And people say religion is good....

Pigman II

Enough times to know I shouldn't to be down on my knees kissing their feet when I see one pass.

Besides if that's the way you want to look at it I could equally ask how many more times would it have happened if people didn't have a social consence based primarily on religious/spiritual fear keeping them in check? That was my original point.

Wacker

I get very nervous when I hear statements like "You've got to have faith" and the like. For me, there are two things that I woud rate as far more virtuos than faith: rationality and respect for other beliefs. By that, I don't just mean 'benevolent neglect.' What I mean is, we need to constantly challenge our own beliefs by engaging with people who disagree with us. This is how we learn.

Faith makes me nervous because it is often held as higher than what I mentioned. So, you'll end up with people being completely intransient and unwilling to give an inch. Some people will never feel the need to understand the mindset of those that disagree with them, because those people are only heretics anyway.

I myself am an atheist, but I will show all the respect in the world to theists, so long as they strike me as respectful in return. I have seen people roll their eyes on hearing that I'm an atheist, and for me, that is the end of the discussion. I think I used to be like that myself; looking down on theists. I like to think that I have risen above such a mindset.

Basically, faith can be a great characteristic so long as you don't end up thinking that you have nothing to learn from people who don't have your faith.

Ania

netwhizkid wrote:

No i am not wrong, The Church has Millions of deaths indirectly staining their hand every day thousands of people die of Aids. many of which could and would be prevented if the church just said okay don't ues condoms for birth control, yet you can use them for disease prevention, Isn't life the most Sacred thing the church holds dear ? They then elect old ratzy the nazi as pope and guess what he instigates an even more conservative regime. The bible belters (rednecks) in the southern US must be delighted. The church and conservatives in general are what is wrong with this modern world that we live in. The church are about as "intouch" with modern society as Dustin and socky are with a university lecturer. I remeber aged 12 in 6th class in primary school, we as most curious kids did played "spin the bottle" and unfortunatly one lunch break we got rumbled by the principal, the next day the catholic priest gave a lecture on Sexual morality to us 12yr olds. Wake up people. Its a scam.

Regards netwhizkid

It's naive to claim that church causes/ caused more deaths than the nazis and conquerors did.
You are wrong.
Either you base on historical facts or you say nothing.

MorningStar

Kingp35 wrote:

Religion is simply something man made up a long time ago to explain that which could not be explained. For example day and night happened but nobody knew how so our brains simply couldnt comprehend anything other than a powerful being that created night and day.

I think there is more to it than that I get that orgainsed religion is a man made construct and agree there but... I think most people have felt some kind of spirtual moment in there life. Not nessarily to do with religion just something like a moment of love or pleasure. It seem to be attached to our being.
I think the moment of spirtuality can spawn religious belief. It also seems pretty important for any society, I don;t think any society really existed with out some kind of religious belief. I think there was maybe one called Bulgarin or Bugger (not joking) who belived in a lack of god and had some objection to procreation. It's where the word bugger comes from (really not joking). Ultimately their lack of belief was a binding religion of sorts but due to their problem with procreation they died out anyway. Can't remember all the facts.

All socities have non believers but ultimately they are still guided by the main relious beliefs in the society which keep it bonding.

Wars that are attributed to religion rarely truelly are. The crusaders actually killed many Christians. It's the power of religion that is the danger not the religion as such.

The North isn't about religion and we all know how complex it really is the same applies to historic troubles too.

I think it is a bit simplistic to think religion is the reason for extremists. "0% of bristish muslim mean are unemployed which is higher than the norm. This might have a big factor to play more than religion on it's own.

netwhizkid

Originally Posted by Ania
It's naive to claim that church causes/ caused more deaths than the nazis and conquerors did.
You are wrong.
Either you base on historical facts or you say nothing.

The church has caused misery for millions of people throughout history and still does to this day. Their ban on artificial contreception is causing millions of god fearing people not to use condoms and thus get aids and die. These deaths are on the Churchs hands.

The thousands of women that were burned at the stakes through history for being "witches". link Its view on homosexuals and its campaign against them through history. The way it resisted modern medicine and stopped people from using it, which would thus saved their lives. To this day "Jehovas Witness's" refuse to take blood tranfusions.

The way the church treats women who have children outside of marraige, and the awful way they treated them in the past, Quite often removing their children from them and putting the child into orphanages, and then locking the woman up in laundries ala, the magdalene laundries film.

The way they sexually abused the most vunerable people in society children without parents in residential schools. And mentally unwell people were systamatically abused by the Catholic church. Hardly no priests starved in the Great famine 1845 - 1850 . In by gone times, only up to 50yrs ago a parishinor had to pay for his seat at the church, And then it would be read from the altar Mr & Mrs. X gave so much so as to shame those who gave a smaller amount of money to the Church.

For you to claim that the Catholic Church is a good thing and religion in general, i'd suggest get an encloypedia and do some reading before making asumptions.

Regards netwhizkid

Flukey

It is the people that are the problem, not religion itself. Anyone that follows whatever religion they believe in properly will not do any harm to anyone else. People use and twist religions to their own needs when it suits, but they are not really following their religion. No religion advocates going out and murdering people, though some have twisted it in order to make it seem so, or use it as a justification for doing so. If all believers or whatever faith follow their religious teachings, people would live in peace. It is the fact that people don't and often try to use religion negatively that causes the problems. Horrific things have been done in the name of religion, but in truth those things were anything but in the name of religion. So it is the people that do these things, no matter what justifications they try and use, that cause the problems.

pork99

While I have good friends who seem to enjoy their religion and get some benefit from it, fair play to them, personally think it's all a numbers game.

If I as one solitary person believed that the universe was created by being expelled from the colon of the Great Rabbit God Barrymanilow to whom temples with giant gold statues of rabbits within must be built I would be considered a total nutball and as mad as ham.

However if I could persuade 1,200,000,000 other people to believe exactly the same thing I would find myself being respectfully asked to appear on the media to comment on the ethical and moral issues of the day and to host meetings with assorted world leaders.

Zombrex

Flukey wrote:

Anyone that follows whatever religion they believe in properly will not do any harm to anyone else.

Only according to your interpretation of the religion. My main problem with western Jew/Christian/Muslim (Abrahamic) religions is that there is huge, huge, room for interpretting the "message" anyway you like. For every passage that says "Do not kill" there are 5 more saying when it is justifiable to kill.

Though religious people whole heartly believe they follow a religious message, really all they do is find the bits of the relgion that they already believe in and then use the religion for justification. I was watching a program about Waco on Sky last night, the followers of David whats-his-name could find all the justification they needed in the Bible to stock-pile weapons and fight the devil. People's moral code exists before the "message", I would say there are very few people who actually seriously change their moral code solely after reading the Bible or Koran (for example). Our moral code is formed during childhood based on what happens to use and society of the time. I would be very skeptical that a 20 something can/would change their moral code based on reading the Bible. If you were a mass murderer before the Bible ain't going to change you, but you may find a whole load of passages that you think justify what you did.

Flukey wrote:

People use and twist religions to their own needs when it suits, but they are not really following their religion.

They are following their interpretation of the religion, which is what everyone does.

Flukey wrote:

No religion advocates going out and murdering people, though some have twisted it in order to make it seem so, or use it as a justification for doing so.

According to who? Go read about people who have killed using the Abrahamic relgions as justification. They can tell you exactly where it says in the religion that what they did was justifiable.

Zombrex

pork99 wrote:

However if I could persuade 1,200,000,000 other people to believe exactly the same thing I would find myself being respectfully asked to appear on the media to comment on the ethical and moral issues of the day and to host meetings with assorted world leaders.

Sure just look at the movement to get Jedi recongised as a proper religion ... :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

netwhizkid wrote:

To this day "Jehovas (sic) Witness's" refuse to take blood tranfusions (sic).

What has this to do with the Roman Catholic Church?

For you to claim that the Catholic Church is a good thing and religion in general, i'd (sic) suggest get an encloypedia (sic) and do some reading before making assumptions (sic).

Ironic.

Wicknight wrote:

They are following their interpretation of the religion, which is what everyone does.

One of the points to organised religion is that it tends to be far less open to such interpretations. As such you’re less likely to have situations where individuals have adapted their personal belief systems to suit their personal interests as the religious codex would be defined by a subset of the population.

The question (as long as you’re not a malcontented teenager who feels pissed off at being forced to go to Mass) is one of whether people as individuals are capable of arriving towards a broad moral consensus without degenerating towards antisocial justifications, geared towards their selfish ends, on their own or whether they need an organised religion to take away this freedom for the greater good.

stevenmu

Personally I don't think it's fair to blame religions for the bad things which happen in their name. In general, bad things which happen in the name of a religion are against the teachings of that religion. Many western Islamic clerics regularly point out verses in the Koran forbidding the actions of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. The Catholic church may forbid the use of condoms, but it also teaches abstinance, a much better way of preventing the spread of aids. They also teach homosexuality it wrong but the preach tolerance of all people, even Pope JP2 called for tolerance of homosexuals and I'm sure the new guy will get around to it soon too.

The fact is that some people will use any excuse they can find to go and do something wrong, if they didn't have religion, they'd use movies, video games or unusually shaped twigs as their reason

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if the churches of the world can take credit for the padre pio's, mother teresa's and john paul's of the world then they can sure as hell take credit for all the troubled and pain caused in it's (the churches) name.

catholicireland

if the churches of the world can take credit for the padre pio's, mother teresa's and john paul's of the world then they can sure as hell take credit for all the troubled and pain caused in it's (the churches) name.

Yeah, i think they should. Abuse is a terrible crime and there should be no cover-up by anyone. However, the priests do have a rule that they cannot tell anyone, it is a stupid rule but it is a rule none the less.

It boils down to this, religion, what ever religion, is a good thing and when looked at on its own is a positive thing. When you combine that with humans, there is always going to be bad apples. If you had a company with 2 billion workers then there will be a lot of bad workers in that company. If there was no such thing as religion humans would still make up some excuse for war and murder, no question about it.

rsynnott

stevenmu wrote:

Personally I don't think it's fair to blame religions for the bad things which happen in their name. In general, bad things which happen in the name of a religion are against the teachings of that religion.

Up until 1993 in this country, homosexuality was criminalised. 100,000 - 400,000 people depending on who you believe, criminalised. The church screamed blue murder over the end of that, and even now, you have Benedict muttering darkly about laws to "curb the spread of homosexuality".

Just one example where the church is squarely on the side of oppression.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Up until 1993 in this country, homosexuality was criminalised. 100,000 - 400,000 people depending on who you believe, criminalised. The church screamed blue murder over the end of that, and even now, you have Benedict muttering darkly about laws to "curb the spread of homosexuality".

Up until 1993 in this country we simply observed a law, with regard to homosexuality, that we inherited from London, not Rome. I think you’ll find there are quite a few of those laws that we’ve yet to either repeal or reform still there. They have nothing to do with the Church either.

As for the Church screaming blue murder over the end of that, you’d be right that they opposed the legalisation of both divorce and abortion, but that they opposed the decriminalisation of homosexuality I suspect is wishful thinking upon your part. Feel free to cite where the Church opposed the changing of the law in 1993.

Finally, with regard to the present Pope muttering darkly about laws to "curb the spread of homosexuality", please feel free to actually back up this some credible source.

Just one example where the church is squarely on the side of oppression.

The Universe is so clear-cut through the prism of hysteria.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

Up until 1993 in this country we simply observed a law, with regard to homosexuality, that we inherited from London, not Rome. I think you’ll find there are quite a few of those laws that we’ve yet to either repeal or reform still there. They have nothing to do with the Church either.

One that had come up repeatedly in government and was left unchanged on moral grounds.

The Corinthian wrote:

Finally, with regard to the present Pope muttering darkly about laws to "curb the spread of homosexuality", please feel free to actually back up this some credible source.

Hmm, yep, seem to have made a mistake here; I saw the quote and was annoyed enough to post in a hurry. A cursory look only finds one very dubious source, and this source, with slightly milder wording: http://www.advocate.com/print_article.asp?id=15799

He did send a letter (as Cardinal ,not pope) to US bishops urging them to support legal discrimination there; quote: "it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account." He also refers to homosexuality as an "intrinsic evil" and homosexuals as "intrinsically disordered". He also opposes same sex marriage and civil unions, which are essential to granting certain rights to gay people, most importantly IMO the right to be named next of kin and thus not be excluded from the death-bed of the partner. I'd say that Mr Ratzinger is intefering, and that this is a prime example of the church doing harm.

CerebralCortex

I just want to say two things about Atheists (forgive me if I'm of topic)
1.atheists must have an infinite mind of unimaginable wisdom if they can be happy believing that they know for sure anything about our existance.
2. I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that Atheists didn't get into theological debate simply because they are (yes you guessed it) atheists.

Honestly I think some people think they are cool when they say they are Atheists.

"Hey I'm an atheist I'm such a rebel it annoys my old pair so much yes Fintan in 11 seconds."
They piss me of.

PS: I haven't a clue what I am thank God or Whoever/WhatNot/

rsynnott

CerebralCortex wrote:

I just want to say two things about Atheists (forgive me if I'm of topic
1.atheists must have an infinite mind of unimaginable wisdom if they can prove anything about our existence.

Of course, believers can prove everything about our existance. The world was created by god/godess/gods and/or godesses/giant dung beetle.

In reality, atheists and theists have a similar problem; atheists must explain the basic coming into existance of the universe, as a place with a point source of energy. Theists must explain the coming into existance of the universe with a fully formed intelligent deity present (or at least a well trained insect).

CerebralCortex wrote:

2. I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that Atheists didn't get in theological debate simply because they are (yes you guessed it) atheists.

This didn't start off as a theological debate; it's started with someone's opinion that religion is just someone's tool to cynically gain power. (Not an opinion I agree with; I
acknowledge that many people believe in a god or gods (or indeed unfeasably big insect)).

And, certainly an atheist can get into a theological debate. An atheist believes that there is no god. That's just as valid a belief as that there is a god (or beetle).

CerebralCortex wrote:

Honestly I think some people think they are cool when they sya they are Atheists.

Yes, I admit it, deep down I really believe in the beetle (who's name escapes me for the moment).

CerebralCortex wrote:

"Hey I'm an atheist I'm such a rebel it annoys my old pair so much yes Fintan in 11 seconds."
They pissed me of.

Nah, nah, I decided that the whole god thing was a bit suspect when I was very young; no-one was ever able to give me plausable evidence, so I never subscribed to a belief in a god (or beetle, large cat with rythmically moving paw, or other mystical creator thingy). My parents are quite cynical; if I wanted to be a rebel I'd probably have to become an actupuncturist, or something.

I think you may be slightly confused about what atheism is; you might like to have a read of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

stevenmu

rsynnott wrote:

Up until 1993 in this country, homosexuality was criminalised. 100,000 - 400,000 people depending on who you believe, criminalised. The church screamed blue murder over the end of that, and even now, you have Benedict muttering darkly about laws to "curb the spread of homosexuality".

Just one example where the church is squarely on the side of oppression.

I don't recall there being that much fuss, maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

There's probably at least as many drug users in this country as there are homosexuals (I'm not drawing any kind of parrallel between the two), if the church opposed the legalisation of drugs would they then, by your argument, be guilty of oppression ?

The church may see homosexuality as wrong but they have been calling for tolerance for years. You may be interested to hear that in the former Soviet Union, which was completely non-religious, homosexuality was a serious crime and anyone caught performing homosexual acts was imprisoned in the gulag for life.

I'm sure that if Jesus had of come across some homosexuals being persecuted he would have given a great speach about judging, casting stones, forgiveness etc. He probably would have skipped the part about loving thy fellow man though

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

One that had come up repeatedly in government and was left unchanged on moral grounds.

That denotes the Church’s active involvement to oppose the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1993 or, as you claimed, their screaming blue murder over the matter?

He did send a letter (as Cardinal ,not pope) to US bishops urging them to support legal discrimination there; quote: "it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account." He also refers to homosexuality as an "intrinsic evil" and homosexuals as "intrinsically disordered".

Discrimination in relation to what? Marriage? Priesthood? Or criminalization? Please bare in mind that you claimed that the Church was actively opposing efforts to decriminalize it and it is this I am questioning you on.

My point is ultimately that many of the criticisms against the Church are based on hysteria rather than facts. This is not to make any claim that they are in any way blameless, only that neither are they the root of all evil, as portrayed here.

Of course, I would also be interested to know whether it is possible to actually have a debate on the nature of organised religion on this forum without it becoming a litany of rants against only one of those religions.

rsynnott

stevenmu wrote:

I don't recall there being that much fuss, maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

There's probably at least as many drug users in this country as there are homosexuals (I'm not drawing any kind of parrallel between the two), if the church opposed the legalisation of drugs would they then, by your argument, be guilty of oppression ?

No. No-one is naturally a drug user, and drug use tends to harm others. Homosexuality harms no-one, and one doesn't CHOOSE to be gay.

stevenmu wrote:

The church may see homosexuality as wrong but they have been calling for tolerance for years. You may be interested to hear that in the former Soviet Union, which was completely non-religious, homosexuality was a serious crime and anyone caught performing homosexual acts was imprisoned in the gulag for life.

Yep, the USSR's view on the whole thing was odd, particularly considering that one of their satillite states (Hungary) was one of the first countries in the world to explicitly legalise it.

And look at Ratzinger's rantings on the subject, and attempts to damage the civil rights progress in America (in many ways, gay people are much worse off their than here; in most states they can still be fired for being gay, and there are a number of small to medium companies who still do this routinely).

stevenmu wrote:

I'm sure that if Jesus had of come across some homosexuals being persecuted he would have given a great speach about judging, casting stones, forgiveness etc. He probably would have skipped the part about loving thy fellow man though

I'm sure he would have. However, the church has been ignoring Jesus on such matters for nearly 2000 years now.

Sleepy

Whether or not God exists is a question we can't answer at the moment. Were it ever the case that some form of God did make an (re-?)appearance on this earth and started performing miracles I'd definitely be looking for the mirrors. Logically, the case is very heavily on the side of the non-existance of God and I tend to follow logic rather than magic called "faith". TBQH, I'd consider faith to be a weakness of character. If you can't survive while facing reality, you're going to create a new reality for yourself. Psychology could quoute multitudes of cases of individuals unable to take life any more deciding to believe in ridiculous things merely because they seem preferable to our daily life...

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

Discrimination in relation to what? Marriage? Priesthood? Or criminalization?

In this case, decriminalization (recall that until 2003 it was criminal in some states), protective laws and gays in the army.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

In this case, decriminalization (recall that until 2003 it was criminal in some states), protective laws and gays in the army.

That's not actually what I asked - in relation to what you quoted, where was it suggested that homosexuality should be kept criminalized? This was your claim, not that homosexuals should be discriminated against in the armed forces - there is, after all, a marked difference between not being allowed in the army and being locked up as a criminal.

stevenmu

rsynnott wrote:

I'm sure he would have. However, the church has been ignoring Jesus on such matters for nearly 2000 years now.

Which kind of proves my point that it's not religion to blame. People will always hurt/kill/oppress each other. Religion makes a convenient excuse, especially because people can use it to gain huge amounts of authority over others, but in the absence of religion, people would find other reasons or just not bother with them.

catholicireland

This thread has again turned into a Catholic bashing, on the topic of homosexuality. The Church takes that position because it feels that gays threaten the family and other reasons. Why dont we for once focus on the faults of the Islamic or Jewish religion?

rsynnott

catholicireland wrote:

This thread has again turned into a Catholic bashing, on the topic of homosexuality. The Church takes that position because it feels that gays threaten the family and other reasons. Why dont we for once focus on the faults of the Islamic or Jewish religion?

Because the faults of the catholic and jewish faiths affect us very little in Ireland.

Sleepy

catholicireland wrote:

This thread has again turned into a Catholic bashing, on the topic of homosexuality. The Church takes that position because it feels that gays threaten the family and other reasons. Why dont we for once focus on the faults of the Islamic or Jewish religion?

CatholicIreland, can I ask where you got the figure in your sig because it sounds wildly inacurrate to me.

Does that percentage include all of us who were baptised and confirmed into the Catholic Church prior to the age of legal consent? If so, it needs to be heavily revised because a large number of us no longer hold the beliefs that Catholics espouse to have.

rsynnott

Sleepy wrote:

CatholicIreland, can I ask where you got the figure in your sig because it sounds wildly inacurrate to me.

Does that percentage include all of us who were baptised and confirmed into the Catholic Church prior to the age of legal consent? If so, it needs to be heavily revised because a large number of us no longer hold the beliefs that Catholics espouse to have.

It's worth noting that if you want, you can write to the church and opt out.

Sleepy

Yeah? I thought someone on here posted before that they tried that and were told they couldn't. Sweet. Anyone know who I write to in order to remove myself from the Catholic Churches files?