The Christian Theology Education Thread

[Boo Khaki]

Actually, it's not lack of transparency, it's duplicity that infuriates me.

Three things -

1. Invariably, a huge proportion of the MP's/MSP's in question have never shown any sign of religiosity in the past, yet they suddenly discover it on the day of a conscience vote

2. It's quite clearly nothing more than a cynical move to avoid upsetting the grey/religious element of their own personal constituency electorate, who, while entitled to have their views represented, are also overwhelmingly more likely to actually vote in elections than younger, more progressively minded people. I have no problem with that specifically, because if you can't be arsed to vote then you can't grumble about legislation, but the irritant part is that I can't recall any instance of an MP or MSP basing their election campaign around the fact that they are religious and will vote in accordance with those beliefs when it comes to time to do that, at least, not outside of the fringe 'Christian Party/Family Party/Death to women who have children out of wedlock' loons. Again, cynicism. They know damn fine that will not endear them any to younger, more liberal, or more secularly minded members of their constituency, so they don't do it, but when it comes to an actual vote they are quite happy to pander to folk they have never made any particular appeal to before purely because it's an exercise in self-preservation.

3. Even in cases where it is a genuine reflection of their personal beliefs and conscience, it totally destroys the bullshit of 'I can keep my faith out of my politics' so often espoused by politicians who are known to be religious adherents. When you see what goes on with conscience votes, when MP's often vote completely at odds with the general view of the electorate, is it any wonder folk consider the idea of Kate Forbes becoming FM and shudder? Obviously you can make the same argument about Humza Yousaf, however, Forbes was quite open and brazen with the fact that her religious dogma shapes and plays into her ideas on policy, whereas Humza was quite strident about the fact that he views prevailing public attitude as far more significant than his own personal views.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[Salt n Vinegar]

31 minutes ago, btb said:

Dearie me, right-wing, gray haired god botherers actually, demonstrably exist.

Oh and by the way weren't you the guy who said "I think you can have a distinction between "respecting" beliefs and "respecting" people" - what changed your mind.?

No doubt I'll hear from you again shortly.

Happy to oblige.  The folk exist, but the difference is that TU leaders can represent the views of their members because the members can directly tell them what they want/don't want.  Now, you might think that the Bishops can represent the views of a God and the various Biblical authorities, based on prayers, gospels and maybe even heating voices, but they'd have a hard job being consistent.  I don't recall hearing a Bishop condemn a family to poverty because the parents, particularly perhaps in the case of a male, were reluctant to work. I understand that Paul in Thessalonians 2, in a strangely unchristian manner is alleged to have said (but not in English) "He who does not work, neither shall he eat".

Of course it might be that you think the representatives of Godly views have a reasonable expectation of being able to state their case in the House of Lords, so presumably you'll be advocating for 28 reps of the dozens/hundreds of other Christian sects to be appointed, as well as the thousands of other spokespeople for other Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic "faiths" to receive their representation. Scientologists, perhaps? Hard to argue against that, surely?

People if they wish can express their political and religious views in the same way as everyone else - we all have to look at the "basket" of policies of each party in deciding which candidate to vote for.  If the "religious" really need or deserve an extra input via membership of a legislature, we're going to need a much, much bigger parliament. I'm sure that Christians, particularly in the Church of England sect, wouldn't want to be accused of religious discrimination*.

No. Enough of this.  Placing people in positions of political power who cannot be removed by the governed is anti-democratic. The whole House of Lords needs to go, and they can take the Bishops with them.

* Edit to add... except of course that they are quite content to downplay, maybe even condemn ALL other non-Christian faiths because of John 14:6 "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." He might as well have added... "So the rest of them can bu&&er off" but I have no Biblical or non-Biblical evidence for such a statement. However, it's certainly implied.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Salt n Vinegar

[btb]

Nope, you're just saying one thing on the top of the page and the opposite later on.

[Salt n Vinegar]

8 minutes ago, btb said:

Nope, you're just saying one thing on the top of the page and the opposite later on.

Nonsense. The TUs are representing the declared views of their members in a situation where the TU reps are not members of the Legislature and do not have vote there. The Bishops most definitely are able to advocate for their views in a situation where they DO have a vote. The difference is so stark I'm astounded that folk can't recognise it.

Interesting that some folk talk of respecting other faiths and their followers. As pointed out at the end of my recent email, Christians cannot claim any Biblical authority for that view - in fact the quote states the opposite - and another Abrahamic religion (regardless of which sect) doesn't seem particularly tolerant of either other faiths or those who follow them.

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

On 21/02/2023 at 12:59, scottsdad said:

 Dunfermline, for example, is strongly tied to the cult of St. Margaret. Elgin and Thomas Becket.

 

 

The c**t from Quantum Leap??

[Wee-Bey]

47 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Nonsense. The TUs are representing the declared views of their members in a situation where the TU reps are not members of the Legislature and do not have vote there. The Bishops most definitely are able to advocate for their views in a situation where they DO have a vote. The difference is so stark I'm astounded that folk can't recognise it.

There's a number of Trade Unionists in both the Commons and the Lords.

[jimbaxters]

Just now, Ziggy Sobotka said:

There's a number of Trade Unionists in both the Commons and the Lords.

There will probably some Christians in both of those places too. 

We're doomed!

[TxRover]

On the other hand, the TU leaders can be, and demonstrably sometimes are, recalled/removed from their positions by their followers. The Bishops aren’t subject to such forces, as their regulation proceeds in a retrograde manner to that of the TU. The Bishops direct via the revealed will of God…as they explain it. The TU Leadership can do as they wish, but face direct consequences.

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 hour ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

There's a number of Trade Unionists in both the Commons and the Lords.

Look, this is so simple, a cat can understand it. (And I don't particularly like cats!)

Which Trade Unionists are sitting in the House of Lords because their trades union directly appointed themv as of right? What is the quota for Trade Unionists in the House of Lords? Are the Trades Union members of the House of Lords exempt from the membership vetting process?

 

[Wee-Bey]

11 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Look, this is so simple, a cat can understand it. (And I don't particularly like cats!)

Which Trade Unionists are sitting in the House of Lords because their trades union directly appointed themv as of right? What is the quota for Trade Unionists in the House of Lords? Are the Trades Union members of the House of Lords exempt from the membership vetting process ?

You stated and I'm quoting you directly here.

Quote

2 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

TU reps are not members of the Legislature and do not have vote there

This is false, there are former Trade Union leaders and current  Trade Union members who have a vote in our legislature.

The House of Lords is an anachronism that should be abolished. Until it is, it matters not a jot who put its creatures in there, whether that's Liz Truss, Gordon Brown, The Queen, the Trade Unions or Jesus Christ himself.

[Granny Danger]

7 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

You stated and I'm quoting you directly here.

This is false, there are former Trade Union leaders and current  Trade Union members who have a vote in our legislature.

The House of Lords is an anachronism that should be abolished. Until it is, it matters not a jot who put its creatures in there, whether that's Liz Truss, Gordon Brown, The Queen, the Trade Unions or Jesus Christ himself.

You won’t need to worry about the HoL for much longer.  Strarmer says he’ll reform it when he becomes PM and we all know he’s a man of his word.

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

2 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

You stated and I'm quoting you directly here.

This is false, there are former Trade Union leaders and current  Trade Union members who have a vote in our legislature.

The House of Lords is an anachronism that should be abolished. Until it is, it matters not a jot who put its creatures in there, whether that's Liz Truss, Gordon Brown, The Queen, the Trade Unions or Jesus Christ himself.

Nope. Not having that. There might well be MPs who believe in the Loch Ness Monster but they are not there because they believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Nor are they directly appointed by the Loch Ness Monster Appreciation Society without reference to anyone else. Nor is there a quota for Cowdenbeath supporters, faith healers, homeopaths, astrologers or alchemists.

At least we can agree that the House of Lords should be abolished.  That would remove unelected religious votes from the legislative process.

I note that some Scottish local authorities have removed the voting rights of religious reps on education-related committees, a move that I'd support. The law says that Councils have to appoint religious reps but it is silent on allowing them to vote. (As I understand it.)

[Wee-Bey]

45 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

You won’t need to worry about the HoL for much longer.  Strarmer says he’ll reform it when he becomes PM and we all know he’s a man of his word.

 

The non tory party political right and their media have been a lot more vocal in recent years about the HOL (something, something woke remainers) The media in particular could probably bounce him into doing or saying anything tbh. 

He may well try some reform depending on how much political capital he has although I doubt it would amount to anything more than getting rid of a couple of hereditary peers or a minor dilution of the chamber's power.

[Boo Khaki]

Quote

Loch Ness Monster Appreciation Society

This had better be an actual thing.

"loch ness monster denial" should definitely be an offence in iScotland.

[Doctor Manhattan]

On 05/08/2023 at 22:06, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Alex O'Connor AKA CosmicSkeptic is an atheist YouTuber who I'm a great fan of.  He always debates in good faith and with an open mind.  Articulate and highly intelligent.. I'm also highly jealous of his youth!

Here he takes on Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, who was a huge part in my journey to faith.

The topic is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I challenge anyone to completely understand what they are both on about!  I think I 'got' most of it, but certainly not all!

If you think that one was a mindfuck, check out his latest...

 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

8 hours ago, Doctor Manhattan said:

If you think that one was a mindfuck, check out his latest...

 

Thanks for posting.  Tried to listen last night before bed, but I soon realised it requires a lot of concentration!  Will give it a go later today.  I've got a feeling I'll still be confused

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

Reasonable Faith's last podcast episode is an interesting one:

Genetic Study Confirms Dr. Craig's Model | Podcast | Reasonable Faith

It explains how the latest genetic study adds weight to Dr Craig's hypothesis that humanity did indeed grow from a single couple; the mytho-historical Adam and Eve.

[coprolite]

3 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Reasonable Faith's last podcast episode is an interesting one:

Genetic Study Confirms Dr. Craig's Model | Podcast | Reasonable Faith

It explains how the latest genetic study adds weight to Dr Craig's hypothesis that humanity did indeed grow from a single couple; the mytho-historical Adam and Eve.

The most natural reading of Genesis (what with children of men/ daughters of humans as opposed to the sons/ children of God) is that Adam and Eve are only supposed to be the ancestors of God's people and that other people were about. I think they came out of the ground in some versions, which is pretty consistent with contemporary views on epigenisis. 

Genesis is obviously a few versions if similar stories anthologised. There's no internal consistency to the parts. You could find support for many interpretations in there. 

I do find it a bit weird that fundamentalists are desperate to be the product of incest. 

 

[Granny Danger]

31 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I do find it a bit weird that fundamentalists are desperate to be the product of incest. 

 

I’ve always thought that there would be a big overlap of religious fundamentalism and incest.

Maybe someone could produce a Venn Diagram.

[Doctor Manhattan]

56 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I’ve always thought that there would be a big overlap of religious fundamentalism and incest.

Maybe someone could produce a Venn Diagram.

Not quite what you were after, but in the ballpark...