Christian Grans

Like Ana I too feel it odd that those who claim to have no faith find the need to bother with those of us who do?
Personally I cannot stand golf - therefore I wouldn't even bother to look at golf threads whether for or against the game. I certainly have better things to do than enter into long and heated debates about the rights and wrongs of a good walk ruined!
Whilst I believe in everyone's rights to their own opinion I do find it curious that the minute anyone mentions religion in virtually any context the anti-religion posters are there?
Could this possibly be a bit of mischief-making

If someone started a thread on atheism, I don't think it would attract many negative posts from members with religious beliefs. It seems guaranteed to happen the other way round. I'm not arguing for either side, by the way, I'm genuinely puzzled as to why any mention of religion attracts instant reassertion of non-belief by atheist members.

I don't think my previous post is harsh. It's just realistic.

But I only tell you what I would tell myself! I expect to have to defend what I say. Why shouldn't you? I'm happy to react/respond to negativity on any subject that I care about. I don't think I really understand what you're saying, unless it's just that you don't expect to be argued with.

Bags that last post sounds a bit harsh! Getting everyone's own back? And the point I'm trying to make is that a lot of posts, OPs as well, start off anti-religion. This was happening before I started to post and goes on independently of anything I post. So it isn't a reaction to my posts that cause the negative comments. I'm reacting to other people's negativity. Telling me I should be prepared to defend my opinions is a bit off the mark.

Because, petallus, that would be cliquey, and gransnet isn't. Every thread is open to everyone who wants to contribute. I'm sure there are forums where only christians discuss what they regard as christian matters. And there are church groups which, I presume, are self limiting. But gransnet is an open forum. Christians, or any other group, religious or not, cannot expect to have special privileges that separate them from the rest.

I was thinking exactly the same, petallus, but it seems it would not be acceptable.

I can't really understand what the Christians would discuss - after 2000 years hasn't it all been said?

If the Christians on Gransnet had a thread to discuss the ins and outs of their beliefs I'd probably have a look out of interest now and then though I would not have much to contribute, being an atheist.

I think the chances they will get that kind of thread going is fairly remote, given the anger some posters have towards Christianity.

Why can't the Christians have a thread where they can discuss their beliefs in peace and then we can have another thread for hot debate on the topic?

In answer to lily's post at 19.05 where she says that she feels faith is being 'got at', I can suggest a way to prevent that – don't publish what your faith is about on a public forum. That's not to say I don't want you, or others, to do so, but if you do, you must expect your statements to be discussed by people who think otherwise, just as I expect any statements I make on here to be discussed, challenged, argued with, and so on, by people who think otherwise.

Atheists used not to be able to speak out in this country (or elsewhere). Now we can. So we do. We've some catching up to do with the religions that have had it their way for so long.

Hi. Been out. I wasn't cross, just in a hurry. But I'm not sure it is allright to lump secualrists into a group that is opposed to christians, which is what it seemed to me the OP was doing. The more usual meaning of secularism is that which wants a separation between church and state so that no religious group has privileges which are not enjoyed by people within the same state who don't belong to that religious group. many religious people are also secularists, as I said, and as has beensaid on other threads. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what secular means.

Yes, there is such a thing as a secular priest, but that meaning only refers to certain members of a particular religous group. The usual meaning of secular is what I have described and that is what I think the OP was talking about.

My purpose in spelling this out is to clarify meaning and word usage so that confusion doesn't arise. Secularism is not opposed to religon, which is what the OP's post seemed to suggest.

Yes, and … This is not bookshop. The digressions (as Holden Caufield once said) are often the most interesting parts. This is not a formal debating society – it's a lot of old women having a chat. For example, I think we once had a thread about how long people had been married which digressed into some detail about horse manure and none the worse for that. It's always possible to return to the OP if you want to. If you want to ignore posts, you can, if you want to ignore whole threads, you can, if you want to answer particular points, you can. What is the problem? It's not the bloody Oxford Union.

But you would soon get complaints in the bookshop that filled its 'Religion' shelves with science and atheism. Even allowing for the natural tendency of threads to drift, there do seem to be a lot of discussions here which are oddly placed.

Isn't that what the OP was trying to do with this thread?

Micelf - why should I keep my opinions to myself? I enjoy taking part in discussions, it is one reason why I join a forum.
If you want to start a thread for believers to discuss the minutiae of their own religion with other believers, nobody is stopping you.
I hope you realise that all our debates are two-way - if any believer does not want to reply to my posts, that is their choice. If they do, then of course we will continue our discussion. I don't think any member has the right to dictate what, when, where or how we post.

Would it be possible for the owners of this site to split this section into parts?

One for the endless dead horse, no resolution debate between those with a religious belief and those who feel that 'many religions cause harm', and another for those with a religious belief to discuss matters pertaining to that belief.

To draw a sort of parallel, there is a section on dieting. I think dieting and an obsession with weight is ridiculous, but I wouldn't go on that thread and keep saying so. For those for whom it is important I recognise that it matters, i just do not go there and keep my opinions to myself. (Sorry to any dieters, but it's just here as an example.)

Lily - I don't think any of us have made any secret of the way we feel about organised religion. I know I haven't. It is not just that I don't believe in any god - I feel that many religions are causing harm to people. That does not mean I have any argument with any individual believer, but I would not be honest if I did not clearly state my views. You can hardly accuse me of doing anything devious or underhand. My comments clearly belong on the Religion thread. Where else would you like me to post them?

It is a point I have made before, that it is surprising/depressing/annoying that so many OPs on this thread are actually about bad aspects of faith and believers or about the superiority of non-belief. I suggested we needed a different thread title as at present, this is more than a bit misleading. If you go into a bookshop, you don't expect the section labelled 'Religion' or 'Spirituality' to contain treatises on science or atheism. I can only deduce that in spite of all protestations to the contrary, faith is being got at.

Elsiejoy - I have just reread your original post and I am puzzled. Why should it sadden you because some of us have different beliefs from your own?
Anybody can start any thread they like, so if more Christians (or Jews, or any other religious group) want to pose a particular question, they are quite at liberty to do so. Nobody is being martyred!

It's a quote. From Saint Paul. It means holding on to faith and struggling within oneself for spiritual truth.

I cannot help but notice that it is an avowed Christian who has introduced the word "fight" to this thread - for me, therein lies the problem.

Bags you sound very cross! I did say 'between Christians'. If you feel that is inappropriate so be it.

Bags 'secular' has more than one definition and ElsieJoy was using the word in one of the meanings.

Fine, elf, but I don't think the OP was talking about that kind of secular. She will correct me, no doubt, if I am mistaken. I hope so. I love clarity.

But, Bags, a religious or regular priest is one who is member of an order such as Dominican or Franciscan. A secular priest is one who is not attached to an order of monks or brothers and is under the authority of the diocesan Bishop.

These are technical terms and different from the idea of the separation of church and state - which inter aliia - I'm inclined to favour.