"Conservatives"

[fpb]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/british-mp-urges-government-to-force-churches-into-same-sex-unions?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4aa5467bd0-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines09_08_2011&utm_medium=email

What is breathtaking is that no British news medium seems to have given this any attention.

Comments

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

EVERY ACTUAL FACT CAN BE BOTH PROVED AND DISPROVED BY REASON WITH EQUAL LIKELIHOOD

So, if we can't trust feelings because they're "irrational and dangerous" and we can't trust reason because it can be "proved and disproved with equal likelihood" and we can't use science because ir only defines "the physical world", what should we believe in?

God? And if so, why YOUR version of God?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Everything is good in its place. Morality deals with actual human beings, human beings whose existence we know; and in dealing with such things, it is certainly right and proper, indeed it is necessary and just, to use logic and reason. Metaphysics deals with that which we cannot know by the senses, and in that area, as I believe Kant has shown, reason is at a loss, because, lacking an anchorage in physical facts, it can literally argue everything and its opposite with equal likelihood. And, as I said clearly and at some length (you really ought to try and read what I write every now and then!) science can certainly be used to DISPROVE specific religious claims, but not to argue about the status of religion and metaphysics as such. Kant thought he had got rid of metaphysics; but there is probably more of it since his time than before.

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

So, given that you're saying that there's no reason in science, facts or feeling that I should agree with you; and in history there's no reason where I should come to the same conclusions as you have come to...

Basically, you're saying "I'm right, because I know from my own opinions, and from what I have felt on a religious and metaphysical level, that I am right."

Fair enough. I am not so confident, so I can't say it with as much conviction; but given the same level of defence, I can certainly defend my own position.

(Also, being not so confident, I probably won't read any response to this in case I become a shivering wreck. I'm sure your God would be pleased if I did; but my son - real or imaginary* - wouldn't be.)

*The edit was because I used the wrong word first time! Despite knowing that I wasn't going to read a response, the mis-use of a word annoyed me too much to leave it!

[fpb.livejournal.com]

My God is Love. He does not will evil for anyone, at worst He allows it as a trial. The only way a human being can damn him or herself is by his or her own choice. As CS Lewis beautifully says, in the end there are only two kinds of people: the kind who says to God, "Thy will be done", and the ones to whom God says, "Thy will be done". Which one any of us is will only be revealed in the end. But even if you find me reprehensible, it would be very silly to take it out on "my God".