Weather: Hi 4°C / Lo 2°C
Would Jesus side with the Free Presbyterians?
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Print
Email
The Rev David McIlveen claims (November 19) that "It is the height of arrogance that the BHA [British Humanist Association] would even assume to tell people not to instruct their children in the religion". And "They . . . are just trying to draw attention to themselves."
Rev McIlveen goes on to say that he will be expressing his public position on the matter in his church on Sunday, but isn't that him telling parents what to instruct their children? And aren't the 'Consider Christ' ads drawing attention to Christianity?
Why is asking (not telling) people to consider the consequences of labelling and, therefore, claiming a child for a particular religion an attack on the biblical position of the family?
Atheists, humanists and secularists all bring up wonderful children, too. Jesus Christ himself (and I'm assuming he existed in spite of the complete lack of historical evidence) was at odds with the authorities of his day as he demonstrated when he said, "Let those amongst you without sin cast the first stone".
Where, I wonder, would Jesus place himself in the debate over homosexuality and whether or not it is a sin as the reverend is so determined it is? I suspect he would not side with the Free Presbyterians. In that respect, humanists and other atheists, with their tolerance and acceptance of what consenting adults do, behave in a more Christian manner than many Christians.
All the BHA and the Humanist Association desire is to pass on a more tolerant and kind society to all our children - one where children are not segregated by religion, class or perceived ability at too early an age, one where they all cherished. Someone else is supposed to have said something similar to that. Oh yes: "Suffer the little children."
SHELLEY LEGGETT
Humanist Association of Northern Ireland
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
BenjiBear: We have some common ground based on the moral code laid out in the Commndment "You shall not commit adultery".
However, because adultery is consentual between two adults, athesim (as dictated in the artice) tolerates and accepts what consenting adults do.
It is interesting how you judge what two consenting adults do as wrong. You should be tolerant and show acceptance, not judgemental.
Posted by Colin | 25.11.09, 16:43 GMT
Benny, the Jesus story of the loaves and the fishes didnt happen like that. He didnt (allegedly) turn loaves into fish. I think you are getting confused with turning the water into wine (which is much more believable eh?) He was supposed to (as the story goes) multiplied the loaves and fish that they had to feed 5 thousand people. But hey nice try, I get your point.
Posted by In The Name Of The Fada | 25.11.09, 16:38 GMT
No doubt JC was a bloke but turning loaves into fish etc? He wasn't Paul Daniels. Come on now. My guess is he was a decent man, a kind of hippy who encouraged love and discouraged corruption, hatred and injustice. All very good. Religion however is just another means to control the masses.
Posted by Benny | 25.11.09, 13:59 GMT
You don't have to believe in intergalactic space beings to realise that cheating on your life partner is wrong.
I don't believe in these integralactic space beings that you do and I still know it is wrong to commit adultery.
Do those who believe in intergalactic space beings never cheat on their partners? I know many who do......
Posted by BenjiBear | 25.11.09, 13:54 GMT
I must say Conor, the Tele's own Knight Of Malta, your train is never late. Not only do you not address the issues in the letter you can't resist to snipe at people who do not hold the same belief systems as you. Predictable and pathetic. Conor you are a hilarious little man.
I would have no interest really in the "panel" of Slaughtneil or Kickhams.
A pathetic attempt to pigeon hole me (again) when you know nothing of my interests, my employement status, my education background or my siblings (as you have commented on before). You should perhaps take on some of that advice from your belief systems about not judging folk.
Posted by In The Name Of The Fada | 25.11.09, 11:04 GMT
It's a bit pathetic for someone who (against the evidence) believes that Jesus never existed and but who then twists his words to make her point.
If the Atheist Taliban don't believe in him, why quote him?
Posted by J.C. Ryle | 25.11.09, 07:10 GMT
Shelley: To answer your question "Where, I wonder, would Jesus place himself in the debate over homosexuality and whether or not it is a sin" he would probably say the same thing to the woman caught in adultery, and to complete the rest of his sentence you quote above "Go, and from now on do not sin anymore."
However, this is probably lost on you as you don't believe these words were spoken. Also, as adultery is between consenting adults you probably accept this as something to be tolerated and therefore not sinful (as you don't believe in sin anyway).
I do feel sorry for the children from broken marriages due to adultery, which is to be tolerated as it is between two consenting adults. Oh yes, suffer the little children.
Posted by Colin | 24.11.09, 22:41 GMT
In response to the post by Merry on 24/11/09 which was as follows:
"Man invented religion, not this so-called 'Christ', and it is the worst thing to have ever happened to the human race. It is based on bigotry, money and division. I know plenty of churchgoers who have not a 'Christian' bone in their body."
You are quite right man has invented a great deal including organised religion he has also managed to be bigoted, create division and worship money without any religious influence. Some of the greatest atrocities, worst forms of excess and acts of sheer evil have all been carried out without a hint of God. Religion does not equal Christ. Christ never taught the accumulation of money, He came into the world without anything and He left with nothing, Christ never taught bigotry He taught love toward your neighbour, so feel free to condemn organised religion and those who are not filled with the Holy Spirit, but I implore you, with respect, please do not condemn Jesus Christ.
Posted by Ivan | 24.11.09, 22:28 GMT
In response to the recent post by 'Russell', my question to you is (and I'm presuming you are a Christian) why you felt the need to address non-believers in the manner you did? Whilst scripturally you are quite correct when you say that those who do not accept Christ as their Saviour and repent cannot spend eternity with Him but please be aware of how you convey that message. Remember Christ came into the world not to condemn. John 3:17
Posted by Ivan | 24.11.09, 22:18 GMT
Cutting edge letter- again, probably written with the rest of the association in Shelley's front room
Fada, isn't it terrible the number of people unemployed in Northern Ireland who are experts in theology?
Who do you think has the stronger "panel" this season Slaughtneil or Kickhams?
I take it gaelic has been passed down- who isn't able to think for themselves now?
Please dont use the term "Ad hominem" unless you are a latin scholar. Others do and it frustrates me
Posted by conor | 24.11.09, 20:48 GMT
Shelley - well done. This is a rational response to Mr McIlveen's usual arrogant nonsense - much more restrained than he deserves. Keep up your good work!
Posted by Brian Adams | 24.11.09, 19:28 GMT
I think you are being generous 'In The Name Of The Fada'.
I would say 100% of so called Christians are going to hell based on their own rules which by any reckoning kind of makes the whole concept counter-intuitive.
If we are all going to hell anyway even for such horrible acts as eating shell fish why not live it up a little?
I jest (a little). Good letter though.
As a member of the BHA I believe (if you choose to use such a subjective term) in respect and tolerance.
You won't find me at a DUP party conference or a SF rally. My kids won't be burning flags on the 11th nor will they be branded from birth and told what, how and when to think for that helps no one (least of all them) and ptobably goes some way to explaning a fair few of societies ills.
Posted by MS | 24.11.09, 19:04 GMT
The arrogance of the church is breathtaking after all of the tragedy and suffering experienced in the name of religion over the years. What a breath of fresh air to hear some sense in society from the BHA. Now, that's the sort of thing we need more of in society and less of the religious dogma.
Posted by Mike | 24.11.09, 18:10 GMT
Russell, I can only assume you are taking the P with that post. But I will indulge you. If there is a hell (which I'm pretty sure there isnt unless we are already in it, which is quite possible) and us mere mortals are to be shipped there because of our transgressions here against what is written in the bible then 99% of the worlds population (past/present & future) are headed there because of the long list of nonsensical 'sins' listed in that book. So if it is real I (as an atheist/secularist) will see you there!
Posted by In The Name Of The Fada | 24.11.09, 13:14 GMT
You know, this Humanism sounds
fair enough; tolerance, kindness
to others and the rest. In fact it
sounds a bit like Christianity.
Can't be doing with all those
Secularists and Atheists though.
They're all going to Hell.
Posted by russell | 24.11.09, 12:09 GMT
Colin, I suspect humanists put down "None" for their child's religion, but that may be presumption on my part.
I'm Christian and I would not presume to label my child as Christian, Catholic, Protestant or Free Reformed Continuing Presbyterian.
I would hope any parent, when asked, would respond honestly to their child's enquiry along the lines of "This what I believe, but you will make up your own mind in time" but too many of us are interested in making little clones and perpetuating our dynasty.
Posted by Yip | 24.11.09, 11:54 GMT
Well said, Shelley. However you are either preaching to the converted (atheists) or preaching to the unconvertible (McIlveen brigades).
Posted by A. Humanist | 24.11.09, 10:44 GMT
Many professional occupations to-day have personality assessment tests for applicants. How many of our churches have such procedures in place?
Posted by George | 24.11.09, 09:08 GMT
Man invented religion, not this so-called 'Christ', and it is the worst thing to have ever happened to the human race. It is based on bigotry, money and division. I know plenty of churchgoers who have not a 'Christian' bone in their body.
Posted by Merry | 24.11.09, 07:57 GMT
It must be a wonderful thing to a be labeled a so called Humanist. After delivering her little homily, based on her perception of the words and actions of Jesus, the letter writer above cannot even resist the temptation to cast doubt on whether He ever lived. That's what we call running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.
What label do Humanists put down on official forms etc., when they come to classifiy what religion their child is? I suspect "Humanist" but then that is based on the presumption of honesty on their part.
Posted by Colin Maxwell | 24.11.09, 07:48 GMT