Christian Grans

absentgrana I will admit that your posts have not been hostile, but others definitely were and I also happen to think that the 'robust' response to the OP was less than gracious.

Could you let us know which posts you think were hostile?

Lily says: "The very long entry in the OED gives several definitions of 'secular' one of which is 'not religious' and which I gave earlier. Since then, others have posted with similar definitions from other dictionaries. 'Secularism' has a more limited meaning and is the movement to separate the state from religion. But SECULAR isn't restricted to that meaning."

OK, lily. I accept this for, I think, the third time. I do understand, and agree, with what you're saying about the meaning of secular. I now also see what you are getting at with regard to the OP. At least, I think I do. Tell me if I've got this right. Here goes.

The OP said: "Saddens me reading so many secular posts" and then went on to say some things about being a born again christian, washed in the blood of the lamb, and so forth.

I picked up on the use of the word 'secular' in that sentence because, it seemed to me, that what she was referring to as making her sad were posts about atheism, by atheists.

I think, if I understand you rightly now, that you are saying that is not what she meant – that she was saddened by the relative lack of religious posts.

Is that correct?

I read them through, Greatnan. How is it contentious of ElsieJoy to say seeing so many secular posts is saddening, absent? She's a newcomer, a Christian and went to a topic titled 'Religion and Spirituality'. I had the same experience last year. I even counted up the posts and found 2/3 were broadly negative. Elsie thought she would find some kindred spirits. She didn't. And I think, considering the reaction she got, it's brave of her to continue to post!

That's right, Bags! Or to put it another way, she was saddened by the number of irreligious posts.

You can hardly blame the atheists because the believers choose not to post. Why are people still making accusations of hostile posts without giving examples of what they mean? Nobody has made any personal comments, we have simply stated our own beliefs. We have had these vague allegations before, never substantiated, but fortunately it has not succeeded in preventing us from continuing to give our sincere opinions.
Surely it is not too hard to understand the difference between opposition to an organisation and hostility towards individual members. I loathe the Conservative Party but I don't hate everybody who votes for them. (I may think they are totally misguided, but that is not hostility).

Ah! [light bulb]

But, but, but!....

There's a difference between the 'set' that could be called "a lack of religious posts" (Set A) and the 'set' that could be called "irreligious posts" (Set B). At least, I think there is.

For example, posts about knitting could go in Set A quite happily, don't you think, without any contention, whereas it's quite hard (for me anyway) to think of a post about knitting that could go in Set B.

So which did the OP mean – non-religious posts, which will include the vast majority of posts on gransnet, or irreligious posts, which will be a small proportion of the whole?

elsiejoy, it'd really help if you could enlighten us on this.

Bags - I don't think set theory was taught when most members were at school!

Tcha! It's clear enough what I mean, isn't it?

Someone say yes.

OK - yes.

Yes.

Phew!

Thanks, pals

Quite logical to me!

Greatnan you still haven't explained why prayers should be banned from public occasions.

Because it's unlawful according to the High Court in the Bideford case back in
February. The link is to the Beeb article. We also had a thread on gransnet at the time which presumably is still somewhere.

Are you evading my question, lily, or have you just not got round to answering it yet?

Which question, Bags? It was putting prayers on the agenda that was unlawful. If the members of the council wanted to have a full-scale prayer meeting but did not count it as part of the meeting, they would be able to. And how silly, when mayors and Lord Mayors have chaplains and civic services in churches and cathedrals!

I would have thought it was blatantly obvious that if you hold a religious ceremony of any kind you are excluding all the people who don't share that religion. By all means let those who want to say prayers together find some place to do it but do not inflict it on those who do not share your beliefs
I can't believe you actually need to ask that question.

lily, I mean the question I asked in my post at 1953 yesterday about which meaning did (or do you think) the OP had in mind – did she mean non-religious or irreligious by her use of the word 'secular'? There is a subtle but important difference between the two which I tried to illustrate with hypothetical posts about knitting. "Irreligious", which you seemed to be favouring as the right interpretation, has connotations of actual opposition to religion, whereas non-religious suggest to me that religion just doesn't feature, probably because it's not relevant, but with no connotation of actual opposition.

So I'm asking if you think the OP was saddened because she thinks there is too much opposition to religion in posts on gransnet, or was she saddened because she thinks there is simply a lack of religion in posts on gransnet?

elsiejoy, I'm asking you the same question if you would care to answer it. A clear answer from you would elucidate a lot of what has caused fierce (but friendly) discussion on this thread .

'OED 1971 gives as one of the definitions of 'secular': 'Belonging to the world and its affairs as distinguished from the church and religion; civil, lay, temporal. Chiefly used as a negative term with the meaning non-ecclesiastical, non-religious or non-sacred'. I don't expect ElsieJoy intended to use it negatively but simply as a true description of the posts. It's quite common usage in my experience while the use as meaning specifically about the separation of faith and state is actually quite restricted.'. I posted this on Tuesday Bags and I don't think I need to elaborate.

OK. So I now understand that you think elsiejoy was complaining about the relative lack of religion (christianity in particular) on gransnet. If I were to use her choice of imagery, she was saying/implying that we are not sufficiently bathed in the blood of the lamb in our day-to-day gransnet bletherings. Is that right, in your view?

Well, it takes all sorts.

She might find more of what she wants on dedicated christian sites as, I think, someone suggested.

I take the view that nothing is sacred – in the sense of not being open to question – so that would explain why my posts lack religiosity. I simply don,t approach life from a religious point of view. This, of course, is a perfectly valid and acceptable way to approach life, and it seems to ve getting increasingly common.

Being bathed in the blood of the lamb is a particularly disgusting image.