"Labour neglects Church of England" says Church of England report

rjt · 09-06-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

Except me not supporting a welfare state doesn't harm anyone else through my action, you supporting your religious views in politics does.

In my view the dismantling of the welfare state could lead to mass poverty, do you not think I consider that harmfull?

Smidgey · 09-06-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjt

In my view the dismantling of the welfare state could lead to mass poverty, do you not think I consider that harmfull?

But it is not harmful through my action - I did not inflict that harm.

Not to mention, that the welfare state is created on the back of an inflicted harm in the first place and no Christian who accepts their ten commandments should support it without being a hypocrite.

rjt · 09-06-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

But it is not harmful through my action - I did not inflict that harm.

Not to mention, that the welfare state is created on the back of an inflicted harm in the first place and no Christian who accepts their ten commandments should support it without being a hypocrite.

You could be seen to be inflicting harm as an MP voting against it if people suffered because of your actions.

I would be intrested to know why, as I am a christian I am a hypocrite for saying there should be a welfare state, although I susport a much smaller one than at present?

Smidgey · 09-06-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjt

You could be seen to be inflicting harm as an MP voting against it if people suffered because of your actions.

I don't think you get where I'm coming from. Try an analogy: Were those who voted to abolish the slave trade causing harm because they removed the profit from the plantations?

Quote:

I would be intrested to know why, as I am a christian I am a hypocrite for saying there should be a welfare state, although I susport a much smaller one than at present?

Because of the eighth commandment. In order to fund this welfare state you are going to have to violate that commandment every time you vote or use a public service.

Aardvark · 09-06-2008, 06:35 PM

Smidgey,

Who would get to sit in your Parliament?

Those who dealt in slaves might have used the odd bit of Judaist language from the Old Testament to support slavery, but the New Testament gives no support to that aberration.

The 70% who are notionally Christian should be able to influence the structure of society lest there is a dictatorship of the minority. Although majority rule doesn't lead to a perfect democracy, the rule of a minority definitely impacts on the rights of the majority. In fact most people vote on the basis of party loyalty rather than loyalty to a religious denomination, but religious people, being apparently the overwhelming majority of the population, should cerainly be allowed to vote as they see fit.

It is impossible to separate religion from politics since the 2 are intermeshed in the most complex of fashions. The secular minority will always argue against the religious majority that they know best, but even their views ar conditioned by the overwhelmingly Christian nature of the western world, where they live in the west, or the Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist or Shinto or Confucianism society in which they were raised if elsewhere.

I think the second commandment tends to support the welfare state.

Smidgey · 09-06-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Smidgey,

Who would get to sit in your Parliament?

Practically speaking or ideally speaking?

Quote:

Those who dealt in slaves might have used the odd bit of Judaist language from the Old Testament to support slavery, but the New Testament gives no support to that aberration.

It doesn't give a condemnation of it either - despite talking about it several times; Matthew 10:24, John; 13:16, in fact, in the former verse, Jesus himself says that slaves should strive to be more like their masters.

Quote:

The 70% who are notionally Christian should be able to influence the structure of society lest there is a dictatorship of the minority.

They can and they will. You are confusing society and state.

Quote:

Although majority rule doesn't lead to a perfect democracy, the rule of a minority definitely impacts on the rights of the majority.

Not necessarily. Dictatorship of the minority might.

Quote:

In fact most people vote on the basis of party loyalty rather than loyalty to a religious denomination, but religious people, being apparently the overwhelming majority of the population, should cerainly be allowed to vote as they see fit.

I'm not sure I agree (this goes for people in general, not just religious people).

Quote:

It is impossible to separate religion from politics since the 2 are intermeshed in the most complex of fashions. The secular minority will always argue against the religious majority that they know best, but even their views ar conditioned by the overwhelmingly Christian nature of the western world, where they live in the west, or the Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist or Shinto or Confucianism society in which they were raised if elsewhere.

I don't see what my libertarianism has to do with Christianity. Just because the history of our nation is a Christian one (which has hindered us greatly in the past) does not mean that the individual ideas of democracy, liberty, etc are. They may have been implemented by a Christian, in fact, they most probably were, but that does not make them Christian. I think you are confusing circumstance with necessity.

Quote:

I think the second commandment tends to support the welfare state.

Surely not, what has graven images or taking false gods got to do with the welfare state?

For_England · 09-06-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

P.S. voting according to ones conscience as opposed to voting according to evidence or argument is a very poor way of decision making - perhaps it would be best if it were excluded.

Why do you insist upon this puerile distinction between 'religion' and 'reason'? Don't kid yourself that atheists alone use 'reason', and the religious 'faith'. The very fact there are theists and atheists is evidence that we cannot know with absolute certainty the truth of our reality. What you are in fact advocating is that atheism be considered the truth, and any other view shut out of the decision-making process - in other words, because you believe atheism is true, you are stating that only atheists should be allowed to influence the political process with their views, that arise out of their worldview, but not anyone else.

Smidgey · 09-06-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by For_England

Why do you insist upon this puerile distinction between 'religion' and 'reason'? Don't kid yourself that atheists alone use 'reason', and the religious 'faith'. The very fact there are theists and atheists is evidence that we cannot know with absolute certainty the truth of our reality. What you are in fact advocating is that atheism be considered the truth, and any other view shut out of the decision-making process - in other words, because you believe atheism is true, you are stating that only atheists should be allowed to influence the political process with their views, that arise out of their worldview, but not anyone else.

When did I make such a distinction?

I was hemmed into talking about conscience because it was a reply to Rjt's post. This was an argument about making decisions by conscience, or faith, not about whether religion used reason or not.

BonnieDundee · 10-06-2008, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

Keep looking. For years I thought exactly the same until suddenly it all dropped into place.

At first I thought that I was totally wrong.

Then I realised that I wasn't.

This wasn't around the time of 9/11 or the London bombings was it?

Quote:

Islam has its place. It's place isn't here in our society nor in our time. For one thing democracy is anathema in Islam and for me that’s more than good enough reason to utterly reject it, for another the very name relates to submission, not submission to the alleged will of the God of the Jews and the Christians, but to the will of a duplicitous individual who claimed he had been given a series of messages.

Well a sceptic could say the same of the Christians and Jews. As I have said before Judaism is extremely different to Xtianity and learned Jews looking at Xtian theology and belief would say that those who formed what is now orthodox(ie conventional not the eastern churches.) xtianity knew little about real Judaism and are therefore frauds.

Quote:

Funny how these messages changed and even contradicted themselves as his needs changed over time though.

I'm getting that your knowledge of early xtianity is not brilliant. It is part Judaism, part Greek/Roman philosophy and part pagan myth which is all channeled together and weeded out to create something to help the orthodox elites and often benefit them.

Quote:

Islam is of the distant past. It can not be changed to bring it up to date despite what so many claim, it demands that where what we do today is at odds with Islam it is what we do that must be changed.

Suff Islam....better than most Niceane Xtian sects.

Quote:

Then of course there is the “know the tree by its fruit”. The sad part is that the fruit of Islam frequently explodes killing people.

Xtians didn't have the guts, they just burnt them.

BonnieDundee · 10-06-2008, 04:17 AM

Quote:

It is impossible to separate religion from politics since the 2 are intermeshed in the most complex of fashions. The secular minority will always argue against the religious majority that they know best, but even their views ar conditioned by the overwhelmingly Christian nature of the western world, where they live in the west, or the Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist or Shinto or Confucianism society in which they were raised if elsewhere.

Now there are two religions which I wish Westerners were taking up. Particularly Taoism, very libertarian.

09-06-2008, 06:35 PM	#35 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,975	Smidgey, Who would get to sit in your Parliament? Those who dealt in slaves might have used the odd bit of Judaist language from the Old Testament to support slavery, but the New Testament gives no support to that aberration. The 70% who are notionally Christian should be able to influence the structure of society lest there is a dictatorship of the minority. Although majority rule doesn't lead to a perfect democracy, the rule of a minority definitely impacts on the rights of the majority. In fact most people vote on the basis of party loyalty rather than loyalty to a religious denomination, but religious people, being apparently the overwhelming majority of the population, should cerainly be allowed to vote as they see fit. It is impossible to separate religion from politics since the 2 are intermeshed in the most complex of fashions. The secular minority will always argue against the religious majority that they know best, but even their views ar conditioned by the overwhelmingly Christian nature of the western world, where they live in the west, or the Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist or Shinto or Confucianism society in which they were raised if elsewhere. I think the second commandment tends to support the welfare state. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode