Abortion Discussion

robindch

eviltwin wrote: »

What training do priests have in dealing with mentally vulnerable people?

I believe they have this:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/conference-on-exorcisms-takes-place-in-vatican-323983.html

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

I believe they have this:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/conference-on-exorcisms-takes-place-in-vatican-323983.html

So people with mental health issues require an exorcism, of course...sure why wouldn't they.
:rolleyes:

The Randy Riverbeast

Cabaal wrote: »

No doubt in 12 months time they'll extend the offer so people can avail of it for 199.99 and they can even make 6 easy payments to avail of the offer. Hurry, lines are open now!

The Vatican accepts all major credit cards, land, donations in wills etc

dfs sale?

SALVATION FROM ABORTION MUST END SOON!

I wonder if people who denied the hold spirit will get an offer soon.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

galljga1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That never went away: mass cards, offerings for anniversary masses etc.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

What training do priests have in dealing with mentally vulnerable people?

I don't think you need training in in dealing with mentally vulnerable people in order to absolve sins (though I'm sure it couldn't hurt), but I'd guess priests who are often involved in providing counselling to mentally vulnerable people probably obtain particular training? Like most organisations generalists will often obtain specialities I should think; I know a priest who has a degree in psychology for example.

eviltwin wrote: »

And what is the onus on, the best outcome for the individual or the best outcome for the church?

I'm pretty sure the Church would say they're the same; a soul absolved is a soul on the way to heaven so that's the best outcome for the soul and the Church. The person seeking absolution probably thinks the same; they wouldn't seek absolution if they didn't feel they needed it, so obtaining it is the best outcome for them too.

Cabaal

galljga1 wrote: »

That never went away: mass cards, offerings for anniversary masses etc.

Priests and parish "helpers" visiting older potentially vulnerable people suggesting they leave money to the parish in the their will or suggesting a figure the person could donate each year knowing the person has recently come into money... Say 1k a year for 5k years. (This was done recently)

Kev W

Cabaal wrote: »

Priests and parish "helpers" visiting older potentially vulnerable people suggesting they leave money to the parish in the their will or suggesting a figure the person could donate each year knowing the person has recently come into money... Say 1k a year for 5k years. (This was done recently)

They can't be that old if they're expected to live another 5k years.

robdonn

Kev W wrote: »

They can't be that old if they're expected to live another 5k years.

Stem cell research has come a long way thanks to our pals at Planned Parenthood. :P

galljga1

O.T. apologies

For some reason, the above has led me to look up Methuselah.

I came across this: http://www.icr.org/article/how-did-methuselah-die/

The opening paragraph (below) blows me away.

"One of the favorite characters in the Old Testament is Methuselah, who lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27), longer than anyone else recorded. His father was Enoch, of whom it is said he "walked with God" (5:24) but who was taken to heaven without dying at 365 years. Methuselah's son Lamech died a few years before the Flood at 777 years (5:31) after bearing Noah. "

This is in the first book of the bible. After reading this nonsense, how can anybody believe anything in the good book?

Peregrinus

galljga1 wrote: »

O.T. apologies

For some reason, the above has led me to look up Methuselah.

I came across this: http://www.icr.org/article/how-did-methuselah-die/

The opening paragraph (below) blows me away.

"One of the favorite characters in the Old Testament is Methuselah, who lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27), longer than anyone else recorded. His father was Enoch, of whom it is said he "walked with God" (5:24) but who was taken to heaven without dying at 365 years. Methuselah's son Lamech died a few years before the Flood at 777 years (5:31) after bearing Noah. "

This is in the first book of the bible. After reading this nonsense, how can anybody believe anything in the good book?

So if a book contains one statement which must be false, all the others must also be false?

This doesn't stack up. Not only is it irrational, but it's contradicted by the available evidence. The bible does contain other statements which we know from external sources to be true.

The conclusion, for rational people, is not that you can't believe anything in the good book. It's that the book contains statements which are of varying historicity and, if the historicity of a particular statement is important to you, you need to evaluate it critically.

galljga1

Peregrinus wrote: »

So if a book contains one statement which must be false, all the others must also be false?

This doesn't stack up. Not only is it irrational, but it's contradicted by the available evidence. The bible does contain other statements which we know from external sources to be true.

The conclusion, for rational people, is not that you can't believe anything in the good book. It's that the book contains statements which are of varying historicity and, if the historicity of a particular statement is important to you, you need to evaluate it critically.

One statement that must be false? Are you serious?

Peregrinus

galljga1 wrote: »

One statement that must be false? Are you serious?

No, I accept that it contains many statements which must be false. The point is that the falsity of one statement, or of many statements, tells you nothing at all about the truth or falsity of another statement whose only commonality with them is that it has been bound between the same covers.

Your argument is basically the same as this: Look, here are three people with blue eyes (and in fact we know there are many more). Therefore, how can any person have brown eyes?

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I accept that it contains many statements which must be false. The point is that the falsity of one statement, or of many statements, tells you nothing at all about the truth or falsity of another statement whose only commonality with them is that it has been bound between the same covers.

Your argument is basically the same as this: Look, here are three people with blue eyes (and in fact we know there are many more). Therefore, how can any person have brown eyes?

It's really nothing like that, you know. It's a question of credibility of sources, and if I am found to have been posting porkie pies about stuff, other posters are not only entitled to query anything that I post without evidence, they would be positively stupid not to.

You OTOH seem to think they should operate on a probability basis - 75 % of what she posted up to now was false, therefore logically this next post must be going to be true!

How you can imagine that has anything in common with genetics is evidence either of disastrous failings in your reasoning power, or of some other agenda being at play.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

It's really nothing like that, you know. It's a question of credibility of sources, and if I am found to have been posting porkie pies about stuff, other posters are not only entitled to query anything that I post without evidence, they would be positively stupid not to.

Except that the bible collects together a whole bunch of independent texts, written by different people over thousands of years, and only much later gathered together in a single set of hard covers. The notion that the historicity of one text tells you anything at all about the historicity of another because somebody who didn't write either text has chosen to print them in the same binding doesn't bear much scrutiny.

volchitsa wrote: »

You OTOH seem to think they should operate on a probability basis - 75 % of what she posted up to now was false, therefore logically this next post must be going to be true!

That's pretty much the complete opposite of what I say, Vol, which was that the probability of truth or falsity of each statement is a priori independent. Whether statement A is true or false tells you nothing at all about whether statement B is true or false, unless the statements are formally linked (e.g. A is the converse of B or the corollary of B, A cannot logically be true unless B is true, etc). "I found A and B between the same covers" doesn't really cut it.

volchitsa wrote: »

How you can imagine that has anything in common with genetics is evidence either of disastrous failings in your reasoning power, or of some other agenda being at play.

Now that you mention it, given the genetic component to eye colour knowing about the eye colour of some members of a population does enable us to draw some conclusions about the likely eye colour of other members. But knowing that some statements in some texts are false tells us nothing at all about the truth or falsity of unrelated statements in another text written at a different time by a different person.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except that the bible collects together a whole bunch of independent texts, written by different people over thousands of years, and only much later gathered together in a single set of hard covers. The notion that the historicity of one text tells you anything at all about the historicity of another because somebody who didn't write either text has chosen to print them in the same binding doesn't bear much scrutiny.

That's pretty much the complete opposite of what I say, Vol, which was that the probability of truth or falsity of each statement is a priori independent. Whether statement A is true or false tells you nothing at all about whether statement B is true or false, unless the statements are formally linked (e.g. A is the converse of B or the corollary of B, A cannot logically be true unless B is true, etc). "I found A and B between the same covers" doesn't really cut it.

Now that you mention it, given the genetic component to eye colour knowing about the eye colour of some members of a population does enable us to draw some conclusions about the likely eye colour of other members. But knowing that some statements in some texts are false tells us nothing at all about the truth or falsity of unrelated statements in another text written at a different time by a different person.

Look, what it tells us is that the bible is not a reliable source. Full stop.

There may of course be bits in it that turn out to have some basis in historical events, and that's fine and dandy, but that still doesn't give us any way to work out in the absence of corroborating evidence about any other bits. Not even other parts of the same section of the bible are proven when one incident turns out to have some factual basis.

Which is why your nonsense about statistics and probability is so disingenuous.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Look, what it tells us is that the bible is not a reliable source. Full stop.

No, it doesn't.

This forum is supposed to encourage rationality and critical thinking, Vol. Don't let the side down.

If somebody takes two statements, prints them, and binds them between a single set of hard covers, that editorial decision doesn't magically create a link between the two statements such that the truth of one is in any way dependent on the truth of the other. Objectively, each statement is exactly as true as it was before the printing and binding was done. To believe otherwise is simply magical thinking.

I know that Methusaleh didn't live to be 969, as asserted in Gen 5:27. That knowledge tells me nothing at all about whether Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was ever governor of Syria, as claimed in Luke 2:2. I'm astonished that you have any difficulty grasping this.

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point is that the falsity of one statement, or of many statements, tells you nothing at all about the truth or falsity of another statement whose only commonality with them is that it has been bound between the same covers.

That's not entirely accurate. While the falsity of one statement doesn't impeach the bible as a whole, it is important to consider the veracity of statements when examining a single writer, particularly a) when there is little extrinsic evidence to support or contradict or b) when the text purports to be a witness statement (or is claimed to be a witness statement).

Take Mark's gospel for example. Mark's gospel is claimed by a lot (I would almost stretch to most) Christians to be an eyewitness account of Jesus' life. Now we have well established rules for judging witness testimony. The US Federal rules of evidence for example, outline the criteria for impeaching a witness which include:

• Anonymity
• Competency
• Hearsay
• Bias
• Inconsistent statements
• Untruthfulness
• Contradiction

So when Mark tells a story which cannot possibly be true like the exorcism at the start of Chapter 5, we have less reason to trust the rest of his testimony as accurate.

So within a single writer's text we can use the falsity of statements to say something about the overall text. However, we can also do the same about multiple texts from different writers.

Take Matthew and Luke for example. The dates of Jesus' birth in these two gospels are completely contradictory. Therefore, without extrinsic evidence to confirm the date of Jesus' birth or evidence to definitively refute one of the writer's dates, we have no choice but to treat both stories as unreliable.

In summary, while we can't and shouldn't use a single false statement to impeach the entire bible, the idea that each statement should be independently verified is also wrong.

Peregrinus

Oh, sure, I'd accept all this. That's what I mean when I talk about the need to evaluate each statement critically. If the statement comes from the same author as a statement known to be false, that's a relevant consideration. But, of course, not conclusive; we might also have to take into account the genre in which the author is writing, and the significance of historicity in that genre - if he illustrates theological points with fanciful miracle stories, for instance, that may not tell us much, one way or the other, about his statements that aren't fanciful, or miracle stories, or don't appear to be underlining theological claims. And there are many other similar factors we could take into account in assessing historicity.

And your point about the different nativity accounts offered by Matthew and Luke goes back to the point I made earlier about formal links between statements. Matthew and Luke are describing the same event, but what they say about it is completely inconsistent. Each impeaches the other.

But all this would be true even if the texts concerned had never been compiled into "the Bible". The fact that at some point they were compiled in that way tells us, basically, nothing about their historicity.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I accept that it contains many statements which must be false. The point is that the falsity of one statement, or of many statements, tells you nothing at all about the truth or falsity of another statement whose only commonality with them is that it has been bound between the same covers.

Your argument is basically the same as this: Look, here are three people with blue eyes (and in fact we know there are many more). Therefore, how can any person have brown eyes?

Perhaps they should have put a severability clause in the bible...

MrP

galljga1

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I accept that it contains many statements which must be false. The point is that the falsity of one statement, or of many statements, tells you nothing at all about the truth or falsity of another statement whose only commonality with them is that it has been bound between the same covers.

Your argument is basically the same as this: Look, here are three people with blue eyes (and in fact we know there are many more). Therefore, how can any person have brown eyes?

I accept the above argument and it is widely accepted that there are accounts in the bible which probably relate to actual historical events even though the accounts may differ in part from other accounts within or without the bible.
I would have to say that given the amount of nonsense within the bible, it calls into question the validity of the book as a whole.
Did jesus exist? Probably.
Did he perform miracles? No.
Was he the son of god? No.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, sure, I'd accept all this. That's what I mean when I talk about the need to evaluate each statement critically. If the statement comes from the same author as a statement known to be false, that's a relevant consideration. But, of course, not conclusive; we might also have to take into account the genre in which the author is writing, and the significance of historicity in that genre - if he illustrates theological points with fanciful miracle stories, for instance, that may not tell us much, one way or the other, about his statements that aren't fanciful, or miracle stories, or don't appear to be underlining theological claims. And there are many other similar factors we could take into account in assessing historicity.

And your point about the different nativity accounts offered by Matthew and Luke goes back to the point I made earlier about formal links between statements. Matthew and Luke are describing the same event, but what they say about it is completely inconsistent. Each impeaches the other.

But all this would be true even if the texts concerned had never been compiled into "the Bible". The fact that at some point they were compiled in that way tells us, basically, nothing about their historicity.

And that's all fine, I don't think anyone here was disagreeing with that.

The point remains, that even though (or possibly because) some parts of the bible appear to have a possible distant and distorted link with real events, that doesn't make the bible any sort of reliable source for anything. So if someone wants to claim that it is, they need to show which parts of the bible are reliable, and why.

(You seem to have a recurring problem with the concept of the onus of responsibility, I've noticed. If someone claims that this book they have contains deep truths, even though large parts of it have been shown to be hokum, the onus of responsibility is firmly on the person making the claim that the other bits are grand all the same to prove that this is so.)

robdonn

galljga1 wrote: »

Did jesus exist? Probably.
Did he perform miracles? No.
Was he the son of god? No.

Did jesus exist? Probably.
Did he perform miracles? Probably not.
Was he the son of god? Probably not.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

The point remains, that even though (or possibly because) some parts of the bible appear to have a possible distant and distorted link with real events, that doesn't make the bible any sort of reliable source for anything.

Nor does the fact that some parts of the bible have no link whatsoever with demonstrably real events mean than none of the bible is a reliable source for anything at all; it works both ways. Which is pretty much what Peregrinus said in the first place, you can't judge the credibility of one part of the bible on the basis of the fact that it's placed in a book that also contains incredible parts.

volchitsa wrote: »

So if someone wants to claim that it is, they need to show which parts of the bible are reliable, and why.

Surely they only need to show that the parts that they think are reliable are reliable, and why? There's no point in proving the account of the resurrection of Lazarus is reliable if you want to say that the account of Cyrus II of Persia is historically accurate. Just as proving from extra-biblical sources that Cyrus II did exist doesn't infer that Lazarus was in fact resurrected by Jesus. Nor do I think anyone is under any obligation to divide the book up into the bits they reckon they can prove are true and the bits they reckon they can't just to satisfy someone else... why would they feel they had to do such a thing?

volchitsa wrote: »

(You seem to have a recurring problem with the concept of the onus of responsibility, I've noticed. If someone claims that this book they have contains deep truths, even though large parts of it have been shown to be hokum, the onus of responsibility is firmly on the person making the claim that the other bits are grand all the same to prove that this is so.)

I think the problem is more taking the statement that "The bible does contain other statements which we know from external sources to be true" and twisting it into "this book they have contains deep truths, even though large parts of it have been shown to be hokum"; it's all well and good to expect someone to take responsibility for proving what they said is true, but not so much to take responsibility for what you turn it into? That's pretty much on you.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

And that's all fine, I don't think anyone here was disagreeing with that.

The point remains, that even though (or possibly because) some parts of the bible appear to have a possible distant and distorted link with real events, that doesn't make the bible any sort of reliable source for anything. So if someone wants to claim that it is, they need to show which parts of the bible are reliable, and why.

(You seem to have a recurring problem with the concept of the onus of responsibility, I've noticed. If someone claims that this book they have contains deep truths, even though large parts of it have been shown to be hokum, the onus of responsibility is firmly on the person making the claim that the other bits are grand all the same to prove that this is so.)

I haven't denied that somebody affirming the truth of anything in scripture has to substantiate that affirmation, Volchitsa. I've just pointed out that your own argument against the truth of scripture is, to borrow your own word, hokum. Showing that Methusaleh did not live to 969 does not falsify any statement other than "Methusaleh lived to 969".

Can I also draw your attention to a point I made back when I first challenged your claims? I said that "if the historicity of a particular statement is important to you, you need to evaluate it critically". The truth is that I don't greatly care how long Methusaleh actually lived; why would I? If the statement is a literary device used in a text in which long life is a symbol of God's favour, then it's meaning is that Methusaleh found favour with God. From that point of view, the historicity of the statement is unimportant.

It's important, of course, to a fundamentalist biblical literalist for whom it really does matter that Methusaleh live to be 969, but most Christians are not that. And if they don't find fundamentalist biblical literalism attractive or persuasive, why would they find a critique of religion based on fundamentalist biblical literalist assumptions attractive or persuasive?

Indeed, you yourself shouldn't consider this a powerful critique unless you share fundamentalist biblical literalist assumptions about how texts should be read, about meaning, about significance, about historicity.

It's ironic, isn't it, to find an atheist critic of religious belief togging out, intellectually speaking, with the fundamentalists? Still, necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows. Or something like that.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I know that Methusaleh didn't live to be 969, as asserted in Gen 5:27. That knowledge tells me ...

Unless you were there and saw him die, you don't know how long he lived. But you don't believe he lived for 969 years. Ultimately you are an agnostic unbeliever, at least for some of the most ridiculous claims made in the bible. We all draw the line at different levels of incredulity, and say beyond this its just nonsense.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Unless you were there and saw him die, you don't know how long he lived. But you don't believe he lived for 969 years. Ultimately you are an agnostic unbeliever, at least for some of the most ridiculous claims made in the bible. We all draw the line at different levels of incredulity, and say beyond this its just nonsense.

Yes, recedite, I think that expresses quite neatly what I've been trying to get across.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Unless you were there and saw him die, you don't know how long he lived. But you don't believe he lived for 969 years. Ultimately you are an agnostic unbeliever, at least for some of the most ridiculous claims made in the bible. We all draw the line at different levels of incredulity, and say beyond this its just nonsense.

You might not know how long he lived, but Peregrinus said he knew he didn't live to be 969. Which is a different thing; there is a level of certainty that no one has ever lived to be 969 which is the equivalent to knowing anything at all that you haven't personally witnessed. You know Cyrus II existed because there are other sources that attest to his existence which you accept rather than having witnessed it yourself; equally there are sources that attest a human cannot live to be 969. Still, showing that Methusaleh did not live to 969 does not falsify any statement other than "Methusaleh lived to 969"; it certainly doesn't require one to know how long he did live for. Or even that he lived at all.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, recedite, I think that expresses quite neatly what I've been trying to get across.

Odd. I was sure what you said was

volchitsa wrote: »

It's a question of credibility of sources, and if I am found to have been posting porkie pies about stuff, other posters are not only entitled to query anything that I post without evidence, they would be positively stupid not to.

Which you decided meant

volchitsa wrote: »

the bible is not a reliable source. Full stop.

You realised that wasn't true when you said

volchitsa wrote: »

even though (or possibly because) some parts of the bible appear to have a possible distant and distorted link with real events, that doesn't make the bible any sort of reliable source for anything. So if someone wants to claim that it is, they need to show which parts of the bible are reliable, and why

In fairness, you can see why you'd want to retrench in someones far more sensible position:

recedite wrote: »

We all draw the line at different levels of incredulity, and say beyond this its just nonsense.

But claiming it expresses quite neatly what you've been trying to get across is, to use your own expression, a bit of a porkie pie, would you not say?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

there are sources that attest a human cannot live to be 969.

Weasely words, if we are talking about absolute knowledge.
It may happen at some time in the future that medical technology will become available extending the human lifespan. And old Methy "might" have stumbled across a wormhole in time giving him access to this future science.
Personally, I don't believe it though. I believe his longevity was just a story made up by bronze age goatherds. Storytelling being an artful way of passing the time around the camp fire.