Or specifically the Archbishop of Canterbury meddling in politics and taxation. Keep out. Trying to be controversial in these areas is not a way to win support for the church.

"Leading Christian stands up for the poorest in society - Shock!"

Everybody else meddles...why not ?

Only way the church will get support on here is if it calls for a crusade

Slight over reaction. Good to see someone unafraid to speak rather than hiding their beliefs behind a wall of political correctness like Tim Farron did.

Its a good point, because stuff like that needs saying in times were politicians can stand up and basically lie to a cheering and whooping crowd without a care in the world.

The Archbishop is not 'meddling in politics'. He is upholding Christian values and those of other faiths.

Must vex the guy, seeing huge organisations hoovering up cash, getting richer every day while some poor folk are at food banks. Has the church sold it's investments in Wonga and various hedge funds yet? Still saving to fix that roof I guess.

randomclaret2 wrote:Everybody else meddles...why not ?

They need to stop meddling with people.

BleedingClaret wrote:They need to stop meddling with people.

Should that read fiddling?

tim_noone wrote:Should that read fiddling?

Well yes that what I was alluding too...

The Archbishop of Canterbury is not who you think. He is a Cambridge University alumni and a compatriot of Tony Blair and had a previous career as an oil executive.

Pstotto wrote:The Archbishop of Canterbury is not who you think. He is a Cambridge University alumni and a compatriot of Tony Blair and had a previous career as an oil executive.

So does that mean he can't feel compassion for other people less fortunate than himself?

nil_desperandum wrote:So does that mean he can't feel compassion for other people less fortunate than himself?

I think he's had a share of misfortune himself in life...

As a general rule of thumb I think that anyone who believes in god doesn't/shouldn't have a right to say anything as they are clearly delusional.

However as we have an established church the consequences of that are that we have almost 30 CofE Bishops sitting in the House of Lords. How bonkers is that?

Corky wrote: However as we have an established church the consequences of that are that we have almost 30 CofE Bishops sitting in the House of Lords. How bonkers is that?

Are you saying that the Bishops in the Lords are less qualified to sit in there than the majority of that unelected body?
I would suggest that they are probably more clued up with what is happening in society and the world around them than many who simply turn up daily for their allowance.

You'd have to wonder how many of the bishops in the House Of Lords knew about child abuse in the Church.

Plus they believe in something that's never been proven....

Looking out for others and upholding Christian Values should not involve suggesting levels and thresholds of taxation.

Nothing wrong with religious leaders intervening in social debate like this. Too often all we ever hear is the worn out narrative as to why we should let the very rich, and large corporations get away with paying little or no tax. We all have to pay more in tax, and sacrifice services to fund this.

AndrewJB wrote:Too often all we ever hear is the worn out narrative as to why we should let the very rich, and large corporations get away with paying little or no tax.

Like the church, for example?

Blackrod wrote:Looking out for others and upholding Christian Values should not involve suggesting levels and thresholds of taxation.

Why not?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Plus they believe in something that's never been proven....

Nothing wrong with that. If it was proven then they'd no longer "believe" it, they'd "know" it.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Only way the church will get support on here is if it calls for a crusade

So what are you saying about people on here?
I understand about the crusades and what they were about but what has that got to do with this thread?

Corky wrote:As a general rule of thumb I think that anyone who believes in god doesn't/shouldn't have a right to say anything as they are clearly delusional.

However as we have an established church the consequences of that are that we have almost 30 CofE Bishops sitting in the House of Lords. How bonkers is that?

At least they are elected to the second chamber

Oh hang on a minute

Imploding Turtle wrote:Nothing wrong with that. If it was proven then they'd no longer "believe" it, they'd "know" it.

But Christian's already know it even though it hasn't been proven
Some claim to have even heard from their god

mkmel wrote:But Christian's already know it even though it hasn't been proven
Some claim to have even heard from their god

And you can prove that they haven't?

mkmel wrote:But Christian's already know it even though it hasn't been proven
Some claim to have even heard from their god

Those people are mentally ill.

Actual Christians call it "having faith". You don't "have faith" in things you know to be true, you have faith in things you believe to be true.

dsr wrote:And you can prove that they haven't?

I can prove that psychosis exists and that a symptom of it can include hearing voices from imaginary beings.

ND, why don't you write and ask him? Funny conclusionism, you're not a scientist are you?

Imploding Turtle wrote:I can prove that psychosis exists and that a symptom of it can include hearing voices from imaginary beings.

So? Is that a proof that no-one can hear the voice of God?

dsr wrote:And you can prove that they haven't?

Can they prove that they have?

mkmel wrote:Can they prove that they have?

No, it's faith either way. Your faith leads you to believe there is no God, but you can't prove it.

dsr wrote:So? Is that a proof that no-one can hear the voice of God?

Erm, no. But why are you demanding proof from the sceptic and not the person making the claim? If someone claims to have heard God's voice it's perfectly reasonable to believe they're a bit nuts until they provide evidence to support their claim.

Some people believe in God, but they can't prove God exists. Some people don't believe in God, though they can't prove God doesn't exist. Why should the faithful atheists have the default position and the faithful believers should be assumed to be wrong?

dsr wrote:Some people believe in God, but they can't prove God exists. Some people don't believe in God, though they can't prove God doesn't exist. Why should the faithful atheists have the default position and the faithful believers should be assumed to be wrong?

I think you'll find the believers assume the faithless are wrong.

It's a bit like Brexit, or any other argument where neither side is willing to listen and learn from the other.

Hey Lancs...I've always wanted to shoehorn Brexit into a thread. How did I do?

nil_desperandum wrote:Are you saying that the Bishops in the Lords are less qualified to sit in there than the majority of that unelected body?
I would suggest that they are probably more clued up with what is happening in society and the world around them than many who simply turn up daily for their allowance.

What; people who believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden aren't qualified to sit anywhere.

For what it is worth I do not think we should have any unelected people, however qualified they may or may not be, having any influence on the governance of this country.

[quote="AndrewJB"]Nothing wrong with religious leaders intervening in social debate like this.

As a secularist I think there is. The idea that religious leaders have some sort of divine right to adopt the moral high ground and are thus more easily able to see the inadequacies of our social system, frankly, is ********.

They should stick to talking ******** every Sunday or whenever to their delusional flock and leave the real world to those of more sound mind.

Edit: bow locks is the missing word(s)

dsr wrote:Some people believe in God, but they can't prove God exists. Some people don't believe in God, though they can't prove God doesn't exist. Why should the faithful atheists have the default position and the faithful believers should be assumed to be wrong?

What if the same scenario was applied to those who do and don’t believe in the tooth fairy?

Rileybobs wrote:What if the same scenario was applied to those who do and don’t believe in the tooth fairy?

Plus there's only one tooth fairy as far as I know. There's absolutely s**tloads of gods.

What happens when one speaks to you, if it's not the right one. Or do you only get through to yours? Who organises all that. Imagine if you prayed to Allah or the white beard one for 50 years, then all of a sudden you've got Thor in your ear telling you to smite the Danes or something.

All I say to that is "Sol Invictus"

Guich, the real trick is to slip a Brexit post into a thread on Brexit, and then giggle at people moaning about a post on Brexit on a Brexit thread.

I'm an Atheist, I accept I could be wrong but think it highly unlikely.

People of faith in my experience are never prepared to accept that they could be wrong. I guess that is because once there is a slight chink in that armour the walls of Jericho will come tumbling down.

Do you like my biblical reference there.

NottsClaret wrote:Plus there's only one tooth fairy as far as I know. There's absolutely s**tloads of gods.

What happens when one speaks to you, if it's not the right one. Or do you only get through to yours? Who organises all that. Imagine if you prayed to Allah or the white beard one for 50 years, then all of a sudden you've got Thor in your ear telling you to smite the Danes or something.

One night the Norse god Thor was feeling a bit horny so he decided to come down to earth to satisfy his needs. He picked up a good looking woman with a great body but a minor speech impediment. However, this didn't affect their sex and they went at it hot and heavy all weekend long.
In the morning Thor had to leave so he decided he should at least tell her his name, so he said to her, "I'm Mighty Thor and I have to leave now."
She looked at him and said, "You're thore?! I'm tho thore I can hardly pith."

True story.

dsr wrote:Some people believe in God, but they can't prove God exists. Some people don't believe in God, though they can't prove God doesn't exist. Why should the faithful atheists have the default position and the faithful believers should be assumed to be wrong?

I have no problems in people believing there is a god even though for me me there is no such person

It's only when believers claim to have spoken to their god and he has contacted them in some way

I will be polite and not comment on this belief of theirs

NottsClaret wrote:Plus there's only one tooth fairy as far as I know. There's absolutely s**tloads of gods.

What happens when one speaks to you, if it's not the right one. Or do you only get through to yours? Who organises all that. Imagine if you prayed to Allah or the white beard one for 50 years, then all of a sudden you've got Thor in your ear telling you to smite the Danes or something.

That awkward moment when you die and arrive at the gates of paradise only to be refused entry because you chose the wrong one.

dsr wrote:Some people believe in God, but they can't prove God exists. Some people don't believe in God, though they can't prove God doesn't exist. Why should the faithful atheists have the default position and the faithful believers should be assumed to be wrong?

What if a family member had a life threatening illness and two good men you knew and trusted approached you to help. If one was a doctor who said he could diagnose and treat the illness and make them better and one was a Christian who said God had spoken to him and said your family member will be ok if all your family pray to god which one would you give the default position to believe and trust?

I'm guessing when you get to Paradise its like a DHSS office where you have to pass numerous tests to see if you qualify for heaven.

If you turn up with the wrong god, then it takes a long time to even get an appointment.

"I'm sorry sir, but its not our fault that *insert your deity" doesn't exist. You'll have to wait for the followers of "insert correct deity here" and hope there is a space in their heaven"

dsr wrote:Some people believe in God, but they can't prove God exists. Some people don't believe in God, though they can't prove God doesn't exist. Why should the faithful atheists have the default position and the faithful believers should be assumed to be wrong?

The story of the creation, supposedly God's first big trick is proven to be untrue. Not a good start in the proving he exists stakes.

TheFamilyCat wrote:The story of the creation, supposedly God's first big trick is proven to be untrue. Not a good start in the proving he exists stakes.

The writers of the Old Testament did not have the scientific language of the 21st century that we use. By the same token, we shouldn't assume that the stories they told were even meant as literal truths in the way we understand them.

Science describes "The Big Bang", it neither proves nor disproves the existence of god or offers comment on what the nature of god is (or isn't).

Rileybobs wrote:That awkward moment when you die and arrive at the gates of paradise only to be refused entry because you chose the wrong one.

American Express card will get you in..

dsr wrote:And you can prove that they haven't?

Peter Sutcliffe did apparently, which is nice.