Open Thread

Today's vote in Zurich (the result of which we do not yet know) raises again the whole issue of the morality of euthanasia.

To be sure, there are many families who are in agony as they watch loved ones suffer, and it is wholly understandable that they would wish that their pain would be ended. (I have been a pastor for long enough to see this at first hand.)

However, bringing someone else's life to an end is something no Christian could ever contemplate. Life is a gift from God, and it is for Him to decide when our earthly lives are over. In every instance in Scripture where an individual asked God to end their lives, he never answered that prayer in the affirmative. (Check it out!)

Discussions on this topic regilarly rehearse the objections: better palliative care and pain-revlieving drugs; possibilty of exploitation by unscupulous relatives; decision taken while the person was at a particularly low point, but from which they could recover; the Dutch experience, which has seen hundreds die without their consent etc

But it seem to me there is one question which even 'ruthless' interviewers fear to ask......If I should bring someone's life to a premature end, WHERE AM I SENDING THEM TO? I would have thought that was a question very relevant to the subject, don't you think?

pastorphilip (@ 1) -

You wrote: "In every instance in Scripture where an individual asked God to end their lives, he never answered that prayer in the affirmative. (Check it out!)"

What about this then...

And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes. And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left. And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life. Judges 16:28-30.

OK, it was an act of judgment, but nevertheless he prayed to die, and his prayer was answered.

However, I do agree with much of what you say, hence my comments on a previous thread here.

You wrote: "But it seem to me there is one question which even 'ruthless' interviewers fear to ask......If I should bring someone's life to a premature end, WHERE AM I SENDING THEM TO? I would have thought that was a question very relevant to the subject, don't you think?

An irrelevant question. A person's eternal destiny is between that person and God. To suggest that a person's eternal destiny is dependant merely on bad timing is an idea that frankly gives me the creeps. But then again, I suppose I would think that, considering that I don't subscribe to the 'damnation default' theology which has so infected the Christian Church for so many centuries (thanks to characters like Augustine).

pastorphilip

It would be much better if people from here who wanted to end their own lives could do so here. In many cases it is cruel to keep a patient alive who has expressed a clear and considered wish to die.

The argument about unscrupulous and greedy relatives is always brought up, but I would like to know how many hospital patients in their final days change their Wills to benefit the churches of clerics who visit them! I remember a story about a young Polish girl who was murdered in in Glasgow. In court questions were asked about how the priest who had sex with her could afford to buy her a laptop computer that cost over £1,000 - a legacy from a parishioner. The priest was found to be in contempt of court and died not so long ago.

pastorphillip,

Using the bible as evidence to support what the bible says? Wow, impressive use of circular logic there, I'm impressed!

Newlach, there is of course, considerable difference between "keeping a patient alive who has expressed a clear and considered wish to die" and killing them. I think it's perfectly legitimate to refuse burdensome medical treatment for someone who is terminally ill. Knocking them off is a different thing, especially when in many cases they aren't even terminally ill.

I wouldn't want to recriminalise suicide as such, but I don't think it's a right either.

1. pastorphilip wrote:

"...bringing someone else's life to an end is something no Christian could ever contemplate."

So you are opposed to the death penalty?

Maybe another area where people should be allowed to make up their own minds rather than have someone impose their particular belief structure on everyone. Those who do not agree with euthanasia or assisted suicide would not have to do it, or take part, and those for which it poses no moral issue should be free to follow their own conscience within carefully controlled circumstances and protection.

I fail to see what difference where people think others will go after they die except for the person involved and as that will form part of their moral decision it is already factored in.

Why not examine what causes people to despair & work on solving those problems rather than kill off the patient?
Issues like pain,lonlieness, & depression are at the root of suicide. It's rather frightening that society would choose eliminate it's hurting members than heal their wounds.Perhaps because it's easier & involves no personal involvement? Or commitment?

we could develop a protocol for emergency services who arrive on the scene of attempted suicides, that they should just finish them off instead of saving them. Perhaps they could carry little hammers like they use with horses.

mscracker,

The vote is about allowing people who cannot be cured and whose quality of life has irreversibly deteriorated to such an extent that they no longer wish to continue. It is a debate about a specific set of circumstances at or near the natural end of life not suicide in general.

If we are talking suicide in general then I would agree with you that more needs to be done to help those for whom there is a hope of a better life and that there are other options which provide for a better outcome than perhaps can be seen by the individual at that moment.

Maybe PastorPhillip and Mccamleyc would like to dedicate some of their rhetoric to oppose faith based homophobia which significantly contributes to the fact that here in Northern Ireland young gay people are 6 times more likely than their peers to commit suicide. No one is asking religious people to change their beliefs just to look at the impact of the language of condemnation, judgement, dishonest use of information and blatant mistruths which the church loves to go on about ad nauseam which generates a culture of hatred, discrimination and bigotry.

Or perhaps, Dave, you could broaden your mind and consider that the condition of same sex attraction makes one more prone to other psychological difficulties. Then you could examine your own hatred of religious people as regularly expressed on this blog. Ask yourself if your views contributed to the murder of countless innocent Catholics during the Troubles.

Getting everyone to the point where we're willing to accept/respect others's differences is the hardest bit.The happiest are people who accept who they are, have a loving relationship, enjoy their jobs & have a bit of money in their pockets. Maybe when people haven't satisfied their own needs they start picking on others.

If humankind want to worship Allah or go to a Hindu Temple, Synagogue or Church they should feel free to do so, but why expect the physical world to reflect a person's private spiritual world. It's not only unrealistic, it's proven cruel to expect it to. Better to work towards living in harmony with each other's differences and hope that it can actually inspire creativity, advancement & human kindness instead of tribalism, hatred, inequality and killing

Mccamleyc,


"..you could broaden your mind and consider that the condition of same sex attraction makes one more prone to other psychological difficulties"

Why would I do that when the psychological opinion and medical evidence say the exact opposite. If I need a diagnosis of any psychological issue I will get a professional one not a one from an theologian. This is part of the problem, quacks making assertions from a basis of ignorance and prejudice rather than from research and evidence and then peddling it as "truth" using their special religious position to provide credibility for what is disproved by the people actually qualified in the field.

The link between religious rantings, homophobia and psychological issues in homosexuals is an accepted causal connection. Your assertion that it is a causal connection to being gay is simply an ignorant and uneducated rant. If you have any evidence (real not the usual nonsense you make up), I suggest you supply it to the relevant medical bodies who many years ago disagreed with your church that homosexuality was in any way a disorder or harmful.

You need to educate yourself on some facts.

As for your last inane outpouring, this blog did not exist during the troubles so that again is a causal link which you have implied from ignorance but in reality does not exist. Your claims to victimhood are getting a bit weary and to be honest I do not think I have expressed hatred towards religious people (I do not like the actions of some) and any opposition I have had to religious interference has been just as much against the Save Ulster from Sodomy brigade of the Free Presbyterian's as any other sect so your point about innocent catholics (BTW some of my best friends and my partner of 9 years are catholic) is just so much hot air and doesn't even do you credit, which is not a very high bar to reach in the first place.

I think I am getting the picture that you have no idea about causality, facts or evidence based assertions and even less interest in educating yourself.

Surprised you haven't picked up on the nonsense at Whiteabbey Congregational Will:

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13390951

Only in Norn Iron do you get this type of thing.

_Ryan_ @12

Yep, I agree with you, what I have consistently said that everyone is free to believe whatever they like they are just not free to either impose that on anyone else or expect the law to be structured to favour their beliefs. It would be a much better place for those put down by some groups if those groups just accepted other people have a right to their own lives without their influence.

Getting respect (or even tolerance) from a few on here will be a toughy when some seem to think our 'condition' is a 'psychological difficulty'. Mind you when his sidekick thinks women should be knitting aeroplanes then I think their credibility is shot and they really deserve little more than pity and derision in equal measure. I have rarely seen a more insulting post than the one before your's (#11) but at least his naked prejudice and nastiness is there for all to see in his own words. Somehow can't see his Jesus ever talking like that.

From my limited experience on this blog it seems that 'pastorphillip' is a 'hit and run' merchant. Perhaps he's really a WC pseudonym; designed to throw a lit firework to spark the debate?

Assuming he hasn't done a runner, and that he is not a WC sock, then I would like to know his views on the death penalty, given that all life is sacred?

11. mccamleyc wrote:

"....perhaps... you could broaden your mind and consider that the condition of same sex attraction makes one more prone to other psychological difficulties."

Perhaps you could broaden your mind and consider that views such as this are the very thing that cause the psychological difficulties in the first place?

newdwr54,

"Perhaps you could broaden your mind and consider that views such as this are the very thing that cause the psychological difficulties in the first place?"

I knew I had over complicated my reply lol.

Since pastorphillip has been raptured, or something (ahead of the official 'end of the world' - 21 May), perhaps a different theme is in order?

I'm interested in climate science. The scientific literature clearly shows that humans are influencing global climate patterns. The Bible says man has God's authority to use the earth's resources as we see fit.

One of the major global climate data bases (UAH) is maintained by two devout Christians, one of whom at least is a believer in Intelligent Design, and a leading member of the Cornwall Alliance (https://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/%29

I for one find this more than a little disturbing.

I would be interested in my fellow posters' views on climate science, and on Dr John Spencer and John Christy.

Changing the psychiatric status of homosexuality in the early 1970s was a political decision, not a medical one, following pressure and intimidation from gay activists. In the vote only 5,854 of the 17,905 members of the American Psychiatrists Association actually voted to change the status.

Dave, you have no evidence that religious teaching on homosexuality causes the higher suicide rates in northern Ireland, if indeed that is the case. I have never expressed any hatred whatsover for people who experience same sex attraction.

There may be a correlation between same sex attraction and higher suicide rates, indeed there may be a causality. But you certainly have no evidence to prove a causality with religious teaching as opposed to the condition itself.

But there's certainly plenty of evidence that Catholics were murdered because of hatred, not inspired by blogs in those days but by conversations, bigotry and plenty of ignorance. If you read what I wrote you'll see I referred to your views - I didn't suggest this blog contributed to the Troubles.

Here's an interesting link about the effects of Religion on someone who's gay and religious- Gay youth & suicide

Recently published Vatican guidelines cast doubt on the Catholic Church's commitment to rooting out paedophile priests. If a bishop does not consider an allegation against a priest as "credible" he can kick it into the long grass, so to speak.

The story also refers to the arrest of a Catholic priest suspected of abusing a 16 year-old boy and of giving the youngster cocaine.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/vatican-sex-abuse-guidelines-criticised

mccamleyc,

Why is a decision made in 1970 relevant when today, without any pressure, the APA and their counterparts here and across the modern world quite happily state that homosexuality is not a disorder. The only people who cling to that are religious people such as yourself. Do you disagree with the APA (or UK equivalent) assessment of human sexuality or not. Your assertion that the APA would cave into a political decision is simply laughable, you just don't like the fact they disagree with your leader and didn't cave into his political pressure.

As to evidence on religious homophobia having a negative impact on the mental health of homosexuals, the fact that you are not aware (or cannot admit) of the impact of your dogma is frightening. Religious teaching is cited in several studies as a prime cause of Internalised Homophobia you can google it, you could also try the research undertaken in NI by the Rainbow Project (particularly the research entitled Out on Your Own). It is interesting that you are quite happy to grab the praise for positive traits of humanity and claim them for christianity but deny any culpability for the negative. No change there then.

Again if you actually read the relevant literature you will find there is NO causal link, in fact the evidence points to the contrary, that any increased levels of mental problems are linked to the 'condition' itself. The very fact that you call it a 'condition' shows that you cannot accept the evidence of the people qualified in the field. Is your sexuality a 'condition'?. You will however find causal links between homophobia (religious and societal) and mental health issues in homosexuals.

Yes there is plenty of evidence that catholics were killed because of hatred, lots of others were too, indeed homosexuals are still being singled out and killed to day. My views however (which are opposition to all religious meddling) have never been directed against the day to day adherent of a religion but to the hierarchy and dogma which strives to impose its will on me. Neither have my views been discriminatory to any particular religion. I find your assertion that my views against religious meddling could incite murder of catholics (either specifically as you have stated or as part of a general religious pogrom) strange to say the least, unless of course you are trying to close down opposition or debate about your churches actions. I realise you guys are not used to being called out or not believed and that you think disagreeing with you is aggressive but if I were you I would start finding better arguments for your actions because you are not gaining much ground.

It would be an interesting experiment to see which of our posts has a history of bigotry and ignorance to an entire societal group and which is legitimate resistance to church meddling.

Dave, funny how when you disagree with information it's always "irrelevant" - it happened in 1970 so it's irrelevant. Doesn't stop you harping on about Church history, does it. The 1970 decision was very relevant - it was the key decision that turned psychiatric practice on its head. It effectively stopped all efforts at helping people with same sex attraction deal with the condition other than by embracing it. It was a critically important decision. And it was taken for political rather than medical reasons. In the same way that 1973 saw US judges turn biology and jurisprudence on its head.

Once the APA decision was made it became impossible for psychiatrists who believed the condition to be problemmatic to continue in practice. The schools, the training rooted out psychiatrists who disagreed. So to say that today's psychiatrists all think same sex is fine is simply to say nothing - you can't become a psychiatrist if you think otherwise. So of course I completely disagree with the APA view.

So called internalised homophobia is the struggle every sinner has against sinful inclination. St Paul wrote ... I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate...(Romans 7:14-15).

As for hatred of the Catholic faith, that's the line Paisley used to spout - nothing against individual Catholics, just their faith and their Pope. I'm surprised you haven't told us some of your friends are Catholics.

But - I don't for one second blame you for any killings of Catholics - it would be as ridiculous to blame you for someone else killing Catholics because of your views as it would be to, em, let's think of an example, oh yeah, it would be as ridiculous as blaming me for someone else attacking or killing homosexuals because of my views.

This is a well balanced article for anyone religiously conservative to read
new pediatrics study: causes of gay teen suicide

Read it - nothing as supportive as a genuine Catholic environment. We don't bully, we don't harass, we don't video people having sex and put it on the internet. We try and help people deal with their real problems.

Hello Will, nice of you to offer an open thread. I thought it would lead to some kind of eye-opening and mind-intriguing discourse. But is seems to lapse to same ol’ same ol’ with insular interest showing their hands.

I read about Japanese suicides which range from kids with screwed-up primary school examinations results to older CEOs caught in financial infidelities. If homosexuals are just part of the overlay of society in general, then, why should I be jolted with these homosexuals’ suicides, they could be the same causes as in the general population? There is no mention of specificity like money problems etc, only hints of some fuzzy discrimination. That leaves me to assume that these suicides are a reaction to unfriendly sexual climate.

Once I had complained to my Member of Parliament about the profusion of girlie bars in my district. And there was an immediate response from the police with many closing down. I am sure the woman-bar hostesses felt harassed, and prefer a friendlier neighbourhood.
My point: if you are fighting for a more unfettered sexual climate, say so. Then I can make my stand and NO.
his is the Internet age, homosexuals and like everybody else can go and link up and help each other. There are support-groups for all kinds of things, including the illegal kinds that even the deceased Osama Bin Laden saw no cause to complain.

Sizzlestick,

Why should homosexuals or any other minority grouping have to get together to help each other? Why can't you, and other members of society, just accept their options for what they are?

And why are you so opposed to an unfettered sexual climate? So long as all are consenting and are aware of the risks and take precautions, what business is it of yours?

mccamleyc,

According to your logic, if a decision was made in the past that goes against your opinion then it's wrong, instead of being progressive? Lots of opinions previously held by medical and psychological professionals have been altered, but I don't hear you complaining about the advent of germ theory, or the identification that schizophrenia is no longer demon possession but a very real condition that involves brain chemicals. That the decision made in the 1970's was political -is- irrelevant as it's been shown since then that sexual orientation isn't as simple as rabid homophobics like to make out.

If you don't like homosexual behaviour, just say so, don't hide behind dodgy theology to justify it.

Natman, I don't think you understand logic.

Progressive? It's a bit of worthless word really, isn't it. I believe completely in the progress of knowledge, based on real science whether germ theory or psychology. You dismiss decisions which were political as irrelevant - I prefer science. I never said sexual orientation was simple and calling people you disagree with "rabid" or "homophobic" doesnt' make you right, just rude.

Since it's an open thread - anyone read this story https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03marry.html?hpw

More confirmation that people who cohabit are less likely to stay married.

Mccamleyc,

I think I will leave all the APA stuff to Natmans reply, there is no point debating with someone who just exhibits sour grapes because he lost the argument when pesky qualified people stuck their noses in with research, evidence and open mindedness (dirty words to some). It's not so long since your mob used to try and 'cure' us by exorcism.

I see you don't actually read my posts - I have already told you some of my best friends are catholics and that my partner of 9 years was a catholic. Your attempts to paint me as some kind of anti catholic prod are as insulting as they are puerile. I have spent as much time on this blog and elsewhere attacking protestant churches (amongst others) for exactly the same things as your church.


"......nothing against individual Catholics, just their faith and their Pope"

again you misrepresent me, more dishonesty, I have nothing a against the catholic faith - I think it is untrue but I believe people have a right to hold whatever faith they like. My issue is when the hierarchy of that faith attempt to subjugate me. As for the pope I think he is a misguided, bigoted and possibly duplicitous person at the head of a corrupt, obscenely wealthy and bloated organisation but if it helps your sense of balance I think the same about Creflo Dollar.

Now to your attempt to manufacture a 'gotcha'


Blaming me for people killing catholics in order to get your self and your church off the homophobic hook would have some legs if it were not for the fact that I am not guilty of the things you have tried to stack against me. It was a good try (OK it wasn't even close to good) but ultimately failed because you have not figured out that just because you say something does not make it true.

To try to manufacture some incitement to hatred on my part to distract from the actions of your church is only to be expected, blaming others for your churches actions seems to be the default position.

I refer you to here for some helpful reading

"....help people deal with their real problems"

Homosexuality is not a problem - homophobia is. Try dealing with the real problem.


sizzlestick,

The issue of suicide is that young gay men are 6 times more likely to commit suicide than their peers not that they are at the same levels and so the same (bad as that would be) as any other group. Those rates change in correlation to the levels of homophobia in society and in relation to religiosity of the population which directly cause internalised homophobia which manifests as increased levels of depression, unhealthy or risky behaviour, substance abuse and even suicide.

Sizzlestick 27, Natman's 1st paragraph in post 28 makes a valid point. It's also fair to point out this blog is based in Northern Ireland, a small patch of land about the size of Vanuatu, with a history of groups "only helping their own kind" at the expense of the wider population. So perhaps a more inclusive approach is needed to accommodate all of society for the sake of social cohesion and general levels of happiness

You are right to point out the wider context of suicides. The study linked into post 25 shows how similar environments also affect heterosexuals in the same way- a higher percentage of suicides. An outwardly oppressive, conservative society has an effect on young people & their ability to cope with their surrounding environment.
In the article this really stood out for me,

The late Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum's Golden Rule

At its simplest, it’s really just “being kind.” Caring about other people. That means putting that kindness into action and treating people with compassion. It means trying to understand people’s beliefs and needs. It means not harming others and actively working to eliminate harm….


What concrete steps can people take to start to put the Rule into practice?

Practically, there are steps that institutions and individuals can take to make a difference.

Institutionally, there are anti-discrimination and accommodation policies you can put into place to ensure that employees aren’t unduly thwarted in their ability to practice their religions. Educational institutions can make sure that teachers are properly trained to create inclusive, multi-cultural and multi-religious classrooms. And hospitals can work proactively with patients who may not want treatment that conflicts with their religion.

There are also things we can all do on the individual level. We can notice people who are not from our own group – people who have different practices or beliefs – and be interested in them. We can be curious about who they are and what their lives are like, without applying stereotypes. We can ask questions with curiosity and respect and truly listen to and digest the answers. And we can be willing to share about ourselves, our own beliefs and our own experiences.

Finally, we can work together, whether in workplaces, schools, community groups
or governments to ensure that people from diverse backgrounds and viewpoints are
involved in decision-making. By making all voices heard – and really listening to each of those voices – we can solve many of the problems we face together

Some leaked news from Oxford University Did you by any chance know that Oxford is to very soon scrap the UK's oldest and largest theology department to replace it with a religious studies department?

This has been leaked to students by several faculty members unhappy with this and a raft of other changes.

Surely a newsworthy story?

fb andytrenier

I must say thank you for your comments. But I am a simple man bedeviled with what economists called a ‘perennial lack of scarce resources’. Here are my humble thoughts.

Natman.
Communications among those desirous in achieving a common need is a human thing. There are just too many examples. Even though economists love to dwell in the sado-masochistic world of personal capitalism through the mind of a rational man/person. We know better, we still prefer to band with our ‘kind’ for succor.
“Unfettered sexual climate”. In my above-mentioned case, I succeeded with the help of the police. I will do what I can do; the local law is with me. You are none of my business, because you are too far away and there is nothing specific to compel me to do anything.
BTW, newlach at #22, still blaming the Church, I see. If the bishop doesn’t care, my advice: go to the police like a good law abiding citizen does. I see no objection from Rome.

Dave.
My gambling addict cousin always say statistics don’t make wins, only the outcome of the roll of the dice, turn of a card and so. So, tell me where is the cause and what is the effect in homosexuals’ suicides. Perhaps not being homosexuals could improve the suicide statistics. Or is there a multiplier effect that causes the disproportionate bump in the statistics, like money problems are exacerbated by the sufferer’s homosexuality.

_Ryan_.
The Rabbi is so right about “being kind” to others. But this is just a facet of one’s belief system, in fact to be precise, it is a communications model for interacting with external others. And there are so many from water-boarding to mass hypnosis North Korean-style. But it has nothing to do directly with my personal relationship with Yahweh and how I enhance it.

Sizzlestick,

If the women working within those 'girlie bars' were consenting, if the patrons visiting said venues were paying and abided by the in-house rules and if the clubs themselves were properly licenced and equipped, then what business is it of yours if they're there? No one is forcing you to go in there, no one is forcing you to take part in the activities that go on inside. For the main part, the women who work in such establishments are well paid, looked after and, according to them, feel a sense of empowerment over the men who are paying just to look at them.

Sex seems to hold some special case in a lot of people, like it's dirty, forbidden and taboo, something to be hidden away and not mentioned. Strange for an activity that's pleasureable, very popular (most adults partake in it at some point), essential to the contination of the human race and, for the most part and if done carefully, perfectly safe.

Chanced upon this website on my Internet travels: Einstein & Religion

More sexual abuse allegations have surfaced in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Three priests, a monsignor and a Catholic school teacher will face criminal charges. Also claimed that the Archdiocese conspired with the Vatican to keep secret allegations of sexual abuse by clergy.

https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/10/us-church-scandal-philadelphia-idUSTRE7486WU20110510

newlach,

Is that supposed to be news? Sounds like 'olds' to me. Clerical sexual abuse, unfortunately, seems to be as common as politicians being misinterpreted and sports stars being caught cheating.

Perhaps if the catholic church hadn't had a policy of silencing the victims and moving the offender on to another parish, it wouldn't've got so widespread.

Are there any theories as to why this seems a predominently Catholic affliction? They have no exclusivity to people in positions of power abusing that authority, but it does seem massively more widespread than in other large religious organisations like, for example, the Anglican or Baptist churches.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-13451397

Here's an event so improbable, it must never have happened! Shame on the BBC for reporting on such fallacies.

;-)

Natman

It is more of the same, unfortunately, but it greatly pains me to read stories about Catholic clerics continuing to sexually abuse kids. Despite claims by the Vatican to the contrary, it would seem that paedophile priests have not been rooted out.

Why the Catholic Church has so many child sex abusers is down to a number of reasons. First, many people who take a decision never in their lives to have sex are mentally warped to begin with. For others this warping of the mind will develop later as the thought of sex weighs heavily on their minds, later developing into an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Priests in this situation will work hard doing "good works" to occupy their mind, but many will unable to remove the intense and repeated sexual thoughts that dominate their thinking. Some succeed in extinguishing the sexual thoughts, but others fail and seek a release - the release is carefully chosen vulnerable children.

Second, a small number will be paedophiles who see the protection afforded by the Church to paedophile priests as a guarantee that they can abuse with impunity. They will have fantasies about being close to children and being free to abuse. The worst case scenario that they envisage is being caught and sent away to do some missionary work.

I am sure that others could better explain than I why the Catholic Church is home to so many sex criminals.

I can see the logic there, but I struggle to comprehend that if it's the celibate lifestyle that's causing the problem, why can't priests get their end away like everyone else, albeit more discretely? Surely inviting a lady 'friend' over for a quiet night in is a far better way to dispense with lustful temptations than abuse. Ironically, catholic priests abusing kids is probably why so many fervent homophobes seem to equate homosexuality to paedophillia.

I guess there might be an aspect of abused becomes abuser. Given the introverted nature of catholism (once a catholic, always a catholic?), it's probably no suprise that those within the church, abused as children, seeking solace in their faith to escape the abuse, then become clergy, sucumb to their own mental traumas and propagate the abuse all over again.

Ho hum, another of life's mysteries. Of course, given we don't really know the causes or the methods, we should perhaps assign blame to god? Not a popular hypothesis I think. I can't imagine that line of thinking working in any other endevour, surely?

RE: 33.At 19:24 17th May 2011, andytrenier wrote:
Some leaked news from Oxford University Did you by any chance know that Oxford is to very soon scrap the UK's oldest and largest theology department to replace it with a religious studies department?
********************************
Taking a break from the Catholic-baiting, does anyone have information re. this comment about Oxford? Thanks!

Natman

Catholic priests have been know to pay for sex with adults, but I suspect that many priests would feel safer by abusing children. The priest's fear of an adult blowing his cover, so to speak, would be on his mind. A young, vulnerable, hand-picked child, on the other hand, would be putty in his paedophile hands. Make the kid think he's responsible, and if the worst comes to the worst terrify him with Hell. If this doesn't guarantee his silence there will be another cleric somewhere who will arrange for the kid to sign a secrecy agreement!

Yes, it is interesting that abuse victims sometimes become abusers themselves. One theory is that by reversing roles the now abuser is attempting to heal himself somehow by adopting the powerful position. Another, is that the now abuser craves the power and control he so lacked when being abused. Whatever the truth of the matter, child molesters should be put behind bars.

When I compare how the head of the IMF is currently being treated for an alleged sexual assault and how paedophile priests are treated by justice systems throughout the world I see a great difference.

Ah, see, the head of the IMF is French, self proclaimed masters of 'seduction' - no more reasoning needed ;-)

(and moderators - that was a joke! I have nothing against the French really :)

It would be an enlightened step forward if Catholic Priests were allowed to marry, because as it stands, the relationship between the Church & sex isn't a healthy one -it's managed to degrade them both. Regarding the conversation above: Either it was such a big problem -so prevalent- that the Magisterium couldn't root it out, because by doing so, would leave too many vacancies to fill. Another factor could be de-sensitiziation due to the sheer size of the organisation- the victims are just faceless statistics to the Bishops.
If Priests were able to marry, and women were able to serve as Priests to congregations willing to accept them, then it's a possible solution to the on-going problem.

Another solution is for Priests to become Eunachs. There's a book; The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity

And a quote relating to it

Let me begin with an exegetical problem: what did Jesus mean when he recommended to his followers that they "make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven"? For most, the solution seems simple enough: self-castration here means avoidance of marriage, particularly, the sexual aspects of marriage. This is entirely possible, since the recommendation comes at the end of a lengthy set of problems related to marriage, problems troubling enough that one of the disciples pronounces in desperation: "Then surely it is better to avoid marriage altogether," which prompts Jesus' reply that:

There are eunuchs born that way from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs made so by men and there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can

Origen of Alexander 185 AD- 255 AD, a well known scholar & theologian of the early Church became a Eunach. It wasn't until the 5th century that self-castration subsided & the genderless ideal became merely metaphorical. It was only by the 12th Century that Ordination of Eunachs became prohibited by Church Law

39, Re the 50p each way accumulator, no wonder it took a while to sink in how much he won! must have been a real double-take seeing his new bank balance lol
Always liked the sound of the Towcester course ( cos it's pronounced toaster) but my favourite has got to be Plumpton.There was a horse running there a while back called Plum Pudding. It won its race :D

I changed my mind, wanted to respond to respond to Jesus-anarchist blog but cannot do better than those who preceded me.
So Natman at 35.

I will not espouse my faith core values; it is just same old same old to you. Nothing despair me more than a bored reader. But look at the following coincidence of purposes that help firmed my resolve.

What I did, was a secular and very human thing: protecting the value of my property and the ecology of my preferred environment. I see no reason why I should allow the girlie bars to intrude on my personal tranquillity and wealth. Especially when these purveyors of basic entertainment operate hypocritically: ‘anybody else‘s neighbourhood is ok but not that of their homes’. If you have problem understanding this, examine the city statuettes of Las Vegas, Nevada and federal and state law exemptions for Native-American Reservation Land and their proclivity towards the gambling business.

How can these merchants of unfettered sexual climate, expect and ‘free-ride’ on my silent reticence as acquiescence to make money for them selves. I should react when it is to my detriment economically and in particular spiritually/mentally.

May I ask: why are you so pushy for humans like myself to be modified and made suitable to you? When the whole of EU reject GM foods and disallow landing of certain types and sizes of fishes at its ports, just to protect its environment.
But I, a person of lesser sexual adventurist nature cannot protect my space but should submit to be ‘gobbled up’ or ejected by the more indifferent.

Ryan

I think that it would help restore trust in the Catholic Church if priests agreed to be castrated. To a person of great faith this should not be too big a thing to ask, certainly nothing compared to the South Korean man who crucified himself recently.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/police-say-south-korean-man-found-crucified-in-stone-quarry-likely-killed-himself/2011/05/18/AF7PEK6G_story.html

The police have concluded that the man could have done it on his own. For effect he also wore a crown of thorns. Some might say that this man was deranged; no, he was just religious!

sizzlestick,

You're perfectly entitled to your views whether they're inspired by religious texts and traditions or formulated using your own sense of propriety and logic, however, if everyone involved is a consenting adult and your views are expressed in a way that prevents consenting adults from partaking in their chosen activity then that ceases to be a view and becomes a coercion. It's a distinction that a lot of (mainly religious) people fail to recognise.

If you have a genuine economic detriment to their presence then that's fair enough, but I struggle to perceive of any venture that might be negatively effected by increased consumer visits that establishments offering more carnal delights might bring. Your spiritual health is irrelevant; if you can't handle the temptations on offer, or find the blatant exposure of humankind’s most important desire offensive, then that's an issue for you and your psyche, not the law.

Natman

English is not my mother-tongue. Are you testing me on my writing and reading ability?
I thought I was very clear, just as well, a little recapitulation and elaboration would help:
It’s a ‘neat and clean’ neighbourhood I want to live in.
Did you notice; I did not even care to debate you on consenting adults and what they do. As far as I am concern: many ‘consenting things’ are done in the dark. But, no consent for those who disturb my peace in my presence.
I was never ever tempted, only very agitated at their intrusion.
My neighbours and I are very fortunate, local laws are on our side and the follow-up police actions return everything to more tolerable levels. The local laws are good laws.

Don’t you fret about my psyche; I can manage very well on my own. Thanks.

sizzlestick,

I apologise, I enjoy writing my posts using varied and elaborate words, more as a personal exercise for myself than any attempt to appear 'clever' (which would always fail, given my constant spelling errors).

I just hold the opinion that if you hold a view that something is offensive, yet that something neither effects you nor anyone else not taking part, then you should put up with it. The offense is yours. No one else is to blame and trying to get people to change something based on your offence is wrong.

On a, slightly related to the topic, side note, and in a seperate post as I'm not sure the moderators will allow it, today is Draw Mohammed Day.

A chance for everyone out there, not to be offensive or 'disrespectful' to someone else's views, but to show people that just because someone demands that something is against their religion doesn't mean you have to obey their rules.

In case the moderators find this a little risque, consider this - Catholic practice making the sign of the cross on certain occasions. Should we all do that, just to avoid offending catholics? Jews consider eating pork against their religion, yet we don't abstain from bacon to 'respect' their view.

I encourage the moderator to allow this posting; my views about religion is consistent and I'm quite open about it. To refuse this posting to protect the sensibilities of a small but vocal minority is offensive to -me- and I think the issue of taking offense versus being offensive is a valid one.

Disagreeing with yourself now too, Natman?

I reserve the right to be inconsistent, 'tis my way of encouraging debate and allowing others the chance to change my mind.

Besides, I'm fairly consistent, if someone is being offensive, then they deserve to be told so. If someone is being offended, quite often the cause of the offense isn't offensive per se.

Apparently I am being told that I believe something that I do not believe.

What on earth am I talking about?

This.

What a ludicrous example of 'guilt by association'. Find the softest of soft target - i.e. the wackiest 'believer in God', successfully rubbish their claims (not very difficult to do concerning the 21st May false prophecy - I've done it myself), and then, by a cute sleight of hand, claim that their belief in God is a sufficient condition for their wacky and disproven views (for those who don't know what a 'sufficient condition' is: if 'A' is a sufficient condition of 'B', then 'B' is always true and / or affirmed if 'A' is true / affirmed). Therefore all theists are guilty of the nonsense of the 21st May 'prophecy'!! (And let's have a celebration of this 'conclusion' on 22nd May!)

Of course, the doomsday brigade's (at least nominal) belief in God is a necessary condition for their wacky claims (i.e. if 'B' then 'A'), but that is something rather different (since 'A' can be true without 'B' being so).

A simple lesson in logic wouldn't go amiss for some people. And it is particularly galling that these people claim to champion 'reason'!!

Dear dear. In fact, I wonder which group of people is the most deluded: the apocalyptic crowd or the self-styled 'champions of reason' who cannot reason, and who have the nerve to hold to a philosophy which makes the existence of 'reason' impossible!

Right........ kids are at their grannies, dogs at the kennels, wife divorced, house sold, bank accounts closed,gas and electric off, box set of LaHaye to reference, I'm ready lord.................
BRING IT ON!!!!

It's 18.11 PM in continental Europe now. And I'm still here! I'm trying to think what conclusion I should come to.

a) jesus came and decided that I'm not a worthy believer in him, so he left me behind. But at least he was nice enough to ruin the area where I live after he gave the more deserving believers a cosmic ride up to heaven.

b) it was one more load of biblically inspired nonsense that some of gullible bought hook, line and sinker.

It was a very difficult to arrive at a decision, but after much deep thinking I've gone for answer b.

An atheist made some money out of it btw. He had made an offer to take care of peoples pets after they were raptured. Hundreds signed up and forked over $135 each.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13468131

Some christians and their money are soon parted. :)

I have to admit that if I were an atheist (especially of the 'committed' chip-on-the-shoulder proselytising kind), I would probably make the most of this 21st May farce. I mean, why not? Why not capitalise on this nonsense in the service of promoting one's own ideology? Enjoy your parties and your celebrations, and I don't doubt that there will be people who bought into this lunacy who will lose their faith, and who are ripe to be hoovered up by the ...ahem... 'freethinkers'.

However...

As a Christian, on this auspicious day I will attempt to point out that Mr Camping's performance actually confirms, rather than undermines, the Bible, which states very clearly that "no one knows the day or hour" of Christ's return (i.e. the end of the world as we know it) and secondly, that the Bible actually predicts that many false prophets will arise and claim that "the time (of the end) has drawn near".

I know that today's "victory for religion bashing" will mean that my point will be lost in all the champagne popping, but once the dust has settled, I rather hope the more informed of our nullifidian brethren may reflect on this.

Have a nice knees up!

Woohoo, it's past 6 PM in the UK and LSV is still with us!

My guess is that it was all his totally inconsistent peddling of pseudo-philosophy against empirical science on some occasions while not bothering with that on others. Jesus has told me personally on numerous occasions that he doesn't like folks who are dishonest like that in his name.

Dear leftbehind
Heaven is great! well it looks a lot like my flat, but thats cool, some jesus bloke is a bit bossy, but his dad keeps him in line, gotta go, time for praising and glorifying.
Have a happy Tribulation

#59 -

Hey, Peter, what are you doing messing about on this blog. Why aren't you out partying, since this is a day of great victory for atheism, isn't it? I mean, you might as well enjoy it while it lasts! And remember, we all know (don't we?) that Harold Camping's views are representative of every single worldview other than the naturalistic one!!

As for this 'dishonesty' thing, it might be quite useful sometime to provide just a little bit of supporting evidence for this accusation. I know none exists, but, who knows, perhaps you could make some up (you seem to be quite good at that sort of thing). And concerning 'pseudo-philosophy': well, be that as it may. Whatever you feel like calling it, it must be good, since it's never been refuted!

(BTW, how's it going with those scientific experiments that prove that the naturalistic worldview is true? I have asked several times, but I can only assume you must have been busy....)

LSV, you asked for some evidence of your dishonesty. The same post in which you asked that provides an easy start. In your post to me you said

"And remember, we all know (don't we?) that Harold Camping's views are representative of every single worldview other than the naturalistic one!!"

Where did I say that it applies to every christian? My words were

"....biblically inspired nonsense that some of the gullible bought hook, line and sinker."

Setting up straw men that the person you are debating doesn't believe in, is not an honest way of conducting yourself.

But your dishonesty came up in the context of your pseudo-philosophy. So let me point out an example from there.

Whenever you are confronted again by the atheist scientists on the blog with empirical evidence for a naturalistic explanation of life on earth, you can't refute the specific evidence. So you go on another anti-empiricism lecture, endlessly yapping on about presuppositions etc. But when you find some empirical evidence that you think helps the case for goddunnit, then you promptly forget about those presuppositions and are happy to present empirical evidence.

Such blatant double standards is but one example of why some here call you out over being dishonest.

58. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"....I will attempt to point out that Mr Camping's performance actually confirms, rather than undermines, the Bible, which states very clearly that "no one knows the day or hour" of Christ's return...."

The cranks (and it's 'Pastor' Camping, not 'Mister') can't really lose then, can they? If they 'predict' some banality, such as an earthquake, and this 'prophecy' is fulfilled (an everyday occurrence such as an earthquake is easy to foresee) they happily claim divine inspiration.

If they dare to predict something truly apocalyptic, which of course fails to materialise, they just shrug and say: "Well, it wasn't given unto me to know after all, now that I think about it... btw, the Bible says so!"

The real question is: will the money donated to these fine people (wink to mods) now be returned?

I'm predicting another breakdown in communications on that front.

61. logica_sine_vanitate:

Don't worry. Pastor Camping will return in great glory some day. He will come upon the clouds, with a loud noise. He will come quickly! Maybe in 2,000 years or so... but never fear, some people alive today will see his glorious return!!!

I guess cranks are nothing new?

Well, I suppose that there was always the chance that Pastor Camping could have been right ;-)

What, however, is worth a comment, is newdwr's subtle reference to the biblical text. (Matthew and Mark, newdwr?!) Good one! Pity we disagree about the interpretation!

65. peterm2:

You forgot the all-important 'Revelation'.

'Behold, I come quickly'.

Time is relative though, as we now know. And as Pastor Company now knows.

I wouldn't call it a victory for atheism, given that there's regular occurances of these apocolyptic announcements, but more a victory that, yet again, religion has failed to give a result to what should, or could, have been a properly tested event.

I mean, religion has had thousands of years to come up with a definitive result to a testable parameter but, as yet, hasn't managed. Science organises itself into a proper methodology less than 300 years ago and has had numerous successes.

When does religion give up? How many more times is it going to fail to establish anything other than base conjecture, put its money (which it has a lot of) where its mouth is and make a single statement that can be proven one way or another?

The cranks (and it's 'Pastor' Camping, not 'Mister') can't really lose then, can they?

Mr. Camping has never claimed to be a 'pastor', and there are few that would count him as such. Camping argues the church 'age' has ended, and part of his schtick is calling the 'faithful' out of the church. Using nomenclature such as pastor, which has a fairly specific frame of reference within Christian theology, is redundant in his case.

*

In general using Camping to dismiss the Christian faith and to justify unbelief is foolish. It's also revealing how quickly high-brow pretensions fall to the ground when the opportunity for a cheap shot arises. So much for reason.

Newdwr

"You forgot the all-important 'Revelation'.

'Behold, I come quickly'."

Funny enough I didn't; I was merely responding to your, "some people alive today will see his glorious return!!!", unless I spotted a connection which you didn't intend. I had thought it quite a clever reference.

To be honest though, I'm with Andrew's conclusion in #68, that, and the thought that what the atheist 'critique' and Harold Camping share is a Dungeons and Dragons approach to the bible.

OK had a quick look around, 144,000 looks about right, some dude going on about seals, trumpets, thunders and bowls.
Weather is fine, ciao.

68. Andrew wrote:

"...using Camping to dismiss the Christian faith and to justify unbelief is foolish."

And opportunistic. However apocalyptic pronouncements are a strikingly similar theme that run right through Christian tradition from its earliest days, starting with Jesus himself. Whether modern refined theologians like it or not, Christianity's enduring popularity is probably partly due to these 'end of times' episodes. You can 'theologise' all you like, but Christianity thrives on the common peoples' fear of catastrophe and their hope of deliverance from it.

Jesus is quoted as saying that the kingdom of God would arrive during the lifetimes of people he was preaching to. He was wrong. Paul said Jesus would return shortly, within his own lifetime; the day of his return was 'at hand'. He was wrong. So was James. So was John of the epistles. So was John of Revelation. All of them thought they would see the return of Jesus and the end of the world within their lifetimes; all of them were wrong. These facts appears to have been 'blanked' by fundamentalists.

The 'end times' theme continued throughout early church history, with numerous early Church Fathers claiming they were living in the last days. On and on it goes; a two thousand year history of failed apocalypses. When I was a child there was a book called 'Russia, Israel, Christ and you" which confidently predicted that Russia was the Great Satan and the EU was the 10-headed beast (ten member states at that time). It sold by the millions. People love this stuff.

If Camping is a crank, then he's only following in a proud tradition of cranks going back 2,000 years.

newdwr54

"If Camping is a crank, then he's only following in a proud tradition of cranks going back 2,000 years."

Never a truer word written!

Here's a good resource page on Camping

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3983

Newdwr

However apocalyptic pronouncements are a strikingly similar theme that run right through Christian tradition from its earliest days, starting with Jesus himself.

And apocalyptic pronouncements are not all of a kind. There are several things going on with Camping, yes he predicted a date for the return of Christ but it is also the screwball way he arrived at that date and his hermeneutic that the 'church age' has ended, amongst other things. Camping isn't a crank just because he predicted the end of the world.

Whether modern refined theologians like it or not, Christianity's enduring popularity is probably partly due to these 'end of times' episodes.

What's the probability?

You can 'theologise' all you like, but Christianity thrives on the common peoples' fear of catastrophe and their hope of deliverance from it.

How many supporters did, and does, Camping have?

All of them thought they would see the return of Jesus and the end of the world within their lifetimes; all of them were wrong.

According to you this is what they thought. But you're not in the priviledged position of not having to argue for your conclusions.

These facts appears to have been 'blanked' by fundamentalists.

Have they? I'm not sure who 'fundamentalists' are but I've referred to resources on Revelation, for instance, on the weeks top stories thread from several Reformed scholars. Have you taken any time to look up these names? If necessary I could refer you to many others. So I'm not sure who is doing the blanking.

The 'end times' theme continued throughout early church history, with numerous early Church Fathers claiming they were living in the last days.

Christians routinely believe we are living in the 'end times' and 'last days', this isn't the issue. Which church fathers are you referring to?

Here's a useful video from Doug Wilson going over the options for New Testament prophecy. It is somewhat, necessarily, broad brush but it covers some of the issues raised in the last number of posts.

https://www.canonwired.com/featured/end-times-hardships/

For the record I tend towards idealism. Specifically, the modified-idealism argued for by Greg Beale and Vern Poythress.

73. Andrew wrote:

"What's the probability? [that Christianity's popularity is partly based on its predictions of 'end times']"

Anecdotally, I'd say very high. Imagine if you advertised a presentation in your church hall discussing the development of the doctrine of the Trinity during early centuries of Christianity. A few academic types might turn up. Then imagine you advertised a presentation on why the Bible says that the world will definitely end in a thunderous holocaust on 1st June 2011. You'd pack the hall out - be honest. Like I said, people love that stuff.

"How many supporters did, and does, Camping have?"

60-odd thousand; but Camping is only one among many. The 'Left Behind' series is some of the best selling religious popular literature of all time.

"According to you this is what they thought. But you're not in the priviledged position of not having to argue for your conclusions."

It's all there in the Bible. In 1 Cor. 7:29-40 Paul tells the congregation that the time is 'too short' to worry about everyday problems. People need to get themselves ready to worship Jesus who is coming soon (c 55 AD). There are numerous other examples.

Justin Martyr believed that the prophesies of Daniel were about to be fulfilled by the returning Christ. Irenaeus believed the anti-christ would immediately arrive following the then on-going disintegration of the Roman Empire (late second century). Also, numerous apocryphal books indicate the prevailing mood amongst early Christians that they may well be the final generation to live before God's kingdom is established (Apocalypse of Peter; The Didache).

PK (@ 62) -

LSV, you asked for some evidence of your dishonesty. The same post in which you asked that provides an easy start. In your post to me you said

"And remember, we all know (don't we?) that Harold Camping's views are representative of every single worldview other than the naturalistic one!!"

Where did I say that it applies to every christian? My words were

"....biblically inspired nonsense that some of the gullible bought hook, line and sinker."

Setting up straw men that the person you are debating doesn't believe in, is not an honest way of conducting yourself.

You seem to have missed my argument, which I began in post #55. It was a general point about the fact that many atheists are using this 21st May nonsense as a pretext to rubbish all 'religious' beliefs. If I have written anything wrong, the worst crime I have committed is perhaps that I didn't add a sentence to clarify that I was making this point. Do you pull other people up on their throwaway remarks? I doubt it somehow. In fact, I wonder about your honesty in the light of this kind of nitpicking.

However, your comment in #57 about 'biblically inspired nonsense' does seem to imply to me (note this phrase - I am expressing my personal opinion) that you are using Camping's failed prediction as a way of criticising the Bible. Why do I say this? Because one could just as easily say 'mathematically inspired nonsense'. Camping's views were as much based on maths as on any particular words of the Bible (in fact, he did not trangress any mathematical rules, whereas he certainly did trangress biblical injunctions, such as "no one knows the day or hour").

So it would be just as true to write:

"it was one more load of mathematically inspired nonsense that some of gullible bought hook, line and sinker."

That doesn't look quite as dramatic, does it? It looks like it has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with simple ('secular' or 'human') gullibility and wishful thinking.

So, yes, it does look to me like you are trying to make ideological capital out of this issue, by making a point about the fact that his nonsense happened to be based on the Bible. It's funny that you *don't* mention that his interpretation actually explicitly goes against what the Bible teaches! And then you have the nerve to accuse me of dishonesty!!!

to be continued...

PK - continued...

As for your 'pseudo-philosophical' criticism: if philosophy is irrelevant, and therefore if your view of reality can be substantiated purely by the scientific method, then it is very simple - just show me the scientific experiments which prove that the philosophy of materialism is true. I am asking this question in accordance with your own way of thinking. If 'science' is all we need to be assured of 'the truth' of atheism, and there is no need for the interpretation of evidence based on philosophical presuppositions, then please provide this empirical evidence. You have never provided this evidence. All you have ever provided are details of certain experiments which *could* be used to support the naturalistic worldview. But 'could' is not proof!

So now who is being less than honest?

74. Andrew:

Wilson appears to be arguing that Paul, writing his epistles, is referring to the arrival of the 'Christian Era', as opposed the physical return of Christ. He places the start of this 'Christian Era' at 70 AD, the fall of the temple in Jerusalem to Roman troops.

This doesn't explain why Paul would be urging people to refrain from worrying about domestic affairs, etc in 40-60 AD. Paul is clear that what he is talking about is the imminent return of Jesus himself, not about some abstract 'Era' that would last for millennia without any further physical manifestations.

Look at 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. Paul talks about 'the coming of the Lord'; of Jesus 'descending from heaven' with great noise; about the dead rising bodily out of their graves and, along with 'we who are alive', being lifted up into the air to physically be with Jesus.

There is not a hint of metaphor. He's not talking about some abstract 'era' arriving surreptitiously following the fall of the temple in Jerusalem to pagans. He's talking about real physical events that he expects will happen soon. That is what anyone in Thessalonia would have believed he meant too.

Wilson's argument seems to be a form of post-hoc rationalisation of Paul's failed expectations. A bit like Camping and co turning round now and saying: "Well, Jesus's second coming didn't physically occur yesterday, but the 'era' of his second coming definitely began". Who can argue against that sort of logic?

I read posts by several believers being critical of us atheists going after the softest possible target. No doubt those making the posts consider themselves much more into 'sophisticated theology'. Though some of their arguments that have been put forward would allow bingo players to cross out a few squares on this Rapture Excuse Bingo card:

https://imgur.com/zf7B9

Andrew asked

"How many supporters did, and does, Camping have? "

There was an item about him on Dutch TV news yesterday. His organisation has assets worth $120 million. Those assets include 66 radio stations with listeners in the lower hundreds of thousands.

newdrw54, I just see that you put the number of Campings followers at 60-odd thousand. It's a bit lower than what I heard on the news, no idea where they got their numbers from. Or maybe the difference is the difference between listeners and supporters. But where did you get the 60-odd thousand number from?

LSV,

"If I have written anything wrong, the worst crime I have committed is perhaps that I didn't add a sentence to clarify that I was making this point."

I recall more excuses from you along the line of 'Maybe I didn't phrase it clearly and with enough reservation'. They ring hollow to me, given your history on this blog here. I see little reason in your post to come to a different conclusion than before you made it.

"if philosophy is irrelevant, and therefore if your view of reality can be substantiated purely by the scientific method, then it is very simple - just show me the scientific experiments which prove that the philosophy of materialism is true."

I didn't say philosophy was irrelevant. Add one more straw man to your score card. I was pointing out the persistent inconsistency in you going on about presuppositions in empiricism to dismiss evidence against your goddunnit while you fully accept empirical evidence without any such philosophical objections worries when you think the empirical evidence supports your goddunnit.

"If 'science' is all we need to be assured of 'the truth' of atheism, and........."

Where did I ever speak about 'science assuring of the truth of atheism'? One more straw man to add to your disingenuousness score card I think.

"So now who is being less than honest?"

You, obviously.

Newdwr #78

I’m afraid that all these comments do is highlight, again, the differences in the way in which we come to the text; and it seems to me that your view (albeit a critique) is every bit as much “'Left Behind' series” as Harold Campings.

Your summary of 1 Thessalonians 4 15-17 (really 4: 13-18 and into ch 5: 1- 11) is a good example of this literalism.

”There is not a hint of metaphor”, you say. It’s full of it!

‘Fallen asleep’ is a metaphor.

‘The death and resurrection of Jesus’ is the model for the resurrection of his people who have already died (4:14) meaning salvation for them (1Thessalonians 5:9), rather than wrath. The idea of ‘bodily resurrection’ fits with Paul’s understanding of resurrection (related to the gospel) and, the general Jewish understanding of what ‘resurrection’ would mean. (Itself a metaphor for Israel’s deliverance from oppression.)

Then there’s the parallel with 1 Corinthians 15: 51 and 51. ‘Being snatched up in the clouds’ is a metaphor works the same way as ‘changed - in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye’, in 1 Corinthians.

And the ‘cloud’ metaphor is an OT one, Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1 - God is the one who is seen on the clouds and in Daniel 7:13 the ‘image’ is used again to speak of the ‘son of man’ and the judgement/vindication of his people, again linking to ‘salvation/wrath’ in 1 Thessalonians 5. And the idea of a King coming to visit, or return to a state is there too.

Of course we could go on and refer to Paul’s understanding in Ch 5 that Christians are already ‘sons of the light’ (of the resurrection, of the day to come), and so he encourages them to live in this light, to be awake.

That, I think, will do for now. It’s enough to flag up that a simple literalistic ‘evangelical, last times, flying in the clouds’ reading is, well, weak.

PeterK (and newdwr)

Hi, good to talk again; but I’ll say the same thing with regard to your, rather funny, link (actually I wish I’d written something like that).

By all means let’s disagree, guys, but please don’t think that someone like me, or Andrew, is going to be under any kind of theological pressure because someone ‘predicts’ the date of the return of Jesus. It’s nonsense, it’s clearly nonsense, and it’s been shown to be nonsense.

Neither is it a matter of more 'sophisticated theology', it’s a matter of trying to understand the words (hence my comments above). I’m not saying I’m right, you know this, what I am saying is that Harold Camping's arguments, and the arguments of similar Christians, are well known and have been more than adequately dealt with in the past. There’s nothing new here.

The New Updated "Freethinker's" Dictionary definition of...

Pseudo-philosophy: any philosophical idea that I happen not to agree with.

Dishonesty: what my intellectual opponents are guilty of, whatever they do and say.

The Bible: a book that is always wrong, and especially when people MISquote it, and say and do things that it expressly forbids.

My advice to all budding debaters: get a copy of this fantastic new dictionary. You can't go far wrong with it!

Two very helpful posts Peter, thanks!

I’m afraid that all these comments do is highlight, again, the differences in the way in which we come to the text;

There does seem to be a pattern developing.

LSV,

If you're right, and materialistic philosophy is flawed, perhaps even wrong, two things I have to ask:

Why does this make all the evidence accumulated to show that a god isn't needed wrong? Evidence obtained using materialistic methodology doesn't need the associated philosophy to still be valid.

And...

What is your alternative, and how can we test it to show that it's better? If we can't test it, then your alternative is no better and we might as well continue to use the methodology producing usable evidence.

80, Peter Klaver,

His organisation has assets worth $120 million

He's clearly a good business man. Maybe it goes to show all publicity is good publicity

Maybe I should add, it's a shame he's not as good a pastor looking after his flock as he is a buisnessman looking after his money

81. PeterKlaver:

I think the 60,000 figure may be regular listeners to the radio station. I read it somewhere recently but can find the reference now.

83. peterm2:

@ 78 I specifically listed the following claims made by Paul in 1st Thess as being meant in a non-metaphorical way:

- the physical 'coming of the Lord'

- His 'descending from heaven' with great noise;

- The dead physically rising out of their graves

- Both the dead and 'we who are alive', being lifted physically up into the air to be with Jesus

You regard this as 'weak'. I regard your post-hoc rationalisation of these words as weak. I believe that anyone reading these words at the time would have clearly understood them in the literal context in which they were intended.

Paul really believed, as Jesus did before him, that the physical arrival of God's kingdom on earth was imminent. Both men were wrong.

It was only after their respective prophesies were shown by events to have failed that apologist theologians began trawling through scripture in an attempt to rationalise their failures, in my view.

As I said @ 78: what's to stop Camping from claiming: "Jesus's second coming didn't physically occur yesterday, but the 'era' of his second coming definitely began in a *metaphorical* sense".

No doubt Camping is currently trawling through the scriptures to rationalise his own failure, in the same way that church apologists have been trawling through scripture for centuries to rationalise the similar failed predictions of Jesus, Paul, James and John, etc.

I have no doubt that Camping will meet with the same level of success, in his own mind, as the earlier theologians achieved in theirs.

84. peterm2 (and Andrew):

Just to be clear guys, do either of you expect to see *any* sort of physical 'second coming' or is that all understood to be allegory and metaphor too?

I've read someplace in the past view days that regardless of the distance that the majority of christians are putting between themselves and Harold Camping, it's not a difference of opinion, and more a difference of timing and the specific manner of the second coming.

All christians (or at least the ones that hold to the bible as its written) believe that one day Jesus will come back and everyone who doesn't subscribe to a specific brand of religion will be punished. It's just not going to happen at a time specified by people.

Natman (@ 93) -

"I've read someplace in the past view days that regardless of the distance that the majority of christians are putting between themselves and Harold Camping, it's not a difference of opinion, and more a difference of timing and the specific manner of the second coming."

In other words, it's a difference of opinion, unless you wish to redefine the word 'opinion' (and if so, with what justification?)

"All christians (or at least the ones that hold to the bible as its written) believe that one day Jesus will come back and everyone who doesn't subscribe to a specific brand of religion will be punished. It's just not going to happen at a time specified by people."

Interesting. I happen to be one of those "all christians" (or Christians) who happens to believe the Bible to be true ('truth' being an objectively valid concept, of course, in my worldview), and, yes, I do happen to believe in the return of Christ and I happen NOT to believe in the idea that people will be punished based on their 'specific brand of religion'. (Try reading James 2:13 to see the correct basis for God's judgment.)

I rather take exception to being told what I claim to believe when such claims are untrue, just as I am baffled to be told by someone who doesn't know me and has never met me that I am "afraid of the dark"!! (Funny, but I didn't think atheists believed in omniscience or mind reading!)

Sorry Nat, but the spectrum of beliefs held by all those who call themselves christians is so wide, that capturing them all in one statement, post 93, does seem bound to go wrong. Which means LSV has a valid point against you.

Don't do that again please. I really hate it when that happens. :(

LSV,

We don't use proper nouns for political opinions (liberal or communist) or other viewpoints (like the atheist and theist), so I don't see the need to assign christian with a capital letter either. Proper nouns denote an unique entity and a christian isn't unique.

Otherwise I might start making everyone call us Atheists.

Interesting out-of-context use of James there. I'm going to see your use of one verse, from James, and raise you a book, Revelations. All christians believe in a second coming, so your only critique of him should be on his timing, not his belief.

When a professing Christian makes a complete numbskull of himself then all Christians (or christians) go down with him. It's called 'guilt by association'.

But if some professing atheist commits industrial-scale mass murder, then it must be because of his hang-ups from his repressive Orthodox upbringing, and nothing, of course, to do with his atheism.

It's truly invigorating, this kind of reasoning, isn't it? RationalWiki will be proud of me!

(In other words, what Mr or 'Pastor' Camping said and did is completely irrelevant to the question of the truth of the Christian faith.)

By the way, chaps, did you have a good party? You must be grinning from ear to ear at the moment, after this recent calamity for the cause of 'religion'!

LSV,

Again, not for the first time, you equate atheism as some form of global movement, with a doctrine, leaders and some form of coherant idealogy we all subscribe to.

Again, not for the first time, someone has to correct you. To claim that atheism is the cause of someone's delusions is like saying their lack of belief in fairies was the cause, or their disbelief in Santa. All atheism can be is a -lack- of belief.

Unlike atheism, christians all subscribe to the same basic tenants - Harold Camping got his dates wrong, of course, but he's only being vocal about a belief you all hold.

And I didn't have a party, much in the same way you didn't party when the Cult of Foobah's predictions didn't come true (or whichever doomsday cult predicts the next end of the world).

Newdwr (this could end up being in 3 or 4 parts, sorry)


Part 1

First of all perhaps I should clear up any potential use of the ‘weak’. When I used it back in #83, I wasn’t seeking to ‘have a pop’ at you personally, rather I was suggesting, in the light of what I said about the Thessalonians passage, that a ‘literalistic evangelical’ reading of the text was ‘weak’. It’s the view I was familiar with growing up in the church; it’s the popular view, made popular, as you have noted by the ‘Left Behind’ series, and, I would add, an endless number of ‘end times’ meetings, magazines, DVD presentations, tracts, films and so on; and, a tendency on the part of many evangelicals to understand the gospel solely in terms of ‘what if Jesus came back tonight?’, evangelism. Hopefully that gives the word a bit more context.

And now to your comments in #91

Newdwr

Part 2


Maybe to help with this though, a preliminary comment related to #92 might be useful.

When we use the words ‘metaphorical’ and ‘literal’ we don’t have to press these words into the meanings - metaphorical = fiction/not true, and literal = fact. This is the kind of tangle fundamentalist and evangelical Christians can get themselves into over and over. These are not the only two options open to us in using and understanding language. For example, I could have arrived home today and said, “Boyz-o, it’s coming down cats and dogs!”, without either meaning that literally (fact) i.e cats and dogs are falling from the sky, or ‘metaphorically (not true) as in ‘nothing at all is happening with regard to the weather’; what infact I would have meant was that ‘it was raining quite hard’. In other words, the ‘metaphor’ points to a specific meaning of something actually happening, without the actual things being ‘cats and dogs’. It’s the same with the words in the bible - the words you refer to can mean something, without the ‘being snatched up into the clouds’ for instance, having to mean, ‘being physically lifted up into the air’, in fact this was precisely one of the ‘images’ I referred to in my #83, with the reference to 1Corinthians.

So it’s quite possible to say that the words are ‘metaphorical’, without pressing them into the ‘nothing physical is going to happen’ meaning you suggest in #92.