Religion, State, and the New Christian Spirit

[Tiassa]

What is your definition of sin?

Footsteps, as Tiassa runs away...

Y'know, for someone who pretends such ignorance¹, maybe that's not the smartest tone to strike.

So, compared to a prospect of hypocrisy↗, you would prefer a general survey of sin? Let's just be clear, here: Faced with the prospect of a Christianity that inflicts suffering, you're going to go with handbags and "what is your definition of sin"?

And changing the subject to Muslims?

I think atheists should be more concerned with Islamism, personally.

Yeah, sounds about right.
____________________

Notes:

¹ See, #38↑, "I'm from England and ignore the news and politics as much as possible, it can be a trigger for depression"; #46↑, "I'm ignorant with British politics so no chance with American ones, apart from Trump, he is the only politician that interests me for better or worse, so can't comment."​

 

[davewhite04]

Y'know, for someone who pretends such ignorance¹, maybe that's not the smartest tone to strike.

So, compared to a prospect of hypocrisy↗, you would prefer a general survey of sin? Let's just be clear, here: Faced with the prospect of a Christianity that inflicts suffering, you're going to go with handbags and "what is your definition of sin"?

You said:

"And the Christians in these discussions, well, there's always a reason they're uninformed or unaware, but it just isn't surprising, anymore, when they somehow end up supporting sin. " - Tiassa

What do you mean by sin here? I took it personally and so wanted an explanation for the reason I "sinned".

So, I'll ask again, what is your definition of sin?

And changing the subject to Muslims?

From what? You seem to have the mythical memory of an elephant. There would of been a reason, you just didn't catch it.

Yeah, sounds about right.

Let's assume this is sarcasm. You really know nothing about the Quran, or ignore it to suit your swipe.

Notes:

¹ See, #38↑, "I'm from England and ignore the news and politics as much as possible, it can be a trigger for depression"; #46↑, "I'm ignorant with British politics so no chance with American ones, apart from Trump, he is the only politician that interests me for better or worse, so can't comment."​

Sometimes the news is unavoidable on the internet, even in social media which I dabble with(youtube).

Is this a guilty pleasure? Attempting to assassinate peoples character, do you think you're some sort of authoritative judge, sitting on a seat made of sand?

 

[James R]

Trump has a tendency to say just the right things for the Christian voters, and maybe even inspire them. He says he's read the bible, and I think he said it's his favortie book.

It's a cynical ploy on Trump's part to try to get Christians to vote for him. For some reason, apparently a lot of evangelical Christians in the US are also Trumpists. Maybe it's because of the whole prosperity gospel preaching. They think God must support Trump because they believe Trump has lots of money. If they support Trump too, maybe God will give them lots of money, too.

Trump is an atheist. He was asked recently which parts of the bible he most admired. He said all of it. When asked to choose the Old or New Testament, he couldn't distinguish the two. When asked if he had any particular favorite bible verses, he couldn't give a single example of any verse. I doubt that he has ever read any of the bible.

I wonder how sincere he is, maybe I'm the cynical one.

Seriously? You're wonder how sincere Donald Trump is? Have you been living under a rock for the past 9 years?

Sorry Tiassa, I'm ignorant with British politics so no chance with American ones, apart from Trump, he is the only politician that interests me for better or worse, so can't comment on Mike Johnson.

What interests you about Trump?

I think atheists should be more concerned with Islamism, personally.

As compared to what?

Am I right in saying school shootings, or shootouts full stop are America's biggest killer?

You're undoubtedly wrong. It's probably the usual: cancer, heart disease, etc. Car accidents are greater killers by far than spree shooters. It's not even close.

The Christian message taught properly is a one of peace and sense of community, no other religion can come close to it.

There's the problem. Every Christian has his own ideas of how the message is to be taught "properly". It's why there are so many denominations and sects.

Obviously you get the odd pervert Pastor or Priest but for everyone of them there are 100k none perverts.

You hope. I'm not saying you're wrong, but what you just said isn't actually based on any data, is it?

In other words we don't need religion but atheism doesn't work...

What do you imagine atheism is supposed to "work" for? Atheism isn't a religion.

Meanwhile, secular humanism is working very well. The most peaceful countries, with the happiest people, are also the most secular ones.

 

[davewhite04]

It's a cynical ploy on Trump's part to try to get Christians to vote for him. For some reason, apparently a lot of evangelical Christians in the US are also Trumpists. Maybe it's because of the whole prosperity gospel preaching. They think God must support Trump because they believe Trump has lots of money. If they support Trump too, maybe God will give them lots of money, too.

All you have said is pure speculation.

Trump is an atheist. He was asked recently which parts of the bible he most admired. He said all of it. When asked to choose the Old or New Testament, he couldn't distinguish the two. When asked if he had any particular favorite bible verses, he couldn't give a single example of any verse. I doubt that he has ever read any of the bible.

Speculation, probably because of your own personal hatred of Trump.

Seriously? You're wonder how sincere Donald Trump is? Have you been living under a rock for the past 9 years?

He seems more sincere than Biden, who has been a disaster. Trump did well in the middle east, he met the North Korean leader(first president in decades, if not a century), he didn't start a war with Iran when a plane supposedly full of Canadians flew from the Ukraine and was brought down by Iranian defence missiles, the liberal Canadian PM wanted blood, Trump didn't because he knew the consequences. He got rid of the bulk of ISIS in a couple of weeks, no Islamic extremism while in charge. The war Russia initiated would never of happened under Trump, this China aggressive stance was in check with Trump, he did his fair share of good things. What about Hilary Clinton and her emails she deleted, or the ties between Biden and his son with Russia/China? I don't think you like his hairstyle. He could of handled COVID better, but look at how we deal with it now. You are allowed to work with COVID, you have total freedom with COVID.

What did Trump do wrong? Inciting riots on capitol hill maybe, but he did try and stop it.

What interests you about Trump?

I think he is a great speaker and an excellent problem solver.

You're undoubtedly wrong. It's probably the usual: cancer, heart disease, etc. Car accidents are greater killers by far than spree shooters. It's not even close.

My point was that the USA has problems with gun violence, major ones.

EDIT: Forgot, he's a character something that is as rare as hens teeth in politics in the USA/UK.

 

[foghorn]

To repeat, the views of religious leaders reflect the views of significant groups in society. What I am arguing for is for religious and other significant groups to be able to have a say in the debates. It creates a spirit of respect and inclusiveness which is important and they just may, on some occasions, point out elephant traps on social or community issues that legislators might want to think about. That's all. It's what the advisory role of the Lords is for. But when it comes to amending legislation the House of Lords of course votes as a body. There is a mere handful of Lords Spiritual. This is never going to be decisive in a vote, unless the point they have raised commands widespread support.

Furthermore, keep in mind the House of Lords is only a revising chamber. It neither brings forward legislation of its own, nor can it veto legislation. All it can do is propose amendments for the House of Commons to consider. But the Commons is not bound to act on those amendments. The Lords can send a bill back to the Commons with amendments for reconsideration twice only. On the 3rd time it comes to them from the Commons they have to let it go. So the elected chamber gets the last word and can ignore the Lords if it really wants to.

On the specific issue of sexual inequality in religion, you might want to consider why it is that no democracy imposes its sexual equality legislation on religious hierarchies. We don't force them to elect women priests or imams, just because right-thinking people in Islington might think that is the morally correct thing to do. Why do you think that is?

P.S. I've dug out the text of the relevant UK legislation:

790.This specific exception applies to employment for the purposes of an organised religion, which is intended to cover a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion and a small number of lay posts, including those that exist to promote and represent religion. Where employment is for the purposes of an organised religion, this paragraph allows the employer to apply a requirement to be of a particular sex or not to be a transsexual person, or to make a requirement related to the employee’s marriage or civil partnership status or sexual orientation, but only if –

• appointing a person who meets the requirement in question is a proportionate way of complying with the doctrines of the religion; or,
  
• because of the nature or context of the employment, employing a person who meets the requirement is a proportionate way of avoiding conflict with a significant number of the religion’s followers’ strongly held religious convictions.

791.The requirement must be crucial to the post, and not merely one of several important factors. It also must not be a sham or pretext. Applying the requirement must be a proportionate way of meeting either of the two criteria described in paragraph 790 above.

792.The requirement can also be applied by a qualifications body in relation to a relevant qualification (within the meaning of section 54), if the qualification is for employment for the purposes of an organised religion and either of the criteria described in paragraph 790 above is met.

From: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1

Thank you, I will read it later.
How many religious leaders would you think sufficient to provide representation of the faiths?

 

[exchemist]

Thank you, I will read it later.
How many religious leaders would you think sufficient to provide representation of the faiths?

Not many. A similar sort of representation as there was at Charles’s coronation, I should think.

 

[foghorn]

So we shouldn't have had male soccer teams before we had women soccer teams?

Dave, in the lords there are bishops that represent their faith organisation. These people can advise on government policies before they become law in the Commons.
Now, there are some people asking for more faiths to be represented in the lords. I don’t like this because of sexual inequality in others faiths.
Soccer, nothing is stopping men and women making up a mixed soccer team to play another mixed team.
There's nothing stopping a male team playing a female team, that's if they want to?
There are some faith organisations where women can't achieve some faith ranks because they are women.

 

[Pinball1970]

What did Trump do wrong? Inciting riots on capitol hill maybe, but he did try and stop it.

He is is not ethical man Dave, not the man you want heading up a superpower.
We could do a pros and cons but that's another thread.
He is no Christian, he is a liar and completely ignorant of the Bible.
Only a complete idiot would not distinguish between old and new testament.
Or perhaps someone who does not give a crap about Moses or Jesus but knows he could get votes by pretending to be Christian?

 

[gmilam]

What did Trump do wrong? Inciting riots on capitol hill maybe, but he did try and stop it.

Seriously?

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...mps-91-criminal-charges-and-where-they-stand/

 

[Yazata]

There are life peers - who are appointed for the duration of their life only.

I'm an American so I'm sort of out-of-line telling Britons how to run their country. But seeing as how Britons never tire of telling Americans like me how to run the United States, I'll blather away.

I fundamentally dislike the current format of the House of Lords. The idea of a politically appointed house of Parliament just seems wrong to me. You might as well call it the House of the Establishment, which is kind of what it was when it was populated by actual hereditary Lords. Except in their case they better represented British tradition than the current bunch.

So... why not get rid of the House of Lords entirely? Just keep an elected Commons and move to a unicameral legislature.

If Britain did that, I'd like to see the current chamber of the House of Lords used to house a devolved English parliament, on the model of the Scottish parliament.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm an American so I'm sort of out-of-line telling Britons how to run their country. But seeing as how Britons never tire of telling Americans like me how to run the United States, I'll blather away.

Feel free to blather away... we can't tell you that you're wrong unless you do!

I fundamentally dislike the current format of the House of Lords. The idea of a politically appointed house of Parliament just seems wrong to me. You might as well call it the House of the Establishment, which is kind of what it was when it was populated by actual hereditary Lords. Except in their case they better represented British tradition than the current bunch.

FWIW, many in the UK also dislike the current structure. The Labour party are wanting to reform it, but the question the they're struggling with is just how far to go.

You need to bear in mind, however, that the House of Lords is not particularly powerful. They're there mostly to sense-check the Bills, and to hold the Government to account as far as they can, but ultimately they can't really stop the government. They can introduce Bills, but if a Government with a majority doesn't like it then it won't happen.

So... why not get rid of the House of Lords entirely? Just keep an elected Commons and move to a unicameral legislature.

Because of our method of electing members of parliament, a party could receive only 40% of the popular vote yet have a significant majority in government. You would then have a party able to make sweeping changes with no oversight, which is what the HoL offers.
If we had proportional representation then things might be different. But we don't. So I think we need some form of sense-check, even if ultimately they are somewhat limited.
Reform, yes, but removal, I'm not so sure.

If Britain did that, I'd like to see the current chamber of the House of Lords used to house a devolved English parliament, on the model of the Scottish parliament.

It has been touted before but doing so would likely strip many of the powers from the UK government and thereby likely diminish the idea of the UK as a union. But it's not an unreasonable suggestion. Also, given that England is c.84% of the UK by population, it would seem to be unnecessary.

 

[davewhite04]

Dave, in the lords there are bishops that represent their faith organisation. These people can advise on government policies before they become law in the Commons.
Now, there are some people asking for more faiths to be represented in the lords. I don’t like this because of sexual inequality in others faiths.
Soccer, nothing is stopping men and women making up a mixed soccer team to play another mixed team.
There's nothing stopping a male team playing a female team, that's if they want to?
There are some faith organisations where women can't achieve some faith ranks because they are women.

All I'm suggesting is women are behind the times. You have to not like soccer(religion) if you think men shouldn't have played it first.

You could have a woman linesman or referee for a mans game, but at the top level playing a woman player would be stupid. They will never be as good at soccer then men, simple as. At some stage you have to accept that women are inferior to men in most sporting things, perhaps all. What's wrong with that?

As far as faith goes, well this passage 5:21-24 is the Christian point of view. It hasn't worked out because most men are losers but it should be the case.

 

[davewhite04]

He is is not ethical man Dave, not the man you want heading up a superpower.
We could do a pros and cons but that's another thread.
He is no Christian, he is a liar and completely ignorant of the Bible.
Only a complete idiot would not distinguish between old and new testament.
Or perhaps someone who does not give a crap about Moses or Jesus but knows he could get votes by pretending to be Christian?

He may be slightly unread but I have seen more Christian in him than Hilary Clinton and Job Biden put together.

He arranged, while president(nothing to gain) have meets with all the Christian leaders in the USA.

He might not know the bible, and he might be a bit of a prick, but the alternatives are far worse.

 

[davewhite04]

Seriously?

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...mps-91-criminal-charges-and-where-they-stand/

Just leftists(the bad guys) setting him up, they hate him and what he stands for. You want the woke movement and the corrupt blm vote Biden.


EDIT: And Islamic extremism and the war in Ukraine and the aggression of the Chinese.

 

[James R]

davewhite04:

All you have said is pure speculation.

Not all of it, but sure, there's some speculation there.

Since Trump is an atheist who clearly knows very little about Christianity, I think it's fair to assume that he is doing whatever he thinks will get him the evangelical vote. If pretending to be Christian gets him the votes, he'll certainly do that. He's a well documented serial liar, after all. Why would you expect honesty from him?

It's not speculation that a lot of evangelical Christians support Trump. How do we know they support him? Because they tell us so.

The bit about prosperity gospel influence is my own speculation, but preaching the prosperity gospel is not something I made up. Are you aware of it?

The parts where I reported on what Trump said when asked about the bible are not speculation. The relevant interview is online, so you can hear Trump answering those questions in his own words if you want to go looking.

And the bit about Trump being an atheist? Well, Trump is a public figure whose past statements are often part of the public record. Certainly, in past years when he was asked about his religious beliefs, he said he didn't believe in God. That was before he ran for President for the first time, of course, because in America any atheist who is 'out' is unelectable as President in the current climate. So, once Trump threw his hat in the ring in 2016, suddenly he was a believer. Or so he claims. But in the past 8 years, it seems he still hasn't got around to opening his bible.

Speculation, probably because of your own personal hatred of Trump.

I don't hate Trump. I don't hate anybody.

I think - as I thought back in 2016 - that Trump is completely unqualified and unsuitable to be the leader of the United States. More that that, I now believe that he represents a clear and present danger to American democracy. Trump is a would-be dictator. He admires the tin pot dictators of the world, such as Putin and Kim Jong Un. He cares only for enriching himself. Anything beyond that is purely for show and votes. He lied continually when he was President. He is a habitual liar who will say anything to gain or retain power.

This is not a man you want to hand the nuclear briefcase to.

He seems more sincere than Biden, who has been a disaster.

What are you referring to? Under Biden, the US economy has improved markedly and continues to do so. Biden has repaired some of the international relationships that Trump damaged or broke while he was in office.

Trump did well in the middle east...

What did he do well at?

... he met the North Korean leader(first president in decades, if not a century)...

... after labelling said leader "little rocket man". And what was achieved by Trump's meeting with Kim? Today, North Korea is still building and firing missiles, while threatening South Korea and nearby nations in the usual way. North Korea's people are oppressed, poor and largely miserable, while their tin pot dictator leader hoards the country's wealth for himself, his family and his cronies. And Trump, of course, admires the guy.

..., he didn't start a war with Iran when a plane supposedly full of Canadians flew from the Ukraine and was brought down by Iranian defence missiles...

What do you mean "supposedly"?

..., the liberal Canadian PM wanted blood, Trump didn't because he knew the consequences.

I'm not sure who or what you're relying on for those 'facts' and that analysis.

He got rid of the bulk of ISIS in a couple of weeks...

Er... what?

..., no Islamic extremism while in charge.

Er... what?

The war Russia initiated would never of happened under Trump...

Why not? Are you imagining that Trump could have somehow talked Putin out of his nationalistic expansionist policy making? Putin regards Trump as a convenient fool. Why do you think that Russia tampered with the 2016 US elections? Putin wanted Trump as President, because he's so easy for Putin to manipulate. It's because Trump admires Putin, another tin pot dictator.

... this China aggressive stance was in check with Trump, he did his fair share of good things.

What did Trump do to keep China's aggressive stance in check, exactly?

What about Hilary Clinton and her emails she deleted, or the ties between Biden and his son with Russia/China?

Official investigations found no major wrongdoing by Clinton regarding any emails. On the other hand, one of Trump's pending court cases involves his illegal retention of hoards of classified documents. Have you heard about that?

There is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong in regards to Hunter Biden's dealings in Russia. I don't know what you're referring to regarding China.

I don't think you like his hairstyle.

Do you seriously think I care about how the Orange One styles his hair?

Did you not like Hillary Clinton's hairstyle?

He could of handled COVID better, but look at how we deal with it now. You are allowed to work with COVID, you have total freedom with COVID.

How would you recommend that nations approach Covid, these days?

What did Trump do wrong? Inciting riots on capitol hill maybe, but he did try and stop it.

So he set it off, but then ... what? He tried to stop it? Tell me, dave. How long did it take after the rioters started breaking into the Capitol before Trump made any public statement?

I think he is a great speaker and an excellent problem solver.

Have you actually watched any of his rambling speeches?

What problems has he solved?

My point was that the USA has problems with gun violence, major ones.

I agree. Has Trump said anything at all about taking steps to reduce or stop that violence? By, for instance, advocating for gun control? No?

EDIT: Forgot, he's a character something that is as rare as hens teeth in politics in the USA/UK.

Would-be dictators, you mean? Isn't that a good thing?

 

[James R]

Just leftists(the bad guys) setting him up, they hate him and what he stands for.

Leftists setting him up? How? Got any examples?

More generally, what's your issue with "leftists", exactly? Are you a "rightist"? What have the "leftists" done that is so terrible, and what do you think Trump will do to fix it?

What do you think he stands for?

 

[foghorn]

All I'm suggesting is women are behind the times. You have to not like soccer(religion) if you think men shouldn't have played it first.
You could have a woman linesman or referee for a mans game, but at the top level playing a woman player would be stupid. They will never be as good at soccer then men, simple as. At some stage you have to accept that women are inferior to men in most sporting things, perhaps all. What's wrong with that?

You made a soccer analogy to show why women (in your opinion) should be limited to certain faith ranks in faith organisations.
And would that be because you think women's intellect is not equal to a man’s in the case of faith ranks. My bold below.

I just think men and women's brains work differently, and they haven't(women), perhaps, been able to explore their intellect to its full potential, so I guess we'll see what happens.

Well, women won't be getting to the top faith rank in Dave’s idea of christianity.

 

[gmilam]

Just leftists(the bad guys) setting him up, they hate him and what he stands for. You want the woke movement and the corrupt blm vote Biden.


EDIT: And Islamic extremism and the war in Ukraine and the aggression of the Chinese.

In case you haven't noticed, the people coming forward and testifying against him are his own people. But then again, you don't follow the news. you prefer willful ignorance.

 

[davewhite04]

You made a soccer analogy to show why women (in your opinion) should be limited to certain faith ranks in faith organisations.
And would that be because you think women's intellect is not equal to a man’s in the case of faith ranks. My bold below.

Stop twisting my words. You said "There is nothing wrong with having a mixed sex soccer team" I explained the reason why it wouldn't happen in the top flight teams in the world. My soccer analogy broke at this point.

Well, women won't be getting to the top faith rank in Dave’s idea of christianity.

Faith has got nothing to do with intellect. There are already women getting to the top of faith ranks, there are already women Archbishops. So stop trying to make me out to be some sort of sexist. You just don't like religion full stop, admit it(and you probably don't like soccer).

 

[davewhite04]

In case you haven't noticed, the people coming forward and testifying against him are his own people. But then again, you don't follow the news. you prefer willful ignorance.

I'm not surprised, probably to squeeze more money out of him.He's an easy target atm.

When your such an affluent man like Donald J Trump, you get a lot of haters, basically jealousy.