The United Church has elected a leader who happens to be gay.
Why, in 2012, we are STILL obsessed with what other people are doing - and with who - in the privacy of their bedrooms, is incomprehensible!
Such obsessions should be quickly dealt with by getting the obsessed into their own bedrooms, where they may occupy themselves by getting laid, which will perhaps refocus their energy....
The second point brought up in the discussion was the false premise that evangelical churches are growing. This is simply not the case, generally, although it is true in some demographics.
Not surprisingly, the sheep have ganged up on ME, rather than deal with the SUBJECT, and are bleating about their "one true god," and "our faith is growing leaps and bounds," with no basis for any part of that argument and a complete blindness to the fact their "evidence" (none) ALSO "proves" every other "god" humans have ever, and will ever, conjure up.
I have just posted the following on another, live, board and an likely seconds away from the braying of the idiots who cannot stand to have it uttered in public, where they can see it, nor have it highlighted how flawed their logic is.
My post begins with a question (below), which will NOT be answered but which will surely be met with indignation, which makes me laugh out loud, particularly when accompanied by "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL AND YOU DESERVE IT!" unaccompanied by the least shred of evidence or any reasonable proposition as to where this "hell" might locate itself in the incomprehensible vastness of just the known universe.
"WHICH "god" are you referring
to, of the 30 or so currently being worshipped and of the
approximately-5000 that humans have conjured in their 160,000 years?
What is your proof for whichever of those you choose, and how does that
proof ONLY quantify the god you choose, and none of the others?
The idea that evangelical churches are growing, generally, is NOT supported by any reliable research.
Where evangelical movements ARE growing is in the US, where politics
and fundamentalism are becoming more and more interwoven, in direct
contravention of the US constitution and of the will of the framers of
that constitution and where those movements are more and more populated
by very, very undereducated people.
To whit, the average
education of members of the Tea Party is less than grade 12 with the
vast majority having no post-secondary. In short, certainly with Tea
Party supporters but also with the larger "conservative" demographic (in
Canada and the US), their real ability to comprehend what is going on
is severely limited by very poor education, low literacy, and hence poor
ability to read - or even know where to seek out - information. There
is also, in this demographic, a very low use of digital resources, and
so very low exposure to other opinions and research.
Undereducated people tend very much to superstition, which is why this
demographic is also the most likely to spend money on "psychics" and
believe the earth is 6000 years old, humans rode dinosaurs, and a
six-hundred-year-old man managed to stick two of each of the entirety of
the world's animals, along with the vast array of foods they'd need for
survival, on a wooden boat alleged to be half the size of the Titanic,
keep them alive, fed and afloat for a year, and manage all the literal
shit that would have piled up every day - and not succumb to any of the
two of every virus - or poisonous spider - that must also have come on
In respect to how the US forms policy where it
concerns other fundamentalist regimes, all this is ironic and confusing -
at best. At worst, it seems some factions currently operating in US
politics seek to impose their brand of fundamentalism on other countries
- as those countries also seek also to impose theirs - yet they do not
see the danger and irony in all of that: the US has hung thick, black
sheets over the mirror that would reflect it. Would that the current,
atheist president of that country finally speak out. I hope he will,
when he is re-elected or later, when he will be truly free to speak.
As to the point of this article, as much as the United Church has
eschewed SOME of the oppressive and negative strictures of christian
religious dogma, most notably the biblical incitement that women just
please shut up, and that people who are same sex be stoned to death, the
fact they still base their philosophy on a compilation of stories and
myths, in the year 2012, is bizarre.
That the UC has - like
all churches and attendees of those churches do - picked and chosen
which bits of that book it will adhere to and which it won't, is yet
another (among millions) example of just how very flawed that book is,
in terms of morality and ethics. It simply cannot be adhered to in every
instance, because, in 400 or so of those instances, there is direct
contradiction somewhere else in the same book.
If the UC had a
backbone - and it does seem to be forming - it would say "This book, as
much as it contains some interesting philosophies, is no longer - and
can no longer - form the basis of our existence; the illogic and
immorality of the book outweighs its good and cannot in any way be
considered an appropriate source of reference."
like ALL religions, has its roots in political oppression. When you have
an uneducated, non-scientific culture (and the US seems bent on
returning to such a culture, given its war on science, education and the
educated - and our Harper seems to like those idea, as well), where
natural phenomena are incomprehensible, where stories are related
ear-to-ear and where certain humans are granted extra-human qualities,
it is reasonably easy to direct (by coercion, fear of death and by
instilling fear of what may happen in an 'afterlife') that culture
towards the will of a select few. See the Rise and Establishment of the
Roman Empire for exactly how this works, and the significant role
religion - and it's characters, very few of whom ever lived - has in
Until such time as anyone can produce evidence
and proof that supports ONLY one 'god' and does not also support all
other 'gods' humans have created, the rest of the argument cannot be
To draw a simple analogy, one cannot say, "Our new
theatre will produce and play the best of all theatre in the world and
be the most influential force ever known," if the THEATRE does not