Britain should no longer be a Christian country.

[mossdog]

What JFKvsNixon said and the heart is just a muscular organ, if love comes from the heart you stop loving the people you love if you had an heart transplant.

........I never said that the mind does not perceive what love is,but there is a saying that things of the heart are what really matter! I personally am not too bothered whether love/God exists in the heart or the mind.......but I do know that people who know how to really pray,feel that they are praying with their heart more than their mind!

Heartfelt feelings make no sense to some but to millions they do!

Maybe you have medical evidence to the contrary.

[betterman]

........I never said that the mind does not perceive what love is,but there is a saying that things of the heart are what really matter! I personally am not too bothered whether love/God exists in the heart or the mind.......but I do know that people who know how to really pray,feel that they are praying with their heart more than their mind!

Heartfelt feelings make no sense to some but to millions they do!

Maybe you have medical evidence to the contrary.

 

The medical evidance is that people feel and love with their brains and not their hearts which just pumps blood round the body, if your heart dies it can be replaced, if it had any bearing on love, the love you had would have died with the old heart.

[Waldo]

Heartfelt feelings make no sense to some but to millions they do!

 

Exactly so!

 

They (heartfelt feelings) are a different modality, or expression of our being; I mean different to our rational thinking modality. I don't like the tendency we have, in this day and age; to demean and devalue anything that cannot be rationally understood. It's not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with being rational (it's a very good thing); it's just that it is not the whole of a person.

 

Also, when we see the world exclusively through the lens of rationality; it's like going for a walk in the countryside, but never looking up from the map which shows the path you are walking on.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Waldo

[altus]

Yeah you absolutely do, especially if you live in a country where your religion is a minority.

 

Secularism is the one and only guarantee of your, my and everyone else's religious freedom. It's one of the best ideas ever.

 

Oppressing religion is not secularism, using Stalin as an example wow you're really trying to outdo yourself.

 

Stalin, a secularist! wow, seriously what are you on?

 

When members of minority religions start going on about secularists as the enemy, or (like you did, whether you deny it now or not) directly equating fundamentalist theocracy with secularism with silly rhetorical questions, it really bugs me. If it weren't for the fantastic and incredible ideas of secularism that have become popular in the west then this country would be like a mirror image of the gulf states and you wouldn't even be free to practise your religion. You owe a lot as a UK muslim to the ideals of secularism. People like me want members of minority religions all over the world to be free to practise their religion in peace without harassment, and receive neither favours and special treatment nor persecution from the states to which they are subject. Without secularists you're screwed.

 

Stalinism was even more antithetical to liberalist views.

 

I suspect the reason some religious people don't like secularism is because not only do secular states support freedom of religion, they support freedom from religion - including for people those religious would otherwise be able to impose their views on/control (e.g. their children).

[lottiecass]

Exactly so!

 

They (heartfelt feelings) are a different modality, or expression of our being; I mean different to our rational thinking modality. I don't like the tendency we have, in this day and age; to demean and devalue anything that cannot be rationally understood. It's not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with being rational (it's a very good thing); it's just that it is not the whole of a person.

 

Also, when we see the world exclusively through the lens of rationality; it's like going for a walk in the countryside, but never looking up from the map which shows the path you are walking on.

 

The religious never look through the lens of rationality,if you swap the words god/jesus for alien they would be considered divvy by most folk.Heartfelt is the same as soul,just a saying not reality.

[Waldo]

The religious never look through the lens of rationality,if you swap the words god/jesus for alien they would be considered divvy by most folk.Heartfelt is the same as soul,just a saying not reality.

 

Heartfelt and soul are just words. Viewing reality through the lens of the rational is like sticking a label on (and thereby quantifying) everything ... and only seeing those labels. Reality is not words and labels; those are just tools science (i.e. our rational modality) employs to model reality (or our understanding of the reality we experience).

 

I don't agree with your view that religious people, never employ reason (though with some, there is a fondness for dogma, which is the anathema of truth). The different modalities of being we experience are not mutually exclusive you know.

 

As I see it, there is a lot wrong with religion; but, it's also an attempt to express something of our human nature, that is most precious; granted, it's a something that is most often lost in translation.

[Anna B]

Britain is a Christian country. We even have our own church which is the bedrock of our nation - the Church of England, and a Queen anointed in its name. We have many British traditions founded in the Christian Church and ethos which have helped form the character and values of this country.

 

Through much struggle and turmoil over more than a thousand years it has forged into itself a hard won pragmatism and a fundamentally benign nature that deplores all forms of extremism, and encourages us to 'love our neighbour.'

 

We are happy to tolerate and appreciate other religions, including no religion at all, and wish to co-exist with them all in peace, harmony and mutual respect, but we are now rooted deeply in Christianity, in a Christian country, which has served us well, and long may it remain so.

[Baz1]

Yeah you absolutely do, especially if you live in a country where your religion is a minority.

 

Secularism is the one and only guarantee of your, my and everyone else's religious freedom. It's one of the best ideas ever.

 

Oppressing religion is not secularism, using Stalin as an example wow you're really trying to outdo yourself.

 

Stalin, a secularist! wow, seriously what are you on?

 

When members of minority religions start going on about secularists as the enemy, or (like you did, whether you deny it now or not) directly equating fundamentalist theocracy with secularism with silly rhetorical questions, it really bugs me. If it weren't for the fantastic and incredible ideas of secularism that have become popular in the west then this country would be like a mirror image of the gulf states and you wouldn't even be free to practise your religion. You owe a lot as a UK muslim to the ideals of secularism. People like me want members of minority religions all over the world to be free to practise their religion in peace without harassment, and receive neither favours and special treatment nor persecution from the states to which they are subject. Without secularists you're screwed.

 

The picture you paint of the secularism you mention is almost perfect- but you and i know this is not the case- even where a state is officially secularist.

 

Liberalist secularism/secularism basically calls for separation of church and state- on a most basic level. SO how is that even neutral to start off?

 

However, how do you then determine what is right or not right for others.

 

Also indirectly, whether it seeks to or not, secularism by default favors atheism, whether it intends to or not, after all is it a coincidence that atheists, particularly anti-theists who hate religion and would love nothing more than to witness the death of religion, push for secularism?

 

Hence why I mentioned you can have good and bad secularism.

 

Secularism does and has given rise to other ideologies- probably why I mentioned Stalin.

 

By this I mean you can have other ideologies come about where the state can then be captitalist, communist, fascist, socialist et al.

 

Just to add, I am all for secularist if it paints the picture as you mention- but show me where this has worked.

 

Look to some countries today, even the UK- as it tries to be secular, you have seen humanity corrupt, disobedience to law, people isolated where the governemnt chooses who gets what- the poor marginalized.

 

Even America- would you call that 'united'. It reeks of racism.

 

Secularists say secularism is needed because it makes sure government is not favored towards one religion, which avoids divisions and conflict.

 

But it’s no problem for a secular government to be favored or geared toward one set of political orientation that leads to division and conflict within society!

[RootsBooster]

The picture you paint of the secularism you mention is almost perfect- but you and i know this is not the case- even where a state is officially secularist.

 

Liberalist secularism/secularism basically calls for separation of church and state- on a most basic level. SO how is that even neutral to start off?

That question answers itself just fine. By not being affiliated with or influenced by any one religion, it's neutral.

 

However, how do you then determine what is right or not right for others.

oh, right... you're one of those people who thinks that without the Bible nobody can know right from wrong?

 

Also indirectly, whether it seeks to or not, secularism by default favors atheism, whether it intends to or not, after all is it a coincidence that atheists, particularly anti-theists who hate religion and would love nothing more than to witness the death of religion, push for secularism?

You're using an association fallacy there, saying that anti-theists like secularism so it must be bad

How do you explain that secularism favours atheism?

Hence why I mentioned you can have good and bad secularism.

 

Secularism does and has given rise to other ideologies- probably why I mentioned Stalin.

 

By this I mean you can have other ideologies come about where the state can then be captitalist, communist, fascist, socialist et al.

 

Just to add, I am all for secularist if it paints the picture as you mention- but show me where this has worked.

 

Look to some countries today, even the UK- as it tries to be secular, you have seen humanity corrupt, disobedience to law, people isolated where the governemnt chooses who gets what- the poor marginalized.

 

Even America- would you call that 'united'. It reeks of racism.

 

Secularists say secularism is needed because it makes sure government is not favored towards one religion, which avoids divisions and conflict.

 

But it’s no problem for a secular government to be favored or geared toward one set of political orientation that leads to division and conflict within society!

Again, more association fallacies. Also this.

You seem to be very confused about what secularism is, it's simply separation of Church and state, while treating all religions equally in the eyes of the law.

[Cyclone]

Did I not post yesterday that the difference between Teeny and me was that she disbelieves 2499 religions and I disbelieve 2500?

 

If so, I've either lost that post, or it was removed for some reason.

 

I think it's quite a funny joke, and thought provoking in a small way.