truman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 There are certainly those who haven't helped their cause. Abuse also happens in schools and families. Wouldn't you say that the existence of abuse in any organisation warrants strengthening moral guidance in society, not abandoning it? I'm not sure that that organisation is the one to be doing it....or to be held up as doing it which is what your were suggesting I think.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I'm not in favour of self-regulation of any organisation. Whether it's the church, politics, the press, the banks ... humans are notoriously weak when it comes to observing rules (even their own rules) without outside supervision. When a rule may have been broken, the suspects should be charged. The rules that are deemed worthy of keeping should be strengthened where possible, and their enforcement made more rigorous. But we also need a discussion about morals - where people are encouraged to behave in the "right" way not just out of fear of being caught doing wrong, but because it is seen that we all benefit when we adopt certain codes of behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Forgive me. What would be a better title? Sorry gotta go out now. Will be back later. Well given that science is simply a method of investigating phenomena based on acquiring empirical evidence in order the acquire new knowledge and religion is blindly accepting stuff written in a book a couple of thousand years ago then I would say a better title would be something like 'reason vs God did it'. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Excellent - you may not need a dedicated space for reflection, but you have respect for those places and the people who use them. Well, it would be unreasonable of me to not have respect for public and other peoples property. On the secnd point, I suspect anyone preaching hell, fire and damnation is not going to attract a large congregation anywhere in the UK. Indeed churches generally are struggling to attract people whatever their message. I agree. I know you don't believe you need any kind of organisation to fulfil the role that a church does for others, but I am concerned about the lack of any kind of moral framework we are leaving for the next generation. By not filling the vacuum that is being left by the church in decline, I fear we are storing up trouble for the future. Do you mean the religious moral framework that once saw the imprisonment and execution of non-believers just a few centuries ago. The same moral framework that saw the imprisonment of homosexuals up to just a few decades ago. How about the same religious moral framework that didn't recognise that a woman could be raped by her husband(up until the 1990s in this country, a husband could beat and rape his wife because of the religious moral framework that shaped the law). How about the same religious moral framework that led the likes of Thomas Aquinas to view woman as defective inferior beings. How about the same religious moral framework that institutionalised slavery for over 1500 years. How about the same religious moral framework that was against heart transplants and vaccinations against disease. Spare me your moral vacuum crap. Peoples values change - and usually for the better. The only opposition to those changes has almost always come from the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Are you talking about tax efficient giving? The taxpayer doesn't give churches anything - we simply don't tax the charitable donations. Read the link that I provided as to the sources of church funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 If I want a place to sit for quiet reflection, I've sat in the Sheffield Cathedral(lovely and quiet there - hardly anyone goes in). Were you the one who blew out all the candles I've decided to make a further comment regarding the charities issue. I know it may incence some of you on here to see these charities named,but i'm doing this in reaction to the comments some of you made in your posts where you undermined church charities, and did the people of Sheffield a great disservice.Some of whom may be viewing this thread,and may be put off using those services if ever they required help. They do not preach or seek to convert anyone without faith.The only time they will discuss it is if the person expresses interest.Many of them are inter-denominational now. They will not discriminate against people of a different ethnic background,gender ,faith group,sexual preference or non believer. These are the better known charities there are many more. Sheffield Churches Council For Communities. ST Vincent De Paul Society. Archer Project. Ryedo..Where is the Sheffield Secular Charities Organisation? and referring to your own involvement with charity work,you made the comment that in your team you rarely came across people with faith.Do you ask them about their faith and beliefs or lack of them.(i never did ) Are their beliefs so important to you that you have to discuss those matters with them in the process of doing your charity work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Well given that science is simply a method of investigating phenomena based on acquiring empirical evidence in order the acquire new knowledge and religion is blindly accepting stuff written in a book a couple of thousand years ago then I would say a better title would be something like 'reason vs God did it'. jb As the point was to try and get religious people (not just theists, or 'people of the book', but all religioins) to provide evidence for any aspect of their faith (not just the belief in God) and considering at least one atheist poster has confused science with philosophy I would say your suggested title is way off the mark. However, considering it turned into the usual idiotic squabbling very early on it's all pretty much irrelevant. I hope everyone is enjoying it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 . However, considering it turned into the usual idiotic squabbling very early on it's all pretty much irrelevant. I hope everyone is enjoying it None enjoying it more then you...I imagine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 None enjoying it more then you...I imagine! I'd have much rather it stuck to topic, I know I put lots of rules in the o/p which I got mauled for but it was because I really wanted to try and get an actual debate rather than a squabble going. Like I said very early on in this thread though, I really can't be bothered with it, that's why I'm largely ignoring it. I liked Tom's questions to the atheists and there have been one or two interesting points but it seems that some people remain to be closed minded while trying to convince themselves of their own moral superiority, and I'm sorry to say it is largely the atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Spare me your moral vacuum crap. Seriously, you think there's no issue with teaching morals to the next generation? Peoples values change - and usually for the better. Agreed, but it's not a natural process, it demands dedication, vigilance and a constant re-examination of everything. The only opposition to those changes has almost always come from the church. err ... you got me on the historical stuff, but I still think we need more than laws and reason to keep communities bound together and the church has and continues to perform a role in this area. It may not be the best framework for modern living, but it is nevertheless a framework that many people seek (I'm guessing you don't though!). If our secular values and way of life are so strong, how come they aren't filling the gaps left by the decline of the Christian church? Googling "moral vacuum" I've found this from 2008 "The marginalisation of Christianity in British life has created a moral vacuum that radical Islam is threatening to fill, a senior bishop has warned." But that was before David Cameron's Big Society initiative - maybe that will be the way forward? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024709/David-Cameron-UK-riots-Parts-society-broken-sick.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.