Christianity Offially on the UP in England and Wales

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think you missed the 20th and 21st century there.

He did say since the times of feudalism, so why would I only look at the most recent two centuries?

Yes, Thomas Hobbes does represent all atheists (of that time). What a great argument.

And yet that isn't the argument I made. HoreTore made an absolute argument (Christians are for tyranny, atheists are for freedom, generally speaking), so I pointed out that this hasn't always been the case. I didn't argue all atheists are like Hobbes, I just pointed out that there were/are atheists like him that weren't all progressive and freedom-loving.

"No abortions period! Have them all born" Doesn't make it more "morally or logically consistent" then a pro-choice statement of: "Well it depends on when exactly a ball of cells can officially be called a fetus and when it beings to develop the capacity for independent thought and such...etc."

The fact is the pro-life movement (outwith the fringe that want abortion at any point before birth) puts pragmatism before being "morally or logically consistent". For example, they don't provide a cut of point where you can say that the baby suddenly becomes 'alive' or 'human', and so in effect everything is a grey area, which is not good when it comes to dealing with the right to life.

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

Which is why any Humanist, be they secular or Christian should be against abortion.

[Beskar]

Which is why any Humanist, be they secualr or christian should be against abortion.

I see no reason to be against abortion, only reason to disapproval of it.

The solution is strong advocation of birth-prevention methods such as the pill, condoms, the snips and tying knots in the tubes. Unfortunately, some churches disapprove of these methods altogether. You would think they would have sense and go "Do not have sex before marriage, but if you are going to do it, make sure you shrink-wrap it". Some churches even argue even when married, not to use condoms or the pill, so you end up with your wife keep on getting pregnant.

Only main objections I have is around 20 or so weeks into the pregnancy. Because if you was going to have an abortion, you would have it as soon as possible (within the first 3 months or so where you don't even look pregnant), not at the point when the child can survive independently.

[HoreTore]

And yet that isn't the argument I made. HoreTore made an absolute argument (Christians are for tyranny, atheists are for freedom, generally speaking), so I pointed out that this hasn't always been the case. I didn't argue all atheists are like Hobbes, I just pointed out that there were/are atheists like him that weren't all progressive and freedom-loving.

Uhm, where did I make this "absolute argument"? Because all I can remember was making the claim that personal freedoms have gone up and christianity ha gone down over the last few centuries. I never stated that some atheists didn't try to limit freedoms or that some deists didn't help expanding them.

Also, 17th century you say? When slave trade was at its height and every christian country joined the race for the rightto murde and exploit native populations around the world? And the century where a third of germany was killed because of religious intolerance?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Uhm, where did I make this "absolute argument"? Because all I can remember was making the claim that personal freedoms have gone up and christianity ha gone down over the last few centuries. I never stated that some atheists didn't try to limit freedoms or that some deists didn't help expanding them.

You used a specific example to suggest a general rule, and I even pointed out that was you said was "generally speaking". While I'm sure we both agree that Christians/atheists can both be pro/anti-freedom/progressiveness etc, I reject your claim that there is a correlation between the influence of Christianity and the existence of oppressive regimes.

For example, nowhere was the influence of Christianity stronger than amongst the more radical Protestant denominations, and yet these were the groups that led the charge in the development of individual liberty/contractarian government/democracy etc. This suggests that your general rule is incorrect from a historical perspective (and you did appeal to history and not just modern society, going back to "feudalism").

Also, 17th century you say? When slave trade was at its height and every christian country joined the race for the rightto murde and exploit native populations around the world? And the century where a third of germany was killed because of religious intolerance?

Because the 20th century was so much better when atheism was predominant...

And before you rush to the old "but they didn't do those things in the name of atheism", it's worth pointing out that the Thirty Years War wasn't a holy war as such, but rather a political conflict influenced by/divided along religious lines. In much the same way that Hitler (it's a Godwin, so deal with it) and Stalin didn't do what they did in the name of atheism, their respective ideologies were heavily influenced by atheism and the ideas that were at the time associated with it (social Darwinism etc).

[Tellos Athenaios]

But that was my whole point Rhyfelwyr: it is often overlooked that if there are a few centuries in which religion is `dominant' then right now these would have to be numbered 20th and 21st....

[Rhyfelwyr]

But that was my whole point Rhyfelwyr: it is often overlooked that if there are a few centuries in which religion is `dominant' then right now these would have to be numbered 20th and 21st....

So you are saying the 20th/21st centuries are the high points of the influence of religion?

I don't deny Christianity tends to be oppressive today, I just wanted to show that historically this wasn't the case.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So you are saying the 20th/21st centuries are the high points of the influence of religion?

I don't deny Christianity tends to be oppressive today, I just wanted to show that historically this wasn't the case.

Of influence of religion. I do not even make the connection between “Christianity” and “oppression” just yet for two reasons:

1) When actual oppression does occur there tends to be a fair amount of “giftwrap this sordid powergrab with a religious ribbon and people will buy it” going on. So how much of that is truly in the spirit of a given religion, how much of it is carried out for religious motives and how much of it is simply carried out under the pretext of religious motives? My estimates would err on the pretext side of motives, rather than on the spirit of the faith side (which no two believers ever seem to agree on anyway).
2) Influence and oppression are not equal, more importantly oppression is not the only way for influence of religion to manifest itself. In the context of the late 20th and now 21st century it is telling that people seriously doubt whether or not Pakistani muslim sects are compatible with British society, when in the 19th and early 20th century everything was all good as long as you were loyal to the British Empire and the British armed forces were adjusted to be more accessible to people of different faiths than the CofE in order to employ Pakistani soldiers. In fact, the British Empire built mosques and special military burial sites to accommodate their Pakistani forces during the Great War.

On the other hand there's a lot of almost reactionary response toward things like the pill and similar issues which makes you wonder what happened to the quality those faiths exhibited in earlier times to adapt to their host culture and integrate rather than attempt to beat it out of the host culture.

[Beskar]

And before you rush to the old "but they didn't do those things in the name of atheism", it's worth pointing out that the Thirty Years War wasn't a holy war as such, but rather a political conflict influenced by/divided along religious lines. In much the same way that Hitler (it's a Godwin, so deal with it) and Stalin didn't do what they did in the name of atheism, their respective ideologies were heavily influenced by atheism and the ideas that were at the time associated with it (social Darwinism etc).

Hitler was against atheism and is a Christian. (Linked his faith to Catholicism too)
Stalin didn't actively promote atheism in anyway and infact, reintroduced the Orthodox Church to Russia.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So both Hilter and Stalin were Christians! Hitler also called the Jews 'Christ Slayers'.

History just came back and bit your ignorance in the behind. Know your history before you make such wild assumptions.

Even then, Atheism is still not predominate, so your claims as such are false. Catholicism was still far more dominate, which is why both Hitler and Mussolini had dealings with the Catholic church, even then in Russia, the Orthodox Church returned in force and the Russian Patriarch was reformed under Stalin.

There has never currently been a time where atheism has or is predominant. It is only predominant in intellectual circles currently and a few of the younger generation which hasn't been exposed to the same dogma of the past.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think Atheism predominates in a younger generation, I think that ignorance and willingness to believe the current fashion do. Most of the abuse I get for just being Christian, as opposed to being pro-life, or unwilling to sanction homosexual relationships in Church, comes from people in their early 20's.

If that's the positive affect of atheism it isn't very positive.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hitler was against atheism and is a Christian. (Linked his faith to Catholicism too)
Stalin didn't actively promote atheism in anyway and infact, reintroduced the Orthodox Church to Russia.

First off, I don't know why you are telling me about Hitler's personal religious beliefs, when I was talking about wider developments in people's understanding of atheism/religion, and how these influenced the ideology that Hitler adopted (which was a form of social Darwinism)

Anyway, Hitler said he was Christian when speaking to Christians, but in private he seems to not be so keen on the faith. Indeed he said:

"The heavist blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew..."

Also... "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

He seems to have allowed Christianity to exist only because of its social use and relevance to his idea of society. "When all is said, we have no reason to wish the Italians or Spaniards to free themselves from the drug of Christianity."

Of course, I am aware he was not an atheist, and the whole "Hitler was an atheist and this somehow proves something" argument really annoys me. I like to point out to those people that Hitler adored the Catholic Church, and his hero was the leader of the Reformation, Martin Luther (because of his anti-Semetism), so really you could say Hitler was an all round Christian guy!

As for Stalin, even Dawkins accepts he was an atheist, and the stuff you showed on wiki was unsubstantitated and it even noted that no historian had ever backed up any of those claims. His decision to re-allow worship (having banned it, strange thing for a Christian to do in the first place!) appears to have been motivated by pratical reasons, in that it would boost the peoples morale.

Even then, Atheism is still not predominate, so your claims as such are false.

Atheism was far more predominant than Christianity in its influence on the ideologies of the time, without a doubt. You seem to be confusing personal faith with atheism as a social/ideological movement. As with Christianity, it inevitably picked up a lot of baggage along the way. Like with the above examples, Hilter associated atheism with Marxism, and for that reason alone was distrustful of it's social/political impact. And the political/religious beliefs of the posters in this thread suggests there is some truth in making such a correlation!

History just came back and bit your ignorance in the behind. Know your history before you make such wild assumptions.[/spoil]

Hurts doesn't it?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Though if I may continue you observations there's a point to be had in seeing how “Hippie Jesus” and his merry band of commune followers called Apostles have a distinctly communist touch both to their care free interpretation of economics (will be provided for by us, somehow, promise) and their idea of sharing everything as a community.

So perhaps Hitler is to be awarded another point where he observes that “Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.”: communism the bastard Son of Christianity who renounces his Father?

[Beskar]

One of the Pope's senior advisers has pulled out of the papal visit to Britain, after saying the UK is a "Third World country" marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11317441

[Rhyfelwyr]

Though if I may continue you observations there's a point to be had in seeing how “Hippie Jesus” and his merry band of commune followers called Apostles have a distinctly communist touch both to their care free interpretation of economics (will be provided for by us, somehow, promise) and their idea of sharing everything as a community.

So perhaps Hitler is to be awarded another point where he observes that “Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.”: communism the bastard Son of Christianity who renounces his Father?

Primitive communalism is a whole different matter from Marxism. Anyway, "hippie Jesus" is simply an invention of the Jesuited Papists in order to promote the EUSSR superstate with the Pope as it's spiritual and temporal head.

Well I made that up, I'm getting inventive these days. Still, Jesus was no hippie.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Matrimony has always been between one man and one woman, there is no logical reason why that should change now because of the current fashion in sexuality.

Yes there is. Because society thinks of marriage as a union between people who love each other, we must include loving homosexuals in marriages otherwise it would be social discrimination. Your statement of "matrimony has always been man and women" is an example of a call to tradition, which is illogical in the first place. Talk about no logical reason.

It does, "well it depends", is an intrinsically weak argument, "the life of the unborn must always be preserved and protected just as the life of the newborn" is more logically consistant - it makes more internal sense because it proceeds from a simgle principle, the sanctity of all life.

Again, your train of thought is not "more logically consistent" just because it comes from one overarching principle. Simpler does not mean "more consistent" or "more logically sound" it means "simpler". Your argument of "well it depends" being inherently weak automatically makes strong divisions in any subject. That kind of thinking kills off moderates. Should we have the death penalty? becomes, "Yes for everything!" or "No, not at all!" because to say "well it depends on the crime" somehow paints those that think death should be reserved only for murders as "inconsistent".

I should be allowed to establish "The Christian School of Saint Sidwell of Devon" and run it along lines which are compatable with Christian Faith, including prayer. If parents send their children to my school I should not have to worry about being accused of "prejudice" because of this. my school does what it says on the Tin, and provided I cannot be shown to be negligent (i.e. I start teaching creationsim alongside evolution) then I should be allowed to carry on unmollested.

As I said, banning prayer in school is as Draconian as enforcing it.

Ok, so you are talking opening a private school to teach students. I thought we were talking about the Church of England being taught in public schools due to them being a large source of money for the education system.

And yet that isn't the argument I made. HoreTore made an absolute argument (Christians are for tyranny, atheists are for freedom, generally speaking), so I pointed out that this hasn't always been the case. I didn't argue all atheists are like Hobbes, I just pointed out that there were/are atheists like him that weren't all progressive and freedom-loving.

As HoreTore stated already, I did not see any absolute statement from him. I interpreted your statement differently because of that.

The fact is the pro-life movement (outwith the fringe that want abortion at any point before birth) puts pragmatism before being "morally or logically consistent". For example, they don't provide a cut of point where you can say that the baby suddenly becomes 'alive' or 'human', and so in effect everything is a grey area, which is not good when it comes to dealing with the right to life.

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

I would think not putting everything into black and white would be more logically and morally consistent. But I guess when you say "consistent" you are talking about the straight definition of the word and not correlating it to how "smart" or "right" it is. According to you, "All Muslims are either with us or against us. It doesn't matter what sect or portions they follow." would be very logically consistent in that, saying "well it depends on how they interpret the koran" is a very weak argument apparently. And in your example, that is far from putting "practicality above consistency" to those who choose to differ when to abort a baby based on the status of the father (rapist or not) it is all about morality. They feel that it is more wrong for a mother to live raising the son of the man who raped her for the rest of her life and for the child to live knowing his father was one of the most despicable kind of men that scour society then to have the baby aborted. That's not practicality, that's morality.

I just think neither of you two can see that morals don't have to come from your religion or religion period and that there are some morals which do have some validity to them that haven't emerged from religion period. And now you simply just dismiss them as "not consistent" or "practicality".

[Brenus]

“a moderate pro-lifer”: An anti-abvortionist generally pro death penalty can't be seen as a pro-life.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes there is. Because society thinks of marriage as a union between people who love each other, we must include loving homosexuals in marriages otherwise it would be social discrimination. Your statement of "matrimony has always been man and women" is an example of a call to tradition, which is illogical in the first place. Talk about no logical reason.

Call to tradition is not inherrently a fallacy, it can just be used to conceal one. If you move the goal posts by saying "marriage is about two people who love each other" then what you have done is redefine "marriage" to suit your own ends. By the by, "No true Scotsman" is also not a fallacy (ever) because once you have excluded rapists from "true Scotsman" the fact that a brtual rapist lives in Aberdean does not make him a "true Scot".

So, marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman for the raising of their own children in a stable environment, and for giving those children legitimacy. That completely excludes homosexual unions (which are not the same as hetersexual ones in any case, because they don't produce children).

Love has nothing to do with it.

Again, your train of thought is not "more logically consistent" just because it comes from one overarching principle. Simpler does not mean "more consistent" or "more logically sound" it means "simpler". Your argument of "well it depends" being inherently weak automatically makes strong divisions in any subject. That kind of thinking kills off moderates. Should we have the death penalty? becomes, "Yes for everything!" or "No, not at all!" because to say "well it depends on the crime" somehow paints those that think death should be reserved only for murders as "inconsistent".

My objection to abortion stems from my Christian Humanist belief in the sanctity of all human life it is, like my opposition to murder and the death penalty, the logical conclusion of that principle. It is suplamented by the additional principle that the strong should protect the weak from harm.

Ok, so you are talking opening a private school to teach students. I thought we were talking about the Church of England being taught in public schools due to them being a large source of money for the education system.

Nope, I'm talking about setting up a State school sponsored by a religious denomination, and the restrictions you should and should not allow for that.

I would think not putting everything into black and white would be more logically and morally consistent.

Right and wrong is a binary distinction.

But I guess when you say "consistent" you are talking about the straight definition of the word and not correlating it to how "smart" or "right" it is.

I'm not talking about right or wrong yet. You are talking about moral "right", I have only begun with logically correct.

According to you, "All Muslims are either with us or against us. It doesn't matter what sect or portions they follow." would be very logically consistent in that, saying "well it depends on how they interpret the koran" is a very weak argument apparently.

This statement makes no sense, it has no logically defined paramatars, what is a "Muslim" in this context, why am I opposed to them?

And in your example, that is far from putting "practicality above consistency" to those who choose to differ when to abort a baby based on the status of the father (rapist or not) it is all about morality. They feel that it is more wrong for a mother to live raising the son of the man who raped her for the rest of her life and for the child to live knowing his father was one of the most despicable kind of men that scour society then to have the baby aborted. That's not practicality, that's morality.

It is more morally wrong to kill the child?

Sorry not buyin it.

Why does the child deserve death?

I just think neither of you two can see that morals don't have to come from your religion or religion period and that there are some morals which do have some validity to them that haven't emerged from religion period. And now you simply just dismiss them as "not consistent" or "practicality".

Genuine objective morality has to come from somewhere external, shorthand "God", otherwise you have consensus morality. Under consensus morality homosexuality is only ok so long as the consesnus agrees it is. Under theistic morality harming people because they are homosexual (assuming homsexuality does not make one an evil servant of the "Devil") is always wrong. This is why some, but not enoguh, Christians opposed Hitler when he started rounding up Jews, and why priests in Italy helped them esacape.

onsensus is not a major concern for absolute morality - which is why Jesus got himself Crucified.

[tibilicus]

Well it looks like Rhy was right. The Pope arrives draped in tartan and the crowds talk of how great it is for "Scottish" culture. They know nothing. What a shame the Vatican can't just come here with a spiritual message over 400 years since we rejected Rome.

It just shows to me that the Varican doesn't care about it's spirituality, it cares about its heiarchy and institution.

[rory_20_uk]

It just shows to me that the Varican doesn't care about it's spirituality, it cares about its heiarchy and institution.

That's all its every truly been there for.

[Beskar]

That's all its every truly been there for.

I think that Small Gods by Terry Pratchett hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the trappings of religion get so large that the whole original point is completely lost.

Who said religion was anything about god? He is just a casus belli to be used against the people.

I agree with your statement.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that Small Gods by Terry Pratchett hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the trappings of religion get so large that the whole original point is completely lost.

[Rhyfelwyr]

“a moderate pro-lifer”: An anti-abvortionist generally pro death penalty can't be seen as a pro-life.

Sorry I'm an idiot, I meant a moderate pro-choice person.

I would think not putting everything into black and white would be more logically and morally consistent. But I guess when you say "consistent" you are talking about the straight definition of the word and not correlating it to how "smart" or "right" it is. According to you, "All Muslims are either with us or against us. It doesn't matter what sect or portions they follow." would be very logically consistent in that, saying "well it depends on how they interpret the koran" is a very weak argument apparently.

I know it's easy to dismiss religious people as seeing everything in black and white, but I would have thought even a secular humanist would agree that the right to life is an absolute value. Therefore if you treat an absolute value as having grey areas, you are being logically inconsistent.

I also don't see how you're analogy with Islam works, because while we both (I think?) accept that the right to life is a single, aboslute principle, Islam is of course simply an umbrella term for a huge range of beliefs.

And in your example, that is far from putting "practicality above consistency" to those who choose to differ when to abort a baby based on the status of the father (rapist or not) it is all about morality. They feel that it is more wrong for a mother to live raising the son of the man who raped her for the rest of her life and for the child to live knowing his father was one of the most despicable kind of men that scour society then to have the baby aborted. That's not practicality, that's morality.

Birth defects, rape, unfit to be a mother etc... all these issues cannot be used to overrule an absolute principle like the right to life.

To take your bolded example, you are completely inconsistent here. Would you kill that baby for those reasonsif it had already been born? Of course not.

Yet strangely, when it comes to a baby which would be born into a healthier environment, a moderate pro-choice person like yourself might say that baby has the right to life after the first trimester. Well babies created through rape would surely be no different in this respect, would they? So if that baby has the right to life, how on earth can it be justly aborted after the first trimester?

I just think neither of you two can see that morals don't have to come from your religion or religion period and that there are some morals which do have some validity to them that haven't emerged from religion period. And now you simply just dismiss them as "not consistent" or "practicality".

I think people often like to dismiss us like this because it is easier than actually seriously thinking about their own positions on the issue. You need to adress the lack of any sort of logical consistency in your argument. At least the extreme fringe of the pro-choice movement are logically consistent, although you would have to wonder why the baby suddenly becomes human at the point of birth.

Well it looks like Rhy was right. The Pope arrives draped in tartan and the crowds talk of how great it is for "Scottish" culture. They know nothing. What a shame the Vatican can't just come here with a spiritual message over 400 years since we rejected Rome.

Justification at last! Nobody ever believed me, they just said I'm a crazy Hun, a bigot etc. But at last the experts are catching up, Mr. Devine was on the news last night and finally acknowledged that Catholics are increasingly driving the nationalist movement. Said it years ago myself in a paper for one of my politics classes (in a more academic tone than I do here of course, without the bias!), when you know the historical perpective it all makes sense, you've got to look beyond Scotland itself and understand how these identities all relate with Britain and Ireland etc.

It just shows to me that the Varican doesn't care about it's spirituality, it cares about its heiarchy and institution.

I would be ignoring the beam in my own eye if I upbraided them for this. Sadly what you said is true for many churches today. They are more like a social club, they have no interest in actually following the Gospel.

[HoreTore]

Sorry I'm an idiot, I meant a moderate pro-choice person.

"Choice" is the buzzword of the right.

A proper leftie calls himself "pro-abortion", because that's what we want to enable people to do. Choices are for the bourgeoisie.

[Beskar]

A proper leftie calls himself "pro-abortion", because that's what we want to enable people to do. Choices are for the bourgeoisie.

You are actually incorrect, since "Pro-abortion" is different to "Pro-Choice", as "Pro-Abortion" pretty much means "abort all babies", opposed to "Pro-Choice", where you have the option of abortion or not.

[gaelic cowboy]

Birth defects, rape, unfit to be a mother etc... all these issues cannot be used to overrule an absolute principle like the right to life.

To take your bolded example, you are completely inconsistent here. Would you kill that baby for those reasonsif it had already been born? Of course not.

Yet strangely, when it comes to a baby which would be born into a healthier environment, a moderate pro-choice person like yourself might say that baby has the right to life after the first trimester. Well babies created through rape would surely be no different in this respect, would they? So if that baby has the right to life, how on earth can it be justly aborted after the first trimester?

I would agree with this sentiment and I don't believe in God/Gods at all.

It strikes me that a lot of the reasoning stems almost from a medieval demon seed type fear hence the use of potential rape as a vaild reason.