to think it is rude to persistently refer to God/Allah/etc. as an "imaginary friend"

[AtheneNoctua]

even after asked not to by several posters who have stated they found it offensive.

look up world ending in 2012

December 21st I think?

according to the Mayan calendar finishing then

georgie I think strongly opposed says it all and why should the church of england decide what circumstances are the right ones for it to be allowed?

in my very first post I said it was ok and not offensive to me to call him my imaginary friend

It's not ok when someone says it rudely (which people are not doing on here) and implies I'm a bit thick because I have an imaginary friend.

Maybe all my friends are imaginary? Existential discussion anyone?

georgimama everyone knows that that rule is meant for covering horrific scenarios like raped twelve year olds or women who are going to die before the baby reaches viability anyway. The Church of England is no friend to women where abortion is concerned. And the Church of England is supposed to be one of the more moderate strains of Christianity.

andiem, you could not be further from the truth, all people have a value to me, I dont hold myself higher than anyone, but I have a firm belief which I am expressing, badly from the looks of it but as this is the first time I have participated in this sort of thing you might forgive me for being naive. I would rather discuss the real issues and not nit pick over how something has been phrased.

Gosh twinnie, why is god 'he'. Or, for that matter, why do you think I am a 'he'.

Hang on, ...male,... been pregnant at least twice, I must be some sort of god...Oppps > Just disappeared in a cloud of logic

and the prize for the rudest poster on the thread goes to.......

SixSpotBurnet, who drifted by to congratulate those posters who could be bothered to "engage with snarky", and then drifted away again without contributing anything of merit to the debate!

twinnie we are taking issue with what you have said but fundamentally we are never going to agree you believe in god I think he is well tbh imaginary I have no belief in him

Rational and empirical are indeed different things. Rational means based on reasoning, and is about thinking, understanding and drawing conclusions in an abstract way. Empiricism is generally used by scientists as a way to test hypothesis using observable data (or sensory perception if you like). You can make a reasoned argument for god(s) I guess, but I think for true faith you have to have some sense of revelation, which for many is not rational.

I suspect though if you really have faith that you could claim some degree of empiricism through miracles, talking in tongues and the like.

The Church of England doesn't want to decide. They have expressed a view, which is entirely consistent with the current law of this country, and you can take it on board or ignore it. I was merely responding to an earlier post which said "The Church" wants abortion to be illegal. I don't think I claimed that they supported abortion. Of course they don't.

I feel the sands of argument shifting beneath my feet whenever I respond - Snarky has ignored the two attempts by myself and another poster to respond to her "imaginary friend" analogy I note.

And Snarky, I think that you have been personally insulting yourself.

georgi the church of england may not appear to want to decide but they definitely want to influence
mass rallies outside parliament for the reading of the human embryology bill anyone

I think imaginary friend is sometimes too benign. I have friends who definitely encountered an imaginary enemy. Something that made them doubt all their values and instincts and made them very miserable indeed. And that was after contact with a CoE church, not some mad brain washing cult. I think we do ourselves a disservice to use such terms, even though the alternative tends to drift into such Christian centered debate.

Sarah Pain btw thinks that abortion shouldn't even be considered in cases of rape or incest. She is OK with contraception though - just doesn't think that young people should know anything about it...

Yes, what of it? The Church of England is composed of individuals, who have votes, and are allowed to lobby parliament on any issue just as you are. Or do you think holding views contrary to your own negates this right?

andiem, the purpose of this thread was not to get you to agree with me, never, ever was that the purpose. As far as I was concerned, it was to have a discussion, which we have had, which is why I came on, I dont think this is a thread for people to just bash Christian thinking otherwise I would not have stayed to participate.

The Church of England is an institution that holds a lot of power in this country, not all of it elected. How would a pravctising member of the church who disagreed with the (in my opinion) frankly shameful treatment by the church of it's homosexual members, vote to change this?

They cannot vote out the Archbishop.
They cannot vote out the Bishops.
They cannot have the Bishops removed from their unelected seats in the House of Lords.

Their power to change the institution is limited. the only way to do it is through the heiricharchy which have a vested interest in keeping the status quo and as such, restrict access to the top levels to those who toe the party line. It's a top down institution, it's not a democracy.

2 ways I would deal with this (and I've done both at various times)

1. Leave and find a church not full of numpties who believe this

1. Try and change it from within

There is a distinction to be drawn between the established influence of the church (unelected parliamentary representation) and popular expressions of church opinion (mass rallies) which are presumably carried out by groups of individuals who share a common belief, and which is IMO perfectly democratic.

Sarah Palin is, as I said earlier on the thread, a red herring for similar reasons.

Ok slug, you dont like the establishment. What are you doing to change/replace it? If you hold strong views surely they are worth some action, the church sic can be changed from within but it requires action. We, that is you, me anyone is the church, its not a building or an establishment. If you dont like it either dont go, or change it. Sorry by the way for referring to you as a he, literary licence.

georgi I have no problem with people behaving in a democratic manner but I find your assertion that the cofe is somehow not opposed to abortion astounding churches organised the mass rallies so they weren't individuals who just decided to all turn up on the same day they were church sponsored coach trips
this is an organised effort to oppose legislation
again I have no probelm with that but for you to pretend it is somehow a group of people who just all happened to be there on the same day with the same placard

It was just a question for georgimana.

I guess my problem has always been that most of the religious people I know are very nice, if, in my opinion a bit deluded. They all seem to make a distinction between the 'looney' religious (e.g. Sarah Palin, tube bombers etc) and the nice religious i.e. them. I just wonder, given that so many people claim a belief in god that gives them the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, that why is it that so many things done in the name of religion are frankly appaling? They can't all be nutters can they? Or do they just vlose their eyes to what is being done in their name?

When Britain threatened war with Iraq I, along with two million others, took to the streets and said "Not in my name" Blair claimed guidance from God. you know what? I saw very few outwardly religious groups on that march. I did, however, see a lot of Liberal Democrats.

twinnylinnie - I agree with slug. But I don't believe in god. Does that mean I still get to change things from within? Or can I stand on the sidelines and criticise? Because I suspect that's the only route open to non-believers.

Twinnie, I can't change the church because I'm not part of it. Come the revolution however......

But most people who want to influence government organise themselves for that purpose, not just religious groups. There are pressure groups of all persuasions. Even a national secular society I believe...

Thats the point - I do not close my eyes, I help in every way I can (also a lib-dem member by the way)