Sundays - back to the traditional?

[py_megapixel]

Religion is a human construct to serve Faith in God. There is nothing artificial about it.

How can something be a human construct without being artificial?

 

[Philip]

What about the current views on Women or homosexuality ? Yes, they can do good and on a worldwide scale too but Christ on a bike, they do a lot of evil too.

Again, the Church in England and Wales has gone to a lot of effort to promote the role of women in the church and involving them with all sorts of lay leadership roles, but they can't just start ordaining women priests; this has to come from the Vatican. The Vatican has its own reasons for only having male priests; it's views may be outdated, but they are following long-standing principles in relation to the 12 Apostles which won't be easy to change. I don't consider this as 'evil', archaic perhaps in that they are sticking to old principles.

As for homosexuality, yes the Catholic Church is a bit behind and archaic in its views, but again these are old principles and not easy to change - even the most contemporary Pope in generations hasn't managed this, despite his sympathy to these issues. Again though, homosexual people are made very welcome in many churches across the country with an increasingly contemporary and forward-thinking Church here, but once again a priest here can't defy Rome by agreeing to marry a gay couple, as you know.
Let's also not forget that even 15-20 years ago, homosexuality was still a taboo in many institutions in this country and there was still a lot of homosexual prejudice and discrimination. The Catholic Church is lagging behind in this aspect, but hardly decades and centuries behind.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Again, the Church in England and Wales has gone to a lot of effort to promote the role of women in the church and involving them with all sorts of lay leadership roles, but they can't just start ordaining women priests; this has to come from the Vatican. The Vatican has its own reasons for only having male priests; it's views may be outdated, but they are following long-standing principles in relation to the 12 Apostles which won't be easy to change. I don't consider this as 'evil', archaic perhaps in that they are sticking to old principles.

As for homosexuality, yes the Catholic Church is a bit behind and archaic in its views, but again these are old principles and not not easy to change. Again though, homosexual people are made very welcome in many churches across the country with an increasingly contemporary and forward-thinking Church in this country, but once again a priest here can't defy Rome by agreeing to marry a gay couple, as you know.
Let's also not forget that even 15-20 years ago, homosexuality was still a taboo in many institutions in this country and there was still a lot of homosexual prejudice and discrimination. The Catholic Church is lagging behind in this aspect, but hardly decades and centuries behind.

Many churches do indeed "welcome" non-heterosexual members, but often aren't particularly supportive about those people expressing their love. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" isn't really supportive in my opinion.

Again, if you're making the case that a more religious society is a better society than a predominantly secular one you'll need to provide some very strong evidence. Even then, it won't make it any more true.

 

[Snow1964]

Ignoring the fact that by time of Sunday shopping restrictions being ended church attendance was fairly low (attendance had been nearer 50% in 1940s) the most interesting statistic was about the riots few years back

All the rioting happened in areas where shops had opened on Sundays (even before the rules changed), areas where Sunday shop opening was slow to happen had no trouble.

There was an analysis (sorry forgotten by who) and basic idea was that Sundays were much more a family day, and sometimes involved visiting (or being visited by) grandparents etc for formal family meal, and this tended to be a place respect was unofficially expected or taught. The riots happened where respect had broken down.

So it seems a by product of having a boring family day was better social standards. And quite honestly when you see how some people behave in public these days, losing that day to be taught manners by their elders would be good reason to restrict shops on Sundays

 

[Scotrail12]

Churches that don't accept gay relationships are not welcoming. They're pretending to be to still try and get people to go to their church but truly being welcoming would be by accepting people and their relationships.

 

[ComUtoR]

Again, the Church in England and Wales has gone to a lot of effort to promote the role of women in the church and involving them with all sorts of lay leadership roles, but they can't just start ordaining women priests; this has to come from the Vatican. The Vatican has its own reasons for only having male priests; it's views may be outdated, but they are following long-standing principles in relation to the 12 Apostles which won't be easy to change. I don't consider this as 'evil', archaic perhaps in that they are sticking to old principles.

Women are treated as scum and beneath men in pretty much every aspect. It's disgraceful that any Church/Religion is still basing their principles on archaic beliefs. They could, absolutely change this at a moments notice. It doesn't happen because they don't want to. They are doing everything they can to hold on to these beliefs.

I'm not sure that holding up the principles of the apostles is something you wish to support. After all, we could delve into how the bible has seen women as nothing more than chattel. It's male dominated because it wants to be.

As for homosexuality, yes the Catholic Church is a bit behind and archaic in its views, but again it is sticking to old principles which are not easy to change.

It's not easy because there are too many bigots hiding behind their religion. If they were to recognise homosexuality and accept them into the church etc then all hell will break loose.

Let's also not forget that even 15-20 years ago, homosexuality was still a taboo in many institutions in this country and there was still a lot of homosexual prejudice and discrimination. The Catholic Church is lagging behind in this aspect, but hardly decades and centuries behind.

So because others have only recently stopped their hatred and bigotry; its acceptable to still hold onto certain beliefs so tightly ?

Makes you really wanna go bake a cake....

 

[Philip]

Many churches do indeed "welcome" non-heterosexual members, but often aren't particularly supportive about those people expressing their love. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" isn't really supportive in my opinion.

Again, if you're making the case that a more religious society is a better society than a predominantly secular one you'll need to provide some very strong evidence. Even then, it won't make it any more true.

I think there is a strong argument that the recent acceptance and welcome of LGBT across many institutions within the last decade or so is a virtue signalling exercise (including the Church of England's recent 'acceptance' of LGBT), a chance to fly the flag of diversity, inclusion and equality.
You could argue why should the Catholic Church abandon its long standing principles just to join in with the charade - it would lose a lot of support and respect if it did.

 

[Darandio]

I think there is a strong argument that the recent acceptance and welcome of LGBT across many institutions within the last decade or so is a virtue signalling exercise (including the Church of England's recent 'acceptance' of LGBT), a chance to fly the flag of diversity, inclusion and equality.
You could argue why should the Catholic Church abandon its long standing principles just to join in with the charade - it would lose a lot of support and respect if it did.

Acceptance of it is virtue signalling and a charade? Wow.

 

[ComUtoR]

You could argue why should the Catholic Church abandon its long standing principles just to join in with the charade - it would lose a lot of support and respect if it did.

There is neither Jew or Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus - Galatians 3:28

Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep, live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no evil for evil but give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. - Romans 12:15-18

 

[Philip]

Acceptance of it is virtue signalling and a charade? Wow.

In quite a lot of cases yes it is, in my opinion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think there is a strong argument that the recent acceptance and welcome of LGBT across many institutions within the last decade or so is a virtue signalling exercise (including the Church of England's recent 'acceptance' of LGBT), a chance to fly the flag of diversity, inclusion and equality.
You could argue why should the Catholic Church abandon its long standing principles just to join in with the charade - it would lose a lot of support and respect if it did.

Well, I have no support or respect (quite the opposite) for anyone who thinks accepting and welcoming LGBT+ people (they are people, no less valuable than straight people) is a "charade".

If the overriding view of the Catholic Church is of this sort of overt homophobia, I hope it fades into insignficance and folds. (The hypocrisy of this is also noted).

I do get that businesses are to some extent jumping on a bandwagon to get the "pink pound" spent in their business, but what you're suggesting is quite different to that.

 

[Philip]

There is neither Jew or Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus - Galatians 3:28

Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep, live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no evil for evil but give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on your, live peaceably with all. - Romans 12:15-18

If you read my post carefully I haven't spoken against LGBT in any way, I have attacked the way institutions now like to show off in their 'support' when to me it is often not genuine with main purpose being to virtue signal. It annoys me that the Catholic Church gets attacked for standing by its principles (rightly or wrongly) rather than going on a disingenuous virtue signalling exercise like the BBC and specifically the CofE has done in recent years (and lost quite a lot of clergy and members as a result).

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you read my post carefully I haven't spoken against LGBT in any way, I have attacked the way institutions now like to show off in their 'support' when to me it is often not genuine with main purpose being to virtue signal. It annoys me that the Catholic Church gets attacked for standing by its principles (rightly or wrongly) rather than going on a disingenuous virtue signalling like the CofE has done in recent years (and lost quite a lot of clergy and members as a result).

Because its principles are just a little bit, you know, homophobic?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think there is a strong argument that the recent acceptance and welcome of LGBT across many institutions within the last decade or so is a virtue signalling exercise (including the Church of England's recent 'acceptance' of LGBT), a chance to fly the flag of diversity, inclusion and equality.
You could argue why should the Catholic Church abandon its long standing principles just to join in with the charade - it would lose a lot of support and respect if it did.

Acceptance of it is virtue signalling and a charade? Wow.

To be fair, I agree that the Anglican position on acceptance homosexuality is largely a "change or die" situation: an attempt to maintain relevancy in a world that is more accepting of such things than it was in the past. The Roman Catholic position by comparison is, I suppose, somewhat admirable by comparison in that they've stuck to their principles- however unfounded (outside of scripture) that position may be.

 

[43096]

Again, the Church in England and Wales has gone to a lot of effort to promote the role of women in the church and involving them with all sorts of lay leadership roles, but they can't just start ordaining women priests; this has to come from the Vatican. The Vatican has its own reasons for only having male priests; it's views may be outdated, but they are following long-standing principles in relation to the 12 Apostles which won't be easy to change. I don't consider this as 'evil', archaic perhaps in that they are sticking to old principles.

As for homosexuality, yes the Catholic Church is a bit behind and archaic in its views, but again these are old principles and not easy to change - even the most contemporary Pope in generations hasn't managed this, despite his sympathy to these issues. Again though, homosexual people are made very welcome in many churches across the country with an increasingly contemporary and forward-thinking Church here, but once again a priest here can't defy Rome by agreeing to marry a gay couple, as you know.
Let's also not forget that even 15-20 years ago, homosexuality was still a taboo in many institutions in this country and there was still a lot of homosexual prejudice and discrimination. The Catholic Church is lagging behind in this aspect, but hardly decades and centuries behind.

So, the charge sheet against the Catholic church now reads...
- Paedophilia
- Misogynism
- Homophobia

Any racism to add?

And we haven't even got to all the wars through history in which religion has been a major part.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, I agree that the Anglican position on acceptance homosexuality is largely a "change or die" situation: an attempt to maintain relevancy in a world that is more accepting of such things than it was in the past. The Roman Catholic position by comparison is, I suppose, somewhat admirable by comparison in that they've stuck to their principles- however unfounded (outside of scripture) that position may be.

Reading scripture (of any religion) literally does not generally lead a good way. Islam is the same - you need to understand context to see why some things say what they do, e.g. pork is a dangerous meat if you're in the desert and have no refrigeration, chicken is much better because you can kill it immediately before you cook it as chickens are a convenient "one family meal" size.

 

[py_megapixel]

In quite a lot of cases yes it is, in my opinion.

Well, if you're talking about Tesco putting some rainbow colours on their website for one month of the year then I understand your point - but because they are a company which runs supermarkets, they can't really do much else. (Other retailers are available).
Because people who have historically been persecuted to such an extent, and in some parts of the world still are, even just signals that they are welcome are valuable in changing perceptions.

But the catholic church, rightly or wrongly, has a lot more weight than Tesco does when it comes to this sort of thing, and while it continues to refuse to improve its morals (and thus the attitudes of many of its followers towards LGBT+ people), I will continue to have very little respect for it and will not take kindly to it telling me what I may or may not do with my Sundays.

I do not discriminate against or take offence at people because they follow any religion, or none. But I think this must work the other way as well - religious people should not take offence at people disagreeing with what their religion teaches, nor try to dictate others' lives based upon their own faith.

It annoys me that the Catholic Church gets attacked for standing by its principles (rightly or wrongly) rather than going on a disingenuous virtue signalling exercise like the BBC and specifically the CofE has done in recent years (and lost quite a lot of clergy and members as a result).

How has the CofE gone on a "disingenuous virtue signalling exercise"?

Besides, I think the point @ComUtoR was trying to make is that the catholic church's principles contradict passages from the Bible, so it shouldn't really be standing by them in the first place.

 

[Runningaround]

To summarize, I don't have a problem with people going crazy shopping on Sunday, it is just my opinion that people may enjoy their day more by not doing this and spending their time doing other leisure activities, examples of which I have listed above.

Religion and faith is an important aspect of life in my opinion and more should be done to try and increase people's faith and that's why I'm suggesting people should have more time and opportunity to attend worship without the distraction of things like retail, it they want to. I appreciate the Muslim day of Observance is Friday, Jewish day is Saturday and there are increasing numbers of Muslims and Jewish believers in this country. However, Christianity is still the mainstream religion here and that's why I'm focusing on Sunday in this instance.

Who's going crazy shopping? Why should Monday - Friday workers have half there weekend dictated to them by a religion they don't give two hoots about. You want shops shut but want other places open who should be staffing them?
Religion is important to you and more faith shouldn't be imposed to push people into following you ''like sheep''.

Christianity was forced on me and almost everyone I know, was I asked if I wanted to be Christened? Was I asked if wanted to go to a boring church as young child in the morning or a Sunday School which was worse than normal school when there was far better things to do on a Sunday afternoon. Once I reached an age that I was allowed out to give my parents a rest Church and it's connected school got binned. What was the most worst day of the week? It was Sunday.

If I was asked at 14 do I wish to be Christened it would have been a resounding no and by the looks of it a significant number of the 50% odd who ticked the census box would have done so to.

Would you like to control Sundays like they did? It was finish work Saturday morning, have one afternoon to yourself and the rest of the weekend dictated by Christianity

 

[ComUtoR]

Any racism to add?

Um.. Er....

However, just to add a little balance.


"But any kind of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language or religion, must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design".

- Gaudium et Spes (“The Church in the Modern World”), Vatican II, 1965, #29

"It is now possible to remove from most of the human race the curse of ignorance. A duty most appropriate in our times, especially for Christians, is to work untiringly to the end that fundamental economic and political decisions are taken, nationally and internationally, which will ensure the recognition and implementation everywhere of everyone’s right to human and civil culture in harmony with personal dignity, without distinction of race, sex, nation, religion, or social circumstances."


- Gaudium et Spes (“The Church in the Modern World”), Vatican II, 1965, #60.

Link is to a pdf from the Vatican council in 1965

But no virtue signalling in that VATICAN document

 

[61653 HTAFC]

So, the charge sheet against the Catholic church now reads...
- Paedophilia
- Misogynism
- Homophobia

Any racism to add?

And we haven't even got to all the wars through history in which religion has been a major part.

There's a thread about the impact of Imperialism somewhere on here... religious missionaries had a significant role in that stuff!

Reading scripture (of any religion) literally does not generally lead a good way. Islam is the same - you need to understand context to see why some things say what they do, e.g. pork is a dangerous meat if you're in the desert and have no refrigeration, chicken is much better because you can kill it immediately before you cook it as chickens are a convenient "one family meal" size.

I'm in no way justifying the prejudices that are led by scripture- I was simply attempting to "steel-man" the Catholic position in comparison to that of the CofE. My position is that living by any religious text is not a path to truth- but cherry-picking the bits you like is a bit disingenuous. I don't believe that any text is "The Word Of God" because I have no reason to believe anything supernatural exists. But for those who do believe such things, consistency is (at a stretch) admirable.
In any case, I don't think this thread will last long if it becomes a "Do(es) God(s) Exist?" thread.

 

[Philip]

Because its principles are just a little bit, you know, homophobic?

Well I've made my point and once again it is not an attack on LGBT; I am quite neutral in my own personal stance, but I will defend the Church for sticking to its principles. I have had LGBT-themed virtue signalling (in the form of bunting) in my face in certain situations and I don't like it. What's more interesting is that I know some homosexual people who absolutely detest it (flags and bunting specifically) - I understand why as it is patronising them really.

 

[Runningaround]

Church music is more soothing to the ears than the hits being blasted out of the supermarket speakers...

Church Bells are worse than anything try living in ear shot of four of them, thankfully the reduction of Church goers has reduced this nuisance to two.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There's a thread about the impact of Imperialism somewhere on here... religious missionaries had a significant role in that stuff!

I'm in no way justifying the prejudices that are led by scripture- I was simply attempting to "steel-man" the Catholic position in comparison to that of the CofE. My position is that living by any religious text is not a path to truth- but cherry-picking the bits you like is a bit disingenuous. I don't believe that any text is "The Word Of God" because I have no reason to believe anything supernatural exists. But for those who do believe such things, consistency is (at a stretch) admirable.
In any case, I don't think this thread will last long if it becomes a "Do(es) God(s) Exist?" thread.

Look how the religion of Islam reached such a very wide part of the globe from its base in the Middle East over the last 1400/1500 years when considering "religious missionaries".

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Look how the religion of Islam reached such a very wide part of the globe from its base in the Middle East over the last 1400/1500 years when considering "religious missionaries".

I'm not sure what point you are making here. Both Christianity and Islam have spread significantly from their humble beginnings both from the lectern and by the sword. Neither of those methods make the claims of those religions any more true than the other.
I certainly have no love for the way Islamic teachings deal with unbelievers and apostates, and I'll acknowledge that as a person with no belief in a god I'd be far safer in a Christian theocracy than an Islamic one... but being the "least worst option" (which would probably be a Jainist theocracy if such a thing existed) isn't an endorsement.

 

[AlterEgo]

Acceptance of it is virtue signalling and a charade? Wow.

It is for many institutions which are insincere about LGBT equality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My position is that living by any religious text is not a path to truth- but cherry-picking the bits you like is a bit disingenuous.

Those aren't the only two options, though. Personally I would say that you take them as stories with a meaning rather than literal instruction, and take things in the context of the time of writing.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

m It is for many institutions which are insincere about LGBT equality.

How long ago was the story of Sodom and Gomorrah written and in what religion was that story told?

 

[Bantamzen]

Again, the Church in England and Wales has gone to a lot of effort to promote the role of women in the church and involving them with all sorts of lay leadership roles, but they can't just start ordaining women priests; this has to come from the Vatican. The Vatican has its own reasons for only having male priests; it's views may be outdated, but they are following long-standing principles in relation to the 12 Apostles which won't be easy to change. I don't consider this as 'evil', archaic perhaps in that they are sticking to old principles.

As for homosexuality, yes the Catholic Church is a bit behind and archaic in its views, but again these are old principles and not easy to change - even the most contemporary Pope in generations hasn't managed this, despite his sympathy to these issues. Again though, homosexual people are made very welcome in many churches across the country with an increasingly contemporary and forward-thinking Church here, but once again a priest here can't defy Rome by agreeing to marry a gay couple, as you know.
Let's also not forget that even 15-20 years ago, homosexuality was still a taboo in many institutions in this country and there was still a lot of homosexual prejudice and discrimination. The Catholic Church is lagging behind in this aspect, but hardly decades and centuries behind.

This post sums up just why more and more people reject religions in favour of their own personal beliefs.

"Yeah we know our leaders are sexist, homophobic, narcissistic megalomaniacs. But its tradition....".

I am so glad that when I got thrown out of RE class for asking the teacher for evidence of the existence of a deity, I chose to reject religion. I have absolutely no problems with people that choose to follow their religions, as I say if it gives them peace, makes them happy and does no harm to others then that is fine. But to make excuses for the crimes, evil, and general nastiness of many of those supposed leaders of said religions is not on I'm afraid. The Catholic church could sort its problems out tomorrow, but nobody seems to want to break ranks it seems.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

How long ago was the story of Sodom and Gomorrah written and in what religion was that story told?

Must date back to at least 1962, as that's when the film of that name was released (with Stewart Granger in the lead role, portraying the Hebrew leader 'Lot').

Might possibly be even older!

 

[Philip]

The Catholic church could sort its problems out tomorrow, but nobody seems to want to break ranks it seems.

It would probably take decades to complete and to be fair Pope Francis has already taken a lot of steps to start the process of 'modernizing'.

Also I think you have the wrong idea about faith; it is not and should not be based on evidence but rather on belief. "Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe."