Anti-Catholicism

Davei141

rsynnott wrote:

Oh, and altar of silicone? What have breast implants and shower sealant got to do with this important Christian-bashing thread?

I think every sane person reading this thread would love to know the answer to that question.

pretty-in-pink

Why should any church - Christian, Pagan, Islamic etc have to convince anyone to respect them? It's a basic human right.

davei141 and rsynnott you are amongst the few here who actually have a brain and know how to use it. I don't claim to be as book-smart as all you guys but I do know that faith is fundamental to the majority of the world and that certain posters here believe that they have the right to make a mockery of that. It’s downright obnoxious of them, and I'm surprised that anyone who can claim to be smart/logical etc can be so blasé about how they treat people.

Oh yeah the silicone thing, if you cast your mind back I'm sure you'll find that the centre of all things computer-y was called silicone valley, and that memory used to be (and some still use this technology) stored on silicone memory chips. So I'm not boob jobs, or shower sealant or any of the many other things that use silicone.

It's also soulless, and I rather like the comparison. A soulless alter for a self-confessed congregation of atheists/agnostics/whatever.


Footnote: Nobody is denying there are crazies out there, nobody is denying people have done bad things, However the treatment of anyone who has faith in a religon brings to mind the phrase "tar them all with the one brush". Whatever happened to accepting people as individuals?
Oh and peoples views on homosexuality, women, children etc are generally their own and not just what they church the choose to follow tells them to have. If everyone did everything according to the beliefs and actions of a few at the top and at various stages along the way, we might never have developed as a society since the time of Christ, we might even be stuck in a rut a long time before that.

Do you believe everything you see or read? If not then why assume that people with an ounce of faith in anything do? If you do then all I can do is hope you never read mein kampf......

rsynnott

naughty_girl wrote:

Why should any church - Christian, Pagan, Islamic etc have to convince anyone to respect them? It's a basic human right.

Clarification: Christians and so forth should obviously be shown basic human respect, like everyone else. The people shouting at the priest in the street were out of order. But as for the ORGANISATION expecting respect; that's a very different matter. They have done little to earn it; in fact they have done much that could be seen as revoking any right they might have had to it.

naughty_girl wrote:

Oh yeah the silicone thing, if you cast your mind back I'm sure you'll find that the centre of all things computer-y was called silicone valley, and that memory used to be (and some still use this technology) stored on silicone memory chips. So I'm not boob jobs, or shower sealant or any of the many other things that use silicone.

Nope, that's silicon. Silicone is a silicon/oxygen polymer used in rubbers and gels and so forth. Silicon chips would be BOINGY.

naughty_girl wrote:

It's also soulless, and I rather like the comparison. A soulless alter for a self-confessed congregation of atheists/agnostics/whatever.

Assuming we're talking about computers, here, and not fake breasts or condom-safe lubricant or whatever, I think you'll find that even quite sophisticated computer users are allowed believe in god and so forth. Honestly, it's true! Furthermore, people who've never even seen a computer, like Karl Marx, are allowed not believe in gods as well! And what is this 'soul' of which you speak, precisely?

naughty_girl wrote:

Oh and peoples views on homosexuality, women, children etc are generally their own and not just what the church the choose to follow tells them to have. If everyone did everything according to the beliefs and actions of a few at the top and at various stages along the way, we might never have developed as a society since the time of Christ, we might even be stuck in a rut a long time before that.

Really? Even when the the only thing they've ever heard about, say, homosexuality, is the ravings of some priest on the subject? Even when J C McQuaid effectively blackballs the Mother and Child act?

And, erm, people did, after Jesus and so forth, do everything according to the beliefs and actions of the few at the top. They were called bishops, and rather nastier than the previous few at the top. Their beliefs and actions at the time, I believe, generally involved setting fire to people. We only really managed to shake off the legacy of Christian domination of society in this part of the world in this century.

naughty_girl wrote:

Do you believe everything you see or read? If not then why assume that people with an ounce of faith in anything do? If you do then all I can do is hope you never read mein kampf......

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, here.

And, still you have given me no reason to respect the Catholic church. If that rather sinister old gargoyle you call a pope must continue with his nonsense about homosexuality, I see no reason that I should respect him at all. This shouldn't really be a big deal. I'm free to respect or disrespect whatever crazy organisations I prefer.

Sleepy

This may be just too damn easy, but I can't resist.

naughty_girl wrote:

Oh look a thread about religion and the bigots that more or less run the boards come in with their catholic/Christian/general possession of faith beating sticks, purely to reassure themselves that they really are the kings of the world.

I didn't see any of the admins post here. In fact, I haven't even see many mods posting here.

NEWSFLASH: The Internet isn't real life, my god you can't even touch the people here when you're typing. Shocking.

Boards is just that- a message board. Though maybe things are different at the alter of geekery.

Pot, you're black.

For the members who reckon they know it all and believe that anyone with an actual religious faith is an idiot, you're not only vastly outnumbered and wrong- you're also the embodiment of everything that's wrong with society.

"naughty_girl" telling us that agnostics are what's wrong with society :rolleyes:

Now, I can see that you've said I'm wrong, I just haven't seen any argument for your opinion. If you'd care to put one forth, I'm sure I or another poster can demolish it in seconds by directing you to the "logical proof of god" thread here. Quite simply, the existence of a god can neither be proved nor disproved logically (or in any other way) so the only logical statement is "I have seen no evidence for there to be a god but I don't rule out the possibility that one does exist" e.g. agnosticism. Any other belief is simply choosing to ignore the (lack of) available evidence.

Which you'd know if you actually had a life as opposed to a job for the daytime hours and a computer where you meet other like-minded bigots and idiots for the long cold lonely nights.

I have a life I'm perfectly happy with thanks, please leave out the personal attacks, they do nothing to strengthen your argument.

It’s perfectly ok for you to attack anyone who believes in anything different from you- especially if it’s of a Christian persuasion. Hey maybe if I was a non-white, fat, lesbian with no legs it'd be ok if I believed in God?

It's "ok" that you believe in god. You can believe in a fairy named Heblahcahnujick if you like. If you manage to convince another few million people of the existence of Heblahcahnujick and start trying to force that opinion on others, take over the education system and teach Irish children that nonsense then I reserve the right to question the existence of Heblahcahnujick and laugh at you. And if you were a "non-white, fat, lesbian with no legs" your belief in a god would still be illogical.

Why don't you go worship at your altar of silicone and science and try to figure out a way to show us "poor misguided fools" -or whatever you want to call your fellow man -that God doesn't exist, that we really are alone, and that faith has no good points at all.

Like I already said, it's as impossible to prove that your god doesn't exist as it is to prove that he/she/it does. However, using Occam's Razor it makes more sense to be sceptical of the existence of a deity than optimistic.

For people who are supposedly smart you guys can really be stupid.

Ok, we get that you think we're stupid, you've said that already. You've just yet to tell us why it's stupid not to believe in the reincarnation of a man whose birth defied the laws of biology and whose "father" created everything in existence but hasn't left any proof of his own existence (never mind the question of his own origins).

Why should any church - Christian, Pagan, Islamic etc have to convince anyone to respect them? It's a basic human right.

Because respect isn't a right, it's a privilidge. And, as far as I'm aware, organisations aren't entitled to claim anything under the UN Charter of Human Rights.

davei141 and rsynnott you are amongst the few here who actually have a brain and know how to use it. I don't claim to be as book-smart as all you guys but I do know that faith is fundamental to the majority of the world and that certain posters here believe that they have the right to make a mockery of that. It’s downright obnoxious of them, and I'm surprised that anyone who can claim to be smart/logical etc can be so blasé about how they treat people.

I'm assuming this is directed at me because I'm the one who has mentioned logic a number of times. Yes, I am a logical person. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm a smart one though. Think about this though: does the fact that the majority of a group of people believe something make it right?

If we as a race just accepted things, we'd never have progressed beyond hunter-gatherers. The ability to question/challenge things has been far more fundamental to our survival and progression as a race than faith.

I may be obnoxious when I'm talking about religion but which is worse: me being condescending to you because you follow a church or your church killing me because I don't follow it? Yes, I know the chuch hasn't killed anyone in a long time for being a heretic but with the resurgence of extremism in religion in the world today I'm not so sure that they may never do so again. My condescending attitude towards the religious stems from the fact that the faith in and of itself is a form of arrogance. It's whole-heartedly believing your "gut" over all the available evidence, ignoring any questions or arguments that challenge your faith and simply calling people that disagree with you stupid. So, who's really the obnoxious one? Me, who's questioning your faith in a polite and structured fashion, or you who calls me stupid because I disagree with you instead of showing me where I'm wrong?

Oh yeah the silicone thing, if you cast your mind back I'm sure you'll find that the centre of all things computer-y was called silicone valley, and that memory used to be (and some still use this technology) stored on silicone memory chips. So I'm not boob jobs, or shower sealant or any of the many other things that use silicone.

I think rsynott showed you the error of your ways here...

It's also soulless, and I rather like the comparison. A soulless alter for a self-confessed congregation of atheists/agnostics/whatever.

What exactly are we "atheists/agnostics/whatever"s confessing to? Is it immoral to question the existence of your god?

Though I must admit I do like the expression "alter of science", it's a nice turn of phrase.

Footnote: Nobody is denying there are crazies out there, nobody is denying people have done bad things, However the treatment of anyone who has faith in a religon brings to mind the phrase "tar them all with the one brush". Whatever happened to accepting people as individuals?

I don't think anyone has actually condoned the ill-treatment of the priest in question.

Oh and peoples views on homosexuality, women, children etc are generally their own and not just what they church the choose to follow tells them to have. If everyone did everything according to the beliefs and actions of a few at the top and at various stages along the way, we might never have developed as a society since the time of Christ, we might even be stuck in a rut a long time before that.

Don't give your religion so much credit for societies advancement, had it not been for religion we'd never have had the dark ages and would arguably be far more evolved by now. Though, conversely, war has always been a great driver of inovation and if there's one thing religion's good at, it's being the grounds for war.

Incidently, many religions don't allow their followers to have their own views on many topics. This was one of the key reasons for the reformation and the creation of the protestant religions.

Do you believe everything you see or read? If not then why assume that people with an ounce of faith in anything do? If you do then all I can do is hope you never read mein kampf......

This is an interesting question to be posed by a theist because it's one I frequently want to ask myself. No, I do not believe everything I see or read, or like you, I'd believe in a god as that's what was foisted on me by the Irish education system. I don't assume you believe everything you see or read either, though as a theist, I would certainly accuse you of believing what you want to believe in rather than what's observable/provable.

If you want to retort to this post with solid argument, I look forward to the debate. If however you revert to a "you're just stupid" response, don't expect me to reply.

iguana

Sleepy wrote:

Personally, I'm anti-semitic just as much as i'm anti-catholic, anti-muslim, or anti-any-other-religion.

Off topic, but you do realise that Semite doesn't mean Jewish? For some reason in the last 50-60 years it has become commonplace to call anyone who is in anyway anti-jewish, anti-semetic. (Including many Arabs who are themselves Semites.) It is an incorrect term, Sleepy, to be an anti-Semite is the equivelant of being anti-people of the Indian sub-continent.

Semites are peoples who speak Semitic languages; the group includes Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews, and many Ethiopians. The ancient Semitic populations were pastoral Nomads who several centuries before the Christian Era were migrating in large numbers from Arabia to Mesopotamia, the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile River delta. Semites also settled in villages in Judea, southern Palestine. Mythologically Semites are the decendants of Shem, the oldest son of Noah.

Sleepy

Interesting clarification iguana, must bring that one out next time someone is confusing anti-zionist with anti-semitic (or as I now know it should be called anti-jewish).

rsynnott

Sleepy wrote:

Interesting clarification iguana, must bring that one out next time someone is confusing anti-zionist with anti-semitic (or as I now know it should be called anti-jewish).

That's still unclear; are you referring to the people or the religion?

Sleepy

To clarify:

I'm anti-zionist in that I don't agree that the Israelis had a right to a state in the middle of another people's lands.

By extension of my anti-religion beliefs I'm anti-jewish (i.e. the religion).

What I found interesting is the amount of confusion around the terminology here. Most people confuse anti-zionism with anti-semetism, which as pointed out by Iguana is actually being confused with anti-Judaism.

Tar.Aldarion

Sleepy wrote:

Personally, I'm anti-semitic just as much as i'm anti-catholic, anti-muslim, or anti-any-other-religion.

Amen to that brother. And the [strike]meek[/strike] agnostics shall inherit the earth.

Gurgle

naughty_girl wrote:

Oh look a thread about religion and the bigots that more or less run the boards come in with their catholic/Christian/general possession of faith beating sticks, purely to reassure themselves that they really are the kings of the world.
... blah blah I'm right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong blah blah blah

Welcome back to my ignore list!
I'm not sure when (or how) you left, but it has missed you.

turbot

Naughty_Girl,

Curiously, it's exactly your response that makes me especially concerned about Catholicism.

Personally, I would regard myself as very spiritual, though not christian.

In no way is it my intention to set out to use tricks to prove to you that God doesn't exist, other than to free you from the tricks I've become all to aware the catholic church has used to bind you to the idea of God they teach, when IMO, the truth is something far better, and far more benovelent.

Firstly, the catholic church do not teach their follows to respect other faiths / belief systems / systems of spirituality. It fundamentally presupposes it's way is the only right way, and teaches it's doctrines in a way that literally sculp the psyche's of people within it to be afriad of exploring anything else, struggle with the complex involvement of living and surrender personal and spiritual power to an organisation.

The Roman Catholic Church (initiated by the roman empire) doesn't encourage respect for other faiths. Otherwise it woudn't have spread across the World and hijacked the spiritual worship grounds of the indigineous religions that existed before. Most churches are built on sites that used to be pagan worship grounds. If you go up to most catholics of 40 years old or more, and suggest having a detailed conversation about witchcraft and the occult, they freak out. They freak out not based on personal knowledge, but the entrained superstitions that act as barriers in their mind to learning anything other than about christianity. How do you account for this mindset installed by the catholic church or justify it? (It's what fueled some of the horrific actions of the church, creating an us and them attitude, where people could justify their actions without thinking for themselves after being duped into believing they were doing Gods will, when in fact they were doing the will of some of the people who controlled the information channels about what Gods will was; i.e. the church, and leveraging this monopoly of information to wield power and control people).

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't encourage free thought, any decent type of personal spiritual development or awareness. It teaches people to believe that by being alive they are sinners, and the only way to deal with this predicament is to follow an impossible and archaic set of rules to affect what happens in the afterlife. I think it is horribly cruel to set people against their personal, genetic impluses instead of teaching them to acknowledge some ways of living are more optimal than others, and strive for a wholesome best practice and be wise.

You don't learn about chakra's, or energy healing, or meridians as a church goer. A few hundred years ago, such knowledge could literally lead to your death. That is not respectful of knowledge, or of human ability. This is like a mental cage that confines the very free will of people.

More than this, as far as I'm concerned, the catholic church is a vicious and giantly successful cult, using cult-style mind control techniques. The number of hypnotic principles used within a church service is off the scale. This is not accidental. Such principles are used because they work though IMO, not in the whollistic best interests of the people who go.

I know someone who had a very successful book about hypnosis that was published in the 1970s, and he co-owned the publishing house. He was astonished that the Vatican ordered 500 copies. How can you possibly explain this?

I have a few tenets of behaviour that I strive to uphold:

1) Recognise that I don't know everything and I always have more to learn. This includes recognising that no-one else knows everything, through they are people with wisdom beyond mine who I can benefit from learning from. In the same way, my life experience affords me insights that in many cases I can exactly relate to where someone is based upon where I've already been. I can offer wisdom in such situations, and done wisely, it often helps them open their minds.

2) Decent people deserve to be treated well. I don't need someone to agree with me or share the same views on anything. Unless their views and subsequent behaviours threaten to compromise my freedom or well being, or freedom or well being of decent other around, we can co-exist, acknowledging our differences, harmoniously.

3) Making the most of myself and enjoying my experience of living is one of the best ways of honouring the universe (and if you like God) itself.

You wouldn't sign up for a mortgage without doing some background research on the financial institution to know you weren't getting fleeced. Isn't your soul more important?

patzer117

turbot wrote:

Firstly, the catholic church do not teach their follows to respect other faiths / belief systems / systems of spirituality. It fundamentally presupposes it's way is the only right way, and teaches it's doctrines in a way that literally sculp the psyche's of people within it to be afriad of exploring anything else, struggle with the complex involvement of living and surrender personal and spiritual power to an organisation.

The Roman Catholic Church (initiated by the roman empire) doesn't encourage respect for other faiths. Otherwise it woudn't have spread across the World and hijacked the spiritual worship grounds of the indigineous religions that existed before. Most churches are built on sites that used to be pagan worship grounds. If you go up to most catholics of 40 years old or more, and suggest having a detailed conversation about witchcraft and the occult, they freak out. They freak out not based on personal knowledge, but the entrained superstitions that act as barriers in their mind to learning anything other than about christianity. How do you account for this mindset installed by the catholic church or justify it? (It's what fueled some of the horrific actions of the church, creating an us and them attitude, where people could justify their actions without thinking for themselves after being duped into believing they were doing Gods will, when in fact they were doing the will of some of the people who controlled the information channels about what Gods will was; i.e. the church, and leveraging this monopoly of information to wield power and control people).

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't encourage free thought, any decent type of personal spiritual development or awareness. It teaches people to believe that by being alive they are sinners, and the only way to deal with this predicament is to follow an impossible and archaic set of rules to affect what happens in the afterlife. I think it is horribly cruel to set people against their personal, genetic impluses instead of teaching them to acknowledge some ways of living are more optimal than others, and strive for a wholesome best practice and be wise.

More than this, as far as I'm concerned, the catholic church is a vicious and giantly successful cult, using cult-style mind control techniques. The number of hypnotic principles used within a church service is off the scale. This is not accidental. Such principles are used because they work though IMO, not in the whollistic best interests of the people who go.

I'm raging now. I wasn't going to write in this thread at all, but you turbot have gone over the line and really angered. I went to a Catholic School, was taught religion three times a week, but curiously I was taught none of the pure ****e you are sprouting now. It rages me when someone gets up on their high horse to criticist something which they clearly have the wrong idea of. I was not taught any of this crap and I don't like you inferring that I was.

The Roman Catholic Church and the priests who educated me taught me to respect everyone, learn about all the other faiths and be open to growth in all situations. They taught me about the primacy of one's conscience against the Church of Rome. I had fascinating conversations about excorcisms, the Occult, Ouijia boards, and death omens with my religion teachers, many of whom were lay. They did not erect any barriers to me exploring other faiths, or exploring Christianity. They did not teach methat i was just a sinner - rather the priest would start each class with 'you are wonderful people... what are you?' We had plenty of time to be encouraged with free thought - if we didn't want to do religion we could sit at the back of the class and read provided we didn't disturb anyone - is that a restriction on beliefs? There were copies of the Koran and some Bhuddist text in the library and in the priest's own collection. There were books by people of every persuasion We listened to De Mello's book 'Awareness', and Harri Krishna chants in class - as well as classical music to broaden the mind - and this is all in religion class.

How are the Catholic Church a cult? A cult is designed to take people away from their families and those that they know, the Catholic Church is all about embedding people in their families. The Catholic Church is mostly concerned about what is good for the people, and is not anything to do with preventing a 'stride for a purposeful life' or whatever.

And lastly are you claiming that every priest is taught in hypnosis or something, cause you're implications are farcical. Seriously, get down off your 'i'm better than the Catholics' stance and read about it. If you don't want to do that then talk to a priest, he might enlighten you as to what you can come to learn.



Now while I'm at it... AAAGGGHHH :mad:

The next thing I'd like to comment on is the 'he's your God too' comment. Some people found this offensive. You have to remember that is what the priest was thinking (if indeed it was a priest), and just his opinion. If he said 'I believe he's your God and not just mine' would people have had the same problem with it. I think the reason people were offended is because it presumed the existence of God. Do I equally have the right to be offended at some statement like?
And before you say it, i'm not defending it, i'm suggesting possible rationale behind it.

Sleepy wrote:

For many of us that don't believe in supreme beings and virgin births, these people are just gullible fools who are wasting their lives, why would we respect that?

Is it ironic that it is coming from the same person as

Maybe if someone had pointed out the arrogance of the comment by 'some priest' that "1.He's your God too.", he might understand why people resent the Church.

Professing one's beliefs in two different ways? Both personal opinions, one semi-polite, the other a direct attack, and a deliberately offensive one (which i would reccomend the mods to take another look at as it's against the charter) on me because of my beliefs?


Next onto the paedophile point.

Sleepy wrote:

To be honest, I'd have little sympathy for any Catholic whining about persecution in this country. It was their own behaviour regarding the protection and cover up operations for the paedophiles in their organisation that has people so outraged about it.

I like the fact that I covered up all the paedophiles I knew about in the Catholic Church. For the record, I didn't know anything about it. Yes the representatives of the Church were incredibly wrong to hide evidence and allow for the continuation for these priests to serve in the community. However it certainly wasn't all of the priests nor anywhere near all of the Church community. Something bad at the top is a problem, but it does not reflect a completely immoral organisation anymore than a good person on top reflects a moral organisation.

Sleepy wrote:

As such, they shoulder a certain amount of responsibility towards the running of that organisation.

I don't want to brush over this idea lightly, and i risk doing so, but the Church has shown a willingness for change after the events, and continues to confront the issues of Child abuse. I don't think it is right to condemn them to never take part in education or activities with Children. Nor do I recall the Ferns report reccomending it hepcat. In fact I believe the Church does a mighty fine job of educating people in many parts of the country and through its charities helping kids in disadvantaged areas in Ireland. Their influence is not to be understated – look at the feeder schools to universities lists – Gonzaga, Blackrock, Holy Child, Loretto, Muckross, Christian Brothers etc. I think you'll find that Church run schools, and not necessarily private ones, feature prominantly. Without the church our education system would be in a shambles.



Sorry i'm actually just angry now so i'll stop until tomorrow. Hope this isn't all a rant but Turbot sent me over the edge

Freelancer

Patzer117 wrote:

I like the fact that I covered up all the paedophiles I knew about in the Catholic Church. For the record, I didn't know anything about it. Yes the representatives of the Church were incredibly wrong to hide evidence and allow for the continuation for these priests to serve in the community. However it certainly wasn't all of the priests nor anywhere near all of the Church community. Something bad at the top is a problem, but it does not reflect a completely immoral organisation anymore than a good person on top reflects a moral organisation.

A couple of months ago Patzer was assuring that "it was NEVER church policy to hid paedophiles", but quickly slunk off when I presented him with a dirth of evidence of the depth and scale of the church cover up. He also felt it was perfectly acceptable for the church "to hold a secret investigation into paedophilia accusations before going to the police" but didn't have a response when I pointed out the rest of us our legally and morally obliged to go to the authorities when we are aware a crime is being commited.

He's also willing to "stake his life, that some bishops did everything in their power to investigate and expose paedophilia in their parishs" but isn't able to furnish me with a shred of evidence to support this (I'm not looking for Brendan Chomisky doing a Dirty Harry and flinging some "scumbag priest" into the cells, I'm merely looking for well, anything to support his claim).

Anywho.....

The depth and scale of the abuse and the cover up is immense so onto this bit;

Something bad at the top is a problem, but it does not reflect a completely immoral organisation anymore than a good person on top reflects a moral organisation.

Well yes, and if you were talking about the boy scouts you'd be onto something. However these people claim as WDK sez to be god's representives on earth, and it's a hierarchal organisation, the pope is literally God's spokesperson, therefore "something bad at the top" must reflect on the entire organisation.

and i risk doing so, but the Church has shown a willingness for change after the events, and continues to confront the issues of Child abuse

Would you care to give examples of this willingness to change? I've on another thread given plenty of examples of the church's cover up and the only steps made by Ratzinger has been to ban homosexuals from being priests.*

*Thus perpetuating the myth that paedophiles are homosexuals.

Sleepy

patzer117 wrote:

I'm raging now. I wasn't going to write in this thread at all, but you turbot have gone over the line and really angered. I went to a Catholic School, was taught religion three times a week, but curiously I was taught none of the pure ****e you are sprouting now. It rages me when someone gets up on their high horse to criticist something which they clearly have the wrong idea of. I was not taught any of this crap and I don't like you inferring that I was.

Three Catholicism classes a week, sounds like a good firm indoctrination to me...

The Roman Catholic Church and the priests who educated me taught me to respect everyone, learn about all the other faiths and be open to growth in all situations. They taught me about the primacy of one's conscience against the Church of Rome. I had fascinating conversations about excorcisms, the Occult, Ouijia boards, and death omens with my religion teachers, many of whom were lay. They did not erect any barriers to me exploring other faiths, or exploring Christianity. They did not teach me that i was just a sinner - rather the priest would start each class with 'you are wonderful people... what are you?' We had plenty of time to be encouraged with free thought - if we didn't want to do religion we could sit at the back of the class and read provided we didn't disturb anyone - is that a restriction on beliefs? There were copies of the Koran and some Bhuddist text in the library and in the priest's own collection. There were books by people of every persuasion We listened to De Mello's book 'Awareness', and Harri Krishna chants in class - as well as classical music to broaden the mind - and this is all in religion class.

For all this reading did you ever get around to reading your religion's own core text? I know Catholicism forbids you from forming your own interpretation of the document but it really would be worth your while.

How are the Catholic Church a cult? A cult is designed to take people away from their families and those that they know, the Catholic Church is all about embedding people in their families. The Catholic Church is mostly concerned about what is good for the people, and is not anything to do with preventing a 'stride for a purposeful life' or whatever.

The only reason Catholicism isn't considered a cult is because it's so widely established.

And lastly are you claiming that every priest is taught in hypnosis or something, cause you're implications are farcical. Seriously, get down off your 'i'm better than the Catholics' stance and read about it. If you don't want to do that then talk to a priest, he might enlighten you as to what you can come to learn.

Chanting, incense, repetitive answer and response prayer, all factors which lead the mind into a suggestive state. If you watched Derren Browne's "Messiah", you'd have seen him use these to lull a room of atheists into a state in which he converted them all to "believers" by "laying of hands". As an atheist himself, Browne reversed the effects of this afterwards which is something I can't believe a priest would. If conversion is what you mean by your suggestion of "enlightenment" a preist could offer, I'll keep taking the red pill thanks, I prefer the real world.

Now while I'm at it... AAAGGGHHH :mad:

The next thing I'd like to comment on is the 'he's your God too' comment. Some people found this offensive. You have to remember that is what the priest was thinking (if indeed it was a priest), and just his opinion. If he said 'I believe he's your God and not just mine' would people have had the same problem with it. I think the reason people were offended is because it presumed the existence of God. Do I equally have the right to be offended at some statement like?
And before you say it, i'm not defending it, i'm suggesting possible rationale behind it.

If you're providing "possible rationale", what are you doing other than trying (in vein) to defend this arrogance?

Is it ironic that it is coming from the same person as

Professing one's beliefs in two different ways? Both personal opinions, one semi-polite, the other a direct attack, and a deliberately offensive one (which i would reccomend the mods to take another look at as it's against the charter) on me because of my beliefs?

My post was far from a direct attack it was an explanation of the logic behind the thinking you'll come across from people that don't believe in your God. If you can't stand up for your opinions here, I wouldn't suggest running to Mods when someone doesn't agree with you, you'll find they tend to be more in favour of open debate than your church (though I don't presume to speak for amp or the other mods, this is what I've observed on this forum in the past).

The difference between the two statements imho is that mine is within the context of the debate. The priest's comment had nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is no more his place to decide my beliefs for me than it is mine to decide for him to be an agnostic.

Next onto the paedophile point.

I like the fact that I covered up all the paedophiles I knew about in the Catholic Church. For the record, I didn't know anything about it. Yes the representatives of the Church were incredibly wrong to hide evidence and allow for the continuation for these priests to serve in the community. However it certainly wasn't all of the priests nor anywhere near all of the Church community. Something bad at the top is a problem, but it does not reflect a completely immoral organisation anymore than a good person on top reflects a moral organisation.

You're missing the point. As a Catholic, you are not entitled to question the church (you know, the whole reason we had that troublesome reformation). So, as long as you profess yourself Catholic, their actions were performed on your behalf.

I don't want to brush over this idea lightly, and i risk doing so, but the Church has shown a willingness for change after the events, and continues to confront the issues of Child abuse. I don't think it is right to condemn them to never take part in education or activities with Children. Nor do I recall the Ferns report reccomending it hepcat. In fact I believe the Church does a mighty fine job of educating people in many parts of the country and through its charities helping kids in disadvantaged areas in Ireland. Their influence is not to be understated – look at the feeder schools to universities lists – Gonzaga, Blackrock, Holy Child, Loretto, Muckross, Christian Brothers etc. I think you'll find that Church run schools, and not necessarily private ones, feature prominantly. Without the church our education system would be in a shambles.

The only thing the Catholic Church showed a great willingness towards was dumping the financial burden of their actions back onto the taxpayer (which I suppose isn't a sin as "he's our God too" :rolleyes:)

No religion should be involved in education. This is part of what we refer to this as the Separation of Church and State and most evolved societies agree that this is something worth striving for.

I feel this is parrticularly true when the religion in question preaches allowing others to interpret things for you, has a core text which is full of contradiction, that preaches intolerance of other human beings because of their sexuality and that has a horrendous record of abuse when left alone with children.

Sorry i'm actually just angry now so i'll stop until tomorrow. Hope this isn't all a rant but Turbot sent me over the edge

What have you to be angry about? You're in the majority in this country so it's unlikely that dissenting voices like mine and Turbot will make much of a difference whilst your religion has a strangle-hold on the education system and the majority of the population fails to know enough about religion to understand what it is they're professing a belief in when they declare their allegiance to Catholicism in order to hate Glasgow Rangers.

rsynnott

Sleepy wrote:

What have you to be angry about? You're in the majority in this country..

Oppressed majority syndrome. Popular with the mad people who talk of the discrimination against white people (yes, really) in Ireland, the Jewish Conspiracy, the Homosexual Agenda, and other such fairy-tales.

fly_agaric

RSynnot wrote:

Nope, that's silicon. Silicone is a silicon/oxygen polymer used in rubbers and gels and so forth. Silicon(e) chips would be BOINGY.

And a lot less fun too...:(
I originally thought naughty_girl was on about porn or somesuch with that "altar of silicone" remark.

LordSutch

Maybe it would be a good idea for the Roman Catholic Church to follow the example of the Anglican/ Protestant Church and introduce married priests!
I know from my own Church that a Married Vicar is twice as effective with his wife by his side.
She organises all the events in the Church Hall, she organises all the decoration in the Church for Christmas, Easter, Harvest Festival, and much much more besides including the majority of the office work! which leaves the Vicar to concentrate on all the Heavenly matters like looking after his congregation which involves Hospital trips, House calls, day to day services, sermons, etc, etc, etc, etc ............................

turbot

patzer117,

I can feel your rage glaring off the page.

Be careful now...

Is this anger not derived from some kind of egotistical self importance you feel entitled to, because from an early age you were taught that your approach to life puts you in Gods favour (now and in the after life) which makes some feel like you are better than other people and your insights carry more weight?

Are you so ignorant as not to realise that since you were taught by priests, they sculpted your belief systems and the very views you have when you respond?

I didn't say that you wouldn't discuss the occult in religious education classes. As far as I'm aware, this is part of the syllabus.

I said that most people over 40 years old who are practicing catholics find these areas uncomfortable to say the least. Why do you think that half of all horror films play upon religious themes to scare people? Why do you think the exorcist was banned because people found it so frightening?

When you are born, the only two natural fears are of falling, and of loud noises. All of the rest are learned. How do you think the majority of the population came to learn to fear "the devil"?

So you say that your teachers were progressive, and explored other faiths. But on a personal level, have you actually explored these, or have you simply discussed them within debates guided by teachers with one over-riding religious perspective?

I wonder if you've spent time with witches, pagans, voudons, hindus, bhuddists, agnostics, psychics, subgenii?

I wonder if you've had conversations with people who claim to be clairvoyant, psychic, and who have even performed real life exorcisms?

I wonder if you have any decent personal awareness of such things, beyond textbook knowledge and theoretical models of the World that are based upon what you were taught to believe, not based upon real life experience?

Do you have any awareness of the differences of history taught within Freemasonry, for example?

How do you account for the fact that Churches were built on ancient pagan worship grounds? Do you have any idea why this might have been done? You claim to be educated, so perhaps you can explain?

Did you know that in the Hindu faith for example, and aspects of this, according to some historical sources are 30,000+ years old (15 times that of christianity) there are different techniques for inducing different states of mind. One of them, which exactly resembles the sign of the cross, induces "suggestibility"!

How do you explain this? Do you contest this?

Are you so arrogant that you think in your limited life experience you know enough to entirely discount the understandings of other people, since you ridicule first hand information about something contrary to your present understanding? So yes, I'm claiming that the church is riddled with what can be usefully described as hypnotic processes and even rituals that are similiar to occult rituals.

For example, if you eat the body and drink the blood of christ, and you believe in transubstutation, doesn't that make you a cannibal and a vampire?
Isn't it simply that you started doing these things before you were too young to know better, and have never really questioned them and explored them on the inside of your head?

At least Buddhists meditate enough until they can accept major differences of opinion calmly. Whereas when something is posted that threatens your belief system, you fly into a rage. You admitted it yourself.

Isn't it better to exude compassion and love, instead of rage? And if you don't naturally do this, and you haven't learned how to, is it because despite your religious education, you have very limited practical ability in wholistically harmonising yourself with the universe?

Isnt this supposed to be an open debate? If you claim to be so open minded and diversely educated, why are you getting angry when I hold different opinions to yours, such that I push you over the edge? Don't differences of opinon imply you have something to learn, instead of defend the same mindset? Did the priests teach you nothing about epistemology and the extent to which you can change your own mind?

You presume my ignorance, but it is not so.

I too went to a Catholic school. We said prayers in assembly. We enacted plays based upon stories in the Bible. We visited the church regularly, and religious education was a core part of our curriculum. While I was not taught by priests, all the teachers were catholic, and for all but I few I look back with fond memories. They were decent people and I can attribute their impact on my life as having been beneficial in many ways.

I also went to church until I was about 16, when I realised that I'd sit there and think about the weekend. I decided I was better off being true to myself than pretending to God.

Beyond this, one of the things I do professionally involves talking to people about their very lives. I know loads who claim to have:
- Guilt associations with earning money
- Guilt associations with sex
- Guilt associations with success and prosperity
That actively impair their lives.

I think this is cruel. I don't think a religion that installs unresourceful states of mind and connects it with fundamental human behaviours does anyone any favours or respects God's will. I know the difference because I've had to go to great lengths to deal with such same guilt associations personally. Do you contest my personal experience?

Depending on the religious system you use, some feature many Gods and Dieties, some feature just one. It's not that I have any objection to whatever way of understanding the universe someone holds, but when it is formed out of ignorance/mind control I seek to highlight that.

That a catholic priest, with arguably limited spiritual skill claims to represent God's will sufficiently that he'll go easy on people in confession if they use contraception *is* totally ridiculous. If he sought to empower people from the inside out, he'd teach people they could usefully communicate with God directly..... but oops the catholic church waged war against all manner of witches / psychics / clairvoyants perhaps because they were able to.

In the catholic, "faith based" religion, a cliched question is do you "believe" in god? In the Hindu faith, translated exactly, when referring to dieties, their equivalent question is "Do you know (name of God)?" For example, Do you know Ganesha?

I suspect you are more ignorant than you may think, and I wish you well.

Dades

patzer117 wrote:

The next thing I'd like to comment on is the 'he's your God too' comment. Some people found this offensive. You have to remember that is what the priest was thinking (if indeed it was a priest), and just his opinion. If he said 'I believe he's your God and not just mine' would people have had the same problem with it.

We know that it was just his opinion, but it was said in way that indicates he doesn't. So, yes if he had incuded "I believe" before the statement that wouldn't have bothered half so many people.

It like the difference between saying "I don't believe in an afterlife", and "When you die you're not going to heaven". It all in the phrasing.

BuffyBot

Shouldn't people be expected to base such major decisions (as in how to live their life) on some form of logical thought?

Perhaps, in a world of your making - but as it stands, followers of religions don't have to, and that is a choice we have to respect. Again, applying your own "I'd use logic, why can't everyone else" guage is a bit simplistic when trying to dechiper why people follow faiths like they do.

Sleepy

I dunno BuffyBot, I'm not honestly sure that I can condone allowing people to base their decisions (for example voting) on completely illogical belief systems.

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

A couple of months ago Patzer was assuring that "it was NEVER church policy to hid paedophiles", but quickly slunk off when I presented him with a dirth of evidence of the depth and scale of the church cover up. He also felt it was perfectly acceptable for the church "to hold a secret investigation into paedophilia accusations before going to the police" but didn't have a response when I pointed out the rest of us our legally and morally obliged to go to the authorities when we are aware a crime is being commited.

Yes Freelancer, I made these claims and I stick by them. Nobody is legally obliged to report a crime however. And the reason I haven't made them this time is to avoid another debate of the same substance which I don't believe this thread is about. I think it's clear there are a large number of bad priests, but it's my belief this doesn't reflect that the whole Church is bad. I don't believe the whole of America is bad even though I disagree with some of the Bush administration who represent all of America etc.


Sleepy - three religion classes a week, not three Catholocism classes. And turbot as far as I'm aware there was no syllabus per se, certainly we followed no instuctions to discuss the occult - we brought up the topic ourselves.
Indoctrination is teaching people to accept things uncritically, this certainly did not happen, and I, and many of the priests, have plenty of reservations about the Church, not only on the Child sex scandal, but on other issues like women priests and suchlike. We questioned these things openly and I still do.

A cult is designed to take people away from their family or beliefs, though by the definition you linked (6 especially) to I'd be happy to accept myself as a member of a number of cults.

I'm curious how you would defend describing me as 'A gullible fool who is wasting my life' is a 'an explanation of the logic...' of some people's thinking? I'd still, despite this obvious logic, describe it as an insult.
It's also funny how you say the original 'priest's' comment (if he was a priest) is nothing to do with the topic at hand, although quite clearly it was in the OP's post, and the OP decided the topic. We were discussing it, therefore it was definitely part of the topic at hand.
The Bible does not teach intolerance towards homosexuals, rather practising homosexuality, but that's a debate for another day.

As for not ever allowing religion in Education, well that would pose a problem to our education system a large part of which is run by the Church. And quite well. I like it that you ignored the most succesful schools in the country are religious ones. Also good luck in getting the Irish government to set up schools in Africa in the same way the church has. If the Church pulled out of education all around the world, as you are suggesting, there would a global crises. Ireland would lose a major part of it's education system. I also presume they shouldn't be allowed run nursing homes and hospitals too? Possibly Aid distribution for fear they influence it politically? What about science, should they be allowed to investigate? Or should priests be allowed run for election? Speak in Public? What about speak from the altar? Should we just ban religion altogether because the church may influence our kids?


Turbot, apart from your patronising and arrogant response, I agree broadly with what you say. I think religion is a frightening subject, I think horror movies play on that for sure. I think exorcisms are particularly scary and know that stuff freaks the **** out of me. But i don't think that's all because of religion. I think agnostics would find the topic of possesions scary too, and atheists probably would be scared of things like that. I think religion can just be a scary topic and very interesting, but a little knowledge can be dangerous, and some directors play on the fear of the little people know about these subjects.

On a personal level I have explored these other faiths, but not in much detail, As an example the current book I have on my locker beside me is 'Bhagavad Gita As It Is.' I've taken part in many retreats and talked to plenty of people from many faiths. I'm no expert, and don't think I ever claimed to be 'educated', though i may have said I was educated by people... which is completely different. I haven't explored these faiths enough, nor have I talked to people enough, but I'd like to think that no matter how many people I talk to that it won't be enough. I haven't explored these faiths enough, but I like to think I'm making an effort. I'd be interested in meeting people of all faiths though I've met a few hindus, Bhuddists and people who claim they are psychic in my time. What I'm saying is that I still believe in God and the Church after my limited experience which is ongoing. I'm curious as to how many agnostics go through everything to make their decision, or atheists. Should it be just me?
I am dismissing the idea however of your first hand knowledge that the Church is hypnotising all it's followers. If that's really the case then it's been doing it for a thousand years without people knowing it. I think it's ludricous to suggest the reason the Church gets people to say pray the Our Father out loud is that the chant will hypnotise them. I think it's funny you claim that religious rituals are based on occult rituals - it's vica versa - occult rituals are based on religious rituals unfortunately.

If you are criticising me for getting angry, well I'm human I guess, just like everyone else. I'm fallible and free to admit that. Yes it's much better to exude compassion and love, and I think that's what the Church is all about and why I like to consider myself part of it - God is Love. His followers aren't perfect, certainly not me.

turbot wrote:

And if you don't naturally do this, and you haven't learned how to, is it because despite your religious education, you have very limited practical ability in wholistically harmonising yourself with the universe?

It's not that I haven't learned how to, it's that sometimes I naturally don't, though I don't think it is quite 'despite my religious education' . I think my religious education tried to teach me against things like that. Tried to get me not to fly into a rage. Tried to teach forgiveness. Tried to teach respect. Tried to teach love. Is that a good thing? Do you think that teaching this should have any part in society? Or are you of the same opinion as sleepy who thinks that religion shouldn't be allowed to be taught?

This is an open debate, though I never claimed I was diversely educated. I didn't get angry that you hold a different opinion to mine, i got angry because you misrepresented the Church.

turbot wrote:

Firstly, the catholic church do not teach their follows to respect other faiths / belief systems / systems of spirituality... The Roman Catholic Church doesn't encourage free thought, any decent type of personal spiritual development or awareness... It fundamentally presupposes it's way is the only right way, and teaches it's doctrines in a way that literally sculp the psyche's of people within it to be afriad of exploring anything else, struggle with the complex involvement of living and surrender personal and spiritual power to an organisation.

I believe that's a misrepresentation of what the church do. I don't think it's a different opinion, if it was I wouldn't have a problem with it, I believe it's wrong, I don't believe it's the truth, I think it's deliberately misleading and is something which many people in the media are keen to do. I believe it's a deliberate bias against the Catholic Church which goes against reason and some available facts. That's why I got angry. Opinions can differ, the truth can't.

If you decided you were better off being true to yourself then that's fine. I don't contest your personal experience of coming to not believe, I contest your representation of what you came not to believe.

If you think I'm ignorant, turbot, good for you, I suspect you know more about me than I do

fly_agaric

turbot wrote:

When you are born, the only two natural fears are of falling, and of loud noises. All of the rest are learned. How do you think the majority of the population came to learn to fear "the devil"?

I have to say that sounds very nice, like the world was a happy, trusting place until religious ideas of hell spoiled it, but is smells suspiciously like BS. Did you pull it from your ass by any chance?

Ever seen a baby "making strange" at something/someone new they feel threatened by?

turbot wrote:

Did you know that in the Hindu faith for example, and aspects of this, according to some historical sources are 30,000+ years old

I didn't know. Again, it sounds a bit much to me. There are no historical sources from this far back. Is there even much human archaeology streching that far back which could give specifics of what people back then believed in?
If I'm wrong - could you point me to something I could read about this stuff.

turbot wrote:

I don't think a religion that installs unresourceful states of mind and connects it with fundamental human behaviours does anyone any favours or respects God's will.

But isn't that one of the big selling points of all religions?
To connect "unresourseful states of mind" with nasty fundamental human behaviour. Or are there no bad behaviours which are fundamentally human?

Gurgle

fly_agaric wrote:

I have to say that sounds very nice, like the world was a happy, trusting place until religious ideas of hell spoiled it, but is smells suspiciously like BS.

Nope, its perfectly true.
All fears are learned, its how we survive.
Do you think children have a natural instinct not to run out in front of a car ?
Actually, I don't think they're even afraid of falling. Ever seen a baby who's afraid of heights?
The only instinctive fear is loud noises. (Co-incidentally, lots of animals which might eat babies make loud noises. Could be evolution or something ?)

fly_agaric wrote:

Ever seen a baby "making strange" at something/someone new they feel threatened by?

'Making strange' isn't fear, its annoyance that someone they don't know is holding them. Doesn't happen until a baby is at least a couple of months old.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Yes Freelancer, I made these claims and I stick by them.

Really? You call sticking by them, running off and hiding from a debate? I presented a mountain of evidence that it was church policy, and you what? Gave diddly squat and ran away.

Nobody is legally obliged to report a crime however.

Actually yes you are. If you are aware that crime is being commited, and fail to contact the police you can be charged with obstruction of justice.

Also, how does it look for this bastions of morality, aware that a henious crime is commited and their defence of their actions and inactions can be summed up as "I didn't have to do anything?"

And the reason I haven't made them this time is to avoid another debate of the same substance which I don't believe this thread is about. I think it's clear there are a large number of bad priests, but it's my belief this doesn't reflect that the whole Church is bad.

And I presented you with evidence that it was church policy, how can you defend an hierarchy which has demostrated from the top down, a policy to conceal paedophilia within its ranks.

I don't believe the whole of America is bad even though I disagree with some of the Bush administration who represent all of America etc.

An appalling analogy. American isn't a rigid hierarchal organisation, who claim to be the voice of god. Americans are intitled to be annoyed or angry with their administration, but can do something about it, whats a catholic going to do, vote out his cardinal?

The Bible does not teach intolerance towards homosexuals, rather practising homosexuality, but that's a debate for another day.

Laughable pedantry, I don't mind that you're gay it's just you being gay we have an issue with? Seriously WTF, it's "we're okay with you being gay, just don't y'know do gay stuff?"

As for not ever allowing religion in Education, well that would pose a problem to our education system a large part of which is run by the Church. And quite well. I like it that you ignored the most succesful schools in the country are religious ones. Also good luck in getting the Irish government to set up schools in Africa in the same way the church has. If the Church pulled out of education all around the world, as you are suggesting, there would a global crises.

This is another area your argument falls apart. Tell me, how many teachers in your school were priests? Or in any of the schools you mentioned? One third? Nah? A fifth?.....Hmmm a tiny proportion. So the suggestion we'd have a teacher shortfall is untrue. Secondly, the church has being riding well and fat on state subsidies.

If we were to nationalize all these religious schools (as for say, compensation for the massive abuse that occured in many of them) and kicked out all the brothers and priests, I imagine we'd have a crisis in....oh religion classes, something I'm okay with.

As for the church in a global state, yes I imagine you do have a huge proportion of the world's poor in education by the short and curlies, and if you did pull out they're be national outrage. Almost enough to wonder what a sweet racket the church has, No tax, $36 billion in liquid cash assets. Why I reckon if the church pulled out of teaching, a small tax on those assets could help fund those schools.

Ireland would lose a major part of it's education system. I also presume they shouldn't be allowed run nursing homes and hospitals too?

Church involvement in hosiptials is limited since the 70s.

Possibly Aid distribution for fear they influence it politically? What about science, should they be allowed to investigate? Or should priests be allowed run for election? Speak in Public? What about speak from the altar? Should we just ban religion altogether because the church may influence our kids?

And we wander into paranoid delusion here.

Sleepy

patzer117 wrote:

Yes Freelancer, I made these claims and I stick by them. Nobody is legally obliged to report a crime however.

There's certainly a moral obligation on someone to report a crime as hideous as child abuse. I find it strange that someone claiming that religion is a good thing would choose to split hairs in this fashion tbh.

And the reason I haven't made them this time is to avoid another debate of the same substance which I don't believe this thread is about. I think it's clear there are a large number of bad priests, but it's my belief this doesn't reflect that the whole Church is bad. I don't believe the whole of America is bad even though I disagree with some of the Bush administration who represent all of America etc.

American's are granted freedom of speech by the first ammendment to their constitution. Catholics are forbidden this freedom by their church's dogma.

Sleepy - three religion classes a week, not three Catholocism classes. And turbot as far as I'm aware there was no syllabus per se, certainly we followed no instuctions to discuss the occult - we brought up the topic ourselves.

Religion has no place in education regardless of which religion is being taught. Trying to argue that a Catholic school will give an unbiased and completely balanced viewpoint on religion is pretty futile tbh.

Indoctrination is teaching people to accept things uncritically, this certainly did not happen, and I, and many of the priests, have plenty of reservations about the Church, not only on the Child sex scandal, but on other issues like women priests and suchlike. We questioned these things openly and I still do.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand your own church. The Catholic Religion does not accept it's members questioning of the Church. Read your history, this is one of the main reasons that the reformation happened.

A cult is designed to take people away from their family or beliefs, though by the definition you linked (6 especially) to I'd be happy to accept myself as a member of a number of cults.

I'm curious how you would defend describing me as 'A gullible fool who is wasting my life' is a 'an explanation of the logic...' of some people's thinking? I'd still, despite this obvious logic, describe it as an insult.

Are you a priest? If you read my post again, you'd see that "these people" refers to the leaders of the church. These people are, in my opinion, wasting their lives as they've devoted it to something that defies common sense.

To me, anyone who believes something as ludicrous, contradictory, unverifiable and based on such dubious morality as the bible can only be seen as gullible. I can't see how anyone can argue otherwise in any logical, rational or even sensible way.

It's also funny how you say the original 'priest's' comment (if he was a priest) is nothing to do with the topic at hand, although quite clearly it was in the OP's post, and the OP decided the topic. We were discussing it, therefore it was definitely part of the topic at hand.

Can you quote where I said the priest's comment was nothing to do with the topic at hand?

The Bible does not teach intolerance towards homosexuals, rather practising homosexuality, but that's a debate for another day.

:rolleyes: And I don't teach intolerance towards the religious, just their practice of (and attempts to spread) their faith.

As for not ever allowing religion in Education, well that would pose a problem to our education system a large part of which is run by the Church. And quite well. I like it that you ignored the most succesful schools in the country are religious ones. Also good luck in getting the Irish government to set up schools in Africa in the same way the church has. If the Church pulled out of education all around the world, as you are suggesting, there would a global crises. Ireland would lose a major part of it's education system. I also presume they shouldn't be allowed run nursing homes and hospitals too?

I ignored the comment as it was a redundant argument: when the vast majority of the schools in a country are religious it's no great claim that the best schools are religious.

TBH, I think the government missed a golden opportunity to reclaim it's education system during the abuse-compensation discussions. If the Irish tax-payer is expected to pick up the bill for the church's sins, I believe we should have taken our education system back from the church as part of the deal.

I don't see why the church should play any part in the health system either tbh. There were cases only this year of the religious bodies that meddle in the affairs of our state's health system trying to deny patients proper care based on their own morality.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=309014

Possibly Aid distribution for fear they influence it politically?

It's not like they haven't done it in the past...

What about science, should they be allowed to investigate?

Of course they should, education is the vaccination against religion.

Or should priests be allowed run for election?

Personally, I don't believe a priest should be afforded that right. I believe in the absolute seperation of church and state. It's not something I'd have a huge objection to but theologically I don't believe a priest has any place in government.

Speak in Public? What about speak from the altar? Should we just ban religion altogether because the church may influence our kids?

Now you're talkin'...

rsynnott

patzer117 wrote:

The Bible does not teach intolerance towards homosexuals, rather practising homosexuality, but that's a debate for another day.

Nope, they teach intolerance towards homosexuals. That hideous old gargoyle was referring to them as "intrinsically disordered" not so long ago, no?

And in any case, it's a silly argument. "We don't object to you being a homosexual, as long as you're not one". Lovely. Have you considered introducing some form of Catholic Newspeak to better communicate such wisdom?

MrPudding

patzer117 wrote:

Nobody is legally obliged to report a crime however.

Is that true here in Ireland? In the UK it is an offense not to report suspected child abuse to the authorities. I know we are not the UK but there are many similarities in the laws. I would be surprised if there was no obligation to report the raping of children. Even if it was not the law surely most right thinking people would want to report the raping of children? What kind of person would not?

MrP

Hippo

Sleepy, that was a magnificent post!:)

fly_agaric

Gurgle wrote:

'Making strange' isn't fear, its annoyance that someone they don't know is holding them. Doesn't happen until a baby is at least a couple of months old.

Yes, I suppose you have to have a "known" before you can have any fear of the unknown (which is what I was thinking of mentioning babies making strange). That was a bit silly of me really.

LordSutch

Strange that nobody has picked-up on my previous Post#68, but it was good to see my point being discussed in some of the Sunday Papers (Are we, Irish Roman Catholics becoming more Protestant in our behaviour, thinking and mindset)? i.e. Married priests/ Contraception/ Transubstanciation (not believing in it) Catholics reading the Bible! and singing all the Protestant Hymns, etc, etc, etc! Has it really taken 500 years for the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland to finally catch up with the Protestants? So what next for the R.C. Church "Sunday School" maybe? Great idea - but will it also be adopted by the R.C.Church?

and for those who dont know what that is:
Sunday school is for all kids to learn about the Bible & Christianity in the Church hall (next door), while the Adults continue the main Service in Church! it also saves the kids from being taught Relegion in School during the week.

pretty-in-pink

Oh gosh, silicon/silicone (I feel silly now)
I also over-reacted, I was very irate at the time of posting- I'm sorry for being a cow and for any offence caused in my posts.

I have actually checked out- and tried- a few different faiths, best fun was Wicca, it was also the second closest fit I had for having faith- it just didn't fit as well as Christianity. I'm not Catholic- I'm Christian, leaning into being Anglican tbh. I went to a Catholic secondary school, and a Church Of Ireland primary school. Both were interesting views- and I much prefer the way we had religion in primary school. A small mass on special occasions in the school and bible club on a Friday evening. There are things I don't agree with in all the forms Christian religion takes- I guess I'd be an a-la-carte Christian. I believe in God, Jesus etc, I don't believe Mary was a virgin nor do I believe every story in the bible. They are mostly stories- they were written a very long time after the death of Christ so it would stand to reason that some details were forgotten while others were exaggerated.

I mostly took offence at the general "people who believe in a God are stupid" theme that was running through the thread. I respect your right and choice not to believe, it doesn't affect your intelligence level- how it affects you as a person depends on your perspective, I think people with a genuine belief are far more easy-going and nicer, but it's not always true so there you go.

Oh, I don't think any of ye are stupid, just that maybe given how smart most of ye are you'd realise that "religion is the opium of the people", and that deliberately insulting them is not just uncalled for, but downright mean and more then a little silly. If someone stupid insulted people like that it wouldn't surprise me in the least, seeing you guys do it did surprise me. You shouldn't attack your fellow man, and I reiterate my apology for getting all catty and mean in my previous posts.

rsynnott

naughty_girl wrote:

I don't believe Mary was a virgin nor do I believe every story in the bible.

I have this terrible image now of her hitting you with a handbag.

Sleepy

naughty_girl wrote:

I mostly took offence at the general "people who believe in a God are stupid" theme that was running through the thread. I respect your right and choice not to believe, it doesn't affect your intelligence level- how it affects you as a person depends on your perspective, I think people with a genuine belief are far more easy-going and nicer, but it's not always true so there you go.

People with a faith are more easy-going? I've found the exact opposite tbh. People who don't believe their "soul" is in danger of eternal damnation tend to live their lives more freely that those living in fear of their religious beliefs.

Oh, I don't think any of ye are stupid, just that maybe given how smart most of ye are you'd realise that "religion is the opium of the people", and that deliberately insulting them is not just uncalled for, but downright mean and more then a little silly. If someone stupid insulted people like that it wouldn't surprise me in the least, seeing you guys do it did surprise me. You shouldn't attack your fellow man, and I reiterate my apology for getting all catty and mean in my previous posts.

Karl Marx's "Religion is the opiate of the masses" comment was an attack on religion, not a defence of it. You can read more of his views on religion here: http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/a/marx_4.htm

To a growing percentage of the population, religion is considered a harmful influence on society so to us, attacking religious beliefs is called for and even necessary. I've never once said that the religious were stupid, I can see why someone would want to believe in a deity, it's a nice crutch for those too weak to stand on their own feet. I consider the belief stupid, the believer simply weak.