Putting aside any belief in God one may hold - with the recent revelations of clerical abuse, the fact that nearly every war was fought over Religion and the fact that people are today killing in the name of one God or another, what do people think of Religion in the world? Are we better human beings because of these institutions telling us what to think, what is right and wrong, how to live our lives to enjoy eternal salvation!! Personally I think most are interested only in there own earthly salvation which parishioners or their flock help make very comfortable due to their voluntary work and monetary donations, they also have shown time and time again that they are a haven for very sick and perverted individuals, whether their perversion is child abuse, terrorism or whatever and in most cases these unregulated institutions are beyond reproach.
I would not for one second doubt that many people in many religions are very decent individuals who are "doing God's" work, but if there is a God and you believe that is so; why do you have to be part of some institution to worship him, surely you will be judged on how you lived your life, how you helped others, how you treated people with respect and kindness. Surely it will not be on how many times you went to mass, going off sweets for lent, bombing people from different religions, inciting hatred to people of different colours and creeds because they don't accept your version what is essentially in all religions a good story!
I think you need to have, both a personal relationship with Jesus and also belong to a wider faith community, and enjoy the fellowship of others. The two complement each other.
The problems are invariably caused by fundamentalists and remember we are all human, no one's perfect etc
Not even you Tony? My world is shattered. :)
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 03:07:15 PM
Putting aside any belief in God one may hold - with the recent revelations of clerical abuse, the fact that nearly every war was fought over Religion and the fact that people are today killing in the name of one God or another, what do people think of Religion in the world? Are we better human beings because of these institutions telling us what to think, what is right and wrong, how to live our lives to enjoy eternal salvation!! Personally I think most are interested only in there own earthly salvation which parishioners or their flock help make very comfortable due to their voluntary work and monetary donations, they also have shown time and time again that they are a haven for very sick and perverted individuals, whether their perversion is child abuse, terrorism or whatever and in most cases these unregulated institutions are beyond reproach.
I would not for one second doubt that many people in many religions are very decent individuals who are "doing God's" work, but if there is a God and you believe that is so; why do you have to be part of some institution to worship him, surely you will be judged on how you lived your life, how you helped others, how you treated people with respect and kindness. Surely it will not be on how many times you went to mass, going off sweets for lent, bombing people from different religions, inciting hatred to people of different colours and creeds because they don't accept your version what is essentially in all religions a good story!
What you said in Bold would be my opinion too. Mass religion is a scourge in the world and I can't understand why people can't take a step back and think about whether it is Jesus/God they worship or the Pope/Bishop or Priest. I think this is even more surprising when you consider what the catholic church in this country has done of late re child abuse how there are a core element that will defend it to the ends of the earth.
The core element will defend the Church but not errant priests/bishops etc. There is a difference.
As I said previously there is a need for a personal relationship, but membership of a wider communion can help that personal relationship, through fellowship, communal worship and reminder of true theology etc, otherwise left to one's own devices you can go off the straight and narrow
Quote from: T Fearon on March 03, 2010, 04:52:37 PM
The core element will defend the Church but not errant priests/bishops etc. There is a difference.
As I said previously there is a need for a personal relationship, but membership of a wider communion can help that personal relationship, through fellowship, communal worship and reminder of true theology etc, otherwise left to one's own devices you can go off the straight and narrow
Oh Good Lord, I find myself agreeing with Tony. I feel sick :(
Quote from: ziggysego on March 03, 2010, 04:55:23 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 03, 2010, 04:52:37 PM
The core element will defend the Church but not errant priests/bishops etc. There is a difference.
As I said previously there is a need for a personal relationship, but membership of a wider communion can help that personal relationship, through fellowship, communal worship and reminder of true theology etc, otherwise left to one's own devices you can go off the straight and narrow
Oh Good Lord, I find myself agreeing with Tony. I feel sick :(
I'm sorry Ziggy but if you agree with Tony then I totally disagree with you. Tony has just pretty much demonstrated exactly what is wrong with people today. The catholic church has pedalled the notion that it is "errant priests/bishops" that are the problem and people who want to believe that, in the direct opposition to all the evidence, will believe it. That is what is wrong and all you have to do is read the Murphy report and you'll see clearly the cover ups that went on right all the way to the top. The institution of the catholic church covered up the rape of children and continues to act like it was something small. Even the papal nuncio wouldn't cooperate with a commission in the country to which he is an ambassador. Anyone willing to accept the "couple of errant Priests" line
is the core of people I spoke about above.
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 03:07:15 PM
the fact that nearly every war was fought over Religion and the fact that people are today killing in the name of one God or another, what do people think of Religion in the world?
Keeps the poulation down.!
Anyone who believes most wars are fought over reliigon are more a part of the problem than they are the solution.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 03, 2010, 05:02:33 PM
The catholic church has pedalled the notion that it is "errant priests/bishops" that are the problem and people who want to believe that, in the direct opposition to all the evidence, will believe it. That is what is wrong and all you have to do is read the Murphy report and you'll see clearly the cover ups that went on right all the way to the top. The institution of the catholic church covered up the rape of children and continues to act like it was something small. Even the papal nuncio wouldn't cooperate with a commission in the country to which he is an ambassador. Anyone willing to accept the "couple of errant Priests" line is the core of people I spoke about above.
As did the state as did many influential Irish people and organisations at the time.
This didn't only go right to the top of the Church this was a part of Irish life through church, state, home and school life. However, the church and the state were best placed to stop it and didn't.
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 05:15:34 PM
Anyone who believes most wars are fought over reliigon are more a part of the problem than they are the solution.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 03, 2010, 05:02:33 PM
The catholic church has pedalled the notion that it is "errant priests/bishops" that are the problem and people who want to believe that, in the direct opposition to all the evidence, will believe it. That is what is wrong and all you have to do is read the Murphy report and you'll see clearly the cover ups that went on right all the way to the top. The institution of the catholic church covered up the rape of children and continues to act like it was something small. Even the papal nuncio wouldn't cooperate with a commission in the country to which he is an ambassador. Anyone willing to accept the "couple of errant Priests" line is the core of people I spoke about above.
As did the state as did many influential Irish people and organisations at the time.
This didn't only go right to the top of the Church this was a part of Irish life through church, state, home and school life. However, the church and the state were best placed to stop it and didn't.
Do you have any evidence that the notion of widespread child abuse within the catholic church was reported to say TD's or An Taoiseach? Granted individual Gardai did not act, mainly as they saw the bishop as a higher authority than the state. Where the state failed is they allowed a situation to exist where the catholic church wielded more power than they did.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 03, 2010, 04:52:37 PM
The core element will defend the Church but not errant priests/bishops etc. There is a difference.
Surely it was the church as an institution that allowed certain priests to continue to work in positions with access to children though?
Why would anyone defend such an institution?
I don't. I never mentioned TD's.
The Catholic Church and the State tweedledum and tweedledee.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 03, 2010, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 05:15:34 PM
Anyone who believes most wars are fought over reliigon are more a part of the problem than they are the solution.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 03, 2010, 05:02:33 PM
The catholic church has pedalled the notion that it is "errant priests/bishops" that are the problem and people who want to believe that, in the direct opposition to all the evidence, will believe it. That is what is wrong and all you have to do is read the Murphy report and you'll see clearly the cover ups that went on right all the way to the top. The institution of the catholic church covered up the rape of children and continues to act like it was something small. Even the papal nuncio wouldn't cooperate with a commission in the country to which he is an ambassador. Anyone willing to accept the "couple of errant Priests" line is the core of people I spoke about above.
As did the state as did many influential Irish people and organisations at the time.
This didn't only go right to the top of the Church this was a part of Irish life through church, state, home and school life. However, the church and the state were best placed to stop it and didn't.
Do you have any evidence that the notion of widespread child abuse within the catholic church was reported to say TD's or An Taoiseach? Granted individual Gardai did not act, mainly as they saw the bishop as a higher authority than the state. Where the state failed is they allowed a situation to exist where the catholic church wielded more power than they did.
the state was at least and bad and imo worse than the church, all the reports allude to the fact that the state knew what was going on in the various church run institutions, but the state seemed to think that it was good enough for working class children.
Quote from: Bogball XV on March 03, 2010, 06:09:15 PM
the state was at least and bad and imo worse than the church, all the reports allude to the fact that the state knew what was going on in the various church run institutions, but the state seemed to think that it was good enough for working class children.
I don't think they were worse or better. To put it in today's context I suppose you could compare the set up to the relationship the state, the builders and the banks have now. They are different but not really.
I suppose you could add to that that we always knew there was something very wrong going on in those sectors.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 03, 2010, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 03:07:15 PM
Putting aside any belief in God one may hold - with the recent revelations of clerical abuse, the fact that nearly every war was fought over Religion and the fact that people are today killing in the name of one God or another, what do people think of Religion in the world? Are we better human beings because of these institutions telling us what to think, what is right and wrong, how to live our lives to enjoy eternal salvation!! Personally I think most are interested only in there own earthly salvation which parishioners or their flock help make very comfortable due to their voluntary work and monetary donations, they also have shown time and time again that they are a haven for very sick and perverted individuals, whether their perversion is child abuse, terrorism or whatever and in most cases these unregulated institutions are beyond reproach.
I would not for one second doubt that many people in many religions are very decent individuals who are "doing God's" work, but if there is a God and you believe that is so; why do you have to be part of some institution to worship him, surely you will be judged on how you lived your life, how you helped others, how you treated people with respect and kindness. Surely it will not be on how many times you went to mass, going off sweets for lent, bombing people from different religions, inciting hatred to people of different colours and creeds because they don't accept your version what is essentially in all religions a good story!
What you said in Bold would be my opinion too. Mass religion is a scourge in the world and I can't understand why people can't take a step back and think about whether it is Jesus/God they worship or the Pope/Bishop or Priest. I think this is even more surprising when you consider what the catholic church in this country has done of late re child abuse how there are a core element that will defend it to the ends of the earth.
+1, so far it seems the justification for the church on this thread boils down to some people can't trust themselves 'to be left to their own devices' to do the right thing in the first place and need to be kept on the 'straight and narrow'. Is the church some sort of counselling service for sociopaths ???
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 05:15:34 PM
Anyone who believes most wars are fought over reliigon are more a part of the problem than they are the solution.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 03, 2010, 05:02:33 PM
The catholic church has pedalled the notion that it is "errant priests/bishops" that are the problem and people who want to believe that, in the direct opposition to all the evidence, will believe it. That is what is wrong and all you have to do is read the Murphy report and you'll see clearly the cover ups that went on right all the way to the top. The institution of the catholic church covered up the rape of children and continues to act like it was something small. Even the papal nuncio wouldn't cooperate with a commission in the country to which he is an ambassador. Anyone willing to accept the "couple of errant Priests" line is the core of people I spoke about above.
As did the state as did many influential Irish people and organisations at the time.
This didn't only go right to the top of the Church this was a part of Irish life through church, state, home and school life. However, the church and the state were best placed to stop it and didn't.
Is your list of wars limited to the 20th/21st Century? ::) Quick google ...
1 Christianity
1.1 Crusades
1.2 French Wars of Religion
1.3 Thirty Years War
1.4 Taiping Rebellion
2 Islam
2.1 Second Sudanese Civil War
3 Hinduism
3.1 Indian Rebellion of 1857
4 Taoism/Daoism
4.1 Yellow Scarves Rebellion
4.2 Five Pecks of Rice Rebellion
5 Buddhism
5.1 White Lotus Rebellion
5.2 Sri Lankan Civil War
6 Judaism
6.1 Jewish-Roman Wars
7 Sikhism
7.1 Sikh uprising (1982-91)
8 Saxon Wars
Quote from: Bogball XV on March 03, 2010, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 03, 2010, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 05:15:34 PM
Anyone who believes most wars are fought over reliigon are more a part of the problem than they are the solution.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 03, 2010, 05:02:33 PM
The catholic church has pedalled the notion that it is "errant priests/bishops" that are the problem and people who want to believe that, in the direct opposition to all the evidence, will believe it. That is what is wrong and all you have to do is read the Murphy report and you'll see clearly the cover ups that went on right all the way to the top. The institution of the catholic church covered up the rape of children and continues to act like it was something small. Even the papal nuncio wouldn't cooperate with a commission in the country to which he is an ambassador. Anyone willing to accept the "couple of errant Priests" line is the core of people I spoke about above.
As did the state as did many influential Irish people and organisations at the time.
This didn't only go right to the top of the Church this was a part of Irish life through church, state, home and school life. However, the church and the state were best placed to stop it and didn't.
Do you have any evidence that the notion of widespread child abuse within the catholic church was reported to say TD's or An Taoiseach? Granted individual Gardai did not act, mainly as they saw the bishop as a higher authority than the state. Where the state failed is they allowed a situation to exist where the catholic church wielded more power than they did.
the state was at least and bad and imo worse than the church, all the reports allude to the fact that the state knew what was going on in the various church run institutions, but the state seemed to think that it was good enough for working class children.
Well thats not how the victims group see it and I would agree with them. While the state has to take a proportion of the blame the primary blame must be with the institution that inflicted the abuse, allowed the abusers to exist within their organisation, protected abusers and covered up all attempts to find out what went on. I would also ask to what level the state knew what was going. A couple of 'holy joe' cops keeping stum to keep the bishop happy is one thing but are you saying that at a high level within the state they knew what went on and did nothing?
WRT the original posters question, I am a practising Catholic and I think religions are a force for good in the world
If Armagh had my soul, I'd need a regular good cleansing too.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 07:28:12 PM
WRT the original posters question, I am a practising Catholic and I think religions are a force for good in the world
In what way? Surely they merely cause mistrust of other religions, they instil values they perceive to be correct, it's now ok (i.e. you won't burn in hell NOT to observe holy days in the catholic church, it is now ok to eat meat on a Friday - such silly ideas, now people who commit suicide are allowed to have a proper burial, that's nice of them) The catholic religion like all religions is fraught with inconsistencies, why does someone have to have a religion to believe in God, if going to Mass and listening to a nice story written by people at least 2 generations after Jesus was alive, and then edited many times is comforting to you then fair play, but if there is a higher power I'd rather converse alone to him/her and let my life be judged by my actions and not my parish dues!
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 07:45:29 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 07:28:12 PM
WRT the original posters question, I am a practising Catholic and I think religions are a force for good in the world
In what way? Surely they merely cause mistrust of other religions, they instil values they perceive to be correct, it's now ok (i.e. you won't burn in hell NOT to observe holy days in the catholic church, it is now ok to eat meat on a Friday - such silly ideas, now people who commit suicide are allowed to have a proper burial, that's nice of them) The catholic religion like all religions is fraught with inconsistencies, why does someone have to have a religion to believe in God, if going to Mass and listening to a nice story written by people at least 2 generations after Jesus was alive, and then edited many times is comforting to you then fair play, but if there is a higher power I'd rather converse alone to him/her and let my life be judged by my actions and not my parish dues!
Are you changing the question now? If you are, I am done, I have answered your original question by saying I think religions are a force for good and I think it's obvious enough how.
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 06:53:02 PM
Is your list of wars limited to the 20th/21st Century? ::) Quick google ...
Eh?
QuoteWell thats not how the victims group see it and I would agree with them. While the state has to take a proportion of the blame the primary blame must be with the institution that inflicted the abuse, allowed the abusers to exist within their organisation, protected abusers and covered up all attempts to find out what went on. I would also ask to what level the state knew what was going. A couple of 'holy joe' cops keeping stum to keep the bishop happy is one thing but are you saying that at a high level within the state they knew what went on and did nothing?
I agree completely that the church are primary to blame and should accept that.
I don't discount responibility of others in this though too. There are members of the churh and a members of the state that failed miserab and sometimes intetentionally in this. We can't turn around after all this and say this state are not responible.
Just like we can't turnaround in 30 years time when the planet is destroyed and say to our kids we are innocent of global warming. I know it's happening but I'm doing nothing about it. Others are trying to do something about it but are largley being ignored.
CashFor Gold, when you reach a proper understanding of what constitutes a Church, then you will be qualified to express an opinion, until then you would be better advised to display a little humility and not be making a holy show of your ignorance
Quote from: T Fearon on March 03, 2010, 03:39:25 PM
The problems are invariably caused by fundamentalists and remember we are all human, no one's perfect etc
What's wrong with fundamentalism? I don't fear fundamentalist Mormons or Jehovah Witness or the crazy but harmless 7th day avangelist from work. I wouldn't have much peace if I ran eeverytime I seen him with a rucksack.
The problem is abuse of religon.
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 06:53:02 PM
Is your list of wars limited to the 20th/21st Century? ::) Quick google ...
1 Christianity
1.1 Crusades
1.2 French Wars of Religion
1.3 Thirty Years War
1.4 Taiping Rebellion
2 Islam
2.1 Second Sudanese Civil War
3 Hinduism
3.1 Indian Rebellion of 1857
4 Taoism/Daoism
4.1 Yellow Scarves Rebellion
4.2 Five Pecks of Rice Rebellion
5 Buddhism
5.1 White Lotus Rebellion
5.2 Sri Lankan Civil War
6 Judaism
6.1 Jewish-Roman Wars
7 Sikhism
7.1 Sikh uprising (1982-91)
8 Saxon Wars
I see now. You came up with some names. I don't know them wars.
The main case for war has never changed. An the two major tools of war are still effective today namely, religon and patriotism/nationalism.
What you're saying is like saying the internet is the main cause of porn. Google that and prove me wrong.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 03, 2010, 06:55:25 PMI would also ask to what level the state knew what was going. A couple of 'holy joe' cops keeping stum to keep the bishop happy is one thing but are you saying that at a high level within the state they knew what went on and did nothing?
i'm not saying anything, I don't have the time to research anything to back up what I wrote, but, yes, I thought it was generally accepted that everyone had a fair idea of what went on, they may not have known the extent of the sexual abuse, but they certainly knew about the physical abuse, sure wasn't it common practice in manys a good home too? Times were different and it's easy for us to look back and judge, zap has a great analogy with the global warming tbh.
As for wars being started because of religion, maybe, but mostly wars are started by people's lust for power, they may use tools such as religion and patriotism to whip the people into a frenzy and support the war, but there's normally an ulterior motive somewhere. It's like lazy people saying the north's conflicts were (are) the catholics and prods fighting each other.
Leonard Cohen has often said that you should never attack organised religion because it's all that gets some people through the night. This is a transcription of an interview he did with RTÉ twelve years ago: http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/rte.html
QuoteI don't want ever to set myself up as an enemy of organised religion because those churches, those mosque, those synagogues, they give comfort and solace to millions and millions of people, and real comfort and real solace, so I don't think it serves anything or anybody to become an enemy of organised religion. Organised religion on the inside is very tender to its members. On the outside it tends to be antagonistic to the other organised religions. They tend on the inside to act like family, on the outside they tend to act like states, and they're continually putting themselves in an abrasive positions in regard to one another. That, I think, is deeply sinful.
I like Lenny.
Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on March 03, 2010, 09:13:33 PM
Leonard Cohen has often said that you should never attack organised religion because it's all that gets some people through the night. This is a transcription of an interview he did with RTÉ twelve years ago: http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/rte.html
QuoteI don't want ever to set myself up as an enemy of organised religion because those churches, those mosque, those synagogues, they give comfort and solace to millions and millions of people, and real comfort and real solace, so I don't think it serves anything or anybody to become an enemy of organised religion. Organised religion on the inside is very tender to its members. On the outside it tends to be antagonistic to the other organised religions. They tend on the inside to act like family, on the outside they tend to act like states, and they're continually putting themselves in an abrasive positions in regard to one another. That, I think, is deeply sinful.
I like Lenny.
I suppose that is a fair point but what I am driving at is why is it such a help to people when surely dealing directly with God would be a greater help. Personally, I could never belong to any organisation be it a church or the boy scouts etc that would harbour paedos or hinder investigations into them. For me that is totally unacceptable no matter what "good" is on the other side of the scale.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 07:49:48 PM
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 07:45:29 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 07:28:12 PM
WRT the original posters question, I am a practising Catholic and I think religions are a force for good in the world
In what way? Surely they merely cause mistrust of other religions, they instil values they perceive to be correct, it's now ok (i.e. you won't burn in hell NOT to observe holy days in the catholic church, it is now ok to eat meat on a Friday - such silly ideas, now people who commit suicide are allowed to have a proper burial, that's nice of them) The catholic religion like all religions is fraught with inconsistencies, why does someone have to have a religion to believe in God, if going to Mass and listening to a nice story written by people at least 2 generations after Jesus was alive, and then edited many times is comforting to you then fair play, but if there is a higher power I'd rather converse alone to him/her and let my life be judged by my actions and not my parish dues!
Are you changing the question now? If you are, I am done, I have answered your original question by saying I think religions are a force for good and I think it's obvious enough how.
How is it obvious - you have yet to offer any explanation?
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 08:11:07 PM
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 06:53:02 PM
Is your list of wars limited to the 20th/21st Century? ::) Quick google ...
1 Christianity
1.1 Crusades
1.2 French Wars of Religion
1.3 Thirty Years War
1.4 Taiping Rebellion
2 Islam
2.1 Second Sudanese Civil War
3 Hinduism
3.1 Indian Rebellion of 1857
4 Taoism/Daoism
4.1 Yellow Scarves Rebellion
4.2 Five Pecks of Rice Rebellion
5 Buddhism
5.1 White Lotus Rebellion
5.2 Sri Lankan Civil War
6 Judaism
6.1 Jewish-Roman Wars
7 Sikhism
7.1 Sikh uprising (1982-91)
8 Saxon Wars
I see now. You came up with some names. I don't know them wars.
The main case for war has never changed. An the two major tools of war are still effective today namely, religon and patriotism/nationalism.
What you're saying is like saying the internet is the main cause of porn. Google that and prove me wrong.
What wars do you know - Iraq, WW1, WW11? :o
Quote from: Pangurban on March 03, 2010, 07:59:07 PM
CashFor Gold, when you reach a proper understanding of what constitutes a Church, then you will be qualified to express an opinion, until then you would be better advised to display a little humility and not be making a holy show of your ignorance
What in your opinion constitutes a "Church"; someone else deciding how YOU can worship a God no one for certain knows exists?
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 10:14:24 PM
What wars do you know - Iraq, WW1, WW11? :o
Great debate.
How about you pick a war and explain how it was about religon and I'll try to counter it? Pick a few if you want.
You don't need religion to know the difference between right and wrong, just ask a five year old. If there is a God and there is such a thing as heaven I can't see how he/she would care how many Hail Marys you said during your life or how many times you went to mass or whether you went off sugar in your tea for lent.
Religion has been hijacked so many times as an excuse for conflict. Cromwell's wars where as much about getting hold of the vast lands that the monasteries owned as it was about religious conviction. The Salem which trials about the transfer of land and power as any hysteria over some women acting a bit strange. The same thing is happening now with the war on terror/good versus evil it's just an excuse for some people to get rich. Not really much to do with religion.
Quote from: Maiden1 on March 03, 2010, 11:27:41 PM
You don't need religion to know the difference between right and wrong, just ask a five year old. If there is a God and there is such a thing as heaven I can't see how he/she would care how many Hail Marys you said during your life or how many times you went to mass or whether you went off sugar in your tea for lent.
Religion has been hijacked so many times as an excuse for conflict. Cromwell's wars where as much about getting hold of the vast lands that the monasteries owned as it was about religious conviction. The Salem which trials about the transfer of land and power as any hysteria over some women acting a bit strange. The same thing is happening now with the war on terror/good versus evil it's just an excuse for some people to get rich. Not really much to do with religion.
Good post but please stick to last 100 years for certain posters!!!!
You brought up the last 100 years not me.
I agree with maiden. Religon is abused and used as a weapon and always has been.
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 11:31:46 PM
I agree with maiden. Religon is abused and used as a weapon and always has been.
So has Technology - do we abandon that too.
Just because some people choose to abuse it doesn't mean its wrong in concept.
I don't understand why so many people are intent on attacking those of us that have a faith in God and express that through a Church. Where is the let bygones be bygones attitude that is granted towards everyone else?
Kind of a double standard from all those who are first to defend minority groups and anyone oppressed......
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 11:31:46 PM
I agree with maiden. Religon is abused and used as a weapon and always has been.
So has Technology - do we abandon that too.
Just because some people choose to abuse it doesn't mean its wrong in concept.
I don't understand why so many people are intent on attacking those of us that have a faith in God and express that through a Church. Where is the let bygones be bygones attitude that is granted towards everyone else?
Kind of a double standard from all those who are first to defend minority groups and anyone oppressed......
I don't know were you include me in that but just to point out - I believe religon is a good thing.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 11:31:46 PM
I agree with maiden. Religon is abused and used as a weapon and always has been.
So has Technology - do we abandon that too.
Just because some people choose to abuse it doesn't mean its wrong in concept.
I don't understand why so many people are intent on attacking those of us that have a faith in God and express that through a Church. Where is the let bygones be bygones attitude that is granted towards everyone else?
Kind of a double standard from all those who are first to defend minority groups and anyone oppressed......
Double standards abound on here don't you know
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 05:23:47 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 11:31:46 PM
I agree with maiden. Religon is abused and used as a weapon and always has been.
So has Technology - do we abandon that too.
Just because some people choose to abuse it doesn't mean its wrong in concept.
I don't understand why so many people are intent on attacking those of us that have a faith in God and express that through a Church. Where is the let bygones be bygones attitude that is granted towards everyone else?
Kind of a double standard from all those who are first to defend minority groups and anyone oppressed......
Double standards abound on here don't you know
They certainly do. ::)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 05:23:47 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 11:31:46 PM
I agree with maiden. Religon is abused and used as a weapon and always has been.
So has Technology - do we abandon that too.
Just because some people choose to abuse it doesn't mean its wrong in concept.
I don't understand why so many people are intent on attacking those of us that have a faith in God and express that through a Church. Where is the let bygones be bygones attitude that is granted towards everyone else?
Kind of a double standard from all those who are first to defend minority groups and anyone oppressed......
Double standards abound on here don't you know
Again, is my (out of context) quote being used as an example here ???
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 11:31:46 PM
I agree with maiden. Religon is abused and used as a weapon and always has been.
So has Technology - do we abandon that too.
Just because some people choose to abuse it doesn't mean its wrong in concept.
I don't understand why so many people are intent on attacking those of us that have a faith in God and express that through a Church. Where is the let bygones be bygones attitude that is granted towards everyone else?
Kind of a double standard from all those who are first to defend minority groups and anyone oppressed......
Any chance you could stop playing the victim. The thread posed a question about why people feel the need to worship within an institution as opposed to worship god directly. It is a fair question and I don't see how exactly is that attacking you? Are we not entitled to discuss this, after all the day of the priests castigating people for speaking out of turn is long gone thankfully. Are you so afraid to answer the question posed that you resort to playing the victim?
I personally don't understand your need to worship within a church, especially now that the truth of their dire acts is known. But at the end of the day I have many family and friends that are just like you and I'm not going to start discriminating against them (which ironically is the complete opposite of what people in the churches did to people like me back in the good old days).
Quote from: Zapatista on March 04, 2010, 05:57:19 PM
Again, is my (out of context) quote being used as an example here ???
No
the general tone of this thread and several others is more what prompted me to make the comment - sorry for quoting you originally.
I don't go in for all the Sunday 'see and be seen' business. But I like to go to the chapel when it's quiet, or for a weekday Mass when there's some sense of a small community. The institution puts me off, but the silence, and the spirituality can be a great comforter through times of sadness or depression.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 04, 2010, 07:16:58 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 11:31:46 PM
I agree with maiden. Religon is abused and used as a weapon and always has been.
So has Technology - do we abandon that too.
Just because some people choose to abuse it doesn't mean its wrong in concept.
I don't understand why so many people are intent on attacking those of us that have a faith in God and express that through a Church. Where is the let bygones be bygones attitude that is granted towards everyone else?
Kind of a double standard from all those who are first to defend minority groups and anyone oppressed......
Any chance you could stop playing the victim. The thread posed a question about why people feel the need to worship within an institution as opposed to worship god directly. It is a fair question and I don't see how exactly is that attacking you? Are we not entitled to discuss this, after all the day of the priests castigating people for speaking out of turn is long gone thankfully. Are you so afraid to answer the question posed that you resort to playing the victim?
I personally don't understand your need to worship within a church, especially now that the truth of their dire acts is known. But at the end of the day I have many family and friends that are just like you and I'm not going to start discriminating against them (which ironically is the complete opposite of what people in the churches did to people like me back in the good old days).
How can you rubbish my opinion and then play the victim card yourself?
You don't make sense. From other threads you make your opinions very known and you claim that other people's opinions count but you do everything to convince and argue otherwise. If you only wanted opinions you wouldn't have a retort to them. If you'd like to debate on it then man up and say so.
You personally don't need to understand my need to worship within a Church - that's the thing. You need to personally understand your own relationship with Jesus and based on His instructions that were passed on to us through the Bible and the Traditions of the Church hope you are doing what He recommended to do.
Maybe Heaven isn't your goal - but it is mine. If there is a handbook and best practice guide to get there then I'll use it rather than putting things together myself and hoping I didn't forget to use 4 of the screws.
What harm am I doing in going to Mass? What harm am i doing in saying a few prayers? What harm am I doing in believing that Jesus died for my sins and yours and that eternal life in Heaven is only through Jesus?
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
If I have it wrong - then no harm done.
If you got it wrong - hope you packed the ice.
How can you rubbish my opinion and then play the victim card yourself? - where did I do that. Until this post you didn't offer an opinion.
You don't make sense. From other threads you make your opinions very known and you claim that other people's opinions count but you do everything to convince and argue otherwise. If you only wanted opinions you wouldn't have a retort to them. If you'd like to debate on it then man up and say so. - Eh, this is a web forum, debate is the name of the game. You state yours, I state mine and we argue over them. But maybe somewhere in the middle one of us might make the other think about something in a different way.
You personally don't need to understand my need to worship within a Church - that's the thing. You need to personally understand your own relationship with Jesus and based on His instructions that were passed on to us through the Bible and the Traditions of the Church hope you are doing what He recommended to do. - Are you preaching to me? Sounds like you are afraid to put the reasons you worship within a church up here to me.
Maybe Heaven isn't your goal - but it is mine. If there is a handbook and best practice guide to get there then I'll use it rather than putting things together myself and hoping I didn't forget to use 4 of the screws. - But are you not then at the mercy, say of someone who might wish to mis represent something in the bible for their own selfish reasons. For example, it is now fairly well accepted that Mary Madelene was portrayed as a whore when the bible was changed by senior church officials 100's of years after jesus dies when in fact she was most likely one of his most important disciples. Are you not concerned that even now the pope is using the bible to keep the catholic church powerful ahead of helping you get to heaven - just a thought.
What harm am I doing in going to Mass? What harm am i doing in saying a few prayers? What harm am I doing in believing that Jesus died for my sins and yours and that eternal life in Heaven is only through Jesus? - None, who said you were.
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong? - I have questioned the need of people to be christian within a church or mass religion, I have not questioned or challenged christian belief. You either believe christ was the son of god and the saviour or you don't, there isn't much to argue about either way.
If I have it wrong - then no harm done.
If you got it wrong - hope you packed the ice. - You don't have an idea how I live my life bud, but I guarantee you this, there are plenty of people at mass every day of the week that are scum of the earth just as much as there are very good people that never stepped foot in a church.
I like your little line by line game. Can I play?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 04, 2010, 08:42:34 PM
How can you rubbish my opinion and then play the victim card yourself? - where did I do that. Until this post you didn't offer an opinion.
You don't make sense. From other threads you make your opinions very known and you claim that other people's opinions count but you do everything to convince and argue otherwise. If you only wanted opinions you wouldn't have a retort to them. If you'd like to debate on it then man up and say so. - Eh, this is a web forum, debate is the name of the game. You state yours, I state mine and we argue over them. But maybe somewhere in the middle one of us might make the other think about something in a different way.
Why do we have to argue? can we just not discuss? You make posts and state opinions to stir up shite in fairness.
You personally don't need to understand my need to worship within a Church - that's the thing. You need to personally understand your own relationship with Jesus and based on His instructions that were passed on to us through the Bible and the Traditions of the Church hope you are doing what He recommended to do. - Are you preaching to me? Sounds like you are afraid to put the reasons you worship within a church up here to me.
Funny if you look below in my next paragraph you'll see one of the reasons. There is no fear involved - this is a discussion forum - remember? Why would i be afraid of posting my opinions? I've said before the beauty of a forum is we can choose to reply or not. If there is room for discussion I like to contribute. Your posts often leave no room for anyone's opinion but yours.....
Maybe Heaven isn't your goal - but it is mine. If there is a handbook and best practice guide to get there then I'll use it rather than putting things together myself and hoping I didn't forget to use 4 of the screws. - But are you not then at the mercy, say of someone who might wish to mis represent something in the bible for their own selfish reasons. For example, it is now fairly well accepted that Mary Madelene was portrayed as a whore when the bible was changed by senior church officials 100's of years after jesus dies when in fact she was most likely one of his most important disciples. Are you not concerned that even now the pope is using the bible to keep the catholic church powerful ahead of helping you get to heaven - just a thought.
Watching Tom Hanks in the Da Vinci Code is not a great source....... Try reading the Bible, praying, doing works of charity and welcoming Jesus into your own heart and then make your own decision bud.
What harm am I doing in going to Mass? What harm am i doing in saying a few prayers? What harm am I doing in believing that Jesus died for my sins and yours and that eternal life in Heaven is only through Jesus? - None, who said you were.
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong? - I have questioned the need of people to be christian within a church or mass religion, I have not questioned or challenged christian belief. You either believe christ was the son of god and the saviour or you don't, there isn't much to argue about either way.
Christian belief is Church. Questioning Church questions Christian belief.
If I have it wrong - then no harm done.
If you got it wrong - hope you packed the ice. - You don't have an idea how I live my life bud, but I guarantee you this, there are plenty of people at mass every day of the week that are scum of the earth just as much as there are very good people that never stepped foot in a church.
I agree there will be lots of "holy" people in Hell but there will also be a lot of good people in hell too. Being a good person doesn't warrant heaven. If it did Jesus never would have walked on the Earth, Jesus never would have died for our sins and the Church would never have been instituted......
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 08:55:10 PM
I like your little line by line game. Can I play?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 04, 2010, 08:42:34 PM
How can you rubbish my opinion and then play the victim card yourself? - where did I do that. Until this post you didn't offer an opinion.
You don't make sense. From other threads you make your opinions very known and you claim that other people's opinions count but you do everything to convince and argue otherwise. If you only wanted opinions you wouldn't have a retort to them. If you'd like to debate on it then man up and say so. - Eh, this is a web forum, debate is the name of the game. You state yours, I state mine and we argue over them. But maybe somewhere in the middle one of us might make the other think about something in a different way.
Why do we have to argue? can we just not discuss? You make posts and state opinions to stir up shite in fairness.
You personally don't need to understand my need to worship within a Church - that's the thing. You need to personally understand your own relationship with Jesus and based on His instructions that were passed on to us through the Bible and the Traditions of the Church hope you are doing what He recommended to do. - Are you preaching to me? Sounds like you are afraid to put the reasons you worship within a church up here to me.
Funny if you look below in my next paragraph you'll see one of the reasons. There is no fear involved - this is a discussion forum - remember? Why would i be afraid of posting my opinions? I've said before the beauty of a forum is we can choose to reply or not. If there is room for discussion I like to contribute. Your posts often leave no room for anyone's opinion but yours.....
Maybe Heaven isn't your goal - but it is mine. If there is a handbook and best practice guide to get there then I'll use it rather than putting things together myself and hoping I didn't forget to use 4 of the screws. - But are you not then at the mercy, say of someone who might wish to mis represent something in the bible for their own selfish reasons. For example, it is now fairly well accepted that Mary Madelene was portrayed as a whore when the bible was changed by senior church officials 100's of years after jesus dies when in fact she was most likely one of his most important disciples. Are you not concerned that even now the pope is using the bible to keep the catholic church powerful ahead of helping you get to heaven - just a thought.
Watching Tom Hanks in the Da Vinci Code is not a great source....... Try reading the Bible, praying, doing works of charity and welcoming Jesus into your own heart and then make your own decision bud.
What harm am I doing in going to Mass? What harm am i doing in saying a few prayers? What harm am I doing in believing that Jesus died for my sins and yours and that eternal life in Heaven is only through Jesus? - None, who said you were.
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong? - I have questioned the need of people to be christian within a church or mass religion, I have not questioned or challenged christian belief. You either believe christ was the son of god and the saviour or you don't, there isn't much to argue about either way.
Christian belief is Church. Questioning Church questions Christian belief.
If I have it wrong - then no harm done.
If you got it wrong - hope you packed the ice. - You don't have an idea how I live my life bud, but I guarantee you this, there are plenty of people at mass every day of the week that are scum of the earth just as much as there are very good people that never stepped foot in a church.
I agree there will be lots of "holy" people in Hell but there will also be a lot of good people in hell too. Being a good person doesn't warrant heaven. If it did Jesus never would have walked on the Earth, Jesus never would have died for our sins and the Church would never have been instituted......
Argue, Debate, Discuss - whats the difference.
Da Vinci code was a load of muck and full of inaccuracies, Mary Magdelane was the exception to the rule. Are you saying you believe she was a whore? I have read the bible and my own opinion in it is that its a bit like reading the horroscopes in that many of the readings you can take any meaning from and indeed often some readings totally contradict others. Thats why I would never allow anyone to tell me the "true" meaning as they would have no more clue of that than I do.
Christian Belief = Church. Really? Protestants and Catholics would be interested to know they are in the same "church". So if I critise the cover up of paedophilles by the catholic authority I am actually indirectly criticising the word of God?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 07:33:08 PM
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.
Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 08:55:10 PM
I agree there will be lots of "holy" people in Hell but there will also be a lot of good people in hell too. Being a good person doesn't warrant heaven. If it did Jesus never would have walked on the Earth, Jesus never would have died for our sins and the Church would never have been instituted.
Why will there be good people in hell?
And is there only heaven or hell?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 11:31:46 PM
I agree with maiden. Religon is abused and used as a weapon and always has been.
So has Technology - do we abandon that too.
Now in fairness technology has been a great tool for perverts and paedophiles. :)
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 07:33:08 PM
What harm am I doing in going to Mass? What harm am i doing in saying a few prayers? What harm am I doing in believing that Jesus died for my sins and yours and that eternal life in Heaven is only through Jesus?
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
If I have it wrong - then no harm done.
If you got it wrong - hope you packed the ice.
Just to clarify here - do the wild tribes in the rainforests who dont know anything about a God, or worship the sun go to hell?
Or do you only need to pack the ice if you are living in a Godly aware world - but choose not to believe and get it wrong?
Also - you are doing no harm at all, more power to you horse.
Where's CashforGold? Is he off researching the Taiping Rebellion? I'm fecked if he is ???
Quote from: Puckoon on March 04, 2010, 11:24:02 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 07:33:08 PM
What harm am I doing in going to Mass? What harm am i doing in saying a few prayers? What harm am I doing in believing that Jesus died for my sins and yours and that eternal life in Heaven is only through Jesus?
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
If I have it wrong - then no harm done.
If you got it wrong - hope you packed the ice.
Just to clarify here - do the wild tribes in the rainforests who dont know anything about a God, or worship the sun go to hell?
Or do you only need to pack the ice if you are living in a Godly aware world - but choose not to believe and get it wrong?
Also - you are doing no harm at all, more power to you horse.
Who "chooses" to believe though? You either believe or you don't. You cannot force yourself or delude yourself into believing. Sure, you can feign belief to others, but a god such as the alleged christian god is by definition omniscient and can't be fooled thus. All that being the case, I cannot for the life of me see the logic in how such a god would punish someone for coming to an honest conclusion about the question of whether he/she/it exists or not! Which is why the Pascal wager argument that the safer option is to "believe" is complete and utter nonsense.
Quote from: Puckoon on March 04, 2010, 11:24:02 PM
Just to clarify here - do the wild tribes in the rainforests who dont know anything about a God, or worship the sun go to hell?
When I was going to school, these lads were sent to Limbo. Then Limbo was abolished. I think it was officially abolished, but I'm only relying on memory and I can't remember how they explained whether it had never existed and the infallible pope had been wrong all the time or it had existed and was now being discontinued and why. So I don't know what we are now to imagine happens to those who have not heard about the Christian God. Or what happened to all the souls that were in Limbo.
Nest week: Purgatory - where did it go?
Quote from: Puckoon on March 04, 2010, 11:24:02 PM
Just to clarify here - do the wild tribes in the rainforests who dont know anything about a God, or worship the sun go to hell?
If they kill someone as a sacrafice to the Sun is it murder?
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 07:33:08 PM
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.
Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.
Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking. Also your comparison is very naive - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:45:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 08:55:10 PM
I agree there will be lots of "holy" people in Hell but there will also be a lot of good people in hell too. Being a good person doesn't warrant heaven. If it did Jesus never would have walked on the Earth, Jesus never would have died for our sins and the Church would never have been instituted.
Why will there be good people in hell?
And is there only heaven or hell?
There were "good" people around for centuries before Jesus was around. If good people made it to heaven then why did God sacrafice His only Son for us? If good people made it to heaven then why did Jesus die for us? Good people (who don't have an intimate relationship with Jesus) don't get to heaven. The only way to the Father is through the Son. Therefore based on that - there will be plenty of good people in hell or purgatory to answer your other question.
There will also be plenty of "holy" people in hell or purgatory. Holy people as in those who bite the altar rails and don't live out the Gospel everyday. Those who preach on street corners and would steal the eye from your head. These hypocrites I believe will all be in hell or purgatory.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:45:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 08:55:10 PM
I agree there will be lots of "holy" people in Hell but there will also be a lot of good people in hell too. Being a good person doesn't warrant heaven. If it did Jesus never would have walked on the Earth, Jesus never would have died for our sins and the Church would never have been instituted.
Why will there be good people in hell?
And is there only heaven or hell?
There were "good" people around for centuries before Jesus was around. If good people made it to heaven then why did God sacrafice His only Son for us? If good people made it to heaven then why did Jesus die for us? Good people (who don't have an intimate relationship with Jesus) don't get to heaven. The only way to the Father is through the Son. Therefore based on that - there will be plenty of good people in hell or purgatory to answer your other question.
There will also be plenty of "holy" people in hell or purgatory. Holy people as in those who bite the altar rails and don't live out the Gospel everyday. Those who preach on street corners and would steal the eye from your head. These hypocrites I believe will all be in hell or purgatory.
*shakes head*
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 02:53:56 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:45:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 08:55:10 PM
I agree there will be lots of "holy" people in Hell but there will also be a lot of good people in hell too. Being a good person doesn't warrant heaven. If it did Jesus never would have walked on the Earth, Jesus never would have died for our sins and the Church would never have been instituted.
Why will there be good people in hell?
And is there only heaven or hell?
There were "good" people around for centuries before Jesus was around. If good people made it to heaven then why did God sacrafice His only Son for us? If good people made it to heaven then why did Jesus die for us? Good people (who don't have an intimate relationship with Jesus) don't get to heaven. The only way to the Father is through the Son. Therefore based on that - there will be plenty of good people in hell or purgatory to answer your other question.
There will also be plenty of "holy" people in hell or purgatory. Holy people as in those who bite the altar rails and don't live out the Gospel everyday. Those who preach on street corners and would steal the eye from your head. These hypocrites I believe will all be in hell or purgatory.
*shakes head*
Pints you might disagree and that's cool.
My point earlier still stands - If I got it wrong no harm done. If you have it wrong..............
If I'm wrong and God actually is so arrogant and self obsessed that he sends good people to hell or purgatory (or whatever it is this week) because they haven't been eating the alter rails (and this I assume includes babies, children, people who have never heard tell of him etc) then I would rather not have anything to do with him. If that means burning in hell for eternity or serving time in purgatory then so be it.
btw, do you think you have to be Catholic to get in to heaven?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 04:31:11 PM
If I'm wrong and God actually is so arrogant and self obsessed that he sends good people to hell or purgatory (or whatever it is this week) because they haven't been eating the alter rails (and this I assume includes babies, children, people who have never heard tell of him etc) then I would rather not have anything to do with him. If that means burning in hell for eternity or serving time in purgatory then so be it.
btw, do you think you have to be Catholic to get in to heaven?
Wouldn't like likes of Moses be down in hell then too? I'm not sure if the catholic church would be in agreement with Icemans opinions on this.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 02:45:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 07:33:08 PM
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.
Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.
Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking. Also your comparison is very naive - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.
My response was in relation to your assertion that non-believers have this niggling doubt. There's no basis for such an assumption.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 05, 2010, 05:22:13 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 04:31:11 PM
If I'm wrong and God actually is so arrogant and self obsessed that he sends good people to hell or purgatory (or whatever it is this week) because they haven't been eating the alter rails (and this I assume includes babies, children, people who have never heard tell of him etc) then I would rather not have anything to do with him. If that means burning in hell for eternity or serving time in purgatory then so be it.
btw, do you think you have to be Catholic to get in to heaven?
Wouldn't like likes of Moses be down in hell then too? I'm not sure if the catholic church would be in agreement with Icemans opinions on this.
Are those who went before Jesus are awaiting judgment day?
What religon was Moses, Jewish ???
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 05, 2010, 05:22:13 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 04:31:11 PM
If I'm wrong and God actually is so arrogant and self obsessed that he sends good people to hell or purgatory (or whatever it is this week) because they haven't been eating the alter rails (and this I assume includes babies, children, people who have never heard tell of him etc) then I would rather not have anything to do with him. If that means burning in hell for eternity or serving time in purgatory then so be it.
btw, do you think you have to be Catholic to get in to heaven?
Wouldn't like likes of Moses be down in hell then too? I'm not sure if the catholic church would be in agreement with Icemans opinions on this.
The biggest failure of the Catholic church in Ireland was not to educate its flock. properly Old Testament guys were not in Heaven before Jesus rose from the dead- any priest worth his salt will tell you this. For example hen Lazarus died he went to Abraham's side and the rich man went to hell. In hell the rich man looked up and could see Lazarus being comforted at Abraham'ss side. But neither could cross over to Heaven. They were in a place known to the Jews as "paradise". For the Jews death consisted of two realms - one was hell or torment the other was paradise. People could commune with each other or at least see each other but not cross over. This is still taught in Judaism today. Neither was Heaven.
Jesus is often referred to as the first born from the dead. This would imply and (in accordance with Church teaching) that all people pre-Jesus were not in Heaven apart from Elijah and Moses who we know were raised instantly to God's side (if we read the bible and were taught properly at school).
It also says that after He was crucified, Jesus went to the dead and raised Abraham and a whole host of people to Heaven.
I hope this answers your question.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 02:53:56 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:45:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 08:55:10 PM
I agree there will be lots of "holy" people in Hell but there will also be a lot of good people in hell too. Being a good person doesn't warrant heaven. If it did Jesus never would have walked on the Earth, Jesus never would have died for our sins and the Church would never have been instituted.
Why will there be good people in hell?
And is there only heaven or hell?
There were "good" people around for centuries before Jesus was around. If good people made it to heaven then why did God sacrafice His only Son for us? If good people made it to heaven then why did Jesus die for us? Good people (who don't have an intimate relationship with Jesus) don't get to heaven. The only way to the Father is through the Son. Therefore based on that - there will be plenty of good people in hell or purgatory to answer your other question.
There will also be plenty of "holy" people in hell or purgatory. Holy people as in those who bite the altar rails and don't live out the Gospel everyday. Those who preach on street corners and would steal the eye from your head. These hypocrites I believe will all be in hell or purgatory.
*shakes head*
Pints you might disagree and that's cool.
My point earlier still stands - If I got it wrong no harm done. If you have it wrong..............
What if you're worshipping the wrong God? You could be more fooked than me!
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 06:14:10 PM
The biggest failure of the Catholic church in Ireland was not to educate its flock. properly Old Testament guys were not in Heaven before Jesus rose from the dead- any priest worth his salt will tell you this. For example hen Lazarus died he went to Abraham's side and the rich man went to hell. In hell the rich man looked up and could see Lazarus being comforted at Abraham'ss side. But neither could cross over to Heaven. They were in a place known to the Jews as "paradise". For the Jews death consisted of two realms - one was hell or torment the other was paradise. People could commune with each other or at least see each other but not cross over. This is still taught in Judaism today. Neither was Heaven.
Jesus is often referred to as the first born from the dead. This would imply and (in accordance with Church teaching) that all people pre-Jesus were not in Heaven apart from Elijah and Moses who we know were raised instantly to God's side (if we read the bible and were taught properly at school).
It also says that after He was crucified, Jesus went to the dead and raised Abraham and a whole host of people to Heaven.
I hope this answers your question.
So which came first then ???
The Chicken or the Egg?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 06:14:10 PM
For example hen Lazarus died he went to Abraham's side and the rich man went to hell. In hell the rich man looked up and could see Lazarus being comforted at Abraham'ss side.
Seriously, the more you hear, the more ridiculous some of this is. On what basis is this known? Did the rich man send back messages?
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 05, 2010, 06:17:24 PM
What if you're worshipping the wrong God? You could be more fooked than me!
There's only ine God. If there were more we'd have to have a democracy which wouldn't suit anyone.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 05, 2010, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 06:14:10 PM
For example hen Lazarus died he went to Abraham's side and the rich man went to hell. In hell the rich man looked up and could see Lazarus being comforted at Abraham'ss side.
Seriously, the more you hear, the more ridiculous some of this is. On what basis is this known? Did the rich man send back messages?
The bible is full of these type of events. It's not rediculous to believers. The entire basis of the CC is faith.
I don't buy this stuff about having to eat alter rails (I do believe in some sort of God though) - Iceman can't you see that the very people preaching to you that if you don't go to mass etc you won't go to heaven are the same people who have a vested interest in you being a member of the church and handing over cash or whatever. Are you not suspicious about that?
I mean the catholic church (or any church) aren't going to say - "well actually you don't need to go to mass, just live a good life and heaven will be there for you".
Btw God is suppose to be forgiving isn't he so if we die and find out we're going to hell because we didn't go to mass can we say sorry and get in?
So Jesus basically opened up heaven for us (but he was Jewish wasn't he?), is that what's meant when people say he died for our sins?
I always got good grades in RE at school and most of this is news to me.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 06:14:10 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 05, 2010, 05:22:13 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 04:31:11 PM
If I'm wrong and God actually is so arrogant and self obsessed that he sends good people to hell or purgatory (or whatever it is this week) because they haven't been eating the alter rails (and this I assume includes babies, children, people who have never heard tell of him etc) then I would rather not have anything to do with him. If that means burning in hell for eternity or serving time in purgatory then so be it.
btw, do you think you have to be Catholic to get in to heaven?
Wouldn't like likes of Moses be down in hell then too? I'm not sure if the catholic church would be in agreement with Icemans opinions on this.
The biggest failure of the Catholic church in Ireland was not to educate its flock. properly Old Testament guys were not in Heaven before Jesus rose from the dead- any priest worth his salt will tell you this. For example hen Lazarus died he went to Abraham's side and the rich man went to hell. In hell the rich man looked up and could see Lazarus being comforted at Abraham'ss side. But neither could cross over to Heaven. They were in a place known to the Jews as "paradise". For the Jews death consisted of two realms - one was hell or torment the other was paradise. People could commune with each other or at least see each other but not cross over. This is still taught in Judaism today. Neither was Heaven.
Jesus is often referred to as the first born from the dead. This would imply and (in accordance with Church teaching) that all people pre-Jesus were not in Heaven apart from Elijah and Moses who we know were raised instantly to God's side (if we read the bible and were taught properly at school).
It also says that after He was crucified, Jesus went to the dead and raised Abraham and a whole host of people to Heaven.
I hope this answers your question.
I suppose it does explain what you believe even if I think it is nonsense.
another thing...considering the nonsense that's in the old testament, it may not be the best source to rely on.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 06:28:10 PM
I don't buy this stuff about having to eat alter rails (I do believe in some sort of God though) - Iceman can't you see that the very people preaching to you that if you don't go to mass etc you won't go to heaven are the same people who have a vested interest in you being a member of the church and handing over cash or whatever. Are you not suspicious about that?
I mean the catholic church (or any church) aren't going to say - "well actually you don't need to go to mass, just live a good life and heaven will be there for you".
Btw God is suppose to be forgiving isn't he so if we die and find out we're going to hell because we didn't go to mass can we say sorry and get in?
So Jesus basically opened up heaven for us (but he was Jewish wasn't he?), is that what's meant when people say he died for our sins?
I always got good grades in RE at school and most of this is news to me.
Pints mate I don't go to Mass because I'm told to. I go to Mass to Worship God, say my prayers, meet Jesus in the Eucharist and be in communion with the Church.
I know the church has F'ed up a lot of things but I still go to Mass - not because they tell me to - because I want to.
Old Testament is hard to figure out but the majority of what I relayed to you earlier about Paradise and Death is all in the New Testament.
I don't know why we are not taught these things properly in school (another F up from the Church) but I'm glad I took the time to explore it all, read the Bible and understand it where possible and I'm glad I have been able to grow closer to God as a result.
Peace
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 06:40:11 PM
I don't know why we are not taught these things properly in school (another F up from the Church) but I'm glad I took the time to explore it all, read the Bible and understand it where possible and I'm glad I have been able to grow closer to God as a result.
Do you think that if you were handed the Bible, Koran and any other religious books, and given a few lectures on each religion, that you would choose Christianity, and indeed then choose Catholicism?
Or do you think that it's more a case that you're Catholic due to having been raised a Catholic?
As for being taught in school, unless they're teaching the details of all religions and scriptures as a history lesson, learning about other cultures, or literatary criticism, I don't think school is the place. That's what Church is for, if people so choose it. I wouldn't be keen on your idea that it's a 'F up' on the Church's part that they didn't impart even more of this wisdom on school children.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 05, 2010, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 06:40:11 PM
I don't know why we are not taught these things properly in school (another F up from the Church) but I'm glad I took the time to explore it all, read the Bible and understand it where possible and I'm glad I have been able to grow closer to God as a result.
Do you think that if you were handed the Bible, Koran and any other religious books, and given a few lectures on each religion, that you would choose Christianity, and indeed then choose Catholicism?
Or do you think that it's more a case that you're Catholic due to having been raised a Catholic?
As for being taught in school, unless they're teaching the details of all religions and scriptures as a history lesson, learning about other cultures, or literatary criticism, I don't think school is the place. That's what Church is for, if people so choose it. I wouldn't be keen on your idea that it's a 'F up' on the Church's part that they didn't impart even more of this wisdom on school children.
I went to Catholic primary and grammar school - I should have been taught these things I believe rather than having to figure it all out. Or at least be pointed in the right direction some more.
I actually did take a step back form the Catholic Church and attended several different Protestant and non-denominational services, events and teachings. Asked a lot of questions of a lot of people, spent some time on mission overseas and really discerned what I believed.
For me its the RC Catholic Church. Simply because of a couple of things:
We have Jesus in the Eucharist - no other church has that and its such a gift.
Sacraments.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 07:05:06 PM
I actually did take a step back form the Catholic Church and attended several different Protestant and non-denominational services, events and teachings. Asked a lot of questions of a lot of people, spent some time on mission overseas and really discerned what I believed.
For me its the RC Catholic Church. Simply because of a couple of things:
We have Jesus in the Eucharist - no other church has that and its such a gift.
Sacraments.
Fair enough, but that wasn't really my question. I was wondering where you thing you'd be if you had not been raised a Catholic/Christian and then been presented with
all the options in an informed way, when you were old enough to make such a decision. Once you've grown up with it, you're obviously going to be biased, so you're less likely to change teams.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 05, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 07:05:06 PM
I actually did take a step back form the Catholic Church and attended several different Protestant and non-denominational services, events and teachings. Asked a lot of questions of a lot of people, spent some time on mission overseas and really discerned what I believed.
For me its the RC Catholic Church. Simply because of a couple of things:
We have Jesus in the Eucharist - no other church has that and its such a gift.
Sacraments.
Fair enough, but that wasn't really my question. I was wondering where you thing you'd be if you had not been raised a Catholic/Christian and then been presented with all the options in an informed way, when you were old enough to make such a decision. Once you've grown up with it, you're obviously going to be biased, so you're less likely to change teams.
We'll never now the answer to that one. I would hope that like 1000s of others I would have found my way here. My brother in law was raised Jehovah Witness - at 34 he is now in an RCIA programme to become a Roman Catholic.
I'm glad things worked out the way they did.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 06:28:10 PM
So Jesus basically opened up heaven for us (but he was Jewish wasn't he?), is that what's meant when people say he died for our sins?
I still don't understand how Jesus was a Jew. If he believed he was the son of God and was going to die for our sins it makes him a Christian in my book.
Iceman, I wish i had your faith.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 05, 2010, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 06:14:10 PM
For example hen Lazarus died he went to Abraham's side and the rich man went to hell. In hell the rich man looked up and could see Lazarus being comforted at Abraham'ss side.
Seriously, the more you hear, the more ridiculous some of this is. On what basis is this known? Did the rich man send back messages?
He posted it as on Facebook status - "There is that poxy Lazarus and Abraham looking down on me from Paradise again. Pair of smug bastards".
Quote from: Zapatista on March 05, 2010, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 06:28:10 PM
So Jesus basically opened up heaven for us (but he was Jewish wasn't he?), is that what's meant when people say he died for our sins?
I still don't understand how Jesus was a Jew. If he believed he was the son of God and was going to die for our sins it makes him a Christian in my book
are you actually bein serious or is this a wind up?? (assuming your not a 10 year old that is)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/05/nun-cured-pope-parkinsons-ill (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/05/nun-cured-pope-parkinsons-ill)
So where does sainthood fit in the grand scheme of things? I know this is slightly mischievous but the whole sainthood thing has always seemed absurd to me. I mean surely it contradicts the 'Thou shalt not put false gods before me' bit?
The saints are kinda like prefects.
St Peter must have been the head boy.
Quote from: THE DADGA on March 06, 2010, 12:11:21 AM
are you actually bein serious or is this a wind up?? (assuming your not a 10 year old that is)
I'm serious. He was so far off being a jew they killed him for it.
No i'm not 10 :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpVjBBDMOoA
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 07:25:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 05, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 07:05:06 PM
I actually did take a step back form the Catholic Church and attended several different Protestant and non-denominational services, events and teachings. Asked a lot of questions of a lot of people, spent some time on mission overseas and really discerned what I believed.
For me its the RC Catholic Church. Simply because of a couple of things:
We have Jesus in the Eucharist - no other church has that and its such a gift.
Sacraments.
Fair enough, but that wasn't really my question. I was wondering where you thing you'd be if you had not been raised a Catholic/Christian and then been presented with all the options in an informed way, when you were old enough to make such a decision. Once you've grown up with it, you're obviously going to be biased, so you're less likely to change teams.
We'll never now the answer to that one. I would hope that like 1000s of others I would have found my way here. My brother in law was raised Jehovah Witness - at 34 he is now in an RCIA programme to become a Roman Catholic.
I'm glad things worked out the way they did.
Your brother in law presumably married your sister (given the Catholic Church view on gay marriage) and she was presumably raised a Catholic?
Quote from: Zapatista on March 05, 2010, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 06:28:10 PM
So Jesus basically opened up heaven for us (but he was Jewish wasn't he?), is that what's meant when people say he died for our sins?
I still don't understand how Jesus was a Jew. If he believed he was the son of God and was going to die for our sins it makes him a Christian in my book.
Are you
really being serious?
Jesus was just meant to be the next stage of Judaism. He was the Jews' meassiah, but they rejected him/didn't believe he was the messiah, so Judaism stayed where it was and Christianity developed as a 'new' grouping (hence the Jews having just the Old Testament, and Christians having the Old and the New). If the Jews had accepted him, the term 'Christianity' may never have been used - we'd probably all have been Jewish. The Jews are still waiting on the 'real' messiah.
Quote from: Caid on March 06, 2010, 10:09:32 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 07:25:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 05, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 07:05:06 PM
I actually did take a step back form the Catholic Church and attended several different Protestant and non-denominational services, events and teachings. Asked a lot of questions of a lot of people, spent some time on mission overseas and really discerned what I believed.
For me its the RC Catholic Church. Simply because of a couple of things:
We have Jesus in the Eucharist - no other church has that and its such a gift.
Sacraments.
Fair enough, but that wasn't really my question. I was wondering where you thing you'd be if you had not been raised a Catholic/Christian and then been presented with all the options in an informed way, when you were old enough to make such a decision. Once you've grown up with it, you're obviously going to be biased, so you're less likely to change teams.
We'll never now the answer to that one. I would hope that like 1000s of others I would have found my way here. My brother in law was raised Jehovah Witness - at 34 he is now in an RCIA programme to become a Roman Catholic.
I'm glad things worked out the way they did.
Your brother in law presumably married your sister (given the Catholic Church view on gay marriage) and she was presumably raised a Catholic?
I'd imagine you're right.
People are the product of their environment. If you were isolated from all religion until you were 18 or 20 and then given the option of all religions, it's unlikely that you'd choose to be Catholic; probably more likely that you'd just disregard them all.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 06, 2010, 10:16:36 AM
Are you really being serious?
Jesus was just meant to be the next stage of Judaism. He was the Jews' meassiah, but they rejected him/didn't believe he was the messiah, so Judaism stayed where it was and Christianity developed as a 'new' grouping (hence the Jews having just the Old Testament, and Christians having the Old and the New). If the Jews had accepted him, the term 'Christianity' may never have been used - we'd probably all have been Jewish. The Jews are still waiting on the 'real' messiah.
That's my point. Jesus was rejected by the Jews and founded a new religion in his name (Christianity). He said he was the son of God. The Jews said he wasn't and the killed him for being blasphemous. Christans believe he was the son of God.
Calling Jesus a Jew is like saying Gerry Adams is in Republican SF.
Actually it's more like saying Mohammad was a Jew.
I'm only half serious. ;)
Quote from: Zapatista on March 05, 2010, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2010, 06:28:10 PM
So Jesus basically opened up heaven for us (but he was Jewish wasn't he?), is that what's meant when people say he died for our sins?
I still don't understand how Jesus was a Jew. If he believed he was the son of God and was going to die for our sins it makes him a Christian in my book.
Iceman, I wish i had your faith.
Culturaly a Jew, like all those/us cultural Catholics, but rarely go to mass, think the Popes a dick, don't believe in hell but in heaven (handy eh :D ), thinks the priests should mind their own business re confession and get their own house in order first, etc. etc. but when some English lads slags of Catholics, gets deeply offended.
Wasn't one of Hitler's great grandparents a Jew, talk about self-hate.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 02:45:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 07:33:08 PM
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.
Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.
Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking. Also your comparison is very naive - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.
If someone has to spend an "eternity in a very hot place" just because they had the misfortune to use their brains and come to honest conclusion about the existence of a god, then that god is just a petty, vindictive bollocks. And the idea that someone who, through accident of time and place of their existence and no fault of their own, went through their life without even hearing about this god should also be punished or at least denied access to the privileges and riches of the "heavenly" suggests this god is also a c**t.
Quote from: J70 on March 07, 2010, 02:18:46 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 02:45:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 07:33:08 PM
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.
Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.
Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking. Also your comparison is very naive - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.
If someone has to spend an "eternity in a very hot place" just because they had the misfortune to use their brains and come to honest conclusion about the existence of a god, then that god is just a petty, vindictive bollocks. And the idea that someone who, through accident of time and place of their existence and no fault of their own, went through their life without even hearing about this god should also be punished or at least denied access to the privileges and riches of the "heavenly" suggests this god is also a c**t.
Or, as Bertrand Russell put it:
I will say further that, if there be a purpose [to the universe]
and if this purpose is that of an Omnipotent Creator, then that Creator, so far from being loving and kind, as we are told, must be of a degree of wickedness scarcely conceivable. A man who commits a murder is considered to be a bad man. An Omnipotent Deity, if there be one, murders everybody. A man who willingly afflicted another with cancer would be considered a fiend. But the Creator, if He exists, afflicts many thousands every year with this dreadful disease. A man who, having the knowledge and power required to make his children good, chose instead to make them bad, would be viewed with execration. But God, if He exists, makes this choice in the case of very many of His children. The whole conception of an omnipotent God whom it is impious to criticize, could only have arisen under oriental despotisms where sovereigns, in spite of capricious cruelties, continued to enjoy the adulation of their slaves. It is the psychology appropriate to this outmoded political system which belatedly survives in orthodox theology.
Russell's Teapot, precursor to The Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) and The Invisibkle Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn):
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day.... But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants. If we are Conservatives, we are amazed by the superstitions to be found in the Labour Party. If we are Socialists, we are aghast at the credulity of Conservatives. I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of course, those which you do not hold.
I cannot, therefore, think it presumptuous to doubt something which has long been held to be true, especially when this opinion has only prevailed in certain geographical regions, as is the case with all theological opinions.
"The only way to God is through Jesus"
Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu. He would have been exposed to Christianity and Jesus but he remained a Hindu. However, he, despite being one of the most peaceful and pious men of the 20th Century, will not be in Heaven because he did not follow Jesus?
Re. Religion as a good force or bad, Mandela stated
"Religion is one of the most important forces in the world. Whether you are a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew, or a Hindu, religion is a great force, and it can help one have command of one's own morality, one's own behavior, and one's own attitude."
One of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II") during the early to mid 1960s was the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium." Chapter 1, sections 14 to 16 discuss salvation of Catholics and others. 5 An "Assessment of this Council" reads:
"5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6
In the year 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- issued a document: " 'Dominus Iesus' on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It stated that salvation is possible to those who are not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which "depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation." Members of other religions are "gravely deficient" relative to members of the Church of Christ who already have "the fullness of the means of salvation."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm
Quote from: Caid on March 07, 2010, 03:54:13 PM
One of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II") during the early to mid 1960s was the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium." Chapter 1, sections 14 to 16 discuss salvation of Catholics and others. 5 An "Assessment of this Council" reads:
"5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6
In the year 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- issued a document: " 'Dominus Iesus' on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It stated that salvation is possible to those who are not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which "depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation." Members of other religions are "gravely deficient" relative to members of the Church of Christ who already have "the fullness of the means of salvation."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm
I wondered where Rumsfeldt got the idea for his known & unknown speech.
Quote from: J70 on March 07, 2010, 02:18:46 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 02:45:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 07:33:08 PM
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.
Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.
Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking. Also your comparison is very naive - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.
If someone has to spend an "eternity in a very hot place" just because they had the misfortune to use their brains and come to honest conclusion about the existence of a god, then that god is just a petty, vindictive bollocks. And the idea that someone who, through accident of time and place of their existence and no fault of their own, went through their life without even hearing about this god should also be punished or at least denied access to the privileges and riches of the "heavenly" suggests this god is also a c**t.
If God is all knowing then it's brave of you to question what he does and why he does it. Gods reasoning would be inconceivable to humans.
Quote from: muppet on March 07, 2010, 04:22:57 PM
Quote from: Caid on March 07, 2010, 03:54:13 PM
One of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II") during the early to mid 1960s was the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium." Chapter 1, sections 14 to 16 discuss salvation of Catholics and others. 5 An "Assessment of this Council" reads:
"5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6
In the year 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- issued a document: " 'Dominus Iesus' on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It stated that salvation is possible to those who are not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which "depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation." Members of other religions are "gravely deficient" relative to members of the Church of Christ who already have "the fullness of the means of salvation."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm
I wondered where Rumsfeldt got the idea for his known & unknown speech.
Ratz is some craic. No other church in Christianity is as based on superstition as the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Zapatista on March 07, 2010, 07:40:51 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 07, 2010, 02:18:46 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 02:45:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 07:33:08 PM
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.
Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.
Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking. Also your comparison is very naive - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.
If someone has to spend an "eternity in a very hot place" just because they had the misfortune to use their brains and come to honest conclusion about the existence of a god, then that god is just a petty, vindictive bollocks. And the idea that someone who, through accident of time and place of their existence and no fault of their own, went through their life without even hearing about this god should also be punished or at least denied access to the privileges and riches of the "heavenly" suggests this god is also a c**t.
If God is all knowing then it's brave of you to question what he does and why he does it. Gods reasoning would be inconceivable to humans.
Indeed, so why would he need a pope (who is human I'm fairly sure) to interpret his will?
Quote from: Zapatista on March 07, 2010, 07:40:51 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 07, 2010, 02:18:46 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2010, 02:45:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 04, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2010, 07:33:08 PM
I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs. You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?
What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.
Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.
Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking. Also your comparison is very naive - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.
If someone has to spend an "eternity in a very hot place" just because they had the misfortune to use their brains and come to honest conclusion about the existence of a god, then that god is just a petty, vindictive bollocks. And the idea that someone who, through accident of time and place of their existence and no fault of their own, went through their life without even hearing about this god should also be punished or at least denied access to the privileges and riches of the "heavenly" suggests this god is also a c**t.
If God is all knowing then it's brave of you to question what he does and why he does it. Gods reasoning would be inconceivable to humans.
If my questions are inappropriate or "brave" (i.e. foolhardy ;)) then reason or rationality does not appear to feature much at all in "God's" judgement on these matters.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 07, 2010, 09:18:55 PM
Indeed, so why would he need a pope (who is human I'm fairly sure) to interpret his will?
I don't think he does need a pope I think it's a case that we need a pope ;)
Quote from: J70 on March 07, 2010, 10:58:30 PM
If my questions are inappropriate or "brave" (i.e. foolhardy ;)) then reason or rationality does not appear to feature much at all in "God's" judgement on these matters.
Maybe he's just seeing how much we let him away with. The ultimate test.
Quote from: Zapatista on March 07, 2010, 11:28:36 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 07, 2010, 09:18:55 PM
Indeed, so why would he need a pope (who is human I'm fairly sure) to interpret his will?
I don't think he does need a pope I think it's a case that we need a pope ;)
So comapared to the likes of protestanism which don't need a middle man catholicsim is for slow learners :-\
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 12:09:28 PM
So comapared to the likes of protestanism which don't need a middle man catholicsim is for slow learners :-\
Sure if ye want.
I'd say the different varities of protestant churches have many middle men they just don't have a pope.
Quote from: Zapatista on March 08, 2010, 12:25:09 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 12:09:28 PM
So comapared to the likes of protestanism which don't need a middle man catholicsim is for slow learners :-\
Sure if ye want.
I'd say the different varities of protestant churches have many middle men they just don't have a pope.
Certainly the structure of the church could be seen as middle men although they are not required at all and certainly no middle man man role such as the one that the pope holds in catholicism exists, thats a massive difference you either need a middle man or you don't.
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 12:45:01 PM
Certainly the structure of the church could be seen as middle men although they are not required at all and certainly no middle man man role such as the one that the pope holds in catholicism exists, thats a massive difference you either need a middle man or you don't.
Are you conceeding that there are middle men? If you took these middle men away how would protestant churches function?
That's one of the main (if not the main) difference between the two. Your point doesn't mean anything. Protestants don't need a pope and catholics do. You think this makes catholics slow learners while I think it just makes them catholic.
Quote from: Zapatista on March 08, 2010, 01:09:18 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 12:45:01 PM
Certainly the structure of the church could be seen as middle men although they are not required at all and certainly no middle man man role such as the one that the pope holds in catholicism exists, thats a massive difference you either need a middle man or you don't.
Are you conceeding that there are middle men? If you took these middle men away how would protestant churches function?
That's one of the main (if not the main) difference between the two. Your point doesn't mean anything. Protestants don't need a pope and catholics do. You think this makes catholics slow learners while I think it just makes them catholic.
They would probably not function as 'churches' but thats rather the point isn't it you don't even need them to commune/worship god.
I don't actually think it makes them slow learners at all, hence the undecided smiley that went with that comment, but it does make me wonder why the need for a pope and what does that say about the religion? Or is it just a an historical anachronism that people like to hang onto? Your own comment suggests its something that delinates catholicsm.
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 01:26:39 PM
They would probably not function as 'churches' but thats rather the point isn't it you don't even need them to commune/worship god.
I don't actually think it makes them slow learners at all, hence the undecided smiley that went with that comment, but it does make me wonder why the need for a pope and what does that say about the religion? Or is it just a an historical anachronism that people like to hang onto? Your own comment suggests its something that delinates catholicsm.
Change the term pope to president and it might be easier. Like any organiseation you need a structure or your not really organised. Groups of people running around claiming to follow the same faith wouldn't be possible unless there was somone who defined and policed the rules of that faith. The pope is at the top of that organisation the same as a president might be.
An historical anachronism? That's a loaded question. It's no more nor less an historical anachronism than the Taoiseach.
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 03:07:15 PM
Putting aside any belief in God one may hold - with the recent revelations of clerical abuse, the fact that nearly every war was fought over Religion and the fact that people are today killing in the name of one God or another, what do people think of Religion in the world? Are we better human beings because of these institutions telling us what to think, what is right and wrong, how to live our lives to enjoy eternal salvation!! Personally I think most are interested only in there own earthly salvation which parishioners or their flock help make very comfortable due to their voluntary work and monetary donations, they also have shown time and time again that they are a haven for very sick and perverted individuals, whether their perversion is child abuse, terrorism or whatever and in most cases these unregulated institutions are beyond reproach.
I would not for one second doubt that many people in many religions are very decent individuals who are "doing God's" work, but if there is a God and you believe that is so; why do you have to be part of some institution to worship him, surely you will be judged on how you lived your life, how you helped others, how you treated people with respect and kindness. Surely it will not be on how many times you went to mass, going off sweets for lent, bombing people from different religions, inciting hatred to people of different colours and creeds because they don't accept your version what is essentially in all religions a good story!
Just seen this on the news which takes us back to the original question. Unbelievable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8555018.stm
Quote from: Zapatista on March 08, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 01:26:39 PM
They would probably not function as 'churches' but thats rather the point isn't it you don't even need them to commune/worship god.
I don't actually think it makes them slow learners at all, hence the undecided smiley that went with that comment, but it does make me wonder why the need for a pope and what does that say about the religion? Or is it just a an historical anachronism that people like to hang onto? Your own comment suggests its something that delinates catholicsm.
Change the term pope to president and it might be easier. Like any organiseation you need a structure or your not really organised. Groups of people running around claiming to follow the same faith wouldn't be possible unless there was somone who defined and policed the rules of that faith. The pope is at the top of that organisation the same as a president might be.
An historical anachronism? That's a loaded question. It's no more nor less an historical anachronism than the Taoiseach.
I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.
Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.
Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity (catholism) and islam (shia) in this respect, "shia muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."
Quote from: Zapatista on March 07, 2010, 07:40:51 PM
If God is all knowing then it's brave of you to question what he does and why he does it. Gods reasoning would be inconceivable to humans.
Then God is obviously a woman.
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 02:15:12 PM
I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.
Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.
Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity and islam in this respect, "shia muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."
The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of many past spiritual leaders. Ganesh is a diety worshipped as a God. There are many more.
The pope definately delinates the the church through the symbolism of the position. His infallibility is a matter for anyone individual to interpret themselves. The catholic church is based on faith and in the faith that we don't understand or agree with everything but have faith in it. If a follower of the church has faith that the pope is in the seat of st peter and building the church of Jesus then the pope is infalible to them. I do think that it's is very important to many catholics that the pope is infallible in certain matters. Luckily for the Catholic church there has been a seperation in the role of the church and the role of the state. This way we can still have faith in the pope guiding our spirits while attributing phycical selves to the state. Often a case of 'when it suits us'. Anyone can pick a thousand holes in this but it boils down to 'I think therefore I am' with most religons.
I heard a good analogy at the weekend about the Roman Catholic Church.
Our Church is the boat that Jesus launched toward Heaven over 2000 years ago. It might take wrong turns, there will be a lot of bad weather, rough waves and a lot of sea sickness, but this is the same and only boat that will hit dry land as Jesus intended....
Also before you throw the whole Papal infallibility out there please look it up and understand what it means and when it has actually been used in the last 2000 years....
Quote from: The Iceman on March 08, 2010, 02:58:36 PM
I heard a good analogy at the weekend about the Roman Catholic Church.
Our Church is the boat that Jesus launched toward Heaven over 2000 years ago. It might take wrong turns, there will be a lot of bad weather, rough waves and a lot of sea sickness, but this is the same and only boat that will hit dry land as Jesus intended....
Also before you throw the whole Papal infallibility out there please look it up and understand what it means and when it has actually been used in the last 2000 years....
Is there anyone keeping an eye out for icebergs?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 08, 2010, 02:58:36 PM
Also before you throw the whole Papal infallibility out there please look it up and understand what it means and when it has actually been used in the last 2000 years....
It was only invented in 1870.
Quote from: Zapatista on March 08, 2010, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 02:15:12 PM
I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.
Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.
Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity and islam in this respect, "shia muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."
The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of many past spiritual leaders. Ganesh is a diety worshipped as a God. There are many more.
The pope definately delinates the the church through the symbolism of the position. His infallibility is a matter for anyone individual to interpret themselves. The catholic church is based on faith and in the faith that we don't understand or agree with everything but have faith in it. If a follower of the church has faith that the pope is in the seat of st peter and building the church of Jesus then the pope is infalible to them. I do think that it's is very important to many catholics that the pope is infallible in certain matters. Luckily for the Catholic church there has been a seperation in the role of the church and the role of the state. This way we can still have faith in the pope guiding our spirits while attributing phycical selves to the state. Often a case of 'when it suits us'. Anyone can pick a thousand holes in this but it boils down to 'I think therefore I am' with most religons.
True but they aren't christian faiths and it was christianiity that i thought we were discussing, i don't mind broadening it though, hence why i popped a bit in about islam (christianity can get a bit dull to be honest).
I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?
Depending on who you ask the concept has either been only about for a few hundred years or it came into being a few hundred years after the setting up of the church, interesting that it wasn't a founding tenet of the original church.
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 03:35:17 PM
I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?
If you believe the pope to be infalliable then he is. If you don't believe it then he isn't.
The pope symbolism as an Icon or as the representative of the church could delinate the church. It's all open to interpretation. If it wasn't everyone would be catholic.
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 03:35:17 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 08, 2010, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 02:15:12 PM
I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.
Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.
Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity and islam in this respect, "shia muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."
The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of many past spiritual leaders. Ganesh is a diety worshipped as a God. There are many more.
The pope definately delinates the the church through the symbolism of the position. His infallibility is a matter for anyone individual to interpret themselves. The catholic church is based on faith and in the faith that we don't understand or agree with everything but have faith in it. If a follower of the church has faith that the pope is in the seat of st peter and building the church of Jesus then the pope is infalible to them. I do think that it's is very important to many catholics that the pope is infallible in certain matters. Luckily for the Catholic church there has been a seperation in the role of the church and the role of the state. This way we can still have faith in the pope guiding our spirits while attributing phycical selves to the state. Often a case of 'when it suits us'. Anyone can pick a thousand holes in this but it boils down to 'I think therefore I am' with most religons.
True but they aren't christian faiths and it was christianiity that i thought we were discussing, i don't mind broadening it though, hence why i popped a bit in about islam (christianity can get a bit dull to be honest).
I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?
Depending on who you ask the concept has either been only about for a few hundred years or it came into being a few hundred years after the setting up of the church, interesting that it wasn't a founding tenet of the original church.
Infallibility was instituted by Jesus.
"What you bound on earth will be bound in heaven" it was only used for the first time in the 19th Century and to my knowledge has only been used 2 or 3 times in history. It is not a huge issue but is one that is constantly and wrongly brought up by people.
I think before bringing it up people should research for themselves and also research how decisions are made, the Pope's actual role and duties and how the Catechism is maintained and updated......
Quote from: Zapatista on March 08, 2010, 03:46:10 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 03:35:17 PM
I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?
If you believe the pope to be infalliable then he is. If you don't believe it then he isn't.
The pope symbolism as an Icon or as the representative of the church could delinate the church. It's all open to interpretation. If it wasn't everyone would be catholic.
*
Not for work or within earshot of the easily offended *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMx8QvhULIs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMx8QvhULIs)
Quote from: The Iceman on March 08, 2010, 03:47:10 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 03:35:17 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 08, 2010, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 02:15:12 PM
I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.
Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.
Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity and islam in this respect, "shia muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."
The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of many past spiritual leaders. Ganesh is a diety worshipped as a God. There are many more.
The pope definately delinates the the church through the symbolism of the position. His infallibility is a matter for anyone individual to interpret themselves. The catholic church is based on faith and in the faith that we don't understand or agree with everything but have faith in it. If a follower of the church has faith that the pope is in the seat of st peter and building the church of Jesus then the pope is infalible to them. I do think that it's is very important to many catholics that the pope is infallible in certain matters. Luckily for the Catholic church there has been a seperation in the role of the church and the role of the state. This way we can still have faith in the pope guiding our spirits while attributing phycical selves to the state. Often a case of 'when it suits us'. Anyone can pick a thousand holes in this but it boils down to 'I think therefore I am' with most religons.
True but they aren't christian faiths and it was christianiity that i thought we were discussing, i don't mind broadening it though, hence why i popped a bit in about islam (christianity can get a bit dull to be honest).
I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?
Depending on who you ask the concept has either been only about for a few hundred years or it came into being a few hundred years after the setting up of the church, interesting that it wasn't a founding tenet of the original church.
Infallibility was instituted by Jesus.
"What you bound on earth will be bound in heaven" it was only used for the first time in the 19th Century and to my knowledge has only been used 2 or 3 times in history. It is not a huge issue but is one that is constantly and wrongly brought up by people.
I think before bringing it up people should research for themselves and also research how decisions are made, the Pope's actual role and duties and how the Catechism is maintained and updated......
I don't see how that quote justifies papal infallability it could be taken to mean any number of things, if thats the justification for it then it sounds pretty sketchy to me.
I know infalliable teachings have only being carried out a few times, but just because its used infrequently doesn't mean its a non-issue, its one of the fundamental differences between the roman catholic church and the other christian churches, it seems silly to sweep it under the carpet. The prominence of the bishop of rome in the church was one of the main reasons you had the great schism between rome and the orthodox church.
To put it into your little analogy, you had a boat that set sail, rather quicky though problems about who should be the captain and what his role actually was lead to a significant proportion of the crew getting off and setting sail in their own flotilla of boats all of which sailed under the one flag but each captained by someone appointed by the crew, and that flotilla laid claim to staying true to the principles of the original voyage (orthodox church, each with their own head of their nations church). You then later on had another conflict which this time resulted in a lot more of the crew getting off the boat again complaining about the guidance of the ship and the role of the captain, these guys got into lots of small boats (protestantism) and set sail for the promised land also.
So in your boat analogy you can see the importance of who the captain of the ship was and what their role was.
For what its worth, if there is a god i think they'll all land safely.
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 08, 2010, 03:47:10 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 03:35:17 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 08, 2010, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 08, 2010, 02:15:12 PM
I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.
Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.
Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity and islam in this respect, "shia muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."
The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of many past spiritual leaders. Ganesh is a diety worshipped as a God. There are many more.
The pope definately delinates the the church through the symbolism of the position. His infallibility is a matter for anyone individual to interpret themselves. The catholic church is based on faith and in the faith that we don't understand or agree with everything but have faith in it. If a follower of the church has faith that the pope is in the seat of st peter and building the church of Jesus then the pope is infalible to them. I do think that it's is very important to many catholics that the pope is infallible in certain matters. Luckily for the Catholic church there has been a seperation in the role of the church and the role of the state. This way we can still have faith in the pope guiding our spirits while attributing phycical selves to the state. Often a case of 'when it suits us'. Anyone can pick a thousand holes in this but it boils down to 'I think therefore I am' with most religons.
True but they aren't christian faiths and it was christianiity that i thought we were discussing, i don't mind broadening it though, hence why i popped a bit in about islam (christianity can get a bit dull to be honest).
I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?
Depending on who you ask the concept has either been only about for a few hundred years or it came into being a few hundred years after the setting up of the church, interesting that it wasn't a founding tenet of the original church.
Infallibility was instituted by Jesus.
"What you bound on earth will be bound in heaven" it was only used for the first time in the 19th Century and to my knowledge has only been used 2 or 3 times in history. It is not a huge issue but is one that is constantly and wrongly brought up by people.
I think before bringing it up people should research for themselves and also research how decisions are made, the Pope's actual role and duties and how the Catechism is maintained and updated......
I don't see how that quote justifies papal infallability it could be taken to mean any number of things, if thats the justification for it then it sounds pretty sketchy to me.
I know infalliable teachings have only being carried out a few times, but just because its used infrequently doesn't mean its a non-issue, its one of the fundamental differences between the roman catholic church and the other christian churches, it seems silly to sweep it under the carpet. The prominence of the bishop of rome in the church was one of the main reasons you had the great schism between rome and the orthodox church.
To put it into your little analogy, you had a boat that set sail, rather quicky though problems about who should be the captain and what his role actually was lead to a significant proportion of the crew getting off and setting sail in their own flotilla of boats all of which sailed under the one flag but each captained by someone appointed by the crew, and that flotilla laid claim to staying true to the principles of the original voyage (orthodox church, each with their own head of their nations church). You then later on had another conflict which this time resulted in a lot more of the crew getting off the boat again complaining about the guidance of the ship and the role of the captain, these guys got into lots of small boats (protestantism) and set sail for the promised land also.
So in your boat analogy you can see the importance of who the captain of the ship was and what their role was.
For what its worth, if there is a god i think they'll all land safely.
It could be support for bondage.
It seems the Vatican has taken extreme measures to tackle falling vocations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SipHMR2pe-4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SipHMR2pe-4&feature=related)
I think there is a lot of misconceptions about religion and faith in western Europe especially in thinking of ones own faith. Christianity spread mainly for political and power gaining reasons than the word of God being an epiphany to some savage tribes. Kings who converted did so in order to gain allies and were just as blood thirsty the day after their baptism as they were the day before.
The early Christians and Pagans of Spain switched to Islam almost instantly as the Moors arrived from North Africa. There is little evidence of a struggle, they just did so for protection. I'm pretty sure it was no different in Ireland, Pagans either converted or were slain.
At the same time church has a role to play in the community in bringing people together, just like sports clubs, pubs and others do. Its in the same in all religions. The diminishing role of the church has in some way lead to the fragmenting of communities as has other changes in society. But humans are social creatures and something is needed to bring communities back together. But with so many different religions now and faithless people its unlikely to be one of faith that brings people together.
Quote from: thejuice on June 21, 2010, 10:51:40 PM
I think there is a lot of misconceptions about religion and faith in western Europe especially in thinking of ones own faith. Christianity spread mainly for political and power gaining reasons than the word of God being an epiphany to some savage tribes. Kings who converted did so in order to gain allies and were just as blood thirsty the day after their baptism as they were the day before.
The early Christians and Pagans of Spain switched to Islam almost instantly as the Moors arrived from North Africa. There is little evidence of a struggle, they just did so for protection. I'm pretty sure it was no different in Ireland, Pagans either converted or were slain.
At the same time church has a role to play in the community in bringing people together, just like sports clubs, pubs and others do. Its in the same in all religions. The diminishing role of the church has in some way lead to the fragmenting of communities as has other changes in society. But humans are social creatures and something is needed to bring communities back together. But with so many different religions now and faithless people its unlikely to be one of faith that brings people together.
Good post Juice, a lot of people don't realise that the same thing happened to Judasim, it spread across North Africa, into the Caucuses, the Russian Steppes, it even reached parts of Iran, Afganistan, Rome, Roman and Carthage Iberian colonies & Greece, Yemen and Ethopia. In fact this spread and conversion rather than the exoduses of ancient Israelites or Judeans that are the origins of most of the Worlds Jews now claiming modern Israel and Palestine as their ancient homeland.
Buddhism spread from Ancient Greece to Mongolia to Modern Bali the same way.
Ancient Greek Gods ended up in Bactra (Central Asia), Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia, Afganistan.
Celtic, Nordic & Germanic Gods had huge gerographical spreads due to the same converstion of convenience.
The hows and whys of the spread of religions, have nothing to do with the internal truths contained within them. The current problems of faith arose because we stopped practising religion and started studying it. Faith transcends logic and reason and our meagre capacity to understand. We have distorted values e.g. here in ireland we go to Mass to fulfil our religious duty, when in fact we should be leaving Mass to do our duty as Christians who have been spiritually nourished by it
Nicely put The Juice and mayogod......It's great to put some facts in the relgious debate. Not sure what your point is Pangurban. The internal truths? You don't think it's a good idea to study what we believe in? Just accept it blindly? Faith is caused by the power of our minds which we can't comprehend and for some reason refuse to accept. There are no truths, just beliefs. You say we have a meagre capacity to understand faith. Can you explain what you mean by that?
and one more
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yxXOvpGIso
Quote from: Pangurban on June 22, 2010, 01:06:20 AM
The hows and whys of the spread of religions, have nothing to do with the internal truths contained within them. The current problems of faith arose because we stopped practising religion and started studying it. Faith transcends logic and reason and our meagre capacity to understand. We have distorted values e.g. here in ireland we go to Mass to fulfil our religious duty, when in fact we should be leaving Mass to do our duty as Christians who have been spiritually nourished by it
Agree with a lot of that except that it is always natural that we study religion and anything else we come across. Our capacity to understand things has evolved due to our appetite to study everything.
The concept of 'here is something I need you to do, you won't understand it, but you must follow it and don't bother analysing it' as a way of life for the masses doesn't work with me and I don't think it will last long in the modern world.
Study can be an aid to a deeper understanding of our faith and beliefs, but it will never instil faith. Faith is rooted in a deep primeval instict. Unless you become as little children, you can never know God
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on June 21, 2010, 11:14:33 PM
Quote from: thejuice on June 21, 2010, 10:51:40 PM
I think there is a lot of misconceptions about religion and faith in western Europe especially in thinking of ones own faith. Christianity spread mainly for political and power gaining reasons than the word of God being an epiphany to some savage tribes. Kings who converted did so in order to gain allies and were just as blood thirsty the day after their baptism as they were the day before.
The early Christians and Pagans of Spain switched to Islam almost instantly as the Moors arrived from North Africa. There is little evidence of a struggle, they just did so for protection. I'm pretty sure it was no different in Ireland, Pagans either converted or were slain.
At the same time church has a role to play in the community in bringing people together, just like sports clubs, pubs and others do. Its in the same in all religions. The diminishing role of the church has in some way lead to the fragmenting of communities as has other changes in society. But humans are social creatures and something is needed to bring communities back together. But with so many different religions now and faithless people its unlikely to be one of faith that brings people together.
Good post Juice, a lot of people don't realise that the same thing happened to Judasim, it spread across North Africa, into the Caucuses, the Russian Steppes, it even reached parts of Iran, Afganistan, Rome, Roman and Carthage Iberian colonies & Greece, Yemen and Ethopia. In fact this spread and conversion rather than the exoduses of ancient Israelites or Judeans that are the origins of most of the Worlds Jews now claiming modern Israel and Palestine as their ancient homeland.
Buddhism spread from Ancient Greece to Mongolia to Modern Bali the same way.
Ancient Greek Gods ended up in Bactra (Central Asia), Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia, Afganistan.
Celtic, Nordic & Germanic Gods had huge gerographical spreads due to the same converstion of convenience.
All these religions evolved and changed through their travels and through the ages. Christianity is a very different beast now than the one that arrived here with Patrick. Not only that but there are many different versions of the major religions. This shows that even though they did expand to the far corners of the world they were often altered to be made acceptable. The smaller the world got the more the larger religons spread and changed.
Quote from: Pangurban on June 23, 2010, 03:11:57 AM
Study can be an aid to a deeper understanding of our faith and beliefs, but it will never instil faith. Faith is rooted in a deep primeval instict. Unless you become as little children, you can never know God
The problem with a statement like this is it sounds good but doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Fight or flight is an instinct which appears in every race and culture around the world. Belief in your/my God is not an instinct which appears in every race and culture around the world. Therefore it cannot be an instinct.
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2010, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: Pangurban on June 23, 2010, 03:11:57 AM
Study can be an aid to a deeper understanding of our faith and beliefs, but it will never instil faith. Faith is rooted in a deep primeval instict. Unless you become as little children, you can never know God
The problem with a statement like this is it sounds good but doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Fight or flight is an instinct which appears in every race and culture around the world. Belief in your/my God is not an instinct which appears in every race and culture around the world. Therefore it cannot be an instinct.
True the Huns where generally a mixute of Tengriism followers & Atheists. Yes Tengriism is a religion but a huge proportion of their ranks where atheists. As we know the Huns had many Bulgars, Turkic, Mongolians, Germanics, Hungars & Proto-Chinese and other Central Asian and East-European peoples in their ranks too. So a huge number of these varied peoples where atheists.
Also what about the Communist World.
The Invention of lieing is a wonderful film.
Muppet i have tried to think of one civilisation or culture that was not possessed of some spiritual or supernatural belief, perhaps you could enlighten me
Quote from: Pangurban on June 23, 2010, 03:11:57 AM
Study can be an aid to a deeper understanding of our faith and beliefs, but it will never instil faith. Faith is rooted in a deep primeval instict. Unless you become as little children, you can never know God
Just because we may be predisposed to believe in a higher power does not mean that there is a higher power to believe in.
Quote from: Pangurban on June 25, 2010, 03:12:24 AM
Muppet i have tried to think of one civilisation or culture that was not possessed of some spiritual or supernatural belief, perhaps you could enlighten me
Imagine (hypothetically) the 1st day of the first civilisation or culture. My guess is the primeval instincts would be survival, reproduction and possibly some worship.
Hypothetically again, imagine the day before that.
My guess is that the primeval instincts would be survival and reproduction.
Our instincts outdate civilisations and cultures by millions of years. Religion is a very recent development relative to the age of life on earth.
With all due respect that statement is total nonsense, are you seriously implying that human instincts pre-date humans. You are too intelligent to suggest that, so what do you mean. Can you name one civilisation,society or culture, that did not practise some form of worship, of what they perceived to be a higher power, be it the Sun,Fire, or a diety, that is the religious spiritual instinct which exists within every human person, though some thinking themselves enlightened , would try to deny it
It seems odd to me to be pointing to human instinct as a proof that religious belief is based on some truth (if that's what you're doing, Pangurban). For one thing, we must ask which religion does this instinct validate, since no two religions agree with each other (otherwise why would we have different religions?).
If the postulated "religious instinct" is an argument for the truth of Christianity, I thought one of the fundamental principles of Christiality was that we should not indulge our instincts. Indeed, given the obsession with the suppression of one particular instinct, one could be forgiven for assuming that this is the most important Christian principle of all.
Born believers: How your brain creates God
* 04 February 2009 by Michael Brooks Magazine issue 2694
WHILE many institutions collapsed during the Great Depression that began in 1929, one kind did rather well. During this leanest of times, the strictest, most authoritarian churches saw a surge in attendance.
This anomaly was documented in the early 1970s, but only now is science beginning to tell us why. It turns out that human beings have a natural inclination for religious belief, especially during hard times. Our brains effortlessly conjure up an imaginary world of spirits, gods and monsters, and the more insecure we feel, the harder it is to resist the pull of this supernatural world. It seems that our minds are finely tuned to believe in gods.
Religious ideas are common to all cultures: like language and music, they seem to be part of what it is to be human. Until recently, science has largely shied away from asking why. "It's not that religion is not important," says Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University, "it's that the taboo nature of the topic has meant there has been little progress."
The origin of religious belief is something of a mystery, but in recent years scientists have started to make suggestions. One leading idea is that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that makes people more likely to survive and pass their genes onto the next generation. In this view, shared religious belief helped our ancestors form tightly knit groups that cooperated in hunting, foraging and childcare, enabling these groups to outcompete others. In this way, the theory goes, religion was selected for by evolution, and eventually permeated every human society (New Scientist, 28 January 2006, p 30)
The religion-as-an-adaptation theory doesn't wash with everybody, however. As anthropologist Scott Atran of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor points out, the benefits of holding such unfounded beliefs are questionable, in terms of evolutionary fitness. "I don't think the idea makes much sense, given the kinds of things you find in religion," he says. A belief in life after death, for example, is hardly compatible with surviving in the here-and-now and propagating your genes. Moreover, if there are adaptive advantages of religion, they do not explain its origin, but simply how it spread.
An alternative being put forward by Atran and others is that religion emerges as a natural by-product of the way the human mind works.
That's not to say that the human brain has a "god module" in the same way that it has a language module that evolved specifically for acquiring language. Rather, some of the unique cognitive capacities that have made us so successful as a species also work together to create a tendency for supernatural thinking. "There's now a lot of evidence that some of the foundations for our religious beliefs are hard-wired," says Bloom.
Much of that evidence comes from experiments carried out on children, who are seen as revealing a "default state" of the mind that persists, albeit in modified form, into adulthood. "Children the world over have a strong natural receptivity to believing in gods because of the way their minds work, and this early developing receptivity continues to anchor our intuitive thinking throughout life," says anthropologist Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford.
So how does the brain conjure up gods? One of the key factors, says Bloom, is the fact that our brains have separate cognitive systems for dealing with living things - things with minds, or at least volition - and inanimate objects.
This separation happens very early in life. Bloom and colleagues have shown that babies as young as five months make a distinction between inanimate objects and people. Shown a box moving in a stop-start way, babies show surprise. But a person moving in the same way elicits no surprise. To babies, objects ought to obey the laws of physics and move in a predictable way. People, on the other hand, have their own intentions and goals, and move however they choose.
Mind and matter
Bloom says the two systems are autonomous, leaving us with two viewpoints on the world: one that deals with minds, and one that handles physical aspects of the world. He calls this innate assumption that mind and matter are distinct "common-sense dualism". The body is for physical processes, like eating and moving, while the mind carries our consciousness in a separate - and separable - package. "We very naturally accept you can leave your body in a dream, or in astral projection or some sort of magic," Bloom says. "These are universal views."
There is plenty of evidence that thinking about disembodied minds comes naturally. People readily form relationships with non-existent others: roughly half of all 4-year-olds have had an imaginary friend, and adults often form and maintain relationships with dead relatives, fictional characters and fantasy partners. As Barrett points out, this is an evolutionarily useful skill. Without it we would be unable to maintain large social hierarchies and alliances or anticipate what an unseen enemy might be planning. "Requiring a body around to think about its mind would be a great liability," he says.
Useful as it is, common-sense dualism also appears to prime the brain for supernatural concepts such as life after death. In 2004, Jesse Bering of Queen's University Belfast, UK, put on a puppet show for a group of pre-school children. During the show, an alligator ate a mouse. The researchers then asked the children questions about the physical existence of the mouse, such as: "Can the mouse still be sick? Does it need to eat or drink?" The children said no. But when asked more "spiritual" questions, such as "does the mouse think and know things?", the children answered yes.
Default to god
Based on these and other experiments, Bering considers a belief in some form of life apart from that experienced in the body to be the default setting of the human brain. Education and experience teach us to override it, but it never truly leaves us, he says. From there it is only a short step to conceptualising spirits, dead ancestors and, of course, gods, says Pascal Boyer, a psychologist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. Boyer points out that people expect their gods' minds to work very much like human minds, suggesting they spring from the same brain system that enables us to think about absent or non-existent people.
The ability to conceive of gods, however, is not sufficient to give rise to religion. The mind has another essential attribute: an overdeveloped sense of cause and effect which primes us to see purpose and design everywhere, even where there is none. "You see bushes rustle, you assume there's somebody or something there," Bloom says.
This over-attribution of cause and effect probably evolved for survival. If there are predators around, it is no good spotting them 9 times out of 10. Running away when you don't have to is a small price to pay for avoiding danger when the threat is real.
Again, experiments on young children reveal this default state of the mind. Children as young as three readily attribute design and purpose to inanimate objects. When Deborah Kelemen of the University of Arizona in Tucson asked 7 and 8-year-old children questions about inanimate objects and animals, she found that most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy rocks are there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds exist "to make nice music", while rivers exist so boats have something to float on. "It was extraordinary to hear children saying that things like mountains and clouds were 'for' a purpose and appearing highly resistant to any counter-suggestion," says Kelemen.
In similar experiments, Olivera Petrovich of the University of Oxford asked pre-school children about the origins of natural things such as plants and animals. She found they were seven times as likely to answer that they were made by god than made by people.
These cognitive biases are so strong, says Petrovich, that children tend to spontaneously invent the concept of god without adult intervention: "They rely on their everyday experience of the physical world and construct the concept of god on the basis of this experience." Because of this, when children hear the claims of religion they seem to make perfect sense.
Our predisposition to believe in a supernatural world stays with us as we get older. Kelemen has found that adults are just as inclined to see design and intention where there is none. Put under pressure to explain natural phenomena, adults often fall back on teleological arguments, such as "trees produce oxygen so that animals can breathe" or "the sun is hot because warmth nurtures life". Though she doesn't yet have evidence that this tendency is linked to belief in god, Kelemen does have results showing that most adults tacitly believe they have souls.
Boyer is keen to point out that religious adults are not childish or weak-minded. Studies reveal that religious adults have very different mindsets from children, concentrating more on the moral dimensions of their faith and less on its supernatural attributes.
Even so, religion is an inescapable artefact of the wiring in our brain, says Bloom. "All humans possess the brain circuitry and that never goes away." Petrovich adds that even adults who describe themselves as atheists and agnostics are prone to supernatural thinking. Bering has seen this too. When one of his students carried out interviews with atheists, it became clear that they often tacitly attribute purpose to significant or traumatic moments in their lives, as if some agency were intervening to make it happen. "They don't completely exorcise the ghost of god - they just muzzle it," Bering says.
The fact that trauma is so often responsible for these slips gives a clue as to why adults find it so difficult to jettison their innate belief in gods, Atran says. The problem is something he calls "the tragedy of cognition". Humans can anticipate future events, remember the past and conceive of how things could go wrong - including their own death, which is hard to deal with. "You've got to figure out a solution, otherwise you're overwhelmed," Atran says. When natural brain processes give us a get-out-of-jail card, we take it.
That view is backed up by an experiment published late last year (Science, vol 322, p 115). Jennifer Whitson of the University of Texas in Austin and Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, asked people what patterns they could see in arrangements of dots or stock market information. Before asking, Whitson and Galinsky made half their participants feel a lack of control, either by giving them feedback unrelated to their performance or by having them recall experiences where they had lost control of a situation.
The results were striking. The subjects who sensed a loss of control were much more likely to see patterns where there were none. "We were surprised that the phenomenon is as widespread as it is," Whitson says. What's going on, she suggests, is that when we feel a lack of control we fall back on superstitious ways of thinking. That would explain why religions enjoy a revival during hard times.
So if religion is a natural consequence of how our brains work, where does that leave god? All the researchers involved stress that none of this says anything about the existence or otherwise of gods: as Barratt points out, whether or not a belief is true is independent of why people believe it.
It does, however, suggests that god isn't going away, and that atheism will always be a hard sell. Religious belief is the "path of least resistance", says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort.
These findings also challenge the idea that religion is an adaptation. "Yes, religion helps create large societies - and once you have large societies you can outcompete groups that don't," Atran says. "But it arises as an artefact of the ability to build fictive worlds. I don't think there's an adaptation for religion any more than there's an adaptation to make airplanes."
Supporters of the adaptation hypothesis, however, say that the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. As David Sloan Wilson of Binghamton University in New York state points out, elements of religious belief could have arisen as a by-product of brain evolution, but religion per se was selected for because it promotes group survival. "Most adaptations are built from previous structures," he says. "Boyer's basic thesis and my basic thesis could both be correct."
Robin Dunbar of the University of Oxford - the researcher most strongly identified with the religion-as-adaptation argument - also has no problem with the idea that religion co-opts brain circuits that evolved for something else. Richard Dawkins, too, sees the two camps as compatible. "Why shouldn't both be correct?" he says. "I actually think they are."
Ultimately, discovering the true origins of something as complex as religion will be difficult. There is one experiment, however, that could go a long way to proving whether Boyer, Bloom and the rest are onto something profound. Ethical issues mean it won't be done any time soon, but that hasn't stopped people speculating about the outcome.
It goes something like this. Left to their own devices, children create their own "creole" languages using hard-wired linguistic brain circuits. A similar experiment would provide our best test of the innate religious inclinations of humans. Would a group of children raised in isolation spontaneously create their own religious beliefs? "I think the answer is yes," says Bloom.
God of the gullibile
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that religion is propagated through indoctrination, especially of children. Evolution predisposes children to swallow whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them, he argues, as trusting obedience is valuable for survival. This also leads to what Dawkins calls "slavish gullibility" in the face of religious claims.
If children have an innate belief in god, however, where does that leave the indoctrination hypothesis? "I am thoroughly happy with believing that children are predisposed to believe in invisible gods - I always was," says Dawkins. "But I also find the indoctrination hypothesis plausible. The two influences could, and I suspect do, reinforce one another." He suggests that evolved gullibility converts a child's general predisposition to believe in god into a specific belief in the god (or gods) their parents worship.
Michael Brooks is a writer based in Lewes, UK. He is the author of 13 Things That Don't Make Sense (Profile)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700
Quote from: Pangurban on June 25, 2010, 11:46:34 PM
With all due respect that statement is total nonsense, are you seriously implying that human instincts pre-date humans. You are too intelligent to suggest that, so what do you mean. Can you name one civilisation,society or culture, that did not practise some form of worship, of what they perceived to be a higher power, be it the Sun,Fire, or a diety, that is the religious spiritual instinct which exists within every human person, though some thinking themselves enlightened , would try to deny it
No.
I am simply saying that because humans evolved from something else they would have brought the instincts of their ancestors which would have been pretty basic. You identified faith as a primeval instinct. I am simply pointing out that, in my opinion, the other primeval instincts such as survival and reproduction would outdate any religious instinct by millions of years.
If life on earth is billions of years old, then the 'religious' or 'faith' instinct is barely 100,000 years old.
It would make sense to me that what we call basic instincts of survival, reproduction, etc predate human thought. On the other hand religion is a concept not an instinct and was developed as a way of explaining what could not be understood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzVxHF8T0Hk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzVxHF8T0Hk)
::)
How can anyone watching The Magdalene Sisters on TV 3 now not think that the Rogue State of the Vatican needs a bit of shock and awe treatment. The Evil Fckrs.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on September 01, 2010, 10:05:00 PM
How can anyone watching The Magdalene Sisters on TV 3 now not think that the Rogue State of the Vatican needs a bit of shock and awe treatment. The Evil Fckrs.
Our own nation doesn't come out of it too well does it?
Sorry for joining the conversation at this late stage and also please excuse my ignorance on the subject, but I do have a few questions to those who believe in God, and are practicing Catholics. (Taking Catholicism as an example as its the only religion I know anything about, having been brought up as a Catholic, but later when reaching the ability to question things, I decided against it.)
I presume if you are a fully believing catholic, you believe in everything the bible says, you wouldn't just pick out the bits that make sense, or that are the main headline grabbers, I.E life after death etc. If you believe in it all, I presume you believe that God created the heavens and the earth's, and did all this in 5 days, created man in the likeness of himself on the 6th day. This is one of the main principles of the catholic religion, if I'm not mistaken? I'm nearly sure that Catholics believe this happened about 8000 years ago, which would imply you don't believe in evolution, or the existence of any creature or physical thing before 8000 years ago. That would rule out your belief in dinosaurs from 65 million years ago, and everything in the 64,992,000 years in-between them and the creation of man by God?
Valid questions Big Mac but you're aiming them at the wrong people. Catholocism embraces evolution I think and sees the "awkward" parts of the bible as stories to be interpreted but not actual fact.
So you're stuck between wishy washy catholics and hardcore lunatics. Take your pick.
Quote from: BigMac on September 09, 2010, 03:03:50 PM
Sorry for joining the conversation at this late stage and also please excuse my ignorance on the subject, but I do have a few questions to those who believe in God, and are practicing Catholics. (Taking Catholicism as an example as its the only religion I know anything about, having been brought up as a Catholic, but later when reaching the ability to question things, I decided against it.)
I presume if you are a fully believing catholic, you believe in everything the bible says, you wouldn't just pick out the bits that make sense, or that are the main headline grabbers, I.E life after death etc. If you believe in it all, I presume you believe that God created the heavens and the earth's, and did all this in 5 days, created man in the likeness of himself on the 6th day. This is one of the main principles of the catholic religion, if I'm not mistaken? I'm nearly sure that Catholics believe this happened about 8000 years ago, which would imply you don't believe in evolution, or the existence of any creature or physical thing before 8000 years ago. That would rule out your belief in dinosaurs from 65 million years ago, and everything in the 64,992,000 years in-between them and the creation of man by God?
Err ... That would be an ecumenical matter!
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on September 09, 2010, 03:23:58 PM
Valid questions Big Mac but you're aiming them at the wrong people. Catholocism embraces evolution I think and sees the "awkward" parts of the bible as stories to be interpreted but not actual fact.
So you're stuck between wishy washy catholics and hardcore lunatics. Take your pick.
Is the old testament not looked upon by Rome as a nice wee read but not to be taken seriously whereas the new testament, gospels etc are the word of god, or close enough to it after a few re-writes/translations by the odd Pope through history?
Not sure how that all fits into vatican 2 and the council of Trent trying to 'modernise' things and make those protestants heretics either.
Quote from: johnneycool on September 09, 2010, 04:40:47 PM
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on September 09, 2010, 03:23:58 PM
Valid questions Big Mac but you're aiming them at the wrong people. Catholocism embraces evolution I think and sees the "awkward" parts of the bible as stories to be interpreted but not actual fact.
So you're stuck between wishy washy catholics and hardcore lunatics. Take your pick.
Is the old testament not looked upon by Rome as a nice wee read but not to be taken seriously whereas the new testament, gospels etc are the word of god, or close enough to it after a few re-writes/translations by the odd Pope through history?
Not sure how that all fits into vatican 2 and the council of Trent trying to 'modernise' things and make those protestants heretics either.
Wishy washy it is.
Quote from: BigMac on September 09, 2010, 03:03:50 PM
Sorry for joining the conversation at this late stage and also please excuse my ignorance on the subject, but I do have a few questions to those who believe in God, and are practicing Catholics. (Taking Catholicism as an example as its the only religion I know anything about, having been brought up as a Catholic, but later when reaching the ability to question things, I decided against it.)
I presume if you are a fully believing catholic, you believe in everything the bible says, you wouldn't just pick out the bits that make sense, or that are the main headline grabbers, I.E life after death etc. If you believe in it all, I presume you believe that God created the heavens and the earth's, and did all this in 5 days, created man in the likeness of himself on the 6th day. This is one of the main principles of the catholic religion, if I'm not mistaken? I'm nearly sure that Catholics believe this happened about 8000 years ago, which would imply you don't believe in evolution, or the existence of any creature or physical thing before 8000 years ago. That would rule out your belief in dinosaurs from 65 million years ago, and everything in the 64,992,000 years in-between them and the creation of man by God?
You presume wrong. Catholics believe in the interpretation of the bible as presented by the pope and his buddies in Rome. It is they that decided, for example, the book of leviticus is for mostly ignoring (except the bits about gays) and the new testament is 100% truth.
Quote from: BigMac on September 09, 2010, 03:03:50 PM
This is one of the main principles of the catholic religion, if I'm not mistaken?
Thirty seconds of Googling would tell you that you are very much mistaken
I think anyone who has bothered to study evolution and how humans came to exist could not honestly believe in God, or certainly not believe in the entire dogma of a religion (apart of course from those fools who convince themselves that they need to have blind faith in something for comfort or to please other people)
Quote from: Rav67 on September 09, 2010, 09:04:54 PM
I think anyone who has bothered to study evolution and how humans came to exist could not honestly believe in God
"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars."
Quote from: Rav67 on September 09, 2010, 09:04:54 PM
I think anyone who has bothered to study evolution and how humans came to exist could not honestly believe in God, or certainly not believe in the entire dogma of a religion (apart of course from those fools who convince themselves that they need to have blind faith in something for comfort or to please other people)
Evolution isn't the only theory other than creationism. In fact you are just a figmant of my imagination and therefore to you I am God.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2010, 12:41:33 AM
Quote from: Rav67 on September 09, 2010, 09:04:54 PM
I think anyone who has bothered to study evolution and how humans came to exist could not honestly believe in God, or certainly not believe in the entire dogma of a religion (apart of course from those fools who convince themselves that they need to have blind faith in something for comfort or to please other people)
Evolution isn't the only theory other than creationism. In fact you are just a figmant of my imagination and therefore to you I am God.
No, to
you you are God. If he's only imaginary then he can't think anything. But I'm with you except you might need to provided some evidence of your theory like evolutionists have, and like religous people haven't, leaving aside herself appearing in the odd place. Such a tease.
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on September 10, 2010, 10:25:12 AM
No, to you you are God. If he's only imaginary then he can't think anything. But I'm with you except you might need to provided some evidence of your theory like evolutionists have, and like religous people haven't, leaving aside herself appearing in the odd place. Such a tease.
Why don't you provide evidence? Evolution is only a theory.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2010, 10:34:38 AM
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on September 10, 2010, 10:25:12 AM
No, to you you are God. If he's only imaginary then he can't think anything. But I'm with you except you might need to provided some evidence of your theory like evolutionists have, and like religous people haven't, leaving aside herself appearing in the odd place. Such a tease.
Why don't you provide evidence? Evolution is only a theory.
What? You haven't heard about the evidence? There's a fair bit of it, to be honest, so it could take a while. You could start here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/ (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/)
When you're done. Let us know the bits of it you dispute. (Supported, of course, by your contrary evidence).
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2010, 10:34:38 AM
Why don't you provide evidence? Evolution is only a theory.
Huh?! Have you been got at Zap? ;)
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2010, 11:57:25 AM
What? You haven't heard about the evidence? There's a fair bit of it, to be honest, so it could take a while. You could start here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/ (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/)
When you're done. Let us know the bits of it you dispute. (Supported, of course, by your contrary evidence).
I've no time to read all that Hardy. I'm only half way through the old testament at the minute.
Are natural selection and the evolution of humns not different things?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán link=topic=15618.msg849129#msg849129
Huh?! Have you been got at Zap? ;)
Who got at me? Can't really go into to much detail as i'm on my phone in a small town in Florida. I've something big on tomorrow. 8)
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2010, 12:36:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2010, 11:57:25 AM
What? You haven't heard about the evidence? There's a fair bit of it, to be honest, so it could take a while. You could start here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/ (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/)
When you're done. Let us know the bits of it you dispute. (Supported, of course, by your contrary evidence).
I've no time to read all that Hardy. I'm only half way through the old testament at the minute.
No problem. Obviously, you won't know if you've got a better theory until you've read it. I could give you a tip, but it's up to you - put down the old testament for a while and get stuck into Darwin. I'd be surprised if you don't learn more from it. Plus it's way less violent.
QuoteAre natural selection and the evolution of humns not different things?
Not sure what you mean. Humans evolved through natural selection.
There are two ways to look at this.
1. God made everything even evil
2. We evolved from flowers and plants and even rocks.
We will never know as it'll a conundrum that's eternal. No one can convince no one as no one has any proof for ever and ever.
It's like the other puzzle - if a man drops a pin on the sand in a dessert, can he hear it?
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2010, 12:48:31 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2010, 12:36:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2010, 11:57:25 AM
What? You haven't heard about the evidence? There's a fair bit of it, to be honest, so it could take a while. You could start here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/ (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/)
When you're done. Let us know the bits of it you dispute. (Supported, of course, by your contrary evidence).
I've no time to read all that Hardy. I'm only half way through the old testament at the minute.
No problem. Obviously, you won't know if you've got a better theory until you've read it. I could give you a tip, but it's up to you - put down the old testament for a while and get stuck into Darwin. I'd be surprised if you don't learn more from it. Plus it's way less violent.
QuoteAre natural selection and the evolution of humns not different things?
Not sure what you mean. Humans evolved through natural selection.
If you look back at my original post I pointed out that the poster is a creation of my own, in my own head. Therefore I am his God. This is an internal debate between me and my imagination so please get out of my head. I know you and Fear are real as you come up with stuff i'd never think of (not to mention your impecible grammer) but the jury is still out on Olly.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2010, 12:36:41 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán link=topic=15618.msg849129#msg849129
Huh?! Have you been got at Zap? ;)
Who got at me? Can't really go into to much detail as i'm on my phone in a small town in Florida. I've something big on tomorrow. 8)
They've just discovered a place in South Africa where the first
Homo Sapiens arose, and whence we all have come --
150,000 years ago. Not to mention these remains of our knuckle-dragging ancestors (think GW Bush) of almost 2 million years ago:
Oul boys (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-african-hominin-fossil)
Take your head out of your creationist arse man ;) :D
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on September 10, 2010, 01:14:17 PM
They've just discovered a place in South Afrcia where the first Homo Sapiens arose, and whence we all have come -- 150,000 years ago. Not mention these remains of our knucke-dragging ancestors (think GW Bush) of almost 2 million years ago:
Oul boys (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-african-hominin-fossil)
Take your head out of your creationist arse man ;) :D
You Science boys must accept what goes up must come down. Ye are already on your way back to knuckle dragging (think GWB).
The beauty of it is that you can't uncreate something :)
Obviously Zap's taking the piss but the oul creationists do often come out with crap about there being no proof of evolution. I think its becuase they only talk to/listen to each other. Have a read of Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution - then try to argue otherwise!
Olly I could happily sit and hear your philosophical musings all day.
Quote from: Rav67 on September 10, 2010, 01:16:17 PM
Obviously Zap's taking the piss but the oul creationists do often come out with crap about there being no proof of evolution. I think its becuase they only talk to/listen to each other. Have a read of Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution - then try to argue otherwise!
Olly I could happily sit and hear your philosophical musings all day.
Fair play to Dawkins, he's starting to make the positive case for evolution rather than accusing those who don't agree with him of being no better than child abusers
Quote from: deiseach on September 10, 2010, 02:32:18 PM
Quote from: Rav67 on September 10, 2010, 01:16:17 PM
Obviously Zap's taking the piss but the oul creationists do often come out with crap about there being no proof of evolution. I think its becuase they only talk to/listen to each other. Have a read of Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution - then try to argue otherwise!
Olly I could happily sit and hear your philosophical musings all day.
Fair play to Dawkins, he's starting to make the positive case for evolution rather than accusing those who don't agree with him of being no better than child abusers
He's always made a good, rationale case for his beliefs - he just hasn't been good at tolerating (or being noce to) people with (as he describes them) irrational beliefs.
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 10, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: deiseach on September 10, 2010, 02:32:18 PM
Quote from: Rav67 on September 10, 2010, 01:16:17 PM
Obviously Zap's taking the piss but the oul creationists do often come out with crap about there being no proof of evolution. I think its becuase they only talk to/listen to each other. Have a read of Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution - then try to argue otherwise!
Olly I could happily sit and hear your philosophical musings all day.
Fair play to Dawkins, he's starting to make the positive case for evolution rather than accusing those who don't agree with him of being no better than child abusers
He's always made a good, rationale case for his beliefs - he just hasn't been good at tolerating (or being noce to) people with (as he describes them) irrational beliefs.
Exactly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik)
Olly, you're my God anyway.
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2010, 11:57:25 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2010, 10:34:38 AM
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on September 10, 2010, 10:25:12 AM
No, to you you are God. If he's only imaginary then he can't think anything. But I'm with you except you might need to provided some evidence of your theory like evolutionists have, and like religous people haven't, leaving aside herself appearing in the odd place. Such a tease.
Why don't you provide evidence? Evolution is only a theory.
What? You haven't heard about the evidence? There's a fair bit of it, to be honest, so it could take a while. You could start here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/ (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/)
When you're done. Let us know the bits of it you dispute. (Supported, of course, by your contrary evidence).
I'll Argue on account that Darwin admitted In His Later Life That He Didn't Actually Believe In Some
of His Own Writings
Hell would be too good for some of you lot anyways
Quote from: Tyrones own on September 10, 2010, 04:21:25 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2010, 11:57:25 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2010, 10:34:38 AM
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on September 10, 2010, 10:25:12 AM
No, to you you are God. If he's only imaginary then he can't think anything. But I'm with you except you might need to provided some evidence of your theory like evolutionists have, and like religous people haven't, leaving aside herself appearing in the odd place. Such a tease.
Why don't you provide evidence? Evolution is only a theory.
What? You haven't heard about the evidence? There's a fair bit of it, to be honest, so it could take a while. You could start here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/ (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/)
When you're done. Let us know the bits of it you dispute. (Supported, of course, by your contrary evidence).
I'll Argue on account that Darwin admitted In His Later Life That He Didn't Actually Believe In Some
of His Own Writings
Any chance of some details? Did he revise details of his theories as time went by and as always happens when new data shows up? (Hopefully its not the deathbed recantation tale! :p)
But assuming, for the sake of argument, that Darwin did repudiate some or all of his writings, so what? Evolutionary theory doesn't just rest on Darwin. If the alleged change of mind you speak about occurred, it would be evaluated on its scientific merit, not on the person himself. Darwin could have lost his mind and denounced natural selection or the entire idea of evolution and it would not matter one bit. Its the data that counts. Evolution and natural selection explains the data. That's why its still around as the unifying theory of life, 150 years of intensive testing and examination later! Don't forget that it took 80 years for natural selection to be finally accepted as the basic driving force of evolution!
Quote from: J70 on September 10, 2010, 05:56:41 PM
Quote from: Tyrones own on September 10, 2010, 04:21:25 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2010, 11:57:25 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 10, 2010, 10:34:38 AM
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on September 10, 2010, 10:25:12 AM
No, to you you are God. If he's only imaginary then he can't think anything. But I'm with you except you might need to provided some evidence of your theory like evolutionists have, and like religous people haven't, leaving aside herself appearing in the odd place. Such a tease.
Why don't you provide evidence? Evolution is only a theory.
What? You haven't heard about the evidence? There's a fair bit of it, to be honest, so it could take a while. You could start here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/ (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/)
When you're done. Let us know the bits of it you dispute. (Supported, of course, by your contrary evidence).
I'll Argue on account that Darwin admitted In His Later Life That He Didn't Actually Believe In Some
of His Own Writings
(Hopefully its not the deathbed recantation tale! :p)
I'm afraid it is, J70. I have this clown on my personal ignore list.
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2010, 07:03:59 PM
I'm afraid it is, J70. I have this clown on my personal ignore list.
What is the upshot of your personal ignore list? Because it doesn't seem to involve ignoring them
Quote from: deiseach on September 10, 2010, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2010, 07:03:59 PM
I'm afraid it is, J70. I have this clown on my personal ignore list.
What is the upshot of your personal ignore list? Because it doesn't seem to involve ignoring them
Good question :) ah sure even a simpleton like Hardly must understand how pathetic and childish he looks when he feels the need to schhh. a poster on an
internet discussion board, simply because he has no answer to me
...even with all his back up !
First its label me then its the insults and when that inevitably fails,
its the boycott :D
Quote from: deiseach on September 10, 2010, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 10, 2010, 07:03:59 PM
I'm afraid it is, J70. I have this clown on my personal ignore list.
What is the upshot of your personal ignore list? Because it doesn't seem to involve ignoring them
Er, it does, in as far as I can be consistent about it and in as far as a list can have an upshot. I'm sure you can't be fascinated enough about how I conduct my discussion board activities to want the long version, but since you did ask, I'll give you a brief outline.
When I see his name on a post, I'll usually skip it, because, as I said before, I found out long ago that reading it will be about as informative as listening to the magpie in the garden. If it's only a sentence long, as you'll appreciate, it's actually hard to avoid letting its content into your brain as you scan past it, but leave that aside. The only relevant aspect of the "ignore" policy is the "no response" policy. Replying only encourages magpie shrieking and achieves nothing in the way of information exchange.
I was replying to J70.
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2010, 09:24:00 AM
Er, it does, in as far as I can be consistent about it and in as far as a list can have an upshot. I'm sure you can't be fascinated enough about how I conduct my discussion board activities to want the long version, but since you did ask, I'll give you a brief outline.
When I see his name on a post, I'll usually skip it, because, as I said before, I found out long ago that reading it will be about as informative as listening to the magpie in the garden. If it's only a sentence long, as you'll appreciate, it's actually hard to avoid letting its content into your brain as you scan past it, but leave that aside. The only relevant aspect of the "ignore" policy is the "no response" policy. Replying only encourages magpie shrieking and achieves nothing in the way of information exchange.
I was replying to J70.
Ach, no need - bit late now, sez you, but anyway. I was yanking your chains about the time (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=15741.msg752590#msg752590) you responded to Fearon, someone who (I presume) is on your ignore list. Carry on.
Ignoramuses.
Quote from: deiseach on September 11, 2010, 09:38:14 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2010, 09:24:00 AM
Er, it does, in as far as I can be consistent about it and in as far as a list can have an upshot. I'm sure you can't be fascinated enough about how I conduct my discussion board activities to want the long version, but since you did ask, I'll give you a brief outline.
When I see his name on a post, I'll usually skip it, because, as I said before, I found out long ago that reading it will be about as informative as listening to the magpie in the garden. If it's only a sentence long, as you'll appreciate, it's actually hard to avoid letting its content into your brain as you scan past it, but leave that aside. The only relevant aspect of the "ignore" policy is the "no response" policy. Replying only encourages magpie shrieking and achieves nothing in the way of information exchange.
I was replying to J70.
Ach, no need - bit late now, sez you, but anyway. I was yanking your chains about the time (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=15741.msg752590#msg752590) you responded to Fearon, someone who (I presume) is on your ignore list. Carry on.
Ah. I consider my chains well and truly yanked.
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2010, 03:00:36 PM
Quote from: deiseach on September 11, 2010, 09:38:14 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2010, 09:24:00 AM
Er, it does, in as far as I can be consistent about it and in as far as a list can have an upshot. I'm sure you can't be fascinated enough about how I conduct my discussion board activities to want the long version, but since you did ask, I'll give you a brief outline.
When I see his name on a post, I'll usually skip it, because, as I said before, I found out long ago that reading it will be about as informative as listening to the magpie in the garden. If it's only a sentence long, as you'll appreciate, it's actually hard to avoid letting its content into your brain as you scan past it, but leave that aside. The only relevant aspect of the "ignore" policy is the "no response" policy. Replying only encourages magpie shrieking and achieves nothing in the way of information exchange.
I was replying to J70.
Ach, no need - bit late now, sez you, but anyway. I was yanking your chains about the time (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=15741.msg752590#msg752590) you responded to Fearon, someone who (I presume) is on your ignore list. Carry on.
Ah. I consider my chains well and truly yanked.
Off to confessions you go.
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2010, 03:00:36 PM
Quote from: deiseach on September 11, 2010, 09:38:14 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 11, 2010, 09:24:00 AM
Er, it does, in as far as I can be consistent about it and in as far as a list can have an upshot. I'm sure you can't be fascinated enough about how I conduct my discussion board activities to want the long version, but since you did ask, I'll give you a brief outline.
When I see his name on a post, I'll usually skip it, because, as I said before, I found out long ago that reading it will be about as informative as listening to the magpie in the garden. If it's only a sentence long, as you'll appreciate, it's actually hard to avoid letting its content into your brain as you scan past it, but leave that aside. The only relevant aspect of the "ignore" policy is the "no response" policy. Replying only encourages magpie shrieking and achieves nothing in the way of information exchange.
I was replying to J70.
Ach, no need - bit late now, sez you, but anyway. I was yanking your chains about the time (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=15741.msg752590#msg752590) you responded to Fearon, someone who (I presume) is on your ignore list. Carry on.
Ah. I consider my chains well and truly yanked.
Ignore me hole..ye boy's hang on my every word here ;D
And by the by, why the need to be constantly telling others that you're ignoring me
why not just simply...i don't know,
ignore me ???
It's clearly a little playground strategy of putting pressure on others not to be seen to side with me
in even the slightest manner... evidenced on numerous occasions by the
Can't believe you're siding with TO line.
:'( Pathetic is an understatement here, after all...this is an anonymous
discussion board!!!
Anyone else watching this show about complete moron Christians on t.v. now. What complete thicks.
No why are you? ::)
The local Bible bashers came round, first time in four years, "Hi we are from the local Baptist Church" told him i was born a catholic but hadn't really bother with religion much. Christ (excuse the pun) did he go off on the usual rant. I'm going to hell and how the Bible said that blah blah blah .........
I told him thanks for ruining my night and my kids overheard this balloon saying i wasn't getting to heaven!!!! How brain washed are Christians???
Nob heads or what. Felt like punching him in the face and say forgive me!!
Best just closing the door on them.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2011, 08:29:11 PM
The local Bible bashers came round, first time in four years, "Hi we are from the local Baptist Church" told him i was born a catholic but hadn't really bother with religion much. Christ (excuse the pun) did he go off on the usual rant. I'm going to hell and how the Bible said that blah blah blah .........
I told him thanks for ruining my night and my kids overheard this balloon saying i wasn't getting to heaven!!!! How brain washed are Christians???
Nob heads or what. Felt like punching him in the face and say forgive me!!
I remember when I was in college running down O Connell street to parnell for a bus home and the old hairy krishna bucko grabs me and offers me a free book if I was willing to make a donation. Told him I had no interest in his or any religion so he kindly gave me the book without a donation. When I turned around there was this crazy bastard in front of me telling me that I would go to hell if i read that book and the only true god was Jesus and the others would burn in hell. He offered to take Hairy Krishnas book and burn it, followed me up the street pleading with me to give him the book! If begging is illegal then so should that shite be.
I was reading a book today that offered the opinion that God was a sadist and maybe a bit of a bastard. At the start he was OK and had good intentions but after a few thousands years he just got bored and started making more natural disasters and breeding boys like Hitler, Pot Pol, Sharon Osbourne and Shay Guevara.
It's a possibility and rather frightening that if you devote your life to God and do good things like giving money to tramps and tending to your neighbour's bush and then when you go up to Heaven God fcuks you about slapping you and all. It's sobering.
Quote from: Olly on March 21, 2011, 11:09:06 PM
I was reading a book today that offered the opinion that God was a sadist and maybe a bit of a b**tard. At the start he was OK and had good intentions but after a few thousands years he just got bored and started making more natural disasters and breeding boys like Hitler, Pot Pol, Sharon Osbourne and Shay Guevara.
It's a possibility and rather frightening that if you devote your life to God and do good things like giving money to tramps and tending to your neighbour's bush and then when you go up to Heaven God fcuks you about slapping you and all. It's sobering.
Any relation to Che Given :D
Only bad thing about there being no after life is that I won't be able to see all those Theists disappointed faces.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 21, 2011, 08:32:11 PM
Best just closing the door on them.
Not a bit of it. I used to love it when the Jovies came to visit my old place, they came at the rate of about once a week. I think it's because I always argued with them. It was always the same child but a different adult. I hear that what they do is send someone a bit more senior next time if they face a particularly awkward victim. It was always a Saturday afternoon so I had more time than they had, they'd end up leaving and me insisting that they stay a bit longer.
Nonbeliever and happy about it.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 22, 2011, 12:53:30 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 21, 2011, 08:32:11 PM
Best just closing the door on them.
Not a bit of it. I used to love it when the Jovies came to visit my old place, they came at the rate of about once a week. I think it's because I always argued with them. It was always the same child but a different adult. I hear that what they do is send someone a bit more senior next time if they face a particularly awkward victim. It was always a Saturday afternoon so I had more time than they had, they'd end up leaving and me insisting that they stay a bit longer.
That is a really good way of finding out if God really exists.
At uni we invited the Jahovies in, asked them did they want a cup a tea, they said aye, we went out the kitchen, cleared out the back door and went down to the Anchor bar for a few pints, laughing at our prank clear in the knowlegde that are belongings which were few were save in the hands of the bible bashers. Ah good times :D
Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197
Just read that the Catholic Church invited Robert Mugabe to the Vatican for the beatification of John Paul. Maybe this should be in the WTF thread.
Quote from: Minder on April 30, 2011, 08:20:12 PM
Just read that the Catholic Church invited Robert Mugabe to the Vatican for the beatification of John Paul. Maybe this should be in the WTF thread.
All religion is good for, is nice Architecture.
(http://www.crystalinks.com/isishorusmaryjesus.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TizJQ8gydig
Quote from: Olly on March 21, 2011, 11:09:06 PM
I was reading a book today that offered the opinion that God was a sadist and maybe a bit of a b**tard. At the start he was OK and had good intentions but after a few thousands years he just got bored and started making more natural disasters and breeding boys like Hitler, Pot Pol, Sharon Osbourne and Shay Guevara.
It's a possibility and rather frightening that if you devote your life to God and do good things like giving money to tramps and tending to your neighbour's bush and then when you go up to Heaven God fcuks you about slapping you and all. It's sobering.
:D WTF
Quote from: Forever Green on July 30, 2011, 02:29:27 AM
Quote from: Olly on March 21, 2011, 11:09:06 PM
I was reading a book today that offered the opinion that God was a sadist and maybe a bit of a b**tard. At the start he was OK and had good intentions but after a few thousands years he just got bored and started making more natural disasters and breeding boys like Hitler, Pot Pol, Sharon Osbourne and Shay Guevara.
It's a possibility and rather frightening that if you devote your life to God and do good things like giving money to tramps and tending to your neighbour's bush and then when you go up to Heaven God fcuks you about slapping you and all. It's sobering.
:D WTF
Olly, You should apply for that to be included in the Bible, it would fit right in. :D
what you all think of the change of mass prayers at the weekend
Quote from: gerry on September 19, 2011, 09:45:29 PM
what you all think of the change of mass prayers at the weekend
I don't go to Novus Ordo anymore but I assume this is the new translation of the Mass? I thought it wasn't due to be introduced until end of November.
it started with us at the weekend, very confusing
My ould fella would beat us out the door to mass on Sunday and curse us to hell for not going to earlier mass. I never went once I left home but still go for pints Sunday morning when I am in mayo.
Not sure what to think about what my three year old should be taught about religion.
Quote from: mannix on September 20, 2011, 01:32:46 AM
My ould fella would beat us out the door to mass on Sunday and curse us to hell for not going to earlier mass. I never went once I left home but still go for pints Sunday morning when I am in mayo.
Not sure what to think about what my three year old should be taught about religion.
Tell him it's all a load of cobblers.
Did you have the child baptized Mannix?
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Abortion/bigger/problem/than/joblessness/says/Catholic/Church/elpepueng/20120101elpeng_3/Ten (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Abortion/bigger/problem/than/joblessness/says/Catholic/Church/elpepueng/20120101elpeng_3/Ten)
The Spanish Catholic Church is also concerned about homosexuality. During his Boxing Day sermon, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, said there was a conspiracy by the United Nations. "The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools."
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2012, 04:19:52 PM
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Abortion/bigger/problem/than/joblessness/says/Catholic/Church/elpepueng/20120101elpeng_3/Ten (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Abortion/bigger/problem/than/joblessness/says/Catholic/Church/elpepueng/20120101elpeng_3/Ten)
The Spanish Catholic Church is also concerned about homosexuality. During his Boxing Day sermon, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, said there was a conspiracy by the United Nations. "The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools."
Population control measures. So, this archbishop is saying people can be talked into homosexuality? Or are UNESCO putting something in the world's water unknownst to us?? :o
Quote from: Tubberman on January 12, 2012, 04:36:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2012, 04:19:52 PM
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Abortion/bigger/problem/than/joblessness/says/Catholic/Church/elpepueng/20120101elpeng_3/Ten (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Abortion/bigger/problem/than/joblessness/says/Catholic/Church/elpepueng/20120101elpeng_3/Ten)
The Spanish Catholic Church is also concerned about homosexuality. During his Boxing Day sermon, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, said there was a conspiracy by the United Nations. "The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools."
Population control measures. So, this archbishop is saying people can be talked into homosexuality? Or are UNESCO putting something in the world's water unknownst to us?? :o
If he is only talking about 50% of the world's men, then it mightn't be too bad. Just think of a night in Coppers, the place full, but half of the men that would normally be there are in The George instead. There could be an upside. ;D
Quote from: muppet on January 12, 2012, 04:19:52 PM
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Abortion/bigger/problem/than/joblessness/says/Catholic/Church/elpepueng/20120101elpeng_3/Ten (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Abortion/bigger/problem/than/joblessness/says/Catholic/Church/elpepueng/20120101elpeng_3/Ten)
The Spanish Catholic Church is also concerned about homosexuality. During his Boxing Day sermon, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, said there was a conspiracy by the United Nations. "The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools."
Maybe it's a UN-funded project towards improved population-control?? :P
Quote from: stephenite on September 20, 2011, 04:11:43 AM
Did you have the child baptized Mannix?
I did, and I was baptized,made the communion, still have my confirmation money and I got married and will be buried after mass too, but I still don' t believ for one second in god. When I do go to mass I daydream.
Should I teach a 4 year old about something I don't believe in? They do not have religious classes in her school as there is all sorts of gods involved with different kids there.she asked me if we were Jewish or Hindu on Christmas eve, I turned away and changed the subject.
I would be thinking that the christening and marriage thing is more of legalizing something than actually doing it as religion.
Since the girl asked me about her religion I am leaning towards just teaching her to be a good person and be nice to others and animals.
Mannix, why do you go to mass then? It's okay to just stop going if you don't believe in it. By admitting to yourself that you don't believe you've already taken the first step in standing up for yourself against theocratic bullying. You don't have to feel brow-beaten into going to the chapel.
So the bould jesus may have had a wife!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19645273 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19645273)
'Wife of Jesus' reference in Coptic 4th Century script
A previously unknown scrap of ancient papyrus written in ancient Egyptian Coptic The text reveals early Christians' concerns about sex and marriage, Harvard scholar Karen King says
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Modern Christian Art goes on show
Restoration amateur ruins fresco
An ancient scrap of papyrus makes explicit reference to Jesus having a wife, according to a renowned expert in Christian history.
Harvard divinity professor Karen King unveiled the 4th-Century Coptic script at a conference in Rome.
She said researchers had identified the words "Jesus said to them, 'my wife'", which might refer to Mary Magdalene.
Christian tradition holds that Jesus did not marry - but Ms King said in early years it was subject to debate.
The provocative find could spark debate over celibacy and the role of women within Christianity, she added.
But the announcement sparked scepticism from some theologians.
Continue reading the main story
"Start Quote
It is not evidence... that Jesus had a wife... (but evidence that)some Christians... thought that Jesus had a wife"
Karen King Harvard divinity professor
Jim West, a professor and Baptist pastor in Tennessee, said: "A statement on a papyrus fragment isn't proof of anything. It's nothing more than a statement 'in thin air', without substantial context."
Wolf-Peter Funk, a noted Coptic linguist attending the same conference as Ms King, said there were "thousands of scraps of papyrus where you find crazy things," and many questions remained about the fragment.
'Worthy disciple'
Ms King said the document, written in ancient Egyptian Coptic, is the first known scripture in which Jesus is reported to cite his wife.
She said the 4th-Century text was a copy of a gospel, probably written in Greek in the 2nd Century.
She said initially she was sceptical about the yellowish brown papyrus, and started from the notion that it was a forgery - but that she quickly decided it was genuine.
Several other experts agreed, she said, but the "final judgment on the fragment depends on further examination by colleagues and further testing, especially of the chemical composition of the ink".
A video filmed by Harvard University reveals experts were "sceptical" before examining the ancient scrap of papyrus
Ms King said the script was not proof of Jesus's marital status.
"It is not evidence, for us, historically, that Jesus had a wife," she said.
"It's quite clear evidence, in fact, that some Christians, probably in the second half of the 2nd Century, thought that Jesus had a wife."
Ms King said it revealed the concerns of early Christians with regards to family and marriage matters.
"From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether it was better not to marry, but it was over a century after Jesus's death before they began appealing to Jesus's marital status to support their positions.
"What this shows is that there were early Christians for whom sexual union in marriage could be an imitation of God's creativity and generativity and it could be spiritually proper and appropriate."
Bible scholar Ben Witherington III, a professor in Kentucky, said the term "wife" might simply refer to a female domestic assistant and follower.
Private owner
According to Ms King's research team, the text also quotes Jesus as telling his followers that Mary Magdalene is worthy of being his disciple.
This, in turn, casts new doubt on the long-held belief that Jesus had no female disciples, and raises issues about Mary's biblical role as a sinner, the researchers said.
Ms King presented the document at a six-day conference held at Rome's La Sapienza University and at the Augustinianum institute of the Pontifical Lateran University.
The faded papyrus is hardly bigger than a business card and has eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass.
The private collector, who owns the fragment, has asked to remain anonymous because "he doesn't want to be hounded by people who want to buy this", Ms King said.
She said he had contacted Ms King to help translate and analyse it.
Nothing was known about the circumstances of its discovery, but because of the script used she had concluded it must have come from Egypt.
I in particular liked the bit in bold (my doing) about a pastor and professor questioning its 'substantial context'. No doubt he doesn't preach anything on a sunday which lacks this substantial context he talks about.
Yeah, it's a common enough story. I'd be surprised if he didn't.
I wonder was she one of the Magdalenes from Cappagh?
Quote from: johnneycool on September 19, 2012, 04:21:10 PM
there were "thousands of scraps of papyrus where you find crazy things,"
Hadn't noticed.
(http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/555126_545134965509748_787704957_n.png)
P.S. not to be taken too seriously.
Thought this was interesting
http://news.yahoo.com/religious-groups-face-increased-hostility-worldwide-report-150713420.html
Religious groups face increased hostility worldwide: report
.
Reuters
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
8 hours ago
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
(Reuters) - Violence and discrimination against religious groups by governments and rival faiths have reached new highs in all regions of the world except the Americas, according to a new Pew Research Center report.
Social hostility such as attacks on minority faiths or pressure to conform to certain norms was strong in one-third of the 198 countries and territories surveyed in 2012, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, it said on Tuesday.
Religious-related terrorism and sectarian violence occurred in one-fifth of those countries in that year, while states imposed legal limits on worship, preaching or religious wear in almost 30 percent of them, Pew said.
"Religious hostilities increased in every major region of the world except the Americas," Pew said in its report, the latest such survey in a series based on data back to 2007.
The Washington-based center, which is non-partisan and takes no policy position in its reports, gave no reason for the rises noted in hostility against Christians, Muslims, Jews and an "other" category including Sikhs, Bah'ais and atheists.
Hindus, Buddhists and folk religions saw lower levels of hostility and little change in the past six years, according to the report's extensive data.
As some restrictive countries such as China, Indonesia, Russia and Egypt also have large populations, Pew estimated that 76 percent of the total global population faces some sort of official or informal restriction on their faith.
A report last week by the Christian group Open Doors said documented cases of Christians killed for their faith last year had doubled to 2,123 around the world, with Syria accounting for more than the entire global total in 2012.
HARASSMENT IN EUROPE
Results for strong social hostility such as anti-Semitic attacks, Islamist assaults on churches and Buddhist agitation against Muslims were the highest seen since the series began, reaching 33 percent of surveyed countries in 2012 after 29 percent in 2011 and 20 percent in mid-2007.
Official bans, harassment or other government interference in religion rose to 29 percent of countries surveyed in 2012 after 28 percent in 2011 and 20 percent in mid-2007.
Europe showed the largest median increase in hostility due to a rise in harrassment of women because of religious dress and violent attacks on minorities such as the murder of a rabbi and three Jewish children by an Islamist radical in France.
The report found the highest social hostility concerning religion in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Somalia and Israel.
It gave no reasons but radical Islamists often target mainstream Muslims and Christians in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia, while India has recurring tensions between its majority Hindus and minority Muslims and Christians.
Tensions in Israel arise from the Palestinian issue, disagreements between secular and religious Jews and the growth of ultra-Orthodox sects that live apart from the majority.
The five countries with the most government restrictions on religion are Egypt, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.
JEWS FACE HOSTILITY
The world's two largest faiths, Christianity and Islam, make up almost half the world's population and were the most widely targetted in 2012, facing official and social hostility in 110 and 109 countries respectively.
Jews suffer hostility in 71 countries, even though they make up only 0.2 percent of the world's population and about 80 percent of them live in Israel and the United States.
The report said there were probably more restrictions on religion around the world than its statistics could document but its results could be considered "a good estimate".
It classified war and terrorism as social hostility, arguing: "It is not always possible to determine the degree to which they are religiously motivated or state sponsored."
North Korea, which last week's Open Doors report described as the most dangerous country for Christians in the world, was absent from the Pew study due to a lack of data on its tightly closed society.
Question for those who believe and understand the theory if evolution. Why did we develop two eyes instead of one?
And while you're at it, why did we not evolve with four eyes, two at the front and two at the rear?
Quote from: Orior on October 29, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
Question for those who believe and understand the theory if evolution. Why did we develop two eyes instead of one?
And while you're at it, why did we not evolve with four eyes, two at the front and two at the rear?
2 eyes rather than 1 is so we can have a perception of distance.
Quote from: Orior on October 29, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
Question for those who believe and understand the theory if evolution. Why did we develop two eyes instead of one?
And while you're at it, why did we not evolve with four eyes, two at the front and two at the rear?
1st question: As haveaharp says, parallax allows us to judge distance and presumably speed.
2nd question: You'd want eyes in the back of your head to know that one.
Quote from: muppet on October 29, 2014, 09:23:13 PM
Quote from: Orior on October 29, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
Question for those who believe and understand the theory if evolution. Why did we develop two eyes instead of one?
And while you're at it, why did we not evolve with four eyes, two at the front and two at the rear?
1st question: As haveaharp says, parallax allows us to judge distance and presumably speed.
2nd question: You'd want eyes in the back of your head to know that one.
Yes I also watched that programme that explained how we use parallax to determine the distance of stars. But how did we know that at the start? It would also have taken a long time for sight to be developed in the eye.
Quote from: Orior on October 29, 2014, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 29, 2014, 09:23:13 PM
Quote from: Orior on October 29, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
Question for those who believe and understand the theory if evolution. Why did we develop two eyes instead of one?
And while you're at it, why did we not evolve with four eyes, two at the front and two at the rear?
1st question: As haveaharp says, parallax allows us to judge distance and presumably speed.
2nd question: You'd want eyes in the back of your head to know that one.
Yes I also watched that programme that explained how we use parallax to determine the distance of stars. But how did we know that at the start? It would also have taken a long time for sight to be developed in the eye.
We have two of lots of things. This may have evolved due to the devastation of the loss of one through injury. Surprising though we have only one head and one brain, although I believe some dinosaurs had two brains. Willie Frazer strikes me as a man with two brains, although they are obviously unconnected.
Quote from: Orior on October 29, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
Question for those who believe and understand the theory if evolution. Why did we develop two eyes instead of one?
And while you're at it, why did we not evolve with four eyes, two at the front and two at the rear?
Spiders have eight eyes. Insects have compound eyes. Doubt if there is any reason for vertebrates having two beyond it being a successful set up - some redundancy, but not wasteful, depth perception or two directional etc. In other words, two eyes evolved, and it worked! Natural selection can only work with the materials at hand.
Quote from: Orior on October 29, 2014, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 29, 2014, 09:23:13 PM
Quote from: Orior on October 29, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
Question for those who believe and understand the theory if evolution. Why did we develop two eyes instead of one?
And while you're at it, why did we not evolve with four eyes, two at the front and two at the rear?
1st question: As haveaharp says, parallax allows us to judge distance and presumably speed.
2nd question: You'd want eyes in the back of your head to know that one.
Yes I also watched that programme that explained how we use parallax to determine the distance of stars. But how did we know that at the start? It would also have taken a long time for sight to be developed in the eye.
Know what at the start?
There is no predetermined goal or target in evolution. Natural selection is about adapting to present conditions. Adaptations can accumulate, but it's a blind process, pardon the pun.
As for the evolution of the eye and vision, just about every point in the sequence is present in nature, from light sensitive spots in flatworms to the acute vision of the eagle eye.
Quote from: muppet on October 29, 2014, 11:02:35 PM
Quote from: Orior on October 29, 2014, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 29, 2014, 09:23:13 PM
Quote from: Orior on October 29, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
Question for those who believe and understand the theory if evolution. Why did we develop two eyes instead of one?
And while you're at it, why did we not evolve with four eyes, two at the front and two at the rear?
1st question: As haveaharp says, parallax allows us to judge distance and presumably speed.
2nd question: You'd want eyes in the back of your head to know that one.
Yes I also watched that programme that explained how we use parallax to determine the distance of stars. But how did we know that at the start? It would also have taken a long time for sight to be developed in the eye.
We have two of lots of things. This may have evolved due to the devastation of the loss of one through injury. Surprising though we have only one head and one brain, although I believe some dinosaurs had two brains. Willie Frazer strikes me as a man with two brains, although they are obviously unconnected.
[/b]Or one very small one.
What's a padre pio mitt ?
People with a turn in their eyes. They haven't been evolved out yet. Strange thing that.
That reminds me of the playground attendant who was enjoying a rare moment of sunshine in the playground one afternoon when a young child running past accidently kicked and tripped on her outstretched legs.
"Look where you're going!" the attendant cried.
"Go where you're looking" said the fallen child.
I'm nearly sure I've told this story on here before.
That's all I have to say.
Quote from: Aristo 60 on May 20, 2016, 03:51:36 PM
People with a turn in their eyes. They haven't been evolved out yet. Strange thing that.
That reminds me of the playground attendant who was enjoying a rare moment of sunshine in the playground one afternoon when a young child running past accidently kicked and tripped on her outstretched legs.
"Look where you're going!" the attendant cried.
"Go where you're looking" said the fallen child.
I'm nearly sure I've told this story on here before.
That's all I have to say.
The quality of posts from Down have declined along with their team.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41680187
A Londonderry priest has said he believes marriage should be an option for Catholic Church clergymen.
Fr Paddy O'Kane, of Holy Family Church in Ballymagroarty, said the move could help address the global shortage of Catholic priests.
A quarter of Catholic parishes worldwide now have no resident priest.
Fr O'Kane said the Church may have to "take another look at celibacy and women priests."
"Many priests might choose to be celibate, but for those who want to get married it should be an option," he said.
'Many times of loneliness'
Writing in Derry Now, he said the shortage of clergy is impacting on dioceses across Ireland.
"Priest-less parishes are appearing all over Ireland and may be here in this diocese before long," he added.
"This year the national seminary in Maynooth had only eight students entering to study for the priesthood. Half of these will probably leave during their training."
Fr O'Kane said his own celibacy had allowed him to live devoted to serving others but had come at a personal cost.
"There are times I miss having a family and there are many times of loneliness and there have been times I have only held on to my faith by a hair's breadth," he said.
Earlier this year Pope Francis said he may consider ordaining married men - under very specific circumstances - to counter the shortage of Catholic priests.
However he ruled out dropping celibacy as a requirement for the priesthood.
Fr O'Kane was on BBC Radio Ulster yesterday.His comments were taken out of context.He said he had a very fulfilling life as a Priest,but sometimes he gets lonely,the same as everyone else,Priest and lay.
Why are priests not allowed to marry? What's the theological argument there?
Quote from: T Fearon on October 21, 2017, 09:41:14 AM
Fr O'Kane was on BBC Radio Ulster yesterday.His comments were taken out of context.He said he had a very fulfilling life as a Priest,but sometimes he gets lonely,the same as everyone else,Priest and lay.
An incredibly appropriate and timely gospel this weekend at mass on this very point.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 21, 2017, 09:41:14 AM
Fr O'Kane was on BBC Radio Ulster yesterday.His comments were taken out of context.He said he had a very fulfilling life as a Priest,but sometimes he gets lonely,the same as everyone else,Priest and lay.
Don't see how his comments were taken out of context.
This seems pretty straightforward:
"There are times I miss having a family and there are many times of loneliness and there have been times I have only held on to my faith by a hair's breadth,"
The celibacy requirement for Priests is archaic.
He emphasised the term "There are times" and said he was not personally in favour of removing the celibacy rule himself,during his radio interview.
There are times we all feel disillusioned with things in our lives.He stressed this as well,and said he was no different.
It would be humanising to see a post from you on the subject of your faith at a time when you feel disillusioned
Quote from: theskull1 on October 22, 2017, 09:33:11 AM
It would be humanising to see a post from you on the subject of your faith at a time when you feel disillusioned
What would you know about faith? You have none! Go write on a subject you know something about!
Deadly
People paying $450M for a painting is mad enough but it seems that somehow Leonardo DaVinci had a time machine and this Salvator Mundi (Saviour of the World) is a depiction of Jesus himself.
Turns out the current images we see of Jesus are based on one of the popes sons, (illegitimate) Cesare Borgia who the Pope of the time, Pope Alexander VI who wanted all artwork of jesus to be modelled on this son and that seems to have stood the test of time.
Always wondered how some things evolved and become factoids.
Quote from: johnneycool on November 16, 2017, 11:13:43 AM
People paying $450M for a painting is mad enough but it seems that somehow Leonardo DaVinci had a time machine and this Salvator Mundi (Saviour of the World) is a depiction of Jesus himself.
Turns out the current images we see of Jesus are based on one of the popes sons, (illegitimate) Cesare Borgia who the Pope of the time, Pope Alexander VI who wanted all artwork of jesus to be modelled on this son and that seems to have stood the test of time.
Always wondered how some things evolved and become factoids.
:)
I don't care if it's true, I want to believe it and I will believe it.
According to Sky news its the first time that all the churches in England are closed on Easter Sunday since King John fell out with the Pope 800 years ago.