Equal marriage

[amateur51]

Lets hope so.

i think it would be good for both parties. The next step would be to abolish faith schools, of course.

[ahinton]

i think it would be good for both parties. The next step would be to abolish faith schools, of course.

I've always felt that this latter phenomenon is potentially a most dangerous one on the grounds of its inherent religious divisiveness and its presumption of a need to equate religious study / pursuit with general education as though the two are somehow synonymous (and my view here extends as much to non-Christian faith schools as it does to Christian ones). Disestablishment? Well, as a non-Christian that's not a subject that would bother me as much as it probably would if I were one but, again, the very notion of an "established Church" in Britain in the sense of one endorsed by the state (which is charged to represent citizens of all faiths and none) has always seemed to me to be flawed on the grounds of inconsistency and insulting both to the electorate as a whole and to those of one faith or another, as though one's citizenship is supposed to some degree to be determined on the basis of this fundamental allegiance of (one particular) Church and the state which is contrived rather than natural.

[Serial_Apologist]

What goes around comes around is a tenet of the Hindu-Buddhist doctrine of karma. Personally I think the church's problems with its African flock are down to the preaching of doctrines cram-full of inner contradictions. I'm so glad to be right out of it all. In some ways the Mediaeval church had it easier with its doctrine of hell fire for anyone transgressing Bibilical injunctions. A god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation people would be too terrified other than to obey. If people are to be made to be so gullible that the West can keep its hands on sources of cheap labour and raw materials, religion, the soft underbelly of economic imperialism, needs to make up its mind. Is the god of Judaea a loving, forgiving god, or not?

[ahinton]

What goes around comes around is a tenet of the Hindu-Buddhist doctrine of karma. Personally I think the church's problems with its African flock are down to the preaching of doctrines cram-full of inner contradictions.

I don't doubt that for a moment.

I'm so glad to be right out of it all.

But are you, though? OK, you have presumably made a conscious decision not to practise it or be otherwise associated directly with it, but you live in a community in which its hold might have loosened but it is far from defunct.

In some ways the Mediaeval church had it easier with its doctrine of hell fire for anyone transgressing Bibilical injunctions. A god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation people would be too terrified other than to obey.

By "terrified" do you mean "terrifying"?

If people are to be made to be so gullible that the West can keep its hands on sources of cheap labour and raw materials, religion, the soft underbelly of economic imperialism, needs to make up its mind. Is the god of Judaea a loving, forgiving god, or not?

Being "outside" all of that more or less as you are, I could not say with certainty but, since that particular god is by no means the only one and Christianity in any or all of its guises is not the only religious manifestation of such a "soft underbelly of economic imperialism", would you not say that all religions that embrace the notion of some kind of "god" are equally capable and culpable of sustaining and indeed developing such imperialism? I also wonder if the common understanding of the very meaning of the word "imperialism" courts the inherent danger of assuming that it is all and only ever about large-scale issues; someone (I cannot now recall who) once suggested that "the aristocracy of the mind" is arguably synonymous with "the imperialism of the mind" - and I am not convinced that the West's long held control over the "sources of cheap labour and raw materials" to which you allude will remain the exclusive province of the West, because at least some non-Western nations have seen how the West operates on such a basis and want a piece of the same action for themselves.

In so saying, however, I think that we've gotten rather too far from the subject of "equal marriage", so apologies for the diversion!

[french frank]

By "terrified" do you mean "terrifying"?

Depends which word is missing from the sentence ...

[jean]

If the missing word is assumed to be that before people, it isn't strictly necessary, and SA presumably does mean terrified.

It's true the sentence hasn't got a main verb, but who needs those?

[Serial_Apologist]

By "terrified" do you mean "terrifying"?

Terrifying...

Being "outside" all of that more or less as you are, I could not say with certainty but, since that particular god is by no means the only one and Christianity in any or all of its guises is not the only religious manifestation of such a "soft underbelly of economic imperialism", would you not say that all religions that embrace the notion of some kind of "god" are equally capable and culpable of sustaining and indeed developing such imperialism? I also wonder if the common understanding of the very meaning of the word "imperialism" courts the inherent danger of assuming that it is all and only ever about large-scale issues; someone (I cannot now recall who) once suggested that "the aristocracy of the mind" is arguably synonymous with "the imperialism of the mind" - and I am not convinced that the West's long held control over the "sources of cheap labour and raw materials" to which you allude will remain the exclusive province of the West, because at least some non-Western nations have seen how the West operates on such a basis and want a piece of the same action for themselves.

The western colonial impact on the conditions and hence collective mindsets of the colonists, the colonised and their sucessors down the ages has surely been qualitatively of a different, altogether larger order than anything that had preceded, don't you think?

[jean]

Terrifying...

"A god...people would be too terrifying other than to obey..."

Surely that's not what you meant!

[ahinton]

The western colonial impact on the conditions and hence collective mindsets of the colonists, the colonised and their sucessors down the ages has surely been qualitatively of a different, altogether larger order than anything that had preceded, don't you think?

I do indeed - but, in so doing, I am also conscious of all such things continuing to be an a constant state of flux just like most other aspects of society, especially gven that colonising is hardly just a thing of the past.

[ahinton]

"A god...people would be too terrifying other than to obey..."

Surely that's not what you meant!

Of course it is; "a god" is the subject and it is that god who would be "too terrifying other than to obey". Where's the difficulty in understanding that?

[french frank]

It's true the sentence hasn't got a main verb, but who needs those?

People who query what was meant?

[jean]

Of course it is; "a god" is the subject and it is that god who would be "too terrifying other than to obey". Where's the difficulty in understanding that?

The difficulty lies in making sense of the word people. The original (elliptical) sentence goes:

A god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation people would be too terrified other than to obey.

A god isn't the subject of anything, because there's no main verb. However I don't think that's what makes it difficult to understand, if indeed it is difficult, which I question.

[Serial_Apologist]

The difficulty lies in making sense of the word people. The original (elliptical) sentence goes:



A god isn't the subject of anything, because there's no main verb. However I don't think that's what makes it difficult to understand, if indeed it is difficult, which I question.

OK, here, for the sake of my avoiding eternal damnation, are some alternative re-wordings:

"Under a god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation, people would be too terrified other than to obey [him]".

"A god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation would be too terrifying to be other than obeyed".

"A god who instilled such fear of eternal damnation would make people too terrified other than to obey him".

I did contemplate altering the last part of the third option to "too terrified to other than obey him", but that would involve a split infinitive.

Anyway, that's enough boredom from me for today!

[jean]

Personally I think the church's problems with its African flock are down to the preaching of doctrines cram-full of inner contradictions. I'm so glad to be right out of it all...

The church's main problem is that it went storming into Africa in the nineteenth century on its evangelical mission - whether cynically in support of the colonialising project or in a genuine belief that it was saving the souls of the benighted natives, or some combination of both - and the doctrines it was preaching were of the uncompromising sort that we were getting here at the same period, including an outright condemnation of homosexuality.

The Church of England has moved on since then, but the worldwide Anglican communion, especially in Africa, has not.

You may be right out of it, but Justin is not - and his problem is the mismatch between where the Church wants to be in this country, and how that will affect Anglicans in Africa, who are hanging on to doctrines we'd rather forget we ever taught them.

Nobody has answered my question What should Justin do now?

[jean]

I did contemplate altering the last part of the third option to "too terrified to other than obey him", but that would involve a split infinitive.

I wouldn't worry about splitting infinitives if I were you.

But you could avoid the problem by writing

...too terrified to do other than obey him...

Anyway, that's enough boredom from me for today!

Don't blame yourself. It's entirely ah's fault for misreading a sentence that was perfectly clear, if somewhat compressed!

.