View Full Version : A question of Religion
green goblin
05/01/2005, 1:32 PM
Well, to put it in perspective, the 1918 flu epidemic killed more people than the Black Death, yet alone any war in the last century.
Surely the biggest killer in recent times has been poverty, when looked at on a global scale.
Obscene numbers of people are dying in the developing world through utterly preventable diseases. They are poor, in part, because of the (secular) government policies of the rich western world. I don't think that Christian Aid, Cafod, Save the Children, Tear Fund, or any other bunch of (religious based) people raising money to buy rice, medicine, pastic sheets and water for the poor souls are really to blame for their suffering. It's far too trite to say religion is a cause of war. The Moslems who drive ambulances into war zones for the Red Crescent are no more warmongers than their Red Cross counterparts.
Don't mean to be rude but, to put it succinctly, what are you doing here? The thread states it's about religion. It's not like you're Mary Whitehouse who's stumbled into a website by the title 'Gay Cottaging.com' thinking its about a load of happy ruralites doing up their homes. For someone who doesn't like to be 'bugged' about religion, you've gone out of your way to be hassled by it.
I've no problem discussing it, I just get fed up of the bible-bashing types who push their religion in peoples faces thats all.
I've no problem discussing it, I just get fed up of the bible-bashing types who push their religion in peoples faces thats all.Well the Mormon or JW on the door is probably more sincere (helping your salvation or whatever) in what he's 'selling' (Mormons like 7 day wonders take a percentage of your money. JWs rely on contributions and sales of their publishing wing) than the double glazing tw*ts that bang on peoples' doors. As for anyone else, who's shoving it in your face? No one here is. In fact the shoving is from people who rubbish people's beliefs while claiming (wrongly) that religion is responsible for most non-'nature related' deaths ever. I mean you'd have something to complain if someone went on the Israel thread and declared that the land there is Jewish 'cos God says so.'
As for anyone else, who's shoving it in your face? No one here is. In fact the shoving is from people who rubbish people's beliefs while claiming (wrongly) that religion is responsible for most non-'nature related' deaths ever. I mean you'd have something to complain if someone went on the Israel thread and declared that the land there is Jewish 'cos God says so.'
who's shoving it in my face? Just look at the education system in this country- full of it. the angelus on tv at 6 o'clock etc., It really bugs me. I totally respect people's right to their beliefs, and I have no problem with people believing in a higher being, but I just don't think it should be done in public. And religion is a factor in almost every conflict on the planet- even if it is only being used as an excuse.
Lionel Ritchie
05/01/2005, 2:17 PM
Well, to put it in perspective, the 1918 flu epidemic killed more people than the Black Death, yet alone any war in the last century.
Surely the biggest killer in recent times has been poverty, when looked at on a global scale.
Obscene numbers of people are dying in the developing world through utterly preventable diseases. They are poor, in part, because of the (secular) government policies of the rich western world. I don't think that Christian Aid, Cafod, Save the Children, Tear Fund, or any other bunch of (religious based) people raising money to buy rice, medicine, pastic sheets and water for the poor souls are really to blame for their suffering. It's far too trite to say religion is a cause of war. The Moslems who drive ambulances into war zones for the Red Crescent are no more warmongers than their Red Cross counterparts.
I won't run down the good, selfless work that religious based charities of every hue do in the developing (and indeed developed) world. But it is an absolute fact that the Pope for example -has used his power and position to oppose and organise opposition to every reasonable step towards the most basic family planning provisions in many developing countries. And i'm not talking about abortion here -I'm talking about condoms, pills etc...
Possibly worse -he and the likes of "Mother" teresa have gone to these places and urged uneducated young people who can scarcely feed themselves to "breed for the church" as Europe has become godless.
The man has consistently been part of the problem rather than the solution in the developing world -and before someone comes back with "what about him putting on Bonos glasses and looking for third world debt to be wiped out?"
-I'll just say It's a pretty easy thing to ask someone else to take a hit for the greater good. he'd be more in his line to drag some of his own teachings out of the 19th century by way of example to those whom he'd like to see give up on flogging a dead horse.
Closed Account 2
05/01/2005, 2:40 PM
Well, to put it in perspective, the 1918 flu epidemic killed more people than the Black Death, yet alone any war in the last century.
Surely the biggest killer in recent times has been poverty, when looked at on a global scale.
Obscene numbers of people are dying in the developing world through utterly preventable diseases.
I remember reading in some Natural History book (Nightmares of Nature or something) that, across History, the mosquito is responsible for more deaths than all wars put together. I’m not sure how true the book was, but I hazard a guess it could well be the case. Worryingly Malaria is said to be spreading back to places it was long eradicated from (e.g. Balkan Coast, Southern Italy, Central America). Diseases spread by fast breeding bacteria or virii are deadly and very infectious.
who's shoving it in my face? Just look at the education system in this country- full of it. the angelus on tv at 6 o'clock etc., It really bugs me. I totally respect people's right to their beliefs, and I have no problem with people believing in a higher being, but I just don't think it should be done in public.
I really don't understand why it bugs you. No one forces you to watch the angelus. It may not be your thing, but it is valued by a significant portion of the population, probably more than would be interested in an eL match on TV. You are free not to watch the whole 60 seconds given over to this dispicable broadcast.
I really don't understand why it bugs you. No one forces you to watch the angelus. It may not be your thing, but it is valued by a significant portion of the population, probably more than would be interested in an eL match on TV. You are free not to watch the whole 60 seconds given over to this dispicable broadcast.
I do chose not to watch it. religion has its place and I think things like the angelus are symbolic of the intrusive nature of the RC church in this country
All i'll say is theres no way Mary was a Virgin!
the 12 th man
05/01/2005, 3:53 PM
All i'll say is theres no way Mary was a Virgin!
yeh mean cameron diaz ? :rolleyes: :D
Eanna - times have changed since the Church effectively ran the country, and we'll probably never go back to that situation. To ban this program would be a form of discrimination against those people who derive some benefit from it (on whatever level), and they are numerous.
If you look at it objectively, religion makes no less sense than 22 guys kicking an inflated bladder around simply for their own enjoyment.
All i'll say is theres no way Mary was a Virgin!
Looked at from a different perspective, would Joseph have hung around raisng this kid (who wasn't his), if he wasn't getting any?
Looked at from a different perspective, would Joseph have hung around raisng this kid (who wasn't his), if he wasn't getting any?
and she loved it too ;)
Eanna - times have changed since the Church effectively ran the country, and we'll probably never go back to that situation.
agreed. I certainly hope not.
To ban this program would be a form of discrimination against those people who derive some benefit from it (on whatever level), and they are numerous.
I don't agree at all. And I would have no problem with the showing of religious broadcasting if all faiths were represented. The RC church is the biggest and will therefore get the most coverage, thats fair enough. But just in the sphere of broadcasting alone, RTE as a national broadcaster should be doing more to educate people on other religions/faiths which are in this country- just as an example, when its Ramadan, could RTE news or Primetime do a feature on the Muslim Community in Ireland.
If you look at it objectively, religion makes no less sense than 22 guys kicking an inflated bladder around simply for their own enjoyment.again, I agree 100%. But the difference is that people who watch football don't go around telling other people that their soul depends on them going to football matches and so on- I watch football, and I discuss it with other people who do. If someone's not interested, I don't judge them because of it. There's still a massive stigma attached to being a "non-believer"
Pat O' Banton
05/01/2005, 4:13 PM
All i'll say is theres no way Mary was a Virgin!
Ah my little outragous amigo, I don't think anyone disputes this, afterall the bible does state that Jesus had siblings, the 'Virgin Mary' refers to the birth of Jesus.
Ah my little outragous amigo, I don't think anyone disputes this, afterall the bible does state that Jesus had siblings, the 'Virgin Mary' refers to the birth of Jesus.
Does it? very interesting indeed. still, immaculate conception? give me a break!
I don't agree at all. And I would have no problem with the showing of religious broadcasting if all faiths were represented. The RC church is the biggest and will therefore get the most coverage, thats fair enough. But just in the sphere of broadcasting alone, RTE as a national broadcaster should be doing more to educate people on other religions/faiths which are in this country- just as an example, when its Ramadan, could RTE news or Primetime do a feature on the Muslim Community in Ireland.
I have no idea whether RTE do stuff on Muslims in Ireland, but I do remember seeing a good show about the Jewish Commuity here. However, I would encourage RTE to broadcast these sorts of programs, but regardless of this it is not a good argument to use to stop broadcastin the angelus.
islam is the fastest growing religion in this country :eek:
If religion is so great why do so many people die and get persecuted because of it? and in the name of other religions.......
and if god exists he obviously had a bad holiday in SE Asia once
and how many people honestly belive they go to heaven or hell i say keep god out of ireland :p
Closed Account 2
05/01/2005, 6:29 PM
IBut just in the sphere of broadcasting alone, RTE as a national broadcaster should be doing more to educate people on other religions/faiths which are in this country- just as an example, when its Ramadan, could RTE news or Primetime do a feature on the Muslim Community in Ireland.
I agree, balanced, informative programs on previously ignored themes (not just religion but all sorts of things) would be good. Your choice of Ramadan is interesting, as I’m sure your well aware its the duty of every Muslim to perform the Hadj at least once in their lifetime (if they can afford it and are physically capable). This (the pilgrimage to Mecca and then walk to Medina) is seen as one of the key facets of Islam for Muslims. A few other European Media stations often cover the Hadj using reporters from their countries. For instance the BBC use Raghi (sp?) Omar (a British Muslim TV Journalist), who reported on British people doing the Hadj live from Mecca. However, to be fair to RTE it could be difficult for them to do a similar program, aside from the cost of flying out there there is one other problem. Non-Muslims are not allowed into either Mecca or Medina as they are very holy cities in Islamic thought (see here (http://islam.about.com/od/hajj/f/mecca.htm) for more explanations of this law). They could probably hire a local news crew to film etc, but I feel to appeal to Irish citizens ideally they would need an Irish Muslim TV Journalist (an Irish Raghi Omar for want of a better phrase), so I guess RTE will just have to wait a few years until they have such a figure. As exile points out a few posts above, Islam is the most rapidly growing religion in Ireland, so I'm sure its only a few years before RTE are able to do it.
finlma
05/01/2005, 7:31 PM
.... the angelus are symbolic of the intrusive nature of the RC church in this country
I agree. The angelus have no place on public tv in a modern society. Ireland is becoming a more cosmopolitan society with different religions on the increase. It is wrong that one religion is promoted on tv with a few stupid gongs every day.
The RC church in Ireland still has too strong an input. A close friend of mine and his family had to lie to get him into school cause he was not Catholic. He's Buddhist and 100% Irish but there was no school for him.
I have no idea whether RTE do stuff on Muslims in Ireland, but I do remember seeing a good show about the Jewish Commuity here. However, I would encourage RTE to broadcast these sorts of programs, but regardless of this it is not a good argument to use to stop broadcastin the angelus.
why could there not be a minutes silence instead of the angelus- that would allow people of all faiths (or none) to contemplate/think/ignore it as they pleased- instead of being specific to any religion.
for all of you out there who are sick of your normal everyday religions try this
here (http://www.churchofsatan.com) :D
liam88
05/01/2005, 8:53 PM
i would venture to argue that most people here who call themselves Catholic would feel more at home belief wise in the COI than actually in the Roman Catholic Church.
Don't have time to read all pages but I don't think this is right; Catholics know what we believe.
I am a dedicated Catholic-alter serving every Sunday. I wear ma Roseary and I prey-I think the most important things is to live a good Christian life. The differences betwen Catholicism and Anglicanism although significant must be accepted as just that-different ways to worship the same God. I have catholic friends, Protestant friends and Atheist friends-the local Protestant church lets us use it for Sunday morning mass as there isn't a Catholic church in our villiage.
liam88
05/01/2005, 8:56 PM
religion has caused the deaths of more people through out the years that any other event or war
WWI
WWII
Gulf War I
gulf War II
Vietnam
Falklands
Boer War
Northern Ireland conflict (religion was dragged into it)
Korea War
Serbian-Kosovo
Iraq-Iran
Religion was not the root of any of these!
Religion was not the root of any of these!
it has played a part in some of them, but hey, we can all be selective about which facts we choose- the fact is, overall in terms of conflict in the world, religion plays a huge part.
WWI: no
WWII: Hitler's persecution of the Jews, certainly a part of the war. the support of the Catholic Church (or senior elements within) for Hitler and Mussolini
Gulf War I: no
gulf War II: Yes. Bush's insane right-wing evangelical beliefs have certainly played a part in his decision making, and much of his loyal support base is convinced that Islam is evil
Vietnam: no
Falklands: no
Boer War: probably not
Northern Ireland conflict (religion was dragged into it): total cráp. It is as much a part of it as anything else.
Korea War: no
Serbian-Kosovo: yes.
Iraq-Iran: different factions within Islam were involved AFAIK.
I can make a list too:
Yugoslavian civil war.
Northern Ireland.
Israel-Palestine.
India- Pakistan.
etc etc
The simple fact of the matter is that both sides in this debate are right- religion itself has rarely been the actual cause of conflict, but it has been used to cause/continue/widen conflicts all over the world. In reality the basic tenents of all religions are the same- love your neighbour, be a good person, believe in a higher being. Every single thing beyond and above that is man-made: and once man gets involved, so does human nature and that means trouble. Hence me saying that it should be illegal outside of the home!
liam88
05/01/2005, 9:25 PM
WWI: no
WWII: Hitler's persecution of the Jews, certainly a part of the war. the support of the Catholic Church (or senior elements within) for Hitler and Mussolini
Gulf War I: no
gulf War II: Yes. Bush's insane right-wing evangelical beliefs have certainly played a part in his decision making, and much of his loyal support base is convinced that Islam is evil
Vietnam: no
Falklands: no
Boer War: probably not
Northern Ireland conflict (religion was dragged into it): total cráp. It is as much a part of it as anything else.
Korea War: no
Serbian-Kosovo: yes.
Iraq-Iran: different factions within Islam were involved AFAIK.
I can make a list too:
Yugoslavian civil war.
Northern Ireland.
Israel-Palestine.
India- Pakistan.
etc etc
Blaming Catholics for WWI is below the belt, many on here would argue Bush is fighting for oil, defence or revenge, not Christianity, Israel/Palestine is a lot do do with territory isn't it? You're right though; religion does (unfortunatley) get dragged into these terrotorial issues....whcih sucks because it defies the point of religion-still; no reason to put it down!
Look at all the good religion has done for the world!
Christian aid, people finding help, Lourdes etc.
Éanna
05/01/2005, 10:09 PM
Blaming Catholics for WWI is below the belt
I didn't!!! I don't blame Catholics (as a whole group of people) for anything.
many on here would argue Bush is fighting for oil, defence or revenge, not Christianity,
I didn't say he was fighting for Christianity, I said it was what motivated his actions, and the source of much of his support. He's said that himself.
Israel/Palestine is a lot do do with territory isn't it?
yes. israel claims rights to the land they stole from the Palestinians because they are "god's people"
Look at all the good religion has done for the world!
Christian aid, people finding help, Lourdes etc.
I would argue that that is the goodness of human nature, rather than any religion. As for Lourdes- what about it?
I firmly believe that the vast majority of religious people are good, well-meaning people. The problem is that in religions (especially the RC Church) the people who get to the top are the scheming, political people motivated by greed and by themselves. And they use their positions to impose their beliefs on others. Look at the current Pope's crusade against homosexuality, and the use of condoms- that man is probably responsible for more deaths in the world than the Communism he fought against for years, because of his idiotic beliefs. He's the head of a supposedly well-intentioned organisation and he's downright evil.
exile
05/01/2005, 10:16 PM
the church of satan claims to be the most tolerant of religions :eek: im in whos with me
exile
05/01/2005, 10:20 PM
honestly though i think the reality is most relgions are based on good old yarns past down from genaration to genaration and lets face it they are good stories but how much scientific proof is there at the moment that were all going to heaven or hell ???
liam88
05/01/2005, 11:08 PM
his idiotic beliefs. He's the head of a supposedly well-intentioned organisation and he's downright evil.
I find that pretty insulting :(
re. Israel taking Palestine as 'Gods own people' i think it's more down to the fact everyone felt guilty for not being able to stop the holocaust...correct me if i'm wrong
Éanna
05/01/2005, 11:17 PM
I find that pretty insulting :(
He is sheer and utter evil. I make no apologies for saying it. How many millions of lives could have been saved from AIDS but, no that isn't a christian thing to do at all :rolleyes:
re. Israel taking Palestine as 'Gods own people' i think it's more down to the fact everyone felt guilty for not being able to stop the holocaust...correct me if i'm wrong
They were given it for that reason. But they believe they are entitled to it because god chose them to live there/
finlma
05/01/2005, 11:48 PM
Re: The Pope,
His teachings of no contraception are certainly somewhat to blame for a lot of Aids in this world. The Catholic church is stuck in the 18th century and needs to be completely revamped.
Re: Israel
They have always claimed a right to the land of Israel and were given it as a sympathy vote after WWII. The biggest mistake ever made. Religion is largely to blame for the troubles in the Middle East and over the next 30 years we are going to see that area erupt into massive war.
green goblin
06/01/2005, 8:30 AM
Whoa, there fellas!!! :eek:
Early on in this discussion, it was asked that the debate didn't descend down into the boring old religion is rubbish/ religion is not rubbish argument. It seems that's where it's going. We've had that before and it gets us nowhere. :( :(
The thread started with a query over what were the differences between Catholicism and protestantism, and spread out from there. If people want to expand and include reasoned arguments for atheism or agnosticism, then go right ahead, but please try and keep away from the descent into the "If you believe that then you're stupid" school of arguments. Thanks.
Pat O' Banton
06/01/2005, 9:12 AM
Iraq-Iran: different factions within Islam were involved AFAIK.
Not really, old Sadam ran a secular regime, the primary concern like most of the wars in that area (save Palestine) was oil and who would be the local power broker in that area.
Whoa, there fellas!!!
Early on in this discussion, it was asked that the debate didn't descend down into the boring old religion is rubbish/ religion is not rubbish argument. It seems that's where it's going. We've had that before and it gets us nowhere. It's funny how some people complain about being forced fed religion and then come on and force feed us with their own pack of lies. Eg: Pope's 'pure evil' . Pope will 'kill more people than communism in the third world'. Religion 'started WW1'. Well if you are going to go down that road, the Inquisition had nothing whatsoever to do with religion: It was just the Spanish getting rid of traitors and people of other ethnic groups (in the same way that Stalin and his successors' areligious USSR did). In fact by Eanna's own list of wars to do with religion I'd tick nationalism beside all of them. And of course it must have been pretty peaceful in Western Europe before the reformation. Ooops. Forgot about the 100 years war for a minute. And of course this intolerence can't pass by without resorting to fascistic tendencies. Ie: No religion to be discussed or promoted outside the home. TV not to promote or indulge in religion, especially the religion of 95% of the state.
The worst thing about this is that these statements are from someone I know ISN'T stupid nor ignorant. Eanna, I use contraception when and where I choose. I've got JUST 3 kids and what by most people's margins is a healthy sex life. When I go to church I see people with equally small families. How do you think we all manage that? Use a thermometer before a sh*g. :rolleyes: I lived with my wife before marriage. The priest who married us knew it too. He still married us.
Exile: You talk about scientific proof but what is the proof that we descend from monkeys? If they are 'our cousins' we'd at least be able to produce a hybrid (like a mule) with monkeys without referring to embryo manipulation. But apart from Social-Darwinism (that Irish and Blacks are the missing link) and a few unfortunates in 19C travelling circuses no one seems to come up with why this has never happened. That is why - and here is the key word - its called the THEORY of Evolution. As for the big bang THEORY? :D :rolleyes: Life from total sterility: As much 'an old yarn' as a bloke in a beard making the universe in seven days. If you are going to refer to science, with the intention of sounding clever, at least refer to Scientific FACT not Scientific (unproven) theory.
green goblin
06/01/2005, 9:44 AM
It's funny how some people complain about being forced fed religion and then come on and force feed us with their own pack of lies. Eg: Pope's 'pure evil' . Pope will 'kill more people than communism in the third world'. Religion 'started WW1'.
While on this point, I think it worth pointing out that, to me at least, atheism seems to be a belief in iteself. It is not an absence of belief, as is implied, but in fact a belief/certainty that there's nothing out there.
This is as unprovable as belief. And therefore requires as much faith... :o Just as you cannot logically prove God, you cannot logically disprove him.
As for the "All wars are started by religion" argument... Well, to quote the well known atheist Marx, "The history of all struggle is a class struggle". :)
While on this point, I think it worth pointing out that, to me at least, atheism seems to be a belief in iteself. It is not an absence of belief, as is implied, but in fact a belief/certainty that there's nothing out there.
This is as unprovable as belief. And therefore requires as much faith... :o Just as you cannot logically prove God, you cannot logically disprove him. Wonderfully put. I'm putting you forward for a spot on the Halleluiah Channel. They're looking for someone to fill the early evening slot between 'The Big Bird Sermon for Kids' and 'An Evening with the Rev. W. McCrea.' :D
green goblin
06/01/2005, 10:02 AM
Wonderfully put. I'm putting you forward for a spot on the Halleluiah Channel. They're looking for someone to fill the early evening slot between 'The Big Bird Sermon for Kids' and 'An Evening with the Rev. W. McCrea.' :D
Can't wait. My clapping just got even happier. :D
Plastic Paddy
06/01/2005, 10:22 AM
'An Evening with the Rev. W. McCrea.' :D
I shared a house with a niece of his whilst at university, and as a result I once had the dubious pleasure of an evening in the man's company. "Dour" was invented just to describe people like him. The type of individual for whom Rich Tea biscuits are too extravagant.
His niece wouldn't dare tell him I was papish Irish, so I made sure he found out. :eek: Cue an awkward silence. Still, it was better than actually talking to him...
:D PP
why could there not be a minutes silence instead of the angelus- that would allow people of all faiths (or none) to contemplate/think/ignore it as they pleased- instead of being specific to any religion.
That's just like saying there should be no Eircom League coverage on RTE, just some general sports magazine 'cos that will cover everyone! The fact is that a lot of people get alot of benefit from RTE broadcasting the Angelus. Notwithstanding whether RTE should or shouldn't broadcast stuff about other faiths, Irish Catholics pay their licence fee too and are entitled to a program aimed at them (all 60 seconds of it).
green goblin
06/01/2005, 10:35 AM
I shared a house with a niece of his whilst at university, and as a result I once had the dubious pleasure of an evening in the man's company. "Dour" was invented just to describe people like him. The type of individual for whom Rich Tea biscuits are too extravagant.
His niece wouldn't dare tell him I was papish Irish, so I made sure he found out. :eek: Cue an awkward silence. Still, it was better than actually talking to him...
:D PP
"Rich tea biscuits...." Genius. :D
Well done for refusing to be cowed by the old misery. :)
Éanna
06/01/2005, 10:38 AM
It's funny how some people complain about being forced fed religion and then come on and force feed us with their own pack of lies.
I'm not force feeding anyone anything- its a discussion. What I'm saying isn't lies, just what I believe. I have not rubbished anyone's beliefs at all.
Eg: Pope's 'pure evil' . Pope will 'kill more people than communism in the third world'. Religion 'started WW1'.
He is. He will. I didn't say that.
Well if you are going to go down that road, the Inquisition had nothing whatsoever to do with religion: It was just the Spanish getting rid of traitors and people of other ethnic groups (in the same way that Stalin and his successors' areligious USSR did).
agreed. But was it not backed by the church. Like I've been at pains to point out, I'm not condemning Catholics for the appalling behaviour of their hierarchy. That would be like saying (to use your example) that everyone who read Marx was evil. I didn't and wouldn't say that.
In fact by Eanna's own list of wars to do with religion I'd tick nationalism beside all of them.
so would I. But nationalism is about identity and religion is a huge part of identity. Its all inextricably linked.
And of course this intolerence can't pass by without resorting to fascistic tendencies. Ie: No religion to be discussed or promoted outside the home. TV not to promote or indulge in religion, especially the religion of 95% of the state.
I made that comment slightly tongue in cheek- I know that will never happen, but what I was getting at is that I believe its a very corrupting force in society in many ways, and that belief is a private thing, so there's no need for it to be broadcast the way it is. And I didn't say TV wasn't to indulge religion, in fact I suggested it adopt a more broadened approach and deal with other religions- 95% is a figure thats very debatable.
The worst thing about this is that these statements are from someone I know ISN'T stupid nor ignorant. Eanna, I use contraception when and where I choose. I've got JUST 3 kids and what by most people's margins is a healthy sex life. When I go to church I see people with equally small families. How do you think we all manage that? Use a thermometer before a sh*g. :rolleyes: I lived with my wife before marriage. The priest who married us knew it too. He still married us.
This is another thing that I don't get. If you don't agree with the policies/practices of the church why are you a member? Its like joining a political party because you agree with one or two policies but not the others :confused: Also, given the fact that probably a majority of Catholics DO adopt this approach to their church (i.e. obeying what they chose) why has the Church not moved on to accept the beliefs of its members- why do people stay members of something which they profoundly disagree with. :confused:
lopez
06/01/2005, 11:27 AM
I shared a house with a niece of his whilst at university, and as a result I once had the dubious pleasure of an evening in the man's company. "Dour" was invented just to describe people like him. The type of individual for whom Rich Tea biscuits are too extravagant.
His niece wouldn't dare tell him I was papish Irish, so I made sure he found out. :eek: Cue an awkward silence. Still, it was better than actually talking to him...No dissing Flavor Crea on my time, PP. I've got an album of his called '20 Greatest Gospel Greats'. It's perfect for when you want to wrap up a party sharpish (I had to wheel it out two days before Christmas). It even gets rid of any persistent Jehovah's Witness that won't take no for an answer. :D
BTW: I know a gentleman never discloses these sort of things but did you...ahem...with...ahem...Flavor's niece? :o
lopez
06/01/2005, 12:26 PM
I'm not force feeding anyone anything- its a discussion. What I'm saying isn't lies, just what I believe. I have not rubbished anyone's beliefs at all.
You've not rubbished other peoples beliefs (others have though) but you've done what you accuse religions of doing.
He is. He will. I didn't say that.
You said he was 'responsible' for more deaths in Africa than communism. Aids is spread mostly by multiple partners and the lack of any barrier contraception, no? Well why don't people stick to one partner? This isn't a religious question. AFAIK, all atheists are not swingers and adulterers. This commitment is universal. If you are talking about birth control, that's another thing. But King Karoly isn't the African CEO of Durex. And you've always got the 'John Holmes' method if all else fails.
agreed. But was it not backed by the church. Like I've been at pains to point out, I'm not condemning Catholics for the appalling behaviour of their hierarchy. That would be like saying (to use your example) that everyone who read Marx was evil. I didn't and wouldn't say that.
I was being tongue in cheek myself. The inquisition was (almost) wholly religiously driven - I'd say wholly because there was further harassment of 'conversos' after they converted: e.g. Having a day off on Saturday, refusing to eat pork, etc. In addition the nazis persecution of the Jews was on wholly racial rather than religious lines. For example: Christian converts were gassed; the Nurenmburg laws were that Jews would be classed on racial lines; Jews were classified as thus with just one 'racial' Jewish grandparent. German converts to Judaism would not have been gassed although if they did not renounce their new religion they probably would have ended up in Auschwitz, like other dissenting religions that refused to acknowledge the nazi state (Jehovah's Witnesses principally and 'maverick' members of the established churches).
so would I. But nationalism is about identity and religion is a huge part of identity. Its all inextricably linked.
It is not always inextricably linked. Some of the most vocal anti-Irish media people during the troubles in Britain were RC. Eg: Paul Johnson, the cartoonist JAK, Robert Kilroy-Silk.
On the other hand many in the pantheon of Irish republicanism/nationalism are Protestant. When was the last time that there was a civil war over religion in Europe that was between two groups of the same nationality but different religion? In Britain it was 1640's (I'm being generous as this was a royal versus parliament war0. Holland and Germany (the two countries in Europe with greater RC/Protestant divisions than Britain (Germany admittedly only around since 1871)) haven't had AFAIK a civil war since then over religion. Yugoslavia is split on national lines although religious allegiance is stronger within the national identity. Spain was religion part of a rightist coalition including fascists against a leftist coalition.
I made that comment slightly tongue in cheek- I know that will never happen, but what I was getting at is that I believe its a very corrupting force in society in many ways, and that belief is a private thing, so there's no need for it to be broadcast the way it is. And I didn't say TV wasn't to indulge religion, in fact I suggested it adopt a more broadened approach and deal with other religions- 95% is a figure thats very debatable.
What I'd agree is corrupting is church dictating to non members. In Ireland this was through divorce and contraception which discriminated against non-RCs. Also a broader acceptance of other beliefs in school (a form of secularisation but not to the point of banning headscarves as in France). However, while RC attendance has dropped in recent years - through nothing to do with God but everything to do with pervert priests - Ireland still has a high church attendance.
This is another thing that I don't get. If you don't agree with the policies/practices of the church why are you a member? Its like joining a political party because you agree with one or two policies but not the others :confused: Also, given the fact that probably a majority of Catholics DO adopt this approach to their church (I.a. obeying what they chose) why has the Church not moved on to accept the beliefs of its members- why do people stay members of something which they profoundly disagree with. :confused:You have a point. I am a member but it hasn't been without difficulty. My parents left and do not go to church apart from the usual (marriages, deaths, FACT, etc). The things I disagree with the RC church are things that have been added and are nothing to do with the bible, are open to interpretation or are now irrelevant. Priests not marrying, the ban on women being priests, contraception, abortion (rape), homosexuality, sex within marriage. And besides, what is discarding one organised religion for another going to prove. As you suggest, religion does not need organised religion.
exile
06/01/2005, 12:51 PM
enough is enough lads is there any scientific proof of the good man above or the great man below
Schumi
06/01/2005, 12:52 PM
The thing that I don't get about religion is that people claim to be practising Catholics but ignore church teaching on contraception, extra-marital sex, etc., don't believe in trans-substantiation, don't believe in miracles, don't believe in papal infallibility, don't believe in hell, etc., etc. Why can't they just admit to themselves that they're not Catholics.
enough is enough lads is there any scientific proof of the good man above or the great man belowAny scientific proof that we are related to monkeys (Wayne Rooney obvious exception)?
The thing that I don't get about religion is that people claim to be practising Catholics but ignore church teaching on contraception, extra-marital sex, etc., don't believe in trans-substantiation, don't believe in miracles, don't believe in papal infallibility, don't believe in hell, etc., etc. Why can't they just admit to themselves that they're not Catholics.I'm not a Catholic. :p
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.