As Zwartz has writes; "I argued that the paper typically only covered three religion stories: priests molesting children, the church in decline, and the troglodyte church holding back women and gays."

I don't see much else emanating from the church these days. I find them utterly irrelevant. A spent force.

Indeed whence? Not for nothing is it writ large. Know the truth and the truth will set you free!

Would you know this truth sourced from ancient divine wisdom, learn to meditate and when accomplished enough and without any religious dogma included or attached!

Finally understand what is meant by, seek ye first the kingdom of heaven within!

Or that meditation is the practise of stilling all conscious thought or the monkey chatter that is the never ending conscious thought process! And not reflective thinking about a particular theme or writer.

Find a comfortable chair and sit upright, when refreshed rather than when tired and sleepy. Put on some soft music which you find very relaxing and just lose yourself in the moment of complete listening stillness.

Create a scene in you mind's eye, of a tropical beach nobody else has ever walked on. Observe the crunch virgin sand makes when first walked on. Then note how much the gentle waves resemble your slow steady breathing rhythm as they lap the shore. Then how the palms rustle with the very gentle zephyr of breeze.

Then note a slightly familiar place where a path ascends away from the beach toward a mountain. As you set foot upon this path note the number of steps, counted backwards, that you need to take to reach a distant if timeless plateau. Start from five hundred and reduce with time and experience to say, one hundred.

Note absolutely everything you experience along the way and when you reach the highest point.

This will completely involve your conscious mind and allow you higher still mind to just observe and listen, without being overwhelmed by the usual monkey chatter.

Use it when you are troubled and need to know the truth about anything. Or confirm a truth or a lie!

We all have a built in BS meter and it works better if we learn how to access then use it to help resolve any issue which doesn't have to be religious, just everyday stuff only important to you! Or ancient timeless wisdom.
Alan B.

What a perfect and wise conclusion:

«It is about time that the Church realises that the end of the Church as we knew it has arrived and that we cannot go on as before. It is time to circle the wagons and nurture the light of the gospel. It is time to own the fact that we are a dissident force within our culture and that we cannot rely on the old relationships to keep us in business. We have returned to the condition of the early Church; a minority living in a society that misunderstands us and persecutes us. This will be a good thing for the Church as long as it can maintain theological rigor and not lapse completely into folk religion. Such austerity may rescue the Church from nominal religion, which is what the census measures.»

Too long has Christianity been corrupted by its entanglement with the state. Same for Islam which is still entangled with certain states even today; as well as for Judaism which is entangled with the state of Israel.

May all Christians get the above message. I wish all my Christian brothers and sisters well and speedy recovery of their spiritual integrity and force.

Never mind that conventional exoteric institutional Christianity has nothing to do with Truth and Reality as these two related references point out, and describe. It is all based on and created by mind-based illusions
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion
http://global.adidam.org/books/gift-of-truth-itself
Plus this reference which was originally titled The Psychosis of Doubt
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism
This reference of doubt at the golem-like entity which creates conventional "religion" and culture.
http://www.dabase.org/hardware.htm
The Restoration of the Sacred
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/restsacr.html

I was a catholic growing up: altar boy, first communion, confirmation. Have not been in a church since I was 18. I see the catholic church as a corrupt and secretive organization concerned only with protecting and perpetuating itself. Condemn (indeed excommunicate) priest liberation theologists but protect child abusers? What?
And how do you think a conversation between George Pell and Jesus of the new testament would unfold? It would not be to pell's credit.
But spirituality, or whatever you call it, is important, is part of what it means to be human. Jung spoke often about this. Nietzsche lamented the death of god, perplexed at what might come after. Me too. If the church dies, what replaces it? Neo-freakin-liberalism??

This article could only have been written by a believer. As was pointed out to me in the long ago, you must have faith to believe in god.

It is a circular and time wasting argument.

People can believe whatever they choose, it is when they attempt to impose that belief, or 'morality' based upon that belief that they have overstepped the mark.

No religion has any place in government, no place in defining what is 'moral', or what is not.

Peter Sellick is lost and delusional if he thinks comment from the Australian is accurate or relevant.
His concern for acceptance of the church in their opinion is silly.

He ignores the election of Donald Trump which was ably assisted by the rising tide of American evangelicals, and their uncomfortable but strong association with the GOP.

God has actually abandoned established religion for good reason. The good reason is, in its attempts to appeal to secularism and its support of homosexuals as normal.

He forgets the world was long ago handed over to the devil. My suggestion to him would be to stop making friends with it, and begin waging war against evil. This is what his Bible demands!

Diver, given your comments, one concludes you believe in the unprovable scratchings in an ancient book?

None more ancient than the old testament,(Torah) handed to us by a stone age and almost entirely illiterate culture, given to embellishing the truth with flat earth superstition/myth?

Take Exodus and all that flows from it, including a list of thou shall nots allegedly carved in stone for a culture, almost to a man that could neither read or write, during the almost impossible march from Egypt to Israel!

With emerging archaeological evidence that paints a very different story, and by implication, everything that relies on/flows from it?

A Devil's role would surely be, to fill the ignorant head with voluminous nonsense that sets Cain against Able, and for the "crime" of daring to be BORN DIFFERENT!

Believe how you want, even if that belief includes a flat earth! But know this, if you are wrong and then act out on your inculcated, brainwashed from birth belief? You still remain answerable for all the harm you do and the crimes you commit in His name!

At the end of the day, the man in the mirror, will know the exact, whole truth and every thing you did or said, and judge you according to what was or is truly in your heart!

The fact you implacably refuse to look or accept emerging genetic or DNA evidence! Will be no excuse for the irreversible harm you and your ignorant ilk continually do!

I have opened death's door and seen( your worst nightmare, then some) hell and the intensely evil, terror engendering monster that controls it.

And say to you, it's not too late to set aside this master, with his litany of false and harmful belief and the continuous harm it and you do!

If one must believe in something, then that has to be, the mighty irrefutable truth! LOOK!
Alan B.

Meanwhile bible believing churches go from strength to strength seeing how irrational and nonsensical secularism is. A total lack of reason, morals and true science accompanies such a perverse ideology as secular humanism. Unbelieving, compromising churches may as well not exist. No wonder they embrace earth worshipping and such fantasies as evolution and global warming. Still looking for that one fossil. What a joke.

You need some new schtick Runner.

Sells writes: “Simply put, the god that the atheists do not believe in, the supernatural unitary being, is completely unlike the God worshipped by Christians who is no being at all as we think of being but is rather Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the truth we see in Christ projected into the future.”

Ignoring for the moment just how uselessly vague Sell’s take on what the Christian god is aside, no, a supernatural being is exactly what the majority of Christians believe in.

So-called ‘sophisticated’ theists try this one on all the time to make it appear as though vocal atheists (though they usually only focus on Dawkins) are attacking a straw man when they’re not. Vocal atheists are talking about the “people in the pews” that sophisticated theists like Sells (and one other on OLO who I can think of) look down upon. However, these “people in the pews” are the people I was surrounded by when I was a Christian, and these are the people who numerous polls in the US suggest make up the vast majority of Christians.

Vocal atheists do devote some of their energies to sophisticated theology (yes, even Dawkins), but they do so in proportion to the tiny percentage of Christians that these sophisticated theists represent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fnBNL7JELI

A brilliant, yet blunt, takedown of the sophisticated theist’s condescending position by Matt Dillahunty, which aired on the Non Prophets podcast a few years back, can be found at:

http://youtu.be/-ACfNm5iHFE?t=85 (Slight language warning)

--

Oh dear, runner.

Sometimes your posts read like a parody. Then again, they always do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

<<Still looking for that one fossil.>>

Which fossil is that?

AJP
Christianity is a complicated animal, but it keeps on keeping on, in spite of its surroundings.

Christ made the observation plain, if belief in him and his teachings is not grasped as would a child grasp a simple concept, then the believer fails the test!

This demand lies at the heart of Christianity. Reformation starts from a radical and powerful base of simple (evangelical) belief.

Alan B.
There is a vast chasm between compassion for the sinner, and the acceptance of his sin.
If the sinner, in this case the homosexual, refuses to repent of that sin, there is no forgiveness. He simple remains cannon fodder in the great battle raging between good and evil!
Think about it!

Not without the utmost resistance, diver dan.

<<Christianity is a complicated animal, but it keeps on keeping on, in spite of its surroundings.>>

Christianity has always caved when not doing so would mean the end of it. There aren’t too many churches around anymore that will openly denounce divorce or shun divorced people, for example.

<<Reformation starts from a radical and powerful base of simple (evangelical) belief.>>

That sounds somewhat tautological, but okay. So what? How do you know Jesus said or did anything the Bible claims he did?

<<If the sinner, in this case the homosexual, refuses to repent of that sin, there is no forgiveness.>>

Why should they be expected to repent for the way your god made them? You do realise that, according to Christian theology, God made gay people the way they are, don't you? (Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:7)

<<He simple remains cannon fodder in the great battle raging between good and evil!>>

How is homosexuality in any way evil?

Questions, questions AJP

*Christianity has always caved when not doing so would mean the end of it.*

agree...but Christianity is not one part, but many! The part that has folded is the "liberal" arm, a weak part associated with this author. You were correct above to point out its arrogance and treatment with contempt towards those in the pews..(re your utube post).

*How do you know Jesus said or did anything the Bible claims he did?*
how do you know Jesus actually ever existed? There is no evidence. Christ is the head of a belief "system". It requires a simple faith to believe in it!

*(Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:7)*
You quote from a book in which you have ceased to believe in! Why do you presume I believe in it?

Homosexuality exists, agreed. I and others have a personal contempt towards it, from a base similar to your own, which does believe in it. A belief system based on personal choice!

The strength of Christianity lies in its evangelicals. Historically they rise from the bottom, and usually against liberalism and corruption in its Christian ranks!

diver dan,

Yes, well, if you’re going to make a lot of unfounded assertions, they’re going to attract a lot of questions.

<<The part [of Christianity] that has folded is the "liberal" arm, a weak part associated with this author.>>

They all “fold” eventually. Some sections are just slower than others - generally, the less educated ones. For example, I’m not aware of any denominations that still support slavery. Views on homosexuality will likely go the same way.

<<how do you know Jesus actually ever existed? There is no evidence.>>

I don’t know that. In fact, I have argued, on numerous occasions in the past, that the evidence for an historical Jesus is scant and unreliable. But you were speaking with the assumption that he had existed, so I went with that for the moment.

<<Christ is the head of a belief "system".>>

Well, I’m not sure what the quotation marks are about but, otherwise, you have no argument from me there.

<<[Christianity] requires a simple faith to believe in it!>>

Yes, and the less simplistic the faith becomes, the further the Christian strays from the Bible.

<<You quote from a book in which you have ceased to believe in!>>

Yes, because the book is the ultimate authority in Christianity. The Bible will always remain valid to at least that extent.

<<Why do you presume I believe in it?>>

I didn’t, necessarily. But, again, we were talking about Christianity, and the Bible is the ultimate authority there. Whether it is all nonsense was a side issue.

<<I and others have a personal contempt towards [homosexuality], …>>

“Personal contempt” just looks like another way to say “unjustified” or “irrational”, to me.

<<… from a base similar to your own, which does believe in it. A belief system based on personal choice!>>

No, my position on this topic is based on evidence and reasoned argument, not personal choice.

<<Historically [evangelicals] rise from the bottom, and usually against liberalism and corruption in its Christian ranks!>>

I'm not aware of any examples there. You certainly can't be talking about slavery or evolution.

AJP..

looks good with the exception of the last statement viz.

*I'm not aware of any examples there. You certainly can't be talking about slavery or evolution.*

Example...The election of Donald Trump. Without evangelical Christian support, no Donald Trump as US President...that is a significant achievement for evangelical Christianity..

Black Queen to white bishop three ...check!

diver dan,

So your example of evangelicals rising up against liberalism and corruption, within Christianity, is the election of Trump? How is that so? The US government is a secular institution and is constitutionally separated from religion.

We were talking about change and reformation WITHIN Christianity. After all, you did say:

“Historically [evangelicals] rise from the bottom, and usually against liberalism and corruption in its Christian ranks!” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19136#340456)

With, “in its Christian ranks”, being the operative words.

If you now just want to talk about the more fundamentalist evangelicals having more power and influence over politics and society in general than their more liberal brethren, then sure, you could probably find many examples of that.

In fact, such examples would only serve to demonstrate my point earlier about sophisticated theists being a tiny minority, despite what sophisticated theists themselves claim, or their well-intentioned atheist apologists.

AJP ..

Now you shuffle cards!
I'm discussing the political influence of Christian evangelicals. There are multiple spheres of influence.

Interestingly, Scott Morrison is an evangelical Christian.
Question in his case is; is he one of the minority left wing evangelicals. I have no idea what his view on gay marriage is, I'd be interested to know, but gay marriage is not accepted by the majority right wing.

Your still in check!

How have I shuffled the cards, diver dan?

<<Now you shuffle cards!>>

I had been talking about the Christian Church, specifically, the whole time.

<<I'm discussing the political influence of Christian evangelicals. There are multiple spheres of influence.>>

Then you needed to make that clearer. That quote again:

“Historically [evangelicals] rise from the bottom, and usually against liberalism and corruption in its Christian ranks!” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19136#340456)

In light of your clarification, I can only assume, therefore, that by “in its Christian ranks”, you actually meant to say, “by the Christian evangelicals in their ranks” (with “their” being, say, a political party).

<<Interestingly, Scott Morrison is an evangelical Christian.>>

Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me at all.

<<Question in his case is; is he one of the minority left wing evangelicals.>>

No, I think it’s pretty obvious that Morrison is a member of the Christian Right.

<<I have no idea what his view on gay marriage is, I'd be interested to know, …>>

He’s opposed to it:

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/whereyourmpstands/electorates/Cook

No surprises there.

<<… but gay marriage is not accepted by the majority [of] right wing[ers].>>

Correct. But why are we talking about gay marriage now?

This is all starting to feel very meandering and directionless. Get to a point, please. And quickly, too, we're off topic here.

<<[You’re] still in check!>>

Huh?

Just what exactly do you think you have me cornered on? You haven’t discredited anything I’ve said yet (we’ve even agreed on some points), and you have not yet justified your contempt for gay people.

AJP..

*, and you have not yet justified your contempt for gay people.*

I'm not contemptuous of gay people at all. I'm contemptuous of the gay rights movement as a radical political organisation, and because of that fact, it should be challenged aggressively and with no mercy!

*This is all starting to feel very meandering and directionless. *

Not at all off topic. The author decries the collapse of his liberal church, (ably assisted by its attachment to homosexuality as acceptable, (the catastrophe the Catholic Church is because of it)).

*Historically [evangelicals] rise from the bottom, and usually against liberalism and corruption in its Christian ranks!” *

Splitting hairs in your debates, diminishes its usefulness. The contested statement of mine above, assumes you have some knowledge of the history of the Christian church, which I believe you do!

AJP..

PS. check mate.

I win because simply I debate the point; as opposed to yourself, who prefers to default to nit picking the physical construction of the debate.
A more positive input by you, would be more constructive towards the outcome of debate me thinks AJP.

Okay then, diver dan. Not gay people. Just the concept of homosexuality.

<<I'm not contemptuous of gay people at all.>>

“Homosexuality exists, agreed. I and others have a personal contempt towards it, …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19136#340456)

Which you have now narrowed down to the gay rights movement specifically:

<<I'm contemptuous of the gay rights movement as a radical political organisation, and because of that fact, it should be challenged aggressively and with no mercy!>>

So you don’t like the gay rights movement because you believe they are a radical political organisation?

Okay. So, in what ways are they radical, and why is the movement deserving of contempt and in need of challenging?

<<Splitting hairs in your debates, diminishes its usefulness.>>

Oh no, diver dan. I wasn’t splitting hairs at all. To split hairs means to argue about an inconsequential and trivial aspect of an issue, and your poor wording was obviously not inconsequential or trivial. It changed everything.

<<The contested statement of mine above, assumes you have some knowledge of the history of the Christian church, …>>

No, I think it was just sloppy wording. Having knowledge of the history of the Christian Church does not change the fact that there is a very big difference between ‘Christian ranks within the Christian Church’, and ‘Christians within the ranks of external organisations'.

<<I win because simply I debate the point ...>>

Which point was that? You’ve made a few, and they’re all still looking pretty dubious, at this point.

<<A more positive input by you, would be more constructive towards the outcome of debate me thinks AJP.>>

I think questioning dubious positions is a pretty damn positive undertaking. What do you consider to be positive, then?

AJP

On track!

I have made my point, and have an 110% belief in truth, that the Liberal church of the author, has failed, primarily due to its embrace of the comforts of the world it should, by dent of belief in its own moral code, be opposed to. There are stark examples in Christian scriptures, of its need to be in the world but not of it.
The church has transformed itself effectively, into an NGO. it has lost credibility and is rightfully held in contempt by a broad section of our community: Hypnotised into the comfortable sleep of death.

If you need further example of its crumbling moral decline, look no further than an embrace of homosexuality, and a denialist view, the Catholic Church has been rocked to its core, not by homosexuals but by pedophilia. Simply, disgusting and immoral suffices!

discussion of the radical gay rights movement, and its sinister encroachment of our society, is not the point of this article. Maybe some other time for this one AJP.

Motto of the Inquisitor was "hurts me more than it hurts you".
Hmmmm, I don't believe them!

The church should have nothing to decide here. It's not their decision!!

diver dan,

So, you think the liberal arm of the Christian Church has failed by being a part of this world and not of it.

The only specific example of this that you give, however, is its softened stance (and sometimes, acceptance) of homosexuality. But I could say the same thing about its rejection of slavery, the acceptance of evolution, and the less-racist stance that it holds nowadays.

Would you consider these, too, to be a sign of its “crumbling moral decline”?

<<If you need further example of its crumbling moral decline, look no further than an embrace of homosexuality … the Catholic Church has been rocked to its core … by pedophilia.>>

Firstly, you have not yet demonstrated that homosexuality, or the acceptance of it, is in any way a sign, or form, of moral decline (or deserving of contempt). Indeed, you have spent much of your time artfully dodging my questions there.

Secondly, while the child sex abuse (not all paedophiles offend) in the Catholic Church is indeed terrible, I see no reason to believe that this is a recent phenomenon. In fact, it was likely worse before it came to the public’s attention, and extends back to the beginnings of the Catholic Church.

More to the point, how is child sex abuse related to the liberal arm of the Christian Church? Are you actually claiming that they are a cause of it?

<<discussion of the radical gay rights movement, and its sinister encroachment of our society, is not the point of this article.>>

So, why did you mention it then

Sorry, diver dan, of course that should be:

So, you think the liberal arm of the Christian Church has failed by being ‘of this world’, rather than just in it.

But since I’m here, I would like to add that I don’t think the liberal arm of the Church is responsible for the decline in religious affiliation, if that’s what you think. I think education is, and that the liberal arm of the Christian Church is a response to this, in order to remain relevant in an increasingly tolerant and educated society.

As I pointed out earlier, Christianity has only progressed when not doing so would mean the end of it, and the more liberal churches understand this. Unfortunately for them, however, I would agree with Dawkins' prediction that this new brand 'sophisticated' theology - which has emerged as a response to, and as the result of, an increasingly educated and tolerant society - is also doomed.

AJP

AJP

I think to carry this on we need to clarify what you and I consider to be the definition of the "church".

I consider the liberal church as meaning established and traditional denominations.
Then there are Christian sects such as Mormon and others.
And finally the loosely connected evangelicals; some of which, at a certain radical point, can be classified as sects.

Of these three definitions, at any given time, some will be either increasing in popularity, or declining in popularity.

Presently, the evangelicals are romping onwards and upwards, while the Liberal church flounders.

This is an important point when discussing the fate of the Christian church.

So you argue that the decline in the Christian church, as expressed in the census, is due to an educated public.
You need to define "educated".

There appears to be an anomaly between the census report and the increasing numbers of evangelical Christians, don't you think. (As an aside issue).

I stand firmly behind my theory of the declining state of the traditional Liberal church, as a direct consequence of accepting defeat in the face of a relentless attack by the gay rights lobby, through its propaganda wing, which has pushed various barrows along the path of time, specifically aimed at destabilising societal moral norms, using as its main armoury, the acceptance as equals of homosexuals, demanding equality and acceptance of their sexual fetishes.

A Christian church which supports immorality, will fail. The Catholic church (and other Liberal branches of course), the flag bearer of The Liberal church, is an abysmal failure as a church of the Christian God, as a direct consequence of homosexuality and its evil influence, through its entire structure!

If that is what you term an educated public response to that particular state of affairs, I agree!

Gone the way of the world?

I branded them as NGO's. they have become schemers and scammers for money!
Another subject outside this one

AJP.
<discussion of the radical gay rights movement, and its sinister encroachment of our society, is not the point of this article.>>

So, why did you mention it then?

Simply because it has supplanted itself as societies new religion.

An appropriate question for the census paper would be:

Are you a gay rights supporter or a Christian? Tick only one box!

Then let's study the census outcome re religion.

diver dan,

Your clarification of what you are referring to when you speak of the Christian Church (i.e. organised Christianity) is close enough to what I understood your view to be, and I don’t think your clarification changes anything.

<<Of these three definitions, at any given time, some will be either increasing in popularity, or declining in popularity.>>

Agreed.

<<Presently, the evangelicals are romping onwards and upwards, while the Liberal church flounders.>>

If you’re just talking about the election of Donald Trump, sure. But the evangelicals in the US have always had immense power and political influence. That power, however, is actually declining. In the US, we see this in the ‘rise of the nones’, the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and the growing and ironic cries of persecution coming from the evangelicals in the US. This decline in power is only happening faster in other Western countries.

I’m not sure of the exact state of the Liberal Church (predominantly the Catholics and the Anglicans), but I don’t think their attendance is growing. I suspect all that sophisticated theology has managed to do is slow the decline in church attendance. The theology of people like Peter Selleck and Karen Armstrong just doesn’t seem to attract new members the way the evangelical churches can (provided the the individual is uneducated). It’s too vague. People in times of strife (and let’s face it, that’s usually when God reveals himself to people) yearn for a personal god whom they feel is looking after them, not some undefinable, apophatic mystery.

<<So you argue that the decline in the Christian church, as expressed in the census, is due to an educated public.>>

Yes, that’s likely one reason, if not the main reason.

<<You need to define "educated".>>

Broadly speaking, we know more now than we used to. We understand that intolerance and discrimination are detrimental to societies (well, most of us do, anyway); we have a better grasp of science, limiting our need explain everything away with “God did it”; our formal education levels are also higher.

Continued…

…Continued

<<There appears to be an anomaly between the census report and the increasing numbers of evangelical Christians, don't you think.>>

No, I’d say that the more traditional churches are simply losing more members than the evangelical Churches (e.g. Hillsong) are gaining.

<<… the declining state of the traditional Liberal church, as a direct consequence of accepting defeat in the face of a relentless attack by the gay rights lobby …>>

There’s likely to be a several causes (I listed one above). But, yes, as I mentioned earlier, the Christian Church drags its feet on progress until not doing so would mean the end of it.

Bigotry should always be “attacked”. So, good on them there.

<<… through its propaganda wing … specifically aimed at destabilising societal moral norms, using as its main armoury, the acceptance as equals of homosexuals, demanding equality and acceptance of their sexual fetishes.>>

Firstly, you have not yet demonstrated that there has been any “propaganda” (i.e. misleading information). Secondly, you have not yet demonstrated that anyone has wanted to “destabilise” anything. Thirdly, you have not explained how demanding equality is a bad thing. Finally, you have not yet demonstrated that anyone wants anyone else to accept their sexual fetishes.

<<A Christian church which supports immorality, will fail.>>

You have not yet explained how homosexuality is immoral.

Now THIS is at the heart of what I want to get to, but you keep ducking and weaving my requests that you substantiate your assumptions.

<<… homosexuality and its evil influence …>>

How is homosexuality’s influence “evil”?

You are yet to explain how homosexuality is evil, immoral, or deserving of contempt, and I’m not going anywhere until you do.

AJP



It is impossible to argue any anti-gay point with the brain washed AJP.

The homosexual bible was published in 1989, "after the ball". Suggest you read it. You have fallen for the new morality, or more accurately, the end of traditional Christian morality.

The greatest achievement of this war on society, has been the capture and trashing of the Christian church, with the jewel in the crown, the reputational trashing of the Catholic Church (in particular), with homosexual suicide bombers, behaving with traditional homosexual queerness.

A vote for acceptance of gay marriage, is a vote for the death of traditional Christian morality;
the second jewel in the homosexuals crown for the death of the Christian church and the highlight of the end of the war on morality.

Christians have lost this war: The next war for homosexuals is the war on Muslims, this war is underway!

So, you’re just going to resort to ad hominem now, diver dan?

<<It is impossible to argue any anti-gay point with the brain washed AJP.>>

How have I been brainwashed? Unsurprisingly, you don’t into detail there. But, yes, arguing any anti-gay point with anyone would be difficult when you don't back your assertions with any evidence or reasoning.

<<The homosexual bible was published in 1989, "after the ball". Suggest you read it.>>

Now you are resorting to emotive language. How about you give me a rundown of this book first?

<<You have fallen for the new morality, or more accurately, the end of traditional Christian morality.>>

Well, I can certainly tell you how immoral Christian morality can be. But what is this “new morality” exactly, and how is it bad?

<<The greatest achievement of this war on society, has been the capture and trashing of the Christian church, with the jewel in the crown, the reputational trashing of the Catholic Church (in particular), with homosexual suicide bombers, behaving with traditional homosexual queerness.>>

More emotive language with not a shred of substance.

<<A vote for acceptance of gay marriage, is a vote for the death of traditional Christian morality;>>

Well, one aspect of it at least. But Christian morality as a whole has proven, over the centuries, to be quite malleable.

<<the second jewel in the homosexuals crown for the death of the Christian church and the highlight of the end of the war on morality.>>

You have not yet explained how homosexuality is in any way immoral. Let alone this idea that gay people have had malicious intent.

<<Christians have lost this war: The next war for homosexuals is the war on Muslims, this war is underway!>>

Ah, yes. Wonderful stuff, isn’t it? It’s known as the ‘shifting moral zeitgeist’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwz6B8BFkb4

So, you’re just going to resort to ad hominem now, diver dan?

<<It is impossible to argue any anti-gay point with the brain washed AJP.>>

Here you go again AJP, criticising the structure of debate by designing a ruse to avoid the honesty and "truth" of a critical key point.

The critical point is, opinion on this subject is governed by which side of the argument you stand.
Viz, you could accuse me of the same crime of brainwashed, by belief in Christianity and its abiding morality.

Morality V ethics! I'm a moralist versus you as an ethicist. As electrons, they repel. You and I can bang away without resolution indefinitely, would there be a point?

To a Christian, it is a moral argument. To an Agnostic, its ethics !
Atheists and agnostics argue the case from the view of ethics.

I apologise AJP. I'm having difficulty with time constraints. I acknowledge your other points, which I would like to address.

Research the recommended book, it will open your eyes to my view

Again, diver dan? When did I do it before?

<<Here you go again AJP, criticising the structure of debate by designing a ruse to avoid the honesty and "truth" of a critical key point.>>

And how exactly have I done this? Again, we’re mighty short on detail.

All I have done is criticise your actions, because they suggest a level of dishonesty. But at no point have I avoided anything. In fact, I have gone out of my way to address every one of your points. You are the one who is being evasive by dodging my requests that you support the basis of your claims (i.e. that homosexuality is immoral).

<<The critical point is, opinion on this subject is governed by which side of the argument you stand.>>

No, I would say the “critical point” is whether one can support their position. Not everyone is hopelessly trapped by their biases.

<<Viz, you could accuse me of the same crime of brainwashed, by belief in Christianity and its abiding morality.>>

I could, but so far, I have given you more credit than that by treating you with the assumption that you have a rational reason as to why homosexuality is evil, immoral, and deserving of contempt. I would ask that you do the same for me.

<<Morality V ethics! I'm a moralist versus you as an ethicist.>>

Not necessarily. I am concerned with what is moral, too. Which is why I’m asking you to justify your claims. Instead, all I’m getting is this tap dance.

<<As electrons, they repel.>>

No, on the contrary, there is often massive overlap.

<<You and I can bang away without resolution indefinitely, would there be a point?>>

The point would be that you will have either attempted to justify the reasoning behind your contempt for homosexuality, or you will have demonstrated that you will go to all sorts of lengths to avoid doing so.

<<Atheists and agnostics argue the case from the view of ethics.>>

Not necessarily. My favourite lectures on morality are done by atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjbdWGre370

Morality is not necessarily an assumed presupposition.

I thought I could remember you once stating that you were a Christian, diver dan:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4748#125361

And only a fundamentalist Christian could say something this loopy:

“… [antibiotic resistance] is actually Gods vengeance on overpopulation and moral degradation of society. It's not going to end well!” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19123#340291)

I thought to check because you have finally (indirectly) categorised yourself as a Christian in your last post when you said:

“I'm a moralist versus you as an ethicist … Atheists and agnostics argue the case from the view of ethics.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19136#340576)

Interestingly, I’ve noticed that Christians invoke their god less and less nowadays; opting instead to attempt to provide rational reasons for their position, even duck and weave as you are now doing, before ever appealing to their god or the Bible. I suppose that's a good thing, given that it suggests that more and more of you are realising that pointing to the Bible is not evidence of anything, as frustrating as it has been watch you tap dance this whole time.

Let’s cut to the chase, though. You believe that homosexuality is evil, immoral, and deserving of contempt, because your god says so. But there are two problems with this:

The first is that until you can demonstrate the existence of your god, this is not a rational reason to believe that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. The second is the theological problem that I noted earlier by citing Isaiah 44:24 and Isaiah 45:7.

Apparently understanding this, you now attempt to brush opinion on the matter off as some unresolvable presuppositional difference, determined only by one's worldview, when that is simply not the case. Homosexuality is either immoral, or it is not immoral. And until you can demonstrate that it is immoral, the default position of 'not immoral' remains the most rreasonable position to hold.

AJP..

My God (I'm back).

He was once your God too AJP I believe from a previous comment.

No ducking and weaving at all on the question of morality V ethics.

The problem with ethics is the ever moving yard-stick!
The problem with morality, is the disbelief of the Godless.
Obviously at times, morality and ethics will happily co-exist. Homosexuality is one of those occasions they don't.
You can happily apply your simple logic of equality to the acceptance of homosexuality, and its appropriateness to social inclusion. I can't as a moralist.
To a moralist, homosexuality is depraved!
To the ethicist, homosexuality is simply an aberration among gender!

The pointy ends of this argument will never meet. It becomes a simple problem to solve for the ethicist, by deriding all religion opposed to their acceptance of homosexuality.

This I maintain, has been achieved by a relentless attack on traditional societal norms of the most basic type, male V female!

Again I'm timed-out. I have a business to run. I'm happy to continue this conversation. But I wonder about the off-subject it is

diver dan,

What passes as moral behaviour can also be an “ever-moving yard-stick”.

<<The problem with ethics is the ever moving yard-stick!>>

And why is that a problem, by the way? Societies change, and we are always learning (and becoming more educated). Both morality and ethics change for these reasons, by sheer necessity. The Bible, for example, gives us precious little on matters such as, say, human cloning.

<<The problem with morality, is the disbelief of the Godless.>>

I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean, sorry.

<<Obviously at times, morality and ethics will happily co-exist. Homosexuality is one of those occasions they don't.>>

Not just co-exist, they overlap massively, if not entirely.

<<You can happily apply your simple logic of equality to the acceptance of homosexuality, and its appropriateness to social inclusion. I can't as a moralist.>>

So, then, how can you claim that your morals are in fact moral, if they disregard equality?

<<To a moralist, homosexuality is depraved!>>

Why? You still haven’t answered this.

<<To the ethicist, homosexuality is simply an aberration among gender!>>

Not quite. Gender is a different issue to sexuality.

<<It becomes a simple problem to solve for the ethicist, by deriding all religion opposed to their acceptance of homosexuality.>>

No, that wouldn't solve anything. Pointing out that there is no reason to believe that homosexuality is immoral does, however.

<<This I maintain, has been achieved by a relentless attack on traditional societal norms of the most basic type, male V female!>>

No, now you’re confusing sexuality with gender again.

Anyway, it appears that you don’t actually have, or even claim to have, a rational reason for believing that homosexuality is depraved, evil, immoral, or deserving of contempt. Your argument thus far has effectively amounted to, ‘Because that’s just what I believe’. Which is your prerogative, I suppose. I figured that was the case from the very beginning, anyway.

In future, however, it would be more honest if you were to frame your derogatory claims, regarding homosexuality, with qualifiers indicating that you are not necessarily making a statement of fact.

The village idiot has again demonstrated that he is lying when he refers to the non existent “inequality” of the law of marriage.
The law of marriage concerns relationships between men and women, and has no application to the relationships of perverts .Men and women, as parties to a marriage are treated equally by the law. The relationships of people of the same sex are not marriage, so until they give such relationships a name, and stop their mischievous reference to such relationships as marriage, they do not have a basis to seek recognition of such relationships. They certainly have no basis on which they can use the term “marriage” An appropriate term, such as “sodomity, would gain recognition, and the perverts could seek recognition of the form of the relationship, instead of baselessly, and maliciously, referring to their perverted unions as marriage.
I have not researched the law, but my recollection of the “decriminalisation” of perversion, was that it was by way of providing a defence to the charge of “unnatural sexual intercourse, so that if the parties had both reached the age of consent, and had both consented, they had a valid defence.
I am not aware of any removal of the charge of unnatural sexual intercourse from the statutes, or to any redefinition of its status as perversion.
The only interest the perverts have shown is by way of efforts to lower the age of consent.
Until they have a name for their relationships, they should rerer to them as perversion, and not baselessly and deceptively as “marriage”.
They are seeking a status for perversion, and should say so.
At the moment, all that they have is a defence to a criminal offence.

Back to name-calling, are we Leo Lane?

<<The village idiot has again demonstrated that he is lying when he refers to the non existent “inequality” of the law of marriage.>>

Really? You tried this one on in the last thread and failed miserably.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340457

Back for another shot, eh? Okay then.

<<The law of marriage concerns relationships between men and women, and has no application to the relationships of perverts>>

Correct. However, you are yet to demonstrate that gay people are perverts.

<<Men and women, as parties to a marriage are treated equally by the law.>>

Straw man. No one has claimed that there is sex discrimination here.

<<… until [gay people] give such relationships a name, and stop their mischievous reference to such relationships as marriage, …>>

Why should they have to use a different word? You have given no reason to believe that any mischief has occurred, either.

<<They certainly have no basis on which they can use the term “marriage”>>

Yes, they have: equal treatment.

<<… instead of baselessly, and maliciously, referring to their perverted unions as marriage.>>

You have provided no reason to believe that any malice has occurred. Perhaps you could start making a case for that by explaining how they’re “perverts”?

<<I am not aware of any removal of the charge of unnatural sexual intercourse from the statutes, or to any redefinition of its status as perversion.>>

That would probably depend on the state, I’m pretty sure all such offensive references were removed, though. So what if they weren’t?

<<The only interest the [homosexuals] have shown is by way of efforts to lower the age of consent.>>

The only?

Are you talking about the homophobic Queensland law? Yes, so they should. It was only ever there for homophobic reasons.

<<Until they have a name for their relationships, they should rerer to them as perversion, and not baselessly and deceptively as “marriage”.>>

You are yet to provide a reason as to why they should, or that they are perverts.

<<At the moment, all that they have is a defence to a criminal offence.>>

Which offence?

AJP..

*In future, however, it would be more honest if you were to frame your derogatory claims, regarding homosexuality, with qualifiers indicating that you are not necessarily making a statement of fact.*

Of course, using the AJP logic, homosexuality will never be wrong, since its detractors refuse to explain their moral objection to it.

I thought my objection to gay marriage was obvious. It is based on my adherence as a Christian, to Christian teachings that such acts are an abomination.

But further to your argument for gay marriage, and your base of equality to justify it, here is another point you will slip and slide on.

Here is a simple biological formula for you to consider:

MM =Equal
FF=Equal
MF=Unequal.

This proves the arrant nonsense of gay marriage based on equality.

Marriage actually takes the Unequal and performs the miracle of equality when based on biology. Marriage is a celebration of combining the Unequal into an equal force of two differing biological parts, for the sole purpose of procreation!

Homosexuals are by nature biological equals in the first instance. They have equality by that nature and therefore are unfit for marriage!

At no point have I suggested anything of the sort, diver dan.

<<Of course, using the AJP logic, homosexuality will never be wrong, since its detractors refuse to explain their moral objection to it.>>

Whether homosexuality is wrong has nothing to do with whether or not its detractors explain their objection to it.

However, you have made the claim that homosexuality is immoral, so it is therefore only reasonable that you support that claim with your reasoning behind it.

<<I thought my objection to gay marriage was obvious.>>

So, now we’re talking specifically about gay marriage? Okay then. But why the change?

<<[My objection to gay marriage] is based on my adherence as a Christian, to Christian teachings that such acts are an abomination.>>

Sure, I already figured that much out, but until you can demonstrated the existence of your god, that’s not a rational argument against homosexuality. Or same-sex marriage, as you have just recently narrowed the discussion down to.

<<But further to your argument for gay marriage, and your base of equality to justify it, here is another point you will slip and slide on.>>

“Another”? I haven’t slipped or slid an any points yet. But, okay, let’s see what you’ve got…

<<This proves the arrant nonsense of gay marriage based on equality.>>

No, that’s the Equivocation fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

It’s a fallacy that’s pulled every time there is talk of equality. Your “MF=Unequal” has nothing to do with equality in the sense that I have been talking about.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality

<<Marriage actually takes the Unequal and performs the miracle of equality when based on biology.>>

Now you are committing both the Equivocation fallacy and the Naturalistic fallacy. Marriage is a social construct, too, not a biological construct. But I see now why you shifted the discussion to marriage specifically.

<<Homosexuals are by nature biological equals in the first instance. They have equality by that nature and therefore are unfit for marriage!>>

The Equivocation fallacy aside, marriage isn’t just about procreation. Would you, therefore, deny infertile heterosexual couples the right to marry? Of course not.

Your argument is bunk.

AJP

this is not the equivocation fallacy, it's actually a circular argument.

I've made numerous and clear statements of fact through this all.

Equivocate? What truth have I held back on?

It's actually yourself that has let slip on the truth AJP.

So I conclude, you hold marriage as outside the celebration of combining biological differences between MF, and reduce the incidence of marriage to a social construct for "love" alone.

That's absurd! Are you familiar with the term shot gun wedding?

That is a wedding with a foundation of lust! But still and all, biologically correct.

You lose this argument hands down. There is no argument for gay marriage, and definitely no argument for homosexuals to usurp and distort marriage from its intended definition?

What other argument would you like to lose. Serve it up

I’m not sure a circular argument is any better, diver dan.

<<this is not the equivocation fallacy, it's actually a circular argument.>>

Although, I’m not sure how your argument is circular.

<<I've made numerous and clear statements of fact through this all.>>

No, you’ve made assertions based on misconceptions aand religious belief.

<<Equivocate? What truth have I held back on?>>

Wow. So now you’re using equivocation to argue against an accusation of having fallaciously used equivocation!

Had you read the like I provided, then you would have seen what I meant by equivocation. Here’s another link:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation

<<It's actually yourself that has let slip on the truth AJP.>>

Oh, really? Do tell.

<<So I conclude, you hold marriage as outside the celebration of combining biological differences between MF, …>>

Not ‘outside’, but ‘inclusive of’’.

<<… and [you] reduce the incidence of marriage to a social construct for "love" alone.>>

Not necessarily. Some marriages are arranged. Such marriages would not be based on love. At least not initially.

<<Are you familiar with the term shot gun wedding? That is a wedding with a foundation of lust!>>

Yes, another good example. Thanks for that one.

<<But still and all, biologically correct.>>

Again, marriage is a social construct, not a biological construct.

<<You lose this argument hands down.>>

How so? You haven't yet discredited anything I have said. I will grant, however, that you had just knocked down a couple of men made of straw.

<<There is no argument for gay marriage, …>>

Yes, there is: equality. You are yet to counter this.

<<… and definitely no argument for homosexuals to usurp and distort marriage from its intended definition?>>

Firstly, gay people wouldn’t be “usurping” anything. Secondly, what constitutes as marriage has evolved quite a bit already throughout history, so to describe any further change as “distortion” is both emotive and historically naive.

<<What other argument would you like to lose. Serve it up>>

I haven’t lost any yet. You, on the other hand, are yet to provide a rational reason to oppose marriage equality or to hold homosexuality in contempt.

Well AJP. I despair for your salvation. But maybe in the big book of the predestined, your name will be writ-large.
Good luck with the four horsemen! :-)) -|--