Abuse from the church

midlandsmissus

Hello,

I was just wondering if anyone on here has suffered abuse from the church and how they resolved it with their religion? Or if they know anybody who has?

I ask because my mother was in a religious hospital for a long time as a child, and had a terrible time at the hands of the nuns while she was there. Imagine that they beat a sick child, who couldn't even move at the time. She is actually taking her case with the redress board at the minute and the barrister marked her down (You get an abuse score) on physical abuse because he said 'Corporal punishment was still legal then'. I was enraged!!! Corporal punishment.She was a child who had polio for a year.
Polio meant she was paralysed from her neck down. I can't imagine her doing anything that would have warranted a punishment. She couldn't move and could hardly talk for gods sake. And yet they still beat her, and all the other children.

Because of this, she has had a lifetime mistrust of nuns and the church in general. I don't know what to say to her. I think if she hadn't had been in these circumstances she would have been a christian, (all the rest of her family are). And if I had been her I would probably have denounced all religion aswell. How did the catholic church let nuns and priests get away with that type of thing? What were they thinking of?

Gareth37

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hello,

I was just wondering if anyone on here has suffered abuse from the church and how they resolved it with their religion? Or if they know anybody who has?

I ask because my mother was in a religious hospital for a long time as a child, and had a terrible time at the hands of the nuns while she was there. Imagine that they beat a sick child, who couldn't even move at the time. She is actually taking her case with the redress board at the minute and the barrister marked her down (You get an abuse score) on physical abuse because he said 'Corporal punishment was still legal then'. I was enraged!!! Corporal punishment.She was a child who had polio for a year.
Polio meant she was paralysed from her neck down. I can't imagine her doing anything that would have warranted a punishment. She couldn't move and could hardly talk for gods sake. And yet they still beat her, and all the other children.

Because of this, she has had a lifetime mistrust of nuns and the church in general. I don't know what to say to her. I think if she hadn't had been in these circumstances she would have been a christian, (all the rest of her family are). And if I had been her I would probably have denounced all religion aswell. How did the catholic church let nuns and priests get away with that type of thing? What were they thinking of?

Abuse from the church or abuse from Satan?

Satan will attack those doing God's work the most so don't be surprised that the work of Satan has infilterated the Catholic Church or any other church. You know like I do that the vast majority of clergy and nuns are good but obviously some are not.

robindch

midlandsmissus wrote: »

How did the catholic church let nuns and priests get away with that type of thing?

There are really two questions here. (a) Why, in certain cases, did the state let the church and its employees do what it wanted to do to children, when it had a constitutional duty of care? (b) why did an organization which believes it's the world's ultimate moral authority behave so badly?

These questions may be better dealt with in a political forum than a religious one, as Gareth's hand-washing answer suggests.

But the short answer to your direct question is that the church let this happen because the church didn't really seem to care that this happened -- I believe that a lot of people knew what was going on. And the church didn't care that much because (a) since it operated in many cases effectively outside of the reach of the law, it didn't really have to care and (b) was more interested in itself than in what its employees, members and supporters got up to.

This is not to paint all members of the church at the time as complicit in what was going on -- certainly not everybody knew, and I've no doubt that many of those that did know were unsettled by it -- but I don't think that there's any doubt that there was enough of it going on that somebody should have blown the whistle long and hard, and long ago. And the interesting but sad question is why nobody did.

.

Raiser

Gareth37 wrote: »

Abuse from the church or abuse from Satan?

Satan will attack those doing God's work the most so don't be surprised that the work of Satan has infilterated the Catholic Church or any other church. You know like I do that the vast majority of clergy and nuns are good but obviously some are not.

Wow; "Satan did it" - what a handy stock rebuttal, why not I suppose??? - take the misdeeds of millions and blame it on old Mr. Clip-clop hooves over there with the little pointy horns.......

- Nobody would ever have to be answerable then - EVER :mad:

OP - Hope your Mam is ok now. I would advise against reasoning this out as an uncharacteristic evil in the face of and in contrast to Gods warm fuzzy benevolence. Seems to be a more certain path to accept that the Church has attracted, sheltered and protected more sick, sad, twisted evil people than any other entity ever has.

midlandsmissus

robindch wrote: »

There are really two questions here. (a) Why, in certain cases, did the state let the church and its employees do what it wanted to do to children, when it had a constitutional duty of care? (b) why did an organization which believes it's the world's ultimate moral authority behave so badly?

These questions may be better dealt with in a political forum than a religious one, as Gareth's hand-washing answer suggests.

But the short answer to your direct question is that the church let this happen because the church didn't really seem to care that this happened -- I believe that a lot of people knew what was going on. And the church didn't care that much because (a) since it operated in many cases effectively outside of the reach of the law, it didn't really have to care and (b) was more interested in itself than in what its employees, members and supporters got up to.

This is not to paint all members of the church at the time as complicit in what was going on -- certainly not everybody knew, and I've no doubt that many of those that did know were unsettled by it -- but I don't think that there's any doubt that there was enough of it going on that somebody should have blown the whistle long and hard, and long ago. And the interesting but sad question is why nobody did.

.

Yes it is amazing that an organisation concerned with morality probably systematically brutalised more children than any other orgnaisation ever has.

I really don't understand it. The minute I became Christian I felt really bad for any minor hurt I had done to anyone else in the past. These were christian professionals. Nevr mind other people accounting for them, how could they actually carry out these acts and not feel any guilt in their own minds? I read a book where a girl went back to confront a nun years later and the nun said "I know I could get into heaven any time I want to" This nun had sexually abused a girl. I think it goes to show that power is extremely easily abused, and religious professionals are definitely nowhere nearer to God than any of the rest of us.

PDN

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yes it is amazing that an organisation concerned with morality probably systematically brutalised more children than any other orgnaisation ever has.

I am not a Roman Catholic, and I have no desire to be an apologist for the RC Church, but let's try to keep some perspective.

What happened to children in certain Catholic institutions was indeed horrible. However, it in no way approaches the enormity of what was done by the SS to Jewish children in Germany, or by the Communist Party in Russia, or indeed by Mao's Cultural revolution.

I also understand that the percentage of child abusers etc in the Catholic Church in Ireland was, percentage wise, similar to that of the overall population. What makes their case so shocking is that most people expected better from them.

I think it goes to show that power is extremely easily abused, and religious professionals are definitely nowhere nearer to God than any of the rest of us.

As a religious professional I totally agree with you. We get close to God through faith, and religious professionals may get paid for doing certain jobs associated with the Church, but their faith is no different from that of a welder or a bus driver.

kelly1

MM, I'm sorry to hear such a terrible story.

As a matter of interest, was this hospital run by the church or the state?

God bless,
Noel.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I also understand that the percentage of child abusers etc in the Catholic Church in Ireland was, percentage wise, similar to that of the overall population.

I don't believe that's true.

I don't have the paper to hand, but there was a headline two years or so ago, from the Irish Catholic (granted, it's hardly unbiassed) which claimed that, at the time, only 4% of the convicted pedophiles in Irish prison were religious. Since religious make up around only 0.1% of the overall population, one can conclude from the figure that the IC headlined, that the religious are forty times more like to be convicted, imprisoned pedophiles than the general population.

This figure may not be accurate since I've seen no independent corroboration one way or the other, but it's the only relevant information available at this time that I'm aware of.

midlandsmissus

kelly1 wrote: »

MM, I'm sorry to hear such a terrible story.

As a matter of interest, was this hospital run by the church or the state?

God bless,
Noel.

Hi Noel,

It was run by the church. They were also starved for periods of time. these were seriously ill children. I know it's shocking to hear. She still has trouble with it and it was 50 years ago. She actually still doesn't have the full power in her legs and walks at a very slow pace. Though I cant be sure if that was due to her illness or the terrible care she received. I have my suspicions though.

Gareth37

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hi Noel,

It was run by the church. They were also starved for periods of time. these were seriously ill children. I know it's shocking to hear. She still has trouble with it and it was 50 years ago. She actually still doesn't have the full power in her legs and walks at a very slow pace. Though I cant be sure if that was due to her illness or the terrible care she received. I have my suspicions though.

The church is a very big organisation and the vast majority of the work done by the church is good and honest. However, in those days many people became nuns and priests without perhaps wanting to or having a strong faith etc. Their families told them to join the clergy at an early age and the bad habits were carried on from generation to generation.

The same exact thing went on in the schools and that was the way for many centuries.

I know that nuns thought by beating the children that they were ensuring they would not do any badness but I wouldn't agree with it , even for those times. Theres nothing wrong with the odd rod or slap, I got some myself at school and its a pity it didnt carry on into secondary school for me , but the level abuse by some people, both church and non church, may have been the work of Satan ie they just wanted to take their anger out on children.

I still say its not fair to brand the church with this. It went on at every level of society in olden days.

CerebralCortex

Gareth37 wrote: »

The church is a very big organisation and the vast majority of the work done by the church is good and honest. However, in those days many people became nuns and priests without perhaps wanting to or having a strong faith etc. Their families told them to join the clergy at an early age and the bad habits were carried on from generation to generation.

The same exact thing went on in the schools and that was the way for many centuries.

I know that nuns thought by beating the children that they were ensuring they would not do any badness but I wouldn't agree with it , even for those times. Theres nothing wrong with the odd rod or slap, I got some myself at school and its a pity it didnt carry on into secondary school for me , but the level abuse by some people, both church and non church, may have been the work of Satan ie they just wanted to take their anger out on children.

I still say its not fair to brand the church with this. It went on at every level of society in olden days.

Really? A christian advocating violence? That says a hell of lot to me and answers a lot of questions.

Biro

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe that's true.

I don't have the paper to hand, but there was a headline two years or so ago, from the Irish Catholic (granted, it's hardly unbiassed) which claimed that, at the time, only 4% of the convicted pedophiles in Irish prison were religious. Since religious make up around only 0.1% of the overall population, one can conclude from the figure that the IC headlined, that the religious are forty times more like to be convicted, imprisoned pedophiles than the general population.

This figure may not be accurate since I've seen no independent corroboration one way or the other, but it's the only relevant information available at this time that I'm aware of.

The problem is though that if the abuser was a parent or family member, chances are it'll never be made public knowledge.

AtomicHorror

Gareth37 wrote: »

Theres nothing wrong with the odd rod or slap, I got some myself at school and its a pity it didnt carry on into secondary school for me ,

Seriously? Have you any idea what year this is? You're posting on the internet so that should give you some hints.

Gareth37 wrote: »

...but the level abuse by some people, both church and non church, may have been the work of Satan ie they just wanted to take their anger out on children.

Anger, lust... these are feelings and not punishable. Actions are. Shall we chalk it all down to Satan and absolve everyone of moral responsibility for action? You seem to being saying yes. That is, frankly, utterly stupid.

Gareth37 wrote: »

I still say its not fair to brand the church with this. It went on at every level of society in olden days.

The Catholic church acted to defend the abusers. They put obstacles in the way of justice. They reintroduced known abusers into situations in which they could continue their abuse. The church was on several levels complicit. There were and still are many great and good people within that church, but the responsibility of the organisation is not a matter of debate. It is well-established as fact. Of course, it is as PDN says, that the most shocking thing was that we expected better from such an institution.

AtomicHorror

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Really? A christian advocating violence? That says a hell of lot to me and answers a lot of questions.

I wouldn't begin to imagine that Gareth represents Christians, unless they're crazy ones from 1955.

Gareth37

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Seriously? Have you any idea what year this is? You're posting on the internet so that should give you some hints.

Yes, I wouldn't advocate violence or anything. I would not want a law introduced for any power given to humans will be exploited by Satan.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Anger, lust... these are feelings and not punishable. Actions are. Shall we chalk it all down to Satan and absolve everyone of moral responsibility for action? You seem to being saying yes. That is, frankly, utterly stupid.

Don't put your words in my mouth. We don't absolve anyone. We implement the man made laws of society against these people for the crimes they commit. Then we let God judge them like He will judge me and you when we die (which is not long for life is short).

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The Catholic church acted to defend the abusers. They put obstacles in the way of justice. They reintroduced known abusers into situations in which they could continue their abuse. The church was on several levels complicit. There were and still are many great and good people within that church, but the responsibility of the organisation is not a matter of debate. It is well-established as fact. Of course, it is as PDN says, that the most shocking thing was that we expected better from such an institution.

The catholic church is everyone who was baptised - so yes we are all to blame. We all share the responsibility of making sure a good loving society is created. A man made society does not have to be evil. Not everyone baptised nor "in power" in any church played a hand in this but we all share a responsibility.

So many teachers abused children.....
many swimming instructors abused children.......

so do we also tell everyone that teaching is not good and stop teaching?

so do we also tell everyone than swimming is not good and stop swimming?


Finally I give the message of Our Lady given in 1846 from Our Lord:

This says what God thinks of those priests so let nobody say to you that God condones what happened:

"The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honors and pleasures, the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Yes, the priests are asking vengeance, and vengeance is hanging over their heads. Woe to the priests and to those dedicated to God who by their unfaithfulness and their wicked lives are crucifying my Son again The sins of those dedicated to God cry out towards Heaven and call for vengeance, and now vengeance is at their door, for there is no one left to beg mercy and forgiveness for the people. There are no more generous souls, there is no one left worthy of offering a stainless sacrifice to the Eternal for the sake of the world."

I think the above prophecy says it all really.

AtomicHorror

Gareth37 wrote: »

Yes, I wouldn't advocate violence or anything. I would not want a law introduced for any power given to humans will be exploited by Satan.

How has this statement got anything to do with you saying that there's "nothing wrong with the odd rod or slap"? Tell me, how do you know you're not being influenced by Satan when you make such a statement? How do you test that?

Gareth37 wrote: »

Don't put your words in my mouth. We don't absolve anyone. We implement the man made laws of society against these people for the crimes they commit. Then we let God judge them like He will judge me and you when we die (which is not long for life is short).

Then I don't see how it is relevant to attribute actions to the influence of Satan. Surely only your God is in a position to make such a judgement? Unless you can demonstrate a means to catch Satan with his hand in the cookie jar?

Gareth37 wrote: »

The catholic church is everyone who was baptised -

Speak for yourself. I am baptised and confirmed. Neither done when I was of the age to make decisions about any other aspect of my life. I'm not one of you and I never will be.

Gareth37 wrote: »

...so yes we are all to blame. We all share the responsibility of making sure a good loving society is created. A man made society does not have to be evil.

Of course not. The society atheists strive for is no different. We just believe that humans are and always were the source of morality.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Not everyone baptised nor "in power" in any church played a hand in this but we all share a responsibility.

So many teachers abused children.....
many swimming instructors abused children.......

so do we also tell everyone that teaching is not good and stop teaching?

so do we also tell everyone than swimming is not good and stop swimming?

I must have missed the part where the OP, or anyone here, suggested that the abuse scandals were reason enough in themselves to abandon Christianity. Indeed, the OP seems to be a strong Christian in spite of this. You were attempting to deny responsibility. You've u-turned, so I'm satisfied.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I wouldn't begin to imagine that Gareth represents Christians

Given that few (none?) of our religious friends has seriously objected to anything in his posts, I'd imagine that most of them agree with what he has to say.

Fanny Cradock

Not so. It's just that sometimes there is nothing to say, robin. I don't believe that I stand a chance of convincing Gareth37 of coming around to my way of thinking (the correct way!), so I don't try.

However much I disagree with him and those who share similar views, as long as posts stay within the charter and common decency that's OK. I tend to keep my nose clean in these matters.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Given that few (none?) of our religious friends has seriously objected to anything in his posts, I'd imagine that most of them agree with what he has to say.

Shows how wrong your imagination can be.

Gareth37

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How has this statement got anything to do with you saying that there's "nothing wrong with the odd rod or slap"? Tell me, how do you know you're not being influenced by Satan when you make such a statement? How do you test that?

I could very well be. I apologise for this and maybe many of my statements contain words of evil. Please point them out. I am indeed a hypocrit. I must pray to the Holy Spirit more for wisdom. I think that you are right with that statement.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Then I don't see how it is relevant to attribute actions to the influence of Satan. Surely only your God is in a position to make such a judgement? Unless you can demonstrate a means to catch Satan with his hand in the cookie jar?

All the sin of the world is attributed to Satan for without Satan there would be no sin.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Surely only your God

Amos 8: Those who swear by the shameful idol of Samaria, "By the life of your god, O Dan!" "By the life of your love, O Beersheba!" those shall fall, never to rise again.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Speak for yourself. I am baptised and confirmed. Neither done when I was of the age to make decisions about any other aspect of my life. I'm not one of you and I never will be.

Satan would have you beleive this but Im afraid you and I will both will be judged.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Of course not. The society atheists strive for is no different. We just believe that humans are and always were the source of morality.

How does one decipher between moral and not moral without the word of God?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You were attempting to deny responsibility. You've u-turned, so I'm satisfied.

I am 26.5 years. I take full responsibility for following the works of Satan in my own life thus far. But I will not take responsibility for the sins of others. I have lived a life of sin but without the Catholic Church I would have no hope at all. I would continue to obey the fake pleasures of life without God. I am not without sin. But Jesus did say.......

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Given that few (none?) of our religious friends has seriously objected to anything in his posts, I'd imagine that most of them agree with what he has to say.

I don't like the idea that you are tarring us all with the same brushg here Robin.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

There are really two questions here. (a) Why, in certain cases, did the state let the church and its employees do what it wanted to do to children, when it had a constitutional duty of care? (b) why did an organization which believes it's the world's ultimate moral authority behave so badly?

These questions may be better dealt with in a political forum than a religious one, as Gareth's hand-washing answer suggests.

But the short answer to your direct question is that the church let this happen because the church didn't really seem to care that this happened -- I believe that a lot of people knew what was going on. And the church didn't care that much because (a) since it operated in many cases effectively outside of the reach of the law, it didn't really have to care and (b) was more interested in itself than in what its employees, members and supporters got up to.

This is not to paint all members of the church at the time as complicit in what was going on -- certainly not everybody knew, and I've no doubt that many of those that did know were unsettled by it -- but I don't think that there's any doubt that there was enough of it going on that somebody should have blown the whistle long and hard, and long ago. And the interesting but sad question is why nobody did.

.

Out of curiosity Robin, do you advocate abortion?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Shows how wrong your imagination can be.

hmmm... it seems I was too subtle for you. As Fanny correctly noticed, I was trying to see if christians here would ever engage with Gareth.

His views are clearly bananas, but still he seems to think that he speaks for christians in particular, as well as humanity in general. Given that I think it's obvious that everybody here does disagree with him, but (going back to this thread) it seems weird that no christians seem interested in engaging with him at all.

Weird.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Out of curiosity Robin, do you advocate abortion?

No, do you?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

No, do you?

Nope, just curious about your view on this.

Gareth gives a very fundamentalist RC viewpoint. I think anyone can recognize this.

Different eras have very different ways of doing things that their society tells them is right. Instead of attacking a current adherent to a group; what about the actions of your organisations past, I find this appoach to be quite cowardly, ask what they feel about the past actions.

We can not ask the nuns reasons for what she did or her approach nor can any RC answer for it, nor should they be held responsible. The only one that can answer would be the person who committed the act. And she isn't here.

It is sad that an organisation allowed such things to happen.

In todays age we hear of hockey coaches abusing young boys yet we don't condemn Hockey Canada and all thos einvolved, we still sign our kids up.

Abuse happens within all organisations at all levels. Why, because the world is full of idiots who don't know Jesus as Lord and saviour and follow His teachings.

AtomicHorror

Gareth37 wrote: »

All the sin of the world is attributed to Satan for without Satan there would be no sin.

Assuming this is true, does it have any bearing on the enforcement of law?

Gareth37 wrote: »

Amos 8: Those who swear by the shameful idol of Samaria, "By the life of your god, O Dan!" "By the life of your love, O Beersheba!" those shall fall, never to rise again.

If you have something to say, I would ask that you use words I can understand. I don't know what this refers to.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Satan would have you beleive this but Im afraid you and I will both will be judged.

You misunderstand, I am claiming my separation from your church and demonstrating the folly of lumping all the baptised in with the Christians. I realise that you think we'll all be judged by God. You're a Christian and it's a given that you believe that.

Gareth37 wrote: »

How does one decipher between moral and not moral without the word of God?

Do you need a book to tell you that killing people is wrong?

Gareth37 wrote: »

I am 26.5 years. I take full responsibility for following the works of Satan in my own life thus far. But I will not take responsibility for the sins of others.

You're being incredibly inconsistent. Firstly, nobody asked you to take that responsibility. Secondly, you claimed responsibility by membership of the church in a previous post. For the record, I don't consider you responsible for the actions of the clergy. It's very difficult to make out what your point is.

Gareth37 wrote: »

I have lived a life of sin but without the Catholic Church I would have no hope at all. I would continue to obey the fake pleasures of life without God. I am not without sin. But Jesus did say.......

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

If that's how you want to live, I have no issue with it. I'll take Earthly consequence over your possible spiritual reward.

Gareth37

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Gareth gives a very fundamentalist RC viewpoint. I think anyone can recognize this.

Yes, most of my views are my own. I don't speak for the Catholic Church but speak as a member of the Catholic Church. However, everytime I outline the sin of others it means that I am hypocritical in my views. Also, some of my views are distorted by a misunderstanding of the Bible and God's ways.

BrianCalgary

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Do you need a book to tell you that killing people is wrong?
.

Our society allows it to happen daily. So yes, unfortunately we need a book or law to tell us that it is wrong.

AtomicHorror

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Our society allows it to happen daily.

Allows? How does our society allow murder?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So yes, unfortunately we need a book or law to tell us that it is wrong.

Strange how non-Christian societies managed to arrive at the same moral position on murder without it. Those morals informed laws, not the other way around.

Gareth37

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Assuming this is true, does it have any bearing on the enforcement of law?

If I followed the laws of God I wouldn't break many of society's laws but the enforcement of social law is not affected too much by people's religeous beliefs although that could be a totally separate topic.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Do you need a book to tell you that killing people is wrong?

Apparently you do since the laws of society differ from country to county. If there was such a thing as human morality only then surely laws from different countries would not contradict each other? Also again how do you decipher between moral and immoral, if you hold a referendum and 49% say no and 51% say yes to something then 49% of the population are immoral because the majority views morality as the opposite. Therefore man made morality has huge flaws since only God can guide morality.

AtomicHorror

Gareth37 wrote: »

If I followed the laws of God I wouldn't break many of society's laws but the enforcement of social law is not affected too much by people's religeous beliefs although that could be a totally separate topic.

I asked about enforcement, not adherence to law.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Apparently you do since the laws of society differ from country to county.

With a few exceptions, the laws on murder are pretty consistently against it across the board. I get your point, it's an easy issue.

Gareth37 wrote: »

If there was such a thing as human morality only then surely laws from different countries would not contradict each other?

Only if you assumed that human morality is an absolute. It is not. You are uncomfortable with that reality and so defer to what you consider to be an absolute morality- the word of God. Except we wrote it in the first place, and there are contradictory "absolute" moralities. So what's the difference? That we are now utterly inflexible in our morals, despite the fact that the various moral systems, like yours, contradict each other.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Also again how do you decipher between moral and immoral, if you hold a referendum and 49% say no and 51% say yes to something then 49% of the population are immoral because the majority views morality as the opposite.

The majority determines what is acceptable and not. This is how it is, but we point to a book as though it is in control. So what if 49% disagree with our morals? They are only immoral if they act upon that.

And what of your system? You would dismiss a moral system that contradicted scripture whether it were held by 49% or 99%.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Therefore man made morality has huge flaws since only God can guide morality.

Man made morality does indeed have flaws. And how do you propose to mend those flaws? By enforcing an authoritarian and rigid code? How exactly does that help when the world is filled with countless such codes, all differing?

What I'm suggesting is that morals should be no different to any other thing. We must be open to change, experimentation, observation of cause and effect. We must be able to listen to the will of the majority, but always mindful of the outcome, of consequence. You seem to think that reason alone will lead us to some crazy amoral world.

Gareth37

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We must be able to listen to the will of the majority

So if 51% of the people of Ireland said that people must beleive in God then you would beleive in God?

EDIT: OR put it this way. If 51% of the people of Ireland said that the Bible must over rule all other rules and laws then you would accept that as 51% is a majority you know.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We must be open to change, experimentation, observation of cause and effect.

We must be open to God too though because man does not own this world. The 3 most important things in life are God, God and God. Without these 3 things man will only get death

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You seem to think that reason alone will lead us to some crazy amoral world.

You think the world is not crazy?

Gareth37

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I asked about enforcement, not adherence to law.

Constitution of ireland:

5. 1° Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration:

"In the presence of Almighty God I, , do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me."

Article 44.1:

The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion

Lets not forget this.

BrianCalgary

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Allows? How does our society allow murder?



Strange how non-Christian societies managed to arrive at the same moral position on murder without it. Those morals informed laws, not the other way around.

Abortion, Suicide or mercy killings. So non-Christian societies do not arrive at ahat conclusion without the moral guidance we need from a creator.

See human sacrifices that have been encouraged throughout history by many societies and religions.

Gareth37

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Abortion, Suicide or mercy killings.

Or Euthanasia.

People seem a bit indifferent to abortion because soaps make it out to be ok etc and they are an unborn baby themselves so the selfishness of mankind does not care about unborn babies.

However, I wonder what how they would feel about Euthanasia for everyone on their 65th birthdays?

Sure if a mother has the right to kill a defenseless baby that cannot talk then maybe a doctor should have the right to kill us all off aged 65? - not

AtomicHorror

Gareth37 wrote: »

So if 51% of the people of Ireland said that people must beleive in God then you would beleive in God?

If 51% of people in Ireland said that people must believe in God then... 51% of people in Ireland said that people must believe in God. How am I compelled to agree? I thought we were talking about the basis of morality, not belief in God.

Gareth37 wrote: »

EDIT: OR put it this way. If 51% of the people of Ireland said that the Bible must over rule all other rules and laws then you would accept that as 51% is a majority you know.

If that were the will of the people as determined by a referendum or some such means, then I'd accept it as a current and valid law. I would then join or begin a campaign to have the law overturned through peaceful means. Depending on the penalties attached to the law I might also begin peaceful and public defiance of that law where practical, incurring the penalties.

Gareth37 wrote: »

We must be open to God too though because man does not own this world. The 3 most important things in life are God, God and God. Without these 3 things man will only get death

Your sacred book does not allow us to be open to the things I listed, it says we discard them in favour of what the book says at all times. I'm finding it very hard to keep track of your position.

Gareth37 wrote: »

You think the world is not crazy?

I think many of the people of the world accept what they are told on the basis of authority. I don't consider that "crazy" but I do think it is undesirable.

So I take it you see the world as "crazy" now. Most morality is defined by religions, and the world is crazy. So why exactly do you oppose my position? You reckon it'll get "more crazy"?

Gareth37

BrianCalgary wrote: »

See human sacrifices that have been encouraged throughout history by many societies and religions.

Sure if we pass the Lisbon treaty some French lad will have the authority to kill us all off - tick a box on a computer :pac:

AtomicHorror

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Abortion, Suicide or mercy killings.

Our society allows these things now? Ireland has moved on...

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So non-Christian societies do not arrive at ahat conclusion without the moral guidance we need from a creator.

I realise that you define these things as "murder", but I'm talking about run-of-the-mill homicide. Pretty much every culture going considers the killing of a born human to be wrong. There are common elements there, the beginnings of a non-authoritarian morality. And these common elements arose irrespective of the god credited with their invention.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

See human sacrifices that have been encouraged throughout history by many societies and religions.

See wars encouraged too. You're not making a great case for authoritarian morality, Christian or otherwise.

AtomicHorror

Gareth37 wrote: »

Sure if we pass the Lisbon treaty some French lad will have the authority to kill us all off - tick a box on a computer :pac:

Yeah, if you believe "Alive", a newspaper unconstrained by reality.

Gareth37

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Pretty much every culture going considers the killing of a born human to be wrong.

But if you can slice up a baby in the woom why can't you do the same when its born? Whats the difference? Would you not consider the murder of a baby outside the woom more "humane" in your moral terms that murdering the baby before the mother gives birth?

AtomicHorror

Gareth37 wrote: »

But if you can slice up a baby in the woom why can't you do the same when its born? Whats the difference? Would you not consider the murder of a baby outside the woom more "humane" in your moral terms that murdering the baby before the mother gives birth?

We're not here to debate abortion.

BrianCalgary

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Our society allows these things now? Ireland has moved on....

Huh??

AtomicHorror wrote: »

1I realise that you define these things as "murder", but I'm talking about run-of-the-mill homicide. 2Pretty much every culture going considers the killing of a born human to be wrong. There are common elements there, the beginnings of a non-authoritarian morality. And these common elements arose irrespective of the god credited with their invention..

Part one of definition: So you don't define: abortion, mercy killings(euthanasia) as murder?

Part 2: So you would allow the killing of an unborn as being OK?

the rest: huh???

AtomicHorror wrote: »

See wars encouraged too. You're not making a great case for authoritarian morality, Christian or otherwise.

Christianity encouraging wars?

AtomicHorror

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Huh??

I asked "How does our society allow murder?". You responded by writing "Abortion, Suicide or mercy killings." So I responded that our society (Ireland in this case) does not allow these things. Indeed, with the exception of abortion, most societies do now allow these things. Clear enough?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Part one of definition: So you don't define: abortion, mercy killings(euthanasia) as murder?

Whether I do is not the point. I narrowed my definition for clarity.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Part 2: So you would allow the killing of an unborn as being OK?

Again, not my point. I am asserting that human morality shows many common elements that cross faiths and philosophies, such as our aversion to the killing of humans. Were God or Bible such a vital impetus or control upon our basic morality, we would expect non-Christian moral systems to be radically different to our own. They are not.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Christianity encouraging wars?

The Crusades?

BrianCalgary

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I asked "How does our society allow murder?". You responded by writing "Abortion, Suicide or mercy killings." So I responded that our society (Ireland in this case) does not allow these things. Indeed, with the exception of abortion, most societies do now allow these things. Clear enough??

Actually Canada does allow both abortion and euthanasia as does Holland. No one has been convicted in the US for euthanasia recently and abortion is legal. I would say that Ireland is probably the only western nation that does not allow abortion.

So in conclusion our western society does allow both abortion and euthanasia. Which are murder.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Whether I do is not the point. I narrowed my definition for clarity..?

Where you are coming from is very much a part of the discussion.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Again, not my point. I am asserting that human morality shows many common elements that cross faiths and philosophies, such as our aversion to the killing of humans. Were God or Bible such a vital impetus or control upon our basic morality, we would expect non-Christian moral systems to be radically different to our own. They are not.?

My argument is that Christianity has always sanctified life and made it very important and tried to protect it. Whereas non-Christian religions advocate things like human sacrifices.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The Crusades?

That had nothing to do with Christianity but power.

Phototoxin

Neither done when I was of the age to make decisions about any other aspect of my life. I'm not one of you and I never will be.

the RCC teaches that from age 7 you can tell the difference between good and evil.

Also the crusades were a response to the muslim invasion of the holy land

ironingbored

Gareth37 wrote: »

Constitution of ireland:

5. 1° Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration:

"In the presence of Almighty God I, , do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me."

Article 44.1:

The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion

Lets not forget this.

These are just some of the examples of why, regrettably, our constitution makes us a laughing stock.

From the preamble:
"... In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial..."

ironingbored

Gareth37 wrote: »

How does one decipher between moral and not moral without the word of God?

Homo sapiens has been present on earth anything from 250,000 years to 100,000 years.

Let's take the latter. For 96,000 years god stood by and watched before suddenly revealing himself to illiterate tribes in the Middle East.

If homo sapiens survived in order to be subsequently illuminated by the almighty creator, surely it is because they knew murder, rape and gratuitous violence was anathema to survival of the species.

Gareth37

ironingbored wrote: »

Homo sapiens has been present on earth anything from 250,000 years to 100,000 years.

How do you know? Are you that old?

ironingbored

Gareth37 wrote: »

How do you know? Are you that old?

1) Evidence dear boy, evidence.

2) No, of course not! I'm only 965 years old. Just 4 shy of Methuselah.

ironingbored

Gareth37 wrote: »

How do you know? Are you that old?

"...The most widely accepted view among current anthropologists is that Homo sapiens originated in the African savanna around 200,000 BP (Before Present), descending from Homo erectus..."

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

My argument is that Christianity has always sanctified life and made it very important and tried to protect it.

Your knowledge of the history of your own religion is pitiable. Quite apart from the endless wars, crusades and other massacres that have been delivered to the world legitimized by religion, mainstream christianity hasn't even "sanctified" life by opposing abortion for very long -- abortion was permitted by the Vatican in varying degrees until the late 19th century. Its opposition to it has evolved relatively recently.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Whereas non-Christian religions advocate things like human sacrifices.

Er, so Jesus getting himself killed isn't a "human sacrifice"?