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

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.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

the INTO may claim many things but I have never heard them claim to be the moral authority and God's representatives on Earth - ditto for organisations in which represent the others you mentioned so I think that is a crap analogy tbh.

Aldi have a special on Fox's biscuit selection at the mo - their jammy dodgers are lovely.

Kidchameleon

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

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.

Could you point me towards any literature / websites that shows a link between celibacy and pedophilia?

Kidchameleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

the INTO may claim many things but I have never heard them claim to be the moral authority and God's representatives on Earth - ditto for organisations in which represent the others you mentioned so I think that is a crap analogy tbh.

Aldi have a special on Fox's biscuit selection at the mo - their jammy dodgers are lovely.

Where did I say the INTO or any other organizations were the moral authority of God? And what relevance is it anyway? I was merely expanding your point of abuse not being exclusive to Catholicism, indeed its not exclusive to organized religion. Unfortunately its rampant in society in general.

endacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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.

Well...... Apart from the passive objectification of the participants, which of course does no harm in and of itself (the harm already having been done, and the participation only being an acting out of that harm...)....

We've gotten very good at legitimizing porn, in a very post-moderny way. As a matter of fact, I've no huge issue either with people being into it. I certainly can't help raising an eyebrow though, at its having become culturally OK.

If you're genuinely interested, Masud Khan has written well on the subject. An exceptionally odd, and in some ways a despicable character, but his ideas on this topic are thought provoking.

Turtwig

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

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.

I don't like this line of reasoning. Even if something is instinctual there is no real reason to suppose that instinct should be adhered to (or ignored). It's a variant of the naturalistic fallacy in my eyes.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Do you think Jesus said anywhere in the bible that its ok to abuse children and cover it up?

Jesus provided a message of some kind. It was amplified, interpreted and changed to the point it's at now, at which we have little or no reliable idea of what it was to start with.

Whatever it was then, and whatever it is now, Jesus' message does legitimize a broad range of antisocial tendencies that certain people exhibit or can take advantage of -- most notably the view that the message and the belief are more important than anything else, and therefore, that any action -- including by implication, the covering up of child abuse to protect the authority of the church -- is of lesser importance.

That's why christianity is dangerous -- it's the pious, treacherous illusion of absolute knowledge.

endacl

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

Thought you broadly included rabbits there. Whoops...

Doctor Strange

Jernal wrote: »

I don't like this line of reasoning. Even if something is instinctual there is no real reason to suppose that instinct should be adhered to (or ignored). It's a variant of the naturalistic fallacy in my eyes.

Good point. I can't brain very well today =L

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

Jesus provided a message of some kind. It was amplified, interpreted and changed to the point it's at now, at which we have little or no reliable idea of what it was to start with.

Whatever it was then, and whatever it is now, Jesus' message does legitimize a broad range of antisocial tendencies that certain people exhibit or can take advantage of -- most notably the view that the message and the belief are more important than anything else, and therefore, that any action -- including by implication, the covering up of child abuse to protect the authority of the church -- is of lesser importance.

That's why christianity is dangerous -- it's the pious, treacherous illusion of absolute knowledge.

Again, somebody's interpretation is bad, probably not the original message itself. It would be wrong to assume that Christ's original message legitimized child abuse without any solid evidence to back it up. Certainly the Catholic church is red handed on this one.

achtungbarry

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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.

This is some serious mental gymnastics. there is simply no logic to what you are saying.

Seeing as we are going with bizarre analogies..... and biscuits.

If I were to claim: "Biscuits are not harmful to a person's health"

Then I admit: "Well chocolate biscuits which are a subset of biscuits are bad for a person's health"

Can I still claim that: "biscuits are not harmful to health" ?

The answer is no.

Just replace biscuits with Christianity and chocolate biscuits with Catholicism*




*If only the reverse was true.