Congratulations, Great Britain! (protestant, bishop, Catholics, minority)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My argument is not what the government should or shouldn't do, but what the church should do. The church should follow Scripture in regards to this matter.
My argument is not what the government should or shouldn't do, but what the church should do. The church should follow Scripture in regards to this matter.
Which church? As long as yours does, why do you care what other churches do? MYOB.
Actually Christians are always a minority and have always know this just reading the bible.Just as athetist with the same opinion are a minority even smaller.
Yes I believe you are, since it is nothing to do with you, and is not illegal...You have no right to tell others how to live their lives, period.
Everyone's a "bigot" about something if by "bigot" we mean "disapproval or denouncement of a legal behavior that does not harm others."
I mean what if someone loves eating lard or is addicted to chewing tobacco? In neither case are they necessarily doing others any harm but people will certainly tell them how to live their life. Or with sex. There was a case I read once where this young man who was adopted found his biological grandmother and then proceeded to have a consensual sexual relationship with her. No harm, she's post-menopausal so no kids would be created, but many people expressed their belief it's wrong.
In the case of homosexuality it is rejected by Orthodox Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Baha'i, Freudianism before 1970, several schools of Marxism, and so forth. I think Zoroastrianism too. In Confucianism it was acceptable, but one was expected to try to produce "a male heir" so homosexuals were encouraged/expected to at least try heterosexuality for procreation.
From that link...... "Admittedly, some other surveys - including the last census - have produced different findings on these issues, usually to the advantage of the religious option. There is also a margin of error in all such exercises"
And think of the number just on this forum that say they are not religious but do believe in God.
One does not mean the same as the other.
Surveys are something that need to be taken with a huge grain of salt....half the shaker, even.
Well, what is so often mis-represented or selectively biased is that the Confidence Intervals on any result and conclusion (Example: "such-and-such" is the case, with a confidence of ± 95%") means justthat: the actual, absolutely correct answer might be "+" the stated amount, but also, with equal weight, it might be "-" that chosen number. Christians always bend it just one way, to whatever favors their position. Like those geological dating numbers.
So, my point? The situation in Great Britain could be even worse for Christianity. As in.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar
The trend is clear, even given acceptable statistical error. Believers are decreasing, non-believers are increasing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antlered Chamataka
Dawkins lives up to the adage that a pig is still a pig with a load of lipstick on. Education does not help sell idiocy away. Dick is one of the most leading examples As Sarko would arrogantly say, "Imbecile!".
Oh come ON, Tony! And just when I was getting to like you and your mind! Well, I'd like to see you debate Dr. Dawkins. His disarming, quiet, no-nonsense, fact-filled debating technique is exactly what angers so many loosy-goosy, "feelings" based pseudo-arguments presented by those who just gotta have a spiritual basis in a world where such stuff is fading fast. Soon enough it's obvious they have nothing to fight back with, and then they start bomb-throwing, predictably.
What is obvious is that the more insightful, the more obviously logical, the more convincing, credible and rational the arguments against devout religion are to the majority of listeners, the more dangerous a prophet of truth is seen to be, and the more he will be viciously demonized. It's almost a badge of value and outrage! Christian children (not to mention the general congregation of bleetist sheeple) are thus taught from the earliest possible age to despise any and all such spiritual interlopers.
I'm sure that Dr. Dawkins probably enjoys the reputation he's been afforded by frantic Christians. Sort of like they have similarly bestowed on the Evil & Demonic Darwin, "that damned turncoat!". And they'd love to get Hawking on their side, since he hints obtusely at theism from time to time if you purposefully misinterpret his words. Fact is, he's also a true atheist: too may irrationalities in Christianity's old-tyme mythology for him.
All this does not go unnoticed by popcorn-munching, bored TV onlookers, or hyped-up teenagers who are looking to revolt anyways and just need a good reason. Not to mention the massive influx of legal Muslims (who allowed that big mistake, anyhow?) who now feel they are free to alter the entire society and culture to their fanatical cult. Just like we're now seeing in Gr. Britain.
The brutal rejection of their silliness by a society that eventually comes to it's senses may well lead to some street fights, I'm betting. Just as we're witnessing in so many lesser countries around the globe.
Yes I believe you are, since it is nothing to do with you, and is not illegal...You have no right to tell others how to live their lives, period.
So by telling an alcoholic to stop drinking, a junkie to stop using, a sex addict to control themselves and offering to help I am a bigot? What about if I see a friend spiraling downhill? I guess I shouldn't tell them that they're about to ruin their life and just let it go because "... it is nothing to do with (me), and is not illegal... (I) have no right to tell others how to live their lives, period". Just because it is legal does not make it right, because by that logic slavery was perfectly moral until the 1860's. I'm not going to force you to do (or not do) anything (with in reason, if there is a life at stake, then its different), but I will tell you if you are doing something wrong, as I should.
You are inventing an entirely new scenario...I think that is called a strawman, right...We were discussing churches marrying same sex couples, not junkies, alcoholics and such...Epic fail.
You are inventing an entirely new scenario...I think that is called a strawman, right...We were discussing churches marrying same sex couples, not junkies, alcoholics and such...Epic fail.
So? I'm using them as examples of wrong actions that people will say "Hey, that's not right". The problem is, people are afraid to correct others, even if it's better for the other person. Do not be afraid to tell someone "Hey, that at right". You are doing them a greater disservice if you choose to let them carry on. A true friend will tell you when you're doing something wrong, and do what they can to help you. At the same time, don't go a bash homosexuals and treat them like they are inferior. Instead, understand that it is a cross to bear and be supportive and helpful. Just don't be intolerant because of what they are, which is different from what they do.
Anyway, it would take a novel for me to fully refute your statement (hence the reason I used examples), because it would require me to refute moral relativism so as to show how homosexual acts (but not homosexuality itself) is sinful and explain how we're all doomed by it and its consequences (moral relativism that is). If you want my response and beliefs, I'd suggest reading Kreeft's, "A Refutation of Moral Relativism".
edit:
P.S. Straw man was the word you were looking for, but now what I was doing. It is just the same.
Yes I believe you are, since it is nothing to do with you, and is not illegal...You have no right to tell others how to live their lives, period.
I don't mean to jump in, but....
I have no right to TELL them? I have to listen to your horse fling, don't I? So sometime folks have to listen to mine. Now, having said that, they don't have to listen to me.
Besides, I don't tell gay folks they shouldn't be gay. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or tell you I agree with some of the things they do. Some of the things they do are immoral. That's just the way it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dr Dawkins: all bow down! Really!
As Sarko would arrogantly say, "Imbecile!".
