Catholicism in modern Ireland

turbot

Vangelis,

I find it interesting that you classify so many people as sinners.

Please explain the following:
- Why did the Roman Catholic Church start the "Roman Calendar" from the birth of Jesus, so that the World would organise it's sense of time around the idea of one historical figure?

( There are traces of indian civilisation that have carbon dated to be 30 - 35,000 years old. If Jesus showed up in the year 33,000, does that seem a bit late? ) ... If the church are capable of such trickery, what else are they capable of?

- Have you ever read Chaucer? Don't you realise that even in the 13th century, corruption was rife throughout the church?

According to chaucer, corruption was the rule, not the exception.

- How do you explain "Noah's ark in the bible" taking in two of each animal, and killing all the others? What are the implications of this in terms of genetic mutation / inbreeding...?

- Do you like the idea of being classified as a sinner? Does it make you feel good and enable you to enjoy life, or not?

- How do you explain that many leading authorities on ancient biblical texts, such as Zaccharia Sitchin, come to dramatically different interpretations of the ancient texts, than is promoted in version of the bible distributed by the catholic church?

- Does it seem to you that catholicism is structured in a similar way to a multi-level marketing company...? I.e. in order to be saved (from being a sinner) you have to convince more people they are sinners and need to be saved? Is this why catholicism spread across the World so quickly? Was it under God's guidance that the catholic hierachy decided to teach their followers to behave live they belong to a multi-level marketing organisation and spread the good word?

- Is it possible that you, perhaps niavely, accepted what you were taught in church at face value and just believed it? If everything you think is *true*, then why would you have any problem in immersing yourself in totally different systems of thought, such as wicca, for example. (BTW, I'm not a witch) Surely what is true should prove itself to be... self evident, so honestly exploring other options should actually reinforce what you already know to be true.

Personally, I think that the idea that:
- People are sinners just by being alive, and as a result, might go to hell and be tortured for all eternity
- The only way out of this horrible predicament is to follow a set of archaic rules on behaviour

.. is a great (and sadistic) way to control people, if they accept the premise they are sinners.

Don't you realise that you are only a sinner if you accept the catholic church's classification? If you reject their whole system of thinking, you don't have to be a sinner at all.

Do you think it's possible, as a human, to completely suppress all of your sexual urges because they are impure? If so, do you accept that large numbers of priests were unsuccessful in this action?

Do you think a great being capable of designing the universe would design creatures within it, featuring such a major design flaw as making the reproductive process a really impure process?

Isn't this just a major way of confusing you, making you fight against yourself while telling you what to do, such that you are easier to control?

What would happen if you gave up catholicism for lent? If you had sex outside of marriage during this time, would it be a sin?

GuanYin

turbot wrote:

- Does it seem to you that catholicism is structured in a similar way to a multi-level marketing company...? I.e. in order to be saved (from being a sinner) you have to convince more people they are sinners and need to be saved? Is this why catholicism spread across the World so quickly? Was it under God's guidance that the catholic hierachy decided to teach their followers to behave live they belong to a multi-level marketing organisation and spread the good word?

Hahahahaha!
alá Simpsons

"Forget about Old style pyramid schemes. Our model is the Cross"

lazydaisy

Vangelis- and other devoted catholics -

As Christians your priority should be the protection of children, not the protection of the Vatican. They are powerfulmen who can fight their own battles. All I can say to you is that you are a prime example of BELIEVING is SEEING and not the other way around. Why ar eyou defending the indefenisble? The next time you see a child, imagine a priest seducing it, bribing it, blackmailing it, removing its clothes, and raping it. Then imagine the priest telling the child not to tell anyone and the child going home with blood all over its clothes from being anally or vaginally raped by a cleric, a man s/he sees his family trusting. And this happening to the child repeatedly.You do not get over this. It is life ruining. The vatican has facilitated and enabled these crimes. There should be a human rights tribunal like the nuremeburg trials where the hierarchy is tried and imprisoned or executed. [I am anti-death penalty except when it comes to child rapists].

Please try to separate your faith and theology from the criminality that is at hand.

The problem is that people do not take this seriously enough. What these men did was a crime. And those who covered it up are accessories to that crime. The Irish state are also accessories. The guards were called when the women in the magdalene laundries tried to escape and made them go back. So what is/was the point of going to the guards if the guards were the instruments of the state/church? The department of education too is responsible for the crimes against the children of Ireland because they sent inspectors around to the schools. Ignorance is not an excuse. It is their job to know what is going on.

Im starting to understand why they have kept women out - women will want to protect children and that is the last thing they need.

Vangelis

turbot wrote:

I find it interesting that you classify so many people as sinners.

I am a sinner. But the main point is that there is hope for me. For everyone.

- Why did the Roman Catholic Church start the "Roman Calendar" from the birth of Jesus, so that the World would organise it's sense of time around the idea of one historical figure?

I don't know that. I'm sure you can find the answer in a history book.
It'd be wrong to say that time began when Christ was born anyway.

( There are traces of indian civilisation that have carbon dated to be 30 - 35,000 years old. If Jesus showed up in the year 33,000, does that seem a bit late? ) ... If the church are capable of such trickery, what else are they capable of?

Anyone is capable of anything.

- Have you ever read Chaucer? Don't you realise that even in the 13th century, corruption was rife throughout the church?

Haven't read Chaucer. I realised that, yes. Wasn't Chaucer a dramatist/writer?

- How do you explain "Noah's ark in the bible" taking in two of each animal, and killing all the others? What are the implications of this in terms of genetic mutation / inbreeding...?

From what I know, Noah took one pair from each species into his boat. It doesn't say anything about animals being killed, and I'm assuming you are referring to fossils and long-extinct animals? I cannot explain why this is so.

- Do you like the idea of being classified as a sinner? Does it make you feel good and enable you to enjoy life, or not?

No, being a sinner is not a classification. Sinning is a weakness that we as humans are prone to. But God forgives all sins(if you regret and ask to be forgiven) because he has an endless mercy. Knowing this makes me feel wonderful. One cannot have enough of mercy and blessing(but one can of course not keep sinning in good faith that "God will forgive me anyways so I can just..." No, no...).

- How do you explain that many leading authorities on ancient biblical texts, such as Zaccharia Sitchin, come to dramatically different interpretations of the ancient texts, than is promoted in version of the bible distributed by the catholic church?

I'm not familiar with Sitchin's interpretations. What does he say?

- Does it seem to you that catholicism is structured in a similar way to a multi-level marketing company...? I.e. in order to be saved (from being a sinner) you have to convince more people they are sinners and need to be saved? Is this why catholicism spread across the World so quickly? Was it under God's guidance that the catholic hierachy decided to teach their followers to behave live they belong to a multi-level marketing organisation and spread the good word?

First question: No. Second question: No. Third question: It is my opinion that Catholicism spread because the Church intimidated people to believe. They'd be punished, killed, isolated etc if they did not convert. But if these men who crusaded through Europe with their teachings had known God's will for how they should have acted and treated people - with love and kindness, not imposterousness - that time might have been different.

- Is it possible that you, perhaps niavely, accepted what you were taught in church at face value and just believed it? If everything you think is *true*, then why would you have any problem in immersing yourself in totally different systems of thought, such as wicca, for example. (BTW, I'm not a witch) Surely what is true should prove itself to be... self evident, so honestly exploring other options should actually reinforce what you already know to be true.

I don't go to Church, and I am not a Catholic. I have immersed myself in Buddhism, Satanism, Occultism beside my own faith. My next project is Islam. I have no problem exploring other religions and beliefs.

- People are sinners just by being alive, and as a result, might go to hell and be tortured for all eternity

Hell is eternal death, not an eternal life in torture.
And I cannot say that people are sinners just by being alive.
I could put it differently: we are all tendential sinners, due to our weak nature. But of course, we can change this nature by living as God intends us to.

- The only way out of this horrible predicament is to follow a set of archaic rules on behaviour.. is a great (and sadistic) way to control people, if they accept the premise they are sinners.

When one comes to faith, one wishes to do God's will. To someone else, God seems too strict. But His law is out of love for His Creation. The Catholic Church may terrorise people with doomsday predictions, and if they do so they err gravely. Love is the only answer.

Don't you realise that you are only a sinner if you accept the catholic church's classification? If you reject their whole system of thinking, you don't have to be a sinner at all.

I guess that this is what the Catholic church has taught you. This is not the teachings of God.

Do you think it's possible, as a human, to completely suppress all of your sexual urges because they are impure? If so, do you accept that large numbers of priests were unsuccessful in this action?

The idea that sexual urges are impure is another distortion that the Catholic church is responsible for. Sexuality is a gift, but should not be misused or become dominant in one's life. Because it is a worldly thing. God tells us that sexual intimacy should be confined to marriage between a husband and a wife.

Do you think a great being capable of designing the universe would design creatures within it, featuring such a major design flaw as making the reproductive process a really impure process?

Reproduction is one of God's secrets. He created our Nature, and he created Eve so that Adam would not be alone. Together a man and a woman are one, and sexuality is God's gift to their togetherness. That sexuality is impure is a grave distortion. It is beautiful and valuable, but should not be misused.

Isn't this just a major way of confusing you, making you fight against yourself while telling you what to do, such that you are easier to control?

I am not confused because I know that these teachings you present are untrue.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

Vangelis- and other devoted catholics -

I am not a Catholic. You may call me Orthodox.

As Christians your priority should be the protection of children, not the protection of the Vatican. They are powerfulmen who can fight their own battles. All I can say to you is that you are a prime example of BELIEVING is SEEING and not the other way around. Why ar eyou defending the indefenisble? The next time you see a child, imagine a priest seducing it, bribing it, blackmailing it, removing its clothes, and raping it. Then imagine the priest telling the child not to tell anyone and the child going home with blood all over its clothes from being anally or vaginally raped by a cleric, a man s/he sees his family trusting. And this happening to the child repeatedly.You do not get over this. It is life ruining. The vatican has facilitated and enabled these crimes. There should be a human rights tribunal like the nuremeburg trials where the hierarchy is tried and imprisoned or executed. [I am anti-death penalty except when it comes to child rapists].

That is so right! A good message to Catholics.

turbot

Vangelis,

Many people find that theoretical physics is beyond their comprehension.

If this is so, surely you also realise God is beyond your comprehension.

Therefore, you do not *know* what Gods will is. At best, you have a personal, deeply held opinion / interpretation of what you think God's will is as you have interpreted from the Bible or whatever other soures you beleive in.

But you cannot say the teachings I present are untrue, yet you are entitled to classify them as untrue for you.

You also haven't expressed that you understand that people are sinners *only* if you accept the classifications of the bible.

Regarding Noah's Ark - genetic strength is based on genetic diversity. If you only have two animals, you wipe out all the genetic quality of a population. This story doesn't make sense if you understand Genetics, unless "God" favour wanted to create an inbred efffect. How do you explain this?

How do you think you know what God's will is?

Also, people are not sinners. Sinner is a word. If you don't accept the teachings of the bible, then you don't have to accept people as sinners.
In your personal reality, you may think everyone is sinners. In my reality, I don't think of people using this particular classification. Do you understand what I mean by this?

The bible teaches us that people are sinners. But if you don't accept the teachings, then you don't have to classify people as sinners.

Redleslie2

Vangelis wrote:

I know nothing about this myself so, I'm curious to know Irish people's experience of how Catholicism has influenced modern Ireland.

Sexual repression and a conservative deferential attitude to authority are the results of catholicism's influence on the Irish people imo.

SparkyLarks

Noah Ark is a story in the bible.
the church doesn;t actually present it as true.
it's a fable.

As far as I understand, Abraham is the first character in the bible that the church believe actually existed.

According the the Early stories in the bible Adam and Eve were created and had two sons, that does pose a question as to where everyone come from. and accorind to genitics would make us seriously inbred.

Especially considering that Eve is essentially a clone of Adam, with some DNA modification to make her female.

Every religion is full of fables and stories, do people really believe that Ram Bahadur is a reincarnation of budda and has been meditation without eating or drinking for 6 months?

Freelancer, I don;t have a link about the percentages, I have heard it from a number of different sources, papers radio ect, it could be an example of misinformatio but the number of times I've come across it and the people who quote it are generaly working in social services.

Lazydaisy, at the time in Ireland most people would have also brought a young escapee back to a laundry. Irish society, which was influenced heavily by the church, believed that these girls were sinners and the laundries were the best place for them.

By the way sexual abuse doesn;t mearly exist with catholic clerics.
take Sai Baba "His followers say Sai Baba is a God on Earth" but ther are a growing number of reports of him molesting young men
http://www.rickross.com/reference/saibaba/saibaba6.html

Vangelis

Redleslie2 wrote:

Sexual repression and a conservative deferential attitude to authority are the results of catholicism's influence on the Irish people imo.

Yes, I think so too. I've experienced that many Irish people won't realise this, yet they have extremely repressive opinions on sex themselves.

Vangelis

turbot wrote:

Many people find that theoretical physics is beyond their comprehension.

If this is so, surely you also realise God is beyond your comprehension.

I don't know to full God's will in all matters. Some of it can be revealed in the Scriptures. I don't think you can compare theoretical physics to God.

But you cannot say the teachings I present are untrue, yet you are entitled to classify them as untrue for you.

What are your teachings? Or is this hypothetical?

You also haven't expressed that you understand that people are sinners *only* if you accept the classifications of the bible.

Are people sinners only if they accept what a sinner is in the Bible?
Is this another piece of Catholic crap?

Regarding Noah's Ark - genetic strength is based on genetic diversity. If you only have two animals, you wipe out all the genetic quality of a population. This story doesn't make sense if you understand Genetics, unless "God" favour wanted to create an inbred efffect. How do you explain this?

I cannot explain this as I don't try to explain science with the Bible.

How do you think you know what God's will is?

As I said, I don't know God's will completely. In fact, I know as little as is possible. All I know can be found in the Bible.

Also, people are not sinners. Sinner is a word. If you don't accept the teachings of the bible, then you don't have to accept people as sinners.
In your personal reality, you may think everyone is sinners. In my reality, I don't think of people using this particular classification. Do you understand what I mean by this?

Of course you don't have to accept that people are sinners if you don't believe in the Bible. I understand what you mean.

The bible teaches us that people are sinners. But if you don't accept the teachings, then you don't have to classify people as sinners.

There's no need to repeat yourself. I get the point.

turbot

Vangelis,

Let me ask you this:

How many languages do you speak? I'm gonna guess probably more than one, even if you are only fluent in one.

Now, if you translate from one language to another, do you maintain the full meaning of the sentence,=?

*Or* do you produce an approximation of the meaning, based upon your interpretation of what you read, and your ability to express that in another language, and the languages requirements in terms of grammar, sentence structure, conjugation, etc? Put more simply, is it possible for a translation to be exact, or at best, a high quality chinese whisper?

If you think that God's will can be found in the scriptures, how do you believe this? *If* you believe that in the original scriptures, the authors conversed with God, then at least you must accept that many of these scrolls were written in ancient assyrian and arameic tongues. Typicially, then they were translated into Latin. And then into English.

There is even a huge difference between olde english (read Chaucer) and modern english. Talking to people who are from Assyria, they say there is a huge difference between modern language and ancient language.

Next, have you ever read a piece of english literature and come to a different interpretation of it's meaning than your teacher? Than your class mates?
If it's possible to come to more than one interpretation, surely a different translator would also have a (slightly) different interpretation.

Next, there are plethora's of consumer magazines who's business models revolve around the sale of products. Many of these magazines have editorial policies where they can never really slate their advertisers, or give entirely impartial reviews. Do you believe propaganda exists in the World today?

To me, this explains obviously that if you think you can find Gods will in the bible, then what you are talking about is:

Your interpretation, of a translation, (of a translation), of a bulky collection of hebrew texts (collectively referred to as the Bible).

Since this interpretation is uniquely yours, and not *exactly* shared by everyone else, do you think you are smart and thorough and spiritual enough to say your interpretation *is* God's will?

Before somebody says "but God guided the translators", if you honestly think this to be so, why are many religious publications so obviously riddled with propaganda, and if you still believe it, then is it not reasonable that God is guiding me in typing every word you are reading right now to liberate your mind in the next thought that occurs to you?

It's very possible that in the process of translation, more than a little propaganda was used...

As for what my teachings are, they are questions directed at you becoming wiser about how your perceptions work.

Then maybe you will realise that you yourself are spiritual, and base your spiritual wisdom on your whole life experience, and not assign excessive authority to a bulky collection of hebrew texts, that has been propagated by christian institutions who are not revered for their overall kindness, congruence or lack of corruption.

Sparky larks, in original scriptures there was another lady before eve, who was much less "submissive" than Eve. Why did the church chose to remove her from these "fables"?

If the stories in the bible are more folklore, and not supposed to be *true*;
1) How do you know this?
2) How many other people do you think are aware of this?
3) What is your opinion about the history of mankind then?

And if there are so many different interpretations of these tales... and these stories were passed down from one generation to the next, what does this mean?

bonkey

turbot wrote:

There is even a huge difference between olde english (read Chaucer) and modern english.

Being a pedant....Chaucer wrote in Middle English.

Old English is generally only up to 1066.

I agree with the underlying point you're making though...

Oh, wait...another small pedantry...

Your interpretation, of a translation, (of a translation), of a bulky collection of hebrew texts (collectively referred to as the Bible).

Lets not forget the editing process that accompanies translation. Who decided which works consitute the Bible, and which don't? The simplest (and perhaps best-known) example is the Apocrypha. Biblical, or not?


jc

Vangelis

turbot wrote:

How many languages do you speak? I'm gonna guess probably more than one, even if you are only fluent in one.

I have reading/speaking/writing/listening competence in German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, English(Ooooo, really?), Irish and French(least knowledge of).

Now, if you translate from one language to another, do you maintain the full meaning of the sentence?

As perfectly as possible, with the exception of metaphors and proverbs. But they are understood the same way nonetheless.

If you think that God's will can be found in the scriptures, how do you believe this?

The Bible does not account for God's full will. It says that some of God's intentions are hidden for Mankind. I believe by choosing to believe. God says that one has to become like a 'child', free of all prejudgements and doubts, and simply absorb God's wisdom. Then one can grow in the faith, to an 'adult'.

*If* you believe that in the original scriptures, the authors conversed with God, then at least you must accept that many of these scrolls were written in ancient assyrian and arameic tongues. Typicially, then they were translated into Latin. And then into English.

Beautiful languages they are too, Assyrian and Arameic. Some texts were also written in Hellenistic Greek, but most in Ancient Hebrew. I use the King James' version which is as exact as can be a copy of the original scripts. There is not really much difference between each version, except for the solemn languages that is perhaps reduced now to the more common way of writing and speaking. We're not so solemn these days.

There is even a huge difference between olde english (read Chaucer) and modern english. Talking to people who are from Assyria, they say there is a huge difference between modern language and ancient language.

Yes. I suppose ancient languages were more complicated. Old Irish is for instance one of Europe's most complex ancient languages. So is Old Slavonic, Old Germanic etc.

Next, have you ever read a piece of english literature and come to a different interpretation of it's meaning than your teacher? Than your class mates? If it's possible to come to more than one interpretation, surely a different translator would also have a (slightly) different interpretation.

I experience that a passage in the Bible always has something new to offer, a new insight to God's wisdom. I find that when looking back at a verse that guided me some time earlier, it has a completely new dimension. It is also important to read the Bible in context. In my humble opinion, it is better that all Christians unite on the basis of their faith in God, rather than accusing eachother of misinterpretation and so on. I believe that different interpretations are God's blessing, but I admit that some intepretations create strife among theologists and Christians. Any instant solution to that problem I do not have.

Next, there are plethora's of consumer magazines who's business models revolve around the sale of products. Many of these magazines have editorial policies where they can never really slate their advertisers, or give entirely impartial reviews. Do you believe propaganda exists in the World today?

I do. But a 6000 year old propaganda that still touches people's hearts? *pensive*

Your interpretation, of a translation, (of a translation), of a bulky collection of hebrew texts (collectively referred to as the Bible).

God's will, the parts that are disclosed in the Bible, is very apparent. Yet I don't know what all churches think. And I am still maturing in my faith so I have a lot to learn.

Since this interpretation is uniquely yours, and not *exactly* shared by everyone else, do you think you are smart and thorough and spiritual enough to say your interpretation *is* God's will?

No interpretation is uniquely mine, except for those verses that give food for thought and seem to have embodied a completely dissimilar apprehension some time later. These interpretations I do not put forward as universal. They are God's blessing to me personally.

Before somebody says "but God guided the translators", if you honestly think this to be so, why are many religious publications so obviously riddled with propaganda, and if you still believe it, then is it not reasonable that God is guiding me in typing every word you are reading right now to liberate your mind in the next thought that occurs to you?

Before I answer, I'd like you to address the kind of propaganda you are talking about here.

It's very possible that in the process of translation, more than a little propaganda was used...

Ask someone who reads Hebrew and he will say 'No!'.

Then maybe you will realise that you yourself are spiritual, and base your spiritual wisdom on your whole life experience, and not assign excessive authority to a bulky collection of hebrew texts, that has been propagated by christian institutions who are not revered for their overall kindness, congruence or lack of corruption.

Christ said to his people: "I am the Life." So he is for me.

Vangelis

bonkey wrote:

Being a pedant....Chaucer wrote in Middle English.

Old English is generally only up to 1066.

What has this foregienr Chaucher got to do with the debate?

I'm bein a pedant too. Old English did not end in 1066. A language does not end, it evolves, it changes gradually morphologically and phonologically.

nesf

Competence or fluency Vangelis? To be honest with you, your point on translations being accurate strikes me as odd. Every bilingual person I've spoken to has commented on how you can't translate exactly between languages and there usually are many discrepencies in how languages deal with concepts and how they are grouped together into words.

Exact translation (which is what we are discussing here) is not a simple A to B process that is taught in school. How many times have you read a translated piece and had to read reams of translation notes from the translator discussing all the possible meanings in certain words? You can quite easily interpret a piece and then translate it but unless you are the original writer or it's a simplistic piece then this is not an exact translation.

The only get out clause here is that the translator was divinely guided (though this runs into to trouble with the repeated need to "standardise" the bible in certain periods). Otherwise you have quite a lot to defend here. How much leeway was taken in the translation of certain parts of the Bible to English? How much to Latin? Why are there discrepencies between different versions?

Vangelis

Ask a theologist who has studied Hebrew, Latin, Old English and so on.
Or give me a couple of years to learn this myself and I'll write something exciting.

Oh, by the way, I meant fluency. In German and French I can more easily read and listen than use it myself.

nesf

Vangelis wrote:

Ask a theologist who has studied Hebrew, Latin, Old English and so on.
Or give me a couple of years to learn this myself and I'll write something exciting.

Um, but a while ago you were making claims about certain copies of the bible being the most correct and error free? Are you now retracting those claims?


Regardless, the topic of biblical inerrancy is quite interesting. You seem to have an interest so I'd recommend you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy There are plenty of good links at the bottom of that page for either side. This is an area that has been hotly debated and researched both inside and outside of religious institutions.

Especially have a look at the various forms of inerrancy (ie. the views of whether translations and such are inerrant or whether just the original scripture was so).

Vangelis

nesf wrote:

Um, but a while ago you were making claims about certain copies of the bible being the most correct and error free? Are you now retracting those claims?

I'm not retracting anything. It seemed to me that you questioned my security that the translations of the Bible are as correct as possible. Therefore I suggest that you contact someone who reads Hebrew and so on since I do not and cannot confirm with my own language knowledge that they are correct.

Regardless, the topic of biblical inerrancy is quite interesting. You seem to have an interest so I'd recommend you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy There are plenty of good links at the bottom of that page for either side. This is an area that has been hotly debated and researched both inside and outside of religious institutions.

Especially have a look at the various forms of inerrancy (ie. the views of whether translations and such are inerrant or whether just the original scripture was so).

Thanks, that should be useful!