Priest refuses to baptize the child of a lesbian couple [Archive]

HoreTore

12-17-2009, 12:05

Ronin

12-17-2009, 13:39

he obviously can´t see past his prejudice to the actual letter of the "sacred" book he supposedly defends.

Like you said, it would be logical that the priest would want to baptize the child, this child especially since it is exposed to "sin" in it´s own house, *sarcasm mode* this child needs protecting!

But to baptize this child would mean that it´s mothers, and their friends would attend....and they would bring TEH GAY with them!!!! We can´t have that.

Having said this the access to a religious ritual is not a right by law in most countries, so nothing else can be done except for everyone to recognize this guy as a douchenozel.

looking at the situation from a different standpoint, I also fail to understand why this couple wants their child to be the recipient of a blessing from an organization that views them as an abomination unto God.
This seems like an unhealthy relationship.

Andres

12-17-2009, 13:58

I also fail to understand why this couple wants their child to be the recipient of a blessing from an organization that views them as an abomination unto God.

My thoughts exactly.

If the priest doesn't want to baptise the child because of his religion/personal conviction, then the couple should accept that, instead of making a big fuss about it.

No one forbids them to start their own religion, e.g. an exact copy of the religion of the church in question minus the "no gays" thingy.

Major Robert Dump

12-17-2009, 14:04

What's funny is that he's a Catholic Priest, removed. BUT OH NO NOT LESBIANS!!!!

Louis VI the Fat

12-17-2009, 14:14

I also fail to understand why this couple wants their child to be the recipient of a blessing from an organization that views them as an abomination unto God.I would normally agree. If an organisation considers me to be only on the lowest of the nine levels of Atlantean Enlightenment because I am not sexually attracted to bottlenose dolphins, then fine, I won't join. To each his own and whatever makes them happy and makes me happy and all that.

However, we are talking about a State Church here. The Norwegian head of state is always the head of this religion too. Such is the nature of hereditary monarchy, and of no separation of church and state.

It is therefore not merely a theological dispute, but a political one. The Norwegian government directly legislates and administers this church. So in effect, the Norwegian state discriminates against lesbians.

Jolt

12-17-2009, 14:20

[QUOTE=Major Robert Dump;2400376]see aabove postQUOTE]

removed in the interest of decorum :juggle2:

Don't add to a troll please. SF

Hosakawa Tito

12-17-2009, 14:51

Sowing the seeds of their own irrelevance.

HoreTore

12-17-2009, 15:01

My thoughts exactly.

If the priest doesn't want to baptise the child because of his religion/personal conviction, then the couple should accept that, instead of making a big fuss about it.

No one forbids them to start their own religion, e.g. an exact copy of the religion of the church in question minus the "no gays" thingy.

Ah, but here's the thing; he's employed by the church and therefore has to follow the churches teachings, not his own, or find himself a new church. Same goes for the lesbians. And the church stance on gays doesn't exists, so they're both welcome in the church. There are plenty of people in the church who accepts gays, so why shouldn't the lesbians consider themselves a part of it?

What's funny is that he's a Catholic Priest, removed, see above SF

Catholic? What? No, we're Lutherans up here....

And yes, we do have a state church here, because Labour doesn't want to give up power and the christians want money and a part of the national identity... I have good hopes we'll end the theocracy within the next decade though. The state church really is the worst option for everyone.

Andres

12-17-2009, 15:09

I would normally agree. If an organisation considers me to be only on the lowest of the nine levels of Atlantean Enlightenment because I am not sexually attracted to bottlenose dolphins, then fine, I won't join. To each his own and whatever makes them happy and makes me happy and all that.

However, we are talking about a State Church here. The Norwegian head of state is always the head of this religion too. Such is the nature of hereditary monarchy, and of no separation of church and state.

It is therefore not merely a theological dispute, but a political one. The Norwegian government directly legislates and administers this church. So in effect, the Norwegian state discriminates against lesbians.

Ah, I didn't know that.

Time for a strict seperation between Church and State, then.

Speaking of which, in Belgium state money is still being spent on religious institutions as well (I believe we have 6 "recognised" religions which get money from the state :shame:).

Louis VI the Fat

12-17-2009, 15:24

Ah, I didn't know that.

Time for a strict seperation between Church and State, then.

Speaking of which, in Belgium state money is still being spent on religious institutions as well (I believe we have 6 "recognised" religions which get money from the state :shame:).Hmmm, funny. I thought Belgium was a mini-me in this regard, with full Laïcité.

This Wiki (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9) article is excellent.

It groups France, Turkey and the US together in a group of 'separation of church and state.
Belgium, Germany, Canada etc are grouped as 'secular states'.
The UK, the Nordic countries are 'state church' countries.

Then there are smaller groups, ranging from theocracies - the Vatican, Iran, Saudi Arabia; the atheist state of Cuba; and other constitutional arrangements.

Hosakawa Tito

12-17-2009, 15:24

Watchman

12-17-2009, 15:25

What's funny is that he's a Catholic Priest...Unlikely, as the Church of Norway is Lutheran.

AFAIK the current official stance on the topic here in Finland, where the issue also occasionally comes up due to those diehards in the Church that greatly embarass their colleagues and do a lot of damage to the outfit's street cred, is that the "customers" should find a priest with less retarded views. (Who aren't too hard to come by around here.)
It's not like the higher-ups can force the cranks to perform the rites, after all.

Fragony

12-17-2009, 15:53

Why seek what you can't have, church doesn't approve, so leave church instead of trying to change it. So you like women. So do I, but i am not making a point out of it whenever I can.

HoreTore

12-17-2009, 15:57

Why seek what you can't have, church doesn't approve, so leave church instead of trying to change it. So you like women. So do I, but i am not making a point out of it whenever I can.

The church actually approves, Frags. Or at least it doesn't disapprove.

Heck, there's a lot of homosexual priests in this church. And anyway, this isn't about the lesbians, they're not the ones needing a baptism, it's their child who is getting that. Oh, and he's still getting baptized, it's just that the priest in question isn't the one who will be performing the ceremony. And this thread is about trying to figure out just why he didn't want to perform it, as I doubt a baby can be called a sinful homosexual....

Idaho

12-17-2009, 16:10

Religious people in irrational acts shocker! Hold the front page!

:laugh4:

Fragony

12-17-2009, 16:10

The church actually approves, Frags. Or at least it doesn't disapprove.

Heck, there's a lot of homosexual priests in this church. And anyway, this isn't about the lesbians, they're not the ones needing a baptism, it's their child who is getting that. Oh, and he's still getting baptized, it's just that the priest in question isn't the one who will be performing the ceremony. And this thread is about trying to figure out just why he didn't want to perform it, as I doubt a baby can be called a sinful homosexual....

It is silly imho but I am not going to enforce they can have it, if they can keep their distance so will I.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-17-2009, 16:27

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-17-2009, 16:30

What's funny is that he's a Catholic Priest, removed, see above SF

Religious people in irrational acts shocker! Hold the front page!

:laugh4:

Would anyone else like to paint with an offensively broad brush?

...More like a Wagner. SF

ajaxfetish

12-17-2009, 19:34

Yeah, makes no sense at all. Does he think the offspring of gay parents are necessarily gay? Methinks this guy needs to go back to priest school.

Ajax

Thermal

12-17-2009, 19:45

Condemning a child because he doesn't agree with its parents is completely unfair. Besides, I'm not big on the bible :wink: but I never thought it explicitly said on parable blah de blah 'THOU HOMOSEXUAL WILL BE IN HELLS OF DAMNATION FOR MANY A ETERNITY... +1' I think priests are happy to go off there own rules as much as God's besides, theirs a lot of money in being a priest, religion doesn't matter to some of them. :whip:

HoreTore

12-17-2009, 19:45

This is clearly a breach of his sacred duty (seriously, I mean that). It doesn't make sense.

....and that would beg the question; why is he permitted to behave like this by his superiors?

besides, theirs a lot of money in being a priest, religion doesn't matter to some of them. :whip:

The priest in question is employed by the state. Now, you can say a lot about the state, but that they pay high wages ain't one of 'em. A priest here is just middle class, nothing more than any other 4-year(I think?) university degree would get you, his financial situation would be the same as a teacher or an engineer with a bachelor, above and industrial worker but way below a doctor or marketing guy, for example.

Thermal

12-17-2009, 19:54

....and that would beg the question; why is he permitted to behave like this by his superiors?

The priest in question is employed by the state. Now, you can say a lot about the state, but that they pay high wages ain't one of 'em. A priest here is just middle class, nothing more than any other 4-year(I think?) university degree would get you, his financial situation would be the same as a teacher or an engineer with a bachelor, above and industrial worker but way below a doctor or marketing guy, for example.

Ok.... was just a general statement really. :yes:

I think the priest probably goes against God more than the lesbians :laugh2: , with his own actions by refusing to bless a child & allow it to go to hell, supposedly.

Samurai Waki

12-17-2009, 19:56

Lutherans being openly accepting of homosexuality is very new, so obviously there are still going to be dissenters. They should have found a priest that subscribed to the new school of thought... still can actually, it's rather simple.

HoreTore

12-17-2009, 20:00

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-17-2009, 21:26

....and that would beg the question; why is he permitted to behave like this by his superiors?

Most likely because Protestant denominations aren't big on the defrocking and excomunication. I prefer it that way, persoanlly, it's better overall.

The priest in question is employed by the state. Now, you can say a lot about the state, but that they pay high wages ain't one of 'em. A priest here is just middle class, nothing more than any other 4-year(I think?) university degree would get you, his financial situation would be the same as a teacher or an engineer with a bachelor, above and industrial worker but way below a doctor or marketing guy, for example.

In the UK, priests keep the revenues from the marrigae, baptisms, etc. they perform.

rvg

12-17-2009, 21:56

A priest refusing a sacrament to an innocent child deserves a place in hell.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-17-2009, 21:59

Having a state church doesn't mean Norway is a theocracy or anything like it, though I disagree with the concept of having a state religion. Either way, the priest is clearly out of line with Christianity. He should be falling all over himself to baptize that child, especially because baptisms are going down, and therefore he is doing a disservice to himself, the Church, and to the child. Not good, and not in keeping with the ideals of Christianity.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-17-2009, 22:05

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-17-2009, 22:12

Constitutionally, the Nordic monarchies in which we must include the UK here) are Theocracies; the fact that they are very relaxed about it is irrelevant and also a recent development.

Wiki:

Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".

HoreTore

12-17-2009, 22:16

Wiki:

Until 2005, our Prime Minister was a priest.... ~;)

Viking

12-17-2009, 22:23

Abolish the state church and get rid of these debates once and for all. :inquisitive:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-17-2009, 22:23

Until 2005, our Prime Minister was a priest.... ~;)

That still doesn't make Norway a theocracy. It just means you freely elected a religious figure to the post of Prime Minister.

HoreTore

12-17-2009, 22:47

That still doesn't make Norway a theocracy. It just means you freely elected a religious figure to the post of Prime Minister.

I know; but we all love to joke about our theocracy nonetheless ~;)

@Viking: agreed completely!

Watchman

12-17-2009, 22:48

Abolish the state church and get rid of these debates once and for all. :inquisitive:Which would achieve what ? Oh right, the State would no longer have much any direct say in the affairs of its wholly owned subsidiary the Church, such as telling them gay people are cool and the theology had better wrap its head around it.

You don't really understand what "state church" is, do you ?

Crazed Rabbit

12-17-2009, 23:54

Norwegians are clearly discriminating bigots.

That's what we're going here, right? Making snap judgments about entire groups of people based on the actions of one? If we're doing that what's to say he did this stupid thing because he's religious, instead of being Norwegian? After all, I haven't heard of priests from other countries doing this.

CR

Watchman

12-18-2009, 00:02

After all, I haven't heard of priests from other countries doing this.That would be in part because I don't bother keeping track of how much and often the fringe reactionary cranks among Finnish clergy refuse to toe the progressive party line of the Church, nevermind now bringing the instances up here...

Louis VI the Fat

12-18-2009, 00:41

Abolish the state church and get rid of these debates once and for all.Which would achieve what ? Oh right, the State would no longer have much any direct say in the affairs of its wholly owned subsidiary the Church, such as telling them gay people are cool and the theology had better wrap its head around it.

You don't really understand what "state church" is, do you ?I think Viking means he doesn't want his state to have a direct say in theological matters, whether or not he happens to approve of the individual theological dispute of the day.
Abolishing the state church then, would achieve an end to this sort of debate. I think Viking is well aware that the state then also has less means to tell the Church not to discriminate against gays, but makes this subordiante to a larger goal, with eventual net benefits. Viking's post shows he apparantly understands the concept of state church and linked concepts like separation of church and state quite well.

Norwegians are clearly discriminating bigots.

That's what we're going here, right? Making snap judgments about entire groups of people based on the actions of one? If we're doing that what's to say he did this stupid thing because he's religious, instead of being Norwegian? After all, I haven't heard of priests from other countries doing this.That would be in part because I don't bother keeping track of how much and often the fringe reactionary cranks among Finnish clergy refuse to toe the progressive party line of the Church, nevermind now bringing the instances up here...
I think CR knows that other priests elsewhere discriminate gays. So that means gay discriminating priests are not exclusively Norwegian. Which means it is unfair to single out Norwegians.
Which all served for his point that it is equaly unfair to use this broad brush against religious persons in general.

One can rephrase CR's post as 'why do people make snap judgements about religious people? Would these same posters stand for us making this sort of judgment about national groups?'

Watchman

12-18-2009, 00:53

I think Viking means he doesn't want his state to have a direct say in theological matters, whether or not he happens to approve of the individual theological dispute of the day.
Abolishing the state church then, would achieve an end to this sort of debate. I think Viking is well aware that the state then also has less means to tell the Church not to discriminate against gays, but makes this subordiante to a larger goal, with eventual net benefits. Viking's post shows he apparantly understands the concept of state church and linked concepts like separation of church and state quite well.Fair enough. I await with bated breath the clarification of this grave question.

However I would observe that separating the Church from the State would do little about these issues, as there would still be cranks in the ranks of the clergy and there's no inherent reason why their superiors in the hierarchy would be any more capable of reining them in...

Watchman

12-18-2009, 00:57

I think CR knows that other priests elsewhere discriminate gays. So that means gay discriminating priests are not exclusively Norwegian. Which means it is unfair to single out Norwegians.
Which all served for his point that it is equaly unfair to use this broad brush against religious persons in general.

One can rephrase CR's post as 'why do people make snap judgements about religious people? Would these same posters stand for us making this sort of judgment about national groups?'...wait, do you mean to say I was not only agreeing with CR but providing supporting evidence for his position ?
I feel like I lost something important today... :cry:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-18-2009, 01:15

Fair enough. I await with bated breath the clarification of this grave question.

However I would observe that separating the Church from the State would do little about these issues, as there would still be cranks in the ranks of the clergy and there's no inherent reason why their superiors in the hierarchy would be any more capable of reining them in...

Then it is no longer the problem of the state. It isn't as if the state should have any business in the affairs of the church anyway.

Watchman

12-18-2009, 01:24

Then it is no longer the problem of the state.You mean it's now ? 'Cause it seems an awful lot more a problem of internal discipline (and complicated political and opinion-balancing issues) of the Church, rather than the State which is at most slightly annoyed that the clerics can't get their s*** together and get on with the times.
Assuming things in Norway work according to roughly the same pattern as here in Finland, if it's a problem for any organisation that's the Church itself which is wont to get mightily embarassed by incidents such as these - which also leads to that much more of the flock filling the paperwork and quitting out of sheer spite and frustration at the cranks.

It isn't as if the state should have any business in the affairs of the church anyway.You can discuss that with Early Modern monarchs. Far as I know most of the relevant citizenry regards the issue with all the gravity of "meh, watevah"...

Louis VI the Fat

12-18-2009, 01:36

I would observe that separating the Church from the State would do little about these issues, as there would still be cranks in the ranks of the clergy and there's no inherent reason why their superiors in the hierarchy would be any more capable of reining them in...A State Church would more rapidly bring discrimination of gays within the church to an end indeed. Praiseworthy in itself.

But:

- Also the reverse. Discrimination of gays in the church passes over more easily into secular legislation.

- Does one want to pay the price of a state church for that? Should a state be the judge of theological dispute?

- And, does one want to end discrimination of sexual orientation in religious instuitutions in the first place? Much as I disapprove of homophobia, I must agree (to a large extent) with Ronin-Andres: let it be up to the individual to decide what religion he wishes to be part of, and what this religion preaches. Go someplace else if you don't like a church's teachings.

A State Church, though, has lots of complicated ties between citizens, the state and religion. 'Go someplace else' is fraught with complications when it is the church of your government, of your head of state, when membership of the church constitutes what traditionally has been part of the identity of the state's subjects. Theological dispute over gay marriage here is automatically a political dispute. When state and church are separated, most are defused. A laic state recognises only marriage before the law. By whom and in which way you subsequently have your marriage blessed is of no concern to the state.

do you mean to say I was not only agreeing with CR but providing supporting evidence for his position?Yes, CR's view of the world is bolstered by your intervention. You are the amminution to his gun. :stare:

Watchman

12-18-2009, 01:54

- Also the reverse. Discrimination of gays in the church passes over more easily into secular legislation.Wait, what ? How do you figure ? I'm fairly sure the exact only way for the Church to affect legislation in the context is through trying to influence the voters and lobby the politicians like everyone else (which any religious organisation can try, state Church or not); I'm not aware of any special access to the ear of the legislative branch.
It's kind of the point that the Church is subordinate to the State you know; that's why the monarchs of half a millenia ago split with Rome in the first place (and also to get a stronger grip of domestic politics, but anyway...).

- Does one want to pay the price of a state church for that? Should a state be the judge of theological dispute?What price ? What theological dispute ? Legalisation of gay marriage (or w/e) isn't as such a theological dispute; it's not too much of one when the State then tells the Church to suck up and deal with it either.

- And, does one want to end discrimination of sexual orientation in religious instuitutions in the first place? Much as I disapprove of homophobia, I must agree (to a large extent) with Ronin-Andres: let it be up to the individual to decide what religion he wishes to be part of, and what this religion preaches. Go someplace else if you don't like a church's teachings.I do not see the relevance. State Churches these days don't monopolise religion you know (though they once pretty much did; but then again, ditto Catholic Church).

A State Church, though, has lots of complicated ties between citizens, the state and religion. 'Go someplace else' is fraught with complications when it is the church of your government, of your head of state, when membership of the church constitutes what traditionally has been part of the identity of the state's subjects.This doesn't particularly keep people from quitting them these days, you know. Again I do not see the point or the relevance.

Theological dispute over gay marriage here is automatically a political dispute.Only inside the Church itself; it has little bearing indeed that I can fathom on what the state adminstration is doing, beyond however it may affect voter behaviour (and to repeat myself, *that* is equally a possibility with a non-state religious organisation).

A laic state recognises only marriage before the law. By whom and in which way you subsequently have your marriage blessed is of no concern to the state.Which is pretty much how we de it here despite having a State Church. Because marriage-as-legally-binding-contract is the purview of the State (compare civil unions) and has as such no particular dependency on marriage-as-religious-ritual.

Yes, CR's view of the world is bolstered by your intervention. You are the amminution to his gun. :stare:I feel dirty now. :cry:

Kadagar_AV

12-18-2009, 02:09

Religious people doing irrational things?

What will happen next?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-18-2009, 02:10

Religious people doing irrational things?

What will happen next?

Atheists doing irrational things?

Everyone does irrational things, so why not quit the irrational thing you are doing for a start? Trolling.

Crazed Rabbit

12-18-2009, 02:14

...wait, do you mean to say I was not only agreeing with CR but providing supporting evidence for his position ?
I feel like I lost something important today... :cry:

:cool:

CR

Kadagar_AV

12-18-2009, 04:13

Atheists doing irrational things?

Everyone does irrational things, so why not quit the irrational thing you are doing for a start? Trolling.

Let's say that Norwegian religious people is a special case.

You will find that a pretty large percentage of those in Scandinavia who believe in the Christian god is somewhat odd.

This is not like in the states, where many people are religious. No, in Scandinavia we have a tradition of Atheism / Agnosticism. We set science first, to put it simple.

Thus, being religious you go against all the education you get, and you get ridiculed by society at large. No wonder most christians here are rather odd.

I mean, we at large even respects Muslims way more. They at least come from some third world country and don't know better. Christians however, really have nothing but irrationality to explain their beliefs.

It's different from the US, where priests are respected (mostly). Around here they are more mocked by society at large.

So yeah, there is no wonder that a nutcase like this exists in the Norwegian church, as you have to be rather extreme to be a christian (alternatively, dont care and cash in from an easy job).

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-18-2009, 04:28

Let's say that Norwegian religious people is a special case.

You will find that a pretty large percentage of those in Scandinavia who believe in the Christian god is somewhat odd.

This is not like in the states, where many people are religious. No, in Scandinavia we have a tradition of Atheism / Agnosticism. We set science first, to put it simple.

Thus, being religious you go against all the education you get, and you get ridiculed by society at large. No wonder most christians here are rather odd.

I mean, we at large even respects Muslims way more. They at least come from some third world country and don't know better. Christians however, really have nothing but irrationality to explain their beliefs.

It's different from the US, where priests are respected (mostly). Around here they are more mocked by society at large.

So yeah, there is no wonder that a nutcase like this exists in the Norwegian church, as you have to be rather extreme to be a christian (alternatively, dont care and cash in from an easy job).

So in other words the whole of Scandinavian society is one giant and hateful troll-fest unless you happen to be an atheist or a member of a visible minority. And I have this admission from a Scandinavian in writing.

Watchman

12-18-2009, 04:38

Crazed Rabbit

12-18-2009, 04:55

Like I said before, you can't judge a whole group of people based on one bigot.

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-18-2009, 04:56

Like I said before, you can't judge a whole group of people based on one bigot.

CR

My point exactly. I know enough Scandinavians to know that Kadagar is wrong.

Kadagar_AV

12-18-2009, 06:03

HoreTore

12-18-2009, 09:40

...so how come in Norway some 85% of the populace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Religion) belongs to the Church...? The numbers aren't much different for the other Scands and Finland either...

So, yeah. I do know one troll-fest allright though.

....Because the Norwegian state church is run by criminals and thiefs.

Yes, it really is.

I'm actually counted among those 85%. I've never been baptized. I've been to a church three times in my life, all three forced and the last visit gave me some nice violent threats(I'll be smashed if I ever go to Bergen, apparently.... Fortunately for me, Bergen is one of the last places on earth I want to visit :smash:). I have also left the church(you send a letter to the bishop and you are supposed to be removed from the church) a grand total of 3 times now. I hope I'm not still a member, but I have no way to know it for sure.

The reason I was originally placed with the christians even though I'm not baptized, is that my mother was listed as a member when I was born. The reason I might still be a member is because the church is run by criminals.

This is a bigoted and incompetent system, and it has to go. People shouldn't be listed in any religious society at all when they are born, if they want to be a part of one that should be their own responsibility. Making it your responsibility to make sure you're not part of the religion is idiotic.

As for why I want to state church abolished is this; I don't want their hands on me, and I don't want my hands on them. I have no business with the christians, and they have no business with me. I don't want control over them, they can do whatever the hell they want to as far as I'm concerned. And I don't want them in a position where they represent me, where they have any sort of control over me.

Also, the state church is discriminating against other christian churches as well. Our state religion isn't christianity, it's evangelical lutheran. So that means its a raised middle finger to all the catholics, mormons, baptists, etc etc as well as the atheists, muslims and jews. Heck, reverend Jan Aage Torp found out that he was listed as a member of the state church this summer, and he's the head of his own church!

And yes, I will most certainly support an armed invasion with the aim of separating state and church in our primitive society.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-18-2009, 09:56

So in other words the whole of Scandinavian society is one giant and hateful troll-fest unless you happen to be an atheist or a member of a visible minority. And I have this admission from a Scandinavian in writing.

Kadagar and HoreTore are that particular kind of Scandanavian Atheist, they look down on all religious people and loathe Christians because they see them as a threat to their intellectual society. I'm pretty sure there are other reasons too, but I haven't worked those out.

HoreTore

12-18-2009, 10:07

Kadagar and HoreTore are that particular kind of Scandanavian Atheist, they look down on all religious people and loathe Christians because they see them as a threat to their intellectual society. I'm pretty sure there are other reasons too, but I haven't worked those out.

I thought my recent posts in religious topics had proved that I don't belong in that particular category... If I was loathing christianity, wouldn't I have used this story for an attack, instead of just wondering why the man did what he did...?

I hate it whenever christianity or christians tries to change me, when I feel their hands on my back. As long as they keep away from me, I honestly don't care at all about what they're doing.

Religion is like porn; keep in the privacy of your own home and I don't care what you do ~;)

And mind you, the Løver family is a religious family; my dad is the freaky atheist rebel born amongst evangelicals. And I don't look down upon my aunts or grandparents. Allright, I did look a little down on my grandmother that time she stated homosexuality is a disease curable by jesus, but still.....

Beskar

12-18-2009, 10:13

Watchman

12-18-2009, 10:34

Better read up mate...

You automaticly join the church when you are born. Most people stay there to get weddings and funerals free of charge.Yeah, and ?
Also the last I checked (two minutes ago in Teh Wiki) you automatically join the Church upon baptism which I would rather assume isn't automatic, since that kind of thing oughta piss off the other faiths around the place something fierce...

Sounds pretty similar to what we have here in Finland, you know. (And looking at Teh Wiki's relevant article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Norway#Current_issues), seems to have pretty much the exact same set of problems...) And for example I was never either baptised or belonged to the Church, on account of mom having left it in her teens and dad being pretty much openly disdainful of it...

Again, better read up, or maybe travel some?I've been to Norway actually, but you must excuse me for having had better things to do than ask the natives the absolutely fascinating details of how their state Church works and how they feel about it.
You will also have to excuse me for not having enough interest in the topic to go out of my way to read up on the absolutely fascinating topic of Norwegian Christianity beyond what can be readily gleaned from Teh Wiki.

Files under "can't be arsed" and "bore topic".

I must, however, give you some respect. Not many people would have the guts to tell a Scandinavian how Scandinavia works. They would be afraid of coming of as stupid or just not very knowledgeable. You, however, have no such worries. It must take a special kind of character to dare that!Or someone living right next door in a country with a very similar system.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-18-2009, 11:26

Those silly athiests, when will they learn, they are going to burn in the underworld. Look who will be laughing then. Ha ha ha! :smash:

Grab your stake PVC and EMFM, we have some athiests to hunt down in our Backroom Inquistion.

Would you like to attack something I actually said? Maybe? Instead of charactarising me as an evangelical nut?

I thought my recent posts in religious topics had proved that I don't belong in that particular category... If I was loathing christianity, wouldn't I have used this story for an attack, instead of just wondering why the man did what he did...?

I hate it whenever christianity or christians tries to change me, when I feel their hands on my back. As long as they keep away from me, I honestly don't care at all about what they're doing.

Religion is like porn; keep in the privacy of your own home and I don't care what you do ~;)

And mind you, the Løver family is a religious family; my dad is the freaky atheist rebel born amongst evangelicals. And I don't look down upon my aunts or grandparents. Allright, I did look a little down on my grandmother that time she stated homosexuality is a disease curable by jesus, but still.....

I think you do loathe Christians (as opposed to hating them), you just don't like to admit it even to yourself. Your charactarisation of Christians and Christianity is almost universally negative, it assumes bigotry and corruption at all levels; among other things.

If the Norwegian State Church is run by criminals and thieves, I would like to see some evidence of missapropriation of funds or mass coertion.

Louis VI the Fat

12-18-2009, 13:21

Meneldil

12-18-2009, 13:26

Watchman

12-18-2009, 14:07

Woohoo big deal.

Most white people in France is probably member of the catholic church, yet nobody gives a crap about it, and the average guy laugh at the church and religious nutjobs.Sort of my point - there's a very major difference between the average member of the flock whose faith tends to be somewhat lukewarm at best and most certainly very far from fervent, and then the pinko fringe minority which the moderate majority tends to find annoying and odd at best.

The thing being that our Norwegian friends rather seem to have been either lumping the former together with the latter, or alternatively all but ignoring the existence of the former and the presence of real enough if not particularly fire-breathing faith amongst them. A failure of perspective, in other words.

Viking

12-18-2009, 14:32

Which would achieve what ? Oh right, the State would no longer have much any direct say in the affairs of its wholly owned subsidiary the Church, such as telling them gay people are cool and the theology had better wrap its head around it.

You don't really understand what "state church" is, do you ?

I don't want the state to pick a religion; that's my first priority. Religious questions are for the religious, not the gov't; and this of course, may be accomplished through a separation of state and church. For the latter, there is obviously the question of legality; ceremonies could never include human sacrifice no matter how separated religion and state is (here, at least..), but as for the topic at hand, it could have been non-issue for those not interested if the church wasn't owned by the state. It is simply not necesssary to get baptized the Christian way in order to get a name.

...so how come in Norway some 85% of the populace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Religion) belongs to the Church...? The numbers aren't much different for the other Scands and Finland either...

So, yeah. I do know one troll-fest allright though.

Page 11 in this (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf) document appears to be a bit more relevant. Only 32% explicitly state that they believe in a god.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-18-2009, 15:43

Piss poor debate. Little exploration of anything of substance or even relevance. Insults, misreadings and acussations of bigotry thrown back and forth.

Meh.

I googled around a bit, this article below gave a fine quick introduction to the nature and workings of the Norwegian State Church. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/finngeir_hiorth/norway.html

Hmmm.

From an atheistic point of view it is quite remarkable with how much respect Norwegian clergy generally are met. Major Christian doctrines are quite absurd, still many people do not mind that such absurd doctrines are preached in the churches, not only every Sunday, but many weekdays too. There are also quite a number of religious programmes in radio and television, but most are still Christian. Secularists and non-Christian religious minorities do not have any comparable access to the mass media, although some of the mass media, particularly those of the political left, are quite positive in their attitude to secularists. On the other side the political left has never had any powerful press in Norway. Nowadays entertainment and popular material dominate the contents of most of the mass media which generally are quite conservative or politically neutral. The atmosphere is generally one of cosy conservatism.

Hardly impartial, not even an attempt. Though, it did prove Watchamn correct, 75% of 14 year-olds are still confirmed into the Church, that's much better than in the UK.

Page 11 in this document appears to be a bit more relevant. Only 32% explicitly state that they believe in a god.

...but 47% believe in some spirit of life force, vs. 38% and 40% in the UK, so overall you have 1% fewer atheists than us, or 34% and 27% respectively in France, where atheism stands at 33%, apparently.

Overall, your people do not seem especially skeptical.

Kadagar_AV

12-18-2009, 15:44

Fun fact: I am member of the Swedish state church...

Should say something about the level of worshipping going on :juggle2:

drone

12-18-2009, 16:32

You Scandinavians need to get back to worshiping Odin and his lot.

Viking

12-18-2009, 17:33

Overall, your people do not seem especially skeptical.

I have never suggested anything like that. :inquisitive:

If they do not believe in a god, they can hardly be labeled as Christians; thus Watchman's 85% seem rather irrelevant, even if the opposite isn't true, either.

HoreTore

12-18-2009, 19:48

Also the last I checked (two minutes ago in Teh Wiki) you automatically join the Church upon baptism which I would rather assume isn't automatic, since that kind of thing oughta piss off the other faiths around the place something fierce...

Completely wrong. If it was that way, I would never have been a part of the church. No, the church law states that everyone is entered into the church at birth if one of the parents are a member at the time. Baptism has nothing to do with it.

I think you do loathe Christians (as opposed to hating them), you just don't like to admit it even to yourself. Your charactarisation of Christians and Christianity is almost universally negative, it assumes bigotry and corruption at all levels; among other things.

If christians are politically opposed to me, I treat them the same as I treat any other political opponent, like market-libby's or nationalists. But what reason do I have to loathe christians like Helen Bjørnøy(socialist left) or Arild Edvardsen(labour)? Christian or not, they believe in the same things and have the same goals as me. Also note that I've got a christian guy in my sig....

If the Norwegian State Church is run by criminals and thieves, I would like to see some evidence of missapropriation of funds or mass coertion.

I label them criminals and thiefs because they keep counting me as a member.

Heh, can you imagine the uproar it would've been if some muslim organization had the same membership policy?

Beskar

12-18-2009, 21:48

I label them criminals and thiefs because they keep counting me as a member.

Heh, can you imagine the uproar it would've been if some muslim organization had the same membership policy?

They do. In the middle east.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-18-2009, 21:52

EMFM, where did I mention that we hate religious people?

I def do not. I do however share the majoritys view that they would benefit from a proper education :book:

So you are, in effect, a patronizing troll who believes that religious people only believe what they do because they were indoctrinated and not educated. That doesn't improve my opinion of you or people like you. Show some respect.

HoreTore

12-18-2009, 21:53

They do. In the middle east.

To be honest, I really have no idea about membership practices of religious societies in the middle east....

Anyway, I was referring to such an organization in this country. Like say a turkish mosque who counts every norwegian as a member.... Now that would've been fun to see!

Watchman

12-18-2009, 22:02

Kadagar_AV

12-18-2009, 22:08

So you are, in effect, a patronizing troll who believes that religious people only believe what they do because they were indoctrinated and not educated. That doesn't improve my opinion of you or people like you. Show some respect.

Statistics is kind of with me on this one though, wouldn't you say?

How else could you explain the lack of buddhists in, say Ireland, when there are so many of them in China?

Or the small number of Catholics in Sweden compared to Ireland.

List goes on.

So yes, if you have a somewhat objective world view, you will very fast come to the conclusion that religious people are religious because of indoctrination and social pressure. There are of course also people who have hand picked a religion, but they are not the vast majority. I think you also agree with me on this one.

And you have yet to explain how this makes me hateful, or how it makes me a patronizing troll :wall:

I usually have some sort of thought behind my posts, all i have seen you do so far is flame me, without really contributing to the discussion, or even basing your posts on anything I said.

Prince Cobra

12-18-2009, 22:11

Wait for a minute! Even if the priest is against the relationship between the couple, why should the baby bear the consequences? That's strange.

HoreTore

12-18-2009, 22:12

HT, inherited membership isn't the same as "automatic" you know. It's that ONLY if your parents fit the criteria.

Also I'm pretty sure adolescents have pretty limited legal rights anyway, so all that junk is really the parents' responsibility until the kid hits legal adulthood. Why don't you take it up with *them* ?

Parents resbonsibility, you say? Then it should be up to them whether or not I am a member, right?

That's not how this church works, sorry. My parents had absolutely no say, it's illegal to get out of the church once admitted by birth or baptism until you're 15 years old.

If my parents had to ask for my membership at birth I wouldn't have cared. It's the automatic membership nobody gets to have a say over I'm furious about.

And the fact that it's almost impossible to get out once you are a member. As I've said, I have left the church 3 times now. They have entered me back in without my permission 2 times so far.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-18-2009, 22:30

And you have yet to explain how this makes me hateful, or how it makes me a patronizing troll :wall:

Since you assume religious people are indoctrinated fools? Isn't that enough to constitute a troll? Yes, I think it is. You are ridiculing people who do not accept your world view as simple and uneducated. If you can't see a problem with that...

I usually have some sort of thought behind my posts, all i have seen you do so far is flame me, without really contributing to the discussion, or even basing your posts on anything I said.

Don't even try to play the victim.

Louis VI the Fat

12-18-2009, 23:06

EMFM, where did I mention that we hate religious people?

I def do not. I do however share the majoritys view that they would benefit from a proper education :book:Atheists have:

- higher education level
- higher income

- lower divorce rate
- lower crime rate

- less children
- less happiness, more stress and psycho-social conflicts, less effective coping strategies, less psychological and even physical health.

Evolution does not seem to favour atheists. We die miserably and childless. :laugh4:

Intelligence is a predictor of religious scepticism, a professor has argued. Rebecca Attwood reports
Belief in God is much lower among academics than among the general population because scholars have higher IQs, a controversial academic claimed this week.

In a forthcoming paper for the journal Intelligence, Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, will argue that there is a strong correlation between high IQ and lack of religious belief and that average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 countries.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=402381

Watchman

12-18-2009, 23:15

Kadagar_AV

12-18-2009, 23:19

Since you assume religious people are indoctrinated fools? Isn't that enough to constitute a troll? Yes, I think it is. You are ridiculing people who do not accept your world view as simple and uneducated. If you can't see a problem with that...

Why don't you try and answer one of my arguments?

Re-read my last post, I explained why I believe indoctrination is a huge factor in deciding ones religious beliefs. How else would you explain the example I wrote in last post? How do you explain national and regional differences?

Getting a bit tired of arguing with you, as you refuse to meet a simple argument, and you keep on repeating yourself without adding anything to the debate.

If you want more of my time, please adress an argument or two. Otherwise I am afraid I will spend my time on soemthing more worthwhile.

Louis VI the Fat, can you draw a parallel between atheists - religious people, vs educated people - uneducated people, vs modern countries - third world countries?

Shocking, isn't it... No wait, it isn't.

Watchman

12-18-2009, 23:23

Say, why is fluency in English a lot more common in the UK and the US than in China, and vice versa fluency in Mandarin way more common in China than in the UK or the US ?

And what's up with driving on the left anyway ?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-18-2009, 23:26

Why don't you try and answer one of my arguments?

Because you are a narrow-minded troll.

Re-read my last post, I explained why I believe indoctrination is a huge factor in deciding ones religious beliefs. How else would you explain the example I wrote in last post? How do you explain national and regional differences?

Religion forms around a culture. How would you explain that so many religions are so similar? It isn't indoctrination, but rather the formation of a system of beliefs that people can chose to or choose not to believe.

Getting a bit tired of arguing with you, as you refuse to meet a simple argument, and you keep on repeating yourself without adding anything to the debate.

I'll repeat it again then. You're a troll. You aren't really adding anything to the debate except for stating that you think religious people are indoctrinated fools and then trying to justify that with bogus reasoning. You even started your argument with a blatant insult.

Louis VI the Fat, can you draw a parallel between atheists - religious people, vs educated people - uneducated people, vs modern countries - third world countries?

Silly argument. You could just as easily say that people in modern countries are too attached to their material goods to pay attention to spiritual matters, and therefore those with less material goods are actually better off spiritually. I don't necessarily wholly agree with that, but one could make that argument. You can draw all kinds of conclusions from those statistics if they are at all accurate, and you have automatically leaped to the most hateful one.

Kadagar_AV

12-19-2009, 03:58

Because you are a narrow-minded troll. *1*

Religion forms around a culture. How would you explain that so many religions are so similar? It isn't indoctrination, but rather the formation of a system of beliefs that people can chose to or choose not to believe. *2*

I'll repeat it again then. You're a troll. You aren't really adding anything to the debate except for stating that you think religious people are indoctrinated fools and then trying to justify that with bogus reasoning. You even started your argument with a blatant insult. *3*

Silly argument. You could just as easily say that people in modern countries are too attached to their material goods to pay attention to spiritual matters, and therefore those with less material goods are actually better off spiritually. I don't necessarily wholly agree with that, but one could make that argument. You can draw all kinds of conclusions from those statistics if they are at all accurate, and you have automatically leaped to the most hateful one. *4*

1. Glad we had that settled. I must say that it speaks very highly of your intellectual level when you start a post like that. Kudos to you!

2. Can you describe how buddhism and catholicism is similar? Then add the norse mythology to the mix just for fun (and now we only covered the worlds 2 biggest religions and my local one. There are hundreds if not thousands more).

Maybe I am silly, but I, for one, would think twice before saying a religion based on life-cycles is the same as a religion based on one life - then heaven/hell is the same.

And even if we agree on the heaven/hell aspect, I would (perhaps foolishly) argue that there is a HUGE difference between the christian asgárd and the nordish asgárd. You know, small differences, like, in one you battle till the end of time and you get accepted by being ferocious, while ine the other you live in peace forever after because you have turned the other cheek...

Again, it MAY be me being stupid here... But if you really want to argue that all religions are alike, you might want to back that statement up just a little bit... Just a tad...

3. Thank you for repeating I am a troll. I didn't quite get it the first, or second, or third time. Guess I am a little bit slow.

Yes, I said religious people are indoctrionated (not all, just the vast majority). You STILL havent explained regional and cultural differences though. Untill you do that, I will just assuem you think I am right. If you do not, please do explain regional and cultural differences.

Uh, didnt I ask this before? Can't you deliver on the question, or what? I think it would bring the debate further if you tried to actually answer my points, instead of giving in.

I assume you think I am right, if not, please do elaborate on the subject at hand.

4. Is it a silly argument?

I just answered Louis statistics, beace they made me have quite a laugh.

I didn't actually STATE anything from it, I just wanted him to draw a parallel between some factors.

I havent come to any conclusion from his post, I just threw a question out.

Sure, his post made me laugh, and all I have learnt points in one way when it comes to answering it. But I wont make a statement from it. I just wanted him to dig deeper and see what he coems up with, to further the debate.

Thank you for your time (would be even more grateful if you spent more time on making valid arguments).

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-19-2009, 12:38

Atheists have:

- higher education level
- higher income

- lower divorce rate
- lower crime rate

- less children
- less happiness, more stress and psycho-social conflicts, less effective coping strategies, less psychological and even physical health.

Evolution does not seem to favour atheists. We die miserably and childless. :laugh4:

Um, in Britain atheists have higher divorce rates, I believe. Certainly, this seems to be true in America. In terms of atheism and IQ being linked; most Western schools and many universities favour an atheistic, or at least skeptical, outlook over a theistic one. This contrasts with the Classical or Medieval world where they favoured theism and consequentlly turned out fiery and argumentative priests.

Duke of Gloucester

12-22-2009, 09:48

Tiny article in the newspaper, so no linky....

Anyway, the story is; a lesbian couple went to get their son baptized in the norwegian state church, and the priest who was originally assigned to do it refused, because "god is against gays" and all that...

I don't really care what he did, but I'm very interested to know why he did it, because it honestly doesn't make sense to me. The parents are living in sin according to his views, that I understand. But why take it out on their innocent child? Baptism is the way to Christ, why does he want to deny someone christianity because their parents are sinners? Surely he should be concerned with saving the child, shouldn't he?

It just makes no sense to me. Could anyone here help me understand it?

I will try to answer the question, but remember this is from the perspective of an English Catholic, not an Danish Lutheran. Baptism is not an automatic right but open to those who accept the teaching of the baptizing church. Catholic baptism is preceded by a profession of faith and I bet the same is true for Lutherans. Hence a priest cannot baptize an adult who the priest believes is requesting the sacrament for dishonest purposes. For infant baptism, the sincerity of the parents is important - you cannot ask to have your child baptized if you have no intention of bringing her or him up in the faith. Most times the priest will give the benefit of the doubt but there are circumstances where a priest would refuse baptism. For example if parents said something along the lines of "We don't accept the teachings of the church but the grandparents will be delighted if we have little Johnny baptized and the party will be great and your church looks lovely so the photos will be really cute." then it would make sense for the priest to say "No". In all cases the priest, as the one who administers the sacrament is the one who decides.

This does not mean that the children of gay or lesbian couples cannot be baptized. In fact they should be treated the same as children of divorced and remarried couples. Both parents are in what the Church would term "irregular unions". That is they have a sexual partnership with someone the Church teaches they should not. Children of divorced and remarried parents where at least one is a Catholic are baptized as a matter of course and so should children of gay and lesbian couples. In short a priest cannot refuse baptism because he disapproves of the parents life choices but he can refuse if he believes the parents' request is not a sincere desire for the child to join the church. In other words, the priest needs to act (please note Kadagar) rationally. That is his decisions must be based on reason and not prejudice. I wish I could say this would always happen but priests are just as susceptible to prejudice as the rest of us.

Two other things to think about - we are all assuming that the baptism was refused because the couple were gay. This may not be the case. Also the fact that Lutheranism is the state religion may confer rights on Danes that go beyond what I have written. About 15 years ago the Anglican vicar of the local church wrote to me (and everyone else who lived in his parish - he did not single me out!) to tell me I was part of his parish "by Act of Parliament". I have never checked whether this is true or not. If it is, the Acts concerned are probably anti-recusancy legislation so not the most tactful thing to write to a Catholic. The point is that state religions do operate differently.

Any references to Denmark in the above should be read as Norway. Woops

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-22-2009, 19:39

That seems fair. We don't know for sure if the priest refused because of the sexual orientation of the parents.

HoreTore

12-22-2009, 19:42

Two other things to think about - we are all assuming that the baptism was refused because the couple were gay. This may not be the case.

His stated reason for not baptizing was "being gay is wrong etc"(you know the rant).

And stop calling me danish! ~:(

Duke of Gloucester

12-22-2009, 20:40

His stated reason for not baptizing was "being gay is wrong etc"(you know the rant).

And stop calling me danish! ~:(

Sorry. I meant Norway/Norwegian of course!

I found a link (in Norwegian) but if I can trust the google translator what he said was "I have a vision that is 2,000 years old. This stems from the word of God, and in a vision the church has been in 2,000 years. The way I feel God's words, is not it nice that lesbians live together". The article also says that the priest is prepared to baptize children of divorced couples and single parents. It seems he is being prejudiced.

Link is here:http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3409342.ece

HoreTore

12-22-2009, 20:58

Sorry. I meant Norway/Norwegian of course!

I found a link (in Norwegian) but if I can trust the google translator what he said was "I have a vision that is 2,000 years old. This stems from the word of God, and in a vision the church has been in 2,000 years. The way I feel God's words, is not it nice that lesbians live together". The article also says that the priest is prepared to baptize children of divorced couples and single parents. It seems he is being prejudiced.

Link is here:http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3409342.ece

"The way I interpret God's word, it's not okay for lesbians to live together".

In other words, he refused baptizing the child because he thinks the parents are immoral.

Duke of Gloucester

12-22-2009, 21:37

"The way I interpret God's word, it's not okay for lesbians to live together".

In other words, he refused baptizing the child because he thinks the parents are immoral.

Yes. This is certainly questionable. Parents don't earn the right to have their children baptized by being good. The fact that he baptizes children of divorced/remarried parents makes it worse.

(Of course we are relying on the newspaper to get the facts right and often they don't)

HoreTore

12-22-2009, 21:53

Yes. This is certainly questionable. Parents don't earn the right to have their children baptized by being good. The fact that he baptizes children of divorced/remarried parents makes it worse.

Remember that this is a protestant church, not a catholic. As Philip said, protestant aren't that keen to exclude people as the catholic church is, there is no excommunication.

What the priest did, was simply deny an infant a relationship with Jesus because of what his parents are. I cannot for the life of me see how that can be right with christianity, at least not with protestantism.

If someone is being un-christian here, my bet is on the priest not the infant.

(Of course we are relying on the newspaper to get the facts right and often they don't)

Well the statement was the same in Vårt Land, a conservative christian newspaper, and I doubt they would have a liberal bias on this....

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-23-2009, 01:11

Remember that this is a protestant church, not a catholic. As Philip said, protestant aren't that keen to exclude people as the catholic church is, there is no excommunication.

To be fair, the Catholic Church once led the charge on inclusiveness, and excommunication is neither exclusive to Catholics or what it is often presented to be.

For example, an excommunicated Catholic cannot be denied the Last Rites, nor can an excommunicated priest refuse to perform the Last Rites in etremis if no other priest is available.

I find Duke of Gloucester's admission, troubling because it indicates that the Catholic Chuch has moved away from the "Baptise Everyone" mentality they traditionally have.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-23-2009, 01:57

To be fair, the Catholic Church once led the charge on inclusiveness, and excommunication is neither exclusive to Catholics or what it is often presented to be.

We are still one of the better churches for being inclusive without watering down our own faith (which a lot of churches do in an effort to be "inclusive"), especially compared to some Protestant churches.

I find Duke of Gloucester's admission, troubling because it indicates that the Catholic Chuch has moved away from the "Baptise Everyone" mentality they traditionally have.

I don't see it as troubling as long as baptism is only refused when the conditions he specified as met. As long as the lesbians identify as Christians, I don't see a reason why they shouldn't have it. If, as Duke said, they are only doing it for the nice pictures and because the grandparents want it, then baptism should be refused and the child should be allowed to make a decision for itself.

Duke of Gloucester

12-23-2009, 07:30

I find Duke of Gloucester's admission, troubling because it indicates that the Catholic Chuch has moved away from the "Baptise Everyone" mentality they traditionally have.

Well here is what Canon Law says:

"...there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason."

So there is plenty of room to give the child the benefit of the doubt but not a Baptise Everyone code of law even if there might be a bit of a mentality towards this.

Kralizec

12-23-2009, 22:40

And, yeah, Islam's got some issues with apostasy the moderates are going to have to fix at some point. (BTW I'm fairly certain it also has that "inherited membership" thing going, as for that matter AFAIK does Judaism...)

This is true - there've been cases in Egypt where formerly christian fathers convert to Islam, and because of that their pre-existing kids are assumed to be muslim by default. Similar stuff happens in Mayaysia, where the possibility to legally convert out of Islam exists only on paper.

...

As for the original topic, it's a disgrace and a crime against humanity and alll that but I can't get worked up about it. I agree with Ronin that it's odd that homosexuals to feel even the slightest attachment to a religion that, at least nominally, condemns their sexual orientation.
The existance of state churches...I'm pretty attached to the idea of seperation of church and state (we have that here), just as I'm against monarchies (we have that here too, sadly)
From what I can tell though the influence of both in Scandinavia is marginal at best- if I lived there I think it should be changed on principle, but :shrug:

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm) did spark my interest a while ago. Good riddance, I say.

HoreTore

12-24-2009, 08:19

I agree with Ronin that it's odd that homosexuals to feel even the slightest attachment to a religion that, at least nominally, condemns their sexual orientation.

That might be why they wanted to baptize their child in a church that actually doesn't condemn them, and who also have plenty of gay priests....

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-24-2009, 18:30

I agree with Ronin that it's odd that homosexuals to feel even the slightest attachment to a religion that, at least nominally, condemns their sexual orientation.

I don't think many churches actually condemn being gay, as in the sexual orientation itself, but rather the action of having homosexual intercourse, whether it is carried out by a gay or a straight person.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-24-2009, 20:08

Louis VI the Fat

12-24-2009, 21:15

The Church of England to start a recruiting campaign - targeting two year olds.

Children (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/children) as young as two are to be targeted as part of a new campaign to recruit young people back to the church, the Guardian has learned.The Church of England is planning its first concerted drive to engage under- 18s after admitting that it is comprehensively failing to connect with children and teenagers.

Proposals will be put before the general synod in February that include a blueprint to set up breakfast, homework and sports clubs in schools as well as working in publicly funded toddler playgroups to spread the Christian word.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/23/church-recruiting-drive-targets-children

As the Jesuit motto said: 'give me the child before the age of seven, and I'll give you the man'.

On the upside, if one needs to target toddlers, I suppose this means you are not having much succes convincing anybody with a whiff of developed critical thinking of your hocus pocus.

There is the added problem of this being a state church. We're being bored to tears repeatedly told the insightful information that Healthcare reform, pollution control and what not is all but a means for Government Control. What to make of this then? A state allowing publicly funded toddler playgrounds for ideological indoctrination of toddlers.

An ideological institution armed with an enormous privilige, and not shying away from unleashing it on your children:

The document, Going for Growth, sets out a plan devised by the Church of England's education division that promises to make churches more "child-friendly" and to work towards every child – regardless of their faith – having a "life-enhancing encounter with the Christian faith and the person of Jesus Christ". It includes:

An information campaign to supply schools with materials to fulfil their legal duty to conduct a daily act of worship amid reports that many schools have dropped it.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-24-2009, 21:27

The Bible doesn't sa anything about homosexuality or homosexual relationships, that's the problem.

True, but it does discuss homosexual intercourse to my recollection.

Kralizec

12-24-2009, 21:46

I don't think many churches actually condemn being gay, as in the sexual orientation itself, but rather the action of having homosexual intercourse, whether it is carried out by a gay or a straight person.

That's a valid point I suppose, but you know what I mean. Most christian denominations condemn acting on, as opposed to supressing one's sexual orientation.

That might be why they wanted to baptize their child in a church that actually doesn't condemn them, and who also have plenty of gay priests....

Probably, but I still think it's silly.

I don't know if you have, but years ago I took the effort of reading the New Testament (wich doesn't touch the subject as far as I know) and parts of the Old Testament (wich does touch on the subject in an unfavourable way)

Don't get me wrong, it's super-awesome when people who call themselves Christians, Muslims or followers of the Flying Spagheti Monster express tolerance for people who were executed by people who called themselves christians and muslims for the beter part of the past 15 to 20 centuries. I just think that it's odd, because it implies that the religion they claim to follow has been wrong for the overwhelming part of its history, while they're right. A fundamentalist might argue that God/Allah would not allow his faithfull to persevere in wrong assumptions about their own religion for so many centuries, wich I think would be pretty hard to refute.

HoreTore

12-24-2009, 21:59

That's a valid point I suppose, but you know what I mean. Most christian denominations condemn acting on, as opposed to supressing one's sexual orientation.

Probably, but I still think it's silly.

I don't know if you have, but years ago I took the effort of reading the New Testament (wich doesn't touch the subject as far as I know) and parts of the Old Testament (wich does touch on the subject in an unfavourable way)

Don't get me wrong, it's super-awesome when people who call themselves Christians, Muslims or followers of the Flying Spagheti Monster express tolerance for people who were executed by people who called themselves christians and muslims for the beter part of the past 15 to 20 centuries. I just think that it's odd, because it implies that the religion they claim to follow has been wrong for the overwhelming part of its history, while they're right. A fundamentalist might argue that God/Allah would not allow his faithfull to persevere in wrong assumptions about their own religion for so many centuries, wich I think would be pretty hard to refute.

Christians have had absolutely no problem with that since the reformation.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-24-2009, 22:23

That's a valid point I suppose, but you know what I mean. Most christian denominations condemn acting on, as opposed to supressing one's sexual orientation.

Most Christian denominations condemn excess in any area, the issue is your definition of "excess" and this has been harsh at certain periods (particularly during the reformation).

I don't know if you have, but years ago I took the effort of reading the New Testament (wich doesn't touch the subject as far as I know) and parts of the Old Testament (wich does touch on the subject in an unfavourable way)

Jesus isn't a fan, so he says, but then he also plays the part of the racist; just to prove a point (not a racist one).

Don't get me wrong, it's super-awesome when people who call themselves Christians, Muslims or followers of the Flying Spagheti Monster express tolerance for people who were executed by people who called themselves christians and muslims for the beter part of the past 15 to 20 centuries. I just think that it's odd, because it implies that the religion they claim to follow has been wrong for the overwhelming part of its history, while they're right. A fundamentalist might argue that God/Allah would not allow his faithfull to persevere in wrong assumptions about their own religion for so many centuries, wich I think would be pretty hard to refute.

Free Will allows persistant dissobedience, there refuted.

The Church of England to start a recruiting campaign - targeting two year olds.

As the Jesuit motto said: 'give me the child before the age of seven, and I'll give you the man'.

On the upside, if one needs to target toddlers, I suppose this means you are not having much succes convincing anybody with a whiff of developed critical thinking of your hocus pocus.

There is the added problem of this being a state church. We're being bored to tears repeatedly told the insightful information that Healthcare reform, pollution control and what not is all but a means for Government Control. What to make of this then? A state allowing publicly funded toddler playgrounds for ideological indoctrination of toddlers.

An ideological institution armed with an enormous privilige, and not shying away from unleashing it on your children:

All of these already happen, national guidence from the Synod, clear stardards and consitancy (as well as funding) are a good thing. The alternative is that only the Evangelical wing of the Church partakes of such activities.

Kralizec

12-24-2009, 22:37

Most Christian denominations condemn excess in any area, the issue is your definition of "excess" and this has been harsh at certain periods (particularly during the reformation).

Homosexual acts being an excess of what exactly, hedonism in general? If I recall correctly, the passages in the OT were clearly categorical and such a reasoning was never needed. I realize that theology entails more than a strict reading of either testament, but even if clerics ever gave other rationalisations for condemning homosexuality I suspect the real reason behind it was continuing an existing bias.

Jesus isn't a fan, so he says, but then he also plays the part of the racist; just to prove a point (not a racist one).

I don't follow...

Free Will allows persistant dissobedience, there refuted.

It's not really disobedience if you don't know what obedience entails, right? Free will implies the possibility of informed choice.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-24-2009, 22:55

Homosexual acts being an excess of what exactly, hedonism in general? If I recall correctly, the passages in the OT were clearly categorical and such a reasoning was never needed. I realize that theology entails more than a strict reading of either testament, but even if clerics ever gave other rationalisations for condemning homosexuality I suspect the real reason behind it was continuing an existing bias.

Homosexual sex is historically a recreational activity partaken of by the upper classes outside marriage, usually involving paedophillia. It isn't usually a part of a relatioship. This is because historically you married regardless of sexual preferences.

I don't follow...

When Jesus partakes of a prejudice, it's usually in order to hold it up to ridicule or otherwise discredit it. If you read the New Testemant critically, you must have seen him do this.

It's not really disobedience if you don't know what obedience entails, right? Free will implies the possibility of informed choice.

Dissobedience to God is considered to be disobedience to the natural moral impluse. It is not subjected a legalistic definition.

Kralizec

12-24-2009, 23:29

Homosexual sex is historically a recreational activity partaken of by the upper classes outside marriage, usually involving paedophillia. It isn't usually a part of a relatioship. This is because historically you married regardless of sexual preferences.

Are shellfish and pork for the ancient jews what caviar is to us?

I know that homosexuality is historically seen as upper class behaviour (not an identity). The question is wether that was the reason why it was condemned, or wether it was a rather bits of text in the OT that say men shouldn't lie with men as they lie with women.

When Jesus partakes of a prejudice, it's usually in order to hold it up to ridicule or otherwise discredit it. If you read the New Testemant critically, you must have seen him do this.

It's been almost 10 years since I've read it :shrug:

Dissobedience to God is considered to be disobedience to the natural moral impluse. It is not subjected a legalistic definition.

Does that apply to the command of worshipping only one god? Jewish dietary law?
I think that the tolerance (not: acceptance) of many preceding cultures should make it evidently clear that there's no such thing as a universal, "inherent" dissaproval of homosexual behaviour as such.

I know that medieval theologians have tried very hard to reconcile Roman and Greek concepts of "natural law" with obedience to God. But I very much doubt that your definition was, or is, the prevailing opinion among rank-and-file clerics - not to mention the believers themselves.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-25-2009, 01:24

Are shellfish and pork for the ancient jews what caviar is to us?

Shellfish often were, pork, I have no idea; actually.

I know that homosexuality is historically seen as upper class behaviour (not an identity). The question is wether that was the reason why it was condemned, or wether it was a rather bits of text in the OT that say men shouldn't lie with men as they lie with women.

The point is that the behaviour was seen as representing something, as well as being "unnatural".

Does that apply to the command of worshipping only one god? Jewish dietary law?
I think that the tolerance (not: acceptance) of many preceding cultures should make it evidently clear that there's no such thing as a universal, "inherent" dissaproval of homosexual behaviour as such.

I know that medieval theologians have tried very hard to reconcile Roman and Greek concepts of "natural law" with obedience to God. But I very much doubt that your definition was, or is, the prevailing opinion among rank-and-file clerics - not to mention the believers themselves.

Sorry, I don't quite follow. All Nicean Christians accept that man's natural inclination is obedience to God's Will, but that Sin diverts him from that obedience. Some people, and some cultures, are more dissobedient than others.