atheism. what does it stand for? Biscuits, it seems!

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

People here do know that there is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism don't they?????

I think you missed the point of what I said. I'll try again:

Christianity caused the catholic and other christian churches to exist. Without christianity it's arguable that none of the dreadful things I mentioned would have existed.

The fact that christianity -- as understood interpreted by the catholic and other churches, and as understood and interpreted by catholics and other christians -- appears to support pretty much all of the offensive policies of the catholic and other churches makes christianity sufficiently offensive to me.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

People here do know that there is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism don't they?????

Stats suggest that the average atheist/agnostic understands religion significantly better than the average religious believer (and many would suggest that this is the reason why they're atheist or agnostic).

Catholicism is a subset of christianity
So yeah, problems carry over

Kiwi in IE

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I said there was nothing wrong with Christianity, did I say there was nothing wrong with the Catholic church? All those things people have listed are got to do with the RCC.

People here do know that there is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism don't they?????

Ummmm, Catholicism is a branch of Christianity! As is Baptist, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Adventist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Evangelical etc, etc.

There is no 'difference' between Catholicism and Christianity. Catholicism is part of Christianity. There are differences however, between Catholicism and Anglicanism and Catholicism and Evangelicalism, but they are all Christian denominations.

tricky D

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Did anyone mention Walkers Shortbread Highlanders? Hand-rolled in Demerara sugar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIfOjkB17BA

Kiwi in IE

Random and off topic but does anyone else like Greenday? Their music is great and their politics are sound. Probably my favourite band since Guns n' Roses from my teen years. I've loved them for years but never seen them live. Thinking of going to Sweden at the end of June as they aren't coming here and I never been to Sweden. What type of biscuits do they have in Sweden?

PopePalpatine

Nah, Muse is where it's at.

legspin

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Random and off topic but does anyone else like Greenday? Their music is great and their politics are sound.?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK9R3hvWfhU

From about 25 seconds to about 1.20

Dades

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Random and off topic but does anyone else like Greenday? Their music is great and their politics are sound. Probably my favourite band since Guns n' Roses from my teen years. I've loved them for years but never seen them live. Thinking of going to Sweden at the end of June as they aren't coming here and I never been to Sweden. What type of biscuits do they have in Sweden?

Yes!

Big Green Day fan! Afraid to see anyone live since I saw the Chillis last year for the first time and was terribly disappointed. I love the Chillis - ask Galvasean - he's heard me drunkenly harp on about them.

In other news you can't beat a chocolate finger. :pac:

Kivaro

Dades wrote: »

In other news you can't beat a chocolate finger. :pac:

:eek:
Please!
There may be Christians present.

endacl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Random and off topic but does anyone else like Greenday? Their music is great and their politics are sound. Probably my favourite band since Guns n' Roses from my teen years. I've loved them for years but never seen them live. Thinking of going to Sweden at the end of June as they aren't coming here and I never been to Sweden. What type of biscuits do they have in Sweden?

I like S.L.F. They come to Ireland. Doesn't take them long! The money you'll save by checking out S.L.F., switching allegiance, and skipping flights and accomodation in Norway could be used to import odd kiwi baked goods?

Edit: missed legspin's apposite post. Seriously. Check them out.

Kiwi in IE

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Nah, Muse is where it's at.

Muse are brilliant. Saw them at the Big Day Out in 2007. They were amazing live.

Dades wrote: »

Yes!

Big Green Day fan! Afraid to see anyone live since I saw the Chillis last year for the first time and was terribly disappointed. I love the Chillis - ask Galvasean - he's heard me drunkenly harp on about them.

In other news you can't beat a chocolate finger. :pac:

Really? The Chillis were disappointing? I saw them about 10 years ago when they came to Christchurch and they were awesome back then. The only concert that I have ever been disappointed with was the current version of Gn'R, but I don't think that is an unusual experience.

I have a live recording of American Idiot and I like it better than the studio one. Greenday and Coldplay are my top two bands to see live that I havn't seen yet.

legspin wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK9R3hvWfhU

From about 25 seconds to about 1.20

endacl wrote: »

I like S.L.F. They come to Ireland. Doesn't take them long! The money you'll save by checking out S.L.F., switching allegiance, and skipping flights and accomodation in Norway could be used to import odd kiwi baked goods?

Edit: missed legspin's apposite post. Seriously. Check them out.

Thanks guys. I like what I hear so far! Had never heard of these guys.

Blah! Kiwi store bought biscuits are slightly better than the ones you get here but they're not that great. I prefer Greenday even to Mallowpuffs.

Kidchameleon

Some of.the responses here are absolutly unreal. Im in shock. Posters in here are normally better than that.

Its christianitys fault that the catholic church exists?

Suppose FIFA were found out having covered up child abuse by coaches. Having people killed, all covered up. Sepp Blatter knew all about it and did nothing. Would that be soccers fault?

I realize the above sounds rediculuous but thats what people are essentially saying here! Or have I got it wrong? Sombody maybe could explain it to me...

Fifa is to soccer what the rcc is to christianity.

Again, serious cases of head in the sand on display here.

Bannasidhe

You seem to have missed the point kid.

You said:

Kidchameleon wrote: »

People here do know that there is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism don't they?????

To which people responded by pointing out that as Roman Catholicism is a Christian denomination it is in fact very much Christian.

To these you have replied:

[QUOTE=Kidchameleon;84573064

Its christianitys fault that the catholic church exists?


[/QUOTE]

Well - yes. It is actually.

No Christianity = No Roman Catholicism.

Kiwi in IE

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Some of.the responses here are absolutly unreal. Im in shock. Posters in here are normally better than that.

Its christianitys fault that the catholic church exists?

Suppose FIFA were found out having covered up child abuse by coaches. Having people killed, all covered up. Sepp Blatter knew all about it and did nothing. Would that be soccers fault?

I realize the above sounds rediculuous but thats what people are essentially saying here! Or have I got it wrong? Sombody maybe could explain it to me...

Fifa is to soccer what the rcc is to christianity.

Again, serious cases of head in the sand on display here.

I am having difficulty grasping what on earth you are on about!

People who responded to you were pointing out the FACT that Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. Do you deny this? The responses were to you asking do we not know the difference between Christianity and Catholicism. There is no difference. There are differences between different branches of Christianity sure, no one is denying that. But Catholicism is a subset of Christianity, not different from it.

Sarky

I'm surprised one of Actor's alt accounts hasn't yet popped over to explain rudely that Catholicism IS Christianity and everything else is a subset of THAT.

But yeah, KidChameleon's posts are already shot to pieces, so there's probably no need. Maybe now he can back up his claim about posters here ramming their beliefs and ideals down the throats of others in a militant fashion? Or did he withdraw his claim and I didn't see it?

Pherekydes

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am having difficulty grasping what on earth you are on about!

+1.

I was thinking I was the only one.

Kidchameleon

Sarky wrote: »

I'm surprised one of Actor's alt accounts hasn't yet popped over to explain rudely that Catholicism IS Christianity and everything else is a subset of THAT.

But yeah, KidChameleon's posts are already shot to pieces, so there's probably no need. Maybe now he can back up his claim about posters here ramming their beliefs and ideals down the throats of others in a militant fashion? Or did he withdraw his claim and I didn't see it?

Could you provide links that confirm that.

Kidchameleon

Pherekydes wrote: »

+1.

I was thinking I was the only one.

As I said, heads in sand.

Mickeroo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Could you provide links that confirm that.

Did you read the whole sentence or just the three words you put in bold?

Pherekydes

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As I said, heads in sand.

Your FIFA analogy seems to imply that the RCC iis the 'World Governing Body' for Christianity, but that clearly isn't the case. Just ask Ian Paisley, or any Protestant.

So, pull your head out of the sand and start thinking more clearly.

oldrnwisr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

But oldrnwisr, Christianity is harmless, its what the Catholic church does with it is where the harm comes in. Can you link me to any evidence that show Christianity itself is any harm?

Evidence? Certainly.

There are two aspects to this issue. Firstly, there are the actual teachings of Jesus and the Bible and how those are not harmless ideas. Secondly, there are the actions of various Christian denominations justified using biblical teachings and how these cause harm to society.

OK, first there are the teachings of the bible. The first thing that I should point out is that as much as some Christians like to pretend that they are not bound by the old testament in any way, well it's just not true. This deceitful attempt to escape the obvious brutality of the frontier law morality of the Old Testament is directly and indirectly contradicted by Jesus.

In Matthew 5:19, Jesus explicitly states that the commandments (all 613 of them) must still be obeyed:

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus reinforces this idea with reference to specific commandments in other parts of the gospel such as Mark 7:10 and Matthew 5:28.

Now, there are the teachings of Jesus himself. I have already explained to you in this post that Jesus' teachings are not harmless. But just to recap:

• Jesus preaches that those who do not believe him should/will be killed (Matthew 10:14-15, Luke 19:11-27)
• Jesus promotes blind faith and admonishes those who seek proof (John 20:29, Matthew 16:4)
• Jesus' objective is not to unite people but to divide them (Matthew 10:34-37, Matthew 12:30)
• Jesus instructs his disciples to become submissive and utterly dependent in order to follow him (Luke 14:25-26, Matthew 8:21-22)
• Jesus prescribes infinite punishment for finite crimes, a far more inhuman suffering than anything described in the Old Testament (Matthew 13:40-42, Matthew 25:46)
• Jesus teaches that not only will physical acts be punished but thought crimes too (Matthew 5:28)

And that's just the teachings of Jesus. Let's not forget that what Christians consider to be holy scripture and thus authoritative teachings contain more than just the biography of Jesus. So when we look at these works we see:

• The subjugation of women and their relegation to second-class citizens (1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Corinthians 14:33, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1-2)
• Slavery is endorsed (1 Timothy 6:1-2, 1 Peter 2:18, Titus 2:9-10)
• The death penalty for homosexuality is endorsed (Romans 1:24-32)

So, that's the teachings of Christianity for you. As for the Old Testament, as I pointed out earlier, Christians are directed by Jesus to observe the commandments, which aren't exactly laudable teachings either what with the death penalty for pretty much everything. However, even those who are held up as exemplars of moral virtue by those of Jesus' generation are much less so, what with Moses sanctioning child molestation in Numbers 31 and Lot (described in the Bible as the only righteous man in Sodom) handing his own daughters over to be gang-raped and beaten in Genesis 19. I don't think I need to go into the details of the brutality of the Old Testament but we can if you want.


That just leaves the problem of the application of the teachings.


The first and most repugnant aspect of this is the Christian opposition to homosexuality. In so far as there are some Christian denominations who don't oppose homosexuality, there are a preponderence who do and in some cases, this can lead to some really abhorrent situations such as the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda, (something which can't be blamed on the catholics since David Bahati, founder of the bill is an evangelical Christian).


Let's not forget either about slavery. As I pointed out above, slavery is not just sanctioned in the Old Testament but also in several places in the New Testament. Ultimately such teachings were used to justify opposition to abolitionism in the United States, with confederate president Jefferson Davis stating:


"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts"


Oh, and while we're on the subject of slavery, it should be pointed out that the Catholic Church in "In Supremo Apostolatus" in 1839 became one of the first Christian denominations to officially condemn slavery, so it's not a case of RCC universally bad and Christianity universally good.


Of course, slavery continued to exist in America as institutional racism, which was again defended using Christian teachings. In the landmark anti-miscegenation case Loving v. Virginia, the argument against interracial marriage is thusly proposed:


"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."


As with the other issues here, the opposition to women's suffrage was defended using New Testament passages. Early anti-suffrage activists such as Francis Parkman and Almira Seymour referenced the New Testament to defend their opposition to suffrage. In fact, one unnamed US senator once went so far as to declare: "Our ribs were not ordained to be our rulers."


In summary, Christian teachings contain some truly repugnant stuff and these have been used throughout the course of history to justify inhuman behaviour against mankind by many Christian individuals and denominations. The only way you could possibly end up with the notion that Christianity is harmless is by cherry-picking the New Testament, picking passages just to suit a picture of Jesus that you want to present. Yes, Jesus did attempt to reign in the barbarism of the old testament, but that doesn't mean we should be blind to the darker portions of Jesus' character. To argue that Christianity is harmless in spite of the textual evidence to the contrary shows some remarkable confirmation bias and an appeal to biased sample.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

But oldrnwisr, Christianity is harmless, its what the Catholic church does with it is where the harm comes in. Can you link me to any evidence that show Christianity itself is any harm?

It really depends what you mean by "Christianity". You seem to have split it into two camps. Catholicism... and Christianity. The distinction is useless given the former is just one expression of the latter. However worth bearing in mind is the fact that your second category is itself split into well over 33,000 sects, cults, branches and more. Many of them quite harmful. While the irreconcilable differences between them can be harmful too.

For me I think the more divorced a world view is from reality the more potential for harm there actually is. The discussion between "X is harmful" and "The potential of harm from X is high" is subtle but important. Quite clearly there are many people who are Christian who ever suffer from any of this potential "harm" and in fact may even report real benefits from their delusions.

So it is a hard question to answer until you really make clear what you mean by "Harm" and by "Christianity".

kiffer

Yeah but no true biscuit could ever choke a child.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Maybe now he can back up his claim about posters here ramming their beliefs and ideals down the throats of others in a militant fashion? Or did he withdraw his claim and I didn't see it?

Kidchameleon withdrew his claim by default, having failed to defend it in any meaningful way.

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

Kidchameleon withdrew his claim by default, having failed to defend it in any meaningful way.

I can talk for myself rob thanks

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I can talk for myself rob thanks

You can indeed

But do remember you were asked to substantiate your claim and you didn't. That means your claim lapses. Unless you'd like to substantiate it now?

achtungbarry

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I can talk for myself rob thanks

See oldrnwisr's post above for an excellent example of how to back up a claim with evidence.

By the way, do you accept that the Catholic religion is a subset of Christianity?

old hippy

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Just kidding. I love a bit of shortbread too.

Also I would eat that whole Jaffa Cake cake on my own and not even be ashamed.

As the Jaffa orange comes from Israel, I'd feel conflicted and guilty about enjoying one of them.

Bannasidhe

kiffer wrote: »

Yeah but no true biscuit could ever choke a child.

If it was a legitimate choking the child's body would expel the biscuit.

old hippy wrote: »

As the Jaffa orange comes from Israel, I'd feel conflicted and guilty about enjoying one of them.

Excellent - now I can claim I am boycotting them rather than become embroiled in discussion of how I think they taste like cheap marmalade on a cardboard base.

krudler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If it was a legitimate choking the child's body would expel the biscuit.

The body just shuts that down

Lingua Franca

old hippy wrote: »

As the Jaffa orange comes from Israel, I'd feel conflicted and guilty about enjoying one of them.

Well, I can't get Jaffa Cakes here so I'm going to have a go at making that cake on my own, guilt-free.

Kidchameleon

achtungbarry wrote: »

do you accept that the Catholic religion is a subset of Christianity?

Yep

achtungbarry

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yep

So just so I have this right.

Christianity is not harmful.

The Catholic religion which is a subset of Christianity is harmful though.

Have I got this right?

If so, how can one claim that Christianity is not harmful when one accepts that one of its largest subsets is harmful?

Mickeroo

Supervalu own brand Jaffa Cakes > Mcvities/Jacobs

*runs away*

Knasher

*chases after Mickeroo with a pitchfork*

Tordelback

old hippy wrote: »

As the Jaffa orange comes from Israel...

Not Chulak, then?

Turtwig

Tordelback wrote: »

Not Chulak, then?

Indeed.

mohawk

Mickeroo wrote: »

Supervalu own brand Jaffa Cakes > Mcvities/Jacobs

*runs away*

They are actually really nice :eek:

endacl

mohawk wrote: »

They are actually really nice :eek:

You think you know somebody...

Kiwi in IE

Sarky wrote: »

But yeah, KidChameleon's posts are already shot to pieces, so there's probably no need. Maybe now he can back up his claim about posters here ramming their beliefs and ideals down the throats of others in a militant fashion? Or did he withdraw his claim and I didn't see it?

I love it when religious people make these claims! It is so hilariously ironic, yet most of them don't have a scrap of insight into the irony.

Kidchameleon

Sarky wrote: »

ramming their beliefs and ideals down the throats of others in a militant fashion? Or did he withdraw his claim and I didn't see it?

Sarky perhaps you should read the thread before you comment in future. I had already retracted the comment you refer to in this post.

EDIT: Also its rude and undiplomatic to refer to someone in the third person, if you have a question for me then you can ask me. Some of us have lives and cant be at the computer 24/7 but I will get back to you. You've been on boards long enough, you know what a PM is I assume?

endacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Sarky perhaps you should read the thread before you comment in future.

Maybe you should? Biscuits?

Kidchameleon

achtungbarry wrote: »

So just so I have this right.

Christianity is not harmful.

The Catholic religion which is a subset of Christianity is harmful though.

Have I got this right?

If so, how can one claim that Christianity is not harmful when one accepts that one of its largest subsets is harmful?

Yes you have that right.

It is possible in life to have something that in itself is not harmful yet human nature will twist it and mold it in ways that it could be harmful. Like the way the Catholic church has molded Christianity to suit their agenda. I'm not sure Jesus said it was ok to cover up child abuse. I'm not sure Jesus said priests couldn't marry. I'd bet he didn't say these things. In fact, Catholicism has been chopped and changed over the century's that its very very far from the original teachings of Christ. So while it is a "subset" of Christianity, it doesn't mean Christianity is bad. Catholicism is bad.

Lets look at another example. Take pornography. Now my opinion of pornography is that its ok. I don't personally like it but I'm ok with it and if someone likes it then that's fine with me. Doesn't do any harm. Porn has many subsets, POV, hardcore, anal etc etc... But then we have another subset that is harmful, called kiddie porn. Now that is harmful for obvious reasons. Does it make porn as a whole bad? No, not in my opinion, just certain people had twisted it to suit their own agenda.

oldrnwisr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It is possible in life to have something that in itself is not harmful yet human nature will twist it and mold it in ways that it could be harmful. Like the way the Catholic church has molded Christianity to suit their agenda. I'm not sure Jesus said it was ok to cover up child abuse. I'm not sure Jesus said priests couldn't marry. I'd bet he didn't say these things. In fact, Catholicism has been chopped and changed over the century's that its very very far from the original teachings of Christ. So while it is a "subset" of Christianity, it doesn't mean Christianity is bad. Catholicism is bad.

OK, there's one or two more points I want to make here.

First of all, regarding priestly celibacy, as an example, Jesus comments in Matthew 19:11-12

"Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

The bolded section, particularly the reference to kingdom of heaven is considered a further reference to Numbers 1:48-53 (not really a persuasive argument IMO) and the conditions for priesthood.

So, from a Catholic perspective (and despite the fact that celibacy didn't really become a tradition until the 4th century and contrary scripture such as 1 Timothy 3:2) there is biblical justification for priestly celibacy.

So the question really becomes who do you want to interpret the bible for you. There is the Roman/Orthodox Catholic view which has an apostolic tradtion (i.e. the church interprets the bible for you) and the, for want of a better description, sole scriptura view where it's just you and the bible. Now as much as the apostolic tradition may lead to a set of rules further and further removed from the Bible, it does have the effect of moderating the more crazy behaviour of other non-catholic christians. For example, creationism (which I and many others consider to be dangerous and harmful) is a largely Protestant domain, and then you have the real crazy groups like the Church of God with Signs Following, a branch of Pentecostals who handle snakes and drink poison. The catholic church may have twisted the bible to suit their agenda but then so do most christians. That's what you get when you build your life on one vague, internally contradictory and irrelevant book of anonymous and forged writings. Is it any wonder that there are over 33,000 christian denominations each splintering in different directions?

Now, as for the highlighted portion of your comment above. I'd love to know how you can determine what Jesus would or would not have said. As I said in my previous post, you seem to have this image of Jesus in your head which is based on a narrow, restrictive view of the New Testament. There is a larger problem than that though. As I have said on more than one occasion, the idea that we really could have any clue what the character of Jesus is actually like is, quite frankly, ludicrous. The majority of the information about Jesus in the New Testament comes from the Gospels and the Pauline epistles. Paul was a man who never met Jesus, spent two weeks with Peter and once said hello to James in passing. The gospels were all written decades after the events they claim to depict and are full of contradictions, inaccuracies and stories borrowed from earlier traditions. Despite the claims in the gospels of Jesus' fame spreading far and wide we have no extra-biblical contempraneous accounts of Jesus and the extra-biblical sources we do have are just as far removed as the gospels and limited in detail. How can you have any idea what Jesus would or would not have said?

The only way in which we can judge the harm effected by Christianity is by examining the teachings of it and how those teachings end up affecting society and as I have shown, there's quite a lot of harm indeed.

achtungbarry

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Lets look at another example. Take pornography. Now my opinion of pornography is that its ok. I don't personally like it but I'm ok with it and if someone likes it then that's fine with me. Doesn't do any harm. Porn has many subsets, POV, hardcore, anal etc etc... But then we have another subset that is harmful, called kiddie porn. Now that is harmful for obvious reasons. Does it make porn as a whole bad? No, not in my opinion, just certain people had twisted it to suit their own agenda.

That is one bizarre and frankly disturbing analogy.

I really do not know what to say to that.

Kidchameleon

achtungbarry wrote: »

That is one bizarre and frankly disturbing analogy.

I really do not know what to say to that.

Any more bizarre than the churches child abuse?

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Any more bizarre than the churches child abuse?

Clergy abusing children is not confined to Catholicism...
In fact clerics* abusing children isn't even confined to Christianity...






*broadly defined to include rabbis, imans etc

Kidchameleon

Good post oldrnwisr, I respect your interpretation. Well what harm is celibacy anyway? I think alot of people blame it on child abuse but of course that's ridiculous. Do you think Jesus said anywhere in the bible that its ok to abuse children and cover it up?

Its also worth noting that its believed there were many more gospels in the early days of the church which were ordered to be destroyed by Pope Damasus. One can only wonder why he wanted these destroyed but I can imagine there was content there that he didn't want the followers to know to suit what ever agenda he had.

Kidchameleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Clergy abusing children is not confined to Catholicism...
In fact clerics* abusing children isn't even confined to Christianity...






*broadly defined to include rabbis, imans etc

Swimming teachers, school teachers, parents, neighbors, uncles, mothers, fathers

Doctor Strange

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Good post oldrnwisr, I respect your interpretation. Well what harm is celibacy anyway?

From a biologist(-in-training)'s point of view, you're denying someone the most natural of instincts, and that is not going to breed (hur-hur) a healthy mental environment.