The Hazards of Belief

Obliq

Aaaarrghhh!! But you missed one of the scariest reasons:

"Allowing "women priests" may entice men to lust, as St. Thomas Aquinas indicates: ..........lest men's minds be enticed to lust, for it is written (Ecclesiasticus 9:8): 'Her conversation burneth as fire."

legspin

Obliq wrote: »

Aaaarrghhh!! But you missed one of the scariest reasons:

"Allowing "women priests" may entice men to lust."

At last, a church I can get on board with.

ShooterSF

Obliq wrote: »

Aaaarrghhh!! But you missed one of the scariest reasons:

"Allowing "women priests" may entice men to lust, as St. Thomas Aquinas indicates: ..........lest men's minds be enticed to lust, for it is written (Ecclesiasticus 9:8): 'Her conversation burneth as fire."

Then the solution is women priests have to wear burkas.

Obliq

ShooterSF wrote: »

Then the solution is women priests have to wear burkas.

That won't keep her from the ol' conversation which burneth like fire though.

wp_rathead

A female "priest" could become pregnant. Not only would this offend God and cause scandal, but what would become of the child?

....Abortion? :pac:

FouxDaFaFa

Women should make known their lustful thoughts about male priests and then the church will have no choice but to ban male and female priests and introduce robot priests.

Dades

Would go nicely with the robot congregation!

Obliq

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

Women should make known their lustful thoughts about male priests and then the church will have no choice but to ban male and female priests and introduce robot priests.

OOooo, yes - all that repression to play with

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Would go nicely with the robot congregation!

Robot congregation? Wha da?

Last time I was in a CC outlet, the whole lot looked pretty robotic to me, but I'm sure they were all fully human.

robindch

Mother convicted of murdering her own son for failing to memorize bits of the koran:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20596854

BBC wrote:

A mother who beat her seven-year-old son "like a dog" when he failed to memorise passages of the Koran has been found guilty of his murder.

Sara Ege, 33, beat Yaseen Ege to death at their home in Pontcanna, Cardiff, in July 2010 and set fire to his body. She was also found guilty of perverting the course of justice at Cardiff Crown Court. Sentence was adjourned. The boy's father, Yousuf Ege, 38, was acquitted of causing Yaseen's death by failing to protect him.

Yaseen Ege was beaten to death by his mother, who then set fire to his body It was initially thought Yaseen had died in the blaze at the family home but tests later revealed he had died hours earlier. His mother had pleaded not guilty to his murder and claimed her husband was responsible for Yaseen's death. She said she feared her husband would kill her and target her family unless she confessed to the murder.

That confession - made to police days after the death of her son - was captured on video and played to the jury during the five week trial. During the hour-long harrowing footage, university graduate Ege described how the young boy collapsed after she had beaten him while still murmuring extracts of the Koran. "He was breathing as if he was asleep when I left him," she said. "He was still murmuring the same thing over and over again. I thought that he was just tired." When she returned 10 minutes later she found her son shaking and shivering on the floor. He then died.

Within moments she said she decided to burn his body and ran downstairs to get a lighter and a bottle of barbecue gel. In police interviews she also confessed to beating her son for no reason and that her anger often led to her being out of control. She and her taxi driver husband had enrolled Yaseen in advanced classes at their local mosque as they wanted him to become Hafiz - an Islamic term for someone who memorises the Koran.

The court heard Ege become more and more frustrated with her son's inability to learn the passages he needed to. She told officers: "I was getting all this bad stuff in my head, like I couldn't concentrate, I was getting angry too much, I would shout at Yaseen all the time. "I was getting very wild and I hit Yaseen with a stick on his back like a dog." The prosecution said that Yaseen suffered significant abdominal injuries that were the cause of his death. They included fractures which were non-accidental.

"Sara Ege made no attempt to seek the medical attention he so obviously needed," prosecutor Ian Murphy said. "He clearly suffered terribly. She started the fire to hide what she had done." However, Ege insisted that both she and Yaseen had been beaten by her husband, adding he had been violent throughout their marriage. She told the jury that she did not take the boy to the doctor because she feared for her safety and that social services would take her son away.

Her mother Nafees Ahmed also gave evidence to say that Ege was a good mother who looked after him well. Ege was found guilty of murder and perverting the course of justice by burning Yaseen's body. Her husband was cleared of causing or allowing the death of a child by failing to protect him. The jury returned unanimous verdicts after eight hours of deliberation.

As the verdict was read out Ege broke down in the dock, holding her head in her hands and crying. Judge Mr Justice Wyn Williams told her she faces a term of life imprisonment. Her husband showed no emotion as he walked free from court. Mr Justice Wyn Williams told the court he would determine a minimum sentence for Ege in the New Year after a medical report had been completed.

Speaking after the verdicts, Deborah Rogers, district crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service, said the "deeply tragic nature" of the case had been "all too apparent". "We should not forget that at the heart of the case is the loss of a bright and friendly young boy who had his whole life ahead of him," she added.

"It is therefore right that the circumstances of Yaseen's death were fully examined in a criminal court."

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Robot congregation? Wha da?

Last time I was in a CC outlet, the whole lot looked pretty robotic to me, but I'm sure they were all fully human.

That's what they said about her :eek:

robindch

Another seven-year old is beaten to death for failing to read a holy text in the approved manner and not doing homework. This child lived in Las Vegas and his christian mother and stepfather are being charged today with murder, child abuse and neglect.

http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/dec/03/mother-stepfather-arrested-beating-death-7-year-ol/

Sarky

That's pretty horrific.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Another seven-year old is beaten to death for failing to read a holy text in the approved manner and not doing homework. This child lived in Las Vegas and his christian mother and stepfather are being charged today with murder, child abuse and neglect.

http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/dec/03/mother-stepfather-arrested-beating-death-7-year-ol/

To protect the born we should ban religion.

Jesus christ that's horrible the poor child
how can anyone do that to their own child, it's horrific

Sarky

A friend is thinking of starting his own "conservative thinktank/lobby group" because there's clearly money in it. We've been thrashing out a series of things to push for. So far it'll lobby to bring back slates&chalk to the school room, remove the metric system in favour of a more biblical system, like cubits, and remove the vote from anyone who is not a male bishop that died before Vatican II. That'll show them liberal feminazi godless pagan atheist heathens.

Edit: Whoops, was meant for the Iona Institute thread. Can't brain today, I have the dumb.

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

Jesus christ that's horrible the poor child
how can anyone do that to their own child, it's horrific

And people wonder why some atheists are passionately anti-religion?

FouxDaFaFa

The poor child was only with them for 3 months before they killed him. The mother called her pastor before she called an ambulance. Says a lot really.

Links234

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychic-sued-for-police-hoax-about-massacre-20121205.html

Psychic sued for hoax

what a charming person, wasting so much resources and terrorizing the owners of the farm. :rolleyes:

ShooterSF

Links234 wrote: »

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychic-sued-for-police-hoax-about-massacre-20121205.html

Psychic sued for hoax

what a charming person, wasting so much resources and terrorizing the owners of the farm. :rolleyes:

Sadly I think this one can be filed in the "believes they really are psychic" category rather than the "con-artist" one. Otherwise she wouldn't be making such specific claims.

seamus

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sadly I think this one can be filed in the "believes they really are psychic" category

Always makes me think of this

joseph brand

Oil is a Gift From God That We Must Use!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNFOjZuJq4g

E. Calvin Beisner's website. /groan

Amongst the sh*te and lies they're selling, is this dvd and book. 'Resisting the Green Dragon': A Biblical Response to One of the Greatest Deceptions of Our Day.

Resisting the Green Dragon takes its cue from James 4:7, "Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." Learn how the Bible powerfully confronts environmental fears and how - in God's wise design - people and nature can thrive together.

Sweet jesus. I suppose dragons work on religious whackos since they're into the whole fantasy role-playing life style. "Hi, I'm an evangelical, waiting on the rapture, so that my spirit will soar into the clouds and I will live with god for eternity." (wide eyed stare)

And of course, where else should we turn to, for information on how to reduce CO2 in our atmosphere, than the bible. The bumper book of everything!

robindch

^^^ Guy on the right looks like he's channeling gay porn.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

The parents of an 11-year old girl who died as they prayed over her are appealing their conviction for reckless homicide. They had diagnosed a "spiritual attack" rather than diabetes:

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/wi/lawyers-ask-wis-court-to-rule-in-prayer-death/article_e8371dee-b457-532d-9732-6d976a89166b.html

The Article wrote:

More than a dozen states have some form of legal protection for parents who choose to heal their children through prayer rather than seek conventional medical help[...]

:eek:

MrP

PopePalpatine

BBC News article on wife kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20675101

recedite

Opponents of the changes claim bride kidnapping plays an important role in society.
Parents and relatives relentlessly pressure young men in Kyrgyzstan to marry after they reach a certain age. For many, especially for poor families, this is the cheapest and quickest way to marry their son.

They do have a point there. Washing and shaving costs money.

Penn

PopePalpatine wrote: »

BBC News article on wife kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20675101

"We will put all men in Kyrgyzstan in prison if we increase the punishment for bride kidnapping," said MP Kojobek Ryspaev, during a discussion of the bill at a parliamentary session earlier this year.

That's not a bad thing... That's a good thing!

"Grab her! Grab her!" :pac:

robindch

A religious preacher reaches a new depth in using the speech-terminating massacre of at least 27 people, including twenty children, as religious propaganda:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is2x7QTZ8AI

PopePalpatine

I'm ****ing disgusted by that kind of language when referring to these events. I want to knock this man's teeth out. :mad:

The Black Oil

Not much better here.

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and GOP presidential candidate, told Fox News the shooting happened because "we removed God from our schools. (h/t ThinkProgress)

HUCKABEE: Ultimately, you can take away every gun in America and somebody will use a gun. When somebody has an intent to do incredible damage, they’re going to find a way to do it… People will want to pass new laws, but unless you change people’s hearts, they’re our transition to the pastor side. This is a heard issue, it’s not something, laws don’t change this kind of thing.

CAVUTO: How could God let this happen?

HUCKABEE: Well, you know, it’s an interesting thing. When we ask why there is violence in our schools, but we’ve systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools have become a place for carnage because we’ve made it a place where we don’t want to talk about eternity, life, responsibility, accountability? That we’re not just going to have to be accountable to the police, if they catch us. But one day, we will stand in judgment before God. If we don’t believe that, we don’t fear that.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U_qPSCDZq4

:mad::mad::mad:

Hotblack Desiato

What a farkin moron.

The Black Oil

It disgusts me how anyone is comfortable jumping in with 'gee, gosh darnit, it's the lack of God which done it' excuse. Very selfish.

Bannasidhe

The Black Oil wrote: »

It disgusts how anyone is comfortable jumping in with 'gee, gosh darnit, it's the lack of God which done it' excuse. Very selfish.

Sickens me. :mad:

The Black Oil

It's funny how similar in tone or suggestion some of the rhetoric seems to be what to we heard in relation to a tragic case here (Galway/the abortion debate) a world away from this horrible event, of course) a few weeks ago and we were essentially told that talking about it was exploiting a tragedy...seems to me that the words of Huckabee et al could only be seen as exploitative.

robindch

The Black Oil wrote: »

[...] we were essentially told that talking about it was exploiting a tragedy [...]

...while the side that makes this claim is exploiting a tragedy to shut down debate. A disgraceful position, as noted by The New Yorker's Alex Koppelman:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/the-right-day-to-talk-about-guns.html

The New Yorker wrote:

“I don’t think today is that day,” Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, said on Friday. He was responding to a question about gun control and the shooting in an elementary school in Connecticut that reportedly claimed the lives of twenty-six people —including twenty children between the ages of five and ten years old, as well as that of the shooter and, separately, one of the shooter’s parents. (The reports about what exactly happened are still somewhat shaky and unconfirmed. It’s likely that, as in most situations like this, some of what we now think we know will turn out to have been wrong. I will update this post as the day goes on.)

Carney’s response was a predictable one. This is the way that we deal with such incidents in the U.S.—we acknowledge them; we are briefly shocked by them; then we term it impolite to discuss their implications, and to argue about them. At some point, we will have to stop putting it off, stop pretending that doing so is the proper, respectful thing. It’s not either. It’s cowardice.
It is cowardice, too, the way that Carney and President Obama and their fellow-Democrats talk about gun control, when they finally decide the time is right. They avoid the issue as much as possible, then mouth platitudes, or promise to pass only the most popular of measures, like the assault-weapons ban. And then they do nothing to follow through.

But it is, from a purely political perspective, understandable. We are, all of us, angry now. Bewildered. And those of us who support gun control are perhaps maddest of all—right now. When it comes to Election Day, though, it’s the pro-gun people whose vote is most likely to be determined by this one issue. Those who want tighter restrictions, well, they typically have higher priorities to consider first. Put simply, supporting gun control is unlikely to help your typical politician much, but it’s very likely to hurt them. And Democrats know the numbers: they can’t lose any more white voters than they already have, especially not white voters in union families. And a lot of union households are gun-owning households, too.

No wonder, then, that Carney says today is not the day to talk about gun control. If both the Democrats and the Republicans had their way, we’d never talk about it again.

G.K.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm ****ing disgusted by that kind of language when referring to these events. I want to knock this man's teeth out. :mad:

Fischer is despicable. If you can face it, here's some more stuff he said.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/bryan-fischer

swampgas

Well, I guess when you spend most of your waking moments twisting the way the world around you operates to fit into your faith-based construct of reality, comments like this are almost to be expected. After all, religious fundamentalists must spend all day explaining away to themselves why, at face value, their God appears to be either AWOL or a psychopathic monster.

The habit of explaining away tragedy as part of your loving omnipotent God's divine plan must kick in automatically - and if you can redirect the blame away from your perfect Jesus and onto some out-group you dislike, all the better.

TwoShedsJackson

http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-school-shooting-westboro-baptist-church-planning-to-picket

Westboro Baptist announce their intention to picket the kids' funerals, saying “Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment”.

The Black Oil

What needs to happen there is that not a single microphone or camera lens should go near those idiots.

ShooterSF

Strange how the people who go around demanding we respect other people's beliefs seem to go awfully quiet when the WBC pops up. For what it's worth free speech is free speech and as much as I dislike their message they should be allowed to express it.

Bannasidhe

ShooterSF wrote: »

Strange how the people who go around demanding we respect other people's beliefs seem to go awfully quiet when the WBC pops up. For what it's worth free speech is free speech and as much as I dislike their message they should be allowed to express it.

Who here has suggested they be stopped?

I see people exercising their right to free speech by expressing their disgust and suggesting that they not be facilitated by being given free media coverage.

Personally - I would give them coverage - let the world hear their hate filled bile and see them for what they are. Of course, those who oppose them should be similarly covered.

Much like you are allowed to express yourself here and we are allowed to comment on what you have said.

Mark Hamill

ShooterSF wrote: »

Strange how the people who go around demanding we respect other people's beliefs seem to go awfully quiet when the WBC pops up. For what it's worth free speech is free speech and as much as I dislike their message they should be allowed to express it.

There is a difference between exercising a freedom of speech and harassing and distressing people whose kids where just murdered. They should be allowed to express their opinion, just not anywhere near the funeral.

ShooterSF

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who here has suggested they be stopped?

I see people exercising their right to free speech by expressing their disgust and suggesting that they not be facilitated by being given free media coverage.

Personally - I would give them coverage - let the world hear their hate filled bile and see them for what they are. Of course, those who oppose them should be similarly covered.

Much like you are allowed to express yourself here and we are allowed to comment on what you have said.

Maybe I typed that wrong. My point was that the people who suggest beliefs should be respected don't pop up during discussion of the WBC. I didn't mean to suggest the WBC or anyone was being gagged or anything.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is a difference between exercising a freedom of speech and harassing and distressing people whose kids where just murdered. They should be allowed to express their opinion, just not anywhere near the funeral.

Maybe you're right. I know I'm more comfortable with that but I can't shake the feeling that it's hypocritical of me. I do know it's extremely hard to separate myself from the emotion of the topic to think logically about the rights of everyone involved.

The Black Oil

Certainly have no issues with them airing their views in relation to their right to free speech (I believe this is backed up by a Supreme Court ruling, as per the link posted earlier), but I don't respect the content of their beliefs any more than I'd expect them to respect mine. The right the hold them, sure, but not the content. They're trolls and have been interviewed by people from Sean Hannity to Louis Theroux. They love the publicity otherwise they wouldn't bother.

Like certain preachers and Huckabee, they, in a not so subtle way, hinted (or will do) that a 'Godless America' was at fault for this horrible tragedy. Of course they're entitled to believe that if they wish, and in the case of Huckabee, whilst some of his followers may agree with him, I'd hope that many also find it distasteful that he is pandering to a belief system about certain social ills in the US...simply in order to do so. Would have been more tactful for him to quote a pslam or something, but nope, it's 'we've ignored God, this is our fault blah blah'. Show some empathy, ffs! Of course, it's a short clip, so maybe he also said some reasonable things. Anyway, bit of a ramble, and I'm not saying non-believers are incapable distasteful things, btw. Just some of these narratives make me a bit uncomfortable.

Whatever your thoughts on religion, positive or negative, they do a great disservice to it.

ShooterSF

Indeed. My original if badly made point was that they are the perfect example of why beliefs don't have a right to be respected.

I do have a certain creepy kind of respect for them though because they don't act as hypocritical as some Christian sects. How often do we point out that religious people only attribute "good" things to god? These don't. They attribute all events to god and praise their deity for doing so as they understand their relationship with the kind of god the christian one is better than most believers. He/She is a dictator and calls the shots and whatever he decides is, by the nature of the rules of the dictatorship, "good".

I don't share their belief and like most beliefs I'd rather it not shoved down my throat but at least it makes a bit more sense even if it's a horrible version of existence.

Mark Hamill

ShooterSF wrote: »

Maybe you're right. I know I'm more comfortable with that but I can't shake the feeling that it's hypocritical of me. I do know it's extremely hard to separate myself from the emotion of the topic to think logically about the rights of everyone involved.

I don't see how what I said infringes on anyones rights. Does freedom of speech mean you get to so what you want where ever you want? Freedom of speech may allow you to scream all day long, but it doesn't mean you can go up and scream in someones face all day.

PurpleSt4in

Just feel the need to rant occasionally. I don't oppose to people believing in some sort of higher being, people can believe what they like. However, it makes me absolutely sickened to think of the Catholic Church and how much power they seemed to have in Ireland in the time before I was born. A bunch of old virgins preaching morals every week, banning contraception and then molesting children. Disgusting. And the ones who didn't actually molest, but knew, and covered up are just as bad. Generalizations or not, so many reasons why I despise organized religion. Don't get me started on Islam and Sharia Law or I may just be here all night.

Mythologies which should have died long ago. "Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?" I like to think there's got to be more than just us. But I don't like the idea of religion. Every man or woman should have their own beliefs.

ShooterSF

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't see how what I said infringes on anyones rights. Does freedom of speech mean you get to so what you want where ever you want? Freedom of speech may allow you to scream all day long, but it doesn't mean you can go up and scream in someones face all day.

Yes but the reason for silencing them is not because people should not be allowed express beliefs at a funeral but rather because of what beliefs they want to express. I don't think they should be on top of the funeral tbf but they should be able to express their views on what is public property (I believe).

Mark Hamill

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yes but the reason for silencing them is not because people should not be allowed express beliefs at a funeral but rather because of what beliefs they want to express. I don't think they should be on top of the funeral tbf but they should be able to express their views on what is public property (I believe).

But its not a case of silencing them. Its a case of moving them. They have an entire country, outside of the graveyard and funeral procession, where they express their freedom of speech without harassing grieving parents.