Gay marriage thread

[MrGongGong]

The Vatican itself has quite a few scientific and other "experts" in its employment.

I love this stuff , it cheers me up no end



So what you are effectively saying is the equivalent of ......
because i'm unable to see through the wall into the next room of my house
even though i've just walked into the room i'm in
it's highly likely that there is a real stegosaurus sitting on the rug ..... after all I can't SEE that there isn't


you been listening to this again Scotty ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMrLrLI8oh8

to conclude the "battle"

THE EARTH GOES ROUND THE SUN

The Vatican doesn't exactly have a good track record on these things (or compassion etc etc )

[scottycelt]

Indeed, Scotty. Thank goodness.

[Edit] Although we ought to bear in mind the behaviour of the Church of Rome during the 16-or-so years leading up to Mary's execution (for involvement in the Babington plot to kill Elizabeth - not quite 'because her existence was simply considered to be a bit of a nuisance'). After Pius V had excommunicated Elizabeth in 1570, there was a wave of Catholic plots to overthrow her, culminating in Gregory XIII's letter to Philip II of Spain, in which he said (in Latin of course):

'Since that guilty woman [Elizabeth] … is the cause of so much injury to the Catholic faith… There is no doubt that whosoever sends her out of the world with the pious intention of doing God service, not only does not sin but gains merit, especially having regard to the sentence pronounced against her by Pius V of holy memory. And so, if those English gentlemen decide actually to undertake so glorious a work, your lordship can assure them that they do not commit any sin'.

Executing Mary was not (in the words of 1066 And All That) A Good Thing, but one does have a little sympathy for Elizabeth.

Your post was perfect before the 'edit', Pab ...

'One' may have a little sympathy for Elizabeth ... but you won't find many 'ones' among Scottish & French Catholics, that's for sure !

And I don't see much difference between her despicable cruelty and that of the "Spanish" Inquisition ...

Both were horribly wrong.

[Pabmusic]

...However, let's not return to old, inconclusive battles ... what I do know for certain is that 'Gay Marriage' has absolutely nothing to do with 'Equality'!

And I'm not seeking to divert the thread, but...what else is there to say about gay marriage?

You're indulging in a fallacy by equating the six-day creation story with the Big Bang. The former is a folk-myth, acknowledged as such by all except diehard creationists (and there are still a few flat-earthers around). The Big Bang is supported by huge amounts of evidence, even though there is still more to understand. Chances are that one day we will understand more, possibly all. But Six Days and Big Bang are hardly equal contenders for the origin of the universe. Six Days and Abiogenesis are not equal contenders for the origin of life. And as for evolution by natural selection, there is very little in science with more evidence from different disciplines than that which explains the variety of life. Six Days comes nowhere near.

Now, what can I say about gay marriage?...

[Pabmusic]

Your post was perfect before the 'edit', Pab ...

'One' may have a little sympathy for Elizabeth ... but you won't find many 'ones' among Scottish & French Catholics, that's for sure !

And I don't see much difference between her despicable cruelty and that of the "Spanish" Inquisition ...

Both were horribly wrong.

Yes they were. (And I won't edit that.)

[Julien Sorel]

On the contrary I confess my knowledge of how the world was created is next to nil. However, I was never taught that everything in Genesis is to be taken literally, were you? Presumably God is a bit above worldly concepts like 'days', anyway.

You seem to have this vision of evil "creationists" drumming the Book of Genesis into school kids, 09.00-16.00, Mon-Fri. If indeed this is the case I'm entirely on your side! Fortunately, I don't believe this really happens, certainly in the UK ...



And I never said you did ...

My point was that a teacher saying 'there is no God' to a class (and there must be some who do) is just as guilty of preaching 'nonsense' as the literal Genesis freak. Many Christians are also Evolutionists, and see no contradiction or problem in squaring the two. I certainly don't.

However, if other believers wish their kids to be taught the literal 'Six Days' version, why not? It's easy for kids to understand. My parents told me that Santa Claus existed but I've recently come around to the view that they may have been mistaken. That's the way of things. Everyone is entitled to a belief or opinion, and most of us grow up and form our own views (probably just as nonsensical).

Again you are constructing something fantastic. I said that I didn't, as you presumed I did (please don't say you did nothing of the kind - read what you wrote) object to state funded faith schools (others may well do). I said I would object if - if - they taught nonsense (like God created heaven and earth in six days resting on the seventh). I'd object if they taught intelligent design as if it were generally scientifically accepted, when it isn't. Teaching that intelligent design is a hypothesis some scientists agree with up to a point and more (though certainly not all) religious people believe is correct is, again, fine. Provided it's made very clear that, scientifically, it is a minority view and that there is no scientific necessity (within the current state of scientific knowledge) to presume intelligent design (in the sense of God's intelligence).

I wrote: "I would, to clarify, object to a school which taught its pupils that there is no God. Making your mind up later in life is fine - the basis for that is education not indoctrination." You write: "My point was that a teacher saying 'there is no God' to a class (and there must be some who do) is just as guilty of preaching 'nonsense' as the literal Genesis freak." I don't agree it's as nonsensical, but I completely agree it shouldn't happen. Which is why by my criteria a Richard Dawkins Atheist Academy would not be an acceptable school as a school (and certainly shouldn't receive state funding. Though it wouldn't surprise me if following the example of his mate A.C. Grayling's so-called university something of the sort doesn't spring up somewhere on a fee-paying basis).

If parents want their children to be taught the Genesis creation narrative as literal truth because it's easy to understand then they shouldn't get what they want. In most cases (certainly those involving acquiring knowledge and understanding) it's wrong to lie to children.

In the case of religious education I can see no reason why a good teacher - of faith or no faith - can't present information concerning faiths, beliefs, religious practices and histories in a way that leaves the question open for a child as the child develops intellectually. I think it's important that children shouldn't reach adulthood knowing little or nothing about beliefs that are an integral part of many cultural and social histories and continue to be relevant in many cultures and societies or sections of cultures and societes.

And I reckon that's as clear as I can make it.

[scottycelt]

Especially for the Yoo-Toob Luvin', Mr GG!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCpy3zsGJjw

The Church has always had 'A Devil's Advocate' tradition in which it carefully listens to the views of qualified people from all religions and none.

Some educated folk, even today, seem blissfully unaware of such facts. It is quite astonishing.

[scottycelt]

Again you are constructing something fantastic. I said that I didn't, as you presumed I did (please don't say you did nothing of the kind - read what you wrote) ...

<Unlike you, I'm not at all sure how the world was created but I very much doubt it is any more true to claim (without any evidence whatsoever) that there is no God and that 'gay marriages' have really anything to do with 'equality'.>

That was your own quote of what I wrote. If you interpreted it to mean that you personally said there is 'no God' then I'm deeply sorry that you did interpret it in that manner. My only intended connection to 'you' was in how the world was created not the second part of the sentence. You have presumed an intention that didn't actually exist. I can therefore claim in all honesty that I did intend 'nothing of the kind' even before re-reading what I wrote. I therefore apologise for my original non-presumption and your later presumptuous interpretation.

And I reckon that's as clear as I can make it.

Me too ...

[amateur51]

The Inquisition was not only a Spanish thing. It was based in the Vatican and was responsible for (among other things) trying Galileo.

Brecht's eponymous play is worth catching. I've seen two productions, one with Simon Russell Beale as the stargazer and the other with Richard Griffiths - Griffiths was astonishing in the role

[amateur51]

On the contrary I confess my knowledge of how the world was created is next to nil. However, I was never taught that everything in Genesis is to be taken literally, were you? Presumably God is a bit above worldly concepts like 'days', anyway.

You seem to have this vision of evil "creationists" drumming the Book of Genesis into school kids, 09.00-16.00, Mon-Fri. If indeed this is the case I'm entirely on your side! Fortunately, I don't believe this really happens, certainly in the UK ...



And I never said you did ...

My point was that a teacher saying 'there is no God' to a class (and there must be some who do) is just as guilty of preaching 'nonsense' as the literal Genesis freak. Many Christians are also Evolutionists, and see no contradiction or problem in squaring the two. I certainly don't.

However, if other believers wish their kids to be taught the literal 'Six Days' version, why not? It's easy for kids to understand. My parents told me that Santa Claus existed but I've recently come around to the view that they may have been mistaken. That's the way of things. Everyone is entitled to a belief or opinion, and most of us grow up and form our own views (probably just as nonsensical).

I don't know if you have read/seen any of the work of creationists in the USA, scotty but they are both barmy and very influential locally. We don't as yet have anything as sinister here but several Academies in UK have had to be pulled up for teaching Creationism as science.

[amateur51]

It may be easy for kids to understand, but it's very unlikely to contain any truth, is it? (God creating light on day 1 and the sun on day 4, for instance comes nowhere near the truth.) You admit that you don't believe it either. The trouble with those who believe it is precisely that - they do believe it, so it's unlikely that they will encourage a child to think for itself and (eventually) abandon the creation story as if it were Santa Claus.

And why teach just the Christian/Jewish creation story? There are hundreds to choose from, and I think it's a good thing for schools to teach them as important cultural myths. Perhaps then people might understand that their own brand isn't unique.

[amateur51]

Especially for the Yoo-Toob Luvin', Mr GG!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCpy3zsGJjw

The Church has always had 'A Devil's Advocate' tradition in which it carefully listens to the views of qualified people from all religions and none.

Some educated folk, even today, seem blissfully unaware of such facts. It is quite astonishing.

I loved the bit where Benny says that the "church is convinced that scientific acitivty benefits from the recognition of man's spiritual dimension". And you just know that at his next meeting, he'll be putting the boot into committed same-sex relationships because they're wrong

[scottycelt]

I don't know if you have read/seen any of the work of creationists in the USA, scotty but they are both barmy and very influential locally. We don't as yet have anything as sinister here but several Academies in UK have had to be pulled up for teaching Creationism as science.

Yes I am aware of such people, Ams.

Like you, I would be truly appalled if any school taught Creationism in the science class and Atheism as well for that matter.

However, in a Creationist 'faith school' I would see nothing wrong in the teaching of that as part of, say, a weekly 30 min RE class.

In the same way, if somebody like Professor Dawkins wished to set up atheist 'faith schools' I would see absolutely nothing offensive about the kids having, say, a weekly Dawkins Half-Hour. That would seem both fair and logical.

'Creationism', however, is a bit of a misnomer. I would describe myself as a 'Creationist' (Belief In God & Not Fairies ) but would also consider myself to have very little in common with the people in the US that you mention.

I'm sure there are literally billions of others like me ...

[MrGongGong]

Especially for the Yoo-Toob Luvin', Mr GG!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCpy3zsGJjw

The Church has always had 'A Devil's Advocate' tradition in which it carefully listens to the views of qualified people from all religions and none.

Some educated folk, even today, seem blissfully unaware of such facts. It is quite astonishing.

This reminds me of a documentary I saw ages ago about moon conspiracists. There was a discussion with Jon Ronson where a group of very plausible folk who had gone through the footage of the moon landings in minute detail to try and show how it was all faked. Some of the "evidence" was very compelling, lengths of shadows , inconsistencies between the still and moving images etc. So when Jon Ronson finally asked them what was responsible for these apparently strange occurrences the answer was.....

"It's the Illuminati , of course, they live in caves at the North Pole and come out at night in their flying saucers"

[amateur51]

This reminds me of a documentary I saw ages ago about moon conspiracists. There was a discussion with Jon Ronson where a group of very plausible folk who had gone through the footage of the moon landings in minute detail to try and show how it was all faked. Some of the "evidence" was very compelling, lengths of shadows , inconsistencies between the still and moving images etc. So when Jon Ronson finally asked them what was responsible for these apparently strange occurrences the answer was.....

"It's the Illuminati , of course, they live in caves at the North Pole and come out at night in their flying saucers"

Utter bliss! Don't let Obama find out, mind

[Mr Pee]

This reminds me of a documentary I saw ages ago about moon conspiracists. There was a discussion with Jon Ronson where a group of very plausible folk who had gone through the footage of the moon landings in minute detail to try and show how it was all faked. Some of the "evidence" was very compelling, lengths of shadows , inconsistencies between the still and moving images etc. So when Jon Ronson finally asked them what was responsible for these apparently strange occurrences the answer was.....

"It's the Illuminati , of course, they live in caves at the North Pole and come out at night in their flying saucers"

You're doing it again. You're taking a perfectly reasonable view, and an interesting You Tube clip, but because that flatly contradicts your viewpoint, rather than engage with and accept it, you compare it to a bunch of idiotic conspiracy theorists, which has nothing to do with anything on this thread.

You're pathetic.