Respecting Other People's Beliefs

Sleepy

solas wrote:

This thread never went off topic sleepy, unless off topic is a reference to when people are not agreeing withyou.

The pope's death, his bullshít religion and your christianity are all off-topic in a thread discussing respect for other's beliefs. I admit, I let myself get drawn off-topic when responding to your posts as well. Just because the OP goes off-topic themselves doesn't mean a thread is still on-topic.

solas wrote:

I could understand people having issues if they were abused by some molesting bastard priest, but that hasnt been my experience. I'll just assume that those of you who do hate the church have had such an experience and I'll respect your hatred because of that.

That is a disgusting, false, cheap shot at someone who doesn't share your biggoted beliefs.

I've never had that kind of experience but I know people who have had. Statistically it's quite probable that a poster on these boards has endured such abuse from the church. How would you honestly feel if I turned around in this post and said it had happened to me? Be very careful what you write on here, it can come back and bite you.

Sleepy wrote:

If you preach to your followers that it is their "Christian duty" to help other's and refuse to do it to the utmost of your capacity, you're a hypocrite.

So you're the pope now are ya? :rolleyes:

Sleepy

Jr.Shabadu wrote:

I feel the only solution is mass-brainwashing and a benevolent dictatorship ran by me and my cartel of friends and people I admire. Like America, only with brainy leaders.

Did you receive my application for the position of Minister for "Education"

solas

The pope's death, his bullshít religion and your christianity are all off-topic in a thread discussing respect for other's beliefs. I admit, I let myself get drawn off-topic when responding to your posts as well. Just because the OP goes off-topic themselves doesn't mean a thread is still on-topic.

aren't you the one who brought up the subject of the popes death and his bull**** religion?

That is a disgusting, false, cheap shot at someone who doesn't share your biggoted beliefs.

I'm a roman catholic, if you want to abuse me for it go ahead, but if you do I will take legal proceedings.

I've never had that kind of experience but I know people who have had. Statistically it's quite probable that a poster on these boards has endured such abuse from the church. How would you honestly feel if I turned around in this post and said it had happened to me? Be very careful what you write on here, it can come back and bite you.

I think you should start heeding your own advice.

neo nazi

Shabadu

Sleepy wrote:

Did you receive my application for the position of Minister for "Education"

Excellent. Your regime name is 'Corporal Punishment.'

*steeples fingers*


muahahahahaha...

solas

am inquiring about taking legal proceedings in response to sleepy's last post, maybe just to see where "you can draw the line".

inciting hatred and religious discrimination is illegal in this country.

Shabadu

Solas- you called sleepy a neo-nazi. Now that's libelous.

solas

as far as I am concerned I will let the legal teams decide who is the actual bigot in this situation.

neo-nazi-A member of a fringe group inspired by Adolf Hitler's Nazis.
nazi
adj 1: relating to or consistent with or typical of the ideology and practice of Nazism or the Nazis; "the total Nazi crime"; "the Nazi interpretation of history"
Fascism:
n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)


sleepy is not hiding his hatred for religious groups and considers religion the cancer of society. Perhaps he should start building concentration camps in order to get rid of this stain on society.

solas

oh look..I'm a moderator.

Shabadu

Ahahaha! This is so surreal and hilarious- please confirm, that yes, you are seeking legal recourse against Sleepy, and that your 'proof' that he's a neo-nazi.

What- he's anti-religion, so was hitler, QED neo-nazi?

Both myself and Hitler believe that there should be a minimum of unemployment, does that make me a neo-nazi?

solas

I dunno, do you consider the unemployed a cancerous waste of space who would be better off being gased?
Or if you had the oppertunity or were in a position as hitler was would you do what you could to help them help themselves?

this is so surreal and hilarious- please confirm, that yes, you are seeking legal recourse against Sleepy, and that your 'proof' that he's a neo-nazi.

I based my opinion on the fact that he has stated that he considers religion "evil" that he "despises" it and cis under the impression that "belief in religion holds back human development and contributes to the rate at which we're trying to kill ourselves off"

They are not too disimilar reasons as to why Hitler felt it neccesary to get rid of the jews and akin to aryan/nazi attitudes of creating a "master race".

Shabadu

solas wrote:

oh look..I'm a moderator.

Er...and?

Shabadu

Wow. How you got from Sleepy saying Religon is a cancer on society, to inferring what he meant was 'all religous people should be gassed' i'll never know.

Oh, congrats on being a moderator. A little childish mentioning it a completely unrelated thread, no? As we used to say in 6th class, BIG WOW!

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

The pope's death, his bullshít religion and your christianity are all off-topic in a thread discussing respect for other's beliefs.

Are you being ironic by design or by tragedy?

Shabadu

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you being ironic by design or by tragedy?

Sleepy has admitted not being very tolerant of religous views. His comment was referring to the original post which asked 'how tolerant do we have to be?', he wasn't saying you should be tolerant.

The Corinthian

Jr.Shabadu wrote:

Sleepy has admitted not being very tolerant of religous views. His comment was referring to the original post which asked 'how tolerant do we have to be?', he wasn't saying you should be tolerant.

Ahhhh... Sorry, my mistake. I was browsing and hadn't read the thread.

Memnoch

solas wrote:

makes a good point though.
There's enough hatred in this world, can't we just have a bit of peace for a while?

the large majority of hatred is propagated by religious fanatics however.

The reason people hate organised religion with such a vengeance is because of the way religious institutions going about doing their best to assimilate and impose their own personal narrowminded backward assumptions upon everyone else. A lot of the times just for personal and political gain.

The problem however is this.

In order to beat them, you have to become them, you have to "hate" them, but then you are no different and so you loose anyway.
If you just try to tolerate them, then they will keep pushing and pushing and pushing till eventually you are one of them or you are no one, because they don't believe in co-existing. (eg homosexuality.)

So for those who like to respect the beliefs of others and not impose their own view it becomes the devil's dilemma. Should they tolerate the intolerant?

zenith

Solas banned from Humanities for starting the namecalling.

zenith

CathyMoran

The way I look at it everyone has a right to their own religious or non-religious belief - debate is fair but insults are not. I went back to the church when I was in my mid-20's but I would be against a lot of its teachings on contraception etc.

MiCr0

Can any one think of a good reason to keep this open?

Sleepy

CathyMoran wrote:

The way I look at it everyone has a right to their own religious or non-religious belief - debate is fair but insults are not. I went back to the church when I was in my mid-20's but I would be against a lot of its teachings on contraception etc.

May I query how you can consider yourself part of a church because you agree with some of their religion? I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it here, that's a genuine query. The Catholic Church is notorious for seeing things in terms of black and white so how can someone "be a Catholic" yet not agree with all of Catholicism's teachings?

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

May I query how you can consider yourself part of a church because you agree with some of their religion? I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it here, that's a genuine query. The Catholic Church is notorious for seeing things in terms of black and white so how can someone "be a Catholic" yet not agree with all of Catholicism's teachings?

Religions are not entirely dogmatic. All are based upon certain fundamentals, after which comes the disagreement over editing and in particular interpretation. In the case of the Abrahamic family of religions the differences between the Torah, Bible or Qur'an are not as important as how they are interpreted. In all three cases the book of Levicticus gives a list of do’s and do not’s, however each religion interprets them differently, and even within each religion there are disagreements in interpretation.

To deal with this, all religions use a combination of both formalized theology and dictate (the latter generally coming into play when the disagreement is too fundamental to bridge). And the Roman Catholic Church is no different in this regard - there are numerous open debates on theological matters where the Roman Catholic Church has yet to arrive on an official position and you’ll find that even the much quoted power of Papal Infallibility is restricted to only a handful of decrees since its introduction in the nineteenth century.

So generally all religions and religious denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, will allow various degrees of disagreement.

Shabadu

The Corinthian wrote:

And the Roman Catholic Church is no different in this regard - there are numerous open debates on theological matters where the Roman Catholic Church has yet to arrive on an official position and you’ll find that even the much quoted power of Papal Infallibility is restricted to only a handful of decrees since its introduction in the nineteenth century.

So generally all religions and religious denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, will allow various degrees of disagreement.

I didn't realise this at all, so a church-goer can disagree/ignore some of the papal decrees and still be considered a Catholic by the church?

When the Infallibility thing is used, is it generally announced? For example, the Pope decreeing that abortion is murder, I just presumed it fell under the whole infallibility thing, (and that all Catholics had to comply under threat of immortal souls spending all eternity in purgatory etc.) but unless it's specified somehow, you can turn a blind eye?

The Corinthian

Jr.Shabadu wrote:

I didn't realise this at all, so a church-goer can disagree/ignore some of the papal decrees and still be considered a Catholic by the church?

When the Infallibility thing is used, is it generally announced? For example, the Pope decreeing that abortion is murder, I just presumed it fell under the whole infallibility thing, (and that all Catholics had to comply under threat of immortal souls spending all eternity in purgatory etc.) but unless it's specified somehow, you can turn a blind eye?

I actually can't comment on how far you can disagree, as not all decrees are infallible, but would imagine that anything that does not fall under the list of matters that would warrant automatic excommunication would probably be fair game. This list (which is open to interpretation) is:

• Apostasy (bitching about your former religion)
• Heresy (something which is opposition to doctrine; e.g. “Satan is the good guy”)
• Schism (starting up your own religion)
• Desecration of the Eucharist
• Physical force against the Pope
• One who actually procures an abortion and all accomplices
• Priest who absolves a partner in adultery
• Priest who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession
• Both parties to the consecration of a bishop without a Papal mandate
• Not keeping your mouth shut on what goes on during a conclave.

Shabadu

The Corinthian wrote:

• One who actually procures an abortion and all accomplices
• Priest who absolves a partner in adultery

Fukking typical. Yeah lads, you can absolve the sin in confessional of a fellow priest who has molested a child, and probably will again, but two consenting adults cheating means you're going straight to hell.

Someone tell me how a person who murders a 10 yr old can be absolved, but a woman who aborts a foetus at 10 weeks is booted out of the church? [/cross]

Cheers for the info, Corinthian, apologies for the mini-rant.

Steveire

We should be tolerant as if we didn't even know they had a different belief system. Just forget that there's an issue there, and there won't be.

The Corinthian

Jr.Shabadu wrote:

Fukking typical. Yeah lads, you can absolve the sin in confessional of a fellow priest who has molested a child, and probably will again, but two consenting adults cheating means you're going straight to hell.

Actually excommunication does not mean you’re going to Hell, it means you’re ‘outside the community’ and cannot receive sacraments. It also does not mean that you cannot be forgiven or absolved - only that a normal priest can’t do it (I think you need at least a Cardinal) and you have to convince the Church of your contrition.

As for child molesting priests, this probably will be added to the automatic list, I’d imagine, and has not so already only because it’s become an issue publicly quite recently. As things stand, priests that are found to have acted in such a manner are already automatically defrocked.

Shabadu

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually excommunication does not mean you’re going to Hell, it means you’re ‘outside the community’ and cannot receive sacraments. It also does not mean that you cannot be forgiven or absolved - only that a normal priest can’t do it (I think you need at least a Cardinal) and you have to convince the Church of your contrition.

Hmm, I may have been a touch dramatic there alright.

The Corinthian wrote:

As for child molesting priests, this probably will be added to the automatic list, I’d imagine, and has not so already only because it’s become an issue publicly quite recently. As things stand, priests that are found to have acted in such a manner are already automatically defrocked.

But priests that have admitted to it in the confessional can be forgiven, and while they may be encouraged to come forward, can't be forced to by the priest hearing the confession. This is what irks me.

The Corinthian

Jr.Shabadu wrote:

But priests that have admitted to it in the confessional can be forgiven, and while they may be encouraged to come forward, can't be forced to by the priest hearing the confession. This is what irks me.

That goes for abortion too - even if a priest was told in confession, he cannot tell anyone about it.

Shabadu

The Corinthian wrote:

That goes for abortion too - even if a priest was told in confession, he cannot tell anyone about it.

True. But he can't absolve you, whereas he can absolve a paedophile.

The Corinthian

Jr.Shabadu wrote:

But he can't absolve you, whereas he can absolve a paedophile.

True. Point taken.