Posts by Michael Savidge
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Back on topic and more seriously...
Marriage was created by God, it is a divine institution, not one made by man.
A big brave post, so kudos Tess for laying it all out but I can't help but acknowledge the huge reek of romanticism I get from your descriptions of the elements of your beliefs. Many of us spend years hankering for something to believe in (absolutely no patronising intended btw) and we all find, or not, what we need to varying degrees. But it shouldn't be mistaken for any kind of absolute truth or as a divine right to interpret/manipulate human interactions.
Anyway, if you were to vote on a referendum on gay marriage tomorrow, what truth would your conscience follow?
-
<quote>4IC...bummer. It's horrible having too many managers. They've all got their own ideas on how the place should be run, and everyone ends up hating you for trying to implement their conflicting instructions.</quote
But surely these pope chaps know deep down that neither the boss nor the other pretenders are ever going to actually show up and meddle in current affairs, so really, to a large extent, dogma is his baby to dress up in emperor nappies and pimp to the masses as he sees fit.
-
There are a handful of posters on PA who regularly show up to further their agendas without any intention of engaging in honest, open-minded debate on the subject at hand... I propose simply ignoring any posts these egotistical dickwads cough up and get on with the business at hand. We can't, and shouldn't really, ban them, but if we fail to engage or acknowledge them they're likely to wander off to some rancid corner of the net where they're amongst their own kind.
I'd generally agree but for two factors:
- in this case the debate hasn't strayed unworkably far from its origins, and
- others can find the argument instructive, even if some of the antagonists choose not to keep good faith.Right, where's my notebook? First we'll come for Sam F ;)
Good points Sam and I agree in principle. Dammit.
-
Hehe....
Fancy me saying that in the "Stop the Enabling" thread.
-
If I may...
There are a handful of posters on PA who regularly show up to further their agendas without any intention of engaging in honest, open-minded debate on the subject at hand.
You know of whom I speak.
This tends to lead to a general upping of the hostility levels due to the amount of *headdesk* they generate. Meanwhile the course of the debate often gets lost in the fracas that inevitably results.
I propose simply ignoring any posts these egotistical dickwads cough up and get on with the business at hand. We can't, and shouldn't really, ban them, but if we fail to engage or acknowledge them they're likely to wander off to some rancid corner of the net where they're amongst their own kind.
</wishful thinking>
-
It's all academic to me: I don't feel any connection to any church, but I do want to try and understand why people do.
I've tried really hard and failed.
I cannot grasp what drives people to deliberately segregate themselves from each other - under the auspices of faith in a supernatural entity - and then create conflict around the vagaries of their different belief systems.
I'm agog.
And that's putting it politely :)
-
And idea which was strongly influence by the Christian thought of there being God given rights.
The idea of individual rights comes from the Christianised West.
Sigh. You're absolutely right. But that was then. Wouldn't you say we've, ahem, evolved past needing god to tell us what is right and wrong?
-
Churches often maintain important historical buildings, such as cathedrals, which are open to the public.
Which they do partially to sustain their supposed relevance in modern society. Can't see why they should be subsidised to do so.
-
All religions address the rights of others, it's just a question of difference in what people see as positive.
Which is why we have/need universal human rights.
Just cos your godly crew don't like it - oops, I mean 'see it as positive' - doesn't change the fact that it is still discrimination.
Now your local beef farmer is not going to see this as positive, or caring.
I disagree. They may feel frustrated if it affects their sales, but they may still see it as a caring thing for the Krishnas to do.
-
Why? Why should we give tax exemptions to people just because they are religious? And don't tell me that they do good deeds, I have a pretty good idea of what they do, and if we had to start balancing the good deeds with the bad deeds, I think they'd owe the rest of society pretty generous amounts. But again: why waste taxpayers money to support religion?
Oh boy, am I super-duper keen to have this conversation!