Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 07:20:26 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 799
76  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Give a title to the previous poster's autobiography on: October 22, 2014, 04:20:39 pm
Dirty Sanchez.
77  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Catholic church opens up - a little bit - to gay couples on: October 22, 2014, 04:17:14 pm
In "The Changing Face of the Priesthood" (2000) Rev. Donald B. Cozzens claimed the priesthood was increasingly becoming a gay profession in the US. Cozzens estimated that as much as 58% of priests are gay, and that percentages were higher for younger priests. The article says sociological estimates varies from 10% to 60%. So no consensus.

Really? That's a bit surprising. I would've figured that it would be declining as irreligion and open homosexuality became socially acceptable.


One can easily assume that young priests aren't irreligious.

Right, but conversion/apostasy isn't a cold, logical process. One would think that given an accepting secular environment, a young homosexual Catholic would be significantly more likely to say "t'hell with it" than in 1950.

Yes, they probably would. A significant number of heterosexual young Catholics would also say 'to hell with it'. That's why 60-70 years ago most Catholic extended families had at least one priest, now few do. Given that homosexuality in western Catholic majority/minority nations is not as tolerated as 'carefree' heterosexuality, it makes sense that a more disproportionate number of heterosexual Catholics think 'to f-ck' with the priesthood which, by extension, leaves a core number of homosexuals who aren't able to do the same. It's not that there are 'more' gays in the priesthood, it's that there are less heterosexuals (and less gays too in raw number I would imagine but making up a larger proportion)

Indeed, having a very large number of sexually repressed and self loathing homosexuals in the Church as the numbers taking the vocation fell was probably the catalyst for the Church codifying it's opposition to gays (On Pastoral Care etc) so strongly in the 1980's when before hand, it was generally indifferent.
78  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Catholic church opens up - a little bit - to gay couples on: October 22, 2014, 03:48:27 pm
In "The Changing Face of the Priesthood" (2000) Rev. Donald B. Cozzens claimed the priesthood was increasingly becoming a gay profession in the US. Cozzens estimated that as much as 58% of priests are gay, and that percentages were higher for younger priests. The article says sociological estimates varies from 10% to 60%. So no consensus.

Really? That's a bit surprising. I would've figured that it would be declining as irreligion and open homosexuality became socially acceptable.


One can easily assume that young priests aren't irreligious.
79  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Doctor Who - Series 8 on: October 22, 2014, 03:21:01 pm
I was actually referring to the amazing episode last week Tongue
80  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Christianity on: October 22, 2014, 06:15:19 am
The question I ask myself is this; 'what is it for?'. Is Christianity anything more than an exercise in collective superstition or does it endow people with something 'good'? Because that would be a useful tool in both evaluating whether Christianity as something that is positive; i.e something not detrimental and would also go someway to evaluating whether it's claims are true.

Has Christianity, collectively, been a force of good for women? Has it been at the forefront of the emancipation of women and championing their equality? Has it broken down patriarchal structures? Has it championed women's choice over their own bodies? Has Christianity been at the forefront of LGBT rights. Does it see dignity in these people, with no judgement made about their sexual orientation? Does it champion their equality, their normality. Their love? That's about 60% of the world in those two groupings and I think the answer, the honest answer, would be no.

Now of course, the same charge can be levied at other religions. It can be levied at secular ethics with the same weight. What is equally true of Christian ethics, with respect to the abhorrent treatment of human 'difference' throughout history, is also true of other ethical systems. I could not deny that.

Of course, it will be argued that sometimes some Christians are at the forefront of change. Examples can easily be found and evaluated. This is of course exactly the same as saying that sometimes some non-Christians are at the forefront of change. As a statement it doesn't mean anything.

Now you might be wondering at what I'm getting at. It is simply this; what is Christianity actually for? If it feigns ignorance or appeals to 'well society didn't know any better, so neither did we' then what is it for? What values does it have, what insight does it provide on the human experience that other beliefs or non belief lack? What 'truth' can there be to the faith if it doesn't reach the truth ahead of or independently of general human progress?
81  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Finally visiting the States: 2 to 12 November on: October 21, 2014, 04:43:53 pm
If anyone is kicking around somewhere within the Pocono/NY/DC triangle give me a shout.
82  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: People of the Republic of Atlasia v. Snowstalker on: October 21, 2014, 04:42:05 pm
Not Proven.

Huh

Every juror's right, of course, but odd IMHO.

I'm Scottish. It's my default mode Cheesy
83  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Don't vote for deviants on: October 21, 2014, 02:09:48 pm
Sounds like this might be a hairy campaign.
84  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: People of the Republic of Atlasia v. Snowstalker on: October 21, 2014, 12:14:47 pm
Not Proven.
85  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: posters you find entertaining on: October 19, 2014, 02:25:06 pm
JCL is hilarious.
86  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Is Homosexuality a sin? on: October 19, 2014, 01:57:41 pm
This may not seem fair to you, but the point of a religion is often that one must give up pleasurable things in this life to inherit a reward in the next one.  Just as the prohibition of homosexual sex exists, there would also be a prohibition against extramarital sex for heterosexual people. 

So it goes like this;

HETEROSEXUAL? Sex bad. Unless married.
HOMOSEXUAL? All sex bad. All intimacy bad. All romance bad.

What a cruel god this is. To f-ck up and f-ck with ten percent of his creation. And then to give free rein to the remaining ninety percent to f-ck with them as well.

Your going to have to take your complaints up with the big man upstairs.

Big man? He's no better than a boy pulling legs off of spiders.
87  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Is Homosexuality a sin? on: October 19, 2014, 01:33:06 pm
This may not seem fair to you, but the point of a religion is often that one must give up pleasurable things in this life to inherit a reward in the next one.  Just as the prohibition of homosexual sex exists, there would also be a prohibition against extramarital sex for heterosexual people. 

So it goes like this;

HETEROSEXUAL? Sex bad. Unless married.
HOMOSEXUAL? All sex bad. All intimacy bad. All romance bad.

What a cruel god this is. To f-ck up and f-ck with ten percent of his creation. And then to give free rein to the remaining ninety percent to f-ck with them as well.
88  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Is Homosexuality a sin? on: October 19, 2014, 12:17:10 pm
Why would god create, at all times and in every culture a group of people; whether it's 5% or 10% who mostly have an exclusive attraction to the same sex, not just in a sexual fashion, but in terms of bonding, intimacy, love, commitment and being generally completed as a person by being with that other person...and then condemn it. What a stupid god. And what an even more stupid person you are for accepting that.
89  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Catholic church opens up - a little bit - to gay couples on: October 19, 2014, 12:13:14 pm
Seriously. How tantalizing (for, you know, what it was), and what a disappointment. I mean, at least 'no consensus' (which is how this is being reported) is less bad than an actively reactionary consensus, and at least Cardinal Burke has been demoted, but still.

To be fair, it's not as if we have to wait for permission. The major issue for me (because quite frankly I don't really care what they think about gay people; part of me believes there's a deliberate effort to be contrary anyway) was no agreement reached on communion (with the emphasis on the communal part of that) for divorcees.
90  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Catholic church opens up - a little bit - to gay couples on: October 19, 2014, 09:33:03 am
Well that was fun while it lasted.
91  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Doctor Who - Series 8 on: October 19, 2014, 06:34:02 am
Yes. 100 times yes.
92  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rank Each State on the Spectrum on: October 19, 2014, 05:10:54 am
Utah is clearly the most autistic.
93  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: UK General Election 2015 on: October 17, 2014, 12:43:15 pm
Why would UKIP being in favour of changing the electoral system make such a change more likely to happen? The LibDems (and their Alliance and Liberal predecessors) have been in favour - and a relevant political force - for even longer, and yet...

There are elements in all parties that seem to rate any system of proportionality as worse than Hitler. Staying on that analogy, I think UKIP might contain a lot of people like that so it's a non starter. Though it might be in their manifesto for a couple of months for the hell of it.

Unlike the Lib Dems (and it's debatable even under STV whether the Lib Dems gain that disproportionately) UKIP would probably suffer somewhat. They will be quite happy with one or two boarding house seaside towns and a bit more media coverage come 2015 (seats which come 2017 will probably defect anyway)
94  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: At last; 2007 Scottish Parliamentary Election by ward. on: October 17, 2014, 11:42:37 am
Google Docs link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1n-LJmKpjQKjyBMQM25IxiWmESwSnYJtBIlYds7BzNdc/edit?usp=sharing
95  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: At last; 2007 Scottish Parliamentary Election by ward. on: October 17, 2014, 06:20:51 am
Loving the friends and neighbours effect in the Western Isles.

Here are the Western Isles

51   518   73   859   Barraigh, Bhatarsaigh, Eirisgeigh agus Uibhist a Deas
89   741   92   919   An Taobh Siar agus Nis
97   601   72   557   Beinn na Foghla agus Uibhist a Tuath
106   656   116   755   Loch a Tuath
76   456   94   458   Na Hearadh agus Ceann a Deas nan Loch
62   777   81   545   Sgire an Rubha
86   637   98   777   Sgir'Uige agus Ceann a Tuath nan Loch
86   659   130   765   Steòrnabhagh a Deas
99   622   96   719   Steòrnabhagh a Tuath

To make sense of it a little, Labour were two votes behind in Harris. While it is difficult to ascertain for sure, Labour's strongest vote was actually in areas with the strongest 'sabbatarianism' bordering on the Catholic areas; Harris and North Uist (and a little bit in the Stornoway outpost, rather than the town proper), with Barra and South Uist, some of the most Catholic areas of the country giving the SNP it's strongest % vote and Labour it's weakest on the island. This is very much the reverse of the rest of the country.
96  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: At last; 2007 Scottish Parliamentary Election by ward. on: October 16, 2014, 04:25:09 pm
nicely done. you can really see how weak the lib dems are outside of their target seats.

are these the constituency votes or the list votes btw, I'd guess constituency from the distribution

Constituency.

What I found intriguing if that the voting patterns were relatively uniform in rural areas with support for the winning party relatively evenly spread. It was in urban seats that there were pockets of strong second or even third party support.
97  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: At last; 2007 Scottish Parliamentary Election by ward. on: October 16, 2014, 12:26:46 pm
Done.

I'll upload it onto Google Docs once I get it formatted. For now, here is a simple map.

98  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Is Homosexuality a sin? on: October 15, 2014, 04:43:27 pm
I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

There's really two ways to think of those quips

1) Doing something one knows is wrong
2) Sticking a thumb in the eye of the socons

I think everyone was doing the latter, which is a bit immature, but not nearly as bad as the former option.

Meaning?
99  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: What is the significance of calling something a social construction? on: October 15, 2014, 03:04:31 pm
People seem to use "it's a social construction" as a way of saying 'it isn't real.'

I think most people tend to argue not that it isn't 'real' because the worth of a concept can be measured in a variety of ways, but that is isn't self-evident and therefore by extension, immutable.
100  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Is Homosexuality a sin? on: October 15, 2014, 02:33:42 pm
To think something is a sin and to love doing it is truly depraved and in this it also confirms the worst opinions of those who are homophobes.

Seems pretty easy to reconcile to me. Follow along:

1) I accept that some people have need for a category of actions they label "sinful".
2) To them, homosexuality falls into that category.
3) There is some overlap between what they would consider "sinful" and what I would call "wrong", but that overlap is not complete.
4) Homosexuality is not in that overlap.
5) Therefore I can accept that homosexuality is "sinful" (a category which means nothing to me) while not thinking it morally wrong, and enjoy it as I will.

Bleh.  Playing with semantics doesn't in the least affect the point you perfectly well knew (or should have known) that I was making.  It doesn't matter what you call it, sin, wrongness, blameworthy, etc.  To think that something is something that should not be engaged in is nevertheless something you enjoys doing is completely depraved.

First of all, it's clear that the posters were simply having fun. It's a good way to deal with what is a deeply offensive proposition in the first place. Christians have a tendency to take out the 'clicky pen' and label various actions, sexual actions or body choices as 'sinful' (which by definition is 'towards god') and therefore place on it a status that in many ways is quite demeaning, without any concern for the effect that has on anyone but themselves. So if someone says to me 'so sleeping with men must make you a faggot?' I could reply 'well it must mean that I am a faggot then.'

Personally, other than as a turn of phrase, I don't consider anything 'sinful' for it's effect on a deity is of no concern with me. I may however consider things to be good, bad or indifferent which may just happen to dovetail with some of the 'sin' tick boxes.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 799


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines