homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home

This thread has been moved to Dead Horses.    
 - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship (Page 5)

 
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
"When we discover that certain ideas about man, history and society seem, to those who believe in them, to be either self-evident or so manifestly correct that opposing them is a mark of stupidity or malice, then we may be fairly sure we are dealing with an ideology and ideological thinking."

My point in quoting this is to show that we should perhaps never give up the task of trying to dialogue, discuss and learn, in spite of our convictions and beliefs, and that we all need a healthy dose of distance from ourselves, our beliefs, and everything else, all peppered with humour.

Excellent post IMO!
Posts: 9478 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
To the quotes file with it.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17323 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175

 - Posted      Profile for Gottschalk   Email Gottschalk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Ruth, I think you do these boards a disservice. In the 15 years since I first came across SoF, I've changed my mind on these issues:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
  • the nature of marriage and roles within it;
  • proper use of Scripture and/or tradition in the church;
  • whether denial of certain doctrines (such as the resurrection) are sufficient to render one either "not a Christian," or "not saved";
  • whether religion is only for the private sphere;
  • to what extent a public official or a provider of public goods (such as a chef) ought to be permitted to take actions based on personal religious standards.

In a large part, it was due to being exposed to different viewpoints on these boards. I encountered points of view that varied from the charismatic evangelical environment that I'd grown up in. Of course, my change of perspective wasn't solely down to SoF, but it played a big part. And there are quite a few other issues which I changed my mind on too.

IMHO one of the most worrying aspects of our polarised society is that class and social media result in people living in echo-chambers where they have their viewpoints endorsed, reinforced and never challenged. Ship of Fools has fortunately been a place where those things can and do happen, and on the whole, it still is.

I share that concern, though, that in this echo-chamber world, we need to work even harder to include and not dismiss, even if we strongly disagree with someone.

I've just travelled to Uganda and met some wonderful Christians there. The default Christian and State viewpoint there is, however, 'traditional' on the dead-horse topics that we're talking about. I vehemently disagree with that. For better & worse, much of the world does not share the ideals of the liberal west.

How to respond to someone (or pretty much an entire nation) for whom the entire concept of accepting LGBT values as moral and Christian is so alien to their experience of culture, society and church - (as indeed it still the case for some in the west today)? Is it always the best course to go on the front foot - attack, challenge, confront?

There is great power in the words 'I see things differently.' I see those four words as one of the greatest tools we have. They allow disagreement without forcing confrontation. They invite questions.

I understand that on a discussion forum things don't work the same as in normal conversations, and posting the above here would be of no use at all. But the point is there are gentle ways to approach people. I hope that SoF doesn't just become another echo-chamber. To an extent it has. I'm in the majority here now, but I want my views challenged. That means we need to work harder than ever to include people with different views than us.

Gottschalk, I disagree with you on the DH issues that have been talked about. I understand your apathy to politics, and used to feel much like you do. I hope you continue to feel welcome here. You're evidently not a prolific poster, but you've been around the Ship a long time, and your perspective is valuable. You obviously value humility and sacrifice highly - I fully agree with that.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. One of my best friends is a Piskie vicar with whom I also disagree on most DH issues - but we do share some (significant) common ground - the importance of sacramental and ascetic theology and practice, scepticism as to the institutional and organisational (and managerial) aspect and policies of our Churches, a general distrust of "canonical" solutions to human problems, etc. We go on excursions together to ruined churches and abbeys, I try to attend his daily BCP offices (sometimes I am the only attendant) and we say the Rosary together. It is relationship that I do not, and probably could not share with my local "canonical" RC parish priest.

--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax

Posts: 145 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thinking that a person is wrong is not equal to hating them, having contempt for them or hounding them, and does not require all these things.

Which is why it's very sad that, nevertheless, it's what happens. That probably explains why people who don't have problems with gay people may have problems with people who do. It's hard to see the nuanced distinctions between 'I hate what I imagine you do in your private life' and 'I hate what you are'.

The usual thing I hear from many traditional Christians - as a minister - is how 'disgusting', 'unnatural', 'filthy', 'an abomination' etc the sexuality of gay people is; in addition to often referring directly to gay people as these things.

It's hard not to get a sense of gay people being hated when that kind of approach is taken, don't you think.

However, to balance things up, I do know of some Christians who hold to traditional teaching, who try very hard to do this without rejecting gay people as people. I was talking to someone the other day who equated their own sinfulness with the sinfulness (as they saw it) of a gay person being gay. So their problem was with the idea that it should be accepted, particularly by some churches, not so much that there were gay people to begin with. The argument was that the gay person was welcome to be part of the church, but obviously not as a gay person, with a partner etc.

The difficulty, of course, is that our sexual identity is very much who we are - whether actively sexual or not. So given the best will in the world, the best that even the most generous-minded traditionalist approach can offer is rejection of the humanity of the gay person if lived out, and a conditional acceptance of them only if they conform to specific heterosexual norms. It's hard to imagine many gay people - however they perceive the right or wrong of their own sexuality - feeling loved and welcomed by this approach; or by a Creator-God presented in this way.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 9961 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Excellent. Nice sea change started on page 4 and continuing here. Brian McLaren's strong benevolence is manifest. Anyone would think the HS is at work!

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17020 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Excellent. Nice sea change started on page 4 and continuing here. Brian McLaren's strong benevolence is manifest. Anyone would think the HS is at work!

And is not at work, when people are laying into each other? I find that strange.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9708 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I'm quite impressed with the recent posts in this thread.

A word about - phobia. It does actually mean irrational or instinctive fear. And there's the rub. Labelling someone as, for example, homophobic, is saying that you perceive they are not rational and are governed by feelings of fear.

This may be right, but it may not do justice to the reasons people have for "seeing things differently" - again a helpful phrase.

I've been talking and listening patiently re DH issues for about 40 years now, and sometimes I just get tired of running around the same course. There's a line from a Moody Blues song which has often summarised those experiences.

"I sit down and lend an ear, but I hear nothing new".

And that's the other rub. There comes a point where I just run out of patience with the apparent impasse, don't want to talk about it any more.

Recent posts have brought me up short. I think it's a failing. I have reasons, very good reasons, for believing what I do about DH issues and I also have very good reasons for believing why they are compatible with my faith, not just, as some folks seem to believe, a rationalisation of the Zeitgeist, a departure from Traditional beliefs. What happens in me is that I despair of them being properly addressed by those who "see things differently". Just as, I guess, they also despair of being listened to, and not rubbished.

So I'm going to continue to risk dialogue despite the tendency to despair, because I think that's a better way.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20940 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:

It turns out that our enactment and respect of the rules of (civil) engagement will depend on how strongly we feel about the subject, on our proximity to the underlying substantive issue.

Oh yes! Three of my relatives and five of my close friends are gay so I see these things very much first hand without being gay myself.

We have a (totally different) issue on another forum I frequent. I'm a moderator there and it's a very difficult line to tread (welcoming yet disagreeing, supporting yet not encouraging others to do the same). People are clearly doing the wrong thing out of ignorance. We want to support them in any way we can, without supporting what they are doing which is totally wrong in our eyes.

I'll tease you for a while as to what that may be, but it is a matter I feel very strongly about indeed and no laughing matter.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12745 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yes, 'phobia' means fear, but 'homophobia' doesn't. Why is this so difficult to get across? Words don't mean the total of their constituent parts, because language changes all the time, so homophobia usually denotes negativity about gays, not fear.

Etymological fallacy.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9708 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You want to be treated as a human being even when you are in the very act of advocating that some people be treated as less human than others.

As far as I'm concerned that's where the "Christian" in "Christian Unrest" comes in.
And the unrest is in challenging ideas.
ISTM, what those complaining about the treatment of traditional Christians want is special treatment, not civil discourse.
Are we right now not having civil discourse with Lamb Chopped? I think we are. I am a horribly contentious person and I am not castigating her.
Speaking of contentious, I also think that people are equating a few individuals like myself with the Ship entire. And that is wrong. The balance of the Ship is more gentle than I and even I am not a bitch to everyone I disagree with.
It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that it is the unrest, particularly about their own ideas, that some have an issue with.
Another thing is that not all ideas are equal. When belief contends with belief, there should be give and interplay. When belief strikes objective reality, it is a different thing. You may argue the iceberg isn't real, but the Titanic still isn't making port.


Originally posted by Barnabas62
quote:
I'm quite impressed with the recent posts in this thread.
Ooops. Sorry to ruin that for you

[ 27. July 2017, 10:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17128 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yes, that's why I was puzzled by Martin's post that the HS is working through the reconciliation. Isn't the HS also working through the conflict, because often you can't have one without t'other. I used to do marital counselling, (what an idiot I was in those days), and was all in favour of married people having a pop at each other, because quite often then the love would appear. But no conflict, no love, quite often.

Hence, unrest seems essential in many areas of life to me, otherwise we have repression and depression.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9708 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that's why I was puzzled by Martin's post that the HS is working through the reconciliation. Isn't the HS also working through the conflict, because often you can't have one without t'other. I used to do marital counselling, (what an idiot I was in those days), and was all in favour of married people having a pop at each other, because quite often then the love would appear. But no conflict, no love, quite often.

Hence, unrest seems essential in many areas of life to me, otherwise we have repression and depression.

Yep, the opposite of love is indifference, not hate.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12745 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As an evangelical Christian, I disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices, but I have nothing personal against Hindus.

Why do you disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices?
Presumably Kaplan believes that there are statements which can be made about God that are either "absolutely" correct or incorrect, and believes the Christian ones to be correct and the Hindu ones incorrect.

To trivialise things: you and I can be looking at a red bus. One of us can say that it's red and the other can say that it's green. But, however strongly held the views of the latter, the fact is that it is red. In the same way, "traditional" Christians believe that there are (at least) some core beliefs and stories about God which are either correct or incorrect - and, indeed, they will seek to persuade others of the understandings they believe to be erroneous through evangelism and missionary work.

This approach certainly goes against the popular views of "it doesn't matter what you believe, what's important is that it works for you" and "all religious paths are ultimately equally valid routes to the divine". But it doesn't mean that one doesn't value the individuals with whom one disagrees - indeed, the attempt to change what they believe has often been seen as an expression of Christian love (as we could just not bother and leave them wallowing in their error).

It may be the evangelical wish to change the beliefs of others that is key. I don't think a simple view of truth as something fixed, clear and absolute makes disagreement more difficult, but if you are evangelical then you won't want to let it go, so the persistence of different beliefs represents a failure of your evangelism, and counts against your own faith, which, if it's absolutely true, ought to be irresistibly attractive once heard.

So are Evangelicals more prone to profound disagreement because they are committed to changing the opinions of others? And is that really loving?

But the talk of green buses got me looking up pictures of United Counties. They were nice.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4508 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It may be the evangelical wish to change the beliefs of others that is key. I don't think a simple view of truth as something fixed, clear and absolute makes disagreement more difficult, but if you are evangelical then you won't want to let it go, so the persistence of different beliefs represents a failure of your evangelism, and counts against your own faith, which, if it's absolutely true, ought to be irresistibly attractive once heard.

Or it could just be that some believe some ideas are true and some are not true.

I think some aspects of Hinduism are absolutely disgusting.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10330 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Excellent. Nice sea change started on page 4 and continuing here. Brian McLaren's strong benevolence is manifest. Anyone would think the HS is at work!

And is not at work, when people are laying into each other? I find that strange.
Made me pause for thought. Aye, She is. Only by way of getting to calm, pacific, irenic waters. She's the love in the conflict.

@mr cheesy: would you say that about Islam? And Christianity?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17020 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
lilBuddha said
quote:
And the unrest is in challenging ideas.
Yes, if they include our own ideas.

The icon of unrest is not Sauron at the battle of Dagorlad, it's a man in the wilderness and in the Garden.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4508 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It may be the evangelical wish to change the beliefs of others that is key. I don't think a simple view of truth as something fixed, clear and absolute makes disagreement more difficult, but if you are evangelical then you won't want to let it go, so the persistence of different beliefs represents a failure of your evangelism, and counts against your own faith, which, if it's absolutely true, ought to be irresistibly attractive once heard.

Or it could just be that some believe some ideas are true and some are not true.

I think some aspects of Hinduism are absolutely disgusting.

Can they be absolutely disgusting if our brothers and sisters believe them? You might feel disgust, that's common enough including within Christianity, but our reactions often say more about us than what we are reacting to.

Believing that truth is simple, knowable and clear, the redness of a red bus in broad daylight, has a sort of brexitty appeal as opposed to the decadent, trendy, contextual theories that it all somehow depends on lots of things, but there is a huge arrogance in asserting it in relation to religious belief in a world that has lots of religions.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4508 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Can they be absolutely disgusting if our brothers and sisters believe them?

Yes. Ideas can be disgusting. That has no bearing on whether we should look at Hindus as Brethren.

quote:
You might feel disgust, that's common enough including within Christianity, but our reactions often say more about us than what we are reacting to.
It says that ideas are important.

Many people think Christianity is disgusting - and they've a perfect right to do so.

quote:
Believing that truth is simple, knowable and clear, the redness of a red bus in broad daylight, has a sort of brexitty appeal as opposed to the decadent, trendy, contextual theories that it all somehow depends on lots of things, but there is a huge arrogance in asserting it in relation to religious belief in a world that has lots of religions.
What a load of old humbug. There is no special arrogance in saying that some things are true and that some ideas are better than others.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10330 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I'm Roman Catholic and my perception is that there seems to be less willingness from posters to accept that people may hold nuanced positions on controversial topics.

I do consciously post, and choose the subjects on which I post, very carefully. For example, I'd like to discuss (on a different thread, obviously), whether it is possible to support both the idea that one can change gender as a matter of personal choice *and* the idea that gender should be a protected characteristic for the purposes of UK equality law. If not, which is more important? But I'm worried that bad faith would be assumed.

I would say that the Ship has changed my view about some RC teachings. For example, I used to think that it would be fair to offer the same civil rights to same sex couples without calling their relationship "marriage". Discussion here showed me how much pain this linguistic pedantry has caused same sex couples. I now see the point that the Church does not own the word "marriage" or the concept. I also now know at least one same sex couple whose life-long faithful relationship (they are not married though I wish they would) comes closer to representing the relationship between Christ and the Church than my rather wobbly straight Catholic marriage.

So, on balance, yes I'd say there is less initial assumption of good faith, there is more open hostility and there is less apparent acceptance of nuanced positions. Instead there seems to be a line of debate that is intended to drive those with nuanced positions to agree or disagree with a black or white scenario, so as to be able to put them in a box as good guys or bad guys.

But I'm not sure it's fair to see this as happening in one direction only. I think it's much more about the tenor of public discourse in general.

[ 27. July 2017, 11:22: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2887 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But the talk of green buses got me looking up pictures of United Counties. They were nice.

You can not be serious! The only green buses worth even thinking about are London Transport (Country Area).

(Mind you, Carris of Lisbon's old AEC Regents and Regals were pretty cool! I knew them well in the late 70s/early 80s. And seeing that I now live in Welsh-land, perhaps I ought to include Crosville to avoid being slain by angry dragons).

[ 27. July 2017, 11:24: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9478 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Many people think Christianity is disgusting - and they've a perfect right to do so.

After all, we eat the Body and Blood of Jesus - that's gross!

[ 27. July 2017, 11:27: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9478 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175

 - Posted      Profile for Gottschalk   Email Gottschalk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Disgust is an interest one: what is it? Is it a moral feeling, indicating disapproval? Surely it is stronger than distate?

Can I think something is wrong without it disgusting me?

[Disgust, for me, is a primarily...gustative, gastronomic experience... other experiences might only be figuratively so ]

Unrest would thus include not just moral indignation but also (moral) disgust.

Thinking that something is disgusting is also perhaps not the same as thinking something is wrong. Aesthetic v.s. Ethical judgements?

Any thoughts?

--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax

Posts: 145 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
lilBuddha said
quote:
And the unrest is in challenging ideas.
Yes, if they include our own ideas.
This.

It seems to me we can get so used to tooling up to bash certain ideas regardless of how they are framed that we are in danger of not actually allowing our own ideas to be challenged.

I've been hanging out on the politics section on another board recently. The US discussions are largely populated by Democrats. The discussion between those of Democrat leanings is largely coherent and instructive, but if a conservative posts, they will almost inevitably get a stream of invective. This is almost always deserved, because almost all they post is derp, snark, or word salad.

There is however a notable exception: posts from a conservative perspective that are well-reasoned, coherent, and polite. These simply tend to be ignored altogether, and I find that troubling.

It suggests to me that all those cuddly Democrats haven't really thought their positions through, or aren't really willing for their own ideas to be challenged. They aren't there for interaction, they're there for mutual reassurance - which is hardly unrestful.

I'd hate for the Ship to become like that.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17323 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Ideas can certainly disgust us; some aspects of hyper-Calvinism do it for me, but the disgust is in me.

And you described some bits of Hinduism as absolutely disgusting. That absolute says this is not about you, and not about to change. How can conversation develop from there?

There's no arrogance in saying some things are true and that some things are better than others, but saying my religion is true and yours is false is arrogant. It's like saying your accent is stupid, but mine - well I don't have an accent, I just pronounce words properly. With, in the case of religion, danger instead of silliness.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4508 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
hatless wrote:

quote:
Believing that truth is simple, knowable and clear, the redness of a red bus in broad daylight, has a sort of brexitty appeal as opposed to the decadent, trendy, contextual theories that it all somehow depends on lots of things, but there is a huge arrogance in asserting it in relation to religious belief in a world that has lots of religions.
Nicely put. I suppose the idea of objective truth has been under attack for a long time, I don't really know how far back. Nietzsche? No, further back.

I find a happy solution in the idea of subjective truth, and then objectivity is a kind of failed wish fulfillment, or in fact, replaced by intersubjectivity. One of my tutors used to argue that we make observations about appearances, and then the philosophers can argue about them. It's what works that counts.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9708 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:

Thinking that something is disgusting is also perhaps not the same as thinking something is wrong. Aesthetic v.s. Ethical judgements?

Any thoughts?

Disgust is different to believing something is wrong. Something can be wrong and interesting, wrong and startling, wrong but cute.

Disgust is saying this this isn't just wrong, it is horrible.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10330 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
lilBuddha said
quote:
And the unrest is in challenging ideas.
Yes, if they include our own ideas.
Absolutely. There are plenty of people on this site who will happily castigate fundamentalists for being unwilling to countenance ideas other than their own, while being just as - if not more - unwilling to accept any hint of a challenge to their own ideas.

If you're about to vilify someone for not being prepared to consider the idea that gay marriage is a good thing, then you should be mindful of the fact that you refuse to consider the possibility that it isn't. Closed-mindedness works both ways.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29953 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If you're about to vilify someone for not being prepared to consider the idea that gay marriage is a good thing, then you should be mindful of the fact that you refuse to consider the possibility that it isn't. Closed-mindedness works both ways.

That feels like MLK saying at the end of his speeches "..but it's OK, y'know, some people believe that black people are not human and they've every right to do so.. it's a free country. Other views are available"

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10330 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Well, Jews are a bit thrifty, aren't they?

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9708 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If you're about to vilify someone for not being prepared to consider the idea that gay marriage is a good thing, then you should be mindful of the fact that you refuse to consider the possibility that it isn't. Closed-mindedness works both ways.

That feels like MLK saying at the end of his speeches "..but it's OK, y'know, some people believe that black people are not human and they've every right to do so.. it's a free country. Other views are available"
Isn't it more like MLK thinking to himself, maybe I'm not human. Maybe white people have a different, richer, more aware sense of being alive that I can only guess at. Maybe they have more joy and fear and intelligence and a keener appreciation of beauty and justice than I do.

And when he's laughed that thought away, he's left with the fact that there are indeed people who think he's not human, and that is how it is, and whether they have an acknowledged right to think that or not, they plainly do think it.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4508 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If you're about to vilify someone for not being prepared to consider the idea that gay marriage is a good thing, then you should be mindful of the fact that you refuse to consider the possibility that it isn't. Closed-mindedness works both ways.

That feels like MLK saying at the end of his speeches "..but it's OK, y'know, some people believe that black people are not human and they've every right to do so.. it's a free country. Other views are available"
That's not what Marvin's talking about. He talked about:

- Being willing to accept a challenge to one's own ideas.
- Not being close-minded - i.e. listen to & understand the other point of view, and consider the possibility they might be right.

That's not the same as treating all opinions as equal or lacking strong, well-thought out convictions oneself.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2077 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Ideas can certainly disgust us; some aspects of hyper-Calvinism do it for me, but the disgust is in me.

And you described some bits of Hinduism as absolutely disgusting. That absolute says this is not about you, and not about to change. How can conversation develop from there?

There's no arrogance in saying some things are true and that some things are better than others, but saying my religion is true and yours is false is arrogant. It's like saying your accent is stupid, but mine - well I don't have an accent, I just pronounce words properly. With, in the case of religion, danger instead of silliness.

What bothers me is that it's pure assertion. I don't see how assertion can establish truth. I suppose that the asserter will sometimes back up their assertions with reasoned arguments, and sometimes, not!

I've always been baffled by this lust for truth among the religious - why not just say that it works for me? OK, I can see that that lands us in a world of relativism, since for my local shaman, sacred animals work for her. Gosh, it's shocking, isn't it?

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9708 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
To me the issue is not about whether one is a vocal supporter of gay marriage, as I've noted above.

To me the main problem with these so-called "Traditional Christian" values is that they're self-contradictory.

It seems to me to be a fairly basic point that if one wants the rights and protections of living in a liberal democracy, then one has to be prepared to at very least not stand in the way of others rights.

If for no other reason than that if gays are not given protection today then maybe the state will decide that the Roman Catholics deserve no protection tomorrow.

And that's the difference; whereas there are some closed-minded liberal bigots who want to close down anyone who disagrees with their understanding of individual freedom, there is a much larger group of "traditional Christians" who think that God has told them x y and z about various issues and therefore that gives them the right to restrict other people's freedoms.

The vast majority of liberals in the world and on the ship have no wish to close down (for example) churches or mosques which do not have women leaders or do not support gay marriage.

Believe in a religion I find offensive and disgusting. That's absolutely your right. But that doesn't extend as far as you having the right to organise civil society to fit your norms and beliefs.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10330 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quetzalcoatl--

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, 'phobia' means fear, but 'homophobia' doesn't. Why is this so difficult to get across? Words don't mean the total of their constituent parts, because language changes all the time, so homophobia usually denotes negativity about gays, not fear.

Etymological fallacy.

...except some of us were *taught* to figure out new words by way of etymology, such as learning Latin- and Greek-based prefixes and suffixes. It was supposed to be a very good and wise thing, and I still find it handy. (A couple of years of Classical Latin helps, too.)

"Homophobia" trips me up, because it's obviously used as a very strong term. And, given the idea of someone treating LGB folks harshly because they themselves are in the closet, there's a lot of fear involved, if only of what other people would think of them if they came out. And phobias generally have "phobia" in their names.

Behavenet, which is rooted in the official diagnostic manual, says this about homophobia:

quote:
Fear and avoidance of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or becoming homosexual.

In common use the term refers to irrational hostility or negative attitude (rather than fear, but often including avoidance) toward those of same sex sexiual orientation. In psychoanalytic theory this negative attitude is sometimes assumed to arise from fear of one's own homosexual impulses even in one with opposite sex sexual orientation.

So, per this, the meaning is *both* a negative attitude *and* fear.

FWIW.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18178 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

- Being willing to accept a challenge to one's own ideas.
- Not being close-minded - i.e. listen to & understand the other point of view, and consider the possibility they might be right.

That's not the same as treating all opinions as equal or lacking strong, well-thought out convictions oneself.

No, but it can sometimes look similar. If you've got well-thought-out convictions, it means that you will require fairly dramatic new information to make you change your mind. And if you have well-thought-out convictions, you have probably already considered and dismissed the popular alternative viewpoints (otherwise it wouldn't be very well thought-out.)

Consider the flat Earth nutters, or the Young Earth creationists. I've heard most of their arguments, and they are complete bollocks. So there are good odds that if some new person comes along bearing pictures of Man and Dinosaur walking hand in hand beside the ark, their argument is going to be isomorphic to the bollocks I've already heard. So I'll listen to the argument, and when it turns out to be the same old bollocks, I'll reach for the same old explanation as to why it's bollocks and move on.

Mr. Creationist might call me close-minded and unwilling to listen to challenges to my scientific beliefs. And it's true in that sense - I'm not considering his personal argument afresh because his argument is the same as some other piece of bollocks I have already thought about.

Posts: 4902 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
"Isomorphic to the bollocks". It's poetry.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9708 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me the issue is not about whether one is a vocal supporter of gay marriage, as I've noted above.

To me the main problem with these so-called "Traditional Christian" values is that they're self-contradictory.

It seems to me to be a fairly basic point that if one wants the rights and protections of living in a liberal democracy, then one has to be prepared to at very least not stand in the way of others rights.

If for no other reason than that if gays are not given protection today then maybe the state will decide that the Roman Catholics deserve no protection tomorrow.

And that's the difference; whereas there are some closed-minded liberal bigots who want to close down anyone who disagrees with their understanding of individual freedom, there is a much larger group of "traditional Christians" who think that God has told them x y and z about various issues and therefore that gives them the right to restrict other people's freedoms.

The vast majority of liberals in the world and on the ship have no wish to close down (for example) churches or mosques which do not have women leaders or do not support gay marriage.

Believe in a religion I find offensive and disgusting. That's absolutely your right. But that doesn't extend as far as you having the right to organise civil society to fit your norms and beliefs.

I agree with all of this.

The question then, is how to engage with people who disagree. Hostility is not the only way.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2077 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I've always been baffled by this lust for truth among the religious - why not just say that it works for me?

Well, I believe it to be Truth. Jesus Christ is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. Not just something that might work for me.

But whilst I hold very strong opinions about Jesus, I recognize that I can't prove them to someone else, because faith doesn't work that way. It's not something that admits proof in the mathematical sense, or even the test of a hypothesis in the scientific sense.

So whilst I am certain that Hindus, for example, are wrong about their beliefs, I recognize that I can't demonstrate that in an objective fashion, and that they are perfectly entitled to think that they are right.

Posts: 4902 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Golden Key wrote:

quote:
...except some of us were *taught* to figure out new words by way of etymology, such as learning Latin- and Greek-based prefixes and suffixes. It was supposed to be a very good and wise thing, and I still find it handy. (A couple of years of Classical Latin helps, too.)
Yes, I know about that kind of teaching. It's OK often, but it can trip you up. Language is endlessly creative. I was thinking yesterday about boats, and 'showboating', very nice word, but not about boats, except historically.

I was thinking that this is off-topic, but it tends to be conservatives who object to language change, such as 'gay' or 'sick' (meaning cool).

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9708 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I've always been baffled by this lust for truth among the religious - why not just say that it works for me?

Well, I believe it to be Truth. Jesus Christ is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. Not just something that might work for me.

But whilst I hold very strong opinions about Jesus, I recognize that I can't prove them to someone else, because faith doesn't work that way. It's not something that admits proof in the mathematical sense, or even the test of a hypothesis in the scientific sense.

So whilst I am certain that Hindus, for example, are wrong about their beliefs, I recognize that I can't demonstrate that in an objective fashion, and that they are perfectly entitled to think that they are right.

Are you really certain that they are wrong? Gulp. I'll tell me ma, and she will clout you with a dishclout.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9708 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
AIUI, some Hindus honor Jesus as an incarnation of God. They just don't think he's the only one.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18178 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, 'phobia' means fear, but 'homophobia' doesn't. Why is this so difficult to get across? Words don't mean the total of their constituent parts, because language changes all the time, so homophobia usually denotes negativity about gays, not fear.

Etymological fallacy.

Hmmm. I think there's a LOT of fear in homophobia in particular. There certainly is in Islamophobia.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17020 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
lilBuddha said
quote:
And the unrest is in challenging ideas.
Yes, if they include our own ideas.
Absolutely. There are plenty of people on this site who will happily castigate fundamentalists for being unwilling to countenance ideas other than their own, while being just as - if not more - unwilling to accept any hint of a challenge to their own ideas.

If you're about to vilify someone for not being prepared to consider the idea that gay marriage is a good thing, then you should be mindful of the fact that you refuse to consider the possibility that it isn't. Closed-mindedness works both ways.

[Roll Eyes] First, hatless' condition to my statement isn't profound, but part of the very statement. As well as something I've said multiple times on this very site.
The challenge to equal marriage from Christian "traditionalists" is that God said so. If one doesn't believe in that particular god, there is nothing to consider.
If one does believe in that particular god, all it takes is a perusal of the pages and pages in DH to find very well considered reasoning.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17128 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me the main problem with these so-called "Traditional Christian" values is that they're self-contradictory.

It seems to me to be a fairly basic point that if one wants the rights and protections of living in a liberal democracy, then one has to be prepared to at very least not stand in the way of others rights.

...

And that's the difference; whereas there are some closed-minded liberal bigots who want to close down anyone who disagrees with their understanding of individual freedom, there is a much larger group of "traditional Christians" who think that God has told them x y and z about various issues and therefore that gives them the right to restrict other people's freedoms.

The historic Nonconformist view is exactly that: that in a secular society everyone should be free to practice their religion and make their opinions known (provided they don't lead to violence etc.) There is no monopoly of one religion by the State, which has to listen to those opinions and aim to bring about a consensus.

Of course, such views (a) were formed when most folks in those countries were (at least nominally) Christian; and (b) have often veered into extreme intolerance. But if adhered to properly, this principle shows that it is both possible to hold strong views and also to be liberal - as I hope to be myself.

[ 27. July 2017, 12:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9478 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You are, like some others on this thread, asking to be allowed to say shitty things about your fellow human beings without having shitty things said to you in return. You want to be treated as a human being even when you are in the very act of advocating that some people be treated as less human than others.

Oh, I am, am I? Tell me. Over the last fifteen years, when and where exactly have you heard me saying "shitty things about my fellow human beings" and "advocating that some people be treated as less human than others? Give me chapter and verse. Where have you seen this behavior in me? Against whom?

Have I denigrated gays, transsexuals, people living together without marriage, immigrants, people who are fat, Democrats, Republicans, non-Christians, the mentally ill, the addicted, those who are disabled? Which people groups have I slurred, and on what occasion?

I am serious. Find me an instance. Where have I suggested that anybody be treated as a second class citizen? Anybody at all. Surely you can find an instance, me being so inflammatory and all. Surely in all these years you can find one.

And if not, then please reconsider your thesis--that I, like "some others," only post these protests because I am a bigoted person who wants to do my brothers and sisters down.

I'd also appreciate an apology for the slur on my motives.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19998 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There is also the question of effect.

The anti-slaver sees all people as having equal worth and believes that no one should own another human being. The slaver sees some groups of people as sub-human and treats them as their property, to dispose of as they wish.

You can argue (as the slavers did) that depriving slavers of their property would cause them economic harm, and would disrupt the flow of cheap raw materials into the market place. And in that respect they were mostly correct. But I would struggle to consider it an argument of equal merit weighed against the privations of slavery. So when it comes to arguments around cakes, it's not that I don't understand the position, but that I do, and find it woeful.

I can entertain an idea without endorsing it, but I don't have to consider it worthy.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8933 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Mr Cheesy, I am aware of your opinion of me. I'm not going to try to fight it. Good day to you.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19998 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is however a notable exception: posts from a conservative perspective that are well-reasoned, coherent, and polite. These simply tend to be ignored altogether, and I find that troubling.

This is one of the mechanisms which makes it so hard to debate when in hostile territory online. If someone with an outside opinion makes a good point it quickly vanishes without note. If someone in the majority does the same, it gets echoed and amplified with a stream of "Great point! Answer that!" comments or upvotes.

Conversely, the mistakes an outsider makes are both easily spotted (with multiple people to notice them) and then magnified as the home team gloats over them.

The minority debater looks bad - their successes are forgotten and their failures celebrated - and the majority get to bond over how stupid their opponents are. I remember IngoB suggesting a one-on-one "duelling" board. At the time it seemed like a bizarre (and very Teutonic) idea. While I still don't like it, now I can understand the frustration he felt.

(For anyone who thinks traditionalist/right-wing Shipmates simply "want special treatment", try spending a few months posting on a conservative or libertarian site - not trolling them, but trying to engage constructively - and see how draining it is.)
quote:
It suggests to me that all those cuddly Democrats haven't really thought their positions through, or aren't really willing for their own ideas to be challenged. They aren't there for interaction, they're there for mutual reassurance - which is hardly unrestful.
We're social creatures. We like being in our own tribe. Also, conflict is exhausting.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
If someone with an outside opinion makes a good point it quickly vanishes without note. If someone in the majority does the same, it gets echoed and amplified with a stream of "Great point! Answer that!" comments or upvotes.

Conversely, the mistakes an outsider makes are both easily spotted (with multiple people to notice them) and then magnified as the home team gloats over them.

Surely this is very prevalent in the world of academe, when someone makes comments which challenge the normal consensus.
Posts: 9478 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The historic Nonconformist view is exactly that: that in a secular society everyone should be free to practice their religion and make their opinions known (provided they don't lead to violence etc.) There is no monopoly of one religion by the State, which has to listen to those opinions and aim to bring about a consensus.

I remember reading about John Bunyan (who paradoxically seems to be remembered as a Baptist but seems more like a Congregationist..) who was imprisoned for preaching without a license or something. He'd been in a long-running dispute with local Quakers via a series of pamphlets. Views ran hot with either side accusing the other of being heretics.

But in the end he made bail and left the prison. The money was put up by... the Quakers.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10330 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools