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.

If I could take a punt at that, I'd guess its usually because they believe that their religion is the correct one and their god/s exist and want them to follow thay religion. Or possibly because of pressure from their family or community. Doesn't really apply to sexual orientation does it?

If you’re asking why do I think folk choose to believe in religions that may result in persecution, then I have no idea.

but until you can generate some kind of evidence that religious belief is influenced by genetic, hormonal and neurochemical substrates, you question is pure whataboutery

And the ‘promise’ of the afterlife/threat of Hell or whatever the various religious equivalents are

You accuse others of not being Socratic, quote Socrates and then ask that poster why if they are ignorant they keep posting.

You then justify that you can keep posting as you need to point out how evil (homophobic) others are.

Your style is extremely tedious with it's rightous anger and lack of logic. Where you say something and then claim you haven't. Where you accuse others of the very thing you are doing yourself. Incomprehensible argument.

It's you who comes across as the ideolog here.

@FurAndFeathers,

"but until you can generate some kind of evidence that religious belief is influenced by genetic, hormonal and neurochemical substrates, you question is pure whataboutery"

So you wouldn't consider the strong biological drive for survival relevant here? Or are you saying the biological drive for survival is less strong than that of love or sexual attraction? Is that what you are saying?

After all if people of the religious belief that is persecuted didn't choose that belief they wouldn't be choosing persecution.

If people choose their religious belief out of love then I thought that would compare with the love someone feels for their partner in that it is the same condition.

Although, perhaps then @FurAndFeathers would be rendered incomplete,

"Romantic ‘Love’ a biological reaction comprised of a range of hormonal, neurochemical and pheromonal reactions, supported by behaviours that are evolutionarily driven to support survival through enhanced social bonds. "

As people seem capable of overriding the need for survival in the presence of love. And if that love were being persecuted there wouldn't be any 'supporting survival through enhanced social bonds' either.

@FurAndFeathers' definition of love that should read.

Whilst I think we do make choices it doesn't mean I think there are no biological drivers influencing those choices. It's just we can choose to override them, even though we might suffer for it.

please point out this ‘accusation’?

it doesn’t exist.

please stop making things up.

Your ongoing personal attacks are unpleasant and tedious and add nothing to the discussion.

I didn’t say any of that did I?

you can keep avoiding the straightforward questions I’ve asked you and putting words in my mouth if you like.

i and another poster have already suggested a number of social and cultural influences which may drive such behaviour.

there’s no biological impetus driving theological faith and attempting to use socially conditioned choice in faith as a comparison to biologically driven sexuality is comparing apples and oranges.

unless you can provide some evidence base for such a comparison then your point is moot.

As people seem capable of overriding the need for survival in the presence of love. And if that love were being persecuted there wouldn't be any 'supporting survival through enhanced social bonds' either.

that only holds true if you have zero understanding of evolutionary biology.

"please point out this ‘accusation’?"

@FurAndFeathers

I think it was implied in your question yesterday at 21:58. You asked:

"there’s clearly a lot that you don’t know but you’re still espousing your ignorance. And if you know you know nothing why keep unpleasantly challenging others?"

Which gave me a giggle due to the irony. In the midst of a discussion about Socrates you inferred that I should refrain from posting due to not knowing anything! 😁

"that only holds true if you have zero understanding of evolutionary biology."

@FurAndFeathers so go on, enlighten me? A simple explanation please (which is totally possible if you understand it well according to your teacher as you referenced upthread.) 🙂

This is the third time I’ve posted these questions @echoesacrosstheether

why are you so unwilling to answer straightforward questions?

I suspect because if you’re honest, the answer to these questions is ‘no’

which rather undermines your ‘love is a choice’ position.

I appreciate that acknowledging your position may be flawed is challenging, and possibly counterintuitive to the religious doctrine you feel loyalty towards. But personal reflection, learning and growth is important, it supports tolerance and kindness, and I hope that you can engage with it at some point, even if you won’t do it on this thread.

"there’s clearly a lot that you don’t know but you’re still espousing your ignorance. And if you know you know nothing why keep unpleasantly challenging others?"

umm.. that’s not an accusation of anything
it’s a question

"there’s no biological impetus driving theological faith and attempting to use socially conditioned choice in faith as a comparison to biologically driven sexuality is comparing apples and oranges. "

@FurAndFeathers, I never said there was. What I am suggesting is that love can override biological impetus.

Whether that be love for a partner of love for God.

"umm.. that’s not an accusation of anything
it’s a question"

@FurAndFeathers, indeed it is. One which is somewhat loaded with implication but a question all the same. Or are you suggesting I do actually know something? Now that would be a turn up for the books...

I could , but I’m off to work, and it’s not my responsibility to educate you. you’re an adult, you’re capable of educating yourself. Embrace your own responsibility for personal growth.

if you’re genuinely interested in growing and learning, you’d do the work yourself.

but I suspect it’s easier for you to hold up your Socratic ignorance as a proud marker of your ‘wisdom’ than to genuinely explore and evaluate any evidence.

whatever you choose, have a lovely day

"This is the third time I’ve posted these questions"

@FurAndFeathers, sorry, it was getting late last night and there were a lot of posts to respond to.

I chose to love regardless of circumstance. Circumstances only affect what I might think the appropriate actions may be. In choosing to love I would choose actions that might hopefully benefit the object of my love.

"whatever you choose, have a lovely day"

Indeed I will, thank you. You too. @FurAndFeathers. And yes, learning is within my responsibility - I am able to respond. And it would seem you are not. So I'm content to leave it there.🙂

And thinking about it wedding vows indicate a choice. Otherwise there would be no point in making vows. So why would someone feel the need to make vows if what they were experiencing was an inescapable biological urge?

Vows in church that is. Something that has meaning beyond the legal benefits.

I chose to love regardless of circumstance. Circumstances only affect what I might think the appropriate actions may be. In choosing to love I would choose actions that might hopefully benefit the object of my love.

Not an answer - an evasion

And yes, learning is within my responsibility - I am able to respond. And it would seem you are not.

Then why are you asking me to educate you? Take responsibility for your own education (or lack of it)

i’ve literally no idea what it is you think I’m not responding to. Your dedication to nonsensical syntax makes discussion challenging.

Your posts remind me of another wise piece of teacherly advice:

“You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not use reason to get into”

very apt methinks.

@FurAndFeathers

"Not an answer - an evasion"
Is it? If I choose to love I could choose not to. However, I choose to love and what is more have made a promise to love which I stand by.

"Then why are you asking me to educate you? Take responsibility for your own education (or lack of it)"
Out of interest. To see if you were capable of it. And capable of it whilst using simple, clear syntax.

One thought I keep coming back to is: I don't think that love, sexuality, religious faith and political allegiance are all directly comparable. In that, I don't go along with the thinking that "if X is a choice, then so is Y" (X and Y being one of love, politics, religion, sexuality). But I do have deeply religious friends who believe that (their definition of) 'love' is the root and the thread (apologies for mixing metaphors...!) that produces and connects all things.