[Shasown]

Originally Posted by calyman

1) I think you are failing to appreciate that neither the Cathars or Gnostics are in any way relevant as major beliefs nowadays. Both those beliefs were important enough before they were destroyed. It's not that they were destroyed because they "undermined christianity", in fact they were co-existent as alternative views on christianity. it's just a historical fact that the Rome based version of christianity was more effective at getting rid of the opposition. In fact, I'd argue that Gnostics had a nuch better understanding of what their belief in God meant to them. Perhaps Europe's history would not have been so violent if Gnosticism had been the dominant faith.

2) We are almost in agreement here. It's the dullards who get their authority from their superstitious organisations. If people are striving to change the mindset of such organisations, for the better; then I wish them well. Perhaps Gay marriage would then be as accepted as heterosexual marriage.

3) Exactly where did I say all christian values are bad. What I am arguing about is the perverse values which are "bad". Especially those which demand obedience to adhere to them. I do want want to see some white haired old geezer who has special bishopric responsibility blathering in the media, extohling to us all how we should live and act. As an example, in scotland when the Government wanted to repeal "section 28", the church leaders fought tooth and nail to retain this offensive legislation.

4) 27 people hold a lot of influence, especially with their other crusty cronies. What they generally do not do however, properly represent the interests of Britains anglicans, let alone all the other variants of those who follow supuerstitious beliefs. I do agree to apoint with you though about the House of Lords, though I think it needs replacing with an elected second house.

5) Respect goes both ways, I perceive followers of intangible beliefs as just that, superstitious people. There is no evidence of the existence of supposed spiritual deities ever been found. I respect people who claim they are satanists, wiccans, druids, followers of asgard, judeo/christians, buddhists, sikhs, believers in fairies, followers of Crowley, omens, fate and luck etc. What I do not believe is the legitimacy of their superstitious beliefs. You may believe this to be disrespect, I cannot demand how how you interperet my statements, equally do not try and score points by seeking to interperet mine.

1. Except Pauline Christianity had become the majority religion in Europe.

2. No disagreement at all.

3. Dont we get that in real life and its not always religious leaders. As for section 28 and its repeal, thats a full debate in itself.

4. Those 27 people dont really hold that much influence, they are meant to represent the views of all adherents to any faith(amusing that isnt it, yet no mullahs presently sit in the upper house, how long before that is changed. A senate type thing would be nice but the British Public aint as perverse as the US in voting.

5. Aint tried to score points off you, I dont do try. But calling someone superstitious because they hold to a faith is not exactly respectful. Has any religious person shown disrespect to you on this site? You dont need to demand intepretation either the person understands, or they dont and you have to explain, if you want to.

As for evidence, you would have to address an aderent of a particular religion to see what evidence they could supply. But even if they couldnt supply satisfactory evidence isnt that what they call faith? Yeah I know I hate that argument as well.

Thing is Dave hasnt been hypocritical,unlike a majority of the housemates. He has stood by the tenets of his faith.

Incidentally he isnt a Catholic, thats just a general note not addressed to you in particular.