Advancement of religion -- charitable or not?

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Interesting to see you complaining about people doing that, since this is your general approach to the words and ideas in my posts. And now in Wicknight's too it seems. I've no idea whether it's intentional or whether it's simply an unconscious, but unfortunate, mode of discourse which religious people seem to have almost insuperable problems avoiding. After many years of looking at religious argumentation, I suspect the latter, since it seems accurately to reflect the loose and inconsistent jumble of internal ideas that prop up the final belief system.

Mai, c'est la vie - la vieille différence entre les sophistes et les philosophes

Um, you haven't really answered PDN's point, though, have you, robindch? Wicknight really was implicitly defining "selfish" to mean "asserting divine authority". To respond to that by launching a broadside tu quoque, unsupported by any verifiable detail, at PDN and at "religious people" in general is, well, a bit weak.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Peregrinus wrote: »

Wicknight really was implicitly defining "selfish" to mean "asserting divine authority".

Yes, and he's quite right to do that since this self-aggrandizement is one of the ways in which religion's selfishness manifests. I've made exactly the same point myself in this thread and the other, it must be at least four or five times.

However, rather than address the actual objections Wicknight carefully listed, instead, they were rebranded as generic christian beliefs, implying that Wicknight was only moaning because they were christian, not because they are self-aggrandizing. The point that Wicknight made was ignored.

This careful substitution of the hard factual for the political is a common sophistic debating tactic. In a non-sophistic debate, the exchange might well have gone as follows:

Person A: "Christians are selfish because X, Y, Z!"
Person B: "So are Skeptics."
Person A: "No, because Skeptics don't do X, Y, Z"
Person B: Yes, you're right, they don't. Agreed. They're not selfish in the specific meaning you're using.

BTW, I think posts look better without bolding of people's names - it comes across as shouting, at least to me anyhow. thanks.

.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Yes, and he's quite right to do that since this self-aggrandizement is one of the ways in which religion's selfishness manifests . . .

No, he was not quite right to do that. Reread the exchange. Wicknight was arguing that ISS could not be "selfish" because it did not assert divine authority. The premise of this argument is that that all forms of selfishness involve the assertion of divine authority. Anyone who does not assert divine authority cannot be selfish. Selfishness, by definition, involve the assertion of divine authority. See?

This argument, when dispassionately examined, is balls.

Wicknight could have advanced a much more coherent and persuasive rebuttal of the accusation that the ISS is selfish; in fact he could have advanced several. It is hardly PDN's fault that Wicknight didn't do this. Surely a sceptic should welcome Wicknight's argument being exposed to critical scrutiny?

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Peregrinus wrote: »

Wicknight was arguing that ISS could not be "selfish" because it did not assert divine authority. The premise of this argument is that that all forms of selfishness involve the assertion of divine authority

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore all mortals are Socrates.


BTW, I think posts look better without bolding of people's names - it makes your posts quite difficult to read. thanks.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually its relevant here. You want to infringe on other peoples right and create exclusive social structures.

Eh? I don't believe a church is an "exclusive" social structure. Therefore as I would see it is irrelevant to the current discussion. Unless you can convince me that it is exclusive despite the fact that I've already presented a pretty good argument as to why they aren't.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But religions are no more non profit than Apple, they just measure the profit in terms of membership (which gives them political power) rather than financial.

PDN has explained what a non-profit is. Non-profit meaning that it doesn't profit anyone there are no shareholders. If there are employed members of the non-profit they are taxed PAYE / PRSI. Money that goes into the organisation is used to further that organisation.

Read the definition:

A nonprofit organization (abbreviated NPO, also not-for-profit) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals.

In Irish Skeptics the members and the directors contribute money for the furthering of that organisation. In churches the congregation contribute money for the furthering of that church and to cover its basic costs. I see no issue in this. Neither are run as businesses. If they were I would support full taxes.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You mentioned your churches name to me, not that you need to mention the name in order to evangelise its particular dogma.

If you knew anything about Anglicanism you'd know that there isn't a "particular dogma". People differ in the church on numerous issues. Some are more traditional, others less traditional, some are more Reformed, some are more catholic. Indeed, I would disagree with many in the church and they would disagree with me. No church is perfect to any degree.

Carrying on though. Looking to the context. I was giving you an example of a church that you say should be taxed.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then why have any different church at all? You may honestly believe that, that jesus is more important than any church, but the leaders of the churches, the guys who think their dogma important enough to actually require a separate church to those who dont believe in it, obviously dont.

Actually, I know a lot of church leaders who would put Jesus above their churches.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, thats nothing to do with your particular sect being too small to exist by itself I'm sure. Why are talking as if you would be told by the leaders that the church is primarily interested in increasing power? Do you think there isn't even just a single guy standing outside even a single scientology building somewhere in the world who doesn't think that he is helping people with the personality tests that serve as introduction to scientology indoctrination.

Mark, what the heck are you talking about. Get your head around this. I have no interest in promoting my church to others. Please don't assume.

Also you need to stop using "the church". It's confusing in an Irish context because people automatically link "the church" to Roman Catholicism. When I use it I refer to all the Christian churches.

I speak as if I think church leaders are interested in increasing power?

The reason I'm involved with the Christian Union network is because I care about the Gospel and I think it is the single most important thing for mankind. Simple as. Other Christians agree with me and that's why we work towards bringing this Gospel to our campus. I wouldn't be at all interested in an "Anglican society".

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You demonstrate in every thread where you argue against secularist schools, same sex marriage etc. how poor and inadequate your thinking is.

Leave the childish nonsense out Mark. If you say that apply reasoning rather than anything else. If your reasoning is devoid then it is just a stupid ad-hominem which is really unbecoming of someone of your intelligence. This is for another thread anyway, I'm going to stick on topic!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

FYP.

Don't put words in my mouth. Actually, I believe any Christian who accepts Jesus as their Saviour and lives a Christian existence can tell anyone about Jesus. I've met people outside my church who have an excellent knowledge of the Gospel and people who really care about it.

I really don't think my church is in any way better than a lot of other churches.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But they contradict, they have to, otherwise how else are they actually different churches? Why else have not aggregated into one bigger church?

Minor differences I'd suspect. A lot of them come down to practice rather than beliefs. I prefer focusing on the 90% of agreement that I have in order to tell people about the life-transforming Gospel.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

Unless you can convince me that it is exclusive despite the fact that I've already presented a pretty good argument as to why they aren't.

You still don't understand what we mean by "exclusivist", do you? Seriously, how come you're still taking about this meaning when we mean something quite different? Do you not recall that this has been pointed out like five, ten times to you?

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no interest in promoting my church to others [...] we work towards bringing this Gospel to our campus.

So you don't promote your church's religious beliefs, but you do promote the new testament?

Memnoch

robindch wrote: »

Yes, and he's quite right to do that since this self-aggrandizement is one of the ways in which religion's selfishness manifests. I've made exactly the same point myself in this thread and the other, it must be at least four or five times.

However, rather than address the actual objections Wicknight carefully listed, instead, they were rebranded as generic christian beliefs, implying that Wicknight was only moaning because they were christian, not because they are self-aggrandizing. The point that Wicknight made was ignored.

This careful substitution of the hard factual for the political is a common sophistic debating tactic. In a non-sophistic debate, the exchange might well have gone as follows:

Person A: "Christians are selfish because X, Y, Z!"
Person B: "So are Skeptics."
Person A: "No, because Skeptics don't do X, Y, Z"
Person B: Yes, you're right, they don't. Agreed. They're not selfish in the specific meaning you're using.

BTW, I think posts look better without bolding of people's names - it comes across as shouting, at least to me anyhow. thanks.

.

You expected PDN to conclude the debate honestly and fairly?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

You still don't understand what we mean by "exclusivist", do you? Seriously, how come you're still taking about this meaning when we mean something quite different? Do you not recall that this has been pointed out like five, ten times to you?

One involving whether or not someone is truly a believer, and the other concerning whether or not churches turn away people at the door. Both don't really hold up. The ingroups and outgroups you are referring to are Christian and non-Christian. I believe they could also exist in the sense of skeptical, and not-skeptical.

robindch wrote: »

So you don't promote your church's religious beliefs, but you do promote the new testament?

My church doesn't really have any beliefs that wouldn't be a part of Christianity in general. I consider the promotion of Christianity above and beyond the promotion of any church in the singular. Ultimately being merely a member of church X will have no consequence, but it will be about having a living faith in Jesus. I genuinely want people to be saved. I'm very indifferent as to what church they go to as long as they grow in faith by going there.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Memnoch wrote: »

You expected PDN to conclude the debate honestly and fairly?

It's perfectly reasonable to expect fairness and honesty at all times, and not just here

Jakkass wrote: »

One involving whether or not someone is truly a believer, and the other concerning whether or not churches turn away people at the door. Both don't really hold up.

No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "whether or not someone is truly a believer", though you are correctly summarizing the unrelated point that you repeatedly bringing up. I'm not going to try to explain again the highly-specific meaning of "exclusivist" that we're using, though this post explains it if you're interested.

I mean, are you not even interested that you don't get the point that we keep on repeating and trying to explain in pitiful detail? Does that not make you want to understand what it is? Does it not fascinate you that there is clearly a lack of meeting of minds here, at least on your side? Do you say to yourself, "You know, Jakkass, the guys keep on saying that I'm not getting something. Maybe they're right and maybe there is something that I don't understand about their point of view. They certainly seem very frustrated indeed. Maybe I should check it out what they're saying instead of just repeating myself." Have you no interest at all in the dialectic?

philologos

Here's your definition here:

In detail - you will be aware that christianity prohibits people from being islamic or any other religion, and that islam prohibits people from being christian or any other religion. Same for judaism, shinto, buddhism and many other religions. We conclude that these religions will only let you belong to one belief-system at a time. The adjective for this is "exclusivist".

I dealt with this here. You can still be a member and attend a church even if you don't believe in the Gospel. You can still be a non-skeptic and attend Irish Skeptics meetings.

Unless you want to explain what in-groups and out-groups are. Or use the normal definition of exclusivist.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

I dealt with this here. You can still be a member and attend a church even if you don't believe in the Gospel. You can still be a non-skeptic and attend Irish Skeptics meetings.

You didn't deal with the question, since you didn't deal with the fundamental question.

So, can one be a fully-committed christian while being a fully-committed muslim?

Jakkass wrote: »

Unless you want to explain what in-groups and out-groups are.

People regularly divide themselves into all kinds of groupings and certain classes of these groupings behave antisocially - typically, by declaring that they're "better" than other competing groupings. The group doing the declaring is the "ingroup" and the other "worse" group is the "outgroup".

Large amounts of social and psychological research shows that the division of society into ingroups and outgroups is fraught with danger since most people cannot deal in a peaceful manner with the belief that the group gives them, namely that the members of the ingroup are better individuals than the outgroup. To a much certain very limited extent, it happens in English soccer, but it's a point of pride amongst rugby suppports that it doesn't happen. To a larger extent, it happens between black and white-skinned people, jews and Nazi's, jews and islamics, trade unionists and managers, catholics and protestants, and so on.

I mentioned Jane Elliott's demonstrations of ingroup and outgroup psychology in practice. Haven't been able to watch the following video since I'm at the end of a low bandwidth connection, but this one looks as good as any:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCjDxAwfXV0

This is the damage that ingroupings and outgroupings produce. For research related to the dangers of accepting authority figures, check out the Milgram Experiment, or the Stanford Prison Experiment on youtube.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

You didn't deal with the question, since you didn't deal with the fundamental question.
So, can one be a fully-committed christian while being a fully-committed muslim?

I have in that one can't be a skeptic and a non-skeptic at the same time, yet one can still attend and participate in Irish Skeptics meetings.

Likewise one can't be a Christian and non-Christian at the same time, yet one can still attend and participate church.

The direct comparison is still there.

robindch wrote: »

People regularly divide themselves into all kinds of groupings and certain classes of these groupings behave antisocially - typically, by declaring that they're "better" than other competing groupings. The group doing the declaring is the "ingroup" and the other "worse" group is the "outgroup".

I don't believe I am better than anyone personally. There you go. I do believe Christianity to be true, in the same way that you deem skepticism to be a better way to view the world.

As for the rest of it, could you explain what exactly you are meaning by "in-groups" and "out-groups". I'm not going to watch an 8 minute video just to get a definition in fairness. As I would see it there is still a pretty strong comparison between your average church and a skeptics group such as yours.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore all mortals are Socrates.

Actually it was more a case of me saying, "Socrates and Caesar are both mortal" and Wicknight responding with "Ah, but Caesar isn't Greek - is he?"

(Where Socrates= Christianity, Casear=ISS mortal=selfish, and Wicknight and yourself have arbitrarily decided on a definition of mortality that includes being born in Athens)

PDN

Memnoch wrote: »

You expected PDN to conclude the debate honestly and fairly?

As opposed to sitting on the sidelines, contributing nothing to the discussion, and lobbing personal insults and slurs?

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

I have in that one can't be a skeptic and a non-skeptic at the same time [...] Likewise one can't be a Christian and non-Christian at the same time

At last, you got it! "one can't be a Christian and non-Christian at the same time"!! That's exclusivism!

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the rest of it, could you explain what exactly you are meaning by "in-groups" and "out-groups".

Did you miss the 200 words on ingroups and outgroups in the middle of my last post, or are you just joking here?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not going to watch an 8 minute video just to get a definition in fairness.

Who mentioned "fairness"? This is about ingroups and outgroups, as you asked. Are you not interested in listening to the answer I carefully put together, or are you just joking again?

Jakkass wrote: »

As I would see it there is still a pretty strong comparison between your average church and a skeptics group such as yours.

The skeptics don't refer to non-skeptics as "unsaved" and other pitying, derogatory, outgroupy terms. The skeptics do not set up ingroups and outgroups, in fact, they generally abhor the conceit of ingroup behaviour and do as much as they can to avoid it.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

The skeptics don't refer to non-skeptics as "unsaved" and other pitying, derogatory, outgroupy terms.

No, of course skeptics never refer to non-skeptics as "deluded" or any such pitying, derogatory, outgroupy terms - do they? :rolleyes:

philologos

robindch wrote: »

At last, you got it! "one can't be a Christian and non-Christian at the same time"!! That's exclusivism!

You ignored the very valid comparison:
"one can't be a skeptic and a non-skeptic at the same time"

robindch wrote: »

The skeptics don't refer to non-skeptics as "unsaved" and other pitying, derogatory, outgroupy terms. The skeptics do not set up ingroups and outgroups, in fact, they generally abhor the conceit of ingroup behaviour and do as much as they can to avoid it.

Read PDN's post, it sums it up more than adequately.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

PDN wrote: »

So, because the moderator of another forum enforces the Charter and doesn't let you troll at will, it therefore follows that they don't want people in society in general to think for themselves and believe that everybody should keep quiet and let the Church tell them what to think?

PDN, dont lie to me as I've never been in your forum, we both know what you think of atheists and people critical of your religion and how you react to it.

PDN wrote: »

And I'm the most dishonest person you've ever encountered because I'm not bat**** crazy enough to follow that kind of reasoning and see where you were going with this?

No, because you still hysterically claim that my logic hasn't gone anywhere, that I still need to explain more of my reasoning.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

PDN, dont lie to me as I've never been in your forum,

According to boards.ie new improved search facility you have posted in the Christianity Forum 389 times. Yet here you are accusing me of dishonesty.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

we both know what you think of atheists and people critical of your religion and how you react to it.

I think atheists hold beliefs that are wrong, but I have consistently stated that I defend their right to hold and express such beliefs, and think they should be given the same privileges as Christians in society - no more and no less.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

Eh? I don't believe a church is an "exclusive" social structure. Therefore as I would see it is irrelevant to the current discussion. Unless you can convince me that it is exclusive despite the fact that I've already presented a pretty good argument as to why they aren't.

Jakkass, this is getting pathetic. At this stage I'm not even sure you are reading your own damn posts. We are talking about families and education, not churches in general. You want to create a definition of family that excludes a lot of people (single parents, same sex parents etc) and you want a school system that excludes a lot of people (people who dont want religion in school are excluded from the your prefered schools, having alternatives for them simply strengthens the divisiveness of your suggestion).

Jakkass wrote: »

PDN has explained what a non-profit is. Non-profit meaning that it doesn't profit anyone there are no shareholders. If there are employed members of the non-profit they are taxed PAYE / PRSI. Money that goes into the organisation is used to further that organisation.

Read the definition:

In Irish Skeptics the members and the directors contribute money for the furthering of that organisation. In churches the congregation contribute money for the furthering of that church and to cover its basic costs. I see no issue in this. Neither are run as businesses. If they were I would support full taxes.

I've already explained my point, religions measure profits in terms of members, as thats what gives them power. I see that as being analogous to financial gain.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you knew anything about Anglicanism you'd know that there isn't a "particular dogma". People differ in the church on numerous issues. Some are more traditional, others less traditional, some are more Reformed, some are more catholic. Indeed, I would disagree with many in the church and they would disagree with me. No church is perfect to any degree.

Carrying on though. Looking to the context. I was giving you an example of a church that you say should be taxed.

Then why does the word Anglican even exist if it covers so many things that have nothing in common that isn't already described by the word christian?

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, I know a lot of church leaders who would put Jesus above their churches.

Sure you do, thats why all these church leaders are looking to aggregate their churches together to teach the one message of jesus because they have realised that their dogmatic differences are personal and not important enough to cause splits. Oh wait they aren't and they dont .

Jakkass wrote: »

Mark, what the heck are you talking about. Get your head around this. I have no interest in promoting my church to others. Please don't assume.

Also you need to stop using "the church". It's confusing in an Irish context because people automatically link "the church" to Roman Catholicism. When I use it I refer to all the Christian churches.

I speak as if I think church leaders are interested in increasing power?

The reason I'm involved with the Christian Union network is because I care about the Gospel and I think it is the single most important thing for mankind. Simple as. Other Christians agree with me and that's why we work towards bringing this Gospel to our campus. I wouldn't be at all interested in an "Anglican society".

When I talk about the church, I'm talking about each and every church, not just the RCC, because they all have the same goal - power. That you dont/wont recognise this makes you the same as the scientology guy, giving out personality tests, who really believes in what he does.

Jakkass wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth. Actually, I believe any Christian who accepts Jesus as their Saviour and lives a Christian existence can tell anyone about Jesus. I've met people outside my church who have an excellent knowledge of the Gospel and people who really care about it.

I really don't think my church is in any way better than a lot of other churches.

As above, you = scientology lacky who honestly believes that his superiors power amassing scam is actually true.

Jakkass wrote: »

Minor differences I'd suspect. A lot of them come down to practice rather than beliefs. I prefer focusing on the 90% of agreement that I have in order to tell people about the life-transforming Gospel.

Funny how you fail to recognise that to those churches, to those that lead them, its the 10% that is important, so important that they dont just amalgamate back into the one church. Oh no wait its not funny, its just sad.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

PDN wrote: »

According to boards.ie new improved search facility you have posted in the Christianity Forum 389 times. Yet here you are accusing me of dishonesty.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I'm accusing you of treating me like I'm not aware of how you treat skeptics and atheists on your forum as if I've never been on it. The fact that I've posted 389 times on the christian forum supports that I have been on the forum and therefore are fully aware of how you treat skeptics and atheists. I could , if you like, point you to the help desk thread where I complained about your attitude to non christians if you like.

sponsoredwalk

I don't know what the fcuk the arguments are, there are about 10 of them but
none of them make any sense...

/thread...

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

PDN wrote: »

No, of course skeptics never refer to non-skeptics as "deluded" or any such pitying, derogatory, outgroupy terms - do they?

Except for creationists -- christianity's hooting baboons and a deeply amusing lot (most of the time) -- no, in general they don't. They also don't claim to speak with the wisdom of the creator of the universe, and damn everybody else to burn in fire for all eternity. Which is a point you might care to address sometime, since you keep ignoring it as though embarrassed by it. Religion of love? My ass it is. Tinpot threats from a tinpot religion

Interesting to see, though, that by implication, you find homeopaths, astrologers, creationists, water diviners, ufologists, reikists, past-lifers, astral-plane-ologists, etc, etc, etc, eminently undeluded people.

Do you have any intellectual compass?

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I'm accusing you of treating me like I'm not aware of how you treat skeptics and atheists on your forum as if I've never been on it. The fact that I've posted 389 times on the christian forum supports that I have been on the forum and therefore are fully aware of how you treat skeptics and atheists.

There is no need for me to reread what you wrote. You said "PDN, dont lie to me as I've never been in your forum".

Now, because I've caught you out, you're claiming that you really meant something else other than the plain English sense of what you posted. The problem is that such a protestation requires us to trust you - and, given the way you accuse other people of dishonesty, I see no reason why I or anybody else should extend to you that courtesy that you aremanifestly unwilling to extend to others. You reap what you sow.

There's not much point in us discussing your or my behaviour in other fora since you are demonstrating that you are incapable of conforming to the Charter of this forum. You have made baseless accusations of dishonesty against me because I have honestly shared my opinions that people should reach their own conclusions and that I am opposed to the idea of people just shutting up and listening to the Church.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

You ignored the very valid comparison:
"one can't be a skeptic and a non-skeptic at the same time"

Since there are no rules for what constitutes a skeptic, people can declare themselves skeptic or non-skeptical as they wish. I certainly don't care a wet fart what they describe themselves as and I don't know anyone who does. This is one of many reasons why skeptics don't divide the world up into skeptics and non-skeptics. Though I suspect you're not going to be able to understand that.

Actually, now that I think of it, I can only think of two people who've told me that they're "very skeptical!" and both were creationists. Go figure.

Jakkass wrote: »

Read PDN's post, it sums it up more than adequately.

PDN's post does sum up his lack of understanding quite adequately

PDN

robindch wrote: »

They also don't claim to speak with the wisdom of the creator of the universe, and damn everybody else to burn in fire for all eternity. Which is a point you might care to address sometime, since you keep ignoring it as though embarrassed by it.

I'm not embarrassed by it, but you should be.

The issue of believing in a Creator or in hell does not, by any normal person's understanding of the English language, render someone selfish or unselfish. Therefore it makes more sense for me to ignore it since it is obviously an attempted red herring in your ever more convoluted attempts to deflect attention away from your own untenable position.

Religion of love? My ass it is. Tinpot threats from a tinpot religion

Such peurile taunts don't actually add to the strength of your argument. There's no fish that wriggles so vigorously as the one that is impaled on a hook.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I could , if you like, point you to the help desk thread where I complained about your attitude to non christians if you like.

Or the thread in the Dispute Resolution forum where you complained about how badly you were treated in the Islam forum?

It's remarkable how such a pleasant and inoffensive fellow as yourself who never trolls seems to keep running into trouble, isn't it? It must be awful to be persecuted so unfairly.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

PDN wrote: »

The issue of believing in a Creator or in hell does not, by any normal person's understanding of the English language, render someone selfish or unselfish.

Now, now, I never said that -- ninth commandment etc, etc again. Check out this post so you can fix your broken understanding of my position if you want to.

PDN wrote: »

There's no fish that wriggles so vigorously as the one that is impaled on a hook.

Bad choice of metaphor -- skeptics don't have a fish symbol, but Christians, hmmm, don't they have an ἰχθύς somewhere?

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I could , if you like, point you to the help desk thread where I complained about your attitude to non christians if you like.

PDN wrote: »

Or the thread in the Dispute Resolution forum where you complained about how badly you were treated in the Islam forum?

Lads, NONE of this has any place here. Seriously.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, you are defining "selfish" as somehow being connected with belief in a Creator and in eternal punishment? Once you go down that humpty-dumpty route where words mean whatever you want them to then we are lost in a whirlpool of circularity.

Person A: "Christians are selfish!"

Person B: "So are Skeptics."

Person A: "Not if you define selfish as holding Christian beliefs!"

No, I'm defining as selfish as manipulating people for your own end through appeals to the evolutionary quirks that produce, what could best be described as mental longing for a world comprised of supernatural agency.

How are you defining it?

To use your style

Person A: Christianity is selfish because it does X

Person B: If it is then so is the ISS

Person A: Do the the ISS do X

Person B: No

Person A: Well then

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

You think people who don't assert a divine authority can't be selfish?

No. Did I imply that?

The assertion is that religion is or certainly can be a quite selfish exercise, concerned with is own self propagation and sustainment, its own exclusivity and in group cohesion. A good example of this is the insistence by many religions people, not only Christians, that their child must be taught their parents religion as a truthful fact, and any attempts to limit this seen as vastly negative. Notions such as morality and ensuring salvation are used to justify this. There are few other systems invented by humans that place such emphasis of very specific teaching of doctrine to child. This is just one example.

The counter to this from PDN and others was that if it is then something like the Irish Skeptical Society is as well.

This was based on a rather inaccurate interpretation of what Robin was saying as merely "increasing numbers", though to be honest given that PDN is a believer who thinks his religion is a the divine revelation of a creator God I'm not at all surprised he would view his religion from a wholly different position to Robin, myself and and others on the Atheist forum. The day you get PDN to admit that religion is a form of manipulation is the day I eat my hat. It should be remembered though that we are on the A&A forum, not other forums, and as such there is no automatic assumption that Christian claims about the nature of reality are true and accurate reflection of reality, which PDN may be expected from other posters if he was more used to debating on forums where that assumption is taken as an automatic given.

The point I raised was that the Irish Skeptical Society don't appear to do the things that make religion, particularly a religion like Christianity, a selfish endeavor, so PDN's logic seems some what faulty.

This does not require a particular definition of "selfish" that related specifically to Christianity, it simply needs the comparison of the selfish elements of religion with what ever the other group does.

I'm not vastly familiar with the inner dealings of the Irish Skeptical Society, but I imagine they don't attempt to manipulate people the way something like the Christian dogma does, they don't attempt to ensure the continuos repeating of dogma the way Christianity does, and as such PDN's current assert that they too must also be selfish if Christianity is seen as that seems some what baseless.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I've already explained my point, religions measure profits in terms of members, as thats what gives them power. I see that as being analogous to financial gain.

Perhaps in your opinion.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then why does the word Anglican even exist if it covers so many things that have nothing in common that isn't already described by the word christian?

Its a product of the English Reformation when the RCC was very corrupt and didn't let the people read the Bible for themselves. That's in part the reason why the Anglican church had to be formed. A kings selfish desires helped the Reformers to acheive their aims.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sure you do, thats why all these church leaders are looking to aggregate their churches together to teach the one message of jesus because they have realised that their dogmatic differences are personal and not important enough to cause splits. Oh wait they aren't and they dont

In many cases it does happen, its called ecumenism. When churches realise the 90% they have in common rather than the 10% they don't.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When I talk about the church, I'm talking about each and every church, not just the RCC, because they all have the same goal - power. That you dont/wont recognise this makes you the same as the scientology guy, giving out personality tests, who really believes in what he does.

I don't see how power comes into it because Christians generally don't want to take over the world politically.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As above, you = scientology lacky who honestly believes that his superiors power amassing scam is actually true.

meh. As I've said to virmilitaris. I know you think my beliefs are delusional, and I think your skepticism in respect to Jesus is misguided and misplaced. How about we cut out what is obvious and have a real discussion.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Funny how you fail to recognise that to those churches, to those that lead them, its the 10% that is important, so important that they dont just amalgamate back into the one church. Oh no wait its not funny, its just sad.

Just curious, on what level do you know church leaders or indeed what they think? Or is this all nonsense misconceptions. Perhaps a more subtle version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. All that you've done so far is make assumptions about me thinking that Anglicanism is the best church and so on and so forth. If you are just going to assume what I think, why not just discuss it with yourself in your own time.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps in your opinion.

Even if you dont agree that its what the church is after, would you not agree, at least in principle, that political power as analogous to financial power?

Jakkass wrote: »

Its a product of the English Reformation when the RCC was very corrupt and didn't let the people read the Bible for themselves. That's in part the reason why the Anglican church had to be formed. A kings selfish desires helped the Reformers to acheive their aims.

Ok, thats where it comes from, but why does it still exist? And why do the labels for the other sects of christianity still exist, if they aren't actually immportant to the vast majority of christianity?

Jakkass wrote: »

In many cases it does happen, its called ecumenism. When churches realise the 90% they have in common rather than the 10% they don't.

They're not very quick about it, though, are they? According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001 edition) there are over 33,000 distinct sects of christianity in the world.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how power comes into it because Christians generally don't want to take over the world politically.

On the individual level, no they probably dont. Then again, on teh individual level, most catholics in Ireland dont really believe in transubstantiation, so what people believe on a personal level doesn't necessarily represent what the organisations say and want.

Jakkass wrote: »

meh. As I've said to virmilitaris. I know you think my beliefs are delusional, and I think your skepticism in respect to Jesus is misguided and misplaced. How about we cut out what is obvious and have a real discussion.

Well, put it like this, do you think that if what I said was true, would you be able to tell from the position that you are?

Jakkass wrote: »

Just curious, on what level do you know church leaders or indeed what they think? Or is this all nonsense misconceptions. Perhaps a more subtle version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. All that you've done so far is make assumptions about me thinking that Anglicanism is the best church and so on and so forth. If you are just going to assume what I think, why not just discuss it with yourself in your own time.

I haven't assumed you think Anglicanism is anything, I just going by the fact that you identify yourself as being a member of the Anglican church. I am fully aware that you may prefer another church that either is not geographically available or one all encompassing one that simply hasn't been realised yet. However, you still identify with the Anglican church, which, to me, is contradictory to the claims that Jesus is more important than your specific church. Why do you identify with any church if all that matters is Jesus?

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even if you dont agree that its what the church is after, would you not agree, at least in principle, that political power as analogous to financial power?

There are aspects of political power and financial power which go hand in hand in the context of big businessmen or kingdoms. It is looking to the Gospels that I can see that Jesus had no time for big businessmen, earthly kingdoms or the religious elite.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok, thats where it comes from, but why does it still exist? And why do the labels for the other sects of christianity still exist, if they aren't actually immportant to the vast majority of christianity?

It still exists precisely because there are people who still accept and acknowledge the Christian faith, but want to worship God in a way that this church encourages. The structure of the churches and the way in which they conduct their ministry is probably what brings some. The way their churches teach Christianity might suit them better but ultimately it isn't the church that is the most important it is Jesus. Personally I operate on a rather non-denominational basis focusing on what can be Biblically substantiated and not being afraid of criticising how church is done.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They're not very quick about it, though, are they? According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001 edition) there are over 33,000 distinct sects of christianity in the world.

Ecumenism as I would see it would be about increased co-operation between Christians. It is why I can work in a faith society with people from varying churches and find very largely that I am on the same page. Why is that? Or is that just a coincidence? That's people of varying nationalities, churches, backgrounds etc.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

On the individual level, no they probably dont. Then again, on teh individual level, most catholics in Ireland dont really believe in transubstantiation, so what people believe on a personal level doesn't necessarily represent what the organisations say and want.

This is real Protocols of the Elders of Zion thinking. I don't see how this is anything more than a conspiracy theory.

All that I hope for is that people will accept faith in Christ. That's all.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, put it like this, do you think that if what I said was true, would you be able to tell from the position that you are?

Very clearly yes. I have no time for political interference in church. I'm pretty vocal against church gate collections / campaigning at election time. If my minister at church endorsed a political party in church that would be a major incentive to find somewhere else.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I haven't assumed you think Anglicanism is anything, I just going by the fact that you identify yourself as being a member of the Anglican church. I am fully aware that you may prefer another church that either is not geographically available or one all encompassing one that simply hasn't been realised yet. However, you still identify with the Anglican church, which, to me, is contradictory to the claims that Jesus is more important than your specific church. Why do you identify with any church if all that matters is Jesus?

You've made a lot of leaps in your previous posts, it's frustrating to say the least. I'm up for a good discussion, but lets keep it reasonable.

Push comes to shove, I identify as being a Christian far above church. I think all churches which focus on the Gospel and focus on Jesus as Lord are doing great work in general. Work I would be more than happy to get behind and work I'd encourage Christians to work together on.

I choose to go to a church for numerous reasons. Christian encouragement, fellowship, accountability, and so on. The same reason I've been involved in our Christian Union as well. Encouraging the Christian community to keep strong for the Gospel is important, and encouraging Christians to keep their unique identity and to shine in a world which often doesn't want to have anything to do with God. It is because of how I feel about God and this thing that I call Christianity that I involve myself into both of these things.

A lot of people have been instrumental in the learning curve that I've taken to have the faith that I have. I want to share and encourage others too and I want to work together with other Christians to help other people see the life-changing Gospel.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus had no time for big businessmen, earthly kingdoms or the religious elite.

Bearing in mind that religion is now one of the largest industries in the USA, how do you think Jesus would view what's going on there?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Bearing in mind that religion is now one of the largest industries in the USA, how do you think Jesus would view what's going on there?

I think a lot of the time He'd be in disgust at the type of institutions we've set up to be quite honest with you.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

He'd be in disgust at the time of institutions we've set up to be quite honest with you.

Was one of the more fun realizations during the ejection of whatever religious beliefs I had years ago -- if the people on earth who claimed to represent Jesus were the best they could be, well, I think either Jesus deserved better (so why didn't he do it?), or the thing was a simple con-job.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

There are aspects of political power and financial power which go hand in hand in the context of big businessmen or kingdoms. It is looking to the Gospels that I can see that Jesus had no time for big businessmen, earthly kingdoms or the religious elite.

Few business men or politicians have time for the competition.

Jakkass wrote: »

It still exists precisely because there are people who still accept and acknowledge the Christian faith, but want to worship God in a way that this church encourages. The structure of the churches and the way in which they conduct their ministry is probably what brings some. The way their churches teach Christianity might suit them better but ultimately it isn't the church that is the most important it is Jesus. Personally I operate on a rather non-denominational basis focusing on what can be Biblically substantiated and not being afraid of criticising how church is done.

You may operate on an individual level (although why still associate with a particular church) but the vast majority dont, hence even very small sects of christianity exist. And they are supported by the churches telling them that their practises are the right ones and that other churches are not entirely correct. And then they go and tell others the same thing (its how the church is propagated and how it still exists beyond a generation or two).

Jakkass wrote: »

Ecumenism as I would see it would be about increased co-operation between Christians. It is why I can work in a faith society with people from varying churches and find very largely that I am on the same page. Why is that? Or is that just a coincidence? That's people of varying nationalities, churches, backgrounds etc.

Thats different to what I described in the first place, religious leaders trying to aggregate back into one church. You may be able to cooperate better with these people because of ecumenism, but at the end of the day, you still associate more specific churches.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is real Protocols of the Elders of Zion thinking. I don't see how this is anything more than a conspiracy theory.

All that I hope for is that people will accept faith in Christ. That's all.

Its fairly logical thinking based on observation. Look at america. Do you think most americans wanted to invade iraq? The government did though, so it happened. Especially in the case of religions, where the larger the church the less important the belief is and the more important the label is, the fact that you personally dont aim for something is as much of an indicator that the leaders dont as is the fact that you dont live in palatial mansions.

Jakkass wrote: »

Very clearly yes. I have no time for political interference in church. I'm pretty vocal against church gate collections / campaigning at election time. If my minister at church endorsed a political party in church that would be a major incentive to find somewhere else.

You have misunderstood what I have said, hopefully not on purpose. I am talking about the church (any church) being primarily motivated by gaining power (politcal, not financial). Now I dont know what makes you think that I'm talking about doing this on behalf of some political or party (I really hope you aren't trying to strawman me into a stupid position), I am talking about personal (on a church level) political gain, as in a church can claim that its speaking on behalf of all its members and therefore has political sway without even having to consider any political elections (such as how the catholic church had it in this country for quite a while after 1916)

Jakkass wrote: »

Push comes to shove, I identify as being a Christian far above church.

But this is the problem. When push comes to shove, you identify as christian before any church, but why only when push comes to shove? Why not just identify as christian all the time and then, if someone asks, just say you go to the anglican one because its the closest/you like the community there or whatever? You only identify as christian when you have to, but you prefer to identify as anglican.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You may operate on an individual level (although why still associate with a particular church) but the vast majority dont, hence even very small sects of christianity exist. And they are supported by the churches telling them that their practises are the right ones and that other churches are not entirely correct. And then they go and tell others the same thing (its how the church is propagated and how it still exists beyond a generation or two).

I go to a church because going to a church is important. I wouldn't be contributing anything if I didn't take part in a Christian community of some form. Being a lone ranger Christian isn't really the best approach to living a Christian existence.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats different to what I described in the first place, religious leaders trying to aggregate back into one church. You may be able to cooperate better with these people because of ecumenism, but at the end of the day, you still associate more specific churches.

I go to a specific church for obvious reasons already outlined.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its fairly logical thinking based on observation. Look at america. Do you think most americans wanted to invade iraq? The government did though, so it happened. Especially in the case of religions, where the larger the church the less important the belief is and the more important the label is, the fact that you personally dont aim for something is as much of an indicator that the leaders dont as is the fact that you dont live in palatial mansions.

Logical or not I wonder if it is not best suited to the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have misunderstood what I have said, hopefully not on purpose. I am talking about the church (any church) being primarily motivated by gaining power (politcal, not financial). Now I dont know what makes you think that I'm talking about doing this on behalf of some political or party (I really hope you aren't trying to strawman me into a stupid position), I am talking about personal (on a church level) political gain, as in a church can claim that its speaking on behalf of all its members and therefore has political sway without even having to consider any political elections (such as how the catholic church had it in this country for quite a while after 1916)

I don't know how one could talk about political power unless one has sufficient access to a political machine. I'm not sure if churches can in fact speak on behalf of its members really. I'm not sure if the Archbishop of Canterbury can speak for all Anglicans, or if Pope Benedict can speak for all Catholics.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But this is the problem. When push comes to shove, you identify as christian before any church, but why only when push comes to shove? Why not just identify as christian all the time and then, if someone asks, just say you go to the anglican one because its the closest/you like the community there or whatever? You only identify as christian when you have to, but you prefer to identify as anglican.

In every conversation I get myself into, I describe myself as a Christian first. It is only when asked specifically as to what church I actually attend that I will say I go to an Anglican church. So I already do as I describe.

The only reason it is in this thread is because I wanted to give you an example of a church that you believe should be taxed.

Mark Hamill

I'm religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I haven't assumed you think Anglicanism is anything, I just going by the fact that you identify yourself as being a member of the Anglican church. I am fully aware that you may prefer another church that either is not geographically available or one all encompassing one that simply hasn't been realised yet. However, you still identify with the Anglican church, which, to me, is contradictory to the claims that Jesus is more important than your specific church. Why do you identify with any church if all that matters is Jesus?

I think church is for the fellowship and community aspect. Mutual support and all that, and maybe sharing of ideas etc. But at the end of the day the teachings are the most important bit.
I can understand it myself though I'm on the lone route.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

I go to a church because going to a church is important. I wouldn't be contributing anything if I didn't take part in a Christian community of some form. Being a lone ranger Christian isn't really the best approach to living a Christian existence.

I dont think that really answers what I said. When I use the word associate, I mean that you label yourself as of a particular church, not just that you happen to go to one because you want to be part of any christian community.

Jakkass wrote: »

I go to a specific church for obvious reasons already outlined.

And you label yourself as being a member of that specific church, which supports the membership (power) priority of the church.

Jakkass wrote: »

Logical or not I wonder if it is not best suited to the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Please dont try to dismiss arguments you dont understand.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know how one could talk about political power unless one has sufficient access to a political machine.

They already have access, because of the culture in this country. Do you think many catholic churches had collection or election drives for specific fianna fail politicians coming up to the last (or any) election? And yet they still have a special place in fianna fails agenda.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure if churches can in fact speak on behalf of its members really. I'm not sure if the Archbishop of Canterbury can speak for all Anglicans, or if Pope Benedict can speak for all Catholics.

Churches can act as pseudo-interest groups, claiming that their flock hold to the religious dogma that the leaders teach and that this means that the leaders understand their values (because they tell their flock what their values should be). Just think about in terms of schools - the church claims that +90% of the population is catholic, therefore nearly all schools should be.

Jakkass wrote: »

In every conversation I get myself into, I describe myself as a Christian first. It is only when asked specifically as to what church I actually attend that I will say I go to an Anglican church. So I already do as I describe.

The only reason it is in this thread is because I wanted to give you an example of a church that you believe should be taxed.

The particular language you use doesn't help, saying that when "Push comes to shove, I identify as being a Christian far above church" and then saying that "I describe myself as a Christian first. It is only when asked specifically as to what church I actually attend that I will say I go to an Anglican church" just sounds like backtracking to try and escape a hole you dug.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

bluewolf wrote: »

I think church is for the fellowship and community aspect. Mutual support and all that, and maybe sharing of ideas etc. But at the end of the day the teachings are the most important bit.
I can understand it myself though I'm on the lone route.

None of this means that the church doesn't gain political power from having people label themselves as membersof that specific church. Just look at the catholic church, with its vast swathes of irish members who dont know or believe its core dogma yet still label themselves as catholic.

Mark Hamill

I'm religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Mark Hamill wrote: »

None of this means that the church doesn't gain political power from having people label themselves as membersof that specific church. Just look at the catholic church, with its vast swathes of irish members who dont know or believe its core dogma yet still label themselves as catholic.

Yeah I was kinda just jumping in at the end there.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont think that really answers what I said. When I use the word associate, I mean that you label yourself as of a particular church, not just that you happen to go to one because you want to be part of any christian community.

I've explained to you in my last post that I identify as a Christian first.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And you label yourself as being a member of that specific church, which supports the membership (power) priority of the church.

See above.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Please dont try to dismiss arguments you dont understand.

I understand it perfectly, it's a conspiracy theory.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They already have access, because of the culture in this country. Do you think many catholic churches had collection or election drives for specific fianna fail politicians coming up to the last (or any) election? And yet they still have a special place in fianna fails agenda.

I've explicitly told you how strongly I feel against this a few posts ago. I don't have any time for politicians who show up at church gates at election time or to collect money. I reckon the fault lies mostly with the politicians in respect to this. People show up at our church gates every so often with the same stuff but unfortunately people can't tell people not to be at a certain spot on the street if it is outside the church.

As for the RCC still having a special place in the Fianna Fáil agenda I don't really know tbh with you, but I agree with you on canvassing at churches. It shouldn't happen.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Churches can act as pseudo-interest groups, claiming that their flock hold to the religious dogma that the leaders teach and that this means that the leaders understand their values (because they tell their flock what their values should be). Just think about in terms of schools - the church claims that +90% of the population is catholic, therefore nearly all schools should be.

The RCC (as opposed to "the church") is wrong if it claims such (there is evidence to suggest that it doesn't particularly from statements made by Diarmuid Martin Archbishop of RCC Dublin diocese), empirically and anecdotally. Census figures even don't show this. Churches can act as interest groups in respect to giving a voice for the Christian message in society. I don't object to this at all. What I do object to is the notion that one church should be listened to just because they are that church.

Legislation should be determined on merit. In other posts I've made on this forum I have strongly said such. If a Muslim or Jewish politician has a brilliant idea for a law for this State motivated by his faith, if the idea abounds in merit and would make Ireland a better place I personally couldn't care where he got it from. Merit is the criteria for legislating.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The particular language you use doesn't help, saying that when "Push comes to shove, I identify as being a Christian far above church" and then saying that "I describe myself as a Christian first. It is only when asked specifically as to what church I actually attend that I will say I go to an Anglican church" just sounds like backtracking to try and escape a hole you dug.

Make what you like of it, I won't be squabbling over semantics with you.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained to you in my last post that I identify as a Christian first.

Which contradicts your post two or three back, where you said "Push comes to shove, I identify as being a Christian far above church".

Jakkass wrote: »

I understand it perfectly, it's a conspiracy theory.

Its a logical observation, many governments and organisations do things that their members or citizens dont like or even know about. The church is no different.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explicitly told you how strongly I feel against this a few posts ago. I don't have any time for politicians who show up at church gates at election time or to collect money. I reckon the fault lies mostly with the politicians in respect to this. People show up at our church gates every so often with the same stuff but unfortunately people can't tell people not to be at a certain spot on the street if it is outside the church.

As for the RCC still having a special place in the Fianna Fáil agenda I don't really know tbh with you, but I agree with you on canvassing at churches. It shouldn't happen.

Repeatedly pointing out your personal position on these issues just shows you aren't following my points. I'm talking about the church as an organisation, not the individual members. The catholic church as an organisation protected and enabled paedophile priests, but I sincerely doubt the vast majority of its members would have supported them if they knew.

Jakkass wrote: »

The RCC (as opposed to "the church") is wrong if it claims such (there is evidence to suggest that it doesn't particularly from statements made by Diarmuid Martin Archbishop of RCC Dublin diocese), empirically and anecdotally. Census figures even don't show this.

Census information from 2006 puts catholic % at about 85% so its not far off.

Jakkass wrote: »

Churches can act as interest groups in respect to giving a voice for the Christian message in society. I don't object to this at all. What I do object to is the notion that one church should be listened to just because they are that church.

Come on Jakkass, you're not an idiot, what exactly do you think I'm describing if not this? Do you think "giving the christian message in society" stops at the church doors?

Jakkass wrote: »

Legislation should be determined on merit. In other posts I've made on this forum I have strongly said such. If a Muslim or Jewish politician has a brilliant idea for a law for this State motivated by his faith, if the idea abounds in merit and would make Ireland a better place I personally couldn't care where he got it from. Merit is the criteria for legislating.

What should be isn't what is or what was, so thats largely irrelevant to the point at hand. I fail to see the merit in twice giving the draft of the constitution of Ireland to the vatican to review in the 30s, but that happened anyway.

Jakkass wrote: »

Make what you like of it, I won't be squabbling over semantics with you.

Its hardly semantics, its basic english.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which contradicts your post two or three back, where you said "Push comes to shove, I identify as being a Christian far above church".

I'm going to leave this here now I've clarified what I've meant.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its a logical observation, many governments and organisations do things that their members or citizens dont like or even know about. The church is no different.

Many churches are run on a democratic basis. This can be both a blessing and a curse at the same time. A blessing in that it allows people to have a say in their churches, and a curse in that it might cause the church to compromise on issues central to Christian faith.

As for churches which aren't I have no experience of these.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Repeatedly pointing out your personal position on these issues just shows you aren't following my points. I'm talking about the church as an organisation, not the individual members. The catholic church as an organisation protected and enabled paedophile priests, but I sincerely doubt the vast majority of its members would have supported them if they knew.

In all due fairness Mark, I'm not going to defend things that I clearly disagree with. I think what happened in terms of child abuse is abhorrent and I believe strongly that they should have been all brought through the courts and prosecuted. I don't care what holy book you follow we have laws for a reason. Nobody should get out of jail time. There is one law for one people in this country.

I agree with you, most wouldn't have supported it hence why I believe in transparency in churches. All of them.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Census information from 2006 puts catholic % at about 85% so its not far off.

There are still even at these dubious figures 15% of people who are non-Catholics that need to be facilitated in the education system. Or even Catholics who might want to bring their child to secular schools. I've acknowledged this for a long time. I just don't believe that we should get rid of all faith schools either.

I'm a Christian and yet I don't encourage domination in the education system. Is there something wrong with me that I don't have political aims in my faith? The only aim I have is for God to change peoples hearts.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Come on Jakkass, you're not an idiot, what exactly do you think I'm describing if not this? Do you think "giving the christian message in society" stops at the church doors?

I don't. I believe the whole world should get a chance to experience a relationship with Jesus. It would be selfish of me not to do this considering the profound significance and depth to existence I have found in Him.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What should be isn't what is or what was, so thats largely irrelevant to the point at hand. I fail to see the merit in twice giving the draft of the constitution of Ireland to the vatican to review in the 30s, but that happened anyway.

I agree with you that it is wrong. I don't see why the tenets of my faith would encourage me to do this. The State should stand on equity for all people, defending the rights of the weak, downtrodden and to try and create a fairer society by which all people can live in. I can see how my Christian faith would encourage me in that. Personally, I don't need a pat on the back from the State in order to be a Christian. What we all need is a society in which essential freedom exists.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its hardly semantics, its basic english.

Fair enough.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Bearing in mind that religion is now one of the largest industries in the USA, how do you think Jesus would view what's going on there?

Well I would say.

Jesus was supported by wealthy women during his period of evangelizing. He had "cured" them of disease evil spirits and they clearly felt compelled to support him financially.

Sound familiar :P

It is the modus operandi of modern cult leaders, who tend to be supported both financially and socially by their followers. Often the most dedicated who feel they owe the most to the cult leader give the most in order to support him, from giving over property and assets to giving him access to their financial accounts.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

In all due fairness Mark, I'm not going to defend things that I clearly disagree with. I think what happened in terms of child abuse is abhorrent and I believe strongly that they should have been all brought through the courts and prosecuted. I don't care what holy book you follow we have laws for a reason. Nobody should get out of jail time. There is one law for one people in this country.

I agree with you, most wouldn't have supported it hence why I believe in transparency in churches. All of them.

I'm not trying to get to you to defend these priests (not at all), I'm trying to get you to see that churches can act in their own interests, hidden from public view and contrary to what most if not all of what the general members would approve of.

Jakkass wrote: »

There are still even at these dubious figures 15% of people who are non-Catholics that need to be facilitated in the education system. Or even Catholics who might want to bring their child to secular schools. I've acknowledged this for a long time. I just don't believe that we should get rid of all faith schools either.

My point is that, right or wrong, the rcc will use these numbers to try to justify their control of schools.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm a Christian and yet I don't encourage domination in the education system. Is there something wrong with me that I don't have political aims in my faith? The only aim I have is for God to change peoples hearts.

You are an individual, not a church, your aims dont necessarily correspond with theirs, especially as you dont really identify as a member of any specific church.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't. I believe the whole world should get a chance to experience a relationship with Jesus. It would be selfish of me not to do this considering the profound significance and depth to existence I have found in Him.

And even thinking like that, do you not see how a church might use its membership numbers as a driving force to get its message into schools or into law, so that they can give people a chance to have more meaningful life than the one the materialistic lawmakers and educators have decreed? Even if you believe that they will always do it for the best of reasons, the church will unavoidably try to insinuate itself into the power base of a country.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not trying to get to you to defend these priests (not at all), I'm trying to get you to see that churches can act in their own interests, hidden from public view and contrary to what most if not all of what the general members would approve of.

Its possible as in any other organisation. I just don't agree with your assumption that this is necessarily true of all churches.

This is why many churches are run on a democratic basis, even if there are some flaws to this approach it is better than everything being done behind closed doors.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My point is that, right or wrong, the rcc will use these numbers to try to justify their control of schools.

From an external perspective and reading enough I think that the RCC heirarchy largely get it now. Particularly RCC Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin who has said that the RCC needs to reduce its share.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are an individual, not a church, your aims dont necessarily correspond with theirs, especially as you dont really identify as a member of any specific church.

See what I said at the start. I strongly disagree with your assumption that all churches are inherently secretive. It as I've said already borders on conspiracy theory.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And even thinking like that, do you not see how a church might use its membership numbers as a driving force to get its message into schools or into law, so that they can give people a chance to have more meaningful life than the one the materialistic lawmakers and educators have decreed? Even if you believe that they will always do it for the best of reasons, the church will unavoidably try to insinuate itself into the power base of a country.

I'm going to use the term "churches" as opposed to "the church" to save confusion.

A church may do this. What is the problem in your logic is that you are going from a church to all churches.

As I've said already, I have no problem with people putting forward legislation on the basis of their faith as long as merit is the criteria which determines what is good law and what is bad in the chamber. As I've said if there is something worthy in Torah law that can be demonstrated to be abundant in merit I don't see why we shouldn't explore it. Same with laws inspired by other religion and culture.