Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

Nice to know it works the other way round, too!

(Irish wedding was very odd as 3/4 of the guests were English, I really hadn't anticipated being the only one who stumbled on with 'the power and the glory'. )

LOL. I'd never heard anyone saying that part before then.

Sorry that should have read "adelphai" for sisters. Apologies but it's late!

Ooh Lucia that is handy, thank you. Fresh ammunition for teasing the Catholic rellies... (although they do give as good as they get).

I wasn't much better in my own church though.
All of those actions you do when they say a reading from the gospel of thingmy, and you make a little sign of the cross I think, I never knew how to do it, so I just sort of waved my hand in front of my face. I've still no idea actually.

Olympe, I think I would like to remove nasty and leave it at condescending and smug. I actually think your level of knowledge you've earn you a bit of being condescending, but that doesn't make it pleasant to deal with.

I am referring mostly to your discussion with UQD earlier.

'And it hilariously hurried to say religion has contributed to 'art, architechture and music.' Have you ever listened to Bach's St Matthew Passion for example? Don't you get that so much of our creativity has been born out of this agonising experience of glimpses of faith, knowledge of our mortal self, of hope and fear, the dichotomy that exists at the heart of all Faith? I give up.'

Was a post which seemed to imply non believers had missed out on some depths of experience regarding the arts(in a condescending way).

You insisted that I was insincere in my not realising that equating religion to superstition would be insulting, and then you thought my enjoyment of Lucia's post was down to the fact I thought you needed to be put down

However, I do have huge respect for your knowledge, and I certainly wouldn't want to argue with you on any theological points!

Ooh.

This kicked off, didn't it?

But in a more interesting way than it was threatening to.

tis interesting

'You need to clarify what you mean by "In the Bible days". To what period are you referring? The pre or post-exilic period? First century Judaea? Or the early Bronze age oral tradition of the Hebrews?

Just wanted to come back to this now peace in the house to think. As I said, I didn't coin the phrase 'In Bible days', that was a ight hearted quote from a gay rights website. I was referring to the post-exilic period, when the priests were putting Leviticus as it appears now together. I stand by the need for the people of Israel to set out a series of laws that would separate them from the others around them, strict laws in which the family line was protected. In fact in both the post exilic and the wilderness years, the need to retain a unique and strictly maintained cultural identity was paramount.

You say claiming homosexuality and pederasty were normal practice in Ancient Greece is a huge generalization. Yet much of 4th/5th/6th Greek philosophy talks about it, no? Certainly the Hellenistic Jews [much later[ seemed to despise this aspect, and Philo talks about the Greeks and homosexuality in vitriolic terms, does he not? Perhaps it is something the Jews decided other heathens [whether it be the Canaanites or later the Greeks] just do.

'

I'm a bit speechless really Poppity. If I can't try to get at why Christianity or Judaism is different to believing in the Tooth Fairy without being accused of being condescending to atheists, well, I just feel the goal posts are moved continuously. I have been involved in threads like this over the last few years and have never felt so insulted, patronized and just generally fucked over tbh, UQD particularly. I have learned a lesson - not to let a precious day with my children be ruined by a thread like this.

Speechless Olympe? never surely!

I'm sorry you feel so hard done by regarding my comment, please don't let it tarnish your ideas about atheists any further. Do you not think your tone was at all condescending then? It is easy to misread comments when you can't see someone's face I guess...

Do you not think UQD's tone, your tone, was ever condescending? Am going to deregister actually, you're right, I have spent too much time on here.

Sorry to hear I insulted and patronised you just by expressing my opinions and challenging yours. If it's any consolation I felt pretty patronised myself.

'Sorry to hear I insulted and patronised you just by expressing my opinions and challenging yours.'

Right back atcha.

sorry you feel this way olympede.

i was speaking to dh earlier and said to him that i thought religeon and faith was the only thing on MN that is actually allowed to be treated this way by its members.

Hmmm, well I think it is bound to happen in a difference of opinion that each side could perceive the other to be insulting etc.

You did seem to be looking down a particularly loooong way though Olympe. Not every time though. And perhaps you deserve that lofty view with the amount you know(compared to me, can't include UQD there)

Oh c'mon, Custardo, I really don't think that's the case. I'm sorry but I don't. That's at best vastly exaggerated and at worst an untruth.

Go over to the Thatcher thread and see how Tory voters get a hard time from lefties. Vice-versa too. The private schoolers get a rigorous debate from the state schoolers and vice versa. I gather there is some real argy-bargy between breasters versus bottlers, although I don't go in there. There are people putting up with abusive or nasty husbands who are spoken to in VERY severe terms. People who've had affairs - total bloody cannon-fodder. And those are just off the top of my head.

People's DHs who don't do the bloody washing up get a rougher ride on here than the religious, FFS.

The only reason it seems like religion and superstition get a hard time is because their supporters are, perhaps, more shocked by it, as they don't expect it. They expect, in some measure, to be untouchable. They expect "respect". And they don't always get that challenging their religion, faith or superstition is not disrespectful.

Olmpe, out of interest have you always been an agnostic?

Yes UQD, I got a bit of a pasting the other day for admitting I took my children out of school for a holiday- that was a pretty firey thread, with insults aplenty!

Oh, yes, another one to add to the list, Poppity! You disrespectful heathen!

not untouchable. debate... great ( although you don't debate with people of 'faith') Respect for peoples belief systems whilst debating that belief - great.

I got a right roasting for misjudging the mood of a thread and cracking a sexist joke to make a point >ouch<

Compared to many threads on MN, this is just a bit of light banter with some history and theology lessons thrown in for free

Lucia, do you mean Jesus of Nazerene? As you have obviously great knowledge of Josphus, he writes of the Essenes.

there were Three essenian groups if i remember - one of which was the Nazerene - it got muddled with nazereth later on and stuck - but i don't think there was a nazereth at the time of Jesus.

jesus was a Nazerene.

What makes you say I don't debate with people of faith? I try to, but the problem always ends up being the terms in which the debate is couched - I'm not allowed to do what I would do in any other situation, like ask for evidence and challenge the terms on which it is founded.

I think there is a big misunderstanding about this question of "respect". Some religious people get very shirty if you so much as suggest that their views are founded on very shaky ground, which they can't back up with solid evidence. This, apparently, is disrespectful. And patronising. To frame a debate in the same terms as one would as a Labour Party member talking to a Tory, or a Whovian debating with a Trekkie, or a smacker versus a non-smacker (whoa, there's another biggie), is somehow not showing sufficient "respect" to the deity and its attendant religion. I have a real problem with this. Because part of challenging the assumptions and presumptions and would-be hegemony of religion is, to some extent, to be a bit, well, sceptical about the whole thing. And that often involves using analogies. And that, to some people, is "disrespectful". And as soon as the spectre of respect is invoked, it defuses the entire operation of debate - you can no longer say what you want because you are, apparently, treading on eggshells.

You'd think if God existed he'd be able to take a bit of argy-bargy. And, frankly, not really care.

Yes, I just need to start a troll thread, amnd then I can be a lying disrespectful heathen

Snorbs I was rofl at your post earlier, then I read it out to DH(doesn't happen often) and he was too. Thanks for that!