Christian Grans

I think you might be confusing secular with atheist and agnostic, elsiejoy. You can be a christian and a secularist, you know, at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

If you read the religion threads you will see that there are plenty of practising Christians on the forum. Nobody wants to make anybody else give up their beliefs - some of us are just interested to know why people believe as they do. We also enjoy lively debates but if you think you would get upset by having your beliefs challenged, it might be wise for you to avoid those threads.
I am not proud of being an atheist, any more than I am proud of having green eyes - it is just what I am. I am certainly not ashamed of it, either.

Elsie I'm so pleased to read your post! There have been very few Christians who have joined the good fight. Bags only in the sense of being a member of the laity or not a 'religious', surely? I think secular is generally understood to mean 'not religious'.

I understand secular to mean wanting the complete separation of churches and state. I am sure some believers want this as they see how fair it is.

If secular is generally understood to mean not religious, then secular is generally misunderstood! Secularism is about the separation of state and religion so that everyone has the same freedom to belong to whatever religion or non-religion they want. It's about equality at law. It is NOT about religion per se.

Secularism is the belief that the things on which governments make laws should be completely separate from religion. Secularism is about fairness for all, whether those all are christians, jews, hindus, muslims, atheists, agnostics, buddhists, etc.

Elsie Joy, welcome. There are a few Christians in this forum. I am one of them.

I would welcome debate on Christian matters but every thread seems to end up with those with a religious belief on one hand and those without on the other.

Nothing wrong with that, and it has its place, but it does mean that nuances and differences of belief, practice and christian action between Christians aren't really possible.

But I stand to be corrected.

Secualrism is about treating everyone the same whatever their religious or non-religious beliefs. It is about not favouring any group of people over another group.

Got it yet?

OK, I'll correct you then, elf, since you asked for it. There has been some discussion about catholic beliefs in things like purgatory and limbo and states of grace on other threads. If those aren't nuances of christian faith, I don't know what are.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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 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.

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?

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.