through the rigours of training?
God, of course!
What inspires nurses to work in dangerous war-torn countries.
God, of course!
What inspires a teacher to work in a horrendous inner-city school!
God, of course!

Crazy!

Sanity? Change your name, please! You know that it is the correct thing to do!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 07:02 AM

"But Pete remains polite and at least sticks to the point..."

You can be as polite as you like but still dishonest and often insulting; one reason I resort to ad hominem comments here – insult me and my friends if you wish but expect it back. The devil wears many disguises. As for sticking to then point, the point is often elusive and if you try to engage him in talk about the facts he starts bleating on about interpretation, how he's just a simple man who doesn't understand all this science (despite feeling he can debate on it), and employs a large degree of wilful ignorance.

I have endless respect for those that are being themselves, but none for charlatans.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 10:32 AM

"...insult me and my friends if you wish but expect it back."

If I understand that correctly, you are saying he 'insults your intelligence'... or some such.

If so, you commit the fallacy of equivocation.... using a term in two different senses. As far as I have seen, Pete does not resort to ad hominem remarks.... which you are trying to defend using. That is using two different senses of 'insult'.
You say he ..."employs a large degree of wilful ignorance."... yes, that seems close, but part OF his belief system is that 'knowing the Truth' does not require one to " understand all this science" and that other creationists (inspired ones, I presume) do 'enough' science to combat the confused interpretations you & I subscribe to.
The reasoning is circular, fraught with flaws and maddening to attempt to counter....... and I try regularly to show him, and anyone else who might read these threads and be tempted, how very dangerous his fundamentalism can be. I have been thoroughly castigated for humoring Pete and *I* have been insulted (ad hominem) for treating him as honest and attempting to clarify science and reasoning for him. I don't even really expect to get very far... but at least all this allows ME to hone MY arguments and give some reasonable responses. You, Stu... and others in the UK... seem to be somehow programmed to make a couple attempts at reason... then to dismiss anyone who does not agree with invective and ridicule.
   not much I can do about that, I guess...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 04:38 PM

Bill, have just read a 2005 talk origin article and I will try to find something more updated, but going on this lengthy item, it weeks to boil down to denying it was actually what mary s said it was, and how lacking she was for her and Horner nor combatting creationists on this science distortion!                                                                               One thing we can both agree on, is bad mouthing is not intelligent ,useful discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 06:47 PM

?? Mary S? Horner?

I am lost... will wait for longer clarificaion

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 03:22 AM

Interesting how the 'so-called liberals' SAY they like to champion the 'discriminated'..and abhor bigotry....except when it comes to people like pete, who say they believe in God!

Tunesmith: "What inspires an athlete to put his body through the rigours of training?
God, of course!
What inspires nurses to work in dangerous war-torn countries.
God, of course!
What inspires a teacher to work in a horrendous inner-city school!
God, of course!"

You're way off...Beethoven said: ""The vibrations on the air are the breath of God speaking to man's soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear his voice, we read his lips, we give birth to the children of God, who sing his praise. That's what musicians are."
― Ludwig van Beethoven

MUSIC and musicians!!...not athletes, not nurses, not teachers...MUSICIANS! That's what HE was talking about....now, if you can't fathom it, yet he defined it, who are you, or anyone able to disallow his eyewitness account, just because your lesser mind, cannot grasp it. He was using the terminology he had. You are perfectly illustrating my example of someone who's got their head up their ass, saying that there is no such thing as fresh air!!...or course there isn't where your(generically) head is!

Hey, completely different subject...think back to the mid 60's...does Prentiss in Malibu mean anything to you?...a place you may have worked at nights?? and writing during your shift....and would you first initial be 'J'??...either J.H. or J. W.??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 03:42 AM

Hey, never mind the last question, you're not the person I thought you might have been...(J.W.)...That person would have had no problem with what I was saying...I thought if you
WERE that person, we would have met, in the mid 60's, at a place called Prentiss, in Malibu, California...anyway, the other guy is an icon to modern folk singers and songwriters.


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 04:54 AM

So called liberals eh?

So.. What exactly is a liberal? To me it is a member of a UK political party that sees itself as the middle ground broker in the two party state that The UK usually delivers in elections. At this time under the present leadership, it has little credibility, but one half of its heritage has a honourable past in social reform at a time when bigotry was the norm.

What, and I can't wait to hear this, is a liberal in the land of Goofus? Or at least the planet he presently orbits?

Nobody discriminates against pete for his fantasy. Good luck to him. He has no credibility however in applying it to reality. Some people, especially in Dumbfuckistan but a few over here too, would have children abused by teaching them fantasy as fact. And all in order to have superstition gain influence.

Rather sad really.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 07:41 AM

Guest from sanity quoted the following:

"Beethoven said: ""The vibrations on the air are the breath of God speaking to man's soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear his voice, we read his lips, we give birth to the children of God, who sing his praise. That's what musicians are."
― Ludwig van Beethoven"

But does that make it true? Does it heck!

Mohammed said God spoke to him...via an angel, but does that make it true? Does it heck!

You're living in a fantasy land!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 09:55 AM

"If I understand that correctly, you are saying he 'insults your intelligence'... or some such."

You understand wrongly; intelligence doesn't come in it and I'm the first to say I'm as thick as pigshit. Have a gander at this, for example:

" I am not able to quantify how much if any, amounts to "conspiracy", how much to the bias in education, how much to peer pressure, or fear of job loss or sidelining from advancement. certainly I believe there must be an element of deception/delusion involved, for educated people to believe unproven and impossible things."

He implies that myself, colleagues and friends who work in the earth sciences are dishonest, we're working to some sort of agenda and we manipulate our data to fit our a priori assumptions. I'm sure this happens with some scientists, but not in any I know who take great pains to be as open as possible about their research. We care. Most of the scientists I've met are very generous with their time and knowledge. It's bloody insulting to have your integrity called into question by someone making groundless and quite ignorant assumptions.

No equviocation. All I said is what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

"*I* have been insulted (ad hominem) for treating him as honest and attempting to clarify science"

Everyone gets attacked ad hominem some point, and some people seem to take pleasure in it. I don't. Read back through the discussions where I have attempted to address this issues with Pete. I dares you. Find the refs and links I've sent him and read his replies. See how honest your mate is. See how he evades discussion of any real depth.


"You, Stu... and others in the UK... seem to be somehow programmed to make a couple attempts at reason... then to dismiss anyone who does not agree with invective and ridicule."

Yawn . . . UK catters blah blah blah. If you think I've only made a couple of attempts at reason, then go back and read the threads. Seriously. If you think the country I come affects the way I structure discussions, then widen your reading from both sides of the Atlantic. We have a very robust debating tradition in the UK, and this extends from the monkey house of the Commons to two blokes in the pub or around the Sunday dinner table. It's the way it is.


but at least all this allows ME to hone MY arguments and give some reasonable responses."

I've said before on other threads, I consider pete a teacher. Being nothing but a fat, talentless tosser with only a half-decent education I need all the help I can get understanding some of the concepts I need to get to grips with. Compiling replies for pete has been really useful for this, and in that respect I'm deeply grateful to him.

But here's the rub. People want to teach the crap pete believes (based on the CMI website) as science in our schools. They want to turn the clock back, abandon reason for superstition and allow religion to dictate as much of our lives as possible. They want to abandon the inclusive morality of secular culture for ambiguity of scripture. If I defend my position and the veracity of science with vigour it's because the alternative, a world ruled by religion, is unthinkable, undesirable and almost certainly appallingly violent.

"One thing we can both agree on, is bad mouthing is not intelligent ,useful discussion."

Doesn't stop you though, does it? You've called me a hypocrite before.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 12:15 PM

"See how honest your mate is. See how he evades discussion of any real depth"

(He is not "my mate") however-----Does not follow that evading = dishonesty. Evading can simply be one interpretation of what I have accused Pete of: faulty reasoning based on unproven, embedded premises.

"He implies that myself, colleagues and friends who work in the earth sciences are dishonest, we're working to some sort of agenda and we manipulate our data to fit our a priori assumptions. I'm sure this happens with some scientists, but not in any I know... ...... It's bloody insulting to have your integrity called into question by someone making groundless and quite ignorant assumptions."

Yes, he does sometimes imply that some 'liberal' scientists pick & choose their data AND their interpretations. I combat that idea constantly..... however: there are subtle but crucial differences between "insulting" and "frustrating". I argue with Pete constantly, but I have never felt that my "integrity" was being questioned. You make the leap from what seem to be "groundless & ignorant assumptions" to having your integrity questioned with amazing agility.

All I am concerned with here is YOUR embedded premises about the intent & motivation of another person- as if you read minds over the internet.

Now- you do make important points:
" People want to teach the crap pete believes (based on the CMI website) as science in our schools. " Indeed... and in other threads *I* have noted this as a major concern. We have the problem² in the US, led by Texas. I was raised in Kansas, and remember how pervasive the issue was when I was in school.
I have never actually heard Pete himself advocate that, and I would react strongly if I did.

(are you reading this, Pete? What IS your position on separation of church & state?)

So....

"If you think the country I come affects the way I structure discussions, then widen your reading from both sides of the Atlantic. We have a very robust debating tradition in the UK, and this extends from the monkey house of the Commons to two blokes in the pub or around the Sunday dinner table. It's the way it is."

Yes...☺.. that seems to be the way it is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
I occasionally see "Prime Minister's questions" on BBC America, and am startled at the noise, cat calls, shouted insults & general furor as members take issue with each other's opinions. A "robust debating tradition" does not NEED to require taking a difference of opinion as "personal insult".... but once one side does so, the basic point often gets lost in the race to attach insults and question the integrity and motives of the opponent.
This happens to some extent in almost every society, and I have dealt with a few personal examples of it in MY life... but in a forum like this, I much prefer to confront & question the idea, the concept, the claim, the logic, the data, the interpretation and the sources, rather than 2nd guess the basic character of someone.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 12:43 PM

Bill D said:

"I occasionally see "Prime Minister's questions" on BBC America, and am startled at the noise, cat calls, shouted insults & general furor as members take issue with each other's opinions"

This is a national disgrace, but nobody seems to want to tackle it!
They're a bunch of idiots...and the person - The Speaker - who is supposed to be controlling matters, is the biggest disgrace of all!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 12:59 PM

"... nobody seems to want to tackle it!"

In your opinion, is this merely a natural result of a " robust debating tradition"? I am not competent to give an 'absolutist' opinion.

I have been watching reruns of "Last of the Summer Wine" and although some of the repartee is quite clever & amusing, it includes what seems to me to be amazing amounts of personal insults (supposedly 'friendly') and character critiques. This show was hugely popular for 30 years. Is there cause & effect... in either direction... involved?

(this probably ought to be a separate thread instead of taking this one off point)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 12:59 PM

"but I have never felt that my "integrity" was being questioned."

Congratualtions! So you're not a scientist then? Well, I am a palaeontologist (PhD, part-time, self-funded, old git, broke, graphic designer by day) and my integrity has been called into question.

"All I am concerned with here is YOUR embedded premises about the intent & motivation of another person- as if you read minds over the internet."

I've debated long and hard with Pete, I don't know him personally and my opinion is based on the way he acts on this board. It's a 2D impression to be sure, but many of these discussions have been revealed some clues to how a person thinks. He gets very evasive on some difficult subjects and refuse to commit to an opinion. However, I might be wrong about the chap and remain to be convinced. That said, he gives as good as he gets. Go back and read the threads.

I'm not sure how you think I should react to his constant dissing of the work I and other do in good faith, and with open minds. Pete thinks this is a lie and we're misguided and manipulate data or go into research with the intent of confirming our assumptions: the exact opposite of what we strive for. If that isn't a direct challenge to a person's integrity I have no idea what is.

"I much prefer to confront & question the idea, the concept, the claim, the logic, the data, the interpretation and the sources"

Please, I beg you, go back and read the threads; I've posted links, challenged him to get to grips with the science, countered arguments etc etc I am probably at fault for descending to ad hominem and I'm not proud of it, but then I don't apologise because if you give it, you have to be able to take it. I'm sure that's a fault too.

I'm probably a shite scientist, that's for others to judge. I have no idea if I'll be able to complete my degree but I will be published, so that's a start. I'm as full as shit as the next person and happy to admit it, but I am never dishonest in my approach to any of my work, science or otherwise.

I don't need a lecture Bill; even though you're obviously a better person than I.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 01:13 PM

Prime ministers question time has been a bread and circuses cock waving session ever since it was televised. Real debate goes on in committee. Available on BBC iPlayer.

Ironically, such distasteful showmanship is a product of American influence on presentation politics. Orators no longer need apply to be MPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 02:30 PM

"Orators no longer need apply to be MPs."

This.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 02:52 PM

Some good points Bill D.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 05:22 PM

Sorry bill, I assumed you would know who I was referring to. Mary Switzer ( not sure of spelling) and her boss jack Horner .          I have been doing some more reading ,and not only creationist, and can find nothing extra . Only claims that soft tissue was not there, or that they are looking for some unknown as yet mechanism for the previously thought impossible to have happened. Switzer herself said quite recently.......this is the evidence for biofilms we have found.......and held up a blank board!   The ostrich bone .....close to T. rex?.......was found to be .......recognisable.......after two yr in blood ?   Presumably that means that decay has at least begun, so do you think the iron connection will solve the problem.          Well at least you know that I don't only read Cmi , contrary to the accusations of some.                                                                  Just to clarify stus comments. You may notice that "conspiracy" was in inverted commas indicating another's quote which I was replying to. What I was saying was that there has been some dishonesty....but that every scientist is conducting his investigations coloured by his own worldview but not likely deliberately falsifying his findings.         My main contention is that evidence is interpreted and worldview will influence interpretations.                                                                                                                   Bill, not sure what you mean about church and state, or if I have a particular view anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 06:38 PM

"but many of these discussions have been revealed some clues to how a person thinks. He gets very evasive on some difficult subjects and refuse to commit to an opinion...

Obviously... what else can he do when someone posts a clear refutation of something which his conscience has adopted? He explained that he came to his religious beliefs by 'being convinced' of them by some religious group. (He didn't say, but Seventh Day Adventists come close from what I read of them)


"Please, I beg you, go back and read the threads; .."
I have... I was in most of them. Read MY attempts to correct obviously false data & show flaws in his reasoning.

"I don't need a lecture Bill; even though you're obviously a better person than I."

I am not 'lecturing' YOU, Stu.. any more than I am Pete. ... and I am not 'better' than anyone...just different in my orientation due to my chosen discipline (see below)
I am critiquing a position.. or part of one, just as I am with Pete. (sorry, Pete, but that's how it is) I'm sure you are a decent, thoughtful, trained scientist, Stu, and I am aware that there are issues in science that you cannot bear to see distorted & misrepresented. I have a degree in Philosophy, and there are issues in flawed logic and argument form that drive ME up the wall! Pete has had me on his case for several years as I find embedded premises, circular reasoning and simple errors in research and facts in his assertions.

So: "I'm not sure how you think I should react to his constant dissing of the work I and other do in good faith, and with open minds. "

I think, if you choose to bother any more at all, you should present the best available information possible while pointing to the skewed & flawed ideas & beliefs that you find....my ONLY criticism is with attributing malicious intent to Pete's... or anyone's... opinions when you have only typed words to go on.
(in a couple of early threads, two different people who have met Pete vouched for his integrity and decency as a human.)

It is frustrating to take this much time to conduct a debate, when I'd much rather sit in pub and listen & counter over a pint... but I doubt I'll ever get to the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Stu, on the verge of giving up
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 06:56 PM

Pete, we have discussed Schweitzer's work at length before on other threads; I seem to recall providing links to her work but I might be wrong. What's the issue with her comment on bio films?

"although some of the repartee is quite clever & amusing, it includes what seems to me to be amazing amounts of personal insults (supposedly 'friendly') and character critiques"

Bill, with the greatest respect it seems you're not 'getting' the humour. This doesn't matter, until it becomes a comment in a discussion about how we debate. A thought had occurred to me since my last post, and this is connected. Much of this isn't really personal in the sense it's designed to really offend a person. Much of this is simply banter, and it's quite possible to have a big debate with someone, things to get heated and sometimes a bit pointed, but five minutes later it's forgotten or everyone has moved on. I disagree with many people on this forum and will discuss subjects with some vigour, but there's only one or two I wouldn't sit down for a pint with, and none of those are UK catters (whether they'd want a pint with me is a different matter!).

Last of the Summer Wine is pretty gentle (and awful) stuff, 7pm on a Sunday night viewing just after Songs of Praise. I haven't seen it for years, but it never had "amazing" amounts of personal insults as far as I can recall.

Taking the piss is a national pastime here, and long may it remain so. No-one's safe from it. As it should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 08:03 PM

Stu... I do 'get' the humor. I merely suggest that that FORM of 'friendly banter' goes a ways beyond much of the humor that I am comfortable with. If I had days to do a serious project on the topic, I could ...I think.. demonstrate a cultural element in it which mirrors as humor the deeper sense of how some people express disagreement on serious issues.

(My ex-wife could not argue any point for long without taking the stance that she was being disparaged as a person. Discussions deteriorated to meta-debates about the argument itself and whether she was being unfairly treated.)

"..., but there's only one or two I wouldn't sit down for a pint with"

In my time here, there were only 2-3 that *I* would not care to sit down with... but one IS from the UK.. and he 'might' be reconsidered. However, in the case of several others, it might become a bit... ummm... heated. I would still try to debate only the issue and not make assumptions about their character. If they were not able to do the same, I 'might' develop an opinion about character & motivation.


We still have a long way to go to find easy ways to be understood in this medium, hmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 09:19 PM

Stu says: I don't need a lecture Bill; even though you're obviously a better person than I.

Bill is the best there is. I'll vouch for him.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 11:39 PM

Tunesmith: "Mohammed said God spoke to him...via an angel, but does that make it true? Does it heck!
You're living in a fantasy land!"

Me??? I'm not the one telling you how I came about writing some of the world's most famous music....He wrote it, and when asked how he did it, he answered the question.

"Hey man, where did you get that really cool rock?"

"I found it while walking home"

"No you didn't! You're wrong...I don't believe you!"

"Why not?"

"I don't believe in walks home!"

"Well, I answered you what you asked me....Oh well. I guess he won't be writing this type of music!"

GfS

P.S. Sometimes the fantasy we live in, is actually below our capabilities of perception....and we believe we don't have access to higher things....
...so stay small, and make silly arguments to keep yourself, and other people down! Let's wallow in our pettiness, and squelch anyone getting free to excel to higher levels...it just wouldn't be politically correct!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jul 14 - 03:37 AM

Hey Tunesmith, When I asked you if your initials were 'J.W.', it was because your 'handle' was 'Tunesmith'...'J.W.' were the initials of a guy I met in the mid sixties, when he was working in Malibu, at a place called 'Prentiss'...and while working there, at night, he was writing songs. My Dad, worked at the same place, so on several occasions I got to meet this guy and talk to him, and got to know him...I thought it may have been you, and here's the reason why I originally thought that, and why I threw that idea away.....
here's a cut and paste from Wikipedia:

Regarding Jimmy Webb

In 1964, Webb and his family moved to Southern California, where he attended San Bernardino Valley College studying music. Following the death of his mother in 1965, his father made plans to return to Oklahoma. Webb decided to stay in California to continue his music studies and to pursue a career as a songwriter in Los Angeles.

He has written numerous platinum-selling classics, including "Up, Up and Away", "By the Time I Get to Phoenix", "Wichita Lineman", "Galveston", "The Worst That Could Happen", "All I Know", and "MacArthur Park".[2] His songs have been performed by many popular contemporary artists, including The 5th Dimension, Glen Campbell, The Supremes, Richard Harris, Johnny Maestro, Rod McKuen, Frank Sinatra, Thelma Houston, The Temptations, Barbra Streisand, Art Garfunkel, Joe Cocker, Judy Collins, Donna Summer, Linda Ronstadt, America, Amy Grant, Dionne Warwick, John Denver, Johnny Cash, James Taylor, Billy Joel, Tom Jones, Michael Feinstein, Rosemary Clooney, R.E.M., and Carly Simon.

Webb was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1986 and the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1990. He received the National Academy of Songwriters Lifetime Achievement Award in 1993, the Songwriters Hall of Fame Johnny Mercer Award in 2003, the ASCAP "Voice of Music" Award in 2006, and the Ivor Novello Special International Award in 2012. According to BMI, his song "By the Time I Get to Phoenix" was the third most performed song in the fifty years between 1940 and 1990.[4] Webb is the only artist ever to have received Grammy Awards for music, lyrics, and orchestration.[4]
"In 1998, Webb completed his first book, Tunesmith: Inside the Art of Songwriting, which was published by Hyperion Books. It was well received by songwriters and performers and became a best-seller.[14] One book reviewer described it as "a companion every serious songwriter should read, and read again, and keep handy for referral."[15]

In the 2000s, Webb has talked more openly about his return to the Christian faith of his upbringing and the role it has played in his music. In addition to his cantata, The Animals' Christmas, he has always included religious songs in his albums—"Psalm One-Five-O", "Jerusalem", and "I Will Arise" are a few examples—and his lyrics have included biblical verses and allusions. In an October 2007 interview with Nigel Bovey, editor of The Salvation Army newspaper The War Cry, Webb was quite explicit about his renewed faith.

    'I couldn't write a song without God. Sure, I could hack out hackneyed phrases and clichés, but to write anything meaningful I have to be in tune with God. He is the great source, my inspiration, the current that I have to connect to. Sadly I've not always used the gift He's given me—the answered prayer—as best as I could or should have. I've made mistakes. I've done things I wish I hadn't done.'

Webb has stated, "I am a strong believer in God... God is important to me. God is bigger than any one particular denomination. I don't like it when people try to confine Him. I DON'T PUT ANY LIMITS ON GOD." Webb reads the King James Version of the Bible."

So, if you have a bitch about God and music, this guy is still living...go fucking argue with him!!...see if He and Beethoven are talking about something in common...and/or are they both deluded!

You've been conditioned to think politically, and therefore, small!!

Here's the complete text...and note the LISTS of credits to his name

GfS

P.S. Oh, What have you written of note???

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 26 Jul 14 - 05:39 AM

"We still have a long way to go to find easy ways to be understood in this medium, hmm?"

Theirs lies the crux methinks. I'm not the best at articulating my thoughts in words sometimes. As for the humour, I think you're reading way too much into it, although I think there could be a cultural difference in the way we debate. There's a lot of self-deprecation in British humour, and we're all iconoclasts at heart, apart from Tories (thank god).

One thing I would say is we are loosing our manners here in the UK. One reason I love the US so much is the people are so polite most of the time.This comes as a shock to a cynical old Brit at first, but it soon becomes a pleasure, especially in the smaller towns out in the country.

Thinking about the pint thing, I'm not sure one of those two wasn't a UK catter actually, and the other guy I'd have a pint with after all. Life's too short.

"Bill is the best there is. I'll vouch for him."

Joe, I'm not calling Bill's character into question at all, in fact I think he's got a degree of tolerance I perhaps haven't. I'm calling into question his desire to castigate me for being offended, which itself implies a certain judgement of character, something I apparently should not do to Pete, despite who-knows-how-many posts trying to get him to actually get his information from elsewhere. The Schweitzer posts above are a case in point, and I've been through this in detail with him before, but my motives are questionable, obviously. Mary Schweitzer is a brilliant scientist and deeply committed Christian too, apparently.

The saddest part of this is the fact that people like you guys (Bill and Joe) and myself are even having this discussion. I think we are pursue the same ends, albeit by different paths. We seek the truth, and that is what is important, and we seek it on a fundamental level. I would suggest I'm no less spiritual than you Joe, even though it manifests itself in a different way. My moral foundations are born of a philosophy of science but are still solid, compassionate and inclusive.

This is where the dialogue between science and religion should be, and no doubt our differences are profound, but our basic humanity gives us ample common ground to explore.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 26 Jul 14 - 06:42 AM

Well, I'm afraid that Jim Webb's God must have abandoned him, as he hasn't produced any memorable tunes for decades!
Or, is it simply that he's run out of ideas?
Back to Beethoven!
We must take Beethoven's comments in the context of the time!
I've read all the major biographies/studies of Beethoven, and I am currently struggling with some of his piano sonatas!
Beethoven lived in a transitional time in the history of "classical music".
Before him, musicians were mainly employed by the church or rich gentry, but within ten years of Beethoven's death Franz Liszt was touring Europe like a modern day rock star, filling concert halls and receiving wild adoration from fans.
And that transition was mainly down to Beethoven.
He saw himself as a genius, who was far superior to the landed gentry who employed him. And he told them so!
He was also a bit of a "spin doctor" stressing the fact that he was inspired by God, and when people attended a Beethoven concert they felt that they were listening to a genius who was a channel for God himself!
Beethoven did such a good job that for a hundred years after his death he was unchallenged as the towering genius of classical music.
In many ways, one come draw parallels with jazzman John Coltane who also benefitted from the fact he was seen as a spiritual player who was a channel for some higher force.
It's all nonsense of course, as it's simply down hard work!
Coltrane, for example, is famous for the amount of time that he devoted to his studies.
As I have already said, "genius" simply builds on what has gone before e.g think of Newton's " standing on the shoulders" quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 26 Jul 14 - 06:54 AM

It reminds me of when my brother, working for an aid NGO in an African state, sent a bloke over for my company to teach him a few things about building equipment for manufacturing roof tiles etc locally without electricity etc.

A nice enough bloke but slightly over zealous. He did keep telling me how God had given him this job and it's his promise to Jesus to go back and apply what we taught him.

Funny, I thought my brother gave him the job, and his promise to me to go back and apply what we taught him. By that reckoning, my brother is God the father, I'm God the son. If anybody wishes to apply to be the holy goat, send a cv with covering letter to the usual address.

Also, we paid for him to come over, so if anyone has God's invoicing address, I'd be obliged.

Thanking a man made construction for your own talent is a kick in the face for the parents, teachers, role models and natural aptitude that got you where you are today.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jul 14 - 12:15 PM

" We seek the truth, and that is what is important, and we seek it on a fundamental level"

Thank you, Stu.... and Joe. That says about all of it...except (always an 'except', hmmm?) Except we don't necessarily expect to find many actually 'basic' truths.... it is the process that is exciting.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 14 - 12:55 PM

A wealthy nobleman invited Beethoven to come to his palace and play his latest piano composition for his guests. This was a standard gig for musicians in Beethoven's day and often how composers earned their livelihood—playing for wealthy patrons and their guests.

When Beethoven arrived in the large salon where the guests had gathered, he discovered that he was not the only one on the program. There was a string quartet set up, prepared to open the program with another composer's new work.

Beethoven sat through the performance scowling and glaring thunderbolts. When the quartet had finished and the musicians and composer had taken their bows, the nobleman introduced Beethoven, who would be playing his latest work.

Beethoven, stood, acknowledged the applause of the audience, but with steam pouring out of his collar. He then walked over to the second violinist's music stand and picked up a sheet of music (the second violinists part), took it to the piano, sat down, and improvised around the part—brilliantly—for nearly an hour! When he had finished, the audience went wild with applause. The other composer shrank down and hid under the carpet.

This was not the only time that Beethoven went out of his way to denigrate other composers.

Beethoven was a brilliant musician and composer. But as a person, he could be pluperfect son-of-a-bitch.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jul 14 - 02:58 PM

Don, Once again, when you write regarding the composers, YOUR brilliance comes out...(though you could leave out your personal negative opinion of what 'he must have been thinking).

Funny how brilliance comes out when talking about the conjunction of God and music...and pathetic when talking about politics...a considerably lower 'art' form!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 14 - 03:54 PM

"…you could leave out your personal negative opinion of what he must have been thinking…."

Not my "personal negative opinion." It doesn't take a psychiatrist to figure out what Beethoven was thinking on the described occasion, especially when this was not the only time he went out of his way to "put down" another composer. He was famous for this sort of behavior. He had ego problems.

This is not to denigrate Beethoven as a composer. His music speaks for itself.

Frankly, I don't see where God comes into it. Nor do I consider politics to be any kind of "art form." A thorough understanding of the principles of politics is a practical necessity, especially in the modern world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jul 14 - 07:17 PM

I was laughing so hard, that I hit the 'Enter' key.

OK..OK..Take this objectively, and you might share in the satire of it all.......

Don: "Nor do I consider politics to be any kind of "art form."

Whaddya' mean... I don't "consider politics to be any kind of "art form."????...Politics is 'Galactic Central' for every two-bit,' in for a penny in for a pound', 'wanna-be-a-better' 'Con Artist' on the entire Planet!!!!!....Oh my God!!.. The bullshit these guys make up is phenomenal!!!!...and the trade-off is..."With MY brains and YOUR money, we can make a divide, so that every time I need to bilk some of you suckers, for some money, you can back me, knowing full well, that I'll think of something to make you feel happy...Man, to let you know how much we love you, on our frolicking path to 'Political Utopia' I will do my best to represent making you glad about being on the same side, I would lie to you in a New York second, if it would make you feel useful, and good, and happy! and on the right side..and now that we're just awaiting another attack from the 'other side'......or another cause to make you feel better...so I'll need your additional financial support while I'm thinking!....meanwhile, let's PARTY.................Here, think about this "_______ __ ______", for a while"

... Nor do I consider politics to be any kind of "art form."..Sheesh

What's even more hilarious, with the internet social media and all,
some people, cut from the same ilk, do it not for money but for 'pride of ego', just to rally people, and use them as scorecards for their 'CAUSE'(truth not required), that they already have 'emotion in common', and think its 'Political Activism'...never an 'ego trip'..No, No No ....you can't trust me if 'talking points' aren't the right ones(all the way)..and if my 'lack of indignation' seemed a little bit vulnerable to scrutiny...No, I'm glad to announce that you don't have to worry about THAT any more....I USED to be conceited, but now I'm just PERFECT....trust me."

Meanwhile, Support our Party with donations and support....(even if a few of us blow it, we'll make sure that Party Line is towed.....Oh, you can trust me on that as well...The Party would never go for it!!""

Get it, Got it, Good!
Music As Art                                        by Me
BTW, ..as a side note...music is WAY hipper, EXPANDS the mind, to think in the way it feels to do, rather than confining it to the expectations lesser intelligence, it reaches to the higher....maybe the higher you go, and the mind is open WIDE, SEES, and FEELS..and HEARS.....and you might never knew know who or what you might bump into.......how do you tell those with closed off small minds, by nature of cutting off unseen, life-giving nutrients!....by order and influences of other small minds.....that there IS a level that everything IS different, input is different, empathetic expression, both coming and going can be felt, and translated into auditory, vibrations that communicate both words and emotion, without words...and do so more accurately!!...AND it can be heard by another human, and enhance their perception, in both width, depth, and sensitively. Intelligence is the ability to process information..and music, when inspired by such input, opens more neurons in the brain, than just about any other activity...including sex!!!

Now ya' gotta' admit, people who operate there, more than likely have a hard time to begin to explain to someone, who has always been indoctrinated with a 'cap' on what was considered to be acceptable, as far as topics and 'how far to take it'.... it is in the genius, that only the art, music in this case, can...

...and the arrogance of those who haven't the foggiest idea what the process is, and how it comes about, or why, are going to tell a person that is able to, and DOES, that he is mistaken in his explanation of his sourcing ..... I think he belongs in your political action groups as per above.
See Above"

See?? Wasn't that fun??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 14 - 07:31 PM

What's the matter, Goofus, don't you have anybody to play with this afternoon?

What the hell are you babbling about?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 02:36 AM

So...

What did Beethoven have to say about The Church of England's general synod resolution to allow women bishops the other week?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 05:33 AM

Don: "What the hell are you babbling about?"

See? I just told you and you don't 'get it'...

"Now ya' gotta' admit, people who operate there, more than likely have a hard time to begin to explain to someone, who has always been indoctrinated with a 'cap' on what was considered to be acceptable, as far as topics and 'how far to take it'...."

So I guess politics has shrunk your mind?
Well, at least you can't say you weren't warned.....(but you'd probably don't have the capability to understand).
Stick to politics, then...'Little things amuse little minds.'

Musket: "What did Beethoven have to say about The Church of England's..."

I don't keep up on churches...and who gives a rat's ass about The Church of England. You guys are all in a tizzie over what a meaningless organization, that you DON'T believe in, makes about their policies?????

(Cups hands around mouth and shouts Northwest, across the vast expanses of distance): "Hey Don, I found the guy who didn't have anyone to play with.!!".....

....and then act like it's supposed to be relevant???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 12:19 PM

Politics is a very complex field, but not as complex as some think, if one has solid ethical principles and makes one's political decisions on that basis.

Some people don't bother with matters such as ethics, so are unable to make rational political judgments. This shows that either they do not have the mental capacity to learn something about ethics, or are too mentally lazy--or that they simply want to play it deuces wild and too hell with anyone they happen to trample.

Unfortunately, there are all too many people like that. Too dumb or too lazy--or feel that having an ethical code at all will inhibit them from doing what they damn well please, regardless of the consequences to others. That's why the country is in the mess that it's in.

They often say things like, "Let's not talk about that, let's talk about Beethoven (or anything else) instead."

Anything to avoid having to make a moral commitment. Or to do the reading and thinking that would make that possible.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 12:43 PM

Some one tell Goofus this is thread about Church of England Synod the other week...

Mind you, I'm happy to let him carry on. Giving him a subject to aim at rarely alters wheat he rattles on about.

Keep banging the rocks together Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 04:00 PM

Don: "Politics is a very complex field, but not as complex as some think, if one has solid ethical principles and makes one's political decisions on that basis."

Do you mean like, 'Doing onto others as you have then do unto you', and being honest about it...and not letting one's will intrude on the rights of others??..but that's not 'politics'...that is the Judea-Christian principles that the country was attempted to structured from....'Politics' is just the subtle manipulation(and sometimes, 'not so subtle' manipulations) AWAY from those principles, funneling power away from the PEOPLE and into the hands of the elitists who want to control it all!

Now of the two choices, music or politics, music is the higher calling. Music isn't about taking power away from anyone, getting the brain to work at a higher capacity, while touching the heart of man. It seems that the more intelligent one becomes, music is preferred over politics....and lawyers and other bottom feeders gravitate toward twisting good laws and traditions that work, AWAY from one's native intelligence and common sense, into trusting KNOWN liars and their lies. Music makes no such pretense....or as Duke Ellington said,in regards to music, "If it sounds good...it IS good!"
Or you can out your faith into stuff like,"If you like your healthcare plan, if you like your doctor, you can keep your healthcare, and keep your doctor, Period!" ...sorta a 'bait and switch' con-job...which it was, so the insurance companies could have compelled business thrown their way..by a law which coerces, under penalty to do business, with crooks and thieves!!...and/or all the other lies and deception pulled off by this and prior administrations, at the behest of their corporate bribing. Of course you might want to debate that, but why?....It IS the truth, against the majority will of the people, and conned it's way through Congress!...not to mention all those 'selling points' promoted to squeeze more money out of the people for those' shovel ready jobs'..that never materialized....but the money was not refunded!..only clandestinely shuffled over to the Wall Street cronies, who Obama supporters seem to oppose, though they were blinded to the fact, that the Wall Street cronies were Obama's biggest supporters....but that doesn't matter....the supporters of such dishonest con jobs have been issued 'talking points' to defend it all...just like Bush's war in Iraq, had it's talking points issued, to defend a safe environment for Halliburton to rape the people's economy!...but 'politically' it was sold to the people under the guise of 'patriotism', and used 'talking points' to shift the attention AWAY from the real deal!!...Well, that's politics for ya'....but somewhere is a composer whose works will outlast both parties, and the lying, that they inflict on the public, to bilk them and use the money to enslave them further!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 04:26 PM

" clear refutations....." Bill?    If they were refutations, were they clear?      A lot of stuff gets repeated on these threads but getting repeats of these supposedly clear refutations don't appear to be included.   Yes there have been some links posted which were pretty tec and it seems the posters were often not able or willing to express the ideas or data in lay mans terms.      And of course your training may help you identify logical fallacies and I hope that I will consider such when examples are given. But in general, I would hope to discuss the substance more than the mode of delivery. So , how do evolutionists account for soft tissue in dino bone?   That is the question I googled that led to the reading I mentioned earlier.   Maybe you can identify the explanation I missed?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 04:39 PM

Back to the subject of this thread:

It looks like the Anglican Church is getting the clue.

In addition to just being bloody fascinating for it's own sake, there is much to be learned by studying history.

In ancient Athens, the world's first true democracy, they had some ideas and practices that we would be wise to examine closely and adopt today! Their Congress consisted of 6,000 citizens. Not elect. The first 6,000 citizens who were interested enough to show up in the field where the meetings were held. Far too many for anyone to bribe. And officials were not elected, they were chosen by lottery from the citizenry at large--and were expected to be up on current events and issues. It was their duty as citizens of Athens. At the end of their term, they would be judged on their performance by a jury of 501 citizens (again, too many to bribe, and an odd number to avoid hung juries). If they had done a really good job, they would be honored and rewarded. If they weren't up to the job, screwed up, or showed signs of corruption, they would be admonished, and if they really blew it, they could be banished.

Proved very effective while it lasted. But it came to an end when Athens was invaded and taken over by Philip of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great.

Democracy wasn't to emerge again for over 2,000 years. Good attempt, but we're definitely not there yet.

One point where the Athenians blew it: women were not allowed to vote or take part in political deliberations. Men only.

But there were contemporary Greek men who objected to this, saying that by not including women, Athens was wasting half of its intellectual potential.

The Anglican Church seems to have made a good step forward.

Let's stare fixedly at Pope Francis for a bit. He seems to be a fairly bright guy. Maybe he'll get the idea too.

Just a thought....

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 06:18 PM

"So , how do evolutionists account for soft tissue in dino bone?"


Read this, Pete... it took me all of 45 seconds to find.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/


and another one. But the first goes into the detail about what was happening... both in research and in deciding what COULD be possible.

It seems no one had ever seen such results because they couldn't imagine LOOKING for something that was 'impossible'. It was when they were confronted with bewildering evidence that they had to do what science is supposed to do- look carefully at results and revise their thinking in order to account for that evidence.
They could have mumbled something about "possible contamination" and "flawed tests" and continued to **believe** that such things were impossible.... but other scientific tests said that no matter what had been **believed**, they were seeing collagen that had been preserved. Now they needed to find a SCIENTIFIC explanation for data that kept refusing to be denied. They did find answers... it is Creationists that continue to **believe** that there must be some mistake, because this old manuscript from 2000 years ago listed some people & ages and when added up, seemed to limit 'creation' to 6000 years ago.

**Belief** can hamper understanding in science OR religion, but science has a built-in self-correcting mechanism, if used properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 06:56 PM

Yes Bill D, while some are contented to be "fixed in time", foftunately, science is not. There are plenty scientists moving forward adding to knowledge, making new discoveries, as well as those challenging and fine tuning what we think we know, using credible scientific reasoning that is always open to challenge.

Those "fixed in time" used a closed system, poor logic and reasoning to only seek out information or explanations that reinforce a firm belief -ignoring or dismissing all other worldly explanations outside this belief. I suspect such "tunnel vision" among like thinking people may be comforting, as it reinforces a set of beliefs that are seen as very important to their values and lives.We have seen examples of this through history, and the impacts on free and open scientific and reasoned thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 10:17 PM

Don: "It looks like the Anglican Church is getting the clue."

The Anglican Church hasn't had a clue since the day it was founded!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 10:46 PM

I was talking about the Anglican Church's recognition of women as worthy members of the clergy, Goofup.

Or did you miss that?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 10:50 PM

By the way, Goofy, read the rest of my post. If you are sufficiently perceptive, you may learn something.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jul 14 - 11:06 PM

I got it the first time!..(Jeez, I'm not a political guy...my brain functions!)...and like I said, they haven't had a clue since the day they were founded.
Now, get your head out of politics, and even you could understand it!
Think music...more of your brain works with it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 12:35 AM

Clueless!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 12:39 AM

And before you screw that up as well, when I say "clueless," Goofup, I'm referring to you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 02:49 AM

In order to be clueless you have to be searching for clues in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 04:05 AM

Musket: "In order to be clueless you have to be searching for clues in the first place."

Musket, Have you ever lost your keys, and started to look all over for them....and every place you can think you 'might' have put them...but they weren't there either............then out of nowhere, bang, you find them, and you trot out the door to the car...right?
...or once you found them, did you have to keep looking???

Don: "And before you screw that up as well, when I say "clueless," Goofup, I'm referring to you."


Clues are for people who are guessing....and BTW, as many as I've given you, and you STILL don't have it, says a lot about you and whatever damaged your brain....unless there are large sections that just don't light up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 04:28 AM

One has keyless ignition, one certainly does.

A bit like Goofus's clueless ignition, each time he lights up his keyboard.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 04:37 AM

That was pretty desperate, there Ol' Musky Ian.
hey, You two go off, run along, and play, "Try to Insult"....look for clues, and solve the problem.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 01:17 PM

sorry bill, but seems to me that your post is spin, and the efforts of the authors of the links, damage control and spin.
they do not have an experimentally sound explanation yet. there was nothing new that I had not read previously from my google search.    it was as I said. a pre conceived belief in deep time denies the more obvious conclusion that the dinos are not 65+ myo, due to the extreme unlikelihood of the various soft tissue lasting that long. starting with the assumption that they are that old and therefore there must be something we don't know yet, is a faith position ,not an experimentally validated position.
the iron preserving ostrich blood vessels is not looking that hopeful if the best that can be said after 2 yrs in laboratory conditions is that they were "recognizable" !

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 02:13 PM

Go on pete. I shall ask, purely in clarification of your posts.

How old are the dinosaurs then?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 03:43 PM

"...but seems to me that your post is spin, and the efforts of the authors of the links, damage control and spin..."

The point of my post is that it was NOT 'spin'... that they were forced to integrate the new data with all other known data in order to make sense out of it. They have no religious or moral need to discover a pre-determined set of answers... they simply do not. And if new evidence appears to force a re-evaluation of THIS finding, it will be part of a newer set of answers.

YOU have trapped yourself into a never ending 'damage control' based on far less. It is YOU who believes something that cannot be ever proven, and YOU discredit science in general because it doesn't always support YOUR simplistic, narrow belief system.

There is little more I can say....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 04:03 PM

You puzzle me in your recent posts, Pete 7*.

All respects....but:
I can't figure if you are genuinely trying to understand something new and increase your knowledge from others? It surely does not seem so, as what has been oisted and linked are complex concepts to grasp.

It seems more likely that you are attempting to merely reinforce your belief and spread ithem to others here.

If it is the latter, you are doing a very poor job at it. In addition, you have selected a challenging community to "spread your faith" to.

It may serve your interests better and be more fruitful if you focus on converting the already converted in your locale. While it is your choice, it seems to be a good time to fold 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 05:17 PM

Church joins real world?????????

REAL world??

Agreeing with your politics, is NOT the 'real world'...the next batch looking for 'change' will teach you that. Your political 'real world' is just a passing delusion, that seems all so 'urgent' now, and will be completely irrelevant, after the passing of time...and not too much time, at that! Go back to the illustration I gave you about Beethoven's music, verses the German Empire, AT THAT TIME....WHICH is still with us???...and being as music activates more neurons of the brain, than most any other activity on the planet, are we now supposed to adhere to concepts, contrived by those using LESS of their brain...and stretching their limits to do so????
Whatever music is activating, whatever portions of the brain, now being activated, cannot be 'judged' by those who haven't experienced that REALITY, using LESS of their brains, nor can it be fully understood, UNLESS you have that data running though the activated, LARGER portion of that brain...which perceptions run deeper and clearer, than those trying to get a grasp of it all, USING LESS of their brains trying to do it!!! It opens up circuits of THINKING, not opened UNTIL that input is analyzed using MORE of the brain, than without!
IF that AWARENESS, senses and perceives greater and deeper, then perhaps it DOES run into something that IS an attribute of 'God'....Now we 'can't say that', because what we ARE talking about, is NOT comprehended, by people who elect to avoid opening up that part of their brains, and responding to it!!...so in turn, we get stupid, uninformed, inexperienced, less intelligent OPINIONS from people who 'just don't know'!....and often, studying and spouting 'politics' is about as high as they can go!..and the same goes for even 'So-Called Religion'!
'In the beginning God created man in his own image...and ever since man has been trying to return the favor.'...but there IS a fuller side to reality, and unless you allow it in, your 'opinions', no matter where or how you base them, are rather immature!..(and so are your posts, that show just how immature they, and you are!!)....so much, that you end up denying God and/or the attributes of God, like LOVE, patience, faith, forgiveness, PEACE, hope of a higher revelation, the brotherhood of man, and the reasons to see us as one family under 'Heaven'...(BTW, Earth is located in 'Heaven')..which has misconstrued conceptions, due to bogus interpretations of man, and the 'churches' that they have created, in accordance to their small and unused portions of their brains!!!, which short-steps the REAL WORLD!
So to say, the 'Church joins real world', in reality, is saying the religious delusion agrees with the political delusion...but in reality, they are BOTH ILLUSIONS, shaking hands...but they have NOTHING to do with REALITY!...being as REALITY HAS TO INCLUDE the 'whole'....and you don't even have a 'clue' of what the whole is, using less parts of your brain in trying to perceive it!!!! ....and the toughest part is trying to impart knowledge that a greater reality DOES exist...and right in front of your own blind noses!
Besides, some idiots, beyond the moronic, push that 'there is no God', because they are trying to have the 'State' viewed as 'God'!!..Whatever that means to their non-functioning, and ignored brains!!

Musket: "Mind you, I'm happy to let him carry on."

GOOD, you might LEARN something, unless it causes you to consider your own fulfillment, and it terrorizes you!.....
...or you could continue to think and write nothingness, as you've been doing, for a long time...and then 'think' you're being 'so hip'.
Wake up...it's in front of you!....activate more of your brain and you will see it!
...and as a side note, the music will become more 'alive'..and if you're a player, you'll be on the next steps to being AWESOME...or as I used to tell my kids growing up, "If you want to be 'different'..Be Excellent!!"

GfS

P.S. I'm NOT trying to 'put you down', but rather, ...and if you think Beethoven was the only one who 'heard things'
..check out what the composer of this piece is describing! ..and it's all consistent!..but you can't 'see' it....try using the rest of your brain...it becomes obvious!!!

Peace!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 06:27 PM

GfS... any chance you were forced to read Hegel as a kid? Your posts are getting harder & harder to unravel enough to GET your points.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 07:27 PM

Gfs, I have a copy of Wordsworth's Complete works, 1888, and it is about as tough a read as your last few Beethoven posts-though to your credit, yours are somewhat shorter. (Who knows, in a hundred years, or so, from now, scholars may be studying and trying to figure out tge meaning of a couple of those same posts).
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jul 14 - 07:58 PM

Assuming there is any meaning there....

Goofy, your spavined brain cell blowing off politics as a "delusion" and merely a way to manipulate people shows how shallow your understanding is. Colleges and Universities all over the world have entire departments devoted to Political Science and offer degrees in the subject. Read the following and try to grasp what is being said:

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state. It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems, political behavior, and political culture. Political scientists engage in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works. Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory.

Political science has ancient roots; indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle.

So if you think that politics is not worth studying seriously, you'll have to take it up with people like Plato, author of The Republic, Aristotle, author of Politics, and Cicero and Confucius, authors of a number of works on the subject. During the Renaissance, throughout Europe and in Italy in particular, a thorough understanding of the writings of Machiavelli was sometimes necessary for just staying alive.

As to "Left" and "Right," this has nothing to do with the wings of a bird. This classification is comparatively recent and dates from the French Revolution era, when those members of the National Assembly who supported the republic, the common people and a secular society sat on the left of the President of the Assembly, and supporters of the monarchy, aristocratic privilege and the Church sat on the right.


In more modern times, it can be generally said that the Right Wing tends to value tradition and social stratification, while the Left Wing values reform and egalitarianism, with the center trying to seek a balance between the two, such as with social democracy or regulated capitalism.

Political Science is also subsumed under the philosophical field of Ethics, and one cannot really deal with many of the "ins and outs" of politics without a good understanding of the field of Ethics. And Philosophy, which includes Ethics as one of its major fields, is another major department in colleges and universities.

So, Goofball, your cavalier dismissal of Politics displays a really wide area of ignorance.

AND—having a thorough knowledge of Ethics and Politics, not to mention History, does not in any way interfere with musical knowledge, talent, and ability. An intelligent mind is capable of dealing with a whole variety of subjects. Beethoven displayed strong political beliefs on a number of occasions, as did (do) a host of other musicians and composers.

It's not "either-or," Goofy. It's "AND."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 14 - 04:21 AM

I only read the first sentence of Goofus's rambling above. He said that the church joining the real world just means agreeing with someone's politics.

I don't think that allowing women to apply for senior jobs in the organisation is politics, it's human nature. To disagree isn't a political view , it's blatant misogyny and borderline personality disorder to say the least.

One comment on the radio the other day was "removing the stained glass ceiling." I liked that.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 29 Jul 14 - 06:41 AM

"So , how do evolutionists account for soft tissue in dino bone? "

I don't know how 'evolutionists' do, but palaeontologists have been doing and you've had plenty of links in past threads to these. I'm guessing that as usual, you've not read them.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Jul 14 - 05:28 PM

you may not like the word "evolutionist", stu , but that was what I googled and a few links came up, as I have been describing over last few posts. if you have the answer lacking in those items, I suggest you tell us what it is, and if you need to, do a link , IN ADDITION, that might clarify and validate your explanation. in the meantime, you will have to excuse me if I think your post is evasion and bluff.

thats ok ed. certainly I am convinced about my position, but that does not mean that I don't want to learn what the opposing arguments are. but on this item , it appears to me that the argument consists of claiming complete impartiality by evolutionists, coupled with an assurance that new info will be followed without bias, and of course discounting any creationist explanation a priori.
I realize that I am engaging a challenging community of skeptics, who educationally far out compete me, which is I why I try to keep to the simpler ideas.....ie like preservation of soft tissue being against observational science......at least so far, and as I say, I suppose they have faith that they will find an answer.
my worldview is unlikely to change but I hope that I would concede an argument if genuinely evidenced.

bill,...we are never going to agree, because I view the deep time mind set as just as entrenched as the creation view. and in my opinion , it is "science in general", that does support a far younger era for dinos, and just assuring that evolutionism is willing to follow the evidence where it leads, does not answer the question.
if you have no answer to the substance of the question, it might be better to admit as much, but that you still trust the evolutionist scientists anyway for their explanations of other lines of argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 14 - 06:34 PM

..."I hope that I would concede an argument if genuinely evidenced."

Pete... I doubt that can happen as long as you hold a set of beliefs that defines ANY evidence about evolution as false. You persist in definitions about the very nature of science that are demonstrably incorrect.
There is no such thing as " deep time mind set ", and I spent many years in school learning specifically how to avoid such flawed thinking, while you say things like this:

"I realize that I am engaging a challenging community of skeptics, who educationally far out compete me, which is I why I try to keep to the simpler ideas..".... and then you defend those "simpler ideas" as superior to the many thousands of ideas & explanations based on more complex studies & education.
I'm sure it is comforting be so confident, but it must be interesting to live in such a narrow world................

I surrender....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 14 - 09:10 PM

The authors of Genesis (at least five, none of whom were Moses) seem to have picked up parts of their story from Hindu legends of the creation and early history of humanity. Stories of Hindu Heros Adimo, Heva, Sherma, Hama and Jiapheta apparently were replicated into legends about Adam, Eve, Shem, Ham, and Japeth.   

The two creation stories at the start of Genesis were also apparently heavily influenced by Pagan writings from Mesopotamia; the transition between the two sources occurs at Genesis 2:4 with a verse inserted by whoever compiled the scrolls into the book of Genesis.

Pete, if you want to know what Christianity is really all about, stop trying to beat people over the head with Genesis (a compilation of ancient myth and the folklore of several different religions), made up words like "evolutionism," and ignoring observable and verifiable fact (the REAL story of how God did it!), and spend some quality time reading the Sermon on the Mount, and especially Matthew 25:35-40.

A pastor friend of mine once held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is NOT the Boy Scout Manual. It is not a book of answers, it is a book of QUESTIONS!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 03:45 AM

I finally got around to watching the Stephen Hawking documentary where he describes why you don't actually need a God hypothesis in order for the Big Bang to happen. My (rather lay) understanding of quantum mechanics can see his point. Without the variable called time, you cannot have premeditated creation.

The good news about that would be to free religious people to, as Don eloquently describes it , see scripture as a book of interesting questions as it seems to be the case that it certainly isn't a book of answers.

So, the Anglicans are getting there and the Catholics did once have a female Pope. Ok, inadvertently, but by their logic it was the will of their God.

If only someone could slip a line in future editions saying bigotry is arrogance and vanity, and his big balls of fire are awaiting those who discriminate.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 04:03 AM

Musket says: The good news about that would be to free religious people to, as Don eloquently describes it, see scripture as a book of interesting questions as it seems to be the case that it certainly isn't a book of answers.

Musket, maybe you're finally starting to understand the idea that there are religious people who may have perspectives different from those of the literalists.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 04:21 AM

Are you implying that there is a "fifth column" Joe? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 05:28 AM

Ive always said it Joe, and you know that. I don't personally know, to my knowledge that is, any literalists, and yet vicars I know include two very good personal friends and a brother in law. None of them actually believe in an interventionist God, to use the Nick Cave term.

I repeat what you and I have debated many times in the past. I cannot see how organised religions can pick and choose based on scripture, not actually believe it literally but then cling onto it as set in stone when it conflicts with decency. The role of women and the equality of all regardless of creed or sexual orientation being two large elephants in the room.

If not being literalist means accepting men wrote the script, then it isn't a mental leap to either alter the script to reflect the age or write off the literalists as mocking the idea of a faith without er.. Faith.

In a way, pete has the advantage of being a good christian. The whole idea of religion is fodder for the masses to keep them quiet or happy to do as they are told, and he is an excellent example of the prime motive.

For most people, soap opera and Facebook have replaced the fodder bit, in the same way christianity replaced bread and circuses in roman times.

Again, this thread is about relevance and progress. Many people in The UK are far more comfortable with their faith and less likely to be ashamed of it, according to a poll carried out by The Church of England last week, reflecting the women bishops vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 06:20 AM

" I suggest you tell us what it is, and if you need to, do a link , IN ADDITION, that might clarify and validate your explanation."

Evolutionist is a catch-all term that is used by anti-science folk and creationists to lump together a whole slew of people that pretty much disagree with the fundamentalist viewpoint of creation by god in six days.

And that's it. It's a simple attempt to reduce a wide range of people who work in various scientific disciplines to a single group (who work on varying hypotheses) which in reality doesn't exist. These people may agree on the broad evolutionary narrative but differ in their understanding of the process for various reasons, and there's a vigorous ongoing debate, as there has been since Darwin and Wallace discovered evolution. Incidently, it's worth mentioning that they don't think god made the earth in six days because there is zero evidence of that having occurred.

You could argue that many people do the same for creationists, but all creationists believe the exact same thing, so are a group unified by a common viewpoint, which contains little or no variation. I presume - or are there creationist factions? Now that might be interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 06:34 AM

vicars I know include two very good personal friends and a brother in law. None of them actually believe in an interventionist God, to use the Nick Cave term.

They are kidding you, or you are kidding us.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 11:45 AM

Well, I'm pretty sure most of the recent Popes wouldn't have believed much of the Bible, but rather they were probably being pragmatic and believed that organised religion - although based on a false premise - is a force for good.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 11:48 AM

One for you Bill D

""It has always surprised me how little attention philosophers have paid to humor, since it is a more significant process of mind than reason. Reason can only sort out perceptions, but the humor process is involved in changing them"". -- Edward de Bono

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 11:53 AM

Tunesmith, if you believe that your judgement is in question.

"Consider the wise warning of G.K. Chesterton: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything."

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:15 PM

It's not a 'wise warning', it's a dreary, patronising apology for an epigram. I don't believe in God. But I do believe in lots of other things ~~ one of which is that GKC wasn't half as clever as he thought he was. But selectively ~~ certainly not bloody 'anything'.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:17 PM

sadly, keith, I have heard of vicars that are more or less atheist in their private views, but hopefully a small minority.

well stu, I see you evade the invitation to supply an answer.
and as you concede, I might well say the same thing. there are biblical creationists, old earth creationists [ utilizing various ideas to assimilate "science"] and of course theistic evolutionists.
even among biblical creationists there are different schools of thought as to which geologic layer represents the flood.
and yes , "evolutionist" is a catch all term, by which I mean those believing that life evolved from simple organisms on to complex, right up to man. that life came from non life which came from absolutely nothing.....the whole or the parts, interpretation of data at best, and a faith position at best....esp the very beginnings.
I am not asking you to answer for every shade of Darwinism, just the question in hand from your own line of study.

bill. its all very well to infer that all those complex scientific studies validate evolutionism, but that seems like an appeal to authority, rather than engaging the argument....is.nt that some sort of fallacy ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 12:22 PM

No reasonable intelligent person actually believes literally in a god do they?

How can they have credibility in any arena if they do?

Boutique superstition is the art of believing the good bits and dismissing the bad, or hypocrisy as it is known.

Intelligent people use the word God as a metaphor. That requires intelligence. I personally don't have any time for mumbling words you know to be medieval superstition but I respect those who like the tradition and comfort.

But to those who say it is real, I ask them what gives them the right to decide which bits are true and which are fantasy. I remember all the old biddies getting cross when the then bishop of Durham pointed out that learned theologists are above believing in fantasy, but see the value of the moral message.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 01:03 PM

No reasonable intelligent person actually believes literally in a god do they?

Kennedy, Ghandi (several Gods), Martin Luther King, Churchill, Roosevelt, Mandella,.....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 01:17 PM

Look, you silly person!
Could Kennedy - for example - have said he was an atheist and still have become president?
No, he couldn't!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 01:18 PM

"I repeat what you and I have debated many times in the past. I cannot see how organised religions can pick and choose based on scripture, not actually believe it literally but then cling onto it as set in stone when it conflicts with decency. The role of women and the equality of all regardless of creed or sexual orientation being two large elephants in the room."

The role of women in society, and the acceptance of ANY sort of sexual orientation are completely different and should not be lumped together as if they were the same.

The role of women differs slightly in various societies, but is widely accepted worldwide.
Many form of sexual orientation are not accepted and some and are even criminalised here in the UK.
Many more are criminalised worldwide.

The church at least attempts to set some moral standards for society.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 02:40 PM

Tunesmith, those people did believe.
Read their biographies, private letters, diaries, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 02:44 PM

So big of you to defend the abusive little shit.

He is using abusive language, demonising people for having partners who look different his, saying they are not equal and you come running to his defence.

Why is that Keith ?



Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 03:04 PM

""It has always surprised me how little attention philosophers have paid to humor, since it is a more significant process of mind than reason. Reason can only sort out perceptions, but the humor process is involved in changing them"

Thanks for the quote, Ed. It surprised ME for awhile, when I was deeply involved. But I finally saw that some were just too concerned with their place in the pecking order and getting recognition and/or jobs. In my group of grad students, we fortunately had a decent amount of humor, and it really helped in keeping all those odd theories in perspective.

A notice on the bulletin board once: The Audio-Visual Center announces a film on "Plato's Republic" to be shown at...etc.

under that in pencil: Next week they will feature " The Great TUPA- Kant's Transcendence of Pure Apperception- starring Julie Newmar as the Sensible Manifold.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 03:13 PM

Pete-" but that seems like an appeal to authority, rather than engaging the argument....is.nt that some sort of fallacy ?.

Appeal to authority IS a fallacy... appeal to a reasonable analysis of scientific data does not involve 'authority'. YOU appeal to authority... all you have is generations of theologians with unquestioning minds reciting vaguely similar versions of the same apocryphal tale and telling you to 'believe' their version.

Science changes when new evidence appears... sometimes too slowly, but NOT by authority/

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 07:52 PM

"The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jul 14 - 08:24 PM

Ol' Bert was pretty wise....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 03:08 AM

As Keith is quick to google facts when it suits him, I look forward to him pointing out that Akenaton is wrong to say that gender and sexual orientation are at two different levels and to remind him that the law requires that people are not discriminated against for either gender or sexual orientation.

The post congratulating the church for not seeing gay people as equal is perhaps the largest stain on Mudcat that the moderators haven't bothered reading. It is not a view, it purposely lies about law in order to make a view look acceptable that insults and is abusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 03:46 AM

I think your whole perspective is wrong.
You misjudge people.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 07:28 AM

No. I point out where some here judge at all.

You and Akenaton judge all gay people for instance.

Wrongly, and in order to incite hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 07:29 AM

Simply not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 08:05 AM

Again, Keith: without meaning to be patronising, I wonder why you bother. I said it once about Jim. The more so with the noxious, ill-motivated, spiteful, & altogether malignant & malevolent Ian, whose posts I now almost always scroll thru without even reading, because I just don't feel obligated to have my ulcer-pains revived by his incessant point-missing vindictiveness & malice & spleen. Every now & then for once in a way I read one, and even reply; & he smarmily welcomes me back with "It's good to talk". Not with him, it isn't; not in my book.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 08:11 AM

So by pointing out blatant homophobia, Michael says I should be ignored.

Has your newsagent got a gay nephew as well as a terrorist one?

Stupid old fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 08:17 AM

My name appears in 1st line of that last post -- one can never help noticing one's own name.

But I haven't read the rest of it, so he's pissing down the wind as per usual!

☞〠☜

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 08:20 AM

Another Old Bert, Bill D:

"The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution." Bertrand Russell

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 09:39 AM

"well stu, I see you evade the invitation to supply an answer."

It's not my problem if my answer is beyond your ken, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 10:05 AM

Yep, Ed... and another problem faced by thinkers is to recognize 'solutions' offered where there were no real 'problems' to begin with.'

such as: "Where did it all come from?" and "What's the Meaning of Life?"

interesting to ponder, but not really problems.... which make all the serious solutions offered a fascinating landscape of ..... something or other....

I have a collection of dozens of cartoons on the general topic of The Meaning of Life.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 14 - 11:14 AM

The meaning of life can be found in S6.

The decision of The church of England to come closer to the real world demonstrates that even they realise the meaning of life isn't to be found in loose and fanciful medieval translations of ancient stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Aug 14 - 04:42 PM

ah bill, the reason that I think your post sounds like an appeal to authority, is because you offered no argument, it seemed to me. you just assumed that the reigning paradigm [ but that is by no means universal] is answer enough, but my contention is that, had they solved their problem we would all hear about it. seems to me that ,experimentally , that the presence of soft tissue does not suggest 65+ myo. , but the paradigm trumps testable science.
well, the ostrich blood vessels binding together/preserved by the presence of iron [think that's right] is still "recognizable" after 2 yr.......only another few million to go!
and you will notice, I hope, that this post has not appealed to the authority of scripture ,as you claim, but testable ,repeatable science [albeit simple]. I have not used appeal to scripture, as that is understood between us, and I know presuppositional apologetics is nonsense to you.

"....my answer is beyond your ken, pete"
what answer was that, stu. has it disappeared, or yet to be posted ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Aug 14 - 06:11 PM

"..., that the presence of soft tissue does not suggest 65+ myo."

Oh exactly so... it does not! Dating of the surrounding strata & the bones themselves by several independent methods suggest the date. Soft tissue is a very unusual thing to find in things dated that old.... which is why they worked so long & hard to find a reasonable explanation that was consistent.
Ah... but you, Pete have already determined that they were only inventing silly sorts of 'science' to validate their faulty conclusions. You should write them a letter explaining how the Bible makes all their work a waste of time & resources.

(Ummm... I don't offer an argument because I have given the scientific argument for the various dating procedures several times. Just as I know YOUR basic explanation for biblical answers without you having to mention it in every post.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 14 - 06:27 PM

The more so with the noxious, ill-motivated, spiteful, & altogether malignant & malevolent Ian, whose posts I now almost always scroll thru without even reading

Liar. But don't let it get to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 02:08 AM

No -- really true, Hen. I did say 'almost always'. & have admitted I sometimes read one absent-mindedly or out of curiosity. But usually I just don't read them, and so save myself much ulcer-pain-inducing annoyance. It's not hard & fast, just a general policy of mine.

So, now, don't you be rude to me, young man. Don't want to find yourself, yer actual Steve Shaw, on my dreaded "all posts boycotted" list, do you?

~The~

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 02:19 AM

He loves reading them really. When your narcissist tendencies mean you crave attention, you savour every last drop.

He knows I slip in the odd reference to him. It isn't difficult, he supplies the ammunition each time he spouts off. (At this point I usually say bless him, but his awful discriminatory stereotyping of anyone Muslim or his claims that to oppose Israeli aggression is an insult to the memory of some distant family members situated a thousand miles from Israel...)

Anyway, what with drinking tea sans cow juice, treating his newsagent with suspicion and a fondness for Baileys, he is an interesting li...... On second thoughts, rather boring actually. His vitriol towards me for no real reason is about the only thing I can think of, and thats neither here nor there either.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 05:05 AM

It concerns me more that I might inadvertently come off your little list.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 06:09 AM

& there were two more I didn't read. Anything about me in them, I wonder? As if I gave a flying one!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 07:05 AM

" I hope, that this post has not appealed to the authority of scripture ,as you claim, but testable ,repeatable science [albeit simple]."

That pete, is a lie plain and simple as you are NOT using science to endorse your argument at all. You are deliberately conflating the issues with regards to the role in preservation iron plays in soft tissue, and the fact proteins have been recovered from dinosaur bone and this has been tested and verified. For the upteenth time I suggest you read the papers associated with these findings, a fair few are available in the references a section on the Wikipedia page about Mary Schweitzer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer

I actually don't know why I'm bothering, but you got to try right?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 09:17 AM

Pete7*

A more elementary perspective on the related issue:

Just because an object is determined not to be the colour orange, it is not logical to assume it must be blue - even though you prefer it to be. There are other possibilities to consider.

If one person, or a group, cant identify what the colour-shade is at that moment, it is illogical to say that this person, or group, does not have the capacity to identify the colour at some point in the future. It is alsoshallow thinking and unkind to suggest a whole group of people is, in some way, unprofessional, dishonest or biased because thay do not have an answer, but are working on it. I suspect you are not intending to suggest that, but are just very caught up (and possibly perplexed) by an argument that challenges what you hold as important.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 10:59 AM

Look. This thread is about women being able to be appointed to the same jobs employed in The Church Of England as men.

Surely, rather than discussing dinosaurs, or misogynist members of the church as they are really, why not ask if pete is celebrating this as every real Christian does, as per their own creed?






Michael.....


BOO!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 11:41 AM

Jump!

Oh bugger!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 05:54 PM

ed, if I follow your parable , I presume you mean, that just because the data don't suggest millions of yrs that it might not be accounted for by the biblical record. and with this I agree. though I do think that does account for it, I only claim that it is more consistent with it than the deep time paradigm. I recognize that a faith position is involved as well, but not a faith lacking evidence . but it is the generally same evidence as evolutionists claim, but otherwise interpreted. that is their faith position, especially when it contradicts established principles.....say of preservation of stuff that ought to have gone much sooner....if such aeons were real.
of course these creationist arguments " challenges what you[or they] hold as important" and maybe that is why they are often so mocking, insulting and badmouthing, far, far more than anything I might say about evolutionist believers. but I like to think that I am addressing the issues, not the person.
and, I think, that you grossly exaggerate what I might suggest.

stu, despite you calling me a liar, I will respond.   I have read a lot of that stuff, as I intimated before. if you have a answer , you tell us what it is. I don't insist you read reams of creation articles, esp if they don't answer a specific question.
I don't suppose you will answer yourself..."but you got to try, right?"

well bill, we certainly have talked about dating methods before , and about the many anomalies ,and that they make measurements, but not of time, but of data that is interpreted....rocks aren't clocks.
if there can be any...let alone many, inconsistencies, why should we trust evolutionist dating at all.
ah, but you, bill, have already decided that creationist scientists have invented silly science to validate their faulty conclusions. you should write to CMI etc to explain to them how Darwin and dawkins have made it pointless giving up well paid jobs to give the evidence for creation....to return a form of your own words back to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 06:02 PM

rocks aren't clocks

Oh yes they are. And, in a slightly different context, you are almost certainly wearing a rock on your wrist that is infinitely more accurate than the most elegant clockwork movement ever invented.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 06:28 PM

Pete, My points were not in reference to any one person on Mudcat, Pete7*.

They were mainly in reference to views put forward towards science, scientists and their work-which seem to be at times misunderstood and misrepresented (intentionally, or otherwise) by some to make a religious point.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Aug 14 - 06:48 PM

To echo Steve Shaw...rocks ARE clocks if you use the right instruments to read them.

"...but you, bill, have already decided that creationist scientists have invented silly science to validate their faulty conclusions. "

You again mistake how my decision process... and that of 'most' scientists... works. I did not begin with a viewpoint that creationist scientists were probably wrong. I began, about the age of 14, with the idea that all 'information' presented to me should be taken seriously until some clear data, science, or reasoning showed otherwise. This included religious doctrines. When assorted & numerous inconsistencies about religion began to bother me, I wondered why there were so many. This led to my education in philosophy & logic and now over 60 years of sorting thru theories and their basis.

"...if there can be any...let alone many, inconsistencies, why should we trust evolutionist dating at all."
   What is clear is that the inconsistencies in science and in religion are just usually of different sorts... and, as I have said a dozen times, science has a built-in system for finding & resolving inconsistencies. That is what Mary Schweitzer and her team was doing....and what MOST honest scientists do! This is an entirely different system from that used by those who feel they MUST come to a conclusion that agrees with some set of religious precepts...AND.. you cannot simply "return a form of 'my' words back..." and assert that scientists are guilty of faulty reasoning and interpretation of evidence... that is a HUGE error in understanding how it all works- but you are trapped into that idea as the only one that allows you to deny the obvious.

You cannot... fairly... decide to revise the basic principles of logic and language to suit your needs.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 03 Aug 14 - 07:16 AM

"I don't insist you read reams of creation articles"

I have gone and read relevant articles (on your beloved CMI for instance), and they tend to be appallingly inaccurate and contain arguments based on fallacy. To even attempt to start going through them point by point would be an utter waste of life, and I wonder what whomever wrote them is motivated by. Truth? I don't think so.


" if you have a answer , you tell us what it is."

Sorry, what was the question again? I've looked but can't find an actual question - although I did answer your point on 'evolutionists'. This however, also deserves comment:

. . . coupled with an assurance that new info will be followed without bias, and of course discounting any creationist explanation a priori."

Actually, this isn't true. Scientists work very hard to eliminate bias as being human it might creep in to research. However, recognising bias exists is the first step on the road to eliminating or reducing it to levels where it won't affect a set of results. There are many ways this is done, but statistical techniques are widespread and useful, as is the peer review process that should spot bias and unacceptable equivocation too, (amongst a whole slew of other things).

The reason creationist explanations are not considered is because there is no evidence for them in the geological record. If there were, then a hypothesis would be drawn up and tested; in fact, this has happened and the idea of a young earth was dismissed many, many years ago (in the 1830's to be precise). Since then all the evidence points to a 4.3 billion year old earth. Of course Pete (and as I've said many time before), you could challenge this theory in a meaningful way by finding a horse in the Burgess Shale, a bony fish in the Edicarian, a hominem in the Mesozoic. Seeing as the entire creationist movement has found not a single hint of any of these, and predictions are they won't (they can be tested - off you go!), all available evidence points to creationism being total bunkum.

Come on Pete, there are fossil sites all around the country - go and be the man who changed the course of human history and re-write the earth sciences text books (prediction: you won't).

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Aug 14 - 04:08 PM

bill, those instruments are utilized to give measurements, not to tell time. assumptions are made, that favour the deep time mindset. but even then there are anomalies and disagreements.
for the life of me, I cant see why my arguments are less logical than yours, but as you got college training in logic, you may have the advantage. however, it seems logical to me that if operative, testable, science indicates no evidence of soft tissues surviving millions of yrs, that the bones are not that old. and while science should be open to some unknown mechanism, the obvious conclusion till that is validated is that dinos were much more recent. despite you and stu again claiming utter impartiality , the deep time worldview discounts the obvious conclusion.
and is it logical to say that because there are differences in religion, that therefore none are true , and probably no God. I recognize that I am saying something similar about evolutionists, and I reckon it just goes to show that consensus is not much of an argument.
which brings me to your use of the words "science/scientists" as though they are a priori evolutionist. most do subscribe to that worldview, but that would only be an appeal to numbers.
the atheist argument seems to be that creationist scientists are either blinkered, or worse dishonest, as though an atheist, evolutionist scientist must never be , or usually not, be researching with the aim of confirming their own faith position.
of course the well known lewontin quote supports my contention.

....a horse in the burgess shale........or soft tissue in dino bone ?
the first - an argument from silence, the 2nd an argument from science.
and I predict that should any of the examples you give be discovered that most evolutionists will not change their faith position, but rejig it, or claim reburial or some such scenario.
and of course creationist geologists would certainly want to discuss what this evidence is that can only be interpreted according to the deep time paradigm. I'm sure they could find a few problems for you too.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 03 Aug 14 - 04:10 PM

Since when was evolution a faith position?

Discovery is the antithesis of superstition, not a branch of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 14 - 06:45 PM

revising your wording to agree with reality..

" operative, testable, science indicates no most soft tissues do not survive millions of yrs, " That is why it was so confusing! The rare bones that yielded 'some' bits of tissue were buried and preserved in special circumstances. It may be that they will never find any more like that. The dating measurement process does not change because of an unusual situation in what is being dated.

" but as you got college training in logic, you may have the advantage."

I usually defer to those who have more training on a topic than I do... until they reach a point where MY training warns me that they are being careless.

" is it logical to say that because there are differences in religion, that therefore none are true , and probably no God. "

Of course not... and *I* have never claimed it was! I have said many times that I cannot comment on whether a God 'made everything'..or whether one controlled it. I am skeptical about it, but can't prove anything. What I am compelled by that logic to understand is that IF God made & controlled it all and gave us the intelligence to study His creations, the evidence is merely showing us the process He used! Why resort to 2000 year old manuscripts written by men to guide our studies? Religions do not even agree about which documents should BE read & believed!

and ONE MORE TIME... evolutionary science is NOT a "faith position". You must get out of that logically flawed position in order to deal with what it actually is! You cannot make it so by continuing to repeat the assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 14 - 07:13 PM

also.... " creationist geologists would certainly want to discuss " etc.

In so far as they are thinking and acting as creationists, they are NOT following the scientific method required for open-minded geologists.

Religious beliefs and scientific inquiry are two entirely different areas of study. One can believe in God and still be a reasonable geologist, but one cannot apply the belief in God to decide issues in geology!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 04 Aug 14 - 06:47 AM

"the first - an argument from silence, the 2nd an argument from science."

What does this even mean?

"and I predict that should any of the examples you give be discovered that most evolutionists will not change their faith position, but rejig it, or claim reburial or some such scenario."

Did you not read what I said, or are you being wilfully ignorant and trollish? It might do you some good to actually meet some scientists in person to actually understand what they do and how science works. Explaining it to you in a forum is obviously not working.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Aug 14 - 02:06 PM

when people believe stuff that is unproven experimentally, whether it be creation and theism, or evolutionism and atheism [yes I hear you, you are not claiming entire atheism] imo that is a faith position.
ie, I believe that something from nothing via no one is impossible but that a creator is perfectly logical.....so long as you don't try to define him in non spiritual terms [ie himself needing a creator]
your faith position consists of believing that something has come from nothing via no one[ though you are slightly more open minded than many of the more strident atheists here].
the "some" soft tissue preserved, seems to be more and more as time passes, yet still you prefer dating methods evolutionaly interpreted, despite some obvious errors and contradictions/ disagreements by scientists using them. these methods seem to be your reason to believe there must be some reason these soft tissues are preserved.
the more logical explanation, till otherwise demonstrated, is that these dino bones etc are not as old as claimed.
imo, that is a faith position. in fact, I would say that it requires less faith to accept an explanation that ties in better with experimentally verified time frame.
neither of us are geologists, but I don't accept that evolutionary geologists would forsake their deep time dogma, and that it is as deeply ingrained as in creationist geologists.
you may continue to reject my analysis, but I have explained why.

I am inclined to think stu , that it is you who is being wilfully ignorant , and evasive.
horse in burgess shale.....there might be, might not be, either way it is not evidence for evolution other than an argument from silence .
soft tissue finds....according to experimental science , not to be expected to survive aeons......a scientific argument for a more recent life of dino.
thing is, stu, you explain very little....more evasion .

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Aug 14 - 03:05 PM

Pete- there are several answers to your various assertions, depending on which ones are involved and how you phrase them.

In this case you simply use the words 'belief' & 'faith' incorrectly when you attribute it to scientists. Saying" ..imo that is a faith position." does not make it so.
'Faith' is a very specific word, used to describe a position that can NOT be experimentally or scientifically tested & the tests revised & updated. The fact that science is always learning and refining its conclusions and is always open to new data does NOT... repeat..NOT make its current status one of 'faith'.
Some parts of paleontology and related studies will always be open, as we can never find examples of all stages of all entities. Most animals did not die where they could be preserved, thus the idea of THE 'missing link' is only a wish. What we find is 'occasional links'.
Now... this is important... while we can only find a tiny portion of the various stages, and must do a lot of comparison and guessing to fill in the gaps, the dating measurement techniques remain remarkably consistent!. The rocks ARE clocks when the decay of various elements and other *measurable* phenomena are properly applied! We KNOW that various strata are multi-millions of years old...not to day & hour, but close enough to discover relationships of various specimens.
They don't 'believe' these things as a matter of 'faith', they use them as we would a ruler or a laser test, because they ALWAYS are within constant parameters! These tests were applied to various scriptural parchment, and we know pretty closely how long ago they were written. We do NOT have any way to test and measure the claims and stories described in the documents! THAT is a matter of 'faith'.

Pete... this is not a matter of prefacing an assertion with "imo" and asserting it gives your claim of 'faith' a status as good as measurable scientific claims.. it-just-is-not.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 04 Aug 14 - 03:15 PM

"there might be, might not be, either way it is not evidence for evolution other than an argument from silence ."

No, if you find a horse in the Burgess Shale you would go a long way to disproving evolution. However, the absence of a horse in the shales is largely irrelevant to palaeontologists, it's what's there that matters.


"not to be expected to survive aeons"

No it wasn't, you're right. But survive it did and we're getting closer to understanding how this occurs, and it's implications. Surprises like this often happen in science and are known as 'discoveries'.


"a scientific argument for a more recent life of dino."

No it isn't. Had it been, life would have become very interesting but as I said, we're getting a handle on the taphonomic processes that meant some of these proteins survived. Shine on, you have only picked on one tiny part of an exciting field of discovery.

By the way, dinosaurs are still with us. You mean 'non-avian dinosaur'. There. You might have actually learnt something useful today.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Aug 14 - 03:51 PM

when people believe stuff that is unproven experimentally, whether it be creation and theism, or evolutionism and atheism [yes I hear you, you are not claiming entire atheism] imo that is a faith position.

Pete, you may define your own religious beliefs all you like. You may not dictate to others their religious beliefs or what constitutes science or religion for others. If you don't understand it, that's fine. But when you don't understand yet you try to tell others that they are religiously scientific, that is ludicrous.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Aug 14 - 04:46 PM

and... unproven experimentally does not mean that science must have ALL possible answers to be relevant. Theories can be verified as basically correct long before we have done all possible tests and found all possible data. As long as collected evidence continues to be consistent and explainable within the parameters of the theory, we may assume we are on the right track.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Aug 14 - 05:07 PM

""I believe that something from nothing via no one is impossible but that a creator is perfectly logical.....so long as you don't try to define him in non spiritual terms [ie himself needing a creator]""

So, lets suppose this "belief" is true. Pete 7*, What makes "your belief" in a beginning of some type better than anyone elses -throughout history, or currently? Surely just because you believe it, or that it was written down in some form in the past does not make it factual.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 14 - 06:58 PM

Experiments do not set out to prove things. Richard Dawkins does not set out to prove things.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 02:27 AM

Ed, If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then it would then be logical that energy can change forms..therefore what you may be terming as a 'Creator'(or a Creator needing a 'creator') could be the changing of forms. Now being as all matter is made of light, then it would be safe to say that what appears to us in the physical, is just different forms of light...(BTW, when 'light' meets 'time', you have 'matter')...HOWEVER, 'Consciousness' is NOT a matter of matter, or putting it differently, 'Consciousness' is not physical, and often categorized in the same 'realm' as 'Spiritual'...and as evident on here, with some VERY narrow perceptions,'Consciousness' may not subject to 'time'...and in the 'realm'(often referred to as 'a Kingdom') where 'Consciousness' exists, there would be different 'properties'. In our physical state, (or to those who sadly mistakenly think that the 'physical state' is all there is) are not going to perceive all the properties, and lump them altogether under the 'heading' of 'spiritual'...when in fact, the unseen extensions, and 'properties' of our 'known physical reality' are not only far greater than what we 'think' is our reality, but it dwarfs the physical, which is only visible, as light meeting time. 'Consciousness' is NOT subject to the laws of physics, as it pertains to matter.
(I think Beethoven was hip to this as well, for he was perceiving things NOT in the physical' realm, (or 'kingdom')...

Maybe in another hundred years or so, eh?...when they figure out that matter will never be able to control 'Consciousness'.
You mentioned 'beliefs'....YES, people do believe a lot of nonsense and adhere to nonsensical religions of all forms, especially the ones that center around 'rituals for hire'...but FAITH is different than a 'belief'..Faith is just a 'portal' in the 'veil' in the physics of matter, by which one gets a grasp of the workings of 'different' properties, that actually govern the behavior, of what we THINK are the limited laws of physics, and how they work! Once the 'realm' or kingdom'(as referred to in certain 'holy books') is approached with awe and reverence, for what it is, and in grateful wonderment, to the unseen 'realm', does one actually get the benefits of working the properties THERE, and making things manifest, on this side of the 'divide'.
Undoubtedly, some VERY UN-Conscious people either can't, or won't get it......................they can be safely ignored.they just don't know better and are locked in to a very small concept of reality...wouldn't you agree???


GfS

P.S. ..and that shouldn't be such a hard read....it's straight ahead...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 03:03 AM

I love hijacking threads so I shouldn't be too upset that my thread about The Church of England dismissing superstitious nonsense in order to redeem themselves of earlier misogyny in their employment criterior is hijacked by yet another discussion over creationist nonsense.

That said, one of the first replies if you scroll up was pete saying that women are not worthy of taking on senior roles.

So why we are discussing the possibility of dinosaurs when we have a real live one in the seven stars is beyond me.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 06:29 AM

Dinosaurs aren't a possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 09:02 AM

we have a real live one in the seven stars is beyond me.

And it's a dinosaur with plenty of soft tissue. Between the ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 11:46 AM

" Now being as all matter is made of light, then it would be safe to say..."... almost anything.

First you assert something highly debatable, then you base other assertions on your own premises.

" 'Consciousness' is NOT a matter of matter, or putting it differently, 'Consciousness' is not physical, and often categorized in the same 'realm' as 'Spiritual'."

...and awaaaaay we go! I suppose we can now answer "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"


.."but FAITH is different than a 'belief'..Faith is just a 'portal' in the 'veil' in the physics of matter,..."

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 01:01 PM

" I do believe that the writers of the Bible and most ancient sacred writings (Koran, Baghdad Vita, Native American myths, Book of Mormon) were inspired by God."

I was looking back throughout the posts on this thread when I stumbled across this one from Joe.

Joe - Do you not think there is something revealing about this statement? It's typically Christian/Muslim to appropriate other people's religious and secular beliefs to fit your own preferred narrative; in this case those of Hinduism and Native Americans. This is religious imperialism at it's worst, and the same sort of thing missionaries do all over the world as they trash a culture's core beliefs and impose their own religion on the hapless locals.

This is the core arrogance of monotheistic religions: there are many paths to god. At heart their followers believe they are the only ones that are correct, and everyone else is wrong. Even if you don't believe in your Abrahamic god of the desert you must be wrong and are simply not recognising the same god guiding you.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 01:05 PM

If thoughts, mental activity, and consciousness in general is not physical, then why can it be measured on an electroencephalograph?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 03:21 PM

Oh, but Don, didn't you know?- those things are 'merely' the manifestations of consciousness in this 3-D world! The true ultimate source is in a different plane of Being! How do 'they' know that? They intuit it... and then they adapt/adopt some combination of linguistic phrases to describe it. Thereafter, even the intuiting is unnecessary, as one needs only to make some reference to the linguistic conventions!

So simple, once you get used to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 04:07 PM

Well, son of a gun! I didn't know that!!

I'm getting confused. Some people say Life is but a Dream, other people say that Life is just a Bowl of Cherries.

How is a poor wandering pilgrim to know...?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 04:50 PM

N

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 04:52 PM

"How is a poor wandering pilgrim to know...?"

Send $150 in small bills to

"Consciousness Revealed Ministries"
Box 555,
Hackensack, N.J."

a perfectly clear explanation will be sent: (You do read Sanskrit, I hope)

allow 4-6 weeks for delivery

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 04:57 PM

Pardon my hiccups....

Not to make light of the matter, but Clicky.

As Mr. Spock used to say, "Fascinating...!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 05:47 PM

Pardon me for repeating myself, but I just discovered a piece I wrote on another religious discussion thread about seven years ago. With your kind indulgence, I'll post it again here:

CREDO
My family was what I would call 'spiritual," and we did go to church often when I was young, but we never subscribed to any particular denomination. My mother especially read a lot about Eastern beliefs. She had a lot of questions, but she wasn't willing to accept just any old answers. I'm pretty much the same way, I guess. I maintain that spirituality, religion, or philosophical belief is—or, at least should be—a "way of life," and it should enlighten how you live your life and how you treat other people.

Is there a God? I have no idea. Neither do you. If there is some sort of Supreme Being who created all of this, then it will be an entity so different from what we, as mere humans, are able to even contemplate or conceive of that, although an interesting object of speculation, the idea that someone may know what is "in the Mind of God" is downright delusional!

Do I have an after-life? Other that having been preached at a lot, I have no reason to believe so. But I don't rule the possibility out. After all, I've read enough science fiction and science fact and speculation (e.g., Parallel Worlds by theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, dealing with string theory, multiple dimensions, and the likelihood of "multiverses"). Who knows? When you die, you may just wink out. But I (like most people) have a hard time conceiving of my own non-existence in one form or another. Perhaps when my time comes, my awareness simply slips into another dimension or "multiverse" and starts another life.

Personal salvation? Being "saved?" Being "washed in the Blood of the Lamb?" (Sounds kinda messy!) Doesn't concern me. I figure that if I'm true to my own ethical and moral code and maintain my own personal integrity, I'll be all right whatever happens to me when I topple off the twig. I figure that if there is an afterlife, it will be a whole new adventure. It will have little to do with harp-playing angels, pink clouds, and streets paved with gold (kinda garish, that—also sounds sorta boring, especially if it lasts for Eternity!). Nor will it have anything to do with Satan and Eternal Hellfire. These are all human constructs.

Do you need the reward of Heaven (cookie), or the fear of Hellfire (spanking), to prevent you from misbehaving and keep you a good person? If so, you're still a child. You've never actually grown up.

If there is an afterlife, it will be entirely different from what we think. BUT—if there is no afterlife, I will have no awareness with which to be disappointed! So why sweat it?

So—I go to church from time to time. Why? Nice bunch of people. The pastor talks mostly about being kind to each other and helping each other in times of need, matters of peace, non-violent conflict resolution, moral and ethical issues (beyond the merely sexual ones that many church leaders seem to be so hung up on). Excellent music director, several good musicians. Good choir that tackles, not just the standard hymns, but a bit of Bach or Mozart from time to time. And a bit of ritual that helps to keep one grounded sometimes. And not much in the way of the usual religious clichés.

And being a Lutheran church, the after-service cuppa coffee is regarded as one of the Holy Sacrements.   :-)

And the members of the congregation, including the pastor:   I can't imagine any one of them saying something like "Have you discovered Jesus?" or "Have you allowed Jesus into your life?" I think they would choke and have a purple-faced coughing fit before they could get anything like that out!

Spirituality is a matter of questions. Creation—Life, the Universe, Everything—is Very Mysterious. One scientist (and trying to separate religion and science seems to lack a certain Cosmic Integrity) has said that we know only about 4% of what there is to know about the Cosmos. The problem is that the more we learn, the more we learn how much more there is to learn, and that figure goes down to 3%. Questions. What is the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything?" "42" is as good an answer as anything else you're liable to hear, in church or out.

Anybody heard Iris Dement's song "Let the Mystery Be?"

Religious dogma—any religious dogma—is the enemy of spirituality.

That pretty well sums up my position.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 05:58 PM

bill, whether or not you approve of my use of words, does not directly affect the argument since I explained the basis of my use of those words. my argument is that evolutionists are so devoted to their doctrine [ at least in the core teaching ] that formerly accepted experimental science is set aside in the hope that some discovery will change the science. I call that a faith position , even if you do object to that.
using upper case to your assertion that the dating interpretations are so accurate does not make it so, though I presume you did so because you want to stress the importance of the argument. but this acclaimed accuracy/consistency is the question at hand that you seem to view as crucial. do you deny that scientists have come up with different readings using different methods and interpretation of the data ?.
if you do deny it, I can give examples. if you don't, your argument loses something, or you have to say that someone got it wrong....but which, and why. maybe, not properly applied ? . trouble is, a lot of that dating was done at highly regarded labs.
maybe there is some other option than the foregoing, but I cant think what at present.
btw, when I use "imo" it is not to add authority, but an admission that I might be missing something in the argument.

I hear you, ed. it would be another discussion as to why I trust the bible as opposed to some other account of creation. just debating that there was a creation as opposed to a big bang out of nothing is time consuming enough for now!

I was quite aware , stu, of the contested belief that little robin was a dino many moons past.
so, are you saying that they are getting at how science has formerly been mistaken about how long soft tissue can last......or still hoping to come up with something to evidence its endurance ?
that is, other than we "know" they were 65+myo and therefore the current experimental science must need revising to accommodate the "discovery"

steve, must admit your little joke at my expense was funny.
makes a change from your wordy assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 06:40 PM

"...I call that a faith position , even if you do object to that."

Pete- It is beyond anything as simple as 'my objection'. Calling it "a faith position" is a complete distortion of what multi thousands of scientists do and how they comprehend the very concept of what they do.
If you don't grant any scientists even the the idea of being neutral & unbiased, how can you believe anything they tell us on any subject? As I said, "faith" and "belief" are words which MUST have a clear meaning, or we can't even discuss what it means to do something other than 'believe' by 'faith'!..(and perhaps WE cannot, as you insist that 'faith' covers science as well as religion.)

"do you deny that scientists have come up with different readings using different methods and interpretation of the data ?."

That covers too much.... of course there are some differences when measuring SOME things... but the goal of science is to determine what differences are relevant.
Do YOU deny that water treatment plants, when testing for impurities in your drinking water, may get 'different' readings? At some point you have the trust them to be able to measure the relevant things accurately enough to tell you that your water is safe, instead of just putting in a filter and asking you to "have faith". They test.. test again... compare their tests to those of other laboratories in different places... and they constantly refine the tests. They don't ask you to just 'believe' that that stream is safe... it might have been polluted since last week. The tests must be as accurate as possible, even if they sometimes have "different readings using different methods and interpretation of the data".

".. trouble is, a lot of that dating was done at highly regarded labs."

Umm...yes..but it is my impression that very few, if any, labs run by committed Creationist scientists do significant basic research. Most of the creationist 'scientists' spend most of their time looking for reasons NOT to accept 'highly regarded' dating procedures that don't seem to agree with their interpretation of Genesis. A lot of that non-acceptance is simply ignoring vary basic science in favor of evidence 'interpreted' in non-standard ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 07:38 PM

My assertions are to the point, pete, containing exactly as many words as are required to slap you down. I seldom need very many.

other people say that Life is just a Bowl of Cherries.

Unless you suffer from severe piles, in which case life is just a bowel of cherries.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 14 - 08:07 PM

The fact that two plus two equals four is not a "faith position."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 03:01 AM

It was an article of biblical faith that women can't be bishops.

Now it's an article of biblical faith that they can.

All these years and there was a paragraph nobody noticed till two weeks ago?

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 06:51 AM

"the contested belief that little robin was a dino many moons past."

IS a dinosaur (right now, actually) and this is only contested by a couple of workers, and I think these might be ornithologists not palaeontologists. These workers still have their papers read and peer-reviewed, but their interpretation if the evidence is considered seriously flawed.

so, are you saying that they are getting at how science has formerly been mistaken about how long soft tissue can last......or still hoping to come up with something to evidence its endurance

If I get your gist here, you're asking if we are seeking evidence to prove how soft tissue, which we previously thought couldn't survive more that perhaps hundreds of thousands of years can actually last tens of millions, perhaps more?

No we're not. We discover the presence of soft tissue, develop a hypothesis about how it served and then test that hypothesis. If the evidence points to the fact this (for instance) a microbial film, then all well and good, if it's soft tissues from a dinosaur then great, if it's a flawed experimental methodology then fine. What the evidence is doesn't matter, we just want to find the truth of what's happened. There is no desire to tip the results one way or another, or what's the point of engaging in the process of discovery?

"that is, other than we "know" they were 65+myo and therefore the current experimental science must need revising to accommodate the "discovery""

To do that would be against the very core principles of scientific endeavour and would be dishonest. We would all be liars of we did this, and not engaged in the process of discovery.

Do you think we are all liars pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 07:33 AM

birds and dinosaurs 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 11:46 AM

I just read Ed T.s link and learned something I had not known before.... not specifically about birds and dinosaurs, but about method..(which is really what the article is about).

If you read the article, try not to worry about understanding and remembering all the long, technical names of various fossil discoveries. Concentrate on the methods used by different groups to determine what relationship, if any, the various fossils have to one another.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 06:27 PM

have read article re cladistics. observations-
the conclusion is arrived at and the comparisons are done.
two option = to bird or not to bird-
either way they evolutionized according to the predetermined end result.
the contest appears to be between opposing evolutionary ideas.
the idea of cladistics does not deal with how such drastic internal and external changes could happen, or how the intermediaries [which of course are, as Stephen gould conceded missing] survived.
feathers on some dinos ?. possibly, but who says it is impossible. it is an argument for dinobird but hardly conclusive.
I suspect that I could build a cladogram from comparing the development of the wheel from a round rock all the way to trucks and aircraft. but of course, we know there was intelligence, design and builders.

bill- faith and belief don't really figure in hard science but does in origins science, and as I keep pointing out, the hard science is being put on hold in favour of the faith position [or preconception, a priori belief, if that makes it easier to grasp].
do I need to reel off that long lewenton quote again to point out that it is not only a creationist charge, but an evolutionist admission ?.
water plant purity. yes, I do take that on [informed] faith. there might be a hiccup now and again. maybe their readings might vary from week to week, but I certainly have no qualms on drinking tap water generally.
but I doubt that their reading of the same cup of water is going to vary, unless they leave it to stagnate. presumably a sample tested in lab for age should be a point in time too. but different methods, different scientists have differed....sometimes spectacularly so.
committed creationists?.......and why not " committed evolutionists"
good for the goose..... ?
and the labs are usually secular, not creationist.
most evolutionists run around trying to find reasons to sideline experimental science to accommodate their Darwin dogma.

stu- "considered seriously flawed".......by those who disagree, obviously ! i'll settle for "contested"
"...process of discovery.." i'll take that as no, you don't know how to explain away formerly held experimental science.

"...liars, pete" I will leave the accusations of lying to you, stu.
I just explained my position to bill. no where did I say you were lying. but neither do I think you are as impartial as you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 08:40 PM

Pete... if I had a few thousand $$$ to spare, I'd spend a bunch of it to fly over there and spend some time chatting with you at length..(more could be said in a few hours than a couple of hundred posts on Mudcat).

But, that being impossible:

...the hard science is being put on hold in favour of the faith position ..

You say things that are very close to total misunderstanding of the concepts involved and/or arrant nonsense. ALL of the aspects of dating on fossils involve 'hard science'. There IS no such thing as "origins science" as a definable practice. That is a subjective term invented by [someone] to cloud the issue when the facts & evidence are heavily against your beliefs.

"....and why not " committed evolutionists"?"

Because accepting evolution is for most scientists merely the situation of seeing many, many years of 'hard science' leading inexorably to the basic conclusions of evolution! Only the details and relationships are in doubt... and 'doubt' is not the right word, as it sounds like confusion when it merely means 'not discovered yet'.

As to your reading of the article: "either way they evolutionized according to the predetermined end result."

"Evolutionized" in not a real word... it is your loaded language made to sound like the analysis was 'cooked' and artificial. ...and calling the data "predetermined" is flatly incorrect.In fact, they TRIED to not believe stuff about feathers until more & more examples were found... just as soft tissue was a surprise and was doubted until it could no longer BE doubted.

"the idea of cladistics does not deal with how such drastic internal and external changes could happen, or how the intermediaries [which of course are, as Stephen gould conceded missing] survived."

*rolling my eyes*. Cladistics, as explained in the article, does NOT deal with "how", it deals with logical relationships between observed and cataloged data! It simply helps keep track of huge amounts of characteristics. As to intermediaries... we have gone over that many times..1)not all intermediaries ARE missing...all fossils are intermediaries, and..2) it is logically & physically impossible to find them all.

Some of the same tests are used to test drinking water as to examine geological & paleontological evidence,,,yet you accept one and deny the other.

You are a hard case..

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 09:00 PM

Don 'DF' Firth: "Is there a God? I have no idea."


..and them you go on to pontificate on something you have no idea about????????????
...it ain't the first time you've tried that shit!
Go get an education..at least to know that expounding on things you have no idea about' (your words, not mine), is pretty inane, to say the least!...You should abstain from further making an ass of yourself!..because ANYTHING you post regarding something you 'have no idea" about, should be quickly written off as stupidity!

Ed, haven't heard back from you..I don't think that my last post will have to wait for scholars in the next century to tell you that it is quite accurate!...though it may fly in the faces of those who think that a political agenda, is the place where life and consciousness comes from.....matter of FACT, DEATH and UNCONSCIOUSNESS comes from adherers of political agendas...and everybody 'gets that'...except adherers of political agendas!!

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 09:25 PM

Goofball, you are not competent to judge.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 09:46 PM

Goofus, you either totally misread what I wrote or you are twisting things in order to take a shot at me, which springs not from anything I say, but from your own long-standing malice toward me.

I don't know if there is a God or not. NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE, no matter how much faith they have in the idea that there is.

Crawl back into your septic tank.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 10:09 PM

"Ed, haven't heard back from you."

gosh, GfS.. you heard from ME.. *grin*...whassa matter, I don't call you names, so I'm not a good target?

Ah well... just as well. Pete keeps me busy.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 10:53 PM

Don 'Df' Firth: "I don't know if there is a God or not. NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE.."

Speak for yourself!!...and ONLY for yourself!....and this time try to remember your only one thing accurately you've said, 'I have NO IDEA'.
So, in light of that...shut up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 14 - 10:58 PM

Goofus, if you know otherwise, PROVE it or shut up!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 01:53 AM

I have an album in my collection that makes it quite clear on the cover that Eric Clapton is indeed God.

Works for me.

Although another fact is that man made God in his image. In which case, how come I can't play guitar as well as he does ?

Superstition moves in mysterious ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 03:30 AM

Musket: "Although another fact is that man made God in his image. In which case, how come I can't play guitar as well as he does?"

How do you know how well He plays?

Don 'DF' Firth: "Goofus, if you know otherwise, PROVE it or shut up!!"

Don, If you say, "Is there a God? I have no idea."...then what do you measure ANY proof against?? Once again, you are being obscenely foolish..but, that's never stopped you!
For you to even remotely understand anything that applies, you need more of your brain working...and that comes from God.
Sorry, can't 'give it to you'...you have to ask Him to reveal himself to you, YOURSELF!!..(it's not a political position, one way or the other..)....THEN you'll KNOW.
(Maybe you'll flash, when you look into the mirror, and NOT see your SELF!).
...but then how would you know???..you have NO IDEA what to look for!

GfS

P.S. Hey, you said it!...and there is NOTHING to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 03:48 AM

I have seen him many times, got just about all his albums from Cream onwards I suppose.

His most recent coming being playing a guitar plugged into a car radio on Top Gear...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 06:40 AM

Ed's link is rather out of date, but here is a quick and accurate guide to where present research on birds is up to: 50 million years of incredible shrinking theropod dinosaurs.

" i'll take that as no, you don't know how to explain away formerly held experimental science."

That's not what I said at all, and I explained in simple terms how the process works, how new discoveries allow new understanding. This is a totally unacceptable twisting of my words.

"most evolutionists run around trying to find reasons to sideline experimental science to accommodate their Darwin dogma."

OK, you can't make statements like this as it is a huge lie, plain and simple. Insulting and false statements like this show a real lack of integrity and you have no right to call the work of so many good, honest people because you are so committed to a dogma. This makes me really fucking angry. You can't debate so you are now resorting to this sort of bullshit. Again.

Look on the bright side pete, you can take pleasure in the fact that you've would me up so much. Feel proud.


The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.W.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 12:00 PM

and... at the bottom of the page Stu links to, there is an even more amazing cladistic chart and other diagrams about the fossil records of birds and bird-like specimens.

I cannot imagine how anyone can see all that data and research without realizing how many millions of years it took to develop such an array. In the article they comment on the enormous number of missing links and other evidence, such as fossil nests (which are obviously hard to preserve) that would help produced even better charts. [Note: IF most specimens WERE available, there would not be enough paper to print the chart on!]

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 01:13 PM

Another volley of maliciousness and stupidity from the Goofer.

Goofball, you deliberately distort what I write, put your own nasty interpretation on it, then try to use it to slam me. Actually, when you do that, it shows you up for the petty-minded little twerp you are.

The piece I posted above ("Credo") says what I intended to say. I don't know if there is a God or not. Neither do you. Neither does anyone, no matter how strong their faith, one way or the other. This means that I am an Agnostic, which, in the face of viable evidence either way, is the only reasonable philosophical position.

Others would argue that Atheism is the only reasonable position and I can understand that, but tend to agree to disagree.

Goofball, until you look at the matter intelligently instead of looking for material that you can twist like a pretzel then use to try to slam me, you're not worth the bandwidth you waste. If you want to have your remarks taken seriously by intelligent people, learn something about the matter under discussion. Read something by people who are knowledgeable in the field such as A History of God, by Karen Armstrong and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks this Meaning of Scripture by Bishop John Shelby Spong, and some of the many other works by these two very knowledgeable authors—both of whom know whereof they speak.

These are excellent sources of thought-provoking information for any and all who are genuinely interested in the subject.

But, Goofy, I don't think you have either the incentive or the intelligence to try to learn anything about what you insist on blathering on about. Or, for that matter, the genuine interest in the matter. You just want to attack me.

Revenge for blowing the whistle on you back in the Prop 8 thread.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 03:03 PM

yes, stu, I know it is not what you said.....I was indicating what it amounted to. you did not have an explanation , just hedging around to avoid admitting it.
and the sentence that made you so #/;# angry was only a reforming of same sentiments applied to creationists by you or bill.
but I did not get angry. I can take it, why cant you.
and I am debating. till you come up with a good explanation , other than it must be millions of yr old because we "know" dinos are that old, I reckon I have a valid argument. you and bill may continue to browbeat me about " scientists" as though it was equivalent to evolutionist, but it is not, even if they are at present presenters of the ruling paradigm.

ah, bill, just about everything you assert can be turned around.
however ,I will concede that "hard" science was a poor choice of wording. I suspect though, that you guessed it to be short for experimental, testable ,repeatable science. for example ascertaining the presense of fragile and perishable materials in bone.
origins science seeks to interpret the when and how, and is not repeatably testable....it is in the past.
confusing these two is a tactic to bring more credence to origins pronouncements , as though as sure as normal present day science.
so, has there been a major closing of the gaps since goulds admission....which he apparently regretted making.
you seem to know more about water testing than me. I had no idea that they used the same methods on water as on rocks.
so when they test the water with this array of methods, do they get different results, widely varying from the same sample at the same time?.
not sure how much more posting I will do at present ,as we away soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 04:18 PM

" I had no idea that they used the same methods on water as on rocks.

That's not exactly what I said... but it IS the case that many tests for mineral content and pH and nuclear half-life are quite similar in the two fields. The standard baseline values of materials do not change when the tests are done for different branches of science.


"...origins science.....it is in the past."

A distorted view of what the relation of the test to the material is.... In a sense, ALL material tested in any situation is 'in the past'..it is just some is older than others. Very seldom is it even possible to conduct scientific testing on organisms as they change, as the very process of testing can alter the subject. (No...that doesn't mean that test results are flawed... they just have to understood in context).

"... goulds admission....which he apparently regretted making."

*grin* If Gould regretted saying something, it was because his words were subject to distorted interpretation. read this, where my exact point is made! (I hope that link works)

Gould ALWAYS was open to new ideas & explanations... if you read his books, instead of reading just reading about his books, you'll find many examples of how he grew & changed over the years. Nothing he said or wrote, however can remotely be interpreted as casting doubt on the basic process of evolution!

So..... going away for a bit? I hope it is just a pleasant holiday. No discussions on this for awhile might give ME a rest. ☺

take care...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 04:27 PM

The link I posted seems to work ok.... it is a debate among several on both sides, and one of the "Gould admits' folk makes the same basic error I explained earlier... that he takes words and uses them in a different way from what was meant in order to deny the sense of what was meant.

read carefully...very carefully

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 04:16 AM

This just in.

The new Secretary of State for education has said she will remove funding from nurseries that promote creationism as a fact. (Bible stories are still ok in the same way as any other fairy story, so The Church of England isn't kicking up.)

I had no idea brainwashing was necessary from such an early age? I thought they waited till enquiring minds were in play till they pounced?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 04:51 AM

CofE faith schools teach evolution not creationism, and always have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:08 AM

"I can take it, why can't you."

Because you cast aspersions on people you don't know, on subjects you know nothing about. I spent years in the church, I was brought up in that tradition and am fully up to date with the arguments. What makes me angry is you feck all about the process, you appear incapable or unwilling to even consider it valid, keep using pejorative names for legitimate researchers and even make up stuff about what they're doing and what their motivations are.

"you and bill may continue to browbeat me about " scientists" as though it was equivalent to evolutionist, but it is not, even if they are at present presenters of the ruling paradigm."

This isn't even a cohesive sentence.

You're hearts in the right place, eh pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:20 AM

Why don't you google musket + church joins real world + mudcat ?

You might see a post (the one you replied to but I appreciate if it ain't on google you don't believe it) where I spoke of nurseries. Not schools. Nurseries. One piece of nonsense at a time eh?

By the way, the CofE primary school in a village near where I used to live managed to get two governors removed for trying to influence a creationist agenda onto the curriculum a few years ago, according to the head.

Tut tut. Even half baked religions such as CofE have to be vigilant.

Its bad enough seeing superstitious nonsense influencing society in the middle east, Africa and Dumbfuckistan without them trying to impress an educated sophisticated multi cultural society such as ours. Most people with faith of any sort do, on the whole, keep it to themselves and fellow club members. (That said, how he didn't waddle down the drive with his Watchtower protruding from his arse the other day shows I must be mellowing..

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:24 AM

By the way, the CofE primary school in a village near where I used to live managed to get two governors removed for trying to influence a creationist agenda onto the curriculum a few years ago, according to the head.

That is just impossible to believe Musket!
Can you give us any details at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:26 AM

If we had the name of the school or just the village it would be easy to find the reports on that most newsworthy incident, if it really happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 02:50 PM

One of the basic tenets of traditional Christianity is to 'spread the word". Somewhere in the bible there are words to the effect.. "Go, and become fishers of men."

Many sects take that far too literally and adopt proselytizing as basic doctrine.The Watchtower is one result.

Others are more discreet and thoughtful...I'm not sure which are more honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 03:24 PM

A. J. Jacobs wrote a book entitled The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible.

I heard Jacobs in a radio interview describe how, during the year he was doing his "research," a pair of Jehovah's Witnessess appeared on his doorstep clutching their copies of "The Watchtower." They announced that they would like to talk to him about the Bible.

Jacobs invited them in. After about a half an hour of Jacobs talking to them, the two of them were glancing around in furtive desperation, looking for a way out!

(Snicker snicker!!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 03:55 PM

An interesting perspective on religion and colonialism (proselytizing):

""Christianity and Islam are known as proselytizing religions because they make an organized and systematic effort to gain converts, and they often provide services, products, or employment to attractconverts. Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism show far less zeal about gaining converts, which is why you almost never hear about Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist missionaries.""

opinion piece on religion and colonialism 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 04:58 PM

But try to never get in a conversation with someone from the "Jews for Jesus" group! The couple I have heard practically back you into a corner and demand attention.

I know.. two experiences is not a wide survey...but...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 06:33 PM

a lot of water gone under the bridge between us, bill. if you did a sample of tests on the same bucketful.....would you get widely different results........as you might on a geological sample ?.
but thanks for clarifying what you meant, re methods.
"distorted view",...sure, everythings in the past to some extent, but some of it is in the recent past and was subject to repeatable, testable examination. pronouncements about the long gone past are interpretations of measurement and data guided by assumptions, coloured by worldview. I stand by the distinction.
you misread me re gould. I don't know of any creationist that says he does not subscribe to evolutionism. quite the opposite. in fact it is as a hostile witness, that his words carry more weight , and why the damage control comments came after. I see he speaks of "abundant" transitionals. as you have read his works, I presume you could say what these are. I am sure there are a few debatable examples.....and a few that have since been abandoned.
PE was proffered surely because of the scarcity of transitional examples...a theory to explain the lack of evidence for gradualism.
yes, I think he may have regretted letting the cat out the bag. I don't see that I have taken it out of context , but his further comments sought to clarify his continued evolutionary position.

so, stu, you object to my opinions because I don't know much. yet you have said yourself that you are not that educated either, but you say far more insulting things about creation scientists, who know far more than either of us. a little reflection needed, methinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 07:22 PM

Perhaps so, pete. Consider:

Some decades ago, I was sitting in the Pizza Haven in Seattle's University District with a couple of friends, guzzling coffee and saving the world, when in came a horde of students from a small Bible college in the area. Apparently their class assignment was to go out into the cold, cruel world and save sinners like Buzz, Loren, and me. They dispersed through the restaurant (it was a pretty big place and a bit of a hang-out for students from the University of Washington—good, inexpensive pizza and a bottomless coffee cup, i.e. endless free refills) and pounced on individuals and groups sitting at the tables.

This one young woman descended on our table an asked us the "Have you been Saved? Do you have Jesus in your heart?" and got a fair barrage of smart-ass answers. Discussion ensued, and I have to give the young woman high marks for persistence in the face of dedicated heathens like the three of us. Finally, she button-holed me in particular and said, "May I pray for you?"

I said something like, "Go ahead. Feel free."

I thought she meant quietly. And later. But no! She slid off her chair, dropped to her knees, clasped her hands together, gazed upward, and out came, "Oh, Lord Jesus, please help this poor lowly sinner!!" at the top of her lungs, and continued on for several minutes! People in the restaurant were craning their necks to see if the reincarnation of Aimee Semple McPherson had manifested itself in the Pizza Haven.

I wonder if it ever occurred to that young lady in her obvious belief that she was sporting a halo and I was a lowly sinner (judging me without knowing anything about me--"Judge not, lest ye be judged...."), that she was guilty of the Sin of Pride (one of the Seven Deadly)?

In fact, the whole crew from the Bible college, obviously assigned to go Save Souls among the assorted hippies and beatniks--and a few folk singers--who tended to hang out in the University District, were all guilty of the same sin.

pete, obviously you think you have all the answers, derived from an ancient folk tale (Genesis), and that all of that vast army of scientists, biologists, and astronomers who posit a 12.5 billion-year-old universe and a 4.5 billion-year-old earth, and all of those who argue with you here, are Doomed to Perdition. Think carefully now. You may be endangering your immortal soul!

The Sin of Pride.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 14 - 08:28 PM

"...a lot of water gone under the bridge between us, bill. if you did a sample of tests on the same bucketful.....would you get widely different results........as you might on a geological sample ?."

Hmmm... each of us tends to pollute ummm... imbue our own samples of the water in the bucket with quite similar ingredients over time. I think different results would depend on the testing methods each of us might employ. The philosopher Heraclitus was famous for saying "You can't step into the same river twice.", but I think a bucket dipped into the flow of our discussions might yield some fairly standard results.

" I don't know of any creationist that says he does not subscribe to evolutionism."

?? Then I have misread something...somewhere. The theory of evolution as usually put forth asserts that you & I, for example, 'evolved' from some distant ancestor millions of years ago, other branches of which became other primates. What do you disagree with... the evolution or just the dating?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 03:46 AM

Nice to see the debate between pete and Bill.
Wish all debate could be conducted on this basis. Not so long ago pete we written off as a "nut job" and demonised by most people here, but by patience and civility, he is now recognised as a serious partner ...in debate.


Just goes to show that sometimes we need to look a little further than our personal political objectives, to see other aspects.

The danger to this forum is not "alternative" ideas, but those who want to stamp out debate on any issue, the bullies, the name callers the gang mentality.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 04:12 AM

"but you say far more insulting things about creation scientists, who know far more than either of us. a little reflection needed, methinks."

Thanks for the advice, but I spend a lot of time reflecting on this subject, just beyond the scope if biblical dogma. The term "creation scientist" is an oxymoron, or as near as dammit. The only way to reconcile the two (given the current evidence) is to misinterpret or falsify.


"but those who want to stamp out debate on any issue, the bullies, the name callers the gang mentality."

Agreed. It seems as if some folk can pull the wool over the eyes of an entire group of people and get away with it, as their boorish and disingenuous arguments are couched in 'acceptable' terms.

Funny really. Show passion for fairy tales and falsehoods and you get respect, show passion for the search for truth and integrity and you get called. Sod it. Walk the gun smoke.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 06:22 AM

Yes, and it can be added that a few who "condemn" the name callers also participate themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 06:56 AM

Be positive lads, Bill and pete have shown the way.
Try not to be devious, say what you think, don't use second hand quotes to bolster your position.

Keeping your head in your own particular sand pit does not make for a broader outlook.

I don't "believe" in creationism, but I also know that Science has absolutely no idea how the universe was created...its beyond human understanding and as I have said before we as a species will be extinct in a very short span of time.
That Gog created it all, is a good a theory as any other that I have heard and certainly more plausible than the big bang theory.

The two theories don't stack up, "In the beginning there was God"..."I the beginning there was a big bang".   Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 07:23 AM

Very little here is original thought. However, the knowledge, thoughts and quotes of others can be useful to frame discussion and to base perspectives on and stimulate thought. Skme people find these useful, others less so. Most in the latter group pass what they do not like nor understand, courteously pass them by not contributing to discord.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 07:28 AM

"Be positive lads, Bill and pete have shown the way.
Try not to be devious, say what you think, don't use second hand quotes to bolster your position."

Shine a light. Bill is a person I've got a huge amount of respect for, end of. Where have I been devious? That's not my trick, but then I have a clue what I'm talking about. Like pete said, I didn't get a university education but I'm there now and am taking the trouble to learn in great depth about my subject and other science to place it in context. But then I'm full of shit because I say "fuck" occasionally U suppose. Fuck.

As for my beliefs, don't presume to know them. You have zero idea how broad my outlook is. I'll still defend the people I work with and the science we all do in the face of wilful ignorance and softly-spoken falsehoods. Unlike some, I've no interest in prostelytism or adherence to dogma and unassailable views. Everything's open to question.

Fill you boots with self-righteous posturing; I'm trying to talk ideas here. There's a fundamental philosophical difference that I find interesting, but getting anyone to talk about is impossible.

Join the throng and call away ake. You've been scammed like the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 10:47 AM

I know you are not devious Stu.
We disagree about a lot of things, but you are straightforward and honest, I don't see any agenda.

Regarding faith and science, I think the two can coexist quite comfortably. When applied to the future of humanity, I don't think either will make much difference...fate has mapped it all out.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 12:47 PM

Ake, if you will read my posts in general, you will note that I stick to the debate as much as possible. I lash back only when someone attacks me personally, which generally comes from on person on this forum, who deliberately distorts what I say.

Were it possible to avoid this individual, I would. But among other things, he is a stalker and he rarely misses an opportunity to snipe at me.

And what is one to do when that someone keeps claiming that you are saying things that you are not saying at all?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 01:18 PM

"That Gog created it all, is a good a theory as any other that I have heard and certainly more plausible than the big bang theory."

I am guessing that Gog is a typo.. but...

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

"More plausible" is not exactly an easy position to defend, whatever you meant, ake. Why not a simple "We just can't know that kind of thing"?
My position, that of 'skeptic', is that any attempt to tout one position over another leaves it open to criticism. If I had to choose one position, it would be that Cosmologists, mathematicians and such who attempt to imagine something about existence can at least throw out complex explanations (most of which I cannot begin to follow) of how matter begins & ends.
If one just asserts that God (or Gog) created it all, the obvious next question is "Why was there any 'eternal Being' to begin with?" And the very phrase 'begin with' and the word 'Being' have embedded connotations that are hard to explicate.

Many of the cosmological theories dispute each other and so far, deal mostly with concepts that can't be seen, measured or explicated except by abstract mathematics... which makes a simple "God did it" a lot more attractive for most folks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I..ummm... consider myself a success when I can get good press from even those I often disagree with. Thanks to all who recognize what I try to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Aug 14 - 03:35 PM

""I..ummm... consider myself a success when I can get good press from even those I often disagree with. Thanks to all who recognize what I try to do.""

"A tip of the Sou'Wester" from me to you Bill D-for your good attempts (aka, success) at staying above the mixed lot of snipes and snipers, and for avoiding getting mired down by those with various godly, ungodly causes,and those with small p and big P (political ) agendas, (and a gaggle of other reasons and prejudices) attempting to stifle debate and the contribution of contributions by those who merely see things differently then they do. Your one mission seems clear to me -to debate keeping logic in clear sight during discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 06:54 AM

"Regarding faith and science, I think the two can coexist quite comfortably."

I agree, and there are many scientists that have a deep conviction to their faith. I do find the confluence of the two a fascinating place.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 08:37 AM

It is interesting that one of the scientists, Mary Schweitzer, is deeply religious, but does not buy in to the religious fanatics attempts to put a religious meaning to her research. Like many scientists, she has no difficulty in having a religious belief and being a scientist. She seems to understand the key that each is separate.

This article may have been posted before, the important related parts are her views on religion and science: In her case, as with many others, the two "do" exist comfortably, (not may).


From discover 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 08:52 AM

The two can exist rather comfortably. When you consider the two spheres have no contradiction , why not? The mythology of seven day creation, a god concept, things happening that physically cannot happen are articles of faith. Finding out how things tick in the real world is science. Absolutely nothing in common.

The problems start when somebody points out that something from one contradicts the other and takes umbrage. You can understand how people carrying out research into how the universe really works get a little pissed off when a semi educated fool in a dog collar reckons he has the answers and it some nasty (irrelevant though) thing called blasphemy to ignore him.

This thread started by noting how a large organised religion (Church of England) decided that as their stance of refusing to appoint women to director level posts ( Bishops) was out of step with society's expectations of equality, they decided to interpret their old book differently to allow them to do so.

The comparison of superstition with science and reality gets even starker....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 11:42 AM

Now we're getting somewhere!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 01:06 PM

"You can understand how people carrying out research into how the universe really works get a little pissed off ..."

Which is why pete gets me riled sometimes :-) And I've pointed out Mary Schweitzer's faith too. Stony ground and all that.

There is a deep and profound sense of wonder in science that is perhaps not unlike religious experience. Scientists aren't soulless automatons, and we too feel the sense of the numinous but don't necessarily ascribe the cause to the supernatural.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 07:06 PM

Well the two do coexist. The coexistence is not always comfortable, though. A workaday scientist can go about his/her work in a perfectly objective way, yet, in a sort of separate mental existence, believe in God. I think that such people are barking mad, but I cheerfully admit that it need not compromise their work in science. It is at the outer limits of science, where scientific ethos starts to mingle with speculation (and why not - we're human beings, not Mr Spocks), that conflict becomes a potential issue. The most important thing is that the scientist, in his or her field of endeavour, always remembers that scientific advance relies totally on evidence (and shut up, God Squad, because you don't know what I mean by "evidence"). The experience of the last few hundred years is that conflict at these outer limits is always caused by religion's neurosis (if only we could ask Galileo). The one thing that religion can't stand is that science is closing in on it all the time. Nothing in nature is beyond scientific explanation (we might not always be quite there yet, but we're closing in). And the more we can explain, the more religion had better shuffle uncomfortably from one buttock to the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 08:32 PM

I once heard a philosophy professor say, after thoroughly demolishing St. Thomas Aquinas's various arguments for the existence of God (for which, the Church made him a saint), "If science were to discover that there actually is a God, and could begin to describe God's attributes and characteristics, to order for the Church to maintain its power and position in worldly affairs, it would be necessary for the Church to invent--SuperGod!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Aug 14 - 08:45 PM

Typo. "..., in order for the Church...."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 11 Aug 14 - 11:00 AM

I presume the shit hit the fan when Stephen Hawking pointed out that observing the Higgs Boson coming into existence demonstrates that you actually don't need a God to have created anything. Space and time as we observe and measure it can pop into existence without any help from a bloke with or without a white beard.

Me? I'm grateful to whichever God you want for not existing. When you look at all the bad bits , mortality and knowledge of mortality being about the worst bit for sentient beings, it's nice to know nobody was sadistic enough to have designed it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 14 - 11:03 AM

",,, it would be necessary for the Church to invent--SuperGod!"

naww... they could just call in Little Hawk, who would explain that God is the universal manifestation of all parameters of conscious awareness of supernal beingness, wherein God represents our participation in the fundimental sublimation of body to spirit within the....



(I do miss, sort of, L.H. and his clear *cough* generalizations about these things. )

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 14 - 11:10 AM

" Space and time as we observe and measure it can pop into existence ..."

When I was in high school, 60 years ago, the concept of 'continuous creation' was a major contender for how 'stuff' appears. I wonder if the Higgs boson will revive some version of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 14 - 11:12 AM

wow! I got #400 without even trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Aug 14 - 11:52 AM

LH, a great guy, with good and interesting (and at times fun) perspectives.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Aug 14 - 02:06 PM

Yeah, Little Hawk hasn't been around much lately.

He wasn't insulting at all, but he did have a sort of smug, superior, "above-it-all" aura about him that, in itself, could be kind of down-putting.

He always reminded me of the Grand High Lama sitting in the lotus position on top of a mountain high in the Himalayas. A young man who wanted to know the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything heard about the Grand High Lama and, like Conway, the protagonist of James Hilton's Lost Horizon, he made his way halfway around the world and clawed his way laboriously up the mountain, where he found the Grand High Lama, as he had been told, sitting in the lotus position in front of his cave near the peak of the mountain.

He told the Grand High Lama of his quest and then asked the crucial question: "What, your Holiness, is the Meaning of Life?"

To which, the Grand High Lama smiled benevolently at the eager young man and responded gently, "My son, Life is a Fountain."

The young man sat there and digested that for quite a while, then exploded in anger.

"I've search for you and your alleged wisdom the world over, then risk my life climbing this bloody mountain to ask you my all-important question—and you sit there and tell me, 'Life is a Fountain. . . !???"

The Grand High Lama looked at the young man in bewilderment and said, "You mean Life isn't a Fountain!!???"

Don Firth

P. S. The Small Raptor did have a leavening influence on many of the discussions when they tended to get a bit hot under the collar.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Aug 14 - 02:28 PM

I recall, LH once provided a sure fire cure for bad cases of Athlete's foot....put urine (in the shower) on the impacted area. Possibly that relates to "the fountain" story, but more of a "golden" one.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 14 - 04:35 PM

Little Hawk was is a pretty good guy....

We had our debates, but mostly they stayed calm and semi-friendly as we noted what very different perspectives and premises we used.

He is still around on FB.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 14 - 03:19 AM

The forum is much diminished by his decision to leave.

He came in for a lot of very unfair abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 14 - 06:25 PM

He tended to ask for it at times. But let's not speak ill of the departed.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Aug 14 - 12:37 PM

I just found a quote while looking for something else. It is something I have tried to say to Pete, but never quite so succinctly.

"If religious fundamentalists actually understood evolution, they would try to give God credit for it." Paul Lutus

My point to Pete is basically that I don't mind this! As long as they understand THAT it works, it is fine with me if they choose to believe where it started. I don't agree with that 'easy out' guessing, but I can live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 14 - 12:51 PM

Quite so, Bill.

I've told pete 7* a couple of times that religion and science are not incompatible if he can accept the idea that evolution is how God did it.

But he wasn't having any.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Aug 14 - 05:40 PM

""If religious fundamentalists actually understood evolution, they would try to give God credit for it."



That was similar to Mary Schweitzer's take...if God is ever-powerful, why not so?


It seems somewhat odd that he/she (God) would rely on explaining the history of human existance via a collection of hear-say, that was pulled together by humans through centuaries. Oddly, some of the same religious fundalmentalists mostly discount aboriginal traditional knowledge that was passed down through similar human to human contact routes by many generations.
.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 14 - 06:09 PM

The whole point of the argument regarding God and evolution is that evolution explicitly excludes the need for God. Evolution involves no striving for betterment, no desire for increasing complexity, no targeting of perfection, in fact, no goals at all. God simply can't sit in with that lot. He, at best, can be no more than a sullen outside observer. In fact, it would have been better had he never been born. I reckon he'd agree with me on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Aug 14 - 06:32 PM

""The whole point of the argument regarding God and evolution is that evolution explicitly excludes the need for God""

I dont recall that specific argument being put forward by science? Whike it may indeed be a personal perspective by some, scientist or not- and I suspect has provided fuel fir many philosophy discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 14 - 06:51 PM

If God is Omniscience, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent, and Eternal, it strikes me that evolution would be a simple way to set things in motion without having to spend time and effort micromanaging the process, and that the idea of the Universe being 13.5 billion years old and the solar system, including the sun, moon, and Earth 4.5 billion years old would be no problem at all for an All Powerful, Eternal Deity.

In fact, this probably isn't the only project He, She, or It is up to. According to theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, we live in a multiverse. There are many universes like the one we inhabit all living together like a clump of grapes.

Perhaps building universes is God's hobby, like kid building model airplanes, and does not really reflect His, Her, It's real work.

Considering the cosmos and possible surrounding real estate as science knows it to be (so far—we're still learning), compared to the kind of entity that God would have to be to make all of this, pete*******'s concept of God, and that of other fundamentalists and Biblical literalists, is a bit puny.   Might make a more or less competent teaching assistant at Hogwarts.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Aug 14 - 07:52 PM

Cartoon: Small angel beside 'God', gesturing out over 'infinite cosmos'. "Really? You made it all out of quarks? Aww.. c'mon!"

Evolution does not require OR exclude a god to proceed... evolution is what happens after there is **something** to evolve. How there came to be something is what some worry about. I don't worry about it... I just recognize it as a (or the) primary philosophical question which, as primary, has no specific premises.
Demanding an answer is a psychological, emotional concern for both theologians & physicists.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 14 Aug 14 - 02:36 AM

It isn't an argument put forward by "science" because a God concept hasn't stood up to any scrutiny so dropped off the hypothesis list years ago.

Most religions have a god that looks like their members. "In his image" seems to be a popular superstitious description of humans. That it took billions of years to get to something that looks like him just shows the arrogance of the concept.

If the top of the food chain is in the image of a god, the Sistine chapel needs Adam's finger and no more, as he would undoubtably be touching some bacteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Aug 14 - 06:05 AM

""It isn't an argument put forward by "science" because a God concept hasn't stood up to any scrutiny so dropped off the hypothesis list years ago.""

IMO-As a belief is not something that would normally be subject to mainstream scientific investigation, I suspect this statement actually holds little or no water. This does not rule out the liklihood that throughout history scientists engaged in personal and public debates and projections related to the existance if a god. But, that would in itself not catagorize these as scientific investigations.

I suspect when organized religion's influence on science ended many yeas ago, the scientific community abandoned any consideration of pointless non-scientific dalliances to determine "why we are here".

However, I am open to consider evidence of related scientific investigation, versus thise that are mistly personal opinion, if it is put forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 14 Aug 14 - 09:14 AM

You got my point eventually Ed. Historically, the god concept tended to fit in on the basis of discovering why and how "god" made x happen. That everything was to the glory of god was a given, and when superstitious belief ran contrary to what was being observed, it caused problems.

Newton held onto a fixed state hypothesis despite his own work describing a purely relative state universe. It was a couple of hundred years before anybody saw fit to accept the logical relativity arguments.

Galileo may have pissed off the church with his observations and conclusions but he still described it as the work of god.

Darwin struggled with what his work told him, to the point of suppressing it till he saw that someone else had come to the same conclusion....

It is fairly recent that established scientific research, c/w university credibility could dismiss dissent from theological sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Aug 14 - 11:05 AM

You still havent come up with a good example of scientific investigation, Musket. Sure, some scientists getting caught up in church politics - but, represents scientific investigation much like saying a scientist doing cement work at home is conducting scientific investigation.

As stated before by others, a belief in a deity can easily fit within any scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe and thevevolution of life, as we know it. Just because some folks, like Pete, hold to an odd idea does not rule other beliefs out.

Maybe you are attempting to be "the control" in the science discussion? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 06:20 PM

back from holiday.
bill.....sample of water. I was talking comparison/contrast, you answered analogy.
the "he" referred to gould. ie, creationists know gould is not of their number and therefore his admission was all the more powerful.
you can of course ignore the elephant in the room, but as you concede, even evolutionism can only begin when there is something to begin with. but the whole process is far from established fact , and to quote snail " show me some evolution ". you could show me natural selection, but that is not the same thing ,and though claimed to be the means thereof , is a long ways short of demonstrating bacteria to biologist evolution.
don firth....God could have used evolution over aeons......but then he would be a liar, because he told us different !.
I follow , best I can, the God of revelation.
you follow a deity in you own likeness.
ed,...this idea, that believing the bible is odd, is a fairly new fad compared to most judao,christian history.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 06:53 PM

The idea that God set evolution in motion then let it run is the most abject intellectual copout imaginable. It is simply the valiant, yet futile, attempt by religion to embrace the science it knows it can no longer exclude (though it wishes it could). And there wasn't the need to create "something that could then evolve". That simply reveals that you don't really know what you're talking about. Evolution is mundane, ordinary and unexceptional, and it doesn't require one to disappear up one's own philosophical backside in order to understand it. Read Origin. Beautiful, simple, honest, easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 07:01 PM

good grief, Pete... you repeat things I/we have explained 10 times!

Gould did not 'admit' anything serious. His only concern was that his phrasing would be used... as it has been... to make it sound like he was embarrassed. No one could EVER find all the 'missing links'... be we have tens of thousands of representative links, with obvious

the whole process is far from established fact , and to quote snail " show me some evolution "

It IS established fact.... as a process... 'most' evolutionary changes do not happen so that they can be displayed & photographed in a lab....but.... SOME DO! Fruit flies have thousands of documented generations, with mapped DNA showing which genes have changed.

" you could show me natural selection, but that is not the same thing "

It is not THE means, but it is one of the means...or more precisely, it is what happens when a change in an organism either helps or hurts its survival & reproductive chances.

and... "..God could have used evolution over aeons......but then he would be a liar, because he told us different !."
No, Pete.... some guys who cobbled up some old manuscripts "told us different". If a 'god' wanted to be sure we got the right message, he wouldn't trust the message to a few people 2000-4000 years ago. Expecting his poor, fallible 'creations' to remember and get the quotes right in thousands of documents & languages is a bit silly for an omniscient Being.

This IS the issue... you want to quibble with supposed flaws in science, yet you have no problem 'believing' in ONE interpretation of ONE version of ONE selection of musty, crumbling documents written by MEN who claimed to have heard it from.... some reputable source. If this were about anything but Creation, you'd laugh at that kind of evidence. You LIKE the story... and it's a valuable story in many respects, but it doesn't hold up to the hard questions. Some things in science need to be reevaluated at times... but they are willing to look at new data... you aren't.


But... here I go, trying to explain again. Let me give you one-more-thing to read...

http://arachnoid.com/evolution/index.html

There's a lot of reading there, some of which is fascinating in its own right, but if you don't care to indulge, you may scroll to almost the bottom, where he has a paragraph on his CONCLUSION... and under that, really relevant links- some better than I have offered.

Oh... and welcome back from vacation... I hope it was pleasant.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 07:24 PM

"Believin" and interpreting meaning are two different things, Pete 7*, and represents nothing new in history. Question: why would humans have the power to reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 07:35 PM

I seem to have left a sentence unfinished.

" we have tens of thousands of representative links," with obvious gaps that can never be filled- but which are clearly related.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 07:39 PM

From a 2011USA survey:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man.




USA Bible viewpoints 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 03:00 AM

Assuming you see statistics and opinion polls as a science :-)

The idea that a million lemmings cannot be wrong falls down when number one million and one says "fuck going near the edge of that cliff, it's dangerous."

Some here are confusing scientists who happen to be superstitious away from their test tubes and superstition as a science. I have used the tools of science, the analytical approach and allowing my predictions to be blown away, yet if anybody tries telling me there is a football team better than Sheffield Wednesday, it'll take more than mere facts to persuade me. So I see no problem with the concept of the pathology labs at your local hospital being a bit thin on the ground during Friday prayers or an astrophysicist going to church on Sunday. Reality and the search for reason are mutually exclusive to religion. We all have hobbies.

But I were to say that the angle of incidence has to hit the centre of gravity in a vibro feeder because Chris Waddle curled a ball into the net in 1993, ....... What's the difference between that and explaining quantum mechanics as "god did it"?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 05:41 AM

The point of the poll I linked related to Pete's last comment to me, and had nothing to do with any science argument. Odd that you would see it any differently, Musket?

In fact, I have never posted any comment questioning the validity of science versus Petes interpretation of the Christian Bible's account of "the beginning".

The survey indicates increasingly fewer Christians share Petes interpretation, and gives some demographics on who does so. (I find it odd that scripture called for "one" Christian church, and there are now a multitude of them-it seems that this directive (strict interpretation) is ignored by the faithful? If it were not, everyone would likely be in Joe Os church?)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 12:28 PM

at least Musket makes a good point in the well-phrased sentence:

"Some here are confusing scientists who happen to be superstitious away from their test tubes and superstition as a science."

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 12:50 PM

" i.e., creationists know gould is not of their number and therefore his admission was all the more powerful."

Funk and Wagnell. Have you actually read any of Gould's books Pete? I mean all the way through?

By the way, do you believe in plate tectonics?

"yet if anybody tries telling me there is a football team better than Sheffield Wednesday, it'll take more than mere facts to persuade me."

If you believe there are no football teams better than Sheffield Wednesday you're as delusional as a flipping creationist. Up the Villa!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 01:36 PM

re: reading Gould-
I have read 3 of his books all the way through..plus some articles....but I got to hold and thumb thru for an hour this magnum opus last November. I opened it at random 10-12 times and read a few pages... and EVERY page I read had relevant, deep insights, not only on the process OF evolution, but also on the "... historical study and exegesis of classical evolutionary thought, drawing extensively upon primary documents."

I doubt that I would ever attempt to read it all, as the technical concepts require more than I have ever studied... but it shows how careful Gould was in approaching the topic(s).

It is natural in almost all scientific study that some who look at the same data will have differences at interpreting the relevance of various data, specimens and tests... so it is with paleontology....etc. But almost NO scientist disputes the basic understanding that evolution happens, except those who artificially insert an arbitrary religious text into their decision making process while evaluating the scientific data.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 01:49 PM

In fact, Mr Mouthie-Mather's delusion that our leading football club is one that has fluctuated between League One and Championship (ie third and second tiers of clubs) over past several seasons, ending last season ¾-way down the Championship table, just about places him as regards reliability of, or respect due to, his opinions in any direction or particular whatsoever ...

Eh wot wot!?

☺〠☺~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 03:54 PM

Hey...even *I* got that Musket was using Sheffield's team to show HOW people sometimes 'believe what they want to believe'... and that some of these quasi-beliefs are minor, personal idiosyncrasies, rather tahn the kind that can disrupt all of society.


... at least that better be what he meant... ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 04:29 PM

""people sometimes 'believe what they want to believe'... and that some of these quasi-beliefs are minor, personal idiosyncrasies, rather tahn the kind that can disrupt all of society.""

Well yes, if course-this has been stated many times (in other ways)by others in the throughout the religious discussions/threads, including by Joe O.

If such beliefs are personal and "minor", as to influence on others, a question-why do some agressive, anti-religion types, make such a big deal about what other people personally believe (including ridiculing them)? At afminimum, the beliefs are possibly of some personal value to them as artifacts of their early up-bringing?

Let's be clear, I in no way refer to folks like Pete 7*, who openly challenges science from a religious perspective, for what seems to be a clear purpose of attracting a response of this nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 04:57 PM

Hey...even *I* got that Musket was using Sheffield's team to show HOW people sometimes 'believe what they want to believe

Jaysus, I told you you didn't know what you were talking about. Everyone on the planet except you knows that Sheffield has two teams. Just like Liverpool has two teams. Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves, in case you didn't know...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 05:04 PM

The myth that those outside the UK circle has any interest in following anything (including inside tales) about British sports is an unfounded belief, though, one should admit, a minor one.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 05:11 PM

Ed... that is not what *I* meant about what Musket said.

The personal and "minor" beliefs I meant are those such as pretending to believe that one's sports team is inherently better.

Beliefs that influence others, when allowed to proliferate unchallenged are, by definition, NOT personal and "minor"...no matter which side they are promulgated by.... and no matter what the claimed evidence for them shows.

Stated beliefs for OR against a Supreme Being, when forcefully advocated, are divisive, unprovable and foolish. I **doubt** claims about metaphysical concepts, but I can't prove anything one way or another, and as long as those beliefs are not taught AS proven in schools...etc., it only affects me subjectively- as careless thinking always does.

Pete does 'openly challenge science', but so far, he seems to just be presenting his viewpoint--flawed as I feel it to be. I present the viewpoint OF science, and *I* am not "seeking to attract a response". I am just presenting as best I can, my own view...which includes the errors I see in the other viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 05:24 PM

Bill D, clearufy the difference between a "personal view", founded or otherwise, that may influence others and "a belief" that may influence others?

You kinda lost me on the sports analgy, but, I suspect it is not significant to the discussion, and is an inside discussion of some type, (though in a public domain:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 05:36 PM

We've had several threads on—dare I say it?—the ins and outs of homosexuality, but I think pete has managed to settle that matter for us. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, we can simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… end of debate.

I do need some further advice from you, pete, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. A friend of mine has a daughter who misbehaves all the time. He would like to sell her into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have another neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. But I have to wear glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My wife has a cousin who has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Since you are highly conversant with these matters, pete, I'm sure that you can advise me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 07:19 PM

The myth that those outside the UK circle has any interest in following anything (including inside tales) about British sports is an unfounded belief, though, one should admit, a minor one.

The absolute epitome of jealousy, coming as it does from a denizen of a nation that lionises a sport played in the UK only by lusty big girls in navy knickers and pleated skirts with slightly-chapped upper inner thighs. Mmmm...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 09:00 PM

Ed.. there is not-- to me-- a huge difference between a "personal opinion" and a "belief" until one specifies that that they consider it to be different...or act on it in some way. You gotta ask people to define & clarify what they mean before you can debate them properly.

if I personally 'believe' that homosexuality is evil and forbidden by some religious doctrine, then even talking... much less trying to control it... about it causes uproar & concern.

If I 'believe' that dancing is immoral and forbid my children to participate in dancing in school, this creates tension and embarrassment for everyone.

If I 'believe' that (Christian) prayer ought to precede public events like sporting events, no matter who is attending and how everyone else feels, it will cause conflict. (and I have experienced this at meetings of a woodworkers club!)

....but if I 'believe'(or say that I do- with a straight face) that my moderately successful team is 'really' better than others, it only affects those who take such silliness seriously. Of course, if the belief IS serious, and involves accusations of cheating...etc., it can become serious.

similarly, if I 'sorta' believe that black cats & walking under a ladder are bad luck.... and other cultural superstitions and 'old wives tales', it usually makes little difference. It may make others tease you or make remarks, but is not usually a major area of conflict for society.... although at one time, some beliefs WERE important.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 11:09 PM

Well, walking under a ladder when a painter is falling could bring you bad luck.

(Sorry....)

Don Firth

P. S. Bit of trivia:   the origin of the walking under a ladder superstition is believe to come from early warfare. When storming a castle with scaling ladders, the more cowardly soldiers might duck under the ladder rather than climbing it. This often resulted in them getting a bath of boiling oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 01:53 AM

Just as likely, tho, Don, that it is unlucky to walk thru the centre of a triangle, the ladder, wall & ground forming such a magic shape renowned in sorcery, (tho not as much probably as a pentagon; but there are few chances of walking thru one of those, so presumably not worth the bother of inventing a superstition about doing so)...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 03:13 AM

There's nothing quasi about Sheffield Wednesday.... Up the Owls!

The comment about there being two teams in Sheffield is correct though. You have Sheffield FC, the oldest league team in the world still playing.

I think most people got there regarding my point. We can all entertain irrational idealism, but we get caught out sometimes when we feel everyone else should be just as irrational. In thinking others should share our outlook, we get over the deep down feeling it just might be all bollocks....

By the way, regarding Aston Villa. I have it on good authority that their supporters are selected from those of the city who would have problems chanting "Birmingham!" from the terraces on account of too many syllables. "Villa!" being less of a linguistic challenge.




Nurse! Michael is awake! Do you want me to get a fresh pad ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 06:42 AM

"I have it on good authority that their supporters are selected from those of the city who would have problems chanting "Birmingham!" from the terraces on account of too many syllables. "Villa!" being less of a linguistic challenge. "


Your 'good authority' (was it divine, perchance?) is mistaken, my dear Musket. Perhaps you were misled by one of those poor, bitter souls from Small Heath?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 07:18 AM

The reason I ask is when you refer to Pete in an earlier post you seemed to say that he was not presenting his belief, just his viewpoint (opinion). What you were trying to say puzzled me. The terms belief and opinion are defined quite differently by different folks, so, I was curious of your definition (which I still harbour skme uncertainity). Some folks even say the definition is merely subjective in nature?

IMO, pete is both stating both his opinion (aka viewpoint) and beliefs related to religion and science on this and on other threads.



Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 07:29 AM

""lusty big girls in navy knickers and pleated skirts with slightly-chapped upper inner thighs.""

Actually, I don't normally have much interest in any sport, nor folks (commonly male) who boyishly obsess over discussing past games or their favoured team- tribe.

However, the sport described above seems quite interesting. What channel-times are these lusty big girls sports on? I must check it out after the wife falls asleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 09:08 AM

What channel-times are these lusty big girls sports on?

They're not. You have to sneak up to playing fields with clandestine videoing capabilities, only to be promptly arrested...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 11:45 AM

""You have to sneak up to playing fields with clandestine videoing capabilities...""

Any chance of borrowing a copy from your collection?

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 12:15 PM

His collection is doing the round(er)s .

Hang on, it was funnier before I wrote it.....

Sorry, but anyone who who refers to football as "team tribe" is not mentally equipped to discuss philosophy with real people such as Co Messiah Steve and I.

Regarding pete and his views and creed, this is someone who at the top of this thread said that men who refuse to have women bishops shouldn't be confused with bigots. You work it out. Be buggered if I can tell the difference.

Michael has gone quiet, they must have upped the dose.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 12:27 PM

I see the football has kicked off!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 12:33 PM

A fist time for everything, I guess - this thread now has UK football and philosophy mentioned in the same sentence.

"Only in England, you say!"

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 12:34 PM

I meant first time, but fist time also seems fitting.

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 12:35 PM

Just to mention that a friend has PMed to tell me that unconscionable little swine Mr Mouthie-Mather is irrationally abusing me again on this thread. Oh, well, we all have our hobbies, rational or otherwise; so I hope he is enjoying it before his own poisonous spit finally polishes him off. Meanwhile, he is wasting time as far as I am concerned, as I still don't read more than 1 in 10 of his ½·witted posts. I don't even get much of a giggle out of the few I do bother with these days. Seem to be getting more & more confused, if such were possible. Think I'll entirely give them up again. There are more agreeable ways of inducing vomiting if one feels so inclined -- all-in-all, I'd rather think of real heaps of smelly pigshit than contemplate that one, thanks...

☺〠☺~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 02:32 PM

grief ! good !...if it is only my arguments. the reason ,bill, that I am repeating myself, is because you are not answering the actual points. so here we go again.
gould quote....did I say he was embarrassed ?. don't think so....whether he was or not ,I don't know, but I still think his ensuing comments were damage control, and closing ranks with the gradualists in the face of the creationist face value reading of his admission that the Darwin tree was more or less bare. that was after all the reason for introducing punctuated e.
"....representative links..."    what might they be but the fossils that gould admitted were extremely poorly joined together by transitionals. I hear there are a handful of debatable candidates , but no where near what Darwin thought might be found.
"it IS established fact...."....and then go on to admit that it cannot be observed experimentally....except citing fruit flies being mapped. so flies become....flies! how about them turning into something else after multiple generations observation?.
the observational, repeatable, testable science is not favouring macroevolution .
I am not impressed , bill , by what and how you think a deity might choose to communicate with his creation. and neither am I impressed by your suggestion that he could not use ancient times men as the means he chose to convey his word..
neither do I think the "silly" pertains to him, or even to his biblical messengers.
I remind you too, that I am not quoting lots of bible as my argument. my presuppositions are understood and not denied, though I might do when countering those who claim to believe the bible but embrace evolutionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 03:04 PM

"believe the bible"

Or, should that read, "interpret the Bible", (aka bible) and meaning of the Bible, as you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 03:06 PM

part 2-
"...almost all scientists [appeal to numbers/authority]...except those...religious text [we admit our presupposition, darwinists don't generally admit to theirs]
" pete opposes science.." no, he challenges the validity of calling it science, except as an origins worldview claiming to be equivalent to observational, repeatable, tested, operational science.

this must be the third time at least that dons c @ p has appeared
and I have no intention of gracing this veiled mockery with a serious response!

seems steve believes that evolution can happen before there is anything to evolve......and the answer is in "origins!.

ed- maybe to clarify....when something is clearly taught in scripture I take that as a certainty[ though not ultimately provable], but in the area of science I am less certain. and as evolutionist claims of their belief being verified fact is only wishful thinking there is no contradiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 03:23 PM

Origins appear to be a singularity followed by lots of fireworks up to and including iron. The rest is astrophysics till the plant naming guys enter stage left.

It really is that easy pete....

By the way, science doesn't to my knowledge have belief. It isn't a superstition for starters. You know, it really isn't helpful for vulnerable children to be taught your dangerous shit.

Talking of shit...

Eyup Michael! Nice to see you have a friend. You need someone batting on your side during best interest meetings.


Football AND philosophy? There is more philosophy appertaining to footy than anything else!* Co Messiah Steve may wish to provide the appropriate Shankley quote. Michael would too if he admitted to his masochistic hobby of reading my posts. He taught Frank Swift how to be a goalie you know....






*Perhaps cricket, to be fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 03:44 PM

""when something is clearly taught in scripture I take that as a certainty""

Well, it depends on who does the teaching and whose "interpretation" they are wedded to? My observation is that many of those doing the "teaching" are very selective on what interpretation they put forwardas Biblical fact, and what they put in the back burner. Christian history is full of different interpretations that have been "taught" that councidently conforms to the "organizational politics" of the time. The different Chrustian churches of today cant even come up with even somewhat similar interpretations, and we are only a couple of thousand years away from Christs birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 04:27 PM

I don't believe anything, pete. I require evidence. Liverpool 2 Southampton 1. Manchester Ubollocksnited 1 Swansea City 2. What more evidence does one need than this that the planet is in good shape?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 04:36 PM

Co Messiah Steve may wish to provide the appropriate Shankly quote.

'If Everton were playing at the bottom of the garden, I'd pull the curtains.'

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 04:44 PM

Smells kinda "footy" to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 05:44 PM

Well Pete... every time I try to hone in on one point, you sidestep by returning to another one I answer before!

".."....representative links..."    what might they be but the fossils that gould admitted were extremely poorly joined together by transitionals."
   'Admitted' is a loaded term designed to suggest that the position shows some innate weakness, when all it is is a statement about the obvious. All scientific measurements indicate very long time periods... longer than you choose to 'believe', even when shown the evidence.
   Consider.. IF science is ultimately totally correct about the long time-frame (deep time, as you choose to label it), it is still absolutely and obviously true that they will never, never, never HAVE all the transitional forms!! Millions of years means billions of individual samples were not buried in a form that could BE found. I have made this point many times...yet you just twist that from me AND Gould as if it DISproves the analysis. Doing that simply indicates that you are ignoring & evading the actual value of the forms that ARE found. When dating processes are mapped against the changes in the transitional forms we have found, it is clear that there was an evolutionary process involved. You deny this based on shallow & faulty understanding of the science... but you offer no counter explanation of the data except to rely on your religious beliefs. What do you think did cause the seemingly clear transition from early hominids to the finds in Africa and to caves in France? You want to deny the dating of Neanderthals and their human counterparts that can be accurately dating by radio-carbon decay!

Now... it pains me to have to do this again:

"so flies become....flies! how about them turning into something else after multiple generations observation?."

NO ONE IS CLAIMING that flies become birds...or whatever. Just as the stupid remark about "men being descended from monkeys" is not an accurate
representation of what IS shown by the records and by comparison to other types of lineages.
What is asserted is that all life did come from simple, lower forms in very complex ways... as shown over & over by bio-chemical processes compared to radio-carbon dating compared to geological mapping compared to cosmological analysis ...etc. None of this is directly incompatible with some metaphysical Being kick-starting it all..... but that's not as 'comforting' as accepting the 'ancient manuscript' thesis...hmmm?

finally: "I am not impressed , bill , by what and how you think a deity might choose to communicate with his creation. and neither am I impressed by your suggestion that he could not use ancient times men as the means he chose to convey his word.."

*shrug* how could you be? You are committed to accepting those things in spite of science and reason(again, if God gave us reason, why does that reason lead the majority to accept science and to realize that we flawed humans might get confused & need some ..ummm... clear reminders... of what His will is?)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 06:07 PM

Pete, if you accept the Bible as the "Inerrant Word of God," then that bit of "mockery" of mine posted above (quotations from the Bible) demands answers. Those are actual quotes from the Bible

It is either the Inerrant Word of God – or it is NOT.

You seem to be very selective as to which of God's "Inerrant Words" you chose to believe.

You can't just blow that off and be regarded seriously as anything other than a naïve dupe or a bit of a con man.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 08:54 PM

I'm curious, Pete... in regard to Don Firth's point... do you accept the entire Bible..(King James, I presume) as inerrant *word of God*? Or just the old testament? Or just Genesis?
Many books of the King James Bible are close to just poetic expression or literary analogy. Others are hardly more than the writer's version of certain historical references. Do you treat ALL of the bible as "inspired" word of God? Even those who do not agree with each other or, as suspected, were 'selected' for inclusion by the scholars who compiled this version?

Many thousands of books have been written and much research has been done to compare dates, places and people mentioned to known history, and there is less agreement among scholars on that than on the details of evolution.

The facts are important, no matter where they lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 03:04 AM

Now we seem to be drifting back to the actual thread debate.

Up till now, The Church of England had said women can't be bishops because god said they can't, it's in the bible.

Now, after a democratic vote on equality, the bible seems to be saying the exact opposite.

Funny how the church had to make itself look even more ludicrous and irrelevant in order to bring itself up to the decent standards society expects.

(If anyone wishes to find a bit saying gay dudes have the same rights as anyone else, the Archbishop of Canterbury might be grateful for it. He condemns gay people at present so not to upset his branch offices in parts of Africa.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 03:30 AM

Latter Day Saint movement

Main articles: Blacks and the Latter Day Saint movement and Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

After the death of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) taught that Black Africans were under the curse of Ham, although the day would come when the curse would be nullified through the saving powers of Jesus Christ.[63] In addition, based on his interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Brigham Young believed that as a result of this curse Negroes were banned from the Mormon Priesthood.[64] In 1978 then LDS president Spencer W. Kimball said he received a revelation that extended the Priesthood to all worthy male members of the LDS Church.[65]

See also is interesting that black slavery was justified (for economic and othervreasons) by many Christian groups because of a concocted Biblical interpretation of the Curse of Ham. Since slavery is not acceptable any longer, the curse Bible reference has been conveniently reinterpreted.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 03:39 AM

Mind you, one interpretation of the bible is consistent and gaining ground, especially in the last hundred years.

It's all bollocks.

(An excellent opinion poll the other year commissioned by The Secular Society. They asked people if they were Christian and then asked if they believed in god. Less than a quarter of those considering themselves Christian actually have a superstitious delusion.)

Delusion isn't a term of contempt by the way. I just can't think of a term of reference other than that for having your mind fucked with.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 03:43 AM

Oops somehiw my last post was sent before completion.

What my intent was to show an example, through convenient interpretation of the Bible, (Curse of Ham) that slavery was justified by some Christian groups, I suspect for economic gain. This was later reinterpreted, because of pressure to halt slavery from society.

The mormon example was to show how they changed their anti-black policies,which were under oressure through a simple revelation. This riute may have been a much easier route for the Anglicans to allow greater equality for women in that church.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 03:47 AM

Why pussy-foot around Musket, why not just say it the way you feel it, regardless of who (what well-intended Christian) you may offend?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 05:03 AM

the Archbishop of Canterbury might be grateful for it. He condemns gay people at present

No. He does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 05:50 AM

"...when something is clearly taught in scripture I take that as a certainty"

On what grounds? How do you judge any statement taken from scripture as being a certainty? Any other Christians on this thread want to chime in on this one as well as Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 10:58 AM

Christianity offends by it's nature. Old men in frocks telling others how to live their lives?

I'm neither shallow nor vulnerable enough. Are you?



I notice our professional "offended as a Christian" has weighed in. Hey Keith! Which is right? The bible or women bishops?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 11:16 AM

By the way, Keith says The Archbishop doesn't condemn gay people. He does.

He refuses to chan ge the church's stance on gay people because in his view, it would make life difficult for some people in some other countries.

Well done Mr Welby. It must have taken ages to come up with an excuse to defend bigotry.

I fact, just for Keith, who is incapable of debating, he won't listen to any views unless you show that it is exactly the same as something you read via google, as he does.

I thought that for once, I would do it, just for him.

Archbishop makes excuses for hating gay

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 11:49 AM

Gay folk could not be more welcome and loved in CofE, and we have many gay priests and bishops.

From your link Musket,
"Welby condemned homophobia and said, "to treat every human being with equal importance and dignity is a fundamental part of being a Christian." He shared his particular concerns about the devastating impact of homophobia on gay teenagers, and reiterated the importance of a loving approach.

Welby said that he has been wrestling with the issue of protecting Christians abroad while still having a loving approach to gay Christians for a long time, but stressed the very real dangers that he had personally experienced."

Keith says The Archbishop doesn't condemn gay people. He does
Your own link says you were wrong and I was right.
He does not condemn gay people.
He loves them.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 12:04 PM

Well first we had

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 12:14 PM

Well, first we had "lusty big girls in navy knickers and pleated skirts with slightly-chapped upper inner thighs."mentioned in this thread.

Now its old men in frocks, that seem to be irking some folks, who do not even seem to subscribe to being in the Christian flock.

Only God knows what will come up next?

Speaking about oddities, my neighbour recently told me a guy at his work said he was against gay marriage. He then asked him why so, the co-worker said "because the Bible said marriage is to be between a man and a woman". When he further inquired what religion the co-worker belonged to, the puzzling reply was, " none, I am an Athiest, and dont believe in God".

Go figure! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 01:51 PM

perhaps he was one of those mentioned by musket.....Christian but don't believe it !...according to secular society survey.
perhaps , ed, I should have qualified....what [ I ] see clearly taught in scripture. in the case of gen 1, even liberal Hebrew scholars are in no doubt that it teaches creation in 6 days. other texts can also be given that corroborate that, eg exodus 20 v 11.
it was only as Darwin gained acceptance that some tried to reinterpret what had formerly been a plain reading.
it is true that some other teachings may be open to interpretation.

bill- whether I use "admitted" or "said" does not alter what he said , and my conclusion that he was aware, and stated, that transitionals were missing, and that he and eldridge developed the jerky idea to account for that lack of evidence. so for they, and you the absence of evidence becomes the evidence for the theory.
but I do note that you add the assertion that all the disciplines connect to support the theory. but apart from this being, again, an appeal to authority and numbers, have you never considered that it might be the dogma holy cow that pulls interpretations of the various branches into its compass ,while not considering sufficiently the counter evidences and interpretations.
some evolutionists, as for instance the Altenburg 16, have recognized the problems, but being true believers are looking for another mechanism.
which "data" are you asking me to comment on.
radio carbon?.....found in things supposedly too old to be detectable!
neandertals.....give him a shave and a suit and you wouldn't notice him on a city street....just another human.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 02:29 PM

I can not find that survey you quoted Musket.
Can you help please?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 02:31 PM

being as your question was not couched in mockery, bill, here are a few thoughts. the inerrancy relates to the original writings by the bible authors. these were written in Hebrew , koina greek and some Aramaic. every version since has some variations and therefore mistakes. these however do not amount to a major problem , and don't affect the main teachings of most Christian churches.
as far as interpretation of the bible is concerned, context is everything....is it historical narrative...poetry...wisdom literature. ....symbolism/visions. in addition there may be accounts organized chronologically or topically, or from a certain viewpoint.
certain laws were applicable to ancient Israel that were not applicable to new testament gentile believers, but sometimes do carry through when for instance they are moral issues. but the rituals, animal sacrifices, and what may seem like odd laws in ancient Israel were for that period before Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 02:40 PM

Christian churches and homosexuality 

With fear of igniting a homosexual discussion, where prejudices pop up, I link an interesting Wiki site that gives some organized religious groups take on homosexuality. (I cant vouch for its accuracy nor whether it is up to date-also,note that there has been some division on official church stances, which is not likely represented).

I link it only because of the Musket and keith discussion, in case it may be of some use in sorting things out.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 02:48 PM

".. jerky idea.."

My! That looks pretty judgmental! *grin*

Not having all the transitionals is unavoidable. Having a random few is merely an 'inconvenience' in most cases, as we can learn a huge amount from seeing how much they have changed.

"... but apart from this being, again, an appeal to authority and numbers, ..."

I will say this for the last time. That is a flawed, inaccurate interpretation of what "appeal to authority" actually means. You cannot fairly co-opt the agreed use of a technical term in logic in order to falsely use it for your own viewpoint. I am not sure whether you just misunderstand, or whether you are intentionally ignoring the meaning. READ THIS!


"radio carbon?.....found in things supposedly too old to be detectable!"

I made the point that radio carbon IS quite accurate back to Neanderthal times...and it does date Neanderthals as much older than you wish to grant. Even Utzi the 'ice man' is older than you wish to accept.READ THIS!

"neandertals.....give him a shave and a suit and you wouldn't notice him on a city street....just another human. "

Nonsense! He resembles a 'few' humans-because he WAS related to them by a distant line... but any doctor or DNA test would show clearly the many differences.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 10:37 PM

Voila!

And scroll down. I think a Neanderthal would tend to stand out a bit in a crowd, even with a shave and in a suit.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 02:53 AM

Yeah Keith. He loves gays. In the same way I love my pet dog. He supports and condones discrimination of gay people. You can't have it both ways.

A hospital chaplain in Lincoln married his partner last year and now has a husband. He applied last month for a similar post in Nottinghamshire and wasn't able to take up his post because of the reference he needed from the diocese and the Bishop of Southwell refused to recognise his position as a qualified vicar on the grounds he had married his lover.

Sick or what?

Why doesn't Welby sack the fucker? He's a disgraceful old bastard. (Ed told me to say it like it is, but when it comes to bigotry and discrimination, I need no egging on thank you. )

If I were a Christian I would be questioning the values my leaders wish me to associate with.

If The Church of England can say the bible is bollocks regarding men being superior to women and voting to allow female bishops, then the only thing blocking seeing gay people as equal is bigotry because they can ignore their medieval translations of fairy stories when they conflict with society's expectations if they wish.

Blocking a chaplain's job application on the grounds of being married is awful. The only good news is that the bishop where he is now cannot affect his present job, which he still has. (The stipulation in the regulations under The Health and Social Care Act 2008 affect recruitment with regard to references and professional registration at time of recruitment. Unless he is "struck off" by the church, they can't stop him in existing employment.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 03:57 AM

"If The Church of England can say the bible is bollocks regarding men being superior to women and voting to allow female bishops, then the only thing blocking seeing gay people as equal is bigotry because they can ignore their medieval translations of fairy stories when they conflict with society's expectations if they wish."

You are getting confused again Ian, in conflating the issue of women bishops and homosexuality.....as far as I can see, the church has no problem with homosexuals as people, but sees their sexual behaviour in a negative light. Many people inside and outside the church see this behaviour as an extremely unhealthy perversion.

Personally, I am yet to be convinced, but a neighbour from Inverary(funnily enough), suggested that "if it was a perversion fifty years ago, do they do it differently now?"

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 05:05 AM

It's that brilliant intellectuality of Mr Mouthie-Mather's arguments that carries all that conviction, isn't it? How can anyone fail to be absolutely convinced by such supreme logic & rationality! Lo, we are in the presence of a master of the infallible and incontrovertible! Bow down before its total conviction and cease the vain endeavour to disagree with a word of such faultless disputation.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 05:30 AM

Aye it's ferr pit mah gas in a peep..eh Michael?   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 07:30 AM

"Not having all the transitionals is unavoidable"

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, and we have some very good resolution on many lineages and of course there will always be missing parts of any lineage for many reasons.

"but any doctor or DNA test would show clearly the many differences."

We (caucasians, asians) do share some DNA with neanderthals as well as other human lineages, which means we lived together and bred with them too.

I actually agree with Pete on this one. Stick him in a suit and you'd be hard pressed to see anything but a stocky bloke with a big hooter.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 07:43 AM

""In 2003 a groundbreaking historical genetics paper reported results which indicated that a substantial proportion of men in the world are direct line descendants of Genghis Khan.""

It's unlikely they lived together or bred with Genghis, given that 750 years has passed, since this notable (but deadly) historic figure passed. Were the genetics folks wrong on this one too? Something to consider.







Gengis Khan 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 07:54 AM

""Neanderthals and Humans May Have Had Sex for Millennia: Study:

Neanderthals went extinct in Europe about 40,000 years ago, giving them millennia to coexist with modern humans culturally and sexually, new findings suggest.""




Neanderthals in the news 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 08:55 AM

We could always check out whether he was any good at graffiti. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 09:15 AM

""We could always check out whether he was any good at graffiti. :-)""

From what I have seen recently, if we did that, -right or wrong, it would likely lead us to believe that the Nethanderal walks amongt us and uses spray paint.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 10:49 AM

Ho Ho ! Jolly good wheeze this hating of gay people what?

With Michael weighing in, the sneering hatred of gay people and the irrational fear of Muslims seems to be affecting the same nasty people.

As neither of them claim to be Christians though, at least their non fitness for purpose is little more than a personality disorder. Christians have a choice to be associated with bigotry or not.

Interestingly, I was reading an article by David Attenborough the other day where he was celebrating the 17th and 18th century scientists who felt that just because the bible and the local vicar (second son usually , too thick for the army) opposed scientific discovery, that was no reason to not question and observe.

In other words, superstition inhibits and restricts discovery and for that, is a stain on civilisation.

Me? Fully agree. The art works attributed to imaginary friends, from Michelangelo to Bach might still have existed without the glory bit, because in every artist or artiste, there is vanity.




As the worm seems fascinated by how gay men may or may not enjoy sex, I can assure him that very few gay men would be interested in whether he fucked his wife up the arse. statistically, two things to note. Less gay people have penetrative sex than heterosexual people. (Larger percentage of celibate partnerships.) More women receive anal sex than men.

That said, I wonder if Akenaton looks at men and women and thinks of their private life in the same way and with the same fascination as he does men and men? Dirty little grubby pervert.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 10:56 AM

Mudcat now needs to warn visitors that its threads contain offensive posts unsuitable for children.
Shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 12:34 PM

Not sure I agree. Children about only people silly old Mr M-M's posts might be fit for, wouldn'tcha say?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 12:54 PM

"In other words, superstition inhibits and restricts discovery and for that, is a stain on civilisation."

Some of the earliest palaeontologists, naturalists and other earth scientists were clergymen and their contribution to science is still relevant today. Some were quite brilliant, such as William Buckland who was Dean of Westminster, a quite brilliant palaeontologist and a man who wanted to eat his way through the entire animal kingdom. Not only that, but Buckland recognised that the idea the flood laid down the strata we see around us today was total rubbish.

Religion only inhibits discovery if it's followers are too stupid to see beyond their own delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 01:20 PM

Methinks Monsieur Musket's slight fit of pique there is engendered by his quite reasonable offense at the usual offensive things said previously by the usual suspects.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 02:27 PM

Oh, of course. Ever the epitome of urbane courtesy himself, isn't he just!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 03:58 PM

""Mudcat now needs to warn visitors that its threads contain offensive posts unsuitable for children.""

So, at what age is the typical person coming to Mudcat? I suspect few under age 40 ish and above. Many will not be around in 20 to 30 years, making the long term prognosis of Mudcat uncertain.

Quite possiblt the disclaimer is a marketing ploy designed to lure in younger folks, who tend to flock to websites containing such warnings. If so, good thinking Max:)

Good luck with that - who knows, there may be more Mudcat Rap topics emerging, versus folk discussions,in the not so far away future.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 07:09 PM

The art works attributed to imaginary friends, from Michelangelo to Bach might still have existed without the glory bit, because in every artist or artiste, there is vanity.

There is also the overriding need to make a living. Dissing religion didn't go down too well in the golden age of art (heheh) when your patrons were, more likely than not, somewhat of the cloth.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 10:27 PM

Michelangelo was commissioned by Pope Julius II to paint the Sistine Chapel, and Bach worked much of his life as a church organist and was commission to write hymns and religious cantatas for performance in the church.

Wotthehell, it's a job....

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 03:19 AM

I agree entirely with Keith A Hole of Hertford. Unfortunately, he rather hypocritically supports the homophobic stance of Akenaton by saying he isn't offensive. So why he feels there should be a warning is beyond me.

I am offensive to slime who ask for it and restrict my vitriol to them. Akenaton speaks of millions of people in the world who he has no knowledge if and condemns them as second class citizens on the basis of his fantasy.

Only one of us is a criminal. Only one of us is publishing incitement to hatred.

Perhaps Keith doesn't check every fucking post by every fucking reasonable person against his sacred fucking google after all? He seems to think that homophobia isn't offensive. Possibly got a Christian filter on his PC that allows bigotry but screens you from websites that question the awful disgraceful stance of his precious shit of a church.

zzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 03:24 AM

Stu. I have read quite a bit about Buckland and co. I recall I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that many country Parsons had time on their hands and many got curious about the world around them.

Attenborough's article still stands in principle. After all, it was Buckland's contemporaries who started coming out with the idea of fossils placed by God to question our faith.

Quite..

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 05:07 AM

Homophobia is as offensive to me as it to you and to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who condemned homophobia and said, "to treat every human being with equal importance and dignity is a fundamental part of being a Christian." He shared his particular concerns about the devastating impact of homophobia on gay teenagers, and reiterated the importance of a loving approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 06:41 AM

So stop saying Akenaton isn't being offensive, homophobic or bigoted. He just said "when it used to be perverted." Why aren't you asking him when that was then? Considering a) it has never been perverted and b) you are a stickler for pedantry in order to put down reasonable views yet you defend the most awful of views from other Mudcat contributors.

Yourself included come to think of it.

And when The Archbishop of Canterbury starts lobbying to remove the legal clause he voted for in The Lords banning his churches from marrying loving couples who happen to be the same sex, and when he takes The Bishop of Southwell to task, I might start believing his condescending lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 07:12 AM

In our time Musket, gay people were regarded by society and the law as perverts.
It is not offensive to refer to that fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 01:35 PM

Of course, it isn't offensive to point out that sad fact and you just have done so.

But nobody else has, so why refer to it?

Akenaton stated when it was a perversion, not when it was considered. But you know the distinction, you just can't bring yourself to say so.

If being considered makes it a fact, then the earth really was flat, it really did take seven days to make the universe. Shouting at an eclipse really did make it go away. Water really was an element. Sailing West from Spain took you to India as the first landfall. WW1 soldiers were well led. Fertility rituals worked. You were safe from lightning sheltering in a church with your gunpowder.

It is offensive to say people were perverts when they weren't. It is not offensive to lament that it used to be acceptable in our lifetime to judge people for being themselves. .
Your play on words doesn't impress. Neither does your mealy mouthed refusal to condemn.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 02:51 PM

stu.."....actually agree with pete on this one..." thankyou stu, gracious of you.
however, re buckland, while admitting that I don't know much about him, other than that he differed from the scriptural geologists, I would observe that he was before more recent observations and research, that now recognizes a place for at least some catastrophism in geology. his assessment reasoning for calling flood laid down strata, rubbish, may well be out of date.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 03:01 PM

Scriptural geologists???

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 04:07 PM

bill,- "nonsense"...."my, that looks pretty judgmental ! .."
see above, also, on neandertal.
as far as "jerky" is concerned, I think I have seen the term used by the authors, but it seems applicable anyway, as an alternative to gradualism.
"READ THIS !" 1....apart from the definition and example being slanted in favour of evolutionism , I fail to see why I am wrong to say that you were appealing to authority/numbers.
try slanting the definition and example in favour of creation science, and I hope you will get the point.
failing that, I will wait and see if it really is the " last time" that you "will say this" -grin-
"READ THIS" !    2....I SUPPOSE WE COULD ALL point to an article to argue a point with just a brief preface. maybe if I could work out clickys, I might do more too , but I hope that I would continue to substantiate, best I can, in my own words.
so, bill, if you would like to do likewise [with or without using the arguments in the link] we can continue the discussion.
but, in the mean time ,having read some of the link, I find no reason to trust evolutionary readings of radio carbon data. as I have said before, if they can misdate rocks of known age, why trust any date from their interpretations.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 02:27 AM

So why trust two thousand year old fairy stories?

Just using the same logic you apply to carbon dating..

I really just popped in to see a post I knew would never be written. I wonder why that is, eh Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 03:24 AM

Perhaps most sensible people are just ignoring your obscene ranting Ian.
Take few days off, compose a reasonable response to the issues....stop relying on faith as an argument, while berating pete for holding a faith in god as a creator, which is much more likely than real meaningful equality ever appearing in a capitalist society.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 08:39 AM

Must have altered his medication. I haven't a clue what he is trying to say, and that is disturbing because neither does he.

Still, by asking for reasonableness, it's a start. All he had to do now is see that his attitude is unreasonable and has no place in enlightened times.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 09:01 AM

well musket, I understand your fairy story goes back to an ancient greek sect.....what was it , life arising from fermenting rubbish or something. of course, yours gets a scientific gloss by virtue of newer discoveries that mean the need of oft rewrites to preserve the paradigm! .you are entitled to your faith but......
its a shame it gets shoved down our kids at school though.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 11:20 PM

Pete.."I fail to see why I am wrong to say that you were appealing to authority/numbers."

and "...,having read some of the link, I find no reason to trust evolutionary readings of radio carbon data. "

It is really hard to know where to go when you "fail to see" and "find no reason to trust", as the points you disagree with are crucial to my training and understanding of science.

"..apart from the definition and example being slanted in favour of evolutionism "

Slanted implies willful distortion. The link states "It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus." That is not 'slanted'.. it is a clear warning. It says nothing about the science itself, but about YOUR assertion that *I* am appealing to authority. I am not. The claims of experts are just that... the best conclusions that **experts** can come to, given the data. The experts are willing to alter their conclusions given better data... but creationists have decided ahead of time that any proposed data that conflicts with *their interpretation" of scripture must be wrong. THAT is appeal to authority... and the more so when the very source of the authority is itself in doubt!

Keep on? It is educational for me to search the literature and follow your reasoning about these things and think very hard about how to answer & phrase my answers. IF we keep on, I think we ought to leave this thread and use it for reference and make one thread with a simple heading about our mutual concerns. (I know.. it is hard to keep the topic going when others decide to put their 2 cents in) Have you considered becoming a member? It is not a big deal, and it makes some things much easier.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 02:56 AM

My faith isn't shoved down the throats of anyone pete. Although after the away win at Middlesborough yesterday, I am happily ramming it down the throats of any and all fans of the false prophet teams in The Championship.

You don't need faith to observe and understand what is around you. Just eyes, ears, a modicum of understanding how to process and test your observations;

And an open mind.




Attended any book burnings lately?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 11:26 AM

"Slanted implies willful distortion."

As I have said before Bill, to someone like me who is involved in paleontological research, this is insulting. Basically, my colleagues and I are being called liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 11:56 AM

I know, Stu. I am upset when MY knowledge about the basic forms of logic are disputed, misunderstood and distorted. Our basic difference seems to be about how we judge the intent and mindset of others. *shrug*... I just do not assume their error to be malicious or that my honesty is being questioned.
It baffles me how so many can deny the basic obvious data... but there are reasons in culture & psychology that are really hard to sort out.

As I just said to Pete, I am a bit fascinated by the debate. I have never had this degree of detailed discussion with a genuine follower of creationism before. Usually, Christian fundamentalists I speak to briefly get angry or bored or petulant and refuse to even talk to me.

(I must reread Eric Hoffer's famous book "The True Believer" for some insight)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 03:40 PM

You pointed out the error of my ways Bill, and I have taken note :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 03:43 PM

LOL... wow! Now I will work on Pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:56 AM

Good luck

You realise you will burn in hell?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 05:49 AM

An interesting article on science from tge Republic:

science is not about certainity 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 08:52 AM

An odd story where a student was expelled from a school for what seems to be saying "bless you" after another student sneezed.


Bless you 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link.
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 08:53 AM

i did post yesterday, but the internet failed.
bill. maybe my understanding of logical fallacies is not textbook, so i will explain....probably again....what i mean by it.
when discussing the truth or otherwise of a position, i am assuming that the specifics of the arguments need to be addressed. it seems to me that you, and most of the skeptics here prefer to major on what most of the experts believe/say is fact. when the specifics are bypassed and the argument is experts and consensus, i see that as appeal to authority,and appeal to numbers.
observations =
you, yourself, refuse the claims of experts...because they are creationist.
evolutionists themselves have a bottom line, non negotiables.
consensus is the enemy of science. otherwise progress would not have been made.
the consensus of most of history, in most of the world was creation.
for all we know, the growing weight of evidence may yet turn the consensus away from darwinism....though widespread acceptance of biblical creation seems unlikely.
so, we can discuss specifics ,.....or you might be telling me once again that this is the last time you are going to say this.....-grinning-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: BrendanB
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 12:23 PM

Pfssl:

'Evolutionists themselves have a bottom line, non negotiables'. That is a lie.

'Consensus is the enemy of science, otherwise progress would not have been made'. That is gobbledegook.

Scientists do not talk about facts, they do not have a faith position in their professional lives. They deal in hypotheses, theories, observation and evidence.
Creationists are not experts in anything but an unprovable belief. They are not scientists, they do not go where the evidence takes them; they stay glued blindly to their belief, fingers in ears and effectively going 'na, na, na, I can't hear you', to anyone who asks them to look dispassionately at the evidence. Your own posts are overwhelming evidence of this.
I have a religious faith, albeit one which you have sneered at in the past, and I have no difficulty in accepting evolution as part of God's plan.
I have learnt from history that fundamentalism in religion is the enemy of humanity. Whether it is so-called Christians murdering medical staff who work in the field of abortion or so-called Muslims jihadists slaughtering those who do not accept their fascist, death loving belief.
What do you think of Westboro baptist church?
I don't know if you have a blind faith in the Bible and believe and live by every word in it, but if you do then you believe in treating others with appalling cruelty.   If that is not the case how do you choose what to accept and what not to? It is disturbing to find someone who believes that humanity is incapable of progress and that morality can only be determined by a society that existed more than two thousand years ago. There are many people who are able to relate Christian teaching to today's world and are wise enough to recognise that the Bible is an inspirational work without seeing it as an inflexible, immovable template for living.
As a matter of interest, do you adhere to the dietary laws as detailed in the Old Testament?
I know some of this is thread drift but I am afraid I find a great deal of what you say insulting, offensive and obnoxious (and frequently ludicrous).

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:07 PM

pete, you took issue with my post at 18 Aug 14 - 05:36 PM above, complaining that I was mocking you.

Those are quotes from the Bible. And I'm asking you if you believe they are the inerrant word of God, as you have indicated you believe the Bible truly is.

If you DO NOT believe these admonitions apply in a modern word, but DO believe in the creation myth as set forth in Genesis, then you ARE being carefully selective and need to justify WHY the Creation myth is the Word of God and the matter, for example, of selling a disobedient daughter into slavery (Exodus 12:7) is not.

I'm still waiting for your answer.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:13 PM

Without purposely upsetting our more boutique Christians, isn't pick n mix a fundamental requirement of the hypocrisy surrounding a "Christian" stance?


(I did try to word that less provocatively, but bugger it, say it as it is Musket...)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:14 PM

gee..I'm late... BrendanB said a lot of what I would.

"when discussing the truth or otherwise of a position, i am assuming that the specifics of the arguments need to be addressed."

Indeed.. but not having all possible specifics does not invalidate the basic argument!

"you, yourself, refuse the claims of experts...because they are creationist."

I do not do any such thing. In so far as anyone who has the **credentials** of 'expert', that is, has gone to school, received a degree, read the literature and done extended field work... and then interprets all that experience and 'expertise' thru the filter of 'creationism', he is not acting AS a scientist and as an expert. I have no problems with someone believing that a God created everything... but I certainly have problems with him denying enormous quantities of interlocking data from multiple sciences which have shown undeniable evidence of HOW that god did it... or how He intended it to proceed.

"evolutionists themselves have a bottom line, non negotiables."

Am I saying something here I swore I would not repeat? Here goes...
   The only "bottom line" science has is to go where the evidence leads! If some details are overlooked, and some theories must be reevaluated because of new data, that is part of the game. If new discoveries in paleontology indicate that specimen X is more closely related to specimen Y than as previously thought, to specimen Z, then that is plugged in and investigated.
Nothing about that necessarily contradicts the basic evidence of general age and composition of any of the specimens.

Any 'expert' who begins with a rule that "the Earth is only X years old and humans have a direct linage from Adam & Eve exemplifies the paradigm of non negotiable!

and..ummm... "widespread acceptance of biblical creation seems unlikely."

Why would you suppose that is? If you find a statue of an elf in your garden, and your neighbor tells you that his grandfather told him that such things happen because real elves make them in secret workshops and sneak them in in dark of night......yet, a store in town sells elf statues and several other people in town have elf statues that they bought.... who do you believe? Real elves favoring you with a statue is in many ways a more interesting story...but.... ☺
   Add in a book your neighbor has telling of elf statues going back for thousands of years and of some of them coming to life and performing miracles, and the story becomes even more interesting.

(Yes, Pete, I know you will dismiss my metaphor as irrelevant... but there may be 'experts' who will believe such a story and assert that carbon dating of YOUR statue is flawed, and those in the store are just bad imitations of REAL elf-produced items.... and so forth...)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:42 PM

Musket asks if it isn't hypocrisy..

of course it is for many.... but for others it is simply not bothering to look directly at the things that Don Firth refers to. If you skim past awkward passages and allow your 'expert' theologians to 'interpret' them and assure you they are not important, *shrug*

"'When I use a word translate and interpret a manuscript,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:19 PM

My original draft referred to the Humpty Dumpty quote....

What is interesting is that I have said time and time again that pete is a true Christian because he truly believes and doesn't let intelligence get in the way, or ignore the more ludicrous embarrassing bits.

Come to think of it, it is usually the vulnerable, gullible and low intelligence poor buggers who are captured and brain washed by irresponsible people for whom perpetuating superstition is in their more material interest.

It pisses off church leaders that many people are too sophisticated these days to believe in nonsense, however historically acceptable.





You know, thats how superstition is perpetuated. My comments above, which I happily stand by, do sound a bit pompous, reading them. Too many people would feel ashamed if society dropped indulging fairy stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 03:38 PM

If one believes in God, it is not at all inconsistent to regard the Bible as exactly what it is: a book of myth and metaphor written, not by God, but by men living in tribal societies, speculating on how they thought it might have all come about. The Bible is NOT a scientific treatise.

This view of the Creation account in the Bible in no way denigrates God.

In fact, if one looks at the mind-boggling pictures of the Universe taken with the Hubble and other orbiting telescopes, the magnitude of the Cosmos makes the idea the ALL THIS was created in a mere six days simply silly! And a Being who could have created this at all (the work of some 13.5 billion years at least) must be Powerful indeed! Through these photographs, one can get a hint of the actual power of an Entity who could create all this!

BEHOLD!

It denigrates the concept of God to persist in the six day, 6,000 year ago myth.   And this strikes me as something very close to blasphemy. I would warn Creationists to have a care.

Rather than an omniscient, omnipotent Deity, their concept attempts to reduce God to the status of a mere wand-waving wizard!

As I say--have a care!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 03:40 PM

""many people are too sophisticated these days to believe in nonsense, however historically acceptable.""

"Many" in that statement in no way negates reality that a significant number still believe in a god, of one type or another. This should not be confused with those attending church of an organized religion on a regular basis.In addition, western Europe and North America is only a fragment of the worlds population.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 04:35 PM

In religion in general, there are 'many' in almost every possible conceptual variation. I personally know..or have known .. those whose Christian stance is rock-hard fundamentalist, or some formal version of Ethical Humanist... and everything in between.

   I know Baptists, Catholics, Jews, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Quakers, Unitarians, Methodists (I used to BE one as a child)... and several other denominations less frequently. (I'm not sure if I know any Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses personally, but they have come to my door and we have had interesting discussions). I am not personally acquainted with all the strata in every denomination, but I have attended services in all those named except Jewish. It is culturally and historically fascinating to share in the emotion of those who have religious beliefs, if not in the actual details & belief itself. I find that I can generally respect their beliefs while not accepting the theology of their basic system.... as long as they 'try' to refrain from direct proselytizing and inserting aspects of doctrine into the educational system & political arena. (I say 'try' because many religious groups include 'witnessing' and missions and exhortations to join as fundamental precepts. IF one believes that a God ordered us to "become fishers of men", then it's hard to avoid.)
This creates a real conflict in the US, where the Constitution "Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, (or) impeding the free exercise of religion," If "free exercise" means exactly what it says, some feel that attempting to further & install that religion is allowed. If 'not establishing' means what it says, then those attempts are illegal... and away we go!
   In the US, those parts of the 1st Amendment are scrupulously obeyed or cheerfully avoided, depending on demographics, politics and $$$$$.

I am perfectly willing to turn the management of everything over to "philosopher kings",,, as long as *I* get to choose the philosophic theories.... *wry smile*

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 01:36 AM

"As a matter of interest, do you adhere to the dietary laws as detailed in the Old Testament?" asks Brendan of Pete 7*.

In fact, these teachings and rules were superseded on more than one occasion in the New Testament by God or Jesus declaring that those creatures had been cleansed after all; e.g. --

(Acts 10:9-16) . . .The next day as they were pursuing their journey and were approaching the city, Peter went up to the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became very hungry and wanted to eat. While they were preparing, he fell into a trance 11 and beheld heaven opened and some sort of vessel descending like a great linen sheet being let down by its four extremities upon the earth; 12 and in it there were all sorts of four-footed creatures and creeping things of the earth and birds of heaven. 13 And a voice came to him: "Rise, Peter, slaughter and eat!" 14 But Peter said: "Not at all, Lord, because never have I eaten anything defiled and unclean." 15 And the voice [spoke] again to him, the second time: "You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed." 16 This occurred a third time, and immediately the vessel was taken up into heaven.

... so not really a fair & applicable question.

I am of Brendan's opinion re the rest of his post, mind!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 02:35 AM

On that basis, how about a third testament that says "Behold! The Hubble Telescope and the book "How to teach quantum mechanics to your dog."

Everybody of every faith, gender, colour, origin and sexual orientation has, by my name, the right to the exact same fruits of their labour and equality of access to my house and all that stuff. Believing I am anything more than a comfort blanket for those who have issues with reality is optional. Oh, and stop mutilating your children's genitals whilst you are at it. And you know all those priceless works of arts in that church in Rome? Think what you could be doing for people with all that money instead. And when Musket wants to buy a washer for a leaking tap after 4,00pm on a Sunday, make sure the bleeding shops are open. People want work and you are stopping them in my name, yet you get snotty when Ishmael wants an hour off for prayers on a Friday."



I'd write it myself for a fee, but my prose couldn't match the historically interesting King James text.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 04:28 AM

" But Peter said: "Not at all, Lord, because never have I eaten anything defiled and unclean."

He's never stopped by our local kebab shop then.



"Scientists do not talk about facts"

To the tune of "O Jesus I have promised":

Here's another pile of utter bollocks
from someone who knows nowt
either that or he's trolling
and mucking us about.
Quantification, measurements,
observations and testing,
These are what we work with
when science is being done.

O yes facts are our business,
so try to get yours right.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: BrendanB
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 07:07 AM

Stu, you are right to take me to task for expressing myself in a lazy way. The point I was trying to make is that pfssl sees unprovable belief as fact and suggests that science functions in the same way.
Obviously facts as you determine them are your business but so too (one hopes) is interpretation, a willingness to learn and an open minded approach - essentially the drive to understand and explain. Your facts are those supported by rigorous examination, observation and testing. The opposite to those espoused by YECs.
I think if you re-read my previous post that meaning and intention can be discerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 01:44 PM

"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean."

    Romans 14:14


Now THAT can open some interesting discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:41 AM

You know Bill, it's about time the religion PR and marketing department removed that Romans sentence from the verse.

It's proof if ever you need it that those who claim to have read the bible and still claim to be impressed to the point of believing it missed the April Fool bit hidden in the text....

The other night at a folk club, someone sang Les Barker's excellent "Jehovah's Witness at the door" and I quote two brilliant lines of the song;

"Jehovah's Witness on the step,
Jesus wants you for a rep"

and

"Mathew Mark Luke and John,
On and on and on and on"

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:38 AM

Eyup Rookery. This is me.

I think, though the bugger would deny it, above is Martin. Fair comment all the same.

(Musket moves in mysterious ways.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 10:12 AM

"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean."

    Romans 14:14."

Lordy, I've never heard that one. Difficult to know exactly where to start.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 10:32 AM

Be careful then... Proverbs 13:3 will get ya!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:16 PM

Brendan's post seems to contain little of any substance to answer, and I don't intend to stoop to accusations and insults, though of course the mere fact of my disagreement is counted as offensive by the avid evolutionists here.                                                      Don firth thinks I,m blasphemous because I believe the bible.........fu

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:24 PM

Want me to finish to for you pete? You weren't saying "fuck you" perchance? I'm sure Don won't be offended. It'd a bit like blasphemy being a victimless crime. After all pete, you offend at the most base level whenever you scoff at reality.

Nice to know even delusion has it's human side.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:06 PM

No musket, I was cut off by wife using I pad to photo ice bucket thingy. I then continued and I have lost a much longer post.    But to finish that sentence ....funny old world!!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:09 PM

"I have lost a much longer post."

Thank your wife for us eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:44 AM

pete, you try to laugh off what I said. But you avoid answer it.

Afraid to face the implications?

Let's put it this way:   if you had to chose between your faith in God and your faith in the Bible--what would you chose?

(Ladies and gentlemen, we are now about to see some tap dancing that will make Fred Astaire look downright clumsy!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:43 AM

Pete, I see the Book of Jonah as a fable that teaches many wonderful lessons, and I think it's one of the most powerful books in the Bible. But I think it is a fable, a fictional story meant to teach a lesson. Same with the Book of Esther. Same with Genesis.
So, do I "believe the Bible," or not?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:24 AM

"Be careful then... Proverbs 13:3 will get ya!"

Thanks Bill! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:46 AM

joe, if Jesus seemed to regard Jonah as real, I see no reason to mistrust its historicity. I would suppose, you believe the bible, but with lots of qualifications. I tend to agree with muskets opinion on pick and choose , though I guess its between you and your maker, rather than mine or muskets opinion.
don firth...I don't see that happening ,but just supposing your arguments did persuade me, I guess I would still believe in some kind of god, as I cant imagine having enough faith to be a genuine complete atheist. I doubt it would make a better person of me though.
musket....don't like my posts ?..simples...don't read em then !

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 10:37 AM

Perhaps Jesus didn't have the advantage of an enquiring cynical mind. There again, he didn't have advantage of existing. Sure, someone questioned the comfortable local leaders under occupation and got executed for his sins. He or they may even have a few conjuring tricks up their sleeve but they were born like you and me , after their parents got fruity one night. They had no powers other than which could be described by physics.

There again pete, you don't have to believe to be a Christian, though it helps to be a Christian to believe.

I didn't say I don't like your posts. I merely said your delusion is dangerous to disturbed and vulnerable people. Your arrogant dismissal of reality at a level you cannot comprehend is fascinating. The frustration of some other contributors is their problem. I just remain astounded that someone can walk, talk, use an iPad and take fairy stories at face value all at the same time. If you have to believe fantasy, at least Tolkien wrote a consistent story with no contradictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:48 PM

Pete, I'm not asking you not to believe in God.

I am not an atheist, I would qualify as an agnostic. I believe that it's possible that there is a Supreme Being, but I don't know for sure. Nor does anybody else. I do go to church because there are a lot of nice people in that church and they don't "Jesus-talk" you until you want to run screaming. They do a lot of good work in the community (believing that actions speak louder than words), which is one of the reasons I go there.

But the Creation story as told in the Bible is a myth. No rational person can seriously believe that all of this could possibly have happened in 6,000 years. Specifically, since October 23, 4004 B.C., which is what some Creationist given to adding up the life-spans of people like Methuselah (!!) came up with. Pure speculation based on mythology!

Anyone who understands the nature of the Cosmos as it really exists—and the development of life as it really happened—can take Creationists with anything other than either disgust or humor.

The Bible has some very good passages in it, well worth heeding. But the idea that it is "the inerrant Word of God" is simply ludicrous.

I know too much about the Bible to believe that it could possibly be the "inerrant Word of God."

(What's the use? I'm wasting my time.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:56 PM

Your last comment Don.

You realise that is usually the point where pete and his mates give a self satisfied smirk and say they have won?

I just love the idea he reckons Saint Joe isn't a true Christian. Whilst feeling a sense of empathic hurt for Joe and every other rational person who enjoys the belonging and comfort of their faith, it serves to demonstrate the irrelevance of those within churches, mosques and temples who wish to impose their superstition on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: BrendanB
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 02:15 PM

Yes Don, you are - and heaven knows you have tried hard. This forum is a refuge for fundamentalists, Christian and otherwise. There is nothing you or anyone can say to which they will listen.   If they say you are a bigot then that cannot be gainsaid. If they say they are right then anyone who disagrees does not know what they are talking about.
The obvious response is to kick the whole Mudcat thing into touch, but I find myself drawn back by a morbid curiosity and the desire to see how much intolerance, intemperance and vituperation can be poured out by those who see themselves as models of reasonableness and empathy.
Much as Pete's intransigent refusal to answer uncomfortable questions may be infuriating he is probably harmless, he is certainly a lot less aggressive and verbally violent than some of our rational apostles of logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:01 PM

One of the radio stations I worked in in the 1970s was a classical music station. Great job! Announce classical music records, read a little blurb about the music or composer, then sit back with my feet propped up with a cuppa coffee in my hand and listen to music I really like. Long cuts between records. And I got paid well for this!

Then, the owner sold the station and a couple of yahoos bought it. They decided to broadcast canned religion. Then, my job was to tape these self-appointed preachers who would come in, tape a six minute sermon, then spend the rest of the half-hour begging for money to keep their good works going, and/or support their missionary work in Africa.

But these clowns were failed used car salesmen who decided to make themselves a prophet! They didn't do any good works, nor did their church have missionaries in Africa. In fact, they didn't even have a church!!

After about two weeks of this, I got tired of up-chucking in the wastebasket and I quit!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:07 PM

By the way, that radio station is still going. But now it carries Rush Limbaugh!

(Where did I put that wastebasket. . . ?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:01 AM

Methinks Brendan confuses "verbally violent" with exasperation.

In reality, pete is perhaps the most insulting poster on such threads. He treats the whole genre of discovery and the benefits to society it gives with contempt.

Mind you, he does agree with me over the hypocrisy of boutique Christians, although he hasn't worked out that I see no problem with pick n mix. After all, if intelligent people had to believe in magic as part of their faith, that'd be a few thousand potential bingo halls in the UK alone....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:09 PM

it is hardly worth replying to assertions and suchlike, and as bill is trying to consolidate on to new thread that may be just as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: BrendanB
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:17 PM

No Musket, I am not confusing verbal violence with exasperation. All you have on a forum such as this is words. You favour the aggressive and the scatological. When I read some of your posts I am alienated even though I may agree with your premise. Some of your posts read like naked hatred of people who have a religious faith. I suspect that you will deny that but your words undermine any such disclaimer.

I have a profound distrust of fundamentalism, if for no other reason than it denies the exercise of intellect. And yet I believe in God. This is not a choice, it just is. I struggle to align what I cannot help but believe with what my intellect leads me to know to be true. The Bible is an inspiration but not inerrant. It is not history. It is more a challenge which demands that one engages with it without accepting it as incontrovertible. My spiritual life is essentially a struggle; certainty must be nice but I don't have it. I don't claim to know how others should live their lives, I just wish them well. Nor do I seek to impose my beliefs on anyone else. You sit in judgement on others. You may take exception to that statement but some of your posts read very much like that.
No one has all the answers, not even you. So mock away Musket, mock away.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:58 PM

Don't really want to be part of this for fear of being struck down by divine lightning, but there's a bit of a to-ing and fro-ing going on in Ireland concerning pregnancy termination, following a sixteen year old having been raped, made pregnant, becoming suicidal, going on hunger strike, forcibly hydrated and finally having a caesarean section forced on her.
The grossly misnamed 'Pro-Lifers' are out in force demanding that that the meagre rights recently been grudgingly given to women following the death of Savita Halappanavar in 1912 after having been refused a life-saving operation because "Ireland is a catholic country, be removed frm the statute books.
This fascinating article by Fintan O'Toole explains the history of how refusal to allow pregnancy termination first became part of the Irish Constitution.
O'Toole is one of ireland's leading and most respected journalists and political commentators.
Jim Carroll

WHY IRELAND NEVER FACED UP TO THE ISSUE OF ABORTION
Fintan O'Toole, Irish Times, 26.8.14

The most successful single issue movement in the history of the State, the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign (PLAC), was established in January 1981 by 13 organisations: the Congress of Catholic Secondary School Parents'Associations; the Irish Catholic Doctors' Guild; the Guild of Catholic Nurses; the Guild of Catholic Pharmacists: the Catholic Young Man's Society; The Thomas More Society; The Irish Pro-Life Movement; the National Association of the Ovulation Method ("natural" contraception endorsed by the Catholic Church); the Council of Social Concern (COSC); the Irish Responsible Society; the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children; the St Joseph's Young Priests Society (young Catholic priests, that is); and the Christian Brothers Schools Parent's Federation:
The initial meeting was chaired by the head of the 14th organisation that was immensely influential on the campaign behind the scenes, the secretive, all-male brotherhood the Order of the Knights of Columbanus.
These are the bodies that made Ireland unique in the democratic world in having a ban on abortion in its Constitution. In spite of a great deal of revisionism, their sectarian character is obvious: 10 of these bodies were explicitly and exclusively Catholic. The other four were almost entirely made up of conservative Catholic activists. (By contrast, all Irish Protestant churches opposed the amendment.) For all of these groups, abortion was just one front in a wider religious war.

AMENDMENT
The meeting that established PLAC was called by John O'Reilly, described in Tom Hesketh's fine history of the amendment (written from a pro-amendment point of view), The Second Partitioning of Ireland, as "perhaps the main instigator of PLAC". He was vice-chairman of COSC and secretary arid co-founder of the Irish Responsible Society.
He seems to have been the person who first conceived the idea of an anti-abortion constitutional amendment, as far back as 1974. O'Reilly generally kept a low profile but he broke the surface in an extraordinary court case.
In 1973, he got his daughters, aged 10 and 9, to write to the Irish family Planning Association in Dublin, posing as adults, enclosing money and asking for condoms and spermicide. He then succeeded in having criminal charges brought against the IFPA.
John O'Reilly explicitly regarded a successful anti-abortion amendment as a prelude to action against contraception and "illegitimacy": "The campaign for a pro-life amendment would enjoy widespread support now and the success of the campaign would serve to halt the permis¬sive tide in other areas."
For O'Reilly "pro-life" was the opposite of "anti-life", a term which incorporated the availability of contraception and (weirdly) the rising number of babies born out of wedlock.
But COSC's agenda was wide: its first attack was on the formation of a multi-denominational primary school in Dalkey in 1976. Its member organisations, such as the League of Decency, cut their teeth in campaigns against "dirty" TV shows, family planning clinics and the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre.
The Irish Responsible Society, of which five key PLAC leaders were members, was the Irish branch of the group led by the English right-wing Catholic activist Valerie Riches (now a papal dame). For Riches, the degeneration of society through sexual permissiveness was a conspiracy driven by International Planned Parenthood.
She and her Irish followers were especially obsessed with the dangers of sex education, especially that which "emphasises that homosexual activity is normal and natural".
The morning-after pill was also, in their eyes, a special horror because it changed "the definition of the moment when human life starts from fertilisation to implantation". All of this conjured an apocalyptic vision: "the issue at stake concerns the very fabric of society, the very future of the human race."

HEADQUARTERS
Riches warned a meeting at the Knights of Columbanus headquarters in Dublin in 1980 of an ascending scale of moral depravity from contraception to abortion to homosexuality.
The first action of her Irish followers was to campaign against a small state grant to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Its next campaign was against the removal of the stigma of illegitimacy from children born out of wedlock.
This is the ideology - sectarian, paranoid, apocalyptic - that gave us the Eighth Amendment. It was utterly dismissive of any qualifications to its absolutist views and saw all "sob stories" as liberal conspiracies.
Bernadette Bonar, a leading PLAC and Responsible Society figure, warned of pro-abortion conspirators turning up at a TD's clinics: "seemingly respectable little women giving him sob stories about 12-year-olds being raped."
Loretto Browne, also a prominent PLAC and Responsible Society leader, told me in 1982 that rape very seldom results in pregnancy because "men that go in for rape are usually not fertile, they tend a be impotent".
She pointed, moreover, to the rising cambers of alleged homosexuals in Ireland as further evidence of conspiracy: "By natural law we couldn't have that many misfits... there couldn't be that any physically deformed people in society."
These were the people who created the Irish abortion regime. Most of them are long gone from the public stage - COSC and the Irish Responsible Society no longer exist. Their world view is marginal. But their legacy abides for women not born when it was in its pomp.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:33 PM

Interesting extract, Jim. I cannot make out what Ms Riches & her co-objectors meant by this:-

'The morning-after pill was also, in their eyes, a special horror because it changed "the definition of the moment when human life starts from fertilisation to implantation"'

Can anyone explain, please, what they meant by this? In what sense do they use "implantation".

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:39 PM

Pete, I can't see how you think Jesus regarded Jonah as "real." Where do you get that impression? And then, of course, what do you define as "real"?

In this day and age, we have a vastly different standard of "historicity" than that of ancient times. Philosophies are different, languages are different, methods of collecting information are different, everything is different.

Does this mean that ancient writings are unreliable, and of no value to us because they do not meet modern standards? Are Homer and Virgil, the Greek and Roman and Egyptian and Celtic mythologies, the Histories of Josephus and Tacitus, all false and misleading? Certainly not.

These ancient writings are what they are. If they are read in the spirit the authors intended, they are of infinite value. And, though they maybe in part fictional, they are of extraordinary historical value. I think, my friends, that the line between fact and fiction may not be as clearly defined as we think it to be. Oftentimes, fiction may be a better conveyor of truth, than can be done by what we consider to be "fact."

Now, the absolutists on both ends of the discussion, will never understand this. The religious absolutists, or fundamentalists, will tell you that their scriptures (and only their scriptures) are incontrovertibly true from all perspectives, and therefore must be binding for all the world according to their most simplistic interpretation (although these fundamentalists may deny even the possibility of "interpretation"). And the atheistic absolutists will argue that these documents (particularly the ancient documents of their target groups) and incontrovertibly false and intended to deceive and control people - and thus they must be suppressed so they can do no further damage.

I don't think there's much value on either extreme of the discussion, but I do think there is great value in learning to study ancient documents, especially ancient sacred documents with a critical eye. We need to understand historical context, literary forms, the philosophies of the times, and the original intent of the authors. And in our critical study of ancient documents, we must always keep in mind that our interpretation may be wrong or only partially correct; so we must be open to alternate interpretations and perhaps a wide spectrum of interpretations in some circumstances.

But there are no absolutes in the study of ancient writings. If you think your understanding is absolutely correct, then I can tell you with certainty that you are absolutely wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:22 PM

Brendan. You ask me not to mock you, but when a person with the benefit of education and books, a few hundred years of scientific discovery and shared experience prefaces such debate with "I believe in God," we are not having the same debate.

Hey Joe! You describe me to a T! I don't see it as negative though. Religion fucks up vulnerable people. Not everyone has your intellect and ability to use faith rather than be captured by it. Worse still, those in control of organised religion prefer the petes of this world rather than the Joes.

At the end of the day, I can do more than smile and patronise when people say they believe in magic and expect me to respect it in the same way I may respect a differing political view.

Fundamentally, that's it. Not faith as a comfort blanket or moral compass, not even a sense of belonging and comradeship. But an elephant in the room based on magic and supernatural beings.

Asking rational people to respect such nonsense at any intellectual level is far more insulting than any god botherer, imaginary friend or other derogatory term I might use.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 12:57 AM

*peeking in.................slipping away back to the new thread*

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:06 AM

Yeah, Joe has already answered this debate in the new one.

I set this one up purely to discuss that The Church of England now allows women to hold senior management roles after a vote. I thought it good on one level yet hilarious on another. Biblical teaching being put to the vote and losing.

That debate got lost in the fog.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:25 AM

"I cannot make out what Ms Riches & her co-objectors meant by this:"
Me neither Mike - the Church and its hangers on's attitude to sex an procreation has always been beyond me.
I was quite fascinated by the suggestion that rapists tended to be impotent and the rising cambers (should have read numbers) of homosexuals were a conspiracy because "there couldn't be that any physically deformed people in society."   
We are now seeing a rise in religious fundamentalism on the subject - perhaps time will reveal all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:48 AM

I cannot make out what Ms Riches & her co-objectors meant by this:-

'The morning-after pill was also, in their eyes, a special horror because it changed "the definition of the moment when human life starts from fertilisation to implantation"'

Can anyone explain, please, what they meant by this? In what sense do they use "implantation".

I think it is fairly clear, if lacking in precision. Let me give a clipping from a guide to pregnancy site:

After completing its six-day journey through your fallopian tube, the blastocyst you'll one day call your baby reaches its ultimate destination and begins to attach itself to the uterine lining. About 30 percent of the time, implantation bleeding will occur as that bundle of cells burrows its way into the uterine wall. Implantation bleeding, which is usually very scant and either light pink, light red, or light brown, occurs earlier than your expected period. Don't mistake it for your period, and don't worry about the bleeding — it's not a sign that something is wrong.

Now, if you want to have a clear definition of when life starts, as pro-lifers do, conception is nice and easy. However it is a simple fact that many fertilized ova do not implant in the womb for a variety of reasons, and we do not say these women were pregnant, if only because for most of human existence we simply had no way of noticing, (and even today it would be pushing the bounds of possibility).

So the next point you might consider is you wanted a definition is implantation. The 'morning-after' pill worked by preventing implantation. But if you can get the general population to think the best point to say life starts is at implantation rather than conception then Pro-Lifers have lost a vast amount of ground. Also since they typically believe life starts at conception, they regard the fertilized ova as killed exactly as much as by an abortion. Which is why the idea fills them with horror.

You don't have to agree with people to understand them!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:12 AM

When I was involved in regulation and termination of pregnancy came up, I objectively heard evidence from all sides and technical input from obstetrics specialists. The UK position from both The Abortion Act 1968 and The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (and complimentary acts for Scotland and Wales) is the interest of the woman up to the cut off date and joint her and the foetus thereafter.

Many religious views put forward dismissed the interest of the woman and concentrated on the potential child. The reasoning given was that their religion taught them that life begins at conception. There was no room for "that's your view but may not be the view of the patient." To which I was told, "you nor anybody else has the right to challenge God. "

If ever you want to see sensitive subjects dealt with insensitively, look no further than such awful people. Then they want to be respected?

(Perhaps they also are of the opinion that sex is purely for procreation. Wrong. I for one have enjoyed shagging over the years, and so have my partners. Only my first wife and I ever thought of procreation, and then at a time of our choosing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:25 AM

DMcG -- Many thanks for that explanation. I get all the technicalities now.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:47 AM

This whole line of debate is a "red herring", of course life begins at fertilisation in every species on this planet.

In more difficult times males fertilised as many females as possible to ensure species survival, but as we have advanced in food production, social structure etc, contraception has become a necessity.
This has no bearing on wither or not we "enjoy" sex, or on the issue of "God" or religious faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:33 AM

I especially enjoyed the word "wither"

The species survival bit doesn't explain that DVD you lent me called Lesbian Lusts.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:47 AM

of course life begins at fertilisation in every species on this planet

As with almost everything else in biology, 'life' is a much more evasive idea than it first appears. There are a huge number of species that reproduce asexually, so the generalisation is at the very least too sweeping. There have been many debates on whether things like viruses are alive or not, there is continuing discussion in the medical world what constitutes death ... when it comes to 'life', there are few instances of 'of course' in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:23 AM

joe, matt 12 vs 38 - 41. sounds like he thought it historical, actual persons and events.
"for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" v40.
as far as study of ancient ms is concerned, I agree that they expressed their thoughts different to modern western modes, but as in origins debate, worldview colours interpretation , at least to some extent. but as a layman just looking at this passage in English [while noting ancient expression] , I think he meant it to be understood as historical......
of course, you might think that jesus did not rise after 3 days, in which case your suggestion might work....for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:26 AM

Must have been that shot of adrenalin they gave him..

Most accounts show the Romans were pretty good at executing. I doubt they took a bloke down when he was still alive. One way to check is to take the nails out of the hands first and see if he shouts "FFFUUUCCKKK!!" as he shows us how to touch his toes without bending his legs.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:34 AM

Sorry DMG, I was referring to ovulating species and should have made that clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:05 PM

Normally I'd drop the conversation at this point, ale, but as it is crucial to the pro-life argument I will post again on this sub-topic. We have reasonably clear idea what it means for a creature post-birth to be alive (although even that is not easy in the case of severe comas, for example). But there's no clarity at all what we mean be life when we are at the cellular level. Of course we may adopt the convention that we will call something alive in certain situations, but we are rarely consistent. Are the unfertilised ova and sperm alive? Is the DNA sample the police have just taken alive? On what grounds is a cell in one situation alive while another cell is not, even if both are stem cells?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:32 PM

Too many big words, not enough massaging of his ignorance.

This could be interesting. I'll get the pork scratchings.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:03 PM

Hmm, interesting points DMcG, but how do they effect how we define the construction of a human embryo?....Which is surely what the pro lifers are promoting?

Whether DNA has a "life" of its own, is surely incidental to the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:07 PM

Ian, I realise that DMcG is probably an expert and I am certainly not, but I like to be informed and am not quite as closed minded as you.
The purpose of debate is to inform......that's why you always try to close it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:04 PM

DMcG is probably an expert

Most certainly not. I am a mathematician by training and a computer scientist by employment. I have never had any more to do with the medical profession that anyone else with occasional sniffles, check ups and injections.

No-one should assume I am an authoritative source on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:48 PM

*sneaking back in to comment on this*:

"of course life begins at fertilisation in every species on this planet" (yes...in ovulating species)

That may or may not be the case, depending on certain subjective definitions of biological status. Obviously, something relevant & important occurs. When an egg is fertilized and cell division begins, a zygote is produced and begins mitosis.... and if not interrupted, can eventually become a new living individual.
   However, agreement on these terms and the sequence is not really what the controversy is about. It is not even mostly about the stage at which a fetus (my spell checker's spelling)could survive outside the mother's womb, although that is important for certain decisions.
   What is really being question is when...and whether something called a 'soul' enters the zygote/fetus. IF there are such things as souls which are 'automatically' inserted by some divine process into each zygote, the argument goes, then interfering with the process amounts to 'killing' a human being.
   What is usually not discussed is the specific premises that are implied by this viewpoint. To shorten all this, the very concepts of 'divine being' & 'soul' and what it means to interfere with them is a major item for debate and discussion. We see zygotes and measure them and photograph them - we have no way to document the addition of 'souls.

   Because the very basic concepts are a matter of differing opinions, each individual must come to a decision about how to decide the issue, and it makes no sense for someone who believes one thing to have any right to interfere in the decisions of anyone on the other side!
   There are LONG philosophical arguments about explicating this situation, but a practical view would be that "mind your own business" is a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:03 PM

Trust me, if there is hope for you I am the last person to close down a debate, considering I started it.

Forgive me if I see an uphill battle all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:36 PM

Bill, It would be impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a "soul", just as it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of "God", that is where faith comes in and as you say that is nobodies business but yours or mine or pete's.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 01:38 AM

Or those pete and his mates try to convince, disregarding what has been proven already.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:38 AM

and what has been proven already, musket ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 11:52 AM

Occams razor.

If you understand probability at any academic level, we can discuss it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:26 PM

as I understand it, occams razor means favouring the solution that needs the least bolstering or supplementary support.
wrong or not, what does that prove?. certainly not the complexity of Darwinist dogma.
the only thing that I reckon has been proven here, is that there are a lot of atheists and skeptics here that like to engage in abuse, vulgarity and mockery, rather than mature discussion.
so, musket, what has been proven ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:52 AM

If either of you get into a discussion about Occam's razor, you need to be clear it says nothing about proof at all. It merely says given a choice between two theories that cover all the facts, the simpler is to be preferred. Nothing about it being right. Indeed, given a new piece of evidence, the 'simpler' theory it preferred may no longer cover all the facts and we might need to move to the one previously rejected as over-complicated.

The essential problem with the creationist view is that it doesn't cover all the facts (actually a really strict creationist view would, but since creationists usually want to believe the bible as well, that's a problem.)

So when a creationist is faced with a difficult problem - let's say pete on the question of how many species of beetle on the ark (see past threads) - he either has to say he doesn't know or say they weren't on the ark but survived by another mechanism despite these two verses of the bible:

"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Notice the all-inclusiveness of those verses. Pete puts all his store in this verse, which precedes the second of those above:
"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."

So despite two verses saying everything was destroyed, pete insists it is only those with nostrils that died. This is of course a logical error on top of everything else. Because everything with property A died, it is erroneous to assume it means the not-A survived.

And pete, as we went through on another occasion, the (neo)Darwin theory is breathtaking in its simplicity. That it explains a vast amount of the complexity of the world does not make it complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 03:25 AM

And, pete, please note I do not mock or abuse or indulge in vulgarity. I do, however, ask you to give explanations of how your theory fits observations I make, such as the large number of species of beetle.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 04:18 AM

Thank you D.

I can't prove any of the God stuff to be bollocks but neither can I prove hobgoblins don't hide my socks.

Over the last three hundred years, biblical explanations of the world have been found to be bollocks though. Not proven of course, but nothing is proven if you apply the test and logic pete is applying.

Including his god delusion....

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 06:43 AM

We all have delusions Ian, You, more so than anyone I have encountered.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 07:35 AM

True. I like to think people in general are nice and don't despise strangers for falling in love with people they wouldn't fall in love with.

I will have to remain delusional till bigotry is dead and buried eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:33 PM

dmcg- no I was not thinking of you as abusive, you have been absent for awhile, neither, bill. but you got to admit there are definitely a few it does include.
you would have a point if there was no qualifying in the text, but full points for being a clever debater.
if the vs you set such store by must insist there be no substance surviving whatever, it would be a contradiction to add that those on the ark did not, it is a qualifier. as is "..all in whose nostrils.."
seems logical to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 03:19 PM

"Nostrils" is a poetic term. Whether you choose to treat it as literal and inspired or not, it was penned and transmitted by human scribes with 'opinions' and fish to fry.. (another poetic term). It is logical only if YOU can demonstrate its premises are true.

...and.."every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things,.. seems to override 'nostrils' as a general category. Bugs, as 'creeping things' don't have nostrils.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 05:24 PM

if the vs you set such store by must insist there be no substance surviving whatever, it would be a contradiction to add that those on the ark did not, it is a qualifier. as is "..all in whose nostrils.."

Actually, you know, you are the one who sets great store by the verses being interpreted literally!

I am sure everyone knows the story in general terms, but it is clear throughout the whole passage that Noah and family are to be safe. It would be unnecessary for every single verses to be followed by "(except Noah and his family)": this is implied by the context. The repetition for the specific verse makes sense both in context and in the art of storytelling.

No such special dispensation was given to beetles.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 05:30 PM

Also I see you are still assuming the declaration about nostrils means beetles are exclude from the destruction. But that not the case. If I said to you "It was a terrible battle. All Mrs Jones' sons were killed" it say not one jot about the fate of Mrs Smith's sons. Similarly telling you what happened to things with nostrils says nothing at all about the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:59 PM

when I say that you set such store by that verse, I am obviously not implying you believe it. I was merely answering in your own phrasing, to point out that you are trying to counter my argument by pointing to 7v4. other vs in same passage qualify, including v23 where the word "substance" is qualified as to what is included.
yes, bill, nostrils is a poetic Hebraism, but that does not mean the account is not historical, anymore than if I said the sun rose today. should I be more scientifically precise [and boring!] to convey that information?.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:17 PM

I can see why you would like it to be a qualifier of the following verse, but I see it as emphasising the destruction. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, but I am saying your assumption is just that: an assumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:09 PM

This has turned into a fascinating discussion.
I wish we could debate all subjects in such a manner....well done

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:04 AM

Pete - I've just looked up v23 which you called in your defence:

"Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

Again, I can't see that helps your argument. I would read that 'Every living thing' as the dominant phrase. By comparision, omit the text before the semicolon: "people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth". My understanding is that is what you believe the verse means - the part before the semicolon is entirely superfluous. But the part before the semicolon makes sense if the terms after it are not qualifiers but instead emphasise the extent of the destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:04 AM

Oops, me above.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:24 PM

well ,I can see the argument from your side, and admittedly where there might seem to be an uncertainty I am going to choose what I consider best. the whole chapter considered though, seems to qualify rather than be all encompassing. but then, I can see that you might say it rather gives some specifics of the whole.
just noticed too, bill, your comment on "bugs" and admittedly "creeping things" might be taken as bugs, but in theology the rule of thumb is to compare scripture with scripture, esp when in the same passage, so unless we grant your poetic nostrils to bugs, I take it that any bug on board were stowaways and not requisite passengers !.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:28 PM

".. I take it that any bug on board were stowaways and not requisite passengers !."

LOLOL... nice dodging, Pete... but not as clever as " but in theology the rule of thumb is to compare scripture with scripture, esp when in the same passage, "

Internally consistent, huh? That is very convenient... methinks there's a bug in your reasoning...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:38 PM

Fire 
Ever wonder who is active translating and interpreting old tablets that form the basis of the Bible, and wondered iv they get along and agree?

This website gives good perspective, from onebperson involved. An interesting read under the different titles.

Could the fire and dust origin in the Bible be from the big bang? Interesting interpretations of old hebrew words, used in the Bible segments.

an interesting site 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:45 PM

No fire. No dust.

If you don't understand Big Bang , stop trying to align it to fairy stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:46 PM

Think deeper Musket, and take the time to think, versus shooting from the hip.

You could kearn some "deeper thinking" lessions from Bilk D. There are more to consider than oft repeated"fairy tale" one liners.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 12:53 AM

Well, there are certainly some insulting posters in these threads, but Pete isn't one of them. But some of you hone insult to a fine art....

Pete says what he believes. I disagree with it, as most of you do. But it's what he believes. How can we consider that insulting?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 03:48 AM

Propagating it, telling children it is true and reality is wrong, lobbying government to allow bigotry and discrimination in the name of religion..,.

My mate who believes the moon landings didn't happen, now that's innocent and none insulting. But creationism is a force insisting on credibility. That's why it needs shouting down Joe. Not just get at pete. He has every right to be slightly unhinged and good luck to him. It's when the buggers get together and try to influence society.

Rather than support their right, churches should consider the harm they cause by association. It must be goading to see pete dismiss you and your studies over the years as "boutique." Why say he isn't insulting when he insults your own faith Joe?

Ed. Fairy story might sound insulting but giving it status above what it is doesn't alter anything. Nothing outside the laws of physics actually happened. Nobody came back from the dead. No virgin gave birth. No supernatural being interfered in peoples' lives. Even the bit they got right, they got the wrong way round. God was made in our image.

Faith is a comfort blanket for those who need it, but organised religions need to know their place in c21. They have no right to interfere outside of their membership, yet they do. Whilst ever they do, they will be jeered at by ignorant twats like me. You can't argue philosophy with them because they can move the goalposts too easily. So pointing and laughing is the most effective tool there is.

I repeat. If someone uses their imaginary friend as part of a debate, there is little point in trying to rationalise with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 04:02 AM

"pointing and laughing", is the only tool you have on many subjects Ian.
I don't think you really care at all about "faith" only the church's obstruction of your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 05:37 AM

Just so long as you don't remind us of your despicable agenda. Some of us have only just finished our breakfast.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 05:40 AM

Musket, I look on "faith" as a masterpiece painting to be pondered and appreciated. In ways, it's a metaphor, meant to express the beauty and magnificence and mystery in terms that are not clinical and perhaps not completely rational. Nonetheless, that masterpiece gives depth and meaning to my life that I wouldn't have otherwise. It's not for everyone - but for me, it has meaning.

I'm sorry that you and Pete are able to see faith only in such concrete terms, and feel bound to prove or disprove it all. As for me, I'll float in the poetry of it all and just absorb and ponder it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:19 AM

For crying out loud Joe!

Read my posts in full, don't cherry pick!

I do not see faith in concrete terms and constantly mention the comfort many people get from it. My main bone of contention is that people like yourself accommodate the petes of this world rather than see the harm they create by associating religion with absurd fantasy.

Yes, I'm sure it is a metaphor and the many religious friends and in my wife's case, family with faith are comfortable with their creed.

Meanwhile, the unhinged idiots happy to be called creationists are too stupid to be exposed to metaphor because they think it's real, every last bit of it, are politicising it, lobbying governments and trying to force their hobby as a social and political agenda.

You know what? I think mainstream religions have a role in stopping encouraging them. Its actually in their interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:20 AM

"people like yourself accommodate the petes of this world "

And the alternative? The **pete's** seldom bother me... meaning that aside from causing your blood pressure to rise, they usually just got to church and pray.

It's the rabid non-Pete's that concern me. I wish that there could be a vaccination against irrationality, but the lure of the " floating in the poetry of it all " is very strong and I dare say will always be with us... and in that form does little harm...except to provide a vehicle for the rabid ones to use. 'Vehicles' will always be abused, whether run by petrol or bibles... but each can be valueable.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:25 AM

Read the posts, your own included unless I am mistaken on YEC.

Then say the petes of this world just go to church and mind their own business...