BS: Church V State

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

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

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

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

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

Quite....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How's the cap Keith?

Suits you, does it?

😂

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do recall you saying exactly that though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you mean "we", paleface?

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

Ooops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Err. Stop calling me a liar eh?

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

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

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

Any toys left in your pram duck? 😂

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

Never quite copped that one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dash his hopes. Dismiss his argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 12:32 PM

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

Yes.
He has been pushing that lie for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 12:41 PM

"He has been pushing that lie for a long time."
Give it a rest Keith
You are one of the most consistently dishonest members of this forum, both in your claims and in your interpretation of what other people say.
"Do as you would be done by" isn't a bad motto to get through life with, it really isn't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 12:43 PM

Atheism is a bit odd really. I don't really have solid evidence that there's no God. All I know is that he hasn't got any that there is one, but at least I have reason and rationality my side. My notion fits all we know about the laws of nature but his doesn't fit any of it. But I don't need to dismiss or demolish his argument because I can't. As for dashing his hopes, nah, let him keep them. His cause is hopeless enough as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 01:40 PM

Yet another post lost......or deleted, despite being a direct and civil reply to Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 01:51 PM

Last night I spent a pleasant evening, in a good Restaurant, having a meal with a very good friend of mine and her husband. My friend is a Vicar , her husband shares her faith.

During the course of the night the conversation, as it does over several hours, varied between numerous topics and much as I love the lady I would not want her to be a representative in the House of Lords merely on the basis of her faith.

I am quite sure she would make a valuation contribution to any discussion at any level but I could not sanction a position for her in the House on Lords based on her faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:38 PM

She wouldn't be there based on her faith. She would be there due to having (or having had) a leadership role within a group of people with shared interests and shared views on some political issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:52 PM

"She wouldn't be there based on her faith"
Why would she be there
There are many thousands of people and groups in Britain - probable with far more qualifications and certainly far more representative of "real people"
Nobody has yet attempted to show why the Church - any church - should have representatives in Government - which says as much as there is to be said on the subject
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:04 PM

I suggested right at the start that it was because they represented the views of a 'constituency' as in "a group of people with shared interests or political opinions" Just like peers with experience in media, the arts, trade unions, academic disciplines, business etc. It's a talking shop.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:07 PM

Oh, stoppit, moderator. Why not just recognise harmless ribbing for what it is when you see it. Next thing, we'll be getting one of those moaning mudelf addenda complaining how overworked you all are.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:35 PM

Atheism isn't a faith - it's the default position of objective humanity. We are all born godless & faithless, blissfully innocent of bullshit and eager in our wide-eyed preparedness for the wonders of learning as we come into cosmic consciousness. Then we get hit where it hurts by religious idiocy and the manifold evils and abuses of The God Concept.

Just as we have lungs eager to breathe clean fresh air only to find ourselves in a house full of smokers, so our minds are eager to seize upon the glories of art, language, music, science - only to find ourselves in a culture polluted by religion...

I was born an atheist - I will die an atheist. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of fact and knowing. And it's easy to show why there is no God because we can point at the moment in human history when they made him up. Far from ubiquitous, the concept flounders in the mire of righteous subjectivism.

*

That said, I am SO looking forward to spending a few days of our up-coming Somerset holiday exploring the late-medieval bench-end tradition, and churches great and small. I will wander absorbed the Cathedrals of Wells & Salisbury and seek out the queerest religious imagery ever wrought in the church of The Holy Ghost at Crowcombe; not to mention St, Mary Magdelene at Bishops Lydeard wherein dances this singular fellow:

Bench End, Bishops Lydeard; June 2012. Pic : Blandiver; atheist by Birth, not delusion

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:36 PM

Posting anonymously then agreeing with yourself? Rather odd Keith?

Lots of posts back in the archives from when you said "we" when referring to UKIP.

Nothing to do with this thread of course, but personally, I don't like being called a liar. In fact, if you can't understand the membership rules of Mudcat, and the moderators don't give a flying fuck for your abuse, may I suggest you stop your little games?

Decent respectable people wish to use Mudcat, not just you and your good friend Akenaton.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:53 PM

Musket me old love, I would think you could suggest whatever you wish but my tomcat has more chance of winning Crufts than you have of getting any honesty from that direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 04:05 PM

"Posting anonymously then agreeing with yourself? Rather odd Keith?"

Not if its the posts I think you mean Musket. How about a link to one of these 'we' referring to UKIP posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 04:08 PM

Your tomcat could pass for a Siberian hamster and get best of class, if he keeps his big mouth shut and like that one on the adverts, tries acting more dog.

Passing off some on here as rational? They'd have to spend hours in make up first.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 04:10 PM

After all, fancy him giving you a mighty brain that you then refuse to use

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the matter succinctly laid out for once and all.

Stupid is as stupid does,
World without end, Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 05:20 PM

You will have nice time there, Jack. Don't just go to the church at Bishop's Lydeard: invest fifteen quid on a ride on the West Somerset steam railway from Bishop's Lydeard to Minehead return. Lovely it is and the trip will take you back in time. We have a village church near Bude that I'm told has remarkable bench ends, at Launcells, I'm ashamed to say that' I've never investigated!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 05:34 PM

"I was born an atheist - I will die an atheist. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of fact and knowing".....I have known several atheists who have ended up as "believers", even I at seventy, am beginning to see the peace belief gives to someone very close to me.

You will never hear condemnation of "people of faith" from me.

Your remarks illustrate that you know very little about human psychology......if you did you would not be nearly as certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 06:06 PM

We have a village church near Bude that I'm told has remarkable bench ends, at Launcells, I'm ashamed to say that' I've never investigated!

Cheers, Steve. Went to Launcells years ago & got some bad pics, so thanks for the reminder. Nice wall paintings too. St. Swithin's I think - St. Swithin's day on Tuesday - here's hoping! Bude? That rings a bell too - pasties probably... Must check out that Minehead train though (remembering I'll be with my missus who can only take so much!) BUT, coincidentally, and wondrously, earlier today I was just reading about Minehead in Arthur C Clarke's intro to The Sentinel. I trust there's a blue plaque??

I have known several atheists who have ended up as "believers",

It's not a matter of belief, Ache - it's a matter of simply dying and being at one with the material Godless universe from which we sprung. As Carl Sagan said - we are star stuff. Thus we are born, and thus we die. This is what we are. This is what we do. With that in mind, we live with open & joyful hearts.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 06:37 PM

St Swithin's it is! The steam railway chugs pleasantly through very nice countryside, all the stations decorated with tubs and troughs of cottage garden flowers and all the staff dressed the old way. It was me birthday treat in 2014, but because I'd been somewhat on the Prosecco the night before I found meself dipping in and out of slumber on the train in a most agreeable fashion, the chuffing of the steam engine having a most soporific effect. I'm sure the missus would love the sheer gentleness! I don't know about the blue plaque, but I'd recommend an hour or two at Porlock Weir if you can make it. A half-hour trot up the good path to the top of Dunkery Beacon, the highest point on Exmoor, is another lovely sojourn.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 07:05 PM

There's nothing I enjoy more than going into churches, from the tiniest village ones that can seat a couple of dozen people at best, right up to the greatest cathedrals. I think my favourite little church is St Michael's on top of Brentor on Dartmoor, though I also love St Enodoc's, near Rock in Cornwall, which has John Betjeman's grave in the lovely churchyard. This year so far we've done Bath Abbey, which is lovely. In the last couple of years we've also done Exeter and Salisbury and my favourite of all, Hereford.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:29 PM

Those last three being cathedrals!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 13 Jul 15 - 01:18 AM

Salisbury cathedral is one of my favourite places on earth. Just so breathtakingly beautiful. Also love Wells and Ely cathedrals.