Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
would you say most priests actually believe in god?
Options
Comments
-
Man with broke phone wrote: »Is this a serious question?
Child abuse. Hiding sexual predators. Mother baby homes. Forced adoptions. Refusing contraception advise in Africa. Catholicism. Organised religion. Genocidal history. Auld wans that smell of piss thinking they can do what they want because they help you have a cup of tea.
Worrying about wandering into a conspiracy and being pressured into keeping shtum.
Taking money from lonely or bereaved people for prayers or company or the souls of the dead and using it to pay for priests to go to poor countries and carry out the same crimes that they carried out here when we were idiots. Sitting there telling people that it was all in the past while they molest and force adoption in most of south america and anywhere in Africa that they can get away with.
Like the wages and perks are attractive but youd have to have a certain mindset going into it.
My parish priest mustn't sleep at all to have time to do all that.
If you are making a moral judgement on the church based on its deeds you must take into account all deeds, both good and bad.
If you were to tott them all up in a ledger, even just in Ireland, from the 5th century to today there would be a lot of good, and a lot of bad but I feel the good would outweigh the bad.
Personally I think the worth or truth of a religion cannot be be judged solely on the basis of good deeds, or misdeeds, of it's adherents. For instance, great evils have been carried out by democratic politicians or institutions (many of which are the same as those terrible things the church did, indeed they were hand in glove at times) but this does not mean that democracy is itself bad.
Similarly, I would think a man very foolish if he considered a religion good or true on the basis of earthly good deeds.
For instance, let's say that tomorrow a new religion arises where they believe that the earth is flat and the moon is God. They express their faith through a divine service which constitutes of feeding and housing the homeless. Would you believe that the message they preach is true or good because they have only done good deeds? Of course not. So it must also follow that a religion, concept, idea etc. cannot be untrue or bad merely on the basis of the misdeeds of adherents. (This is especially the case when the majority of these misdeeds and contrary to the idea and message that they preach!)0 -
Galwayguy35 wrote: »There is about a billion catholics in the world so don't think its going away anytime soon.
If you think the number is that high because they are all believers you are wrong.
There is a reason baptism is done on young babies and not attempted when they are critical thinking and reasonably educated 18+ year olds.
If the later was the case you would see that number drop drastically0 -
If you think the number is that high because they are all believers you are wrong.
There is a reason baptism is done on young babies and not attempted when they are critical thinking and reasonably educated 18+ year olds.
If the later was the case you would see that number drop drastically
Adults are baptised into the Catholic church all the time.
And look at protestantism, adults are baptised and "born again" all the time.0 -
John Hutton wrote: »My parish priest mustn't sleep at all to have time to do all that.
If you are making a moral judgement on the church based on its deeds you must take into account all deeds, both good and bad.
If you were to tott them all up in a ledger, even just in Ireland, from the 5th century to today there would be a lot of good, and a lot of bad but I feel the good would outweigh the bad.
Personally I think the worth or truth of a religion cannot be be judged solely on the basis of good deeds, or misdeeds, of it's adherents. For instance, great evils have been carried out by democratic politicians or institutions (many of which are the same as those terrible things the church did, indeed they were hand in glove at times) but this does not mean that democracy is itself bad.
Similarly, I would think a man very foolish if he considered a religion good or true on the basis of earthly good deeds.
For instance, let's say that tomorrow a new religion arises where they believe that the earth is flat and the moon is God. They express their faith through a divine service which constitutes of feeding and housing the homeless. Would you believe that the message they preach is true or good because they have only done good deeds? Of course not. So it must also follow that a religion, concept, idea etc. cannot be untrue or bad merely on the basis of the misdeeds of adherents. (This is especially the case when the majority of these misdeeds and contrary to the idea and message that they preach!)
You dont seem to have the smarts to see the bigger picture or are an apologist. They mostly help people at their lowest because that's where it's easy to in doctrine them. To brainwash them. They can go to a poor village, make them catholic then give them some soup for a few years, a generation or two later the community is earning and then they get the collection plate out. They are in the generations game. If they needed money now they would just sell a painting or one of the million priceless objects or properties they have.
Might pressure a few lads to set up pool league or cake sale, might let the odd fella that wants to do good set up a charity but he is just converting lads. Drug addiction centres, homeless kitchens, take free food and pass it around to hungry people while telling them about the good lord. Just enough to show rich guilty people to donate money. Maybe these drug addicts would donate money every week if they got clean and got jobs.
They own or run nearly all the schools and hospitals in the country. The government pays for this not them. Imagine they put catholic kids in first regardless of other reasons. They dont do this to help the Catholics. They dont do this because they are racist. They do this because during this bumpy time people will keep baptising their children, hoping that when it's all over it will be just a load of Catholics who want to keep their traditions and all these abuses will be a distant memory and they can just get on with the molesting and abusing.
Generation game. Going to church now, and keeping your Catholicism while you know this is going on let's them play the generation game.0 -
Man with broke phone wrote: »Is this a serious question?
Child abuse. Hiding sexual predators. Mother baby homes. Forced adoptions. Refusing contraception advise in Africa. Catholicism. Organised religion. Genocidal history. Auld wans that smell of piss thinking they can do what they want because they help you have a cup of tea.
Worrying about wandering into a conspiracy and being pressured into keeping shtum.
Taking money from lonely or bereaved people for prayers or company or the souls of the dead and using it to pay for priests to go to poor countries and carry out the same crimes that they carried out here when we were idiots. Sitting there telling people that it was all in the past while they molest and force adoption in most of south america and anywhere in Africa that they can get away with.
Like the wages and perks are attractive but youd have to have a certain mindset going into it.
Not forgetting oralism ( linguistic suppression of Irish Sign Language, which is recognised as a native language of Ireland in legislation now) and the segregation of the Deaf.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think if any priest genuinely believed in god they would distance themselves from the catholic church.0
-
Man with broke phone wrote: »You dont seem to have the smarts to see the bigger picture or are an apologist. They mostly help people at their lowest because that's where it's easy to in doctrine them. To brainwash them. They can go to a poor village, make them catholic then give them some soup for a few years, a generation or two later the community is earning and then they get the collection plate out. They are in the generations game. If they needed money now they would just sell a painting or one of the million priceless objects or properties they have.
Might pressure a few lads to set up pool league or cake sale, might let the odd fella that wants to do good set up a charity but he is just converting lads. Drug addiction centres, homeless kitchens, take free food and pass it around to hungry people while telling them about the good lord. Just enough to show rich guilty people to donate money. Maybe these drug addicts would donate money every week if they got clean and got jobs.
They own or run nearly all the schools and hospitals in the country. The government pays for this not them. Imagine they put catholic kids in first regardless of other reasons. They dont do this to help the Catholics. They dont do this because they are racist. They do this because during this bumpy time people will keep baptising their children, hoping that when it's all over it will be just a load of Catholics who want to keep their traditions and all these abuses will be a distant memory and they can just get on with the molesting and abusing.
Generation game. Going to church now, and keeping your Catholicism while you know this is going on let's them play the generation game.
Giving out Soup? That's the Protestants lad.
Not sure if there is any point in engaging with that level of cynicism....0 -
John Hutton wrote: »Giving out Soup? That's the Protestants lad.
Not sure if there is any point in engaging with that level of cynicism....
Jesus lad you are either very innocent or very , ah never mind.
Only the protestants have soup in India or Chile or California. Starving people only accept soup if a protestant is serving it apparently. No self respecting catholic would dare drink a bowl of it.0 -
Nora Mushy Polygamist wrote: »It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian.
Interesting post.
However, not sure about the last part quoted here.0 -
John Hutton wrote: »Adults are baptised into the Catholic church all the time.
And look at protestantism, adults are baptised and "born again" all the time.
Yea, its sooooooo common :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
John Hutton wrote: »My parish priest mustn't sleep at all to have time to do all that.
If you are making a moral judgement on the church based on its deeds you must take into account all deeds, both good and bad.
If you were to tott them all up in a ledger, even just in Ireland, from the 5th century to today there would be a lot of good, and a lot of bad but I feel the good would outweigh the bad.
Personally I think the worth or truth of a religion cannot be be judged solely on the basis of good deeds, or misdeeds, of it's adherents. For instance, great evils have been carried out by democratic politicians or institutions (many of which are the same as those terrible things the church did, indeed they were hand in glove at times) but this does not mean that democracy is itself bad.
Similarly, I would think a man very foolish if he considered a religion good or true on the basis of earthly good deeds.
For instance, let's say that tomorrow a new religion arises where they believe that the earth is flat and the moon is God. They express their faith through a divine service which constitutes of feeding and housing the homeless. Would you believe that the message they preach is true or good because they have only done good deeds? Of course not. So it must also follow that a religion, concept, idea etc. cannot be untrue or bad merely on the basis of the misdeeds of adherents. (This is especially the case when the majority of these misdeeds and contrary to the idea and message that they preach!)
In that case, the good old Catholic Church is flooded with red ink on its ledger.0 -
Its only become acceptable in Ireland for victims of the church to speak out in the last 30 years or so. I am sure many have chosen to stay silent.
Religion and the catholic church is a disgusting, corrupt and deeply depraved organisation. This particular god has a lot to answer for.
Can you imagine what they got away with throughout the centuries?0 -
-
John Hutton wrote: »Did you read past that particular sentence?
Yeah I did, and you said the good would outweigh the bad, that its good deeds are plentiful, etc. It's not even remotely close. Hence why I said "flooded with red ink " (referencing the millions whose bloodshed came directly by the hands of your good old church). That is a book that can never be balanced.0 -
Yeah I did, and you said the good would outweigh the bad, that its good deeds are plentiful, etc. It's not even remotely close. Hence why I flooded with red ink (referencing the millions whose deaths came directly by the hands of your good old church). That is a book that can never be balanced.
Yes, I said I thought it would, but it's the bit I wrote after that which I'd draw your attention to...0 -
John Hutton wrote: »Yes, I said I thought it would, but it's the bit I wrote after that which I'd draw your attention to...
Yes, your new religion set up drivel. I think you misplaced the word 'religion' with 'cult. Fine example of that being Scientology.0 -
Yes, your new religion set up drivel. I think you misplaced the word 'religion' with 'cult. Fine example of that being Scientology.
Drivel is a bit harsh.
Ok, use the word cult then if that makes you feel better.
The point is that good deeds don't make a cult, religion, idea or concept true or good by themselves. I don't think this is a controversial point.0 -
-
John Hutton wrote: »Drivel is a bit harsh.
Ok, use the word cult then if that makes you feel better.
The point is that good deeds don't make a cult, religion, idea or concept true or good by themselves. I don't think this is a controversial point.
Why does a man have to become a priest to do good deeds. Surely the man doesnt become good by wearing a priest uniform or studying about god making a fool of abraham. Why does he need to not marry and report to an evil organisation?
And leave all his earthly belongings to the evil organisation when he dies.0 -
Man with broke phone wrote: »Why does a man have to become a priest to do good deeds. Surely the man doesnt become good by wearing a priest uniform or studying about god making a fool of abraham. Why does he need to not marry and report to an evil organisation?
And leave all his early belongings to the evil organisation when he dies.
?
I never said any of the above. (Btw priests don't have to leave all their belongings to the church when they die).
You have missed my point which at a basic level is this: A priest doing good deeds does not make, in and of itself, any religion true or good. I'm sure you agree with this. Fr Peter McVerry for instance, does what is nigh on universally regarded as good work. This does not, by itself, make his religion true or good, even if he does it in the name of the religion.
Therefore, a priest being a pedophile (which incidentally is contrary to the stated position and tenants of his religion) does not have any bearing on the truth of the religion itself.
So, let us suppose that it were possible to put every good and bad deed an adherent to a religion or belief (say, democracy) did in a ledger. Let us suppose that at the final reckoning that the bad outweighed the good by one entry, or vice versa. Is the worth and truth of the belief or idea to be weighed and (solely) decided upon in such a way?
I say it shouldn't be, but rather the ideas, beliefs etc, need to be examined and judged on their own merits in a philosophical and, in this case, theological manner.
We then arrive at a position where it is clear that whatever sins or good deeds are committed by priests have ZERO bearing on whether God (Trinitarian or otherwise), heaven, hell, purgatory, Jesus, the ressurextion, etc. etc. exists.0 -
Advertisement
-
So you dont believe in the criminal justice system you believe god will judge us all at the end and you believe your priest friends who you know enough to know their wages are of this opinion too.
So if a peado molests 15 times but gives 28 soups to homeless people he should be fairly ok in your opinion. Just leave him to God judgement. Would you let him mind your kids happy in the knowledge that if he molests them he might have to organise a charity 5 k to balance his deal with st Peter?0 -
Man with broke phone wrote: »So you dont believe in the criminal justice system you believe god will judge us all at the end and you believe your priest friends who you know enough to know their wages are of this opinion too.
So if a peado molests 15 times but gives 28 soups to homeless people he should be fairly ok in your opinion. Just leave him to God judgement. Would you let him mind your kids happy in the knowledge that if he molests them he might have to organise a charity 5 k to balance his deal with st Peter?
I'm not saying any of that at all, you need to read my posts again.0 -
If you think the number is that high because they are all believers you are wrong.
There is a reason baptism is done on young babies and not attempted when they are critical thinking and reasonably educated 18+ year olds.
If the later was the case you would see that number drop drastically
As I said before its declining in Europe but is very strong in Africa, Asia and South America and those people would be committed Catholics so no I'm not wrong.0 -
I'm not suggesting that we're expecting perfection. But if our world and our humanity is created by an all-powerful, benevolent god, why would he build childhood cancer into that plan - where good, decent parents spend a few years seeing their most precious child dying in considerable pain and discomfort in front of their eyes.John Hutton wrote: »You are missing the point, life on earth is not supposed to be perfect. Your point is based on the foundation that our life here is all there is.
Why would any God make that torture a part of their plan?0 -
Dealing with couples who never go to Mass and have nothing to do with the parish but if you don’t become available to their every request you get criticized
Plenty of threads on boards from bridezillas who wanted a small pretty Church in rural County Wicklow and talk about the priest as if they are the hired help.
Hell Joe Duffy on the radio had a bridezilla arrange for their wedding coordinator to put potted trees into the Church and then blasted the priest who had the nerve to question her
Priest are low paid and deal with the public and the public are idiots
If I had to deal with that sort, I'd be losing faith in God pretty quickly.0 -
John Hutton wrote: »Do any of you know actually know any priests?
Or just ignorantly speculating?
I do, and I don't know how they could do it if they don't believe, or never believed.
It's a very tough life. It's ain't just saying Mass for a half hour on a Sunday.
Burials, weddings, confessions, counselling, school boards, visiting the sick and dying, administration of a parish(financial and just plain organisation, communions etc), spiritual direction, dealing with headcases moaning because the priest changed a mass time, multiple masses everyday sometimes over 2 parishes, loneliness (for some, more now because in the past priests didn't live alone), last rites to people splattered on a road at 3am, etc. etc. It goes on and on. Plus a significant proportion of society thinking you might be a pedo, and a vocal minority loathing you.
All for 24k a year.
They wouldn't do it if they didn't believe in God.
I know two personally who don't believe. One never did, the other gradually. Both have no intentions of leaving as they have nothing else to fall back on.0 -
happyoutscan wrote: »I know two personally who don't believe. One never did, the other gradually. Both have no intentions of leaving as they have nothing else to fall back on.
Why did he go in?
I know 3 priests. Relatives through marriage and my father in law trained to be a priest but bailed before the end, exams or oath or whatever the final step is.
Father in law is a believer and the one relative I am chatty with certainly believes. He's opus dei and fairly into it but no so much that he constantly tells me I'm going to hell or anything.
I do wonder how many were like the father in law, from a poor background and this was the only way they could live and get an education. He admits himself that he probable would have had to find work at 13 because his father was dead and they were dirt poor. He's very old by the way so this is back in the 1930s.
I do admire them though for their faith. I was raised a Catholic but just can't believe in an all loving God when you see the **** going on all around us.0 -
Galwayguy35 wrote: »As I said before its declining in Europe but is very strong in Africa, Asia and South America and those people would be committed Catholics so no I'm not wrong.
Yeah, I would imagine that has to do with the amount of people living in dire poverty in them regions who probably have no other hope for betterment of their life than praying to their invisible friend. What have they to lose?
I would also imagine that the church (and religion as a whole) know that their chances of belief among people with less options in life is exponentially higher than than in folk like you'd find in europe and the like.
I would predict that as them countries develop you will see the same pattern of abuse unfolding (or being revealed) as it did here.....
I remember about 5-6 years ago watching a documentary on drug addicts in southern Russia who all are frazzled in the brain, every second building in the town is some do gooder american mission (read cult) who train up the most vulnerable in society to believe their dribble.0 -
Man with broke phone wrote: »You dont seem to have the smarts to see the bigger picture or are an apologist. They mostly help people at their lowest because that's where it's easy to in doctrine them. To brainwash them. They can go to a poor village, make them catholic then give them some soup for a few years, a generation or two later the community is earning and then they get the collection plate out. They are in the generations game. If they needed money now they would just sell a painting or one of the million priceless objects or properties they have.
Might pressure a few lads to set up pool league or cake sale, might let the odd fella that wants to do good set up a charity but he is just converting lads. Drug addiction centres, homeless kitchens, take free food and pass it around to hungry people while telling them about the good lord. Just enough to show rich guilty people to donate money. Maybe these drug addicts would donate money every week if they got clean and got jobs.
They own or run nearly all the schools and hospitals in the country. The government pays for this not them. Imagine they put catholic kids in first regardless of other reasons. They dont do this to help the Catholics. They dont do this because they are racist. They do this because during this bumpy time people will keep baptising their children, hoping that when it's all over it will be just a load of Catholics who want to keep their traditions and all these abuses will be a distant memory and they can just get on with the molesting and abusing.
Generation game. Going to church now, and keeping your Catholicism while you know this is going on let's them play the generation game.
If the Catholic Church was all about increasing its adherents to bring in more money, then they are clearly doing it wrong. All the trouble, the celibacy, the 7 years of rigorous theological and philosophical study, the loneliness and isolation, the increasingly hostile culture, just to provide it's priests with an existence which barely qualifies as middle class (if even)?
I'm sure it has been said in this thread already, but it is going to be nigh impossible to understand a priest without having some faith in Christ. The priest understands that we cannot save ourselves, only Christ can do that. Believing this, he has enough charity for his fellow human beings to dedicate his life to tell them about Christ, securing their happiness in this life and the next.
Some here mentioned the problem of suffering. True, it is a mystery, but Christianity does offer a few insights on it:
1) Our world is not perfect. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. There was a time of bliss upon the earth where humans were immortal. However, something went wrong very quickly - Christian (as well as Jewish) theology terms it 'original sin'. The fruit tree is a metaphor, but whatever happened, this event messed up not only humans, but also the world. We inhabit a world where things are not quite as they were supposed to be. For example, we can all notice that we have a natural inclination to selfishness, mistrust, laziness, greed, anger etc. This was not always so.
2) Much of our suffering is self inflicted. Many people fall victim to their own version of the proverbial 'monkey trap', where the monkey puts it's hand into a small hole to retrieve fruit, but is unable to remove it's hand because it's fist clutching the fruit is too big. People ruin their lives going after what they shouldn't.
3) Christ didn't come to take away suffering. Instead He, being God, suffered himself. This is enough meditation for a lifetime.
4) We can offer up our suffering for other people. Love speaks a language and that language is, and always will be, sacrifice.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nora Mushy Polygamist wrote: »1) Our world is not perfect. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. There was a time of bliss upon the earth where humans were immortal. However, something went wrong very quickly - Christian (as well as Jewish) theology terms it 'original sin'. The fruit tree is a metaphor, but whatever happened, this event messed up not only humans, but also the world. We inhabit a world where things are not quite as they were supposed to be. For example, we can all notice that we have a natural inclination to selfishness, mistrust, laziness, greed, anger etc. This was not always so.
2) Much of our suffering is self inflicted. Many people fall victim to their own version of the proverbial 'monkey trap', where the monkey puts it's hand into a small hole to retrieve fruit, but is unable to remove it's hand because it's fist clutching the fruit is too big. People ruin their lives going after what they shouldn't.
3) Christ didn't come to take away suffering. Instead He, being God, suffered himself. This is enough meditation for a lifetime.
4) We can offer up our suffering for other people. Love speaks a language and that language is, and always will be, sacrifice.
Just to explore one particular example scenario - I'm not looking for 'perfection' or the bliss of paradise. I'm just suggesting that a situation where parents watch their children dying of cancer over a couple of years is so far from perfection, so far from anything vaguely understandable - that it suggests that there is no design intention behind creation.
2) Can you clarify if you think childhood cancer is self-inflicted?
3) I don't really get your point about 'enough meditation for a lifetime', but I suppose the obvious question would be why a benevolent God allowed 'suffering' scenarios to evolve?
4) What does this 'offer it up' actually mean? How does the suffering of one person help another person in any way?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement