Thursday, April 29, 2010

Lord Justice Laws: the Anglican Settlement of the United Kingdom 'is deeply unprincipled'

There is no alternative interpretation to be put upon the judgement of Lord Justice Laws in the case of Gary McFarlane, a Christian counsellor who was appealing his dismissal after refusing to provide a homosexual couple with 'sex therapy'.

From The Times:

Christianity deserves no protection in law above other faiths and to do so would be “irrational” , “divisive, capricious and arbitrary”, a senior judge said today, as he rejected a marriage guidance counsellor’s attempt to challenge his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples.

In the latest clash between the judiciary and Christian believers, Lord Justice Laws said that laws could not be used to protect one religion above another.

He also delivered a robust dismissal to the former Archbishop of Canterbury who had warned that a series of recent court rulings against Christians could lead to “civil unrest.”

To give one religion legal protection over any other, “however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled”, the judge said.

It would give legal force to a “subjective opinion” and would lead to a “theocracy”, which is of necessity autocratic.”

The judge went on to dismiss Lord Carey’s plea for the establishment of a specialist panel of judges to hear cases involving the practice of religious beliefs.

That would be “deeply inimical to the public interest,” he said.

Lord Carey had given a witness statement in support of the counsellor, Gary McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, a member of a Pentecostal church.

Mr McFarlane wanted permission to appeal against an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling that supported his sacking by Relate Avon in 2008

The father of two, who had worked for the national counselling service since 2003, had alleged unfair dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination.

But rejecting Mr McFarlane’s application to appeal, Lord Justice Laws said that legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds could not be justified.

He said it was “irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective”, adding: “it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”

“We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs.

“The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.”

“If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.

“The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments.

“The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.”

Lord Carey had urged a specially constituted panel of judges with a “proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues” to hear the case.

In his statement, the Anglican church leader had said that recent decisions involving Christians by the courts had used “dangerous” reasoning and this could lead to civil unrest.

Referring specifically to Lord Carey’s statement, the judge said it was right that he should address what the former Archbishop had said because of his seniority in the Church “and the extent to which others may agree with his views, and because of the misunderstanding of the law which his statement reveals”.

Lord Carey said: “The description of religious faith in relation to sexual ethics as ‘discriminatory’ is crude and illuminates a lack of sensitivity to religious belief.”

He added: “The comparison of a Christian, in effect, with a ’bigot’ (ie, a person with an irrational dislike to homosexuals) begs further questions. It is further evidence of a disparaging attitude to the Christian faith and its values.”

Lord Carey and other Christian leaders had expressed concerns after Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, and two other appeal judges, ruled last December that Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar, was breaking discrimination laws by refusing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.

In his witness statement Lord Carey said: “It is, of course, but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a religious bar to any employment by Christians.

“I believe that further judicial decisions are likely to end up at this point and this is why I believe it is necessary to intervene now.”

The fact that senior clerics of the Church of England and other religions felt compelled to intervene directly in judicial decisions was “illuminative of a future civil unrest”.

But the judge said that Lord Carey’s views were “misplaced”: judges had never likened Christians to bigots, or sought to equate condemnation by some Christians of homosexuality with homophobia.

He said it was possible that Lord Carey’s “mistaken suggestions” arose from a misunderstanding of the law on discrimination.

As to Lord Carey’s concerns over a lack of sensitivity by judges, Lord Justice Laws said this appeared to be an argument that the courts ought to be more sympathetic to the substance of Christian beliefs and be ready to uphold and defend them.

But he drew a distinction “ between the law’s protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law’s protection of that belief’s substance or content.”

The Judeo-Christian tradition had exerted a “profound influence” on the judgment of lawmakers. But to confer on it preferential legal protection was “deeply unprincipled.”

It would mean laws being imposed “not to advance the general good on objective grounds but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion since faith, other than to the believer, was subjective.

“It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society.”

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which backed the case, warned that the judgment would deny Christians a whole range of jobs because of their beliefs.

“The judge’s comments could lead in effect to a religious bar to employment, in which Christians could be prevented from being registrars, counsellors, teachers, social workers or work on adoption panels.”

“We never attempted to argue that we could impose a Christian law, which the judge seems to suggest.

“We are simply talking about the principle of marriage, between a man and a woman, which has undergirded society for hundreds of years.”

172 Comments:

Blogger CAUGHTNOTTAUGHT said...

Laws: an ass.

29 April 2010 at 16:21  
OpenID scottspeig said...

"It would mean laws being imposed “not to advance the general good on objective grounds but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion since faith, other than to the believer, was subjective. "

I think his argument is flawed for on what basis does he argue that law is objective rather than subjective. Since the religion is given by God (supposedly), itt is argued that religion is objective (since cannot be altered) whereas the law is subjective as it alters with democracy.


The archbishopp is correct in my view that the law will cause civil unrest among the christian community (well, the othodox group anyway).

Yet another example of homosexual rights having a stronger impact than religious rights.

29 April 2010 at 16:39  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Not a very cheery judgement is it . To object to state imposed belief now means you lose the value of your traditions and faith .
I havent given much thought to Lord Careys detailed arguments except that somthing common is being undone by this .

I will hopefully have some thoughts at another point on this , but being as the law was given by god (unto moses) , I doubt a judge can go outside it without infereing god holds no sway .

29 April 2010 at 17:04  
Anonymous gladys said...

Equality under the law for all is being supported by this judgement. If Christians do not want to counsel or conduct civil partnerships for gay people, they should not work for organisations that carry out such practices. Their belief that homosexuality is wrong is therefore not affected and they can carry on in their delusions that they have all the answers to everything. Otherwise we'll just end up with a Christian form of Sharia and that, as we all know, would be bollocks.

29 April 2010 at 17:08  
Blogger srizals said...

Look at his eyes. Can you guess where he's looking at?

29 April 2010 at 17:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How would a straight amn know howe to give "sex therapy" to gays? Do they ask for such things in any case?

29 April 2010 at 17:14  
Blogger srizals said...

A Homo sapeins perhaps?

29 April 2010 at 17:20  
Anonymous pedant said...

Didn't a Government Minister crow the other day that "equality trumps religion"?

Your Grace's communicants such as Gladys, who rejoice that honest men and women may be deprived of their livelihoods for reasons of conscience, give rise to singularly bleak thoughts among the rest of us, non-believers though we may be.

A wise state goes to much trouble to avoid setting law against conscience. "Making windows into men's souls" was, is, and ever will be the very nadir of public policy.

"Proximus ardet Ucalegon." Who knows, Gladys, but that your house may be next.

29 April 2010 at 17:34  
Anonymous len said...

'In the latest clash between the judiciary and Christian believers, Lord Justice Laws said that laws could not be used to protect one religion above others'

Q, Why are sikhs exempt from laws regarding motorbike helmets? .
A Because the turban is a part of practicing the Sikh religion"

Anyone else gets prosecuted.

29 April 2010 at 17:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Justice Laws states that to give priority to one religion over another is deeply inimicable to justice.
The case on which he was ruling concerned an appeal for concience to outweigh a law.
Does he suggest that homosexuality is classed by him as a religion? If so,why should it outweigh Christianity?
If he is contrasting faith with law, calling faith subjective and law objective, he forgets that those who make the law are equally subjective in their decision.
His strictures about the dangers of theocracy, if he is to be evenhanded in his judgements, apply equally to bad law enacted by those without faith.
Whether he likes it or not, he needs to remember that English Law is founded on Christian Law and not Humanism (or secular religion).

29 April 2010 at 17:41  
Blogger srizals said...

The nadir of existence. Would we then len, deserved God's punishment?

29 April 2010 at 17:43  
Blogger Young Mr. Brown said...

To be honest, I think that the judgement is, in principle, correct. I think that Relate was within their rights to dismiss Gary McFarlane. I'm sorry they chose to do so, and believe that they should not have done so - but they are under no obligation to give employment to him.

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which backed the case, warned that the judgment would deny Christians a whole range of jobs because of their beliefs.

“The judge’s comments could lead in effect to a religious bar to employment, in which Christians could be prevented from being registrars, counsellors, teachers, social workers or work on adoption panels.”


Maybe that's what it will come to. But that suggests either that all teachers, social workers, counsellors, etcetera are all employed by one employer or that the government will make laws forbidding employers from employing people with certain views.

If the latter is the case, it will be a sign that we have descended into tyranny.

If the former is the case, the problem is monopoly provision.

Ideally, Mr. McFarlane would simply move from Relate to a marriage counselling service which was more sympathetic.

The problem here is that Relate, if not quite a monopoly, is by far the biggest player in the field of marriage counselling. It is able to do this because you and I support it through our tax money.

Personally, I think it would be fairer if the government let me support the marriage counselling service of my choice with my money, instead of taking it from me and putting it into a service which pursues employment policies which I don't approve of. Which is why I'm a libertarian.

29 April 2010 at 17:45  
Anonymous len said...

Here is a revealing letter from a Dr Harry Baker to a national newspaper in the UK, published in 2007:

I hear doctors may be allowed to extend the range of procedures they can opt out of on religious or conscience grounds, and some Muslims medical students are refusing to attend lectures relating to sexually transmitted diseases or diseases caused by alcohol abuse. Now you report Sainsbury's has agreed that Muslims should be able to opt out of selling alcohol.... What about Jews selling pork, Christians not selling books by Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, atheists not selling bibles, vegetarians not selling meat, antivivisectionists not selling anything in most chemists shops? Why are Muslims so privileged?*

29 April 2010 at 17:45  
Anonymous Gladys said...

Dear Mr Pedant: I'm not asking that anyone be deprived of their livelihoods. They may earn their crust in the correct environment - counselling within a Christian environment maybe rather than a secular one? Surely this is all about the separation of state and church - one should not operate religious beliefs in a secular place. I'm not saying don't have beliefs, but exercise them in the right place. Otherwise it's a bit like joining the Army and then being annoyed when you're discharged for refusing to fight because of the objections of your conscience.

29 April 2010 at 17:46  
Blogger srizals said...

Err..because Muslims are smarter?

29 April 2010 at 17:49  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Gladys said ... "Otherwise it's a bit like joining the Army and then being annoyed when you're discharged for refusing to fight because of the objections of your conscience."

Not at all. It's a bit like joining the army to defend your country, serving them faithfully for many years in all sorts of conflicts, then being asked to fire upon fellow citizens who are protesting against the government.

29 April 2010 at 18:00  
Blogger Revd John P Richardson said...

Does a man who apparently thinks that Christianity involves a 'law of theocracy' actually understand Christianity?

29 April 2010 at 18:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is being asked to fire upon your fellow citizens at all comparable with giving counselling to gays? There's no loss of life involved in helping two people strengthen a loving relationship through sexuality.

29 April 2010 at 18:04  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (17:09)—He appears to be looking in two directions simultaneously.

Further to len’s comment (17:40), SikhiWiki (I’d never heard of it, either) tells of a further exemption for Sikhs:

❛S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site. Where a turban-wearing Sikh is injured on a construction site liability for injuries is restricted to the injuries that would have been sustained if the Sikh had been wearing a safety helmet.❜

29 April 2010 at 18:05  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I think the Judges decision is correct and does not discriminate against Christianity as a body at all.

McFarlane was not a 'Christian Counsellor' he was a Counsellor who was a Christian. He was clearly discriminating and passing personal judgement as he saw fit.

Would he be any less right in his view to decline his services to atheists, prostitutes, adulterers, un-married hetero couples. All these categories and more could be found objectionable to his beliefs - who knows where next he would draw the line?

Homosexuals have no more choice of their sexual orientation than he is over the colour of his skin.

He's supposed to be a professional counsellor and is not acting in a professional manner. Whether he is qualified to act as a Sex Therapist is not clear.

Obviously it would have been a point to offer if he could have provided an argument that the theraputic facility he was required to fulfil was not possible, because he had not been trained or unqualified to do so for homosexuals.

Any way, aren't Christians supposed to avoid the 'sin' but not judge the 'sinner'or something like that.

29 April 2010 at 18:12  
Blogger Si Hollett said...

While equality under the law has been upheld by these judgements, the reasoning is not sound, but completely and utterly hypocritical.

The judge says: “The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.”

So why do the areligious, with their belief system sound louder, trampling over freedom of conscience of the others?

We seem to be heading for an 'atheocracy' - just as totalitarian as a theocracy, but where rather than being forced to give the outward impression of subscribing to a particular religion in their public life, it's that the people are being forced to give the outward impression that they don't subscribe to any religion in their public life. We're a long way off Soviet Russia, or Maoist China, but we've made giant leaps in that direction in the last few years.

Secularism isn't neutral - it is just another belief system - for it to be imposed on the people is just as bad as imposing Islam or Christianity (not sure how you can do the latter) on the people.

29 April 2010 at 18:16  
Blogger srizals said...

Why not imposing Islam or Christianity before a HIV ridden society becomes inevitable?

Got that one right Johnny. ;)

29 April 2010 at 18:25  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

{To give one religion legal protection over any other, “however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled”, the judge said}

The judges comments could lead to christians operating their own courts, as muslims do within their communities, affording both religions the same legal protection in order to discontinue dealings with the state.

Signed: Farouk Emmal

29 April 2010 at 18:30  
Blogger srizals said...

I wonder what would the Dawkinians have in mind about this topic? Relentlessly disturbing? Are the atheists naturally neutral on this one?

29 April 2010 at 18:46  
Anonymous Oswin said...

'Lord Justice Laws' ....it is as I have always said: too much law and not enough justice!

Gladys (17.08) - do at least try to think on a level beyond 'soft furnishings!

Is homosexuality the new 'Al-Qaeda'? They do seem intent on shafting the Church from both within and without...are they wanting their cake and the eating thereof?

They will never be content, even supposing they attain all they desire; for once all is achieved, they will have lost one of their prime, motivating force: no one spurn and castigate them; no one to be shocked by them; no one to cast a glance...

29 April 2010 at 19:30  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Oswyn (19:30)

Homosexual contentment is simply to be left alone and not be constantly ostracized by you religious types.

We were born.

We exist.

We pay taxes.

We Laugh.

We cry.

We eventually die.

We go to work like everyone else, but we do not demand special rights to ignore Laws.

For Example:

"I'm a gay athiest GP. Christians hate me. Therefore I will not see any Christians in my surgery."

Life does not and should not work like that.

Have your beliefs, just stop trying to impose them on everyone else.

29 April 2010 at 19:44  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Oswyn (19:30)

Homosexual contentment is simply to be left alone and not be constantly ostracized by you religious types.

We were born.

We exist.

We pay taxes.

We Laugh.

We cry.

We eventually die.

We go to work like everyone else, but we do not demand special rights to ignore Laws.

For Example:

"I'm a gay athiest GP. Christians hate me. Therefore I will not see any Christians in my surgery."

Life does not and should not work like that.

Have your beliefs, just stop trying to impose them on everyone else.

29 April 2010 at 19:44  
Anonymous len said...

Christianity is being pushed further and further out of society.
Atheists I imagine will be please with this.
However,
As I have said in the past God will give an Atheistic society what it wants,

C.S. Lewis was writing in his book, The Problem of Pain and he wrote this, “The lost enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded and are therefore self-enslaved.” God will abandon sinners to their own choices and the consequences of those choices. And just what is this abandoning act on God’s part, it is the removal of restraining grace. It is when God lets go and turns a society over to its own sinful freedoms and the results of those freedoms. No scripture more directly confronts this abandonment and its consequences than Romans 1 does. Here is the most graphic and the most comprehensive discussion of what it means to be abandoned by God and it is the best passage that I know of to explain the moral chaos and the confusion that we experience in our own nation at this very time. God’s wrath is already at work in our culture. We’re not waiting for it, we are currently experiencing it.

29 April 2010 at 19:51  
Anonymous Jeremy Stanford said...

Judge Laws' judgement seems to be a mess in every respect. Surely McFarlane should not have been sacked for refusing work for which he was not originally hired and in which he had no expertise... plenty of heterosexual counselling work remained I would surmise. If dismissal was necessary, due to staffing issues perhaps, he should have received compensation.

Judge Laws has given prominence to addressing his judgement in terms inter-faith issues, where Christianity, apparently, should not receive preference. Yet I'm not aware of any other religious faiths - in their orthodox rather than liberal forms - that hold views different to Mr McFarlane's.

Laws seems determined to ignore the religious origin of all law and just confirms that as our hubristic knowledge of universal science rises our understanding of universal laws declines.

29 April 2010 at 19:54  
Anonymous len said...

Dr Robin Guthrie ,

I am a Christian ,I don`t hate you.
God Loves you,loves you enough to have died for you so you can be redeemed, born again.
We Christians are all sinners redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

29 April 2010 at 19:57  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Len: ( 19:57 )

Thank you.

However most of the beatings and humiliation I have experienced as a child / teenager and adult were directly and indirectly due to ignorance fueled by belief systems.

I have no issues whatsoever with anyone believing whatever they wish, but it should not be taken into the workplace.

In the context of this story. It's called professionalism.

This chap clearly isn't.

Did he refuse to counsel divorced couples or couples who could not pro-create?

These are clearly against his faith.

29 April 2010 at 20:10  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Dr. Robin Guthrie - thank you for making my point, twice! Oh we do like our small moments of drama. Never mind writing fancy lists, just get on with it like everyone else...quietly!

And as for imposing my beliefs on ''eveyone else'' - isn't that EXACTLY what you and yours are pro-actively engaged upon??? Further, since when have homosexuals been ''everyone else''? You wish!

Anyhows, do not despair, I'm sure that there will always be someone to 'spurn' you.

29 April 2010 at 20:10  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Dr.Robin Guthrie (you wear your Doctorate well)....perhaps you might have escaped those childhood, and adolescent ''beatings'' had you not flounced and flaunted yourself in a manner incommensurate with your age? Just a thought...

29 April 2010 at 20:22  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Oswin said...

"thank you for making my point, twice! Oh we do like our small moments of drama. Never mind writing fancy lists, just get on with it like everyone else...quietly!"

The web connection broke when I first posted, hence the re-post.

The HTTP protocol PUT broke as defined in W3C standards.

An NO we are not imposing anything.

Just going about living within the laws of the land.

Something you and yours wish to ignore.

And your last statement only show how hateful you are and why people like me need to be continually defensive as your types wish to do nothing but put people down.

How christian is that.

Read your Good book.

It is NOT about HATE.

Perhaps if you stopped getting at people that do not share your BOOK we would not have the need to continually defend ourselves.

29 April 2010 at 20:25  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

So...

We have a civil servant who makes an offensive peace about the leader of a foreign nation, which causes a diplomatic incident and may well cause that leader to cancel his visit; such an action severely damaging our national reputation abroad. Result? He is moved to other duties. No demotion, no firing.

Then we have a worker who does not wish to give sexual advice to homosexuals. Result? Dismissed.

Nope, I can't see any injustice there.

29 April 2010 at 20:33  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Oswin said...

Dr.Robin Guthrie (you wear your Doctorate well)....perhaps you might have escaped those childhood, and adolescent ''beatings'' had you not flounced and flaunted yourself in a manner incommensurate with your age? Just a thought..."

Again, you show the very reason I fear religion.

Such hate. Such anger.

By the way, my GP example was only an example.

My Doctorate is in Medical Science.

I am 28, and assist in developing new Medical Scanning techniques.

Other than being a God botherer what do you do.

29 April 2010 at 20:34  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Dieu et mon droit - the British Monarch's motto.

Are they going to cock a snoot at that as well?

29 April 2010 at 20:51  
Anonymous len said...

Jesus attitude to sexual sinners.

The Pit... A homosexual fell into a pit and couldn't get himself out. A pharasaic fundamentalist came along and said, "You deserve your pit." A psychologist came along and said, "Accept your pit. That way you'll be happy." An apostate liberal came along and said, "Your pit is God's beautiful gift to you." A gay activist came along and said, "Fight for your right to stay in your pit." A researcher came along and said, "Discrimination against pits is illegal." A charismatic came along and said, "Just confess that you're not in that pit." Respectable people came along and said, "We don't associate with pit-dwellers." His mother came along and said, "It's your father's fault you're in that pit." His father came along and said, "It's your mother's fault you're in that pit." His wife came along and said, "It's all my fault you're in that pit." But Jesus, seeing the man, loved him, and reaching into the pit, put his arms around the man and pulled him out.
........
You could replace homosexual for any type of sinner,it is interesting that the only people Jesus condemned were the religious Pharisees,Jesus often got into trouble with the Pharisees for associating with sinners.

29 April 2010 at 21:25  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Len - brilliant stuff!


Off-topic.....just watching Clegg....what a smarmy, slimy, schmoozer! What a damned liar and deceiver too!

Brown is just too stupid to know he's buggered; and Cameron should be doing better than he has ....but it ain't finished yet...

29 April 2010 at 21:33  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

len said...

Jesus attitude to sexual sinners.

Jesus said nothing about sexual sinners.

Jesus said" Love thy neighbor as thy self"

A statement you and your brain washed tribe of idiots have clearly forgotten.

29 April 2010 at 22:19  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Just because we love homosexuals does not mean we should support their behaviour. There is a massive difference between toleration and encouragement.

Saying that homosexuality is a sin is not hateful; no more than saying that adultery, or pre-marital sex is a sin is hateful.

Refusing to support homosexual behaviour is not hateful; no more than refusing to support adulterers, paedophiles or pederasts is hateful.

Refusing to aid homosexual relationships is not hateful; no more than refusing to aid relationships between siblings or children under the age of consent.

29 April 2010 at 22:26  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Oh how I hate Christians and their self serving sanctimonious crap.

You are going down and I and my 2 million other poofs are taking your crap out of society.


It's called revenge for the past 2000 years of your murdering hateful misinterpretation as you were taught of an old book written 2000 years before you were born crap.

Remeber Gallileo.


As a scientist, Ive decided to not allow religious idiots any where near any science that I do.

Should I have the right to deny a Christian patient a scan on an MRI.

Work that out bigots.




Toodles.

29 April 2010 at 22:28  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Lakester91

"Refusing to aid homosexual relationships is not hateful; no more than refusing to aid relationships between siblings or children under the age of consent."

How dare you.

My relationship with my partner is fully and 100 % consensual.

What you describe is RAPE and CHILD RAPE.

Dont you dare compare such things and if your religion is telling you such, I would leave it in an instant.

29 April 2010 at 22:33  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Remeber [sic] Gallileo,

The man who was told by the Pope that it was unscientific to write a book stating that (an accepted) theory was fact because there wasn't enough evidence? A theory (heliocentric universe) that was later proved false? A man who subsequently wrote a book ridiculing the Pope for his defence of real science and was dealt with by being put under house arrest in luxury?

I know it's rare for doctors to have studied physics, so I'll let that ignorance pass.

'Oh how I hate Christians and their self serving sanctimonious crap.'

No hatred of the homosexual on this blog. We disapprove of what you do, but you hate our very being. I think that makes you a bigot; dare I use the term religiophobic?

'You are going down and I and my 2 million other poofs are taking your crap out of society'

Ouch! Well that doesn't show the true colours of the homosexual at all.

'Should I have the right to deny a Christian patient a scan on an MRI.'

Does sex therapy save lives? Or even better, does a Christian's wish to stay alive have any moral quandaries, or have anything to do with his religion? I can smell some straw: I think it may be fashioned to look like a man!

29 April 2010 at 22:40  
Blogger Henry Wood said...

Dr Robin Guthrie, you wrote:
"... but we [homosexuals] do not demand special rights to ignore Laws."

Perhaps you do not make such demands, Dr. Guthrie, but there is a vociferous gay minority who claim that such things as police investigating alleged cottaging and outdoor "dogging" (amongst other things) somehow infringes the rights of that minority. Such people do demand special rights to ignore certain laws and quite often the police acquiesce with their demands.

29 April 2010 at 22:43  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'My relationship with my partner is fully and 100 % consensual.

What you describe is RAPE and CHILD RAPE.'

Relationships between siblings can be consensual, can they not? Two 13 year olds can have a relationship which is consensual, can they not?

Homosexuality is just like any form of immoral or unhealthy love. It is no worse than any other sin. I can accept that you are a practising homosexual; I cannot accept that what you do is morally justified and I object to your claim that it is. At least adulterers don't claim that what they are doing is natural and good.

'... but we [homosexuals] do not demand special rights to ignore Laws.'

No, you demand the special right to change the law.

29 April 2010 at 22:47  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dr Guthrie.
Get a grip, if you are a scientist, your petulant childish outburst does you great discredit. Maybe this has something to do with the pain & rejection that you mentioned you suffered in the past, if so then you have my sympathy.
This Blog is an open forum for all who wish to post comments & differing points of view, if this increases ones blood pressure to the dangerous level of a possible coronary, my friendly advice is to avoid it before it releases all manner of dangerous toxins into your body which you as a medical man should know all about.
best wishes. Preacher.

29 April 2010 at 22:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'But Jesus, seeing the man, loved him, and reaching into the pit, put his arms around the man and pulled him out.'

This story gives a somewhat distorted view of what Jesus would do with the homosexual. Whilst it is true that the grace of God to sinners extends to the homosexual who repents of this sin, the Bible also teaches that this particular sin is such an expression of the sinner's rebellion against God that it results in what the Bible calls a 'reprobate mind' which is actually God's judgement on that sin and the sinner who commits it.

Far from the rather sentimental idea of Jesus reaching down into the pit to help, the following verses teach that it is God, Himself, Who has actually cast the homosexual into the pit and gives them over to what they choose to do. Many who fall into this sin never find their way out. The fact that very few homosexuals repent would confirm the truth of God's Word.

Romans chapter 1 v 26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 April 2010 at 22:58  
Blogger Preacher said...

On a lighter note, doesn't the judge look like Elton John?.

29 April 2010 at 23:04  
Blogger srizals said...

No wonder. But pardon me to interupt, what ever happen to the survival of the species? Let say that all scientifically thinkers go actually unnatural, which is of course very unscientific, which one of the same sex pair, is going to conceive the manisfestation of their divine love? An oversized test tube? Maybe a doctor would have a clue?

29 April 2010 at 23:28  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Dr. Robin Guthrie flounces off, stage right....



Preacher (23.04) - re' the judge - doesn't he just!

29 April 2010 at 23:51  
Blogger srizals said...

Where is the doctor? Didn't he know he shouldn't keep his patients waiting?

29 April 2010 at 23:57  
Blogger Henry Wood said...

Perhaps the good doctor is taking his dog for a walk?

30 April 2010 at 00:05  
Anonymous len said...

"He was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."—Isaiah 53:12.

Our rejection of Jesus condemns us to bear our own sin burden,God calls all to repentance not wishing any to perish.

This world was set up with physical and spiritual laws.One of the spiritual laws is the law of sin and death,the soul that sins will die.
Jesus came to rescue mankind from sin and the consequences of sin,and to restore man`s broken relationship with God.
This is the gospel and must be preached to the entire world so everyone can hear the truth and can exercise their free will to either accept or reject Christ.

30 April 2010 at 00:30  
Anonymous no nonny said...

I don't think that Law should force anyone to give that kind of therapy to any person of any kind.

And all the agitation and 'hatred' this 'Law' is causing is the exact opposite of what good laws are supposed to do. It's the exact opposite of what our laws used to do - remember, before our police had guns, or all this expensive technology that we have to pay for?

All the above are among the
reasons why, I suggest, this
foreign legal system should be banished from Britain.

We have a heritage of treating the law with respect - that even if we don't agree with it, we should keep it. But these laws don't respect us. Neither are they the laws of the land. The are imposed on us by a foreign system and by their communist infiltrators. They have taken us over without our consent.

I say we don't owe them any respect at all. Lets pull together against them - not fight and tear each other to pieces. That only makes them stronger.

30 April 2010 at 00:56  
Blogger srizals said...

According to John Makdisi in his writing, "The Islamic Origins of the Common Law in the North Carolina Law Review", English common law was inspired from medieval Islamic law, brought by the Normans when they conquered England. Maybe you are right no nonny.

30 April 2010 at 01:22  
Anonymous CSPB said...

Medical science, unlike mathematics is an inexact science. Accordingly, when different treatments for a given medical condition are available, a medical practitioner should be able to exercise reasonable judgement in deciding between available alternatives, including, in some cases, the option of no treatment. The judge in this case is incorrectly identifying the, ill defined, notion of "sex therapy for homosexuals" as a form of medical treatment, and, moreover, one for which no alternative treatment can possibly exist. Since the true disorder in this case is "homosexual behavior", a correct therapy would be one in opposition to the actual disorder. Much work has been done in this direction by NARTH — the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. The judge is, in reality, requiring that the counsellor worsen the "condition" of his clients.

30 April 2010 at 03:24  
Anonymous no nonny said...

I think some of the other communicants can respond to your suggestion better than I, srizals!

If they and His Grace will bear with me, here's a pre-Norman sketch for you. Our earliest written laws were Anglo-Saxon--6th-7th seventh century and produced under the guidance of Christian scholars. Christian understanding of Law, as you know, depends from Hebraic Law. The Welsh and Irish developed their codes separately, maybe a little earlier, and also in Christian scriptoria.**

The Roman model for administration had been here before that. I think some consider it probable that aspects of it survived among Britons in the west and Wales, after Roman withdrawal. Reminder: we're talking of development over a thousand years, so it's not simple; and study of those records that survive is ongoing. Btw, 'law' derives from the Viking word.

The Normans ... well they destroyed a lot; they imposed foreign rule; they spoke a foreign language. They used our scriptoria and scribes however, and their administration was Christian. Very briefly, we had a long hard struggle to come to terms with the Normans, and to get out from under.

**The references I offered before work here. You can also Google keywords like "Laws of Aethelbert;" [F. L. Attenborough published them in 1922, Cambridge University Press]. You could Google: History of Irish (or Welsh) Law, etc. For Roman Britain, one start is the website run by the CSAD at Oxford . The Director of the project, A. K. Bowman, also has written books and papers. Scholarship by Michael Lapidge, too, is authoritative about these transitions.

30 April 2010 at 05:26  
Anonymous no nonny said...

The CSAD website is called "Vindolanda Tablets Online," srizals. I don't know how to post the link.

30 April 2010 at 05:43  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Srizals @01.22, the Norman Conquest of England resulted in the replacement of one bunch of Scandinavian thugs by their equally thuggish cousins from France. The Duke of Normandy was a vassal of the King of France (as she is to this day).

In view of the timing of that relationship between King and Duke it is inconceivable that English Common Law contains any link to Islamic Law as a consequence. You will recall that the Arab (Islamic) armies were evicted from France in the years following the Battle of Poitiers in 732, Anno Domine. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the influence of Islam was either present in England before the Norman Conquest or arrived with the Normans. Islamic ideas may have been carried back to England subliminally by returning participants in the First Crusade. This would have been during a period in which the West had yet to reach the same understanding of Islam as the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologos.

Quite how John Makdisi concludes that Islamic ideas exist in North Carolina, of all places, through the vector of English Common Law is a mystery. Perhaps I had better read his book.

30 April 2010 at 07:56  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

The judge said...

To give one religion legal protection over any other, “however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled”, the judge said.

It would give legal force to a “subjective opinion” and would lead to a “theocracy”, which is of necessity autocratic.”

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Stop whingeing, your faith, like all others is not deserving of special respect or privilege. We are fed up with you bleating about conscience that is little more than obedience to an outmoded belief system.

30 April 2010 at 08:24  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dr Robin Guthrie, well said young fellow, well said! You come across as a very decent man.

30 April 2010 at 09:37  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Dr Robin Guthrie

It does confound me the degree to which hatred of Gays is expressed here. It goes way beyond religious belief. A cynic might venture to suggest that those who are most virulently opposed to homosexuality are themselves battling against their own unrealised homosexuality. Although straight myself I know Gay people who are different from me in only that one respect, they have enjoyed long term relationships, they are moral, they are often fun. So what’s the problem?

The Abraham religions are obsessed with sex. Their doctrines are all about repressing sexuality rather than expressing the joy of it. They mix it up with all manner of fixations about menstruation, masturbation, unconventional sexual practices. And not content simply to display their own sexual repression they attempt to transfer it to their children under the guise of “moral guidance”.

My son and two daughters have had sexual partners since the age of about 18, their partners have become our friends and we chat around the kitchen table in the morning after they have spent the night together in our house. They are not obsessed with sex rather it is a natural part of their relationship. Probably they will eventually settle down with their partner and raise a family. They do this within the context of a loving and moral environment and because they use contraception there will be no unwanted babies. But that isn’t good enough for this lot!

30 April 2010 at 10:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The sacked counsellor should be relieved. The obligation to offer sexual therapy to a series of bugger duets is a fate worse than looking for a decent job.


Mick

30 April 2010 at 10:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

What a contrast Lord Denning’s approach was to Christianity and the law compared Lord Justice Laws’.


‘In primitive societies the influence of religion on law was obvious, but it is not so obvious in modern societies. In primitive communities religion, morals and law were indistinguishably mixed together. In the Ten Commandments, for instance, you find the First Commandment, which is religious: "God spake these words and said, ‘I am the Lord thy God: Thou shalt have none other Gods but me.’ " You find the Fifth Commandment, which is a moral precept: "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." You find the Eighth Commandment, which is a legal duty: "Thou shalt not steal." This intermingling is typical of all early communities. The severance of these ideas—of law from morality, and of religion from law — belongs very distinctly to the later stages of the evolution of modern thought.

‘This severance has gone a great way. Many people now think that religion and law have nothing in common. the law, they say, governs our dealings with our fellows, whereas religion concerns our dealings with God. Likewise, they hold that law has nothing to do with morality. Law lays down rigid rules which must be obeyed without questioning whether they are right or wrong. Its function is to keep order, not to do justice.

‘The severance has, I think, gone much too far. Although religion, law and morals can be separated, they are nevertheless still very much dependent on one another. Without religion, there can be no morality, there can be no law. I shall try to show you how many of the fundamental principles of our law have been derived from the Christian religion. In so doing I will try to indicate how they are challenged by a changing world which knows no religion, or which at best treats religion as something which is of no moment in practical affairs.’


The Influence of Religion on Law
by the Rt. Hon. Lord Denning

30 April 2010 at 11:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

“If religion perishes in the land, truth and justice will also. We have already strayed too far from the path of our fathers. Let us return to it, for it is the only thing that can save us.”

In two passages of Denning’s final book, The Closing Chapter, he unconsciously accounted for his own greatness. In the Preface, he wrote: “As always, I have tried to make my meaning clear. That is necessary if you are to influence others. As St. Paul said: “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?’” And at the very end of the book, Denning declared his faith with the aid of Rudyard Kipling: “As a family we have done our part in our time to make the garden of England what it is—and to keep it what it is—the garden where liberty and justice have grown and flourished more than anywhere else…So I finish with Kipling:

‘Oh Adam was a gardener, and God who made him sees
That half a proper gardener’s work is done upon his knees,
So when your work is finished, you can wash your hands and pray
For the Glory of the Garden, that is may not pass away!
And the Glory of the Garden it shall never pass away!’”

30 April 2010 at 12:00  
Blogger srizals said...

Examples, no nonny?
I mean the laws and its organisations that existed before 'the contact' between Muslims and Non Muslims. Thanks for the info. I'll look them up.

bluedog,
I hope you'll find the writings for self actualization and self betterment, as I will, from your and no nonny's suggestions. The truth won't hurt us. Lies won't too either. It may distract us a little bit. But we can't escape reason. It's the base of sanity.

Mr.Graham Davis,
you just contradicted yourself kind sir, if your children aren't obsessed wih sex in the first place, can't they wait for a binding legal ceremony rather than do it with whomever they might felt like it? What kind of rules is that? Anarchy?

If you accidently becomes a grandpa or they exposed themselves to STD/HIV, what would you do then? Honestly.
Have to take a leave and meet my maker. I'll be back.

30 April 2010 at 12:35  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Dear old Denning. A kindly and clever man but he belonged more to the 19th rather than the 20th century and low and behold here we are in the 21st!

Without religion, there can be no morality, there can be no law

He was not aware of the biological origins of morality so naturally enough he concluded that it was derived from the particular God that he believed in. Fortunately in this enlightened age some judges at least do not make the same mistake.

And dear old Singhy finishing off with a bit of Kipling reminds me of that terrible joke. Do you like Kipling? I don’t know. I have never kipled!

30 April 2010 at 12:41  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

srizals said...

Have to take a leave and meet my maker. I'll be back.

Well that could be a clincher, death and resurrection in one day. I’ll need proof of course.

30 April 2010 at 12:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

‘’The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational as preferring the subjective over the objective.’

Lord Justice Laws

McFarlane v. Relate Avon Limited


‘We hold these truths to be self-evident…’

The American Declaration of Independence, 4th July 1776

Subjective or objective?


‘We take responsibility for our actions and base our ethics on the goals of human welfare, happiness and fulfillment. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves, individually and together.’

The British Humanist Association

Subjective ‘by creating meaning and purpose’ or objective?


Laws LJ states, at the risk of repetition, ‘It is irrational as preferring the subjective over the objective.’


‘But the typical believer in a religious doctrine, believes it because of its truth. He may be wrong, but he has no option but to believe it. You can’t believe something to be true if you think you know it to be false. That is madness. You can’t choose a religion, if that entails a set of beliefs; the religion in a sense chooses you.’

Mr Little Black Sambo, Archbishop Cranmer’s blog (2010)

Subjective or objective?


When a Royal Commission on reform of the law looks at a particular area does it or does it not include a certain set of values and exclude others without basing its decisions to include or exclude values upon objective grounds?

Subjective or objective?


Her Majesty the queen is Defender of the Faith.

Subjective or objective?


The fact is that Laws LJ constructed a straw man (religious beliefs are subjective) and then set about to beat the face and neck of that straw man.

30 April 2010 at 12:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Lord Justice Laws wrote in his judgment:

‘The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.’ (Para 24)

‘Any belief system’ must also, logically, include Left-liberalism, humanism, secularism and all the other ‘isms’.

But so called ‘equality’ legislation does not work like that. This simple to grasp: a court case must produce a winner and a loser. One belief system must gain superiority over the other.

This is how it’s done; and this is how Great Britain and Northern Ireland will take the route to tyranny.

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

‘The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.’

Thus you could have a court case on these themes: ‘religion’ v. ‘other opinion’.

One side or the other must triumph.

It is by using a device similar to Article 14 that Soviet Russia persecuted Christians.

Article 34 of the 1977 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:

‘Citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status. The equal rights of citizens of the USSR are guaranteed in all fields of economic, political, social, and cultural life.’

We are about to witness a repeat of the same events that took place in 17th century England.

30 April 2010 at 14:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

"I could not riding out alone about my business, but smile out to God in praises, in assurance of victory because God would, by things that are not, bring to naught things that are".


My Lord Cromwell

(Before the Battle of Naseby, 1645.)

30 April 2010 at 15:15  
Blogger srizals said...

Yes, death and life, 5 times a day, on daily basis, Muslims meet with their maker, Mr. Graham.

We repent, pray and reflect what we've done previously and what should we do next, and thank God for the second chance at hand.

Quid pro quo, Mr. Graham. You didn't answer my question just yet.

30 April 2010 at 15:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Magna Charter (The Great Charter of England, 1215)

Article 1

‘FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.’

Article 29

‘NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.’

30 April 2010 at 15:30  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizals at 01.22 - ''English common law was inspired from medieval Islamic law, bought by the Normans when they conquered England'' Your source is a tad confused old lad...well, not so much confused, as just plain wrong.

Various Islamic influences, within many spheres of life, did indeed take hold in Britain; but not during the period of Norman consolidation. I'm afraid John Makdisi is not so much an Islamic revisionist, as an Islamic fantasist.

However, the period following the Conquest is deeply fascinating, and much misunderstood. William's governance, and the rule of Norman law, was not so much an import, but a reaction to the post-Hastings resistance he encountered. What we now perceive as the 'Feudal System' was not William's initial/original intention; but was to a great degree forced upon him by Saxon (and Welsh!) recalcitrance, together with a necessitating reliance upon an imported heirarchy, in lieu of a deeply intransigent native hierarchy, who simply refused to accept William's claim to the Saxon throne. Note: Saxon, not 'Norman' throne. Anyhows, I'll spare you the full nine yards, as it goes on a bit!

30 April 2010 at 15:44  
Blogger srizals said...

And what's your point of arguments?
No. 1?

30 April 2010 at 16:00  
Blogger srizals said...

1. Several legal institutions in civil law were also adapted from similar institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence during the Middle Ages. For example, the Islamic Hawala institution influenced the development of the Avallo in Italian civil law and the Aval in French civil law.
(Badr, Gamal Moursi, Spring, 1978)

2. The commenda limited partnership used in European civil law was also adapted from the Qirad and Mudaraba in Islamic law. The civil law conception of res judicata.
(Makdisi 1999)

"and the transfer of debt, which was not permissible under Roman law but is practiced in modern civil law, may also have origins in Islamic law. The concept of an agency was also an "institution unknown to Roman law", where it was not possible for an individual to "conclude a binding contract on behalf of another as his agent."
#
"Islamic military jurisprudence also had an influence. After Sultan Al-Kamil defeated the Franks during the Crusades, Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how Al-Kamil supplied the defeated Frankish army with food:

"Islamic military jurisprudence also had an influence. After Sultan Al-Kamil defeated the Franks during the Crusades, Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how Al-Kamil supplied the defeated Frankish army with food"
(Weeramantry, Judge Christopher G. 1997)
"Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power."

30 April 2010 at 16:13  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

srizals said...

you just contradicted yourself kind sir, if your children aren't obsessed with sex in the first place, can't they wait for a binding legal ceremony rather than do it with whomever they might felt like it? What kind of rules is that? Anarchy?

As sex is simply the means by which we procreate we have evolved a sex drive that is stirred by the pleasurable sensations derived from the sex act. For most of human history that pleasure had always to be balanced by the risk of pregnancy that is until we invented reliable contraception.

Contraception has enabled women to control their fertility and has allowed us to enjoy the pleasure of sex without fear of pregnancy. Of course when the time comes that we wish to have children we can temporarily stop using it.

Sex is such a natural part of human relationships that it can now be experienced without guilt or consequences. Most people will eventually marry or form permanent partnerships but before that time it is probably a good thing to have experienced other sexual partners within the context of secure if not permanent relationships.

The obsession in some faiths of virginity of before marriage is thoroughly unhealthy and driven by male sexual insecurity and inadequacy and not for the prevention of pregnancy.

None of this seems like anarchy to me.

If you accidentally becomes a grandpa or they exposed themselves to STD/HIV, what would you do then?

There are always risks associated from personal relationships not least the potential emotional ones but in all but exceptional circumstances pregnancy and STDs can be prevented by taking precautions.

For responsible young people although the risk of pregnancy is tiny it can happen and this results in a moral dilemma, to keep an unscheduled baby, to offer it for adoption or to abort it. Personally I don’t think abortion should ever be used as simply a means of contraception but in the event of an unwanted pregnancy I would reluctantly accept it.

This attitude will probably not be acceptable to many here and I can understand that. But to restrict sex to within the confines of a single relationship (that could well be an unhappy or unfulfilled one) seems worse. To organise an entire morally responsible social system predicated on the remote possibility of pregnancy is undesirable.

And before you tell me that we awash with teenage mums and abortions as a result of one night stands with which I will have to agree, the alternative of “just say no” or waiting until marriage is not going to happen.

I think the way forward is to develop the morally concerned behaviour that I have described in my own family and that pertains to virtually all my friends and extended family rather than simply deny human nature.

30 April 2010 at 16:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis stated:

'For most of human history that pleasure had always to be balanced by the risk of pregnancy...'

A 'risk'?

It is clear Mr Davis does not understand the meaning of 'risk'.

Therefore, he should be, in the intelligent reader's mind: dismissed.

30 April 2010 at 17:40  
Anonymous woman on a raft said...

It is clear Mr Davis does not understand the meaning of 'risk'.

Please explain, Mr Singh. Risk seems to be exactly the word to describe an outcome which may or may not happen?

30 April 2010 at 18:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Madam

Mr Davis wrote (connecting 'risk' to history):

'For most of human history that pleasure had always to be balanced by the risk of pregnancy...'

30 April 2010 at 18:14  
Anonymous Ecgfryth said...

Graham Davis said
"Sex is such a natural part of human relationships that it can now be experienced without guilt or consequences."

What sort of logic is that? Almost every vice could be described as "natural", on account of self-centered human nature. Lots of behaviours would be considered "natural" to very many people, who are nevertheless held in check by total acceptance of laws (religious/secular/social). Whether something is "natural" or not is no indication of whether it will induce guilt.

Experienced guilt is instead a function of conscience, and your whole understanding of "conscience" seems askew, becasue conscience is informed by values that have been acquired from our environment. Conscience is not answerable to the letter of the Law, but to a concrete belief in the validity and necessity of the Law. If a particular value has not been engrained into the very character of an individual, then there will be no guilt when that value is broken.

If I were to rephrase your above assertion, replacing "natural" with "normal", you would at least make some sense, But normallity is of course subjective. And the essence of a subjective view is that it cannot (should not) be used to make sweeping statements as you have above.

As for the assertion that sex "can now be experienced without [...] consequences", well, that is more an indictment of modern society than something to be proud of. For the ensuing breakdown of the family unit casued by lax attitudes on this matter are most definitely a consequence (indeed a self-feeding spiral: that which is deemed merely "normal" by an individual incurs no guilt), and indeed a consequence that I think most people would agree is both negative and far outweighs any possible positive from the pleasures of unrestricted bonking.

30 April 2010 at 18:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Ecgfryth

Outstanding.

30 April 2010 at 18:23  
Anonymous no nonny said...

In any case, Mrs. on the Raft - according to Chambers, "risk" denotes: hazard, danger, chance of loss or injury, the degree of probability or loss; a person, thing or factor likely to cause loss or danger.

And the verb signifies: ...to endanger, to incur the chance of (an unfortunate consequence) by some action.

sooo - in this case, the natural consequences of the action, indeed the purpose for its existence, are presented as being negative and unwelcome.

30 April 2010 at 18:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Judaeo-Christian soldiers

Men and women.

Let there be no mistake; and mark this well.

In the 21st century, before God and men, we are not only to defend the Faith but also to contend for our faith.

Our backs are against the wall.

On every side we are hard pressed.

God will bless us.

The enemies flags and banners will be captured.

We will place them at the feet of our Lord.

As Roman legionaire commanders ordered; and as St Paul instructed:

Stand firm!

30 April 2010 at 18:51  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Ecgfryth said...

Almost every vice could be described as "natural”.....

In one phrase you have exposed you own unhealthy conflation of sex and vice. Sexual expression in any form is not a vice. There are vices associated with sexual exploitation but you comment is like saying food is poison because some species of fungi are toxic.

30 April 2010 at 18:59  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

It now appears you do not know the meaning of 'causality', 'association' and of course the concept of risk.

30 April 2010 at 19:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...

no nonny

Brilliant!

Wonderful: pin-point intellectual accuracy.

30 April 2010 at 19:08  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Oh Singhy if the best you can do is quibble over the “true” meaning of the word risk, then I have surely rattled your cage.

30 April 2010 at 19:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

Some may conclude you are a 'clever man'. Pity you lack wisdom.

30 April 2010 at 19:11  
Anonymous g said...

... do I mean cage? Perhaps I should have said prison, for you are undoubtedly incarcerated in intellectual prison and you have thrown away the key.

30 April 2010 at 19:14  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Och! Mr Davis - we know who 'g' is:

'A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.'

C. S. Lewis

30 April 2010 at 19:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 April 2010 at 19:31  
Anonymous Ecgfryth said...

To reiterate, I mention vice (= selfish, immoral behaviour in general) as it is an example of a "natural" human trait, to illustrate that your assertion, namely that natural acts incur no guilt, is nonsense.

You are simply reading what isn't there. At no time did I conflate sex with vice. In addition, I would never conflate the two. Why? For the same reason that I would object to a new blooper of yours, "Sexual expression in any form is not a vice".

A vice is by definition immoral (its linguistic opposite being, "virtue"). And morality is personal: it is defined by values held by the individual. For sure, the values of an individual may be part of a shared moral code held by wider society, and there may even be a notional obligation to follow a set of community values, but as long as the individual believes in conscience that they must act a particular way then they are duty bound. In other words, an action may or may not be legal in absolute terms, but it is the perception of the individual that defines whether a given action is immoral or otherwise. (It is more succinct to put that into religious terminology: It is never sinful to follow conscience).

So once again, you have made a sweeping subjective statement to which you should prefix "I beleive that ..."

I'll just add, briefly, that mainstream Christian values would agree with you, if we were discussing any vice in TOTAL isolation from the rest of society. To illustrate the Christian perspective, take that line from the NT, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath" (Mk2:27), ie. religious law exists for the good of human society, and is not an end in itself. Morality is gagued according to the effects of interactions between parties. If it were possible to separate a vice entirely from its effects upon society (and to those with faith, from its effects upon their relationship with God), then it would no longer merit the name.

30 April 2010 at 20:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath" (Mk2:27), ie. religious law exists for the good of human society, and is not an end in itself.'

Then my dear brother you have just, intellectually, undermined:

Lord Justice Law's judgment.

Bravo.

30 April 2010 at 20:19  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Davis makes the suggestion that Christians are repressed Homosexuals, not quite sure how he arrived at that conclusion?.
However, satan ( whom you no doubt don`t believe in)comes to steal,kill,and destroy.He needs a legitimate reason to do this.
Satan encourages people at every level for to rebel against God to break Gods spiritual laws therefore putting them under the jurisdiction of satan who is only to happy to oblige by sowing all sorts of evil into their lives.
Satan will do all he can( he is after all god of this world)he controls the media(prince of the power of the air)and will encourage every sort of vice in the name of freedom, liberalism,and rights of the individual.
Satan will run rings around all the spiritually blind 'intellectuals' whom he treats with contempt as they are no threat to him on the contrary they are doing his will!

30 April 2010 at 20:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Davis

From what you have written here, your family is a mess. It will, in time, become a bigger mess. You have abdicated any form of moral leadership and have 'gone with the flow'. Fruit of our actions [or lack of them] is a long time ripening. It is not ripe during spring or half way into summer, but there is a harvest coming. An idle moment or two might well be taken up by looking up the family trees descending from the great Christian preachers and reformers and comparing them with those of the athiests and blasphemers of their day who deliberately opposed them. One tree is a litany of remarkable achievers in all fields; the other a chronicle of fiasco, failure, bankruptcy, incarceration, sickness, suicides and general bad luck.
Choice is a wonderful thing, but it affects others also.

Mick

1 May 2010 at 02:11  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

You’re right len.....

Satan along with Neptune, Mithras, Thor, bigfoot, Nessie, fairies, elves and God, just mythical inventions made by man in our distant and ignorant past.

(I didn’t suggest that all Christians are repressed homosexuals only that those most hateful of gays might be)

Anonymous Mick if that’s not a contradiction......

I reveal some personal details of my family and you say “it is a mess”. What effrontery! Typical of many here you look at the world through wrong end of the telescope. What you see is the shrivelled carcass of an extinct beast on to which you project your absurd beliefs in the hope that it can be awakened from its moribund state. It cannot!

1 May 2010 at 10:14  
Blogger Preacher said...

Mr Davis.
I think you should retire gracefully from the field, or you will end like the three stooges in the debates, trying & failing to defend a hopeless position.
Yours in Him. Preacher.

1 May 2010 at 10:32  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Preacher

Keep taking the "pills".

1 May 2010 at 10:35  
Blogger Preacher said...

Mr D.
whilst I applaud your tenacity I feel you are defending a lost cause. Advice is offered on the basis of "If you find you're in a hole, stop digging".

1 May 2010 at 10:43  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Dear Mr Len @ 20.35, what Mr Graham Davis actually said @ 10.01 was this: "It does confound me the degree to which hatred of Gays is expressed here. It goes way beyond religious belief. A cynic might venture to suggest that those who are most virulently opposed to homosexuality are themselves battling against their own unrealised homosexuality."

Not a word about Our Redeemer, but possibly an astute observation nonetheless. It's a thought I have entertained myself, but didn't think it would add anything constructive to the debate in publication. After all, if you accept homosexuality as Mr Davis claims to do, it is inconsistent to make perjorative remarks about the sexual orientation of other communicants.

1 May 2010 at 12:28  
Blogger srizals said...

Thank you Mr. Graham Davis.

As for the proof of God, you have said it yourself, you and only you decide the law and order for your family, and you govern your family with knowldege, what more is this well organised universe, complete with cause and effect binding laws. Some are controllable by us, most are not.

Science, no matter how scientific it is, is still limited and is not absolute, look at the Pluto question, and you'll see what I mean.

Would you not think it's quite odd, that only the man creature can do what it can do, but after all that, it would end up just like a dead ant, a dead end.

Saying everything occurs naturally, without nothing guiding it, like the spermatazoa, doesn't seem logical to the logic of the human mind. Even science can't explain the nano technology involved that moves the brainless spermatozoon. Imprinted in their DNA? Imprinted by whom?

What made the cells devide and devide and knew exactly what to do and what to be? Certainly not the mother, not even the developing child, what more is the father. And bear in mind, according to some highly civilised law, has no right whatsoever, since it is not considered as a human, just mere cells. The fact that it is created out of a lie in the USA, is a non issue and being embraced by all that claimed the Abrahamic faith followers are so obsessed in.

In many of my discussions with atheists, they can't except it when I compared the complexity of a supercar with the complexity of a human being. One has a creator or creators, while the other one has not. A complex system is just the same with any complex system. It must have a rule governing it. Govern by whom? A man can only create a non living thing, while God created more than a man, being the greatest composer of the universe. The power of creation that must be comprehended not only by the rules of logic, but also the rules of faith.

What most atheists fail to establish their own disbelieve in God is by proving the otherwise. The ability of controlling the uncontrollable, which made us subdued to a set of rules that is beyond us.

Like it or not, we are following a pattern, a rule that is governing us. We do have some autonomy in some things, just like your children, but in the end it is not up to them, nor to us.

Happy Workers' Day.

1 May 2010 at 15:20  
Blogger srizals said...

Ops, my bad. accept, not except. Sorry for the wrong vocab, Mr. D.

1 May 2010 at 15:34  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Graham Davis,
It must have come to your notice that man has a bent(if I may use that word) towards evil.
How would you explain that?While I would agree that man can and does 'good' the general direction of man is downhill.
Instead of ( if the evolutionists are right)us getting better and better we seem to be going in the reverse direction.
Man is ingenious,science has gone ahead in leaps and bounds but mankind itself is basically unchanged, the nazi`s were amongst the cleverest people on earth but look at the utter destruction they caused!
Beneath the thin veneer of civilization there lurks a monster within,the schoolteacher in the news illustrates this,given constant provocation something snaps and we go wild.
Jesus Christ who was unjustly condemned for crimes He didn`t commit,whipped to the point of death,then crucified ( a deliberately prolonged,slow agonising death) forgave his executioners, this is the Spirit of God,this is the redemption plan for mankind God exchanging His Spirit for the monster within.
............
The thing that comes to mind regarding yourself is casting pearls before swine,refuse the Truth if you will but don`t try and bar the way for others with your 'intellect'.

1 May 2010 at 15:36  
Blogger srizals said...

Len said,

"Jesus Christ who was unjustly condemned for crimes He didn`t commit,whipped to the point of death,then crucified ( a deliberately prolonged,slow agonising death) forgave his executioners"

By whom Len? And which verses are you refering to?

1 May 2010 at 15:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr srizals

By the legal authority extant in Jerusalem at that time.

1 May 2010 at 15:58  
Blogger srizals said...

Magna Carta - 1215, The first crusade - 1099. Coincidence?

1 May 2010 at 16:00  
Blogger srizals said...

Is it true Len? By the powers that be at that time? Or is there a bigger picture here?

1 May 2010 at 16:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Coincidence.

1 May 2010 at 16:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr srizals

There is a 'bigger picture' Under Jewish law a lamb without blemish was required to be sacrificed to atone for our sins (wrong-doing).

That lamb was Jesus.

God permitted the execution of His own son.

1 May 2010 at 16:18  
Blogger srizals said...

Coincidence? What evidence? An interesting fact that it began almost 400 to 500 years after it was liberated by the Muslims. Why did it took so long for the Christians to respond to such aggression?

1 May 2010 at 16:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr srizals

I don't know if this will be of any help to you. But when I was a little boy - I had planned my own suicide.

As it happened at the time I was secretly reading, in the Bible, the life and times of Jesus. I felt that only He would have understood me.

I got up to the part where He was crucified and died.

I slammed the Bible shut. I remember looking up at the ceiling and shouting at God: 'What kind of God are you? Murderer! Murderer! YOU had your own son killed! Didn't YOU! Didn't YOU?'

'What kind of God are you?'

'Answer ME!'

'He was the only friend I could have had, who would have understood ME!'

'MURDERER.'

I resolved that afternoon to go ahead with my plan to commit suicide.

1 May 2010 at 16:31  
Blogger srizals said...

Let say that you are a father, Mr D Singh. Let's wear the shoes of a father that is about to witness the execution of his only beloved son, in the hands of brutal savages. Not a quick death but rather a slow agonising painful death. Would you permit such savagery to take place right there before your very eyes? What kind of law that govern such decision, to let your only son, died as an atonament?

1 May 2010 at 16:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr srizals

That is precisely what I thought.

Then over and over again I shouted at God:

Why?

Why?

Why?

1 May 2010 at 16:41  
Blogger srizals said...

What happened next D. Singh? Sorry, I'm having a bad connection tonight. Have to connect and disconnect frequently. Ignore my first question.

1 May 2010 at 16:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Well the next morning I began my long and heavy hearted walk to school (it was a dull grey Friday morning) knowing that on Saturday morning I was going to throw myself in front of a lorry and, hopefully, have my head cut clean off.

I remember being in class that Friday afternoon; looking at my class-mates for the last time.

And then, suddenly, my school teacher Mrs M (for a reason I do not know) roared in her thuderous voice: 'ALWAYS FINISH WHAT YOU HAVE STARTED READING.'

The school bell rang and we all ran out of the school gates (except for me).

On the way home I looked at the red bricks of the houses - they seemed more red than usual; and I looked at the blades of grass and they seemed emerald green.

I climbed the stairs to my bedroom and took the Bible out of its secret place.

And I remembered the roar of Mrs M.

I began reading from where I had left off - the death of Jesus.

I discovered, to my amazement, that Jesus arose from the grave.

I got up and shouted at the ceiling in joy:

'JESUS, JESUS; YOU ARE ALIVE.'

I sensed a beautiful, misty, warm loving, spirit around me.

I KNEW HE WAS ALIVE.

Death fled in terror.

However, that night, as my father switched of he lights, two questions vexed my soul: how could I 'meet' Him and go into eternity and shake off the meaninglessness of this life?

1 May 2010 at 16:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I say srizals old chap, are you all right?

1 May 2010 at 17:27  
Blogger srizals said...

Have to sleep early tonight, got a feast to prepare tomorrow. Hope I can finish what I've started to read tonight tomorrow. Good night Mr. D. Singh.

1 May 2010 at 17:31  
Blogger srizals said...

Do continue your story. I'll read them afterwards.

1 May 2010 at 17:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Well, srizals: I attacked the problem of how to 'meet' Him and go into eternity (live for ever) in every logical way (obeying the principles that I knew then in he Bible) that I could think of.

This went on for some time in the darkness of he night.

When my own efforts were exhausted and on the verge of sleep, a still, small, quiet voice said to my heart: 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.'

I wanted to shout 'Eureka!' but was too afraid of my father's anger.

And so I said to myself: if I follow in His foot-steps (His advice and actions) I shall arrive at the Truth and have life for ever more.

Tears of joy, in the silence, streamed down my cheeks.

At that conclusion, my eyes closed.

Good night, old boy.

1 May 2010 at 17:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Oh! srizals old chap there's one more thing.

Next Monday morning in my primary school class, my Science teacher Mr ... van H... permitted us all to examine the structure of leaves through microscopes.

When I examined my leaf and saw clearly the veins, structure and nutrition delivery systems; I knew that there had to be an engineer who had put all this together.

For the first time in six months: I smiled at my fellow pupils and said in my heart to God: 'I know you did this.'

1 May 2010 at 18:11  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Srizals said...

you have said it yourself, you and only you decide the law and order for your family.....

No, no no that is not what I said!

In my culture my wife and I share certain values but differ on many things. I am a life long atheist my wife a very lapsed Catholic who does not believe in God but is uncomfortable with my assertive atheism.

We have not come to any collective moral view; rather our values whilst often unstated have provided a backdrop to our family life. In the terms of this blog we are liberal but please don’t confuse this with a lack of values.

The power of creation that must be comprehended not only by the rules of logic, but also the rules of faith. Like it or not, we are following a pattern, a rule that is governing us..

Not so. There is no creation to be comprehended, simply evolution. Complexity is no justification for superstition. For the questions that Science has yet to answer simply say we don’t know yet. And of course the ultimate question for believers is, why your God rather than all the others?

Religion is simply mass indoctrination, you never ask the question is my god true, perhaps I should investigate the validity of Neptune, he may be truer than my God. You are trapped inside a bubble like fish in a tank with no conception of the world beyond it.

1 May 2010 at 20:16  
Blogger Preacher said...

Mr Singh.
Amazing! Wonderful, true!
Look forward to meeting you there.
Yours in Christ Jesus. Preacher.

1 May 2010 at 22:03  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Your Grace, thank you for this forum. It’s good to see freedom of speech at work, even when those who know no better use it to abuse Christians who are clearly thoughtful, intelligent (often brilliant), and erudite. The abusers only highlight their own shortcomings by contrast, after all; rather like our Communist masters - who apply the same principles of disrespect (ridicule and agitation) when working to persuade and subjugate.

The posts here impel me to consider relationships between such behaviour, education, and distrust/trust (which extends into Faith and Hope). These discussions suggest the possibility that individuals who distrusted from the outset failed to get to university; but that they are likely to count the failure as gain, not loss. Their failure in the system seems to have engendered disrespect for those who succeeded - and so to fuel the deconstruction of both education and the educated. I am among those who dub this mentality a ‘superiority complex’; and who pray for its spiritually battered victims, especially if they are wives.

I’ve often questioned the Rodgers/Hart line: “Learning to trust is just for children in school,” for learning to distrust other “humans” has been a life-long journey! My first forays for info indicate that Erik Erikson (latterly a Harvard psychologist) thought the traits of trust/distrust are affected early, in infancy; and I also see that some educators incorporate his theories into helping school-children to develop psycho-socially. I must try to make time for this subject; though Bezmenov indicated that it will take at least 15 years to affect the tide of Communist/AntiChristian infiltration
in all our institutions.

And yes, Mr. Singh. Thank you. I, too, shall hope for the grace to meet you all there.

2 May 2010 at 02:47  
Blogger srizals said...

Yes, evolution. But the problem with the evolution theory, it is no different with all the 'superstition' you've mentioned. It is afterall came to light out of observations, assumptions and calculations of a man. As any man, he can be right, sometimes, he can be wrong. No Scientist can proclaim that his finding is absolute, it won't be that scientific now won't it. The quest of understanding of our existence, events and future drive us forward. It's the nature of the human being. He has to know and understand. Only then he can make sense of himself.

As for which is truer or the truest, one has to see things from the outside to the inside. And we can't do this without first have ample knowldege of our own understanding that has lead us to believe our beliefs. In your case the belief of ubelief of the existence of a Composer that's holding everything in its place.

The past of events, the why and what would be a good basis of comparison of understanding which is which, what is what. The turmoils that burnt and destroyed so many and how the people involved behaved themselves, would be a good perspective as a point of ponder.

The problem of Darwinism is that we still have apes around us and that would null the point of evolution itself. What made them stop evolving? But to dismiss evolution completely would be wrong. For example the diversity of the homo sapeins. The diversities of language, culture and physical appearance that highly evolved, adapting and adopting to their environment. But to say that out of an explosion, all things started to decide for themselves of what they want to be and constantly changing their physical appearance from a hairy beast that has a very different brain structure than of a man, would of course, be unacceptable to a fish in a bubble like me.

2 May 2010 at 03:04  
Anonymous len said...

The Cross
"Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." 1 Peter 2:24
"The Cross did not happen to Jesus: He came on purpose for it. He is 'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.' The whole meaning of the Incarnation is the Cross. Beware of separating God manifest in the flesh from the Son becoming sin. The Incarnation was for the purpose of Redemption. God became incarnate for the purpose of putting away sin; not for the purpose of Self-realization. The Cross is the centre of Time and of Eternity, the answer to the enigmas of both.
"The Cross is not the cross of a man but the Cross of God, and the Cross of God can never be realized in human experience. The Cross is the exhibition of the nature of God, the gateway whereby any individual of the human race can enter into union with God. When we get to the Cross, we do not go through it; we abide in the life to which the Cross is the gateway.
"The centre of salvation is the Cross of Jesus, and the reason it is so easy to obtain salvation is because it cost God so much. " (Oswald Chambers)

2 May 2010 at 07:31  
Anonymous len said...

"The Bible does not say that God punished the human race for one man’s sin; but that the disposition of sin, viz., my claim to my right to myself, entered into the human race by one man, and that another Man took on Him the sin of the human race and put it away (Heb. 9:26)—an infinitely profounder revelation. The disposition of sin is not immorality and wrong-doing, but the disposition of self-realization—I am my own god.
"This disposition may work out in decorous morality or in indecorous immorality, but it has the one basis, my claim to my right to myself. ... Sin is a thing I am born with and I cannot touch it; God touches sin in Redemption.
"In the Cross of Jesus Christ God redeemed the whole human race from the possibility of damnation through the heredity of sin. God nowhere holds a man responsible for having the heredity of sin. The condemnation is not that I am born with a heredity of sin, but if when I realize Jesus Christ came to deliver me from it, I refuse to let Him do so, from that moment I begin to get the seal of damnation. “And this is the judgment” (the critical moment) “that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light.(Oswald Chambers)

2 May 2010 at 07:35  
Anonymous Voyager said...

There are limits to the sagacity of Judges. They claim to be 'apolitical' but they are players in the political game who engage in theatre to give their own personal prejudices an 'aura' of respectability.

Judges do not dispense Justice. They dispense a bigoted opinion the parties are supposed to 'respect'. They are neither wise nor apolitical since they get their status through their political affiliations.

It is primary school constitutional theory that holds judges to be unbiassed and apolitical. They are unelected politicians playing politics on life contracts. Exactly the same effect could be held by having a Monarch decide such matters - although our monarchs delegated such matters to The King's Bench - it is nevertheless as if The Queen of England had dispensed this judgment directly under our fairy tale constitution - which Lord Justice Laws aka Sir John Grant McKenzie Laws thinks he can improve with his own special insights into the fairy tale.

2 May 2010 at 08:49  
Blogger Hywel Rees said...

Lord Justice Laws is himself an ass, an ignoramus and a expresses very selective and prejudiced views on deeply held Christian beliefrs and in so doing shows himself to be a "demagogish" bully and by definition a coward in that he chooses to attack Christianity and by virtue of Christian ethics he knows that Christians are very unlikely to retaliate in word or deed. Would the "Learned Judge" show such stalwart courage in condemning Islam and Moslems - who hold the same beliefs on homosexuality? I think not!!
The Law (Lord Justice, that is.) is in this matter truly an Ass.

2 May 2010 at 10:01  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

srizals said...

There are just two options:

You believe because you feel it to be so in which case there is no limit and anything can be true. However as you demand no evidence yourself you clearly cannot provide for the likes of me.

The alternative does not involve belief and relies on scientifically verifiable data, not facts but data that offers logical reasoning that can be checked by anyone else. Data accumulated by science can eventually be accepted as fact, gravity for example, if it has been tested so often that the evidence for it is overwhelming.

Most scientists (and I am not one) are content that all “facts” are open to an alternative explanation if new evidence supports it.

Religious faith is just that, faith. You can believe in anything and of course people do. You think that your particular belief is true but the truth is that you are simply deluding yourself.

2 May 2010 at 12:59  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Srizals,

I think the real problem with those who espouse that evolution has disproved God (which is complete nonsense), is that they cannot see that there is very little evidence for which evolution is a natural conclusion. It is not a theory with as much repeatable evidence as the model of the atom, nor is it as comprehensive as Newton's gravitational theories. It is essentially speculative. Biology is such a random science, that making absolute theories tends to result in being proved wrong rather quickly.

In all scientific theory, we see a natural phenomenon and form a theory for it. We then test the theory to make sure that it is repeatable. When contradicting evidence appears, we alter the theory or discard it.

Like with AGW, we see biologists take and discard evidence based on whether they want to support or discount a theory. This is not scientific, but is unfortunately the problem with having humans as scientists. I personally believe that the true theory of evolution is quite close to our current model (though there are still some major holes in it).

Compare it to Galileo and the Pope. The accepted theory at the time was the Heliocentric Universe (the Sun being the centre of all things with all rotating around it). Galileo wanted to write a book on the Heliocentric Universe but the Pope warned him, as there was not enough scientific evidence yet, not to espouse heliocentricism as fact. Galileo decided to write a book stating it was fact and, at the same time, making fun of the Pope. Of course the Pope was eventually vindicated; Newton's gravitational theory showed that the Earth and Sun orbit each other, and that they both orbit a common centre of the Universe which is not Sol.

Many ascientific atheists will believe in evolution as it stands and ignore any contradicting evidence. This is nothing more than an irrational belief. Just because it feels scientific doesn't make it so. The rest of us, who claim that it is incomplete and may be wrong will be scoffed at, just like the Pope. It is almost certain that we will too be vindicated for our attempt to defend the scientific method.

2 May 2010 at 13:17  
Anonymous Voyager said...

gravity for example, if it has been tested so often that the evidence for it is overwhelming.

But gravity only exists around planetary bodies. It does not exist in space. It is believed to represent a curvature in spacetime but noone can explain why spacetime exists.

If God is Universal what does this say about the fact that that gravitational effects are only calculated in planetary bodies but diminish rapidly throughout the Universe. You must understand Physics before making such preposterous statements.

2 May 2010 at 15:38  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

"gravity for example, if it has been tested so often that the evidence for it is overwhelming."

The motion of the planets is not explained by a fictitious inverse square law force that "acts at a distance" nor by curvature of the space time continuum nor any scientific theory. These are merely sophisticated attempts to describe that which is perceived by the senses. Science "explains" no phenomenon but rather seeks relations on the set of sense data. It does this within the context of logical structures based upon primitive (undefined) concepts, axioms (unproven assumptions) and rules of inference. Such a logical structure describes an infinitesimal subset of reality —its constitutive domain, and no more. Explain it does not; answer the question why. . . ? it does not;

3 May 2010 at 01:51  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Thank you, Professor @01:51!! I used your link and read your article with interest.


Now I may return peacefully (well, er-more or less) to the Rule, the Psalms, and Crosses :)).

3 May 2010 at 07:23  
Blogger srizals said...

I have given you the proof that made me a believer. It may not be accepted in a court of yours, but it has been in mine. It is not based on my scripture and my prophet's sayings. It is me. You see, I'm using things around us to make a point of the backdrop that is making things how they are, in my understanding and making sense of things. For example, the movements of the traffic flows are designed in such a way to avoid havoc. So is the flow of our blood in our body. Do we control them? If not us, who? Our hearts? If you have been in a classroom, you would know that without law and order governing and functioning at the right time and the right place, things would be upside down in an instant. This is my explanation. What's your explanation.

There are many uncontrollable things that man yet to discover their working properties, science have yet to name new species that keep on popping here and there, and that just show how limited science is and I don't think they are going to do it in our lifetime. Lakester91 might be luckier than us. And there is greatness in you, young man.

So how does an atheist describe all the uncontrollable things that exist in and around us? The brainless Mother Nature? Why can’t we control them if there is no other Controller except us?

I can't point to God as any idolaters can as you would have expected a solid standing proof. That what makes it great. The Quest for the truth I mean. We have to look for the truth. If it is standing boldly and intimidating in front of us, then we won't have this conversation of ours in the first place. The air that we breathe is unseen, but that doesn't make it as non existence.

But again, there are the human behaviours that we can evaluate and assess, without needing too much scientific requirements and qualifications. As the minority won't be a good evaluation tools for the majority, the majority would of course, in a way, reflect the different groups, even though it may not cover all. The diversity even in a group is unavoidable and must be taken into account. Nothing is completely the same. How humans behave and conduct themselves therefore would be a reflection of their belief or unbelief. In a way, it manifests their faith or unfaith to the outside world. I’m not sure if there are any scientific studies being conducted on this matter, since the outcome would be very sensitive and provocative. Studies would of course complement each other and may cancel one another at times. They are after all, only human, the sources I mean.

Sometimes, certain existence can't be seen by the naked eyes, it can only be felt. In a religion context, it can only be sensed by both the heart and the head. And the IQ is being complemented by the EQ.

Mr. Graham Davis,
What would you do when things started to fall apart?
You see, when a man is in control of himself and his surroundings, he would stood arrogant above others. But when he is no longer in control, that is when he's beginning to see that he is subjected to a force higher and bigger than him. And it is not Mother Nature.

Where is your proof that there is no God? Have any scientist actually dared to say so? Do you know that there is a part of the brain that has no real use except that it functions in the remembrance of God?
A nice revelation from you, Mr. D. Singh. I’m touched.

3 May 2010 at 08:04  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

no nonny@0723

Glad you found the article interesting.

3 May 2010 at 12:58  
Blogger Preacher said...

Atheism puts science on a pedestal which does not belong to it. Science should be the discovery of the wonders & uses of Gods creation. A scientist who is also a christian sees the world & the universe in a unique way,that enables him to wonder at the creation & the being who created it. Science therefore is a voyage of discovery not an end in itself. To lesser mortals, God reveals himself in different ways, so that no one can say "I couldn't believe because it was all to complex" thus in Gods court 'ignorance is not an acceptable plea'. This is why many of us spend so much time & effort countering the excuses of those who have in reality just rejected God by choice or pride. It's not a question of winning an argument but rather saving a soul. Reaching a hand out to a drowning stranger.

3 May 2010 at 13:29  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. Graham Davis,

There is something that I want to share with you according to my belief. The angel of death would look at the face of the son of Adam 70 times in a day and wonder why does he keeps on forgetting the inevitable. Please respond ASAP so that we can move on.

3 May 2010 at 15:10  
Blogger srizals said...

Last but not least,

Mr. Graham Davis said,
"The alternative does not involve belief and relies on scientifically verifiable data, not facts but data that offers logical reasoning that can be checked by anyone else. Data accumulated by science can eventually be accepted as fact, gravity for example, if it has been tested so often that the evidence for it is overwhelming".

The smartest man on earth, Prof. Stephen Hawkins said this and I quote:

"Professor Hawking said: ‘We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.

‘I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet.

‘Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonies whatever planets they can reach.’

It would be ‘too risky’ to attempt to make contact with alien races, he concluded.

‘If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.’

The 68-year-old eminent scientist has spent three years working on the Discovery Chanel documentary series, despite being paralyzed by motor neuron disease."

3 May 2010 at 20:40  
Anonymous Ecgfryth said...

An interesting read, of some relevance to the original article's topic :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

4 May 2010 at 00:50  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

srizals

Evolution by natural selection and gene theory are the explanation for our existence and accepted by every reputable scientist in the world including the few scientists that remain believers like Francis Collins who led the team that mapped human genome. Surely you are not supporting the idea of Creationism?

4 May 2010 at 09:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe.

The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.

I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical.


The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over.

No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.


Prof. Anthony Flew

4 May 2010 at 10:07  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Mr Singh

As you well know Flew had a “death bed” conversion having been an atheist and is one of the handful of scientists who prefer magic to reason.

Try reading the Selfish Gene rather than the God Delusion.

4 May 2010 at 10:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

'A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.'

Prof. CS Lewis

4 May 2010 at 10:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God.

As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe.

Prof Anthony Flew

4 May 2010 at 10:34  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Mr Singh

But you are not a Creationist?

4 May 2010 at 10:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

I believe God created life.

4 May 2010 at 10:47  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Mr Singh

But not that the Earth is only a few thousand years old?

4 May 2010 at 11:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Laws LJ stated:

‘The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.’

The fact is, and this is undeniable, Laws’s secularism sounds louder than ‘any belief system’. He wrote the judgment and the precedent.

He assumes that secularism is neutral - it is not. It discriminates.

He wrote that if one belief system sounds louder than another, then those who were not part of that belief system would be left ‘out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be a on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.’

The belief system that he has enshrined in law through precedent is secularism. It has left Christians out in he cold.

We are less than citizens (I did not know our country was a republic: is the Queen dead?).

We have a choice: either we uphold Christian values in law or the next government (as at present) be it extreme Right or Left can do what it likes. Because according to his judgment all belief systems (including secularism) are relative: there are no objective grounds.


For example, upon what philosophical grounds can fascism now be opposed?

I am sure that I will witness the strange death of liberalism.

4 May 2010 at 11:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Before Abraham was, I am.'

No grey areas there!


Mick

4 May 2010 at 11:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

Dating of the age of the earth is disputed. It follows that (relatively) discussions on the subject are inconclusive.

What is not disputed by all astrophysicists is this: the universe had a beginning.

Because it did: a Cause is required.

All astrophysicists are agreed on that point.

4 May 2010 at 11:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

(And to the schoolboys out there reading this discussion) the only question that remains is: how did matter+energy come into being?

There are three 'possible' answers:

1. Matter and energy have always been here.

2. An 'Intelligent Source' created.

3. 'Nothing' came out of 'nothing.

4 May 2010 at 12:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis and all schoolboys,

All astrophysicists are agreed it is irrational for matter+energy to ‘pop’ into existence out of nothing.

Is that better, boys?

4 May 2010 at 12:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

We're waiting. Eh boys?

Choose:

1. Matter and energy have always been here.

2. An 'Intelligent Source' created.

3. 'Nothing' came out of 'nothing'.

4 May 2010 at 12:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Say boys,

What did your Physics master teach you, before you sit your summer exam?

Matter + energy + time = degradation

4 May 2010 at 12:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Say, boys,

Here is one from your Biology master:

Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

4 May 2010 at 12:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

1 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.

2 From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise because of your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger.

3 When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,

4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?

5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honour.

6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:

7 all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,

8 the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.

9 O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!

4 May 2010 at 12:53  
Blogger srizals said...

The egg Mr. D. Singh?

I have to agree with Mr. D. Singh on this one Mr. Davis, since Creationism is consist of different views just like any scientific theory, just like Evolution. But I'm comfortable with it.

4 May 2010 at 13:35  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Mr Singh and Mr Srizals

For most of our ignorant past the Gods provided explanations for the phenomena that we did not understand. Science now provides a logical and verifiable explanation for most phenomena so I imagine that you no longer rely on the bad temper of Thor as the reason for an electrical storm or find the sacrifice of a goat or your son is necessary for the continued fertility of your allotment.

Science has not explained everything and perhaps it never can but to rely on magic and superstition to fill those gaps is not helpful. To attempt to support your supernatural beliefs with pseudo scientific explanations does you no credit. Please be content with the answer “we don’t know” rather than filling the gaps with ancient myths.

The early scientists were motivated by the desire to understand their God’s creation but as their knowledge increased one by one they realised that their research was providing a very much more prosaic explanation, none more so than Islamic science that for centuries led the world but has now all but disappeared as it undermines or contradicts that which is written in the holy texts.

You claim that it is “irrational for matter+energy to ‘pop’ into existence out of nothing” and yet you are happily accept that you invisible friend did just that. To claim that he is outside the laws of science but then enlist science in support of your claims is simply absurd.

4 May 2010 at 16:47  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr Davis,

'To attempt to support your supernatural beliefs with pseudo scientific explanations does you no credit.'

I've not seen anyone use pseudo-science here. Perhaps you'd like to give an example. Interestingly, I've yet to see you show any knowledge of the natural sciences. Perhaps your arguments on the philosophy of science would be less weak if you had any knowledge of it. It is those who have no real scientific background who use it as a grounds for the non-existence of God.

'Please be content with the answer “we don’t know” rather than filling the gaps with ancient myths.'

Or, in other words, please ignore 5000 years of historical evidence (including independent and relatively objective documentation; Tacitus for example); including said 'myth' being born, performing miracles throughout his life, and dying, only to come back to life three days later. I think that 'it shouldn't happen' is always trumped by 'but it did'.

'You claim that it is “irrational for matter+energy to ‘pop’ into existence out of nothing” and yet you are happily accept that you invisible friend did just that.'

Er... yes: what's your point? Please refrain from using the term 'invisible friend'; mockery is the last bastion of the hopeless argument. It is akin to saying 'no you!' and does you no credit.

'To claim that he is outside the laws of science but then enlist science in support of your claims is simply absurd.'

Yes, except he wasn't using science, he was using logic. I've gone over this in a previous thread, so I assume you've read what I posted. If you can't understand the difference between science and logic, then you shouldn't be arguing philosophically about either.

4 May 2010 at 17:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis you wrote quoting me:

'You claim that it is “irrational for matter+energy to ‘pop’ into existence out of nothing” and yet you are happily accept that you invisible friend did just that.'

Yes.

Matter and energy must have a cause.

The laws of causality were not violated.

That is rational, logical and scientific.

4 May 2010 at 19:02  
Blogger D. Singh said...

So Mr Davis, you have a choice:


1. Matter and energy have always been here.

2. An 'Intelligent Source' created.

3. 'Nothing' came out of 'nothing'.

4 May 2010 at 19:08  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

"They do this within the context of a loving and moral environment and because they use contraception there will be no unwanted babies." —Graham Davis

Most people who kill their unwanted children by abortion do so after a contraceptive failure. Moreover, contraceptives themselves have abortifaceant effects. Therefore, the lifestyle which you are defending is neither good for your children nor for your children's children. By permitting this situation to exist in your home, you share moral responsibility for any such outcome. This is surely not good for your soul.

5 May 2010 at 00:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities —his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

The Letter to the Romans Ch. 1 verse 20

5 May 2010 at 00:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

We know that there are thousands of you around the world who come here to read our discussions.

We do not know why you come here. Many of you may be atheists, skeptics and agnostics; searching for the truth of the matter.

We do not know why you do not become involved in the discussions here: you are welcome.

If you are expecting sandal wearing, beard sporting; tree hugging Christians on his site: well then ‘brother’ you have come to the wrong place in cyber-space.

The Judaeo-Christians here are the ‘new’ 21st century type: Gladiatorial Class.

‘If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."‘

The Letter to the Corinthians Ch. 15 verse 32

5 May 2010 at 00:54  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI

I did say that I am very uncomfortable with abortion except in the most necessary of circumstances but that it is usually better than an unwanted baby.

If you are trying to equate contraception with abortion then that is ridiculous.

My offspring are all over 18, they make their own decisions and as they use contraception the question of abortion has not arisen.

I have no soul and nor do you.


Lakestar91 and D. Singh

I am taking my leave of this thread as politics will be centre stage for the next couple of days. My apologies if I haven’t answered your latest questions.

PS Mr Singh I am looking forward to seeing you at the head of your legions laying siege to the National Secular Society HQ. But beware of a counter attack from Dawkins and Hitchens each armed with their trusty sword of reason you are in for a torrid time.

5 May 2010 at 09:15  
Blogger Preacher said...

Mr D.Singh.
Excellent, to add anything further to your post would be criminal.

5 May 2010 at 11:40  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Graham Davis:

You claim that "Abortion is usually better than an unwanted baby."

Abortion is a violation of the human rights of the baby. Would you rather be killed or unwanted? http://aprodefa.org/images/SIETE.jpg

You claim that "it is ridiculous to equate contraception with abortion." This is a denial of the scientific facts.
Since one mechanism of the pill is to prevent implanation of the fertilized egg, it is by definition an abortifacient.
http://thepillkills.org/pillkillsbabies.php

The pill also causes blood clots, heart attacks, and pulmonary embolisms, cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, depression etc in the woman
http://thepillkills.org/sideeffects.php.

Are you not embarrassed to admit that your offspring make THEIR own decisions as to what happens in YOUR house?

Finally, you claim to have have no soul? Then who am I talking to?

5 May 2010 at 13:22  
Anonymous no nonny said...

I imagine he's one of Blake's 'clods,' Professor. Nothing but clay - whose thoughts and words "end in the nothing all things end in."** He is oblivious of where they must begin, if...

Having lost this round, he's now breezed off to tell us all how to vote.

**Omar Kayyam - Rubaiyat

6 May 2010 at 03:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Alas, yes no nonny.

When all is said and done, there are only two men left at the table: the humanist and the Judaeo-Christian.

The humanist has left.

Mr Davis's real problem is not that Christianity has answers for Man.


For him, the death and the rising from the grave of Jesus is inconvenient.

As it is for all tyrants and executioners.

6 May 2010 at 16:32  
Anonymous lenn said...

I have always thought that once people knew the Truth(about Jesus)that revelation would hit them and they would see the light.
Not so,people fight against the Truth, they would rather hang onto their prejudices and preconceptions.
Jesus spoke the Truth to people some accepted Him others wanted to kill Him.
Truth is not always welcome especially if it undermines the proud and those who have made reason their god.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. (NIV)

6 May 2010 at 23:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older