Religion and Ethics board

[vinteuil]

As with all too many discussions on this subject nowadays, I find some of the arguments already presented terribly flimsy.

If religion is a serious and difficult subject, possibly the superficial nature of a web forum is not the best means of investigating it. I recommend dipping in to the two vols of Rudolf Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament - the three vols of Wolfhart Pannenberg's Systematic Theology - or the sixteen vols of Hans Ur von Balthasar's masterwork...

Me, I've voted against, for the reasons so clearly set out above by DracoM, Doversoul, Pilamenon, Curalach, and others...

[Dilbert]

Thank you, FF, for opening this.

I'm with Don Basilio, DracoM et al and have voted against.

[Simon]

Good heavens, no, ff!

I'm all for debating such things, but as vinteuil has stated, the superficial nature of these forums doesn't lend itself to reasoned and well-paced consideration of such mighty subjects.

Add to that comments like: "religion is not rational by nature" that we saw upthread from Doversoul, and it is quite clear that some have no conception of what (at least some) religions are about in the first place.

And that was from a member who has at least shown an ability in the past for reasoned discussion. Imagine the contributions that we would receive from some quarters...

I notice that Cellini has returned in the past few days...

[amateur51]

I would much prefer that in future polls our voting should be anonymous and that there should not be a running breakdown of the totals for and against.

Surely we are all capable of making up our minds and casting our votes anonymously, thus avoiding the 'and me!' tendency

[french frank]

I would much prefer that in future polls our voting should be anonymous and that there should not be a running breakdown of the totals for and against.

Well, they are anonymous to the extent that no one has to say which way they've voted. And when they vote they needn't know the state of the poll if they don't deliberately peep. Once you've voted the poll is visible to you, but you can't vote again.

It isn't really a ballot, it's an opinion poll - sounding out people's views, so I think it's in order for people to elaborate, even if it only amounts to, 'I think the same as 'im'.

In the end, it's me people have to persuade

[french frank]

I notice that Cellini has returned in the past few days...

I notice you have too ...

[Simon]

Yes. I'm looking forward to seeing what's been going on on here, though Rach's popped in and read things quite often, apparently.

It's good to be back. I've had an interesting time - wandering around Europe and calling on various friends from the past. And I still have 8 days' leave left.

Hope to be going to Devon next week - shall I call in for a pint on the way down? :-)

[charles t]

A dichotomy seemingly exists within these virtual spaces - not evident unless one could simply rise up and walk away from this 'culture machine', (cf Peter Lunenfeld) and open the door and behold the wonder and splendor of an English cathedral...St. Paul, Westminster, Winchester, Canterbury, Salisbury...geography permitting.

[amateur51]

Well, they are anonymous to the extent that no one has to say which way they've voted. And when they vote they needn't know the state of the poll if they don't deliberately peep. Once you've voted the poll is visible to you, but you can't vote again.

It isn't really a ballot, it's an opinion poll - sounding out people's views, so I think it's in order for people to elaborate, even if it only amounts to, 'I think the same as 'im'.

In the end, it's me people have to persuade

Spoken like a true Liberal Democrat, french frank!

That's why you just can't let them anywhere near power, folks!

[eighthobstruction]

Really pleased to see that as usual I am in the minority....[teehee]

[salymap]

I think smittims knew more about the old Religious Board than anyone and he was almost defeated by the nutters he called 'The Fundies'. He loved a fight but I don't, so if this happens I may dip into it but never post. I suppose I'm an agnostic these days..........

[Serial_Apologist]

I must admit that I am coming round now to opponents' views on the idea, , remembering sevral instances on the old boards when statements deemed offensive by some posters were often referenced to statements made by the same posters on quite different threads, alleging inconsistency and even hypocrisy - often to my consternation, and I am sure, others'.

The existing open arrangements on this forum, based right across Radio 3 subject matters - which can include the religious and the ethical - do not of course guarantee against the same thing happening here; but the resultant ease of cross-referencing between threads does appear to have taken much of the bitterness and spitefulness out of disagreements expressed.

S-A

[amateur51]

It's good to be back. I've had an interesting time - wandering around Europe and calling on various friends from the past. And

How are Mr & Mrs Khan, Simon?

Very reassuring that you've not been calling on friends from the future

[Serial_Apologist]

How are Mr & Mrs Khan, Simon?

Very reassuring that you've not been calling on friends from the future

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70DLEXWCQ6k&feature=related

[french frank]

Really pleased to see that as usual I am in the minority....[teehee]

No strong opinion? Most people who don't vote probably feel the same way, but the option is there to show who's alive