Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lala

    You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that by saying 'Christian Church' I was merely refering to Christinity as a whole. Do please try to read what I write, it helps a lot in discussions.
    Furthermore, you managed to take my one phrase "Christian Church" and turn it into a huge rant. You called me "Jewish", but you don't see me ranting about how I'm a Liberal Jew and that it's wrong just to call me Jewish, do you?

    When you elaborated on the fact that there are many different denominations of Christianity, you only served to highlight the point that the Church of England does not represent the majority of Britain, and that thus it should be disestablished. So, perhaps inadvertantly there you're actually agreeing with me. Surely it makes little sense to endow this "embarassing anachronism" with special privileges when it does not represent what people think.

    Your posts really smack of an arrogant upper class attitude. It's simply not your position to tell me what I know about my Jewish background. Oh, and as for your exceptionally witty "my best friend is gay" line, did you not "ask your Jewish housemate" something? Just slighly hypocritical but anyway...

    As for bigotry, is it not bigoted that the Church of England sees homosexuals as inferior to others? Or how about the Catholic Church telling people in Africa that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV - when they quite clearly do - just because they are so pro life? Is that not morally wrong?

    When you reply, please try to address my points, instead of needlessly attacking my knowledge on the subject. It just makes you look arrogant (I also suspect that you may have a superiority complex).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Lala

    You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that by saying 'Christian Church' I was merely refering to Christinity as a whole. Do please try to read what I write, it helps a lot in discussions.

    When you elaborated on the fact that there are many different denominations of Christianity, you only served to highlight the point that the Church of England does not represent the majority of Britain, and that thus it should be disestablished. So, perhaps inadvertantly there you're actually agreeing with me. Surely it makes little sense to endow this "embarassing anachronism" with special privileges when it does not represent what people think.

    Your posts really smack of an arrogant upper class attitude. It's simply not your position to tell me what I know about my Jewish background. Oh, and as for your exceptionally witty "my best friend is gay" line, did you not "ask your Jewish housemate" something? Just slighly hypocritical but anyway...

    As for bigotry, is it not bigoted that the Church of England sees homosexuals as inferior to others? Or how about the Catholic Church telling people in Africa that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV - when they quite clearly do - just because they are so pro life? Is that not morally wrong?

    When you reply, please try to address my points, instead of needlessly attacking my knowledge on the subject. It just makes you look arrogant (I also suspect that you may have a superiority complex).
    Hmm, will stay out of this one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I've already discussed the holocaust issue in detail with blamps (on a thread titled islam i think) so I wont go into too much detail. Just two major points.
    Firstly, generalisations about what the Catholic Church did in the Holocaust are inaccurate (you mean there should have been more done to stop it then get involved? I hope so!). Gilbert notes that when Rome fell to the Allies there were 5000 Jews hidden in church buildings in that one city alone. Catholic priests, nuns and monks were involved in this rescue. I think in general that, as with other religious groups, there was huge variation in what Catholics did concerning the Holocaust. Schindler was Catholic and RC clergy were not spared the concentration camps but then equally there must have been some Catholics who were in the SS too. I get the distinct impression the Pope at the time had anti-semitic tendencies, though I've seen very contradictory literature, yet I also know that he protested the deportation of Hungarian Jews. Complex? Hell yeah.
    Second- I can appreciate that you're only discussing Catholicism but I think its important that you acknowledge that there were plenty of other individuals and groups who showed inaction. Churchill and Roosevelt knew the score and did nothing, and they werent facing the same risks as the Pope was. None of the groups they lead were under Nazi rule. Elie Wiesel controversially accuses American Jews of not having done enough to save their European brothers. I dont know much about that particular side issue though.
    By the way, the contraception point relates to artificial methids. Catholics are encouraged to use natural methods of contraception. Its an important distinction.
    Hope this is useful and interesting to you.
    Well said, as always.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Lala

    You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that by saying 'Christian Church' I was merely refering to Christinity as a whole. Do please try to read what I write, it helps a lot in discussions.
    Furthermore, you managed to take my one phrase "Christian Church" and turn it into a huge rant. You called me "Jewish", but you don't see me ranting about how I'm a Liberal Jew and that it's wrong just to call me Jewish, do you?

    When you elaborated on the fact that there are many different denominations of Christianity, you only served to highlight the point that the Church of England does not represent the majority of Britain, and that thus it should be disestablished. So, perhaps inadvertantly there you're actually agreeing with me. Surely it makes little sense to endow this "embarassing anachronism" with special privileges when it does not represent what people think.

    Your posts really smack of an arrogant upper class attitude. It's simply not your position to tell me what I know about my Jewish background. Oh, and as for your exceptionally witty "my best friend is gay" line, did you not "ask your Jewish housemate" something? Just slighly hypocritical but anyway...

    As for bigotry, is it not bigoted that the Church of England sees homosexuals as inferior to others? Or how about the Catholic Church telling people in Africa that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV - when they quite clearly do - just because they are so pro life? Is that not morally wrong?

    When you reply, please try to address my points, instead of needlessly attacking my knowledge on the subject. It just makes you look arrogant (I also suspect that you may have a superiority complex).

    Whilst you have raised relevant points; your post is laced with insult throughout, thus making it hard to respond seriously.
    Maybe if you thought about how insults affect people, then you would get a more positive response.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Whilst you have raised relevant points; your post is laced with insult throughout, thus making it hard to respond seriously.
    Maybe if you thought about how insults affect people, then you would get a more positive response.
    Oh and lala didn't insult me?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Oh and lala didn't insult me?
    Not without grand (often, ridiculous) generalisations about her ethnic origin.

    You can take the old "she insulted me first" road, but I presume you'll want to opt for a more mature response.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Whilst you have raised relevant points; your post is laced with insult throughout, thus making it hard to respond seriously.
    Maybe if you thought about how insults affect people, then you would get a more positive response.
    Bigcnee is right Tek. If the insults were taken out, your comments would carry a greater weight, and also be clearer to the reader.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Not without grand (often, ridiculous) generalisations about her ethnic origin.

    You can take the old "she insulted me first" road, but I presume you'll want to opt for a more mature response.
    Why don't you take the mature road, being so mature as you are, and address some of my 'relevant' points?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Bigcnee is right Tek. If the insults were taken out, your comments would carry a greater weight, and also be clearer to the reader.
    What about lala? You seem to accept her points well enough, even though they are laced with insults!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Why don't you take the mature road, being so mature as you are, and address some of my 'relevant' points?
    Although I don't feel it necessary after you're offensive rant, I'll oblige:

    1) The Christian Church does not "look down" on homosexuals as it were; more disagrees with Homosexuality. Want to hate them for that? Fine, but get the accusation right.

    2) The thing about HIV and condoms has once again been grossely blown-up by the media. All that was said is that abstenation is the only 100% protective of AIDS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    What about lala? You seem to accept her points well enough, even though they are laced with insults!
    Laced with what is undeniably condesention yes. Not out and out insults though. I guess it is just part of her methodology. Besides, I'm a rather accepting person. Merely offering you some advice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Although I don't feel it necessary after you're offensive rant, I'll oblige:

    1) The Christian Church does not "look down" on homosexuals as it were; more disagrees with Homosexuality. Want to hate them for that? Fine, but get the accusation right.

    2) The thing about HIV and condoms has once again been grossely blown-up by the media. All that was said is that abstenation is the only 100% protective of AIDS.
    1) They still discriminate against homosexuals who wish to apply for ordination. This is akin to job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and is morally wrong.

    2) Even so, abstenance is never going to happen. It's morally wrong to promote abstenance ahead of contraception. People who live in the real world know that the latter is always going to be the most viable option.

    BUT

    In what way was my rant any more offensive than lala's? Why do you see it as okey for her to be offensive but not me?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    1) They still discriminate against homosexuals who wish to apply for ordination. This is akin to job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and is morally wrong.

    2) Even so, abstenance is never going to happen. It's morally wrong to promote abstenance ahead of contraception. People who live in the real world know that the latter is always going to be the most viable option.

    BUT

    In what way was my rant any more offensive than lala's? Why do you see it as okey for her to be offensive but not me?
    1) I accept your point there, but I have to ask; "why is it morally wrong?"

    2) Morally wrong? According to who?

    I don't think that you can see that referring to our belief system as a "bedtime story" is going to get our backs up. Although I don't think you have the moral conscience.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I can post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Tek- my, you've changed your tune! You've gone from trying to back up your stupid statement about there being just one whole Christian Church to claiming you meant something else. Its nice to see you back down but it took you a while, and its your fault not mine that you phrased what you meant so badly. Something to work on methinks.
    If you look back to my first post on this thread, you'll see that I agreed with you about disestablishment from the very start. Nothing inadvertent about it. Bit of a balls up there from you! You might want to do a little research next time maybe?!
    I dont know if you've read my posts about my social background but if you haven't, I'll point out now that I live on a council estate in Manchester- not really the place for me to have learned to be upper class now is it? I think maybe you're confusing superior knowledge and arguing ability with being upper class? I'm afraid to break it to you that one can be a knowledgeable prole! As for the Jewish stuff- I'll say what I like about your knowledge of Judaism- how dare you tell me what I may comment on. And I'll reiterate the argument that someone who refers to the 'Jewish Church' isnt displaying much knowledge about the topic. Theres no such thing, and the term church isnt a Jewish one. One doesn't have to be a Jew (or even particularly well informed) to know that.
    You seem to object to my having a Jewish housemate and a gay close friend-tough s**t. Deal with it. I'm not going to refrain from mentioning my mates just because you'd like to paint me as a homophobe (I notice you dropped the bigot argument pretty quickly!).
    For the point about condoms- I've discussed that with you already about a week ago I think but for those who didnt see it the basic point was that condoms sometimes split- and if bodily fluids can get through then there would be a risk of infection surely? For stances on homosexuality, see my first post on this thread.
    I always address your points (muddled as they tend to be) and my posts actually make sense which is more then can be said for yours. You notice people have complimented me on what I wrote (which was very sweet and thank you all again!) If you've got some knowledge of the subject- ie Christianity, then use it. At the moment you're doing a pretty good impersonation of someone who's way out of his depth and backed into a corner, and if this is the best you can do, its likely to continue.
    Btw, if you think I'm being condescending stop talking crap and then I'll have nothing to patronise you for will I?

    Straying a bit away from lala and tek's argument, I would like to ask how everyone says that the bible is a "bedtime story", yet I'm sure people like Caz will be getting presents this Christmas, eating eggs at Easter etc.
    Also Caz's points on religions forcing fear into their believers is not in the slightest true! If you would open your mind slightly, taking into account all sides of the dice, you would see that lots of people go to the church, without being "forced", and enjoy their time there.

    About disestablishing the Church.. I don't go to Pakistan and say that islam should be disestablished. Pakistan and other areas have islam at their roots, just as other places have theirs, but England has been brought up with Christianity. I understand that Christianity did in no way start here, but it has grown as a christian society.

    And to refer to Caz's comment about how Christianity is a load of tosh, and is just an excuse etc.. How can you prove it is not true. I am also a science orientated person, but cannot believe how only a 'big bang' can create a whole living, intelligent earth. How is it that our planet is so full of living organisms, so thriving and there in the first place, when other planets have no noticable signs of intelligent life, if life at all. I know that we have only currently explorered planets relatively close to our planet, but how can you say it is a load of rubbish. I personally take offence to that.

    Sorry for veering away from the topic, but points had been brought up, and I felt I had to get involved.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    1) They still discriminate against homosexuals who wish to apply for ordination. This is akin to job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and is morally wrong.

    2) Even so, abstenance is never going to happen. It's morally wrong to promote abstenance ahead of contraception. People who live in the real world know that the latter is always going to be the most viable option.

    BUT

    In what way was my rant any more offensive than lala's? Why do you see it as okey for her to be offensive but not me?
    I fail to see how it is discriminating to refuse to ordain practicing homosexuals into a Christian church. Homosexuality is deemed to be against God's law - but as Christ did , forgive the sinner but say "sin no more". Therefore if a person ceases to practice their homosexuality then they should be ordained - after all - the Church would not knowingly ordain someone who was having an affair with a person they were not married to, so heterosexuals would be treated in the same manner.
    Furthermore, if Margaret Thatcher wanted to be leader of the Labour party she would not be allowed - would that be discrimination?
    As far as sexual promiscuity goes, society goes in cycles. In Victorian times people did not have many sexual partners, women did not have sex prior to marriage (so a lot of men didn't either!) Therefore abstinence is a definite possibility in the future as evidenced by the trend in US to remain virgins until marriage.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lala, once again you managed to make yourself look very arrogant and stupid. Let's play a game: do you reckon you can make 10000 words out of the fact that I used the term "Christian Church"? Once again, you called me "Jewish" but do you see me insulting you for pages and pasges because I'm a LIBERAL Jew? Seems to me like someone needs to climb down from their high horse. It's still Christianity after all, isn't it now?

    "You seem to object to my having a Jewish housemate and a gay close friend-tough s**t. "

    Could you reprase that in English please? When did I object to this? Are you just stupid, or could you not understand my initial point that you asking your Jewish friend WOULD BE akin to me saying that my best friend was gay (for others: I did not say that).

    The facts about condoms: the Catholic Church said "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."

    Hence, and certainly according to the WHO, many people will simply not bother using condoms (the WHO also claims that they protect the user up to 90% of the time). This will lead to more instances of a disease that has already killed 20 million people. And the Catholic Church only said the above because they are pro life. So they are helping to increase the spread of a killer disease just because they don't believe in contraception. That's what Catholicism stands for, lala, and anyone who argues for it is simply evil.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    I fail to see how it is discriminating to refuse to ordain practicing homosexuals into a Christian church. Homosexuality is deemed to be against God's law - but as Christ did , forgive the sinner but say "sin no more".
    What gives our nation the right to sponsor this religion when we as a secular state can question the concept that to be gay is to sin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lala
    The point you don't appear able to grasp is that although the pope advocated abstenince, he disagreed with the use of condoms. Is it better that people use condoms or don't? Abstinence is quite a hard thing to do. Another question is, should decisions like these be forced upon people (ie by the Pope ordering them), for example the Bush adminstration refusing to let any aid go to charities which in any way council abortion, even if that aid is not directly used to fund anything that even discusses abortion as a viable option.

    Absitence is not really the issue as part of the rampant spread of aids through Africa is due to the high incidence of rape in many countries torn by intercine strife e.g. in the Congo. Maybe we should combat the root causes of the wars as opposed to giving out condoms or preaching abstinence, neither of which will halt the spread in many african countries. Although arguably both have their uses in countries where life is slightly more settled, for example South Africa.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.