The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
If you want to hate on gays - god agrees with you. If you want to accept gays into the church - oh, look, god also agrees with you.
If you happen to be gay - well, you can probably guess.
(No wonder the Vatican is so confused.)
Given this is true, debates about oppression over choice of clothing are meaningless.
The whole point of religion is rhetorical - it's simply a ploy to make some argument about some moral position stickier and more persuasive.
And that's exactly why religions should be purely a private affair, and not a political or social one - because the mere act of claiming supernatural authority is inherently abusive and oppressive, irrespective of the position being argued.
When you do this you can no longer have a debate among human equals, because one party is claiming that their point of view is super-human, and you, as a mere human, have no valid opinion on it. (Who are you to argue with god, or the markets?)
Not only is this clearly nonsense, it's corrosive and poisonous nonsense, and an easy breeding ground for authoritarian thinking - which, by a remarkable coincidence, is something religions seem to gravitate to with depressing predictability.
Exactly. As usual Katrin simply has no answer to the empirically observable point that religious morality means whatever some group of followers want it to mean. If you want to hate on gays - god agrees with you. If you want to accept gays into the church - oh, look, god also agrees with you.
Positions of the churches evolve. Churches have that in common with parties, trade unions, the law, etc., even with most individuals. If you don't like that, Stalinism might be the answer.
ThatBritGuy:
Er, you have just complained that churches' positions on gay marriage and the like evolve, sometimes in very very fierce debates. Now you complain of the opposite. Can't make up your mind, eh?
Positions of the churches evolve.
So much for revealed wisdom, eh?
Can't make up your mind, eh?
No, I'm perfectly happy with the idea that religion is the intellectual, philosophical, emotional and spiritual equivalent of genital mutilation, and that if you're looking for a consistently positive moral position, religion is the last place you're going to find one.
But then you've just agreed to that last point yourself, so I have no idea why we're even debating the social value of arbitrary inconsistent ethics that pretend to be divinely revealed.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 17
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 32 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Oui - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 171 comment
by Oui - Sep 154 comments
by Oui - Sep 151 comment
by Oui - Sep 1315 comments
by Oui - Sep 13
by Oui - Sep 124 comments
by Oui - Sep 1010 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Oui - Sep 92 comments
by Oui - Sep 84 comments
by Oui - Sep 715 comments
by Oui - Sep 72 comments
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 47 comments