Fall of the Catholic Church
Comments
-
Its called Faith, house. We ( the faithful) don't need any further proof. That's a central tenet of the Christian faith, and I'm fine with that. Currently and especially since the Webb telescope became operational, the scientific world has been flooded with previous unknown information and there are plenty of scientific theory's around concerning all this new data. I'm sure that many scientists have their own theory's about specific parts of it . But presently they will remain theory's until they can be confirmed. But according to you, maybe this should all be discarded until of positive proof has been obtained?
0 -
I don't know, because it is a hypothetical question that doesn't have any relevance to me. I'd like to think I would be a good person, and hopefully most people would kindly think of me as such. But what people do or do not think of me is none of my business.
When I said I lost my faith, I didn't stop believing in God. I won't go in to the specifics. I was more non practising than not believing.
Wrt your final "point", i did not say that religion was the root cause of good deeds. One cannot be deduce that religion is the root cause of bad or evil deeds.
Sure, both religious people have said that religion has motivated them to do good.
But there are those who have no faith whatsoever, and have committed some of the most heinous crimes. What is the root cause of their evil deeds? If religion were the cause of all things evil how did these people do such horrors? Could it be, as you put it earlier, that they were "inherently" evil?
1 -
There is a fundamental difference between a religious belief which need never be supported by evidence and a scientific theory which is founded on evidence. Science works from evidence - which is used to inform a hypothesis - which can be tested (without the ability to test it cannot be anything but a hypothesis) - and if the hypothesis test is proven it becomes a theory. So a theory in science is as good as proven, but the door is always left open to the possibility that a better theory will replace it which better describes the evidence.
As you can see belief and scientific theory are not remotely comparable. It is the craving of the religious mind for absolute certainty that makes it such an inferior way of viewing the world. Certainty without evidence is error.
3 -
To be fair, that’s a fairly broad generalisation about both groups. I would suggest that reality is considerably more nuanced than your declaration. You give no indication what your belief is based upon, but if it were based upon your personal experience, I can certainly understand why you express your belief with such conviction. If it’s not based upon your personal experience, but on data you have exposed yourself to, then I would suggest the data you have exposed yourself to has been rather limited. It appears to ignore for example historic events like the Reformation, and proffers no explanation for the existence of the Abrahimic religions in the first place.
But to put it in it’s more modern context, I would suggest it appears you’re looking in all the wrong places, or, you’re looking in all the right places if your motivation is to find people just as ignorant as you are who appear to relish in their ignorance and condemnation of others who are their equal, but exact opposite. For example, when I suggest you’re looking in all the wrong places for people who wonder why it should be that anyone would read the same texts and come away with different conclusions, it shouldn’t be news to you that it’s likely they had different approaches to the same texts in the first place.
A good example of the phenomenon is the different approaches which were taken by Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter. I’m sure YouTube isn’t beyond your intellectual capacity and you can look up the ‘debate’ for yourself, but Christopher, an ardent critic of religion, presents a far more cogent criticism of religion than his brother presents a defence which appears to amount to not much more than “fcuk you Christopher, fcuk you!”, before turning on his heel and returning to his seat.
Or, you might not have considered the example of William Barr, US Attorney General during two Presidential terms, and his brother Stephen Barr, a particle physicist who has made considerable contributions to both modern physics, and religion. He wrote the book, so to speak. Not sure if you’re familiar with it -
Simply pointing to the sitting judges on the bench of the US Supreme Court would have been too easy as an example of people who can read the same texts and come to wildly different conclusions in their interpretations. Personally, I just don’t care much for getting into who can piss higher up the wall contests. I’m not 12. Your own mileage may vary, considerably.
Aye, that worked out well for the Jews when they thought putting him to death would silence Jesus. They only went and created a new religion* 😂
*This statement is historically inaccurate, it is a joke. The disclaimer is necessary for the kind of humourless idiot with a stick up their ass who is susceptible to ideas like thinking censorship of Monty Python’s Life of Brian was a good idea 🙄
I have no doubt Andrew you’re aware that your portrayal is wholly inaccurate. Be that as it may, I doubt you’re the least bit concerned about condemnation, or forgiveness, for committing what is regarded within Christian theology at least, a mortal sin. Islam and Judaism differ in their interpretations, but the effect is the same - to discourage adherents from interfering with themselves. It’s not the feature that’s problematic Andrew, it’s how you use it. Good luck to you trying to explain this to children in your sex education and religion classes -
https://ebible.com/questions/19501-what-was-onan-s-sin-genesis-38-8-10
If they’re anything like this guy, they’ll have forgotten all about it the next day -
https://www.thejournal.ie/pensioner-memory-loss-sex-wife-5774721-May2022/
2 -
I’m sure YouTube isn’t beyond your intellectual capacity
Is there really any need for that type of remark?
Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
2 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack - quote "But to put it in it’s more modern context, I would suggest it appears you’re looking in all the wrong places, or, you’re looking in all the right places if your motivation is to find people just as ignorant as you are who appear to relish in their ignorance and condemnation of others who are their equal, but exact opposite. For example..." quote.
A nice first post from you to me. Nice work.
Thanks but no thanks.
4 -
Indeed there was some confusion at the time as to what the actual act of "defection" meant in reality. It still remains true however that canon law was changed in 2009 to remove this formal act of defection all the same.
As for not knowing any club or sport that records who leaves.... I have been a member of a few such groups and they all know exactly who is a member, who was a member, and who and when terminated their membership. So I am not entirely sure I know what you mean here.
Ensuring the basic education needs of a child is met IS having business in education though. As I said before.... there is a difference between a discussion on whether we as a population/society/state can or should have our nose in how people bring up children.... and a discussion on where and what such interference should be. The fact that we DO do it however seems difficult to refute. The question of whether we SHOULD do it equally so. HOW and WHEN and WHERE we should do it.... that is at least something that seems worth discussing.
On a side note, it would be easier to reply to your posts if you used the QUOTE function correctly.
I am not sure how to explain things to others in a GENERAL way. It has to be contextual I think. For example in many discussions on religion I have had theists tell me that evidencing the existence of a god to a non believer is like evidencing the existence of color to a blind person. But actually I think that is a TERRIBLE analogy as I very much could evidence the existence of color to a blind person. They might never experience color like we sighted people do, but that does not mean I am incapable of providing to them evidence of it's existence all the same.
So the analogy hits my ear as a complete cop out. I am sorry if you can not fathom it but if you have an idea or concept and you can not evidence it then that's on you and no one else.
I note you use the word "prove" and claim falsely that I only believe things with "100% verifiable proof". I did not say that. At all.
You might note I rarely use that word "prove" myself in fact because it suggests you are being asked beyond any doubt at all to "prove" this god exists. That would be deeply unfair on you. Rather what I tend to ask if there is ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can show that even BEGINS to lend credibility to the idea that a non-human intelligent and intentional agent is responsible for the creation of our universe, or our place in it.
I am compelled to belief by evidence. I can not believe things entirely devoid of evidence. I can not "choose" what to believe to disbelieve. Beleif is something that HAPPENS to me in the face of evidence and I can no more resist it than I can resist gravity without the aid of technology. But at no point did I say this requires "100%" proof. It just requires that claims be at least SOMEWHAT substantiated. The issue is that the claim there is a got is not just badly substantiated.... it appears at this time to lack ANY substantiation, of any kind, at all, whatsoever. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nadda. Zip. Bugger all. Nought.
The passage you refer to from the New Testament is the antithesis to rationality however. It is merely an admonishment to "believe" without reason to believe. Which is precisely what you would include as a charlatan if you were writing a book designed to make people believe something that was simply made up. It is the same kind of manipulation used in any other charlatan 101 maneuver. For example if you read books on "The Secret".... basically this concept that if you envision success hard enough it will magically happen..... they include in it the caveat that if this does not work for you then you must simply not have believed hard enough. It is basically telling you that you are somehow "special" or "more special" than others if you simply turn your brain off and believe. It's a psychological manipulation move designed to stroke and stimulate the ego really.
Put another way, what the words you are attributing to Jesus fail to do is offer an algorithm to differentiate between what you should believe and what you should not. Mainly because he is saying that the people who believe HIM without evidence are "blessed". But functionality that is useless. Here in the real world there are any number of 1000s of claims people want us to believe without evidence. Many religions for a start. Many other claims and ideas and conspiracy theories and more too however. So what exactly would these words of Jesus mean? We should believe ALL of it?
No clearly not. What people, including your Jesus, mean when they come out with tripe lines like that is "Believe ME without question. Suspend your rational faculties for ME. But be skeptical of everything else of course".
I think that is a rather pedantic equivocation though. When I talk about society I mean the people, its representative government, the democratic process, our discourse between ourselves and that government.... the whole lot. And we as a society, as I said, can and do and should have an interest in how parents raise their children. And we can and do and should have ways to ensure parents can not simply raise children in ANY way they see fit, but must do so under certain clear and intelligent constraints. Some of which I have already listed and exampled.
So the interesting discussion for me is not whether we should as a society be able to stick our nose into such things. We already do. The discussion should be how far that goes or should go. You want to "limit" it as you said before. I would not phrase it that way myself but as I said I see it as saying the same thing with a different phrasing. Saying I want to "limit" it would sound like my agenda goes only one way. I think a better way to phrase it is to discuss as a society what our interventions can and should be, or not be. We should limit some things. We should extend others. And we should mediate this in an ongoing basis and not set in stone for all time.
The issue is that it is difficult to parse such claims without being able to run the counter factual on it. We are a species which has evolved a level of empathy and that shared human condition motivates many to do good. To want to alleviate the suffering of others and improve their lot where possible. And as you point out therefore, many people are motivated to good without any religion. And statistics back this up when we see that the more secular a country is, the higher it's per capita charity tends to be. And so on.
So the question becomes then.... are the people claiming religion motivated them to do good.... actually making the error of retrospectively parsing their actions and motivations through the religious narrative? Or for example has their upbringing been one where all discussion of doing good was had in a religious context and thus mentally the two have become an inseparable narrative, and they simply assume an association between their motivation to do good.... and whatever their religion of birth just happened to be?
It would seem an important and interesting question to explore, because if in fact religion is entirely superfluous to requirements to ACTUALLY motivate people to do good... who would likely have done their good works and deeds anyway even without religion.... then we have to deal with the fact that religion does positively cause harm and bad deeds, and can even derange into evil the purest of things like parental love. The example we had already yet again is those parents who watch their own children die, sometimes quite painfully, of relatively treatable and manageable medical conditions (like diabetes) solely because they think their god finds medical intervention sinful.
So there is a useful distinction to be made there between whether people THINK religion motivated them to do good.... and whether it actually in any way did. And I see no reason to think it ACTUALLY does in anything but a minority of people.
And as Leyroy essentially pointed out, it is also quite insulting to the people who actually do good. As if we are saying that.... were the existence of gods absolutely 100% proven to be false tomorrow and all religion is entirely false.... that these people would suddenly stop being good, charitable, wonderful people. I doubt that would happen to anything but, again, a minority of people. Most would shrug their shoulders I suspect, and continue on with their good works regardless because they actually believe it to be the right thing to do.
So when you say "the most important thing is good is done, wouldn't you agree?" Actually no I would not agree. I would need to look at the big picture and see at what cost is any actual "Good" coming at? If the "good" is happening anyway, with or without religion, then do we really need to pay the costs and harms that come with it?
Not your fault, as it's a failure in our education system that has existed for many years: But you massively understand science here in this post. EVERYTHING in science is essentially Theory. The word Theory is in fact the highest accolade a claim in science can get. The issue is the word "theory" (which I will distinguish by not using capital T) in the vernacular has a very different meaning to what it does in science.
So when you say things will "remain theories".... yes. Atomic Theory and Evolution Theory for example will ALWAYS be Theory. You will never, no matter how much evidence we ever find in support of them.... walk into a university and see the course on Atomic Theory renamed to Atomic Fact. It simply does not work that way.
The word you really need is "hypothesis". And yes you are right, unsubstantiated hypothesis is exactly that.... until evidence for the hypothesis is obtained. Their "hypothesis" should not be "discarded" until they are actively disproven (in science we do not so much show things to be true, so much as we fail to show them to be false) but they should be acknowledged as unsubstantiated musings all the same.
So to the god hypothesis. The existence of a god is an entirely valid and entirely interesting hypothesis to explain the existence of our universe and our place in it. As a hypothesis it should not be "discarded". At all. But it should be recognised that it is, at present, nothing more than an entirely unsubstantiated notion with absolutely zero current credibility or reason to believe it to be true.
That you somehow manage to believe it all the same, is just a quirk of the human psyche and evolution I guess.
6 -
What's inaccurate? It IS a mortal sin, so I will be condemned to hell, right?
Unless I play the 'Oh I'm terribly sorry' game before I go at it for one more guilt-ridden orgasm?
As for 'interfering' - really? An entirely natural human activity is 'interfering'? Why did your god give us a body where 'interfering' feels so damn good?
0 -
Make something which we all do a sin means that everyone exists in a state of low level stress. People who are stressed are more compliant and more likely to seek reassurance from authority figures.
Control is the name of the game
.
3 -
I'll make this very brief and to the point, Nozz. I believe, and that's because of how I see the world, and from personal experience. What I saw and experienced to confirm that belief, I don't have the words to explain, because maybe there are no words, and for sure none of the "Empirical proof" so much beloved and demanded by some posters here on this forum. But for sure its as real as the sky above for me. Now you and anyone else, can write ream and reams of print proving why there is no God. Just go right ahead. For something that ye claim does not exist, and therefore cannot possibly affect you, ye sure are putting enough effort into criticizing and denigrating the viewpoint of those who do believe.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Create a false problem (hell) then sell them a solution for that problem (Jesus)
Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
3 -
And, of course, market and collect the fees. Big business this religion. While pleading poverty to all that will listen. Zero accountability. It's criminal, but hey.
4 -
Yeah but if someone came up to you saying they believed in the Spaghetti Monster after a bad Bolognese experience you would say they have a mental illness.
What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?
2 -
We the jury have heard enough, M'lud, We find no need to examine both sides of the claim, we accept that the case is true as presented -we are fine with that, we relish it in fact.
Segue into science from nowhere and tell me that I maybe want theory's to be discarded until positive proof has been obtained - where in my posts have I ever suggested or implied that ?
0 -
Interesting letter from Peter Boylan in last Saturday's IT. Almost three years of the delay to the NMH project was caused by the nuns applying to the Vatican for approval to transfer ownership of St. Vincent's*. Shows you the power the Catholic Church still has in this country... why do our politicians still entertain this sort of complete bullshit carry-on?
- to a private company, controlled by directors nominated by the nuns, completely unaccountable to either Irish politicians or taxpayers.
Sir, – Stephen Collins is incorrect that delay in progressing the National Maternity Hospital move to Elm Park was "caused by claims that the hospital would be subject to dictates from the nuns who run St Vincent's Hospital" ("National Maternity Hospital decision is a welcome sign of the Government's backbone", Opinion & Analysis, May 20th).
The first delay was between November 2014 and November 2016 after St Vincent’s rejected the original plan of NMH co-location on its campus, insisting instead on full ownership of the new hospital.
Progress stalled for two years as two government-sponsored mediations between the hospitals failed, before NMH Master Dr Rhona Mahony and deputy chair Nicholas Kearns conceded in September 2016 to the third mediator, Kieran Mulvey, that, “We are willing to dissolve the [NMH] Charter and agree that the ownership of what is now the NMH will transfer to the ownership of SVHG, a private company owned by the Sisters of Charity.”
This concession formed the basis of the Mulvey report of November 2016, welcomed by then minister for health Simon Harris.
Five months later in April 2017, there was public uproar when it emerged that a Catholic religious order which had run Magdalene laundries would own the new NMH.
Mr Harris then asked the NMH and SVHG boards to enter a month-long negotiation process to agree a new ownership structure.
An apparent breakthrough came on May 29th when the Sisters of Charity announced they would transfer their shareholding in SVHG to a new private charity St Vincent’s Holdings (SVH). Simultaneously, however, SVHG chairman James Menton insisted the move would “only proceed on the basis of existing agreements that give ownership and control of the new hospital to St Vincent’s Healthcare Group”. SVH directors would be committed to “upholding the values and vision” of Mother Mary Aikenhead.
The Sisters’ shareholding transfer to SVH required three related steps: Vatican approval, registration with the Charities Regulator, and HSE approval (as SVHG is a Section 38 organisation).
Eighteen months later, however, a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Dublin confirmed in December 2018 that the Sisters had not commenced the Vatican approval process.
A further 15 months elapsed before Vatican approval – conditional on the observation of specified canon laws – was issued on March 16th, 2020, adding up to nearly three years of delay on the part of the Sisters of Charity and Rome.
Registration of SVH with the Charities Regulator was filed on August 18th, 2020.
A further delay of 19 months ensued during which the HSE board considered concerns about the ownership and governance arrangements raised by its audit and risk committee. Prof Deirdre Madden and Dr Sarah McLoughlin dissented from the board’s majority decision to grant approval eventually taken on March 14th, 2022.
The constitution of St Vincent’s Holdings was only then filed with the Companies Registration Office.
What has not delayed the process – but in my view should have – are the following: Government approval of the business case for the project (still under review after three previous rejections); the outcome of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s audit on spending on the project (commenced in August 2021); and scrutiny of the full correspondence between the Sisters of Charity and the Vatican on the terms and conditions for setting up St Vincent’s Holdings. – Yours, etc,
Dr PETER BOYLAN,
Dublin 6.
Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
3 -
If you knew that the procedure in Canon law was not a way to exit the Church, isn't it unethical to claim it was earlier? Christianity doesn't have have membership fees and you can't be documenting who is present and not present. So blatant dishonesty, as usual from secularists. The is a right to an education, but not right to a minimum level of attainment so the state only intervened in extreme cases if no education is provided..
0 -
The criminal enterprise known as the RCC clearly has deep tendrils into Irish state government. The lack of oversight when needed, and the endless delaying without consequences to the delayers are just so typical of anything that involves the RCC. Why hasn't the forensic excavation of Tuam started? Why does any legislation on behalf of adoptees or other victims of RCC abuse take geologic time to occur? Why is the HSE one of the more inept health services in Europe? Because the RCC pulls the strings. Never any consequences, and if there are, the RCC pays its fine and moves on to the next one.
There's plenty of RCC-owned land and facilities that can be reclaimed by the State and sold to help defray expenses and pay fines. The land itself could readily be used for housing, which is gravely needed in Ireland. Most of it is in town or city centres which are desirable places to live. The Churches that currently occupy it have desirable artifacts that can be sold off to the wealthy as an additional way for the state to gather funds. Then the Churches converted or simply replaced with social housing or other more permanent solutions. In the meanwhile, a quick conversion could be used to house refugees with the expenses billed to the Church. Just a win-win for the nation as a whole.
5 -
Why hasn't the forensic excavation of Tuam started, indeed?
It is a crime scene.
You'd thnk the Galway coroner would take an interest in human remains found in unexpected circumstances in his bailiwick? That's his JOB. No. No interest.
In Canada the recently discovered Catholic Church mass graves are rightly being treated as crime scenes and are being actively investigated.
In Ireland the politicians wring their hands and make the right noises and say isn't it awful and do NOTHING.
The only explanation can be that they are waiting for the last nun who could be criminally charged to die.
Fucking kip of a country.
Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
3 -
Well, in case you had any doubts about the criminal nature of the RCC, here's a 390 year old example of it's secretive nature. Fortunately a great talent shed some light on them. Obviously the RCC of the day couldn't have the hoi-polloi playing it's music. From god's mouth to the RCC's ears and it's pockets:
0 -
It's funny how the state can compulsory purchase property from Joe Schmoe for a new motorway but can't do it from a faceless religious order.
2 -
Advertisement
-
Joe Schmoe doesn't have lawyers or a tight grip on the government's balls.
Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
3 -
-
Surely anyone of the years where multiple children were raped was a bit sadder for the Church?
If anything the split was what saved christianity. Rather than people having to buy into a single view anybody could simply interpret it whatever way they liked. It meant that there is a home for everyone and prolonged the movement towards securialism.
4 -
Or when their bodies were tossed into a septic tank
2 -
CPO every church site in Dublin with the exception of 1 per postcode, and build high rise apartments. No height objections because the spire/steeple can be used as a height precedent. We'd have thousands of apartments built in urban areas where people are crying out to live. And the problem of too few priests wouldn't be as much of an issue with fewer churches to staff.
2 -
And however the State chooses which Church remains standing, it should be done in secret, in keeping with fine RCC tradition. No one needs to know, just move along...
0 -
Something tells me you’re overlooking the fact that the ‘P’ in CPO stands for ‘Purchase’, something which Government appear reluctant to do, even if it could be justified as being necessary for the public good, and there were no other alternatives available, AND, they could rewrite the Irish Constitution in accordance with your wishes.
That’s even before getting started on your idea for high rise accommodation which nobody apart from a few people who have no foresight whatsoever, and previously bankrupt developers who have done sweet deals with NAMA, actually wants -
https://www.thejournal.ie/johnny-ronan-tower-block-5443784-May2021/?amp=1
And all the children who are condemned to live in what will invariably become “Ballymun Mark II” shìtholes, will they be attending the surrounding schools leased by Government from the church too?
0 -
If jesus could turn water into wine then anything is possible
1 -
I wasn’t arguing as to whether it’s possible or not. Certainly it’s possible, it’s just an incredibly daft idea, for a whole host of legitimate reasons. Can’t even build a hospital in this country without it running into astronomical costs, but it’s possible.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I would consider large buildings in every town in Ireland sitting idle for 90% of the week to be a pretty daft use of valuable land
2
