Established Religion Is So Evil ...

[Mike the Progressive]

The Church of England is a mere political tool of the UK government, it's unnecessary and pointless. It doesn't change because it's convicted to do so, it changes when it's told to change, there's a reason why there are so few practicing members left, both in the UK and in its American province, the Episcopal Church.

[Farnhamia]

The Church of England is a mere political tool of the UK government, it's unnecessary and pointless. It doesn't change because it's convicted to do so, it changes when it's told to change, there's a reason why there are so few practicing members left, both in the UK and in its American province, the Episcopal Church.

"Convicted"?

[Mike the Progressive]

The Church of England is a mere political tool of the UK government, it's unnecessary and pointless. It doesn't change because it's convicted to do so, it changes when it's told to change, there's a reason why there are so few practicing members left, both in the UK and in its American province, the Episcopal Church.

"Convicted"?

Hmmm.

[Shadowlandistan]

Religion is horrible, we should phase it out ASAP!

[Johz]

I think the archbishop of Canterbury trying to force parliament not to pass any laws legalizing gay marriage means the CoE still isn't a force for good, no matter how tolerant it is.
One of the things I really hate about my country is that people seem to think religious figures like the Archbishop deserve a say in the law-making process. They don't. He runs the church, not the country. Until he gets elected as an MP, he has no right to tell the government what they can and can't do.

The Archbishop (iirc) has not yet spoken officially about the proposals, except to urge the government to consider everything carefully.

Although why shouldn't religious people have a say in the law-making process? They represent a large proportion of the people of the country, and have a strong insight into the lives of ordinary people. In a House of Lords that is theoretically made up of experts in their fields, the bishops perhaps are the experts in the opinion of the populace - the elected part of a largely unelected institution. They are supported as well by more than just the Christian faith - Jewish and Muslim leaders agree with them on the grounds that they represent religion as a whole, rather than just Christianity.

[Terruana]

I think the archbishop of Canterbury trying to force parliament not to pass any laws legalizing gay marriage means the CoE still isn't a force for good, no matter how tolerant it is.
One of the things I really hate about my country is that people seem to think religious figures like the Archbishop deserve a say in the law-making process. They don't. He runs the church, not the country. Until he gets elected as an MP, he has no right to tell the government what they can and can't do.

The Archbishop (iirc) has not yet spoken officially about the proposals, except to urge the government to consider everything carefully.

Although why shouldn't religious people have a say in the law-making process? They represent a large proportion of the people of the country, and have a strong insight into the lives of ordinary people. In a House of Lords that is theoretically made up of experts in their fields, the bishops perhaps are the experts in the opinion of the populace - the elected part of a largely unelected institution. They are supported as well by more than just the Christian faith - Jewish and Muslim leaders agree with them on the grounds that they represent religion as a whole, rather than just Christianity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rbury.html

I beg to disagree.
And religious people should get the same say as everyone else in the country. They should get to vote, or stand for election as an MP.
Also, we elect bishops now? Funny, I thought the church just chose who could be a bishop or not. How come we can't have female bishops yet then?

Also, bishops are in no way representative of the general population. What about the 39% of the UK who aren't religious? That's what MPs are for. Y'know, the people you actually get to vote for.

EDIT: oops, put the wrong link. Sorry

[Mavorpen]

[quote="Orcoa";p="9536331"]I find that most who are "Against" not just christianity but all organized religion have either been in the faith growing up and has grown out of it out for many reasons...or they are doing it because Richard Darwin commands them to do so

Also, its not mostly the religion that people get pissed off about its more the leadership not following the teachings of their religion.[/quote
No, the religion does suck.

[Orcoa]

I find that most who are "Against" not just christianity but all organized religion have either been in the faith growing up and has grown out of it out for many reasons...or they are doing it because Richard Darwin commands them to do so

Also, its not mostly the religion that people get pissed off about its more the leadership not following the teachings of their religion.[/quote
No, the religion does suck.

No, you're opinion sucks and that no one really cares. Just kidding of course, I don't really mind if someone mocks my religion. I have just learned to deal with it and know that people have different opinions on such things. You can thank NSG for that!

Oh and if I remember correctly, you are a Buddhist no?

[Auralia]

"Progressive" churches that "change with the times" scare me. A lot. Christianity is based on absolute morality - in my opinion, churches which reject that principle aren't really Christian, and certainly aren't worthy of my membership or faith. That's why I'm a Roman Catholic.

[Johz]

The Archbishop (iirc) has not yet spoken officially about the proposals, except to urge the government to consider everything carefully.

Although why shouldn't religious people have a say in the law-making process? They represent a large proportion of the people of the country, and have a strong insight into the lives of ordinary people. In a House of Lords that is theoretically made up of experts in their fields, the bishops perhaps are the experts in the opinion of the populace - the elected part of a largely unelected institution. They are supported as well by more than just the Christian faith - Jewish and Muslim leaders agree with them on the grounds that they represent religion as a whole, rather than just Christianity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rbury.html

I beg to disagree.
And religious people should get the same say as everyone else in the country. They should get to vote, or stand for election as an MP.
Also, we elect bishops now? Funny, I thought the church just chose who could be a bishop or not. How come we can't have female bishops yet then?

Also, bishops are in no way representative of the general population. What about the 39% of the UK who aren't religious? That's what MPs are for. Y'know, the people you actually get to vote for.

EDIT: oops, put the wrong link. Sorry

Okay you're right. I'm clearly a month or two out of date.

That would be a valid point if we had any sort of nationally-elected representative in the house of Lords. Currently we do not. The bishops attempt to represent all people - including atheists if their rights were to be threatened - for example when fighting the benefit reform bill.

[Orcoa]

"Progressive" churches that "change with the times" scare me. A lot. Christianity is based on absolute morality - in my opinion, churches which reject that principle aren't really Christian, and certainly aren't worthy of my membership or faith. That's why I'm a Roman Catholic.

Then I feel bad for you, because The Roman Catholic Church is nothing like what Christ had set us out to do. It uses it power and money that he has earned to force their quite frankly sick and pig headed views on their followers who if I remember don't even agree on what the church does.

The Progressive Churches I find are more to what Christ wanted us to do, to be there for all mankind and not the few of the mighty, to fight agasint injustice of those powerful few, and to love all mankind no matter who or what they are.

[Terruana]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rbury.html

I beg to disagree.
And religious people should get the same say as everyone else in the country. They should get to vote, or stand for election as an MP.
Also, we elect bishops now? Funny, I thought the church just chose who could be a bishop or not. How come we can't have female bishops yet then?

Also, bishops are in no way representative of the general population. What about the 39% of the UK who aren't religious? That's what MPs are for. Y'know, the people you actually get to vote for.

EDIT: oops, put the wrong link. Sorry

Okay you're right. I'm clearly a month or two out of date.

That would be a valid point if we had any sort of nationally-elected representative in the house of Lords. Currently we do not. The bishops attempt to represent all people - including atheists if their rights were to be threatened - for example when fighting the benefit reform bill.

Small flaw in your reasoning. The bishops don't represent all people, because they campaign to have homosexuals treated as second class citizens. On that basis alone, I think there are reasonable grounds for me to say with absolute certainty that they should have no part in making laws.

Edit: Also, in case it wasn't clear, when I said MP I was referring to the house of commons, where the elected officials go. If bishops want to "represent all people", they should stand for election, just like everyone else.

[Mavorpen]

No, the religion does suck.

No, you're opinion sucks and that no one really cares. Just kidding of course, I don't really mind if someone mocks my religion. I have just learned to deal with it and know that people have different opinions on such things. You can thank NSG for that!

Oh and if I remember correctly, you are a Buddhist no?

I'm not intentionally mocking it. Just saying it's one of the more violent religions and the mythology is poorly written.

Yes I am.

[Pope Joan]

The Church of Henry VII seems to be languishing despite state support.

Apparently the public are not convinced it is so delightful.

[Orcoa]

No, you're opinion sucks and that no one really cares. Just kidding of course, I don't really mind if someone mocks my religion. I have just learned to deal with it and know that people have different opinions on such things. You can thank NSG for that!

Oh and if I remember correctly, you are a Buddhist no?

I'm not intentionally mocking it. Just saying it's one of the more violent religions and the mythology is poorly written.

Yes I am.[/quote]
Well we can agree on this....at lest it's better the Scientology

[Mavorpen]

Well we can agree on this....at lest it's better the Scientology

LOL not really.

[Orcoa]

Well we can agree on this....at lest it's better the Scientology

LOL not really.

Ah I tired! Folded again by the power of ponies!

[Mavorpen]

LOL not really.

Ah I tired! Folded again by the power of ponies!

It's pretty hilarious when people criticize scientology and ignore Christianity.

[Orcoa]

Ah I tired! Folded again by the power of ponies!

It's pretty hilarious when people criticize scientology and ignore Christianity.

Yeah it is hahaha

[Disserbia]

"Progressive" churches that "change with the times" scare me. A lot. Christianity is based on absolute morality - in my opinion, churches which reject that principle aren't really Christian, and certainly aren't worthy of my membership or faith. That's why I'm a Roman Catholic.

Because Roman Catholicism doesn't "change with the times" or make an effort to be "progressive" except for the Second Vatican Council, and when Pope who promotes these things does so there is certainly no effort to saint him afterwards...except for Pope John XXIII.

[Nidaria]

Apparently churches that are controlled by liberals and have replaced traditional values with liberal values are acceptable to liberals. Who would have known?

[Mavorpen]

Apparently churches that don't go out protesting gay soldier fuerals and pretending like science is a sin is acceptable to liberals. Who would have known?

Fixed.

[Nidaria]

Apparently churches that are liberal throughout are acceptable to liberals. Who would have known?

Fixed.

Insults detract from your argument. The Catholic Church supports science.

[Mavorpen]

Fixed.

Insults detract from your argument. The Catholic Church supports science.

Not really. The Catholic Church only supports scientific theories that have been shown to be true beyond doubt so people won't continue to realize they still don't like science. They've essentialy been forced to support certain scientific theories.

[Disserbia]

Insults detract from your argument. The Catholic Church supports science.

Not really. The Catholic Church only supports scientific theories that have been shown to be true beyond doubt so people won't continue to realize they still don't like science. They've essentialy been forced to support certain scientific theories.

They've been forced to do nothing. It was entirely of their own accord.