Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Burt
That’s the part I dislike. Religion can be fine. I may not quite agree with some of it's ideas on creation etc i.e. world in seven days, or water into wine, but hey, it hurts nobody. (Unless people insist on teaching that in schools ‘instead’ of science. Ala’ certain American states. As well as – fine. Instead of? Not so much).
|
Yeah, the whole one or t'other attitude isn't the most logical.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Burt
What I'm not pleased about, is the use of a Religion as a means of opposing things that someone dislikes. If a person really truly, has a problem with Homosexuals, then so long as you're polite about it, fine! I mean, honestly, (and maybe somewhat hypocritically) I'm not overly great with the idea of Trans-Gender people. Might be because I don’t really know any people with those issues, but I understand they still need their rights, because they’ve not done anything wrong. But when a Religions start using words like ‘grave sins’, it somewhat moves peoples opinions for them. In the least, it doesn’t help matters.
|
It depends, I think, on whether the 'grave sins' are eating pancakes or chocolate or genocide, IMO...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Burt
But yes I did study the ….(document with the longest name in the world)
|
Heh, try Kant's
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. By the time you've finished the title, it's time for tea...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Burt
… ‘Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders’, which you speak of. And yes it was better than hoped. And it’s fine for the Catholic Church to ask that it’s Homosexual Priests must promise sexual abstinence. All priests must be practice celibacy, straight or not. However, such groups like Jehovah Witnesses insist on Homosexual abstinence only. Well that’s about the same as asking a Felmale to dress in male clothes or some such.
|
I'll have to take your word for it. I tend to send J's Ws running with stern looks and telling them I believe in Ethical Non-Cognitivism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Burt
|
Personally, I'd always assumed the Genesis Creation to be allegorical, like St. John's.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Burt
But this whole debate has somewhat move to the one subject. On the very first point, I remember there being a small uproar about Picard's line in 'Who Watches The Watchers'. The 'sending the Mintakans back to the dark ages because of Religion' bit. I don't know. Evidence of Star Trek being Anti-Religion? What about Doctor Who though? It has many, many stories which take Religion and such and turn it into Science or Aliens. See 'The Satan Pit'.
|
Mmm. That's one thing that has always somewhat irritated me, personally, alongside the shiny perfection of the UFP. Kept reminding me of the Nutrimatic drinks dispenser...In some ways, I feel that DS9 best handled religion and science in science fiction, up until BSG, which I think is possibly going to really develop these themes in s3...You're right, of course. Especially in Doctor Who there are a lot of gods and would-be gods who turn out to simply be pseudo-omnipotent beings, or people with delusions of grandeur, or both. And more generally there is a tendency in sci-fi to dismiss religion. Personally, I can't see a clash between religion and science unless one or another side pushes one.