Why is Sandi Toksvig so interested in the C of E?

[Sausagenbacon]

and why does Justin Welby bother with her?

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/26/sandi-toksvig-laments-untenable-church-of-england-stance-on-gay-marriage

She's not a christian, but feels entitled to have a chummy chat with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is wet enough to indulge her.

I'm not particularly invested in the subject, and I am an Anglican, but I do think there is something frankly, pitiful about it.

I expect an article in next week's Guardian with a sad-faced Sandy talking about how the local Mosque/Synagogue won't marry her and her partner, and how 'unsafe' she now feels. Or not.

He came to earth in the form of Jesus to offer us hope from suffering.

Yes! @Bruuuuhhhh. And it is this hope that people apparently find offensive.

Lol it’s just my PhD is in statistical genetics. I don’t really believe in epigenetics because the statistical inference in that area is dodgy.

Gene expression can be modified by all sorts of factors; epigenetics is sometimes considered to be heritable and yet not genetic variation. My friend wrote a book on it etc etc.

@faretheewell It’s more your turn of phrase: flaws being how genetics works. Whilst I can see how you would phrase it and interpret it like that something about your turn of phrase is (to the statistical geneticist) sinister.

@faretheewell Genetics has a long history of being involved with quite sinister conversations, the field has had to do a lot of mea culpa.

@erinaceus fine.

Well there are still factors at play which alter gene expression - which is, as you imply, not fixed. It's enough for me. Evidence that we are more than the sum of our parts.

It's not the hope that we find offensive, it's the idea that suffering is somehow necessary and acceptable.

It's not the hope that we find offensive, it's the idea that suffering is somehow necessary and acceptable.

@pointythings

Really? Not my experience from within my own personal situation.

Eh? Why would you think anyone was offended by hope?

It isn't that people find the idea of hope offensive. It's merely that they see it as am empty promise that offers no relief from suffering in this life and merely the potential for a better future in another life for which there is no concrete evidence that it even exists!

The offensive bit is the minimising of people's suffering, as if it is actually life enriching if only they would see it, and with the victim blaming which seems to pin the reasons for people's suffering on their own inherently sinful nature.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves you've said it much better than I ever could. But let me add another example of how all the talk of belief and suffering can be incredibly offensive. My DC2 is disabled. Uses a wheelchair, is in constant pain, chronic fatigue, hypermobility. This on top of autism, PTSD and BPD with a possible side dose of Cushing's Disease (diagnosis still pending but likely).

Last summer we were accosted by one of the proselytising brigade who basically said (and yes, we asked if this was what she meant, she confirmed) that if only my DC believed in Jesus, their disabilities would be cured. So yep, suffering because not believing in God.

Tell me that's not offensive.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves

The offensive bit is the minimising of people's suffering
Where have I done that? And do you know what maximising suffering is pretty offensive too. Grief vampires are rampant in society. Capitalising on people's illness and grief. Quite literally in some cases. It's horrible when you are trying to get through stuff.

the victim blaming which seems to pin the reasons for people's suffering on their own inherently sinful nature.

A moot point since we are all in the same boat!

A moot point since we are all in the same boat!

Only if you actually believe in the 'sinful' nature of humanity and in original sin. I have no truck with the concept of sin at all. Either something is wrong or it is not, and the measure of whether it is one or the other should be done on the basis of whether or not it causes harm. That's complex because there's always a context, and so I can understand the appeal of the idea of sin - it's nice and simple. Sex between two people of the same sex = sin = bad. Nice and simple. Neatly avoids the whole issue of why same sex couples shouldn't have the same prospects for loving relationships and the bonds of family that opposite sex couples have.

But simplistic isn't necessarily good. In fact it usually isn't.

I prefer to believe that the majority of people are inherently decent. We can go off track for whatever reason and so we need laws, but those should be secular. The prohibitions around not killing, not stealing, not raping, not committing incest are common to all major religions and to the non-religious because they make evolutionary sense in terms of the survival of humanity. No deities required.

Either something is wrong or it is not, and the measure of whether it is one or the other should be done on the basis of whether or not it causes harm. That's complex because there's always a context, and so I can understand the appeal of the idea of sin - it's nice and simple. Sex between two people of the same sex = sin = bad. Nice and simple. Neatly avoids the whole issue of why same sex couples shouldn't have the same prospects for loving relationships and the bonds of family that opposite sex couples have.

If you look at The Bible as a whole it reflects pretty well the complexity of whether things are right or wrong / sinful or not in different contexts. It's one of the main reasons people get frustrated with it. Whether something in sinful, contrary to Gods will, our faith in what is God's will, is pretty complex. Why Christians will not agree on this issue!

Jesus, God, was forever coming up against the religious authorities who attempted to judge Him, His behaviour, as sinful at every step! Human beings attempted to kill God because of how people incorrectly viewed sin and God.

So are you saying that God is powerless to prevent the suffering but he will punish it later? Or do you think that he chooses to let the suffering happen and plans to punish it later?

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves
Neither of those things really. The power of the Holy Spirit - one third of the Holy Trinity - is at work in the world. It acts as a restrainer of evil. When the antichrist (different to Satan) is in power, this force will be removed from the world paving the way for unimaginable horror and literally all hell breaking loose. When a person becomes a true Christian, they are filled with the Holy Spirit and are called to be "salt" and "light", so God works through them to counteract some of the evil. Prayer is another tool we can use.

Also, while pain is never good, it does serve a purpose in the body, which is to let us know that something's wrong and injuring us. When we become injured we generally stop whatever is causing that and with rest it usually heals over time. This is reflected in our spiritual lives, or within our soul, and can help us to stop harming ourselves or other people.

Jesus (God) spent much of his ministry healing and reducing people's suffering. When he healed a blind man, he was asked what sins the man or his parents had committed - Jesus replied “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

And did in fact kill God but he came back to life...

@faretheewell Yes, genetics is not in the majority of cases deterministic. There are exceptions in disease genetics. But when one starts using the language of flaws in conjunction with any sort of deterministic perspective (such as sin down the generations) one will raise alarm bells with geneticists.

Epigenetics is relatively new as a field so the science is not stable yet (and I’m skeptical of a lot of the scientific narratives); one doesn’t need epigenetics to talk about the interaction of the environment and genetics on the manifestation of genetic variation.

You've minimised people's suffering by claiming that it is "strangely enriching". I mean, I'm glad that you feel enriched by whatever struggles you have encountered in your life, but for some people, there is no enrichment. Just suffering followed by more suffering.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves

And you maximise my suffering by minimising the meaning I find in it / in spite of it. Because I cannot divorce me from my experiences. If you render my experiences as having no value, you render me/ my life, or at least a significant part of it, as worthless.

How can it be neither of those things? You seem to have gone off on a tangent rather than answering the question.

There are only two possibilities. Either God is powerless to prevent human suffering or he chooses to let it happen. It has to be one or the other, unless it is the third option which is that God doesn't exist. I don't see how the rest of your comments address this issue in the slightest.

@erinaceus but the inheritance of sin, if you take the NT into consideration, is not deterministic either!

I haven't said that your experiences have no value. On the contrary, I've said that I'm glad that you have found meaning in whatever you have been through. However, I have also said that you can't extrapolate from your own experience to assume that everyone finds meaning in their suffering. Sometimes it is empty weeks meaningless. I don't see why acknowledging that should make your suffering any greater. Unless it is making you doubt whatever you have told yourself, and I'm sure that your faith is stronger than that.

Some suffering is not life enriching. It just isn't, and it's ridiculous and offensive to try to pretend otherwise.

Don't know where weeks came from! Empty and meaningless.

Sandi Toksvig is a Patron of Humanists UK so that is why she has the status to discuss these matters with the archbishop. Not self-appointed.

@faretheewell Thank God for that 😉

When he healed a blind man, he was asked what sins the man or his parents had committed - Jesus replied “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

So what I read in that passage is 'God made that man blind so that he could show off'. In what twisted mind is that O

You are also reducing pain purely to the physical by describing it as a marker of 'something wrong'. Not only does that dismiss the suffering caused by mental ill health, it also presumes that pain can therefore be cured. My DC and many others with chronic pain would beg to differ. Pain can be mitigated somewhat, but there are millions of people the world over who have to live with chronic pain and all the things that come with it (mental pain included) every day of their lives. There is no benefit in that. I cannot believe in a God who wants this to be, therefore I choose not to believe in God.

Not only does that dismiss the suffering caused by mental ill health, it also presumes that pain can therefore be cured. My DC and many others with chronic pain would beg to differ.

@pointythings, mental health can be demonstrated by differences in brain physiology. Our brains are plastic, ever evolving but yes, physiological changes can be seen with different mental health conditions. And in turn the brain effects our bodies and in turn our bodies effect our brains! The distinction isn't clear cut. Cured, well that is often in the realms of hope but I would rather hope for a better situation than not! I have to live on hope.