Opus Dei

Asiaprod

What are you`re views on the Opus Dei.
We have seen and read a lot about them. They have draw a lot of attention to themselves on Wiki with their continual editing of anything that is negative. To all intents they are a very powerful Chritian lobby group, with lots of money and influence. They are comnnected, weither true or not, to all kinds of dark practises. They have even managed to have their founder, a man known for his less than charismatic ways than for his bad temper and treatment of women, cannonized. Who are these people and what is their Function or goal.
Peter Kearney

Excelsior

Opus Dei was founded in 1928 by St. Jose Maria Escrivá in Spain. During the 2nd Vatican Council, new bodies called Personal Prelatures were authorised which would cater to particular ministerial niche needs. Opus Dei is one such Personal Prelature. It is an organisation dedicated to helping lay Catholics engage their faith with their careers so that they are not simply Sunday morning Christians.

It does not have any monks, let alone albino assasin monks.

Opus Dei means "Work of God" and while it is an attempt to engage society, it is a staunchly conservative attempt. It rejects things that most people take for granted like say, gender equality. It also wouldn't like me very much as one of those horrible people who claim to be Christian but aren't Catholic. But Dan Brown's fanciful imagination is preposterously off the mark on the authenticity of the Bible and I think (although not nearly with the same certainty) that he is off the mark on Opus Dei. If for nothing else, I can't imagine turbo Catholics who wish it was still the 1940's being as exciting as he makes them out.

Seriously though, the run-ins I have had with Opus Dei have been with over-zealous individuals who didn't seem to be working within the rules of the group they claimed to represent and from them I am fairly convinced by their assertions that crazy stuff like self-mutilation for spiritual purposes and other "dark practices" doesn't happen in the organisation.

Their sensitivity over how they are represented is characteristic of a form of Catholicism and Christianity generally that feels besieged by the modern world and terrified of all that are "Other". Loyalists and Opus Dei would probably have a great laugh together, could they ever get over their natural antipathies.

arctic lemur

do they really practise mutilation and are men and women really seperated in the HQ in NY?

The_Conductor

artic lemur wrote:

do they really practise mutilation and are men and women really seperated in the HQ in NY?

There really is a difference between self mutilation and self induced suffering. Causing one's self pain or discomfort does not necessarily equate with mutilating one's self. While there would be habits that many of them have in common- certainly some of them probably go to extremes (as people tend to do). I can't see that anyone would go out of their way to mutilate themselves..... cause pain and suffering, perhaps, but mutilation- no......

Excelsior

As I understand it, the Opus Dei complex in New York is a residential centre for live-in students. As part of the course discipline that they run, they spend portions of time exclusively in the company of their own gender. To facilitate this they have 2 entrances.

Obviously, if a female consultant or a cleaner or a visitor were to arrive at the HQ, they would be welcomed through the main lobby. Arguments as robust as "their doors prove they hate women" are what you expect from an airport novel. It continually amazes me that otherwise seemingly intelligent and discerning readers take the Da Vinci Code as an authority on anything beyond page-turning.

Asiaprod

It continually amazes me that otherwise seemingly intelligent and discerning readers take the Da Vinci Code as an authority on anything beyond page-turning.

Excelsior, I think in all fairness Dan Brown`s book can not be considered to be a major source of information on Opus Dei. Of course the book in this respect is rubbish, nothing more than just a story. However, there are hundreds on information sources on the net covering Opus Dei and some of these stories are pretty hair raising. There is no question in my mind that if one were to dig deep enough one would find some very interesting facts. It is an accepted part of life that there are always one or two bad apples in the barrel and IMHO OPus Dei are undoubtadly one of these bad apples.
Peter Kearney

Excelsior

Maybe Peter. I have encountered them before personally and there are certainly nasty folks in the organisation. But I suspect that if a group is sufficiently paranoid as to be secretive and then actively combative over any investigations into them, then conspiracies will develop. Its not like Opus Dei have given us access to ascertain whether these claims are true or not.

Indeed, there do seem to be abuses going on but it seems more likely to me that in a strange way, Opus Dei don't distance themselves from the actions of their nutters because it adds to the secret society battling underground against Satan's forces who control the world and boards.ie allure that attracts their peculiar recruits.

Anyone actually in Opus Dei?

arctic lemur

No I dont take the 'Da Vinci Code ' as gospel truth. I spent 4 yrs training in R.E. Ed. Just curious as didn't know a whole lot about the org til i read the book like

Shrimp

Opus Dei are not really how people make them out to be. They are just very conservative. They are powerful and rich aswell..

UU

Hi,
I'm actually reading the Da Vinci Code at the moment and I think it is great. Although people must remember that it is fictional but some facts are true and some members of Opus Dei do practise self-flagellation but not very many do.

Opus Dei like many religious organisations have some corruptness associated with them which is natural as we're humans. Although, as a very liberal Unitarian, I don't care very much for those very strict, conservative faiths but still retain tolerance towards them. You have to remember though that certain faiths are just more corrupt than others and quite brainwashing too such the Church Of Scientology and some very severe fundalmentalist faiths particulary Shia Islam, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, etc.

Opus Dei often target universities/colleges for new rectruits. There was a case over here last year about a professor in UCD who told her students that they must attend an Opus Dei meeting or they won't pass there exams. Here's the evidence: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0403/3682700401HM1UCD.html.

Although, Opus Dei are shone in a very negative light these days, it is vital to see the good points about them and I respect there devotion to Christ just like I actually believe in some elements of Scientology but still think it's a quite a dangerous cult.

AndyWarhol

UU wrote:

Hi,
I'm actually reading the Da Vinci Code at the moment and I think it is great. Although people must remember that it is fictional but some facts are true and some members of Opus Dei do practise self-flagellation but not very many do.

Opus Dei like many religious organisations have some corruptness associated with them which is natural as we're humans. Although, as a very liberal Unitarian, I don't care very much for those very strict, conservative faiths but still retain tolerance towards them. You have to remember though that certain faiths are just more corrupt than others and quite brainwashing too such the Church Of Scientology and some very severe fundalmentalist faiths particulary Shia Islam, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, etc.

Opus Dei often target universities/colleges for new rectruits. There was a case over here last year about a professor in UCD who told her students that they must attend an Opus Dei meeting or they won't pass there exams. Here's the evidence: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0403/3682700401HM1UCD.html.

Although, Opus Dei are shone in a very negative light these days, it is vital to see the good points about them and I respect there devotion to Christ just like I actually believe in some elements of Scientology but still think it's a quite a dangerous cult.

You're effectively peddling the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion and that one creed is as good as another. This is the kind of rubbish that seems to be gaining force and substance in modern day western civilisation.

This 'ideology' is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion as being true. Your idealist pretty little picture displayed in your signature teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion and it is the right of each individual to say just what strikes his fancy. The fact is that revealed religion is truth and not some spiritual sentiment, taste or opinion.

Pope Benedict said recently that "When man makes himself the only master of the world and master of himself, justice cannot exist. Then, arbitrariness, power and interests rule." There would be anarchy if each man was left to decide for himself what he felt was right and wrong. It is the duty of all believers (I'm a Catholic) to stand up for what is right, influence public life and not allow the world to deteroriate into something like out of Huxley's Brave New World.

Remember that the law makers are made up with members of the Catholic church and the majority of Irish people still regard themselves as Catholic and would get their moral teachings from the Church. To quote Benedict again: "A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion but which excludes Him from public life, from the reality of the world and our lives, is not tolerance but hypocrisy". Why should somebody go against their moral teachings just to satisfy the politically correct consensus?

Opus Dei are defenders of the real truth and are not some 'dangerous cult' of 'brainwashers'.

Asiaprod

AndyWarhol wrote:

Opus Dei are defenders of the real truth and are not some 'dangerous cult' of 'brainwashers'.

You say this with a lot of conviction, and you are entitled to your opinion. However, I have seen many others make the opposit comment with equal conviction. I am interested to know what is your conviction based on? Do you have first hand experience that contradicts what other who where within the organization say ?
Peter Kearney

hairyheretic

AndyWarhol wrote:

You're effectively peddling the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion and that one creed is as good as another.

Sounds to me more like he saying there are positives truths to be found in all religions.

AndyWarhol wrote:

This is the kind of rubbish that seems to be gaining force and substance in modern day western civilisation.

Yes, because tolerance is such a terrible thing.

AndyWarhol wrote:

This 'ideology' is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion as being true.

Can you prove it isn't?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Your idealist pretty little picture displayed in your signature teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion and it is the right of each individual to say just what strikes his fancy.

And the problem with that is?

AndyWarhol wrote:

The fact is that revealed religion is truth and not some spiritual sentiment, taste or opinion.

Many of the worlds religions have opposing viewpoints. For that matter, various sects within individual relgions have opposing views. If revealed religion is truth, how can opposing truths be true?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Pope Benedict said recently that "When man makes himself the only master of the world and master of himself, justice cannot exist. Then, arbitrariness, power and interests rule."

The vatican is in no positon to talk about power and interests. They may yearn back to the days when they could order kings around, or threaten them with impunity, but those days are centuries gone now.

AndyWarhol wrote:

There would be anarchy if each man was left to decide for himself what he felt was right and wrong.

As opposed to letting some other man tell him what was right and what was wrong?

Morality is by its own nature a personal thing. You can allow the teachings of your belief to guide you in that, but it is still you who makes the final judgement.

AndyWarhol wrote:

It is the duty of all believers (I'm a Catholic) to stand up for what is right, influence public life and not allow the world to deteroriate into something like out of Huxley's Brave New World.

No, it isn't. You may believe what you please, and do what you please within your own life, but the moment you start infringing on the lifes of others, then you go too far.

Will you follow jewish dietary restrictions? Will you pray to Mecca 5 times a day? No? Then why do you think anyone else wants to be forced into following your beliefs?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Remember that the law makers are made up with members of the Catholic church and the majority of Irish people still regard themselves as Catholic and would get their moral teachings from the Church.

As evidenced by the no sex outside of marriage, and no birth control material anywhere in the country.

Oh, wait ....

AndyWarhol wrote:

To quote Benedict again: "A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion but which excludes Him from public life, from the reality of the world and our lives, is not tolerance but hypocrisy". Why should somebody go against their moral teachings just to satisfy the politically correct consensus?

And are you prepared to extend that to everyone, regardless of their beliefs? If the person at the desk beside yours was an avowed satanist, and wanted to set up black candles and inverted pentagrams all over the places, to chant "Hail Satan" with regularity, you'd be perfectly ok with his public expression of his beliefs?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Opus Dei are defenders of the real truth and are not some 'dangerous cult' of 'brainwashers'.

"Truth" is entirely subjective. To paraphrase Kosh from Babylon 5, "Truth is a 3 edged sword." Your truth, their truth, and whatever lies in the middle.

robindch

> There would be anarchy if each man was left to
> decide for himself what he felt was right and wrong

If it's not too much trouble, could you please provide some evidence to back up this claim?

Two recent reports, available at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1798944,00.html
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

...suggest that when you look at the facts, it's actually the other way around, whre societies are much better off without religion. F*** the South makes much the same point about the bible belt in America, though in a much cruder way.

Dades

AndyWarhol wrote:

This 'ideology' is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion as being true.

And your idealogy is inconsistant with any recognition of any religion BAR ONE as being true.
Very little difference there.

Good post heretic. Esp like the left field quote from Babylon 5.

UU

Hello.
It really amuses me that I create a post basically saying that the world would be a better place if everyone could accept each others beliefs which is true. There isn't much point in me going on as hairyheretic challenged AndyWarhol already so thanks hairyheretic as it seems to me to AndyWarhol that "it's only as I expected - your humanity is just as narrow as the humanity of the others" as quoted from Juno And The Paycock by Sean O'Casey (it's a darlin' play, a darlin' play). Your entitled to your beliefs but let me ask you when has Pope Benedict ever TOLERATED homosexuals? Surely he cannot speak of tolerence when he lacks it himself.

AndyWarhol

hairyheretic wrote:

Sounds to me more like he saying there are positives truths to be found in all religions.

Some religions share common beliefs, that doesn't mean they're all right.

hairyheretic wrote:

Yes, because tolerance is such a terrible thing.

Tolerance, but at what price? Interfaith dialogue and polite discourse yes, but not an acknowledgement of false gods or false teachings as being somehow equivalent.

hairyheretic wrote:

Can you prove it isn't?

While it's all very fine everyone getting along happy as larry, it's a shallow view on life and will never bring real happiness. What happens after you've finished a life of 'aren't we all great, we're human'? Real happiness comes from the glory of God for all eternity.

hairyheretic wrote:

And the problem with that is?

I'm sure he thinks it's a wonderful ideal, but don't expect me (indeed many others) to sit up there with him beside persons with deep theological difference.

hairyheretic wrote:

Many of the worlds religions have opposing viewpoints. For that matter, various sects within individual relgions have opposing views. If revealed religion is truth, how can opposing truths be true?

Man have for centuries taken it upon themselves to explain the world around them for themselves whether it be through science, philosophy, meta-physics, cults etc. Truth lies in the fact that God became man through Jesus who appointed his disciples who live on in today's church. 'Religions' that are malleable and dynamic, that have no real theological grounding (such as North American evangelist hybrids, indeed Protestants who's leader will one day be prince Charles) can fight amongst themselves for all I care. The Catholic church will never crumble under political pressure, opinion or liberal consensus.

hairyheretic wrote:

The vatican is in no positon to talk about power and interests. They may yearn back to the days when they could order kings around, or threaten them with impunity, but those days are centuries gone now.

The Vatican is still a hugely powerful global entity and is not going to die out as you might like to think.

hairyheretic wrote:

As opposed to letting some other man tell him what was right and what was wrong?

Morality is by its own nature a personal thing. You can allow the teachings of your belief to guide you in that, but it is still you who makes the final judgement.

Other men tell others what to do every day via a legal system rooted in Christianity. Have you got a better idea?
And yes, man has his own judgement and is free to do what he pleases within the confines of his body/mind. But all men have an inherent sense of what is right and what is wrong. Have you ever wondered where this 'sense' came from?

hairyheretic wrote:

No, it isn't. You may believe what you please, and do what you please within your own life, but the moment you start infringing on the lifes of others, then you go too far.

Will you follow jewish dietary restrictions? Will you pray to Mecca 5 times a day? No? Then why do you think anyone else wants to be forced into following your beliefs?

Well some people have to be forced not to murder, not to rape etc. A less extreme case would be abortion. Should I just say 'I don't agree with abortion, but somebody else might so therefore I should vote pro-abortion'? This is flawed logic. I will never vote against moral teaching nor will I act against moral teaching. The horror of today's world is that sometimes this may even mean losing your job. Why is it ok for a follower of the 'liberal religion' to discriminate against someone who's a Catholic?

hairyheretic wrote:

As evidenced by the no sex outside of marriage, and no birth control material anywhere in the country.

Oh, wait ....

In the last census (www.cso.ie 2002), 3.4m out of 3.9m regarded themselves as Catholics. And whilst the scourge of western promiscuity and individualism has had its effect, people still want their children baptised into Catholic ways of life, value marriage and would want a proper funeral under the guidance of a priest.
Popular culture might be telling people like you that this kind of behaviour is 'the norm' and the 'thing to do', but most young people I know have sense, are far more civilised than your average TV slob/Evening Herald reader and do not engage in these kinds immoral activities.

hairyheretic wrote:

And are you prepared to extend that to everyone, regardless of their beliefs? If the person at the desk beside yours was an avowed satanist, and wanted to set up black candles and inverted pentagrams all over the places, to chant "Hail Satan" with regularity, you'd be perfectly ok with his public expression of his beliefs?

You know, if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't believe much. If I knew absolutely that someone I knew was a satanist, I would kill him. (no joke). It would probably never come down to it though because how could I know 100% he was a satanist? I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he could one day repent.

hairyheretic wrote:

"Truth" is entirely subjective. To paraphrase Kosh from Babylon 5, "Truth is a 3 edged sword." Your truth, their truth, and whatever lies in the middle.

Truth is not subjective otherwise what's the point? Your metaphore again goes back this concept of equivalence between truths, beliefs etc. and is one I refute.

robindch

> some people have to be forced not to murder
> If I knew absolutely that someone I knew was a satanist, I would kill him (no joke)

:eek:

I think it would be a good idea for you to visit a psychiatrist.

Urgently.

I am not joking.

Dades

AndyWarhol wrote:

While it's all very fine everyone getting along happy as larry, it's a shallow view on life and will never bring real happiness.

Why not? Maybe not to you because your faith is so unmoving (and that's cool) but why can't it bring happiness to UU?

AndyWarhol wrote:

What happens after you've finished a life of 'aren't we all great, we're human'? Real happiness comes from the glory of God for all eternity.

But if he doesn't believe in "the glory of God for all eternity" well then isn't he doomed anyway? Might as well not spend time worrying about the next life and concern himself with this one, the one he knows exists.

hairyheretic

AndyWarhol wrote:

Some religions share common beliefs, that doesn't mean they're all right.

How do you judge what religion is "right" ?

Its obvious you think that christianity (possibly even catholicsim) is the only "right" religion, but I'm curious as to exactly how you figure it.

What criteria have you established to prove your religion is "right" ? ... for anyone other than yourself.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Tolerance, but at what price? Interfaith dialogue and polite discourse yes, but not an acknowledgement of false gods or false teachings as being somehow equivalent.

And again, how do you prove a religion is false? Every religion I know of can only be "proven" by the experiences people have after they die. I've never met any who came back to tell that there's was the one and only.

AndyWarhol wrote:

While it's all very fine everyone getting along happy as larry, it's a shallow view on life and will never bring real happiness.

So you believe that no one can be happy unless they're .. christian? Catholic? What?

AndyWarhol wrote:

What happens after you've finished a life of 'aren't we all great, we're human'? Real happiness comes from the glory of God for all eternity.

And just which god would that be? The people of this world follow scores of them.

If someone follows the tenents of their beliefs, acts accorrding to the way they're supposed to, and treats everyone else fairly, can you honestly say that they should not get the afterlife they believe in?

AndyWarhol wrote:

I'm sure he thinks it's a wonderful ideal, but don't expect me (indeed many others) to sit up there with him beside persons with deep theological difference.

So you believe that we shouldn't tolerate each others beliefs? Don't you think religious intolerance has contributed to enough death and suffering over the course of humanitys history?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Man have for centuries taken it upon themselves to explain the world around them for themselves whether it be through science, philosophy, meta-physics, cults etc. Truth lies in the fact that God became man through Jesus who appointed his disciples who live on in today's church.

The truth you believe in does. Others do not believe that to be true.

AndyWarhol wrote:

'Religions' that are malleable and dynamic, that have no real theological grounding (such as North American evangelist hybrids, indeed Protestants who's leader will one day be prince Charles) can fight amongst themselves for all I care.

Surely all christian sects share core common beliefs. How can you say that protestants have no thoelogical grounding, if they use the same bible you do?

If I remember my history correctly, the reformation occured because of church corruption, not theological division.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The Catholic church will never crumble under political pressure, opinion or liberal consensus.

Will it crumble through its adherents leaving it?

AndyWarhol wrote:

The Vatican is still a hugely powerful global entity and is not going to die out as you might like to think.

I've not suggested the vatican is going to die out any time soon. Going on current trends though, in a century or twos time it may be only a shadow of what it is today though.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Other men tell others what to do every day via a legal system rooted in Christianity. Have you got a better idea?

I'm not discussing a legal system here. You quote the pope complaining about people making decisions for themselves. That is what I was refering to. The implication in his statement is that the church should do their thinking for them, decide what is right and wrong, how they should live, regardless of the inidividuals own feelings and needs.

If you wish to allow others to decide what you believe, thats your choice.

I'll decide for myself.

AndyWarhol wrote:

And yes, man has his own judgement and is free to do what he pleases within the confines of his body/mind. But all men have an inherent sense of what is right and what is wrong. Have you ever wondered where this 'sense' came from?

Cultural and societal standards of behaviour, taught to them in their formative years and refined over time by the individuals personality.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Well some people have to be forced not to murder, not to rape etc.

Oh, please. Listen to yourself. How many people have to be forced not to murder?

AndyWarhol wrote:

A less extreme case would be abortion. Should I just say 'I don't agree with abortion, but somebody else might so therefore I should vote pro-abortion'? This is flawed logic.

No one is forcing you to vote for something you disagree with. That is your choice to make. But because you do not agree with a choice, that does not give you the right to prevent someone else from agreeing with it.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I will never vote against moral teaching nor will I act against moral teaching.

Really? I'd like to quote you from further down your reply here.

AndyWarhol wrote:

If I knew absolutely that someone I knew was a satanist, I would kill him. (no joke).

Thou shalt not kill. Sound familiar?

You've just admitted to being quite prepared to act against the moral teachings of your own faith.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The horror of today's world is that sometimes this may even mean losing your job.

I fail to see the relevence of your point. Who has lost their job for following their own beliefs?

Unless you mean something like this?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcr1.htm

James Clement Taylor, a conservative Christian has commented: "these people of Wicca have been terribly slandered by us. They have lost jobs, and homes, and places of business because we have assured others that they worship Satan, which they do not. We have persecuted them..."

AndyWarhol wrote:

Why is it ok for a follower of the 'liberal religion' to discriminate against someone who's a Catholic?

Examples please.

In the meantime, turn that question around. Why is it ok for a catholic to discriminate against a follower of a 'liberal religion'?

And for that matter, what is a 'liberal religion'?

You might like to read some of the information on this link

http://www.religioustolerance.org/negative.htm

You will find that the majority of discrimination is by christians, not against them.

Discrimination is wrong, whether it is based on race, belief, sexual preference, or any other of the criteria that is used.

AndyWarhol wrote:

In the last census (www.cso.ie 2002), 3.4m out of 3.9m regarded themselves as Catholics. And whilst the scourge of western promiscuity and individualism has had its effect,

Scourge? What exactly is wrong with people making their own choices? How are you affected by this?

AndyWarhol wrote:

people still want their children baptised into Catholic ways of life, value marriage and would want a proper funeral under the guidance of a priest.

Some do, certainly. Others don't.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Popular culture might be telling people like you that this kind of behaviour is 'the norm' and the 'thing to do', but most young people I know have sense, are far more civilised than your average TV slob/Evening Herald reader and do not engage in these kinds immoral activities.

And there's the key words .... "most young people I know". Tell me, what kind of groups do you hang around with?

Ireland has a well established drinking culture. People will go out, to bars and clubs, and once they've had a few, plenty of those who are single will try and change that.

AndyWarhol wrote:

You know, if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't believe much. If I knew absolutely that someone I knew was a satanist, I would kill him. (no joke). It would probably never come down to it though because how could I know 100% he was a satanist? I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he could one day repent.

So you would not extend to others the religious freedoms you demand for yourself?

Would you go so far as to kill someone who followed a different belief to yourself? For your sake I hope thats a joke.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Truth is not subjective otherwise what's the point? Your metaphore again goes back this concept of equivalence between truths, beliefs etc. and is one I refute.

And what do you offer in return? My god is better than your god? Your god isn't real, mine is the only one true path?

Your arrogance is staggering.

You have no proof whatsoever that your religion is better than anyone elses. For that matter you've demonstrated the worst aspects of organised religion ... arrogance, intolerance, narrowmindedness, self righteouness, religious bigotry.

Its people like that that contributed to my decision to leave catholicism.

No one has any proof that their beliefs are right. All they have is their own personal faith. Everyone who believes, in whatever religion, believes that it is right for them, that by living according to its guidelines, they will receive a just reward.

If you cast doubts on the validity of any belief, you open your own up to those charges. Whatever you feel about others beliefs, you can rest assured there are those who feel the exact same way about yours.

If someone has found the belief system they feel is right for them, who has the right to tell them its wrong?

AndyWarhol

hairyheretic wrote:

How do you judge what religion is "right" ?

You some how seem to think that I have somehow 'judged' for myself what one of the myriad of religions I will choose. Just like as if I went in to a shopping mall and decided, 'oh, I think I'll buy a hat today, I might buy myself a new suit next week'. I have been brought up under Catholic teaching and believe in the one truth of the Holy and Apostolic Church.

hairyheretic wrote:

Its obvious you think that christianity (possibly even catholicsim) is the only "right" religion, but I'm curious as to exactly how you figure it.

What criteria have you established to prove your religion is "right" ? ... for anyone other than yourself.

Yes, Catholicism is the true religion. For me to say otherwise would be hypocrisy. I do not go looking for proofs of miracles etc. that some people need in order to be 'convinced'. The miracle of life and the ressurection of Jesus Himself is good enough proof for me.

hairyheretic wrote:

And again, how do you prove a religion is false? Every religion I know of can only be "proven" by the experiences people have after they die. I've never met any who came back to tell that there's was the one and only.

You know, if you apply a basic logical deduction (yes, God gave man the faculty of reason), then you would say that because there is only one truth, all else are false. That's not to say all non-believers will not some day see the light of Christ.

hairyheretic wrote:

So you believe that no one can be happy unless they're .. christian? Catholic? What?

True happiness comes from God almight. Some hybrid Christians may not know any better than the true faith, but it is not nesecarrily their own faults.

hairyheretic wrote:

And just which god would that be? The people of this world follow scores of them.

If someone follows the tenents of their beliefs, acts accorrding to the way they're supposed to, and treats everyone else fairly, can you honestly say that they should not get the afterlife they believe in?

This way of life must surely be recognised by God. They may come to refute false Gods, and live forever.

hairyheretic wrote:

So you believe that we shouldn't tolerate each others beliefs? Don't you think religious intolerance has contributed to enough death and suffering over the course of humanitys history?

There are times when you must stand up for what you know is right. I would argue that a large part of the death and suffering over the course of humanity's history is due to a lack of faith and political motives rather than religous ones.

hairyheretic wrote:

The truth you believe in does. Others do not believe that to be true.

Finally we agree on something.

hairyheretic wrote:

Surely all christian sects share core common beliefs. How can you say that protestants have no thoelogical grounding, if they use the same bible you do?

If I remember my history correctly, the reformation occured because of church corruption, not theological division.

Protestants use a King James hybrid bible. Yes the reformation was largely due to corruption and they were gotten rid of thank God.

hairyheretic wrote:

Will it crumble through its adherents leaving it?

No. The Pope is even considering a smaller church of true, pure believers which would be a strengthing of the faith rather than a weakening.

hairyheretic wrote:

I've not suggested the vatican is going to die out any time soon. Going on current trends though, in a century or twos time it may be only a shadow of what it is today though.

That's opinion based on perception.

hairyheretic wrote:

I'm not discussing a legal system here. You quote the pope complaining about people making decisions for themselves. That is what I was refering to. The implication in his statement is that the church should do their thinking for them, decide what is right and wrong, how they should live, regardless of the inidividuals own feelings and needs.

If you wish to allow others to decide what you believe, thats your choice.

I'll decide for myself.

The Pope is quite right to dictate moral teaching, for otherwise there is no religion, no true faith and a disorded society ensues.
The gift of reasoning and free-will means you are quite free to reject God and we will pray for you.

hairyheretic wrote:

Cultural and societal standards of behaviour, taught to them in their formative years and refined over time by the individuals personality.

I cannot accept that right and wrong is a result of 'cultural and societal standards of behaviour'.

hairyheretic wrote:

Oh, please. Listen to yourself. How many people have to be forced not to murder?

What do you think would happen if society and culture one day decided to legalise murder? Laws stop people behaving immorally (especially heathens).

hairyheretic wrote:

No one is forcing you to vote for something you disagree with. That is your choice to make. But because you do not agree with a choice, that does not give you the right to prevent someone else from agreeing with it.

Let's talk about the recent legalisation of homosexual activity in Ireland. I was too young to vote at the time, but I am still completely against the kind of sexual perversion homosexuals get up to. I'm not going around gay pubs physically restraining such persons, but I will let them know how wrong they are.

hairyheretic wrote:

Really? I'd like to quote you from further down your reply here.



Thou shalt not kill. Sound familiar?

You've just admitted to being quite prepared to act against the moral teachings of your own faith.

You've conveniently ignored the follow on from the statement: "You know, if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't believe much. If I knew absolutely that someone I knew was a satanist, I would kill him. (no joke)." which is "It would probably never come down to it though because how could I know 100% he was a satanist? I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he could one day repent.".
Now even were the above thought experiment ever to actually arise (very unlikely), it would not be a killing because the devil is not a human becasue God created the world.

hairyheretic wrote:

I fail to see the relevence of your point. Who has lost their job for following their own beliefs?

Unless you mean something like this?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcr1.htm

Silvio Berlisconi for example. A disgrace and frightening precedent.

hairyheretic wrote:

Examples please.

Above.

hairyheretic wrote:

In the meantime, turn that question around. Why is it ok for a catholic to discriminate against a follower of a 'liberal religion'?

And for that matter, what is a 'liberal religion'?

What kind of discrimination are you talking about? Thought discrimination? Maybe the fact that homosexuals are forbidden to be priests? Or that divorcees are not worthy of communion? (usual rebuttals). In this instance, discrimination is being confused with theological doctrine. No politically correctite, going around shouting 'discrimination' etc. will ever dictate to the Church of God.

hairyheretic wrote:

You might like to read some of the information on this link

http://www.religioustolerance.org/negative.htm

No thanks. I'm pretty sure it will be a petty attempt to corrupt my mind.

hairyheretic wrote:

You will find that the majority of discrimination is by christians, not against them.

Rubbish.

hairyheretic wrote:

Discrimination is wrong, whether it is based on race, belief, sexual preference, or any other of the criteria that is used.

As I said above, discrimination is being confused with theological doctrine.


Continued...

AndyWarhol

Resumed...

hairyheretic wrote:

Scourge? What exactly is wrong with people making their own choices? How are you affected by this?

I am affected by this individualism every time I turn on the television and see programs such as 'Sex in the City' and 'Desperate Housewives' which promote the message that 'if it feels good for me, it must be good and to hell with everybody else'. This is a selfish, greedy and wasteful way for a human being to live their lives and is akin to masturbation.

hairyheretic wrote:

Some do, certainly. Others don't.

Look I'm not going to accept this three edged sword philosopy.

hairyheretic wrote:

And there's the key words .... "most young people I know". Tell me, what kind of groups do you hang around with?

Normal college kids. Yes, there are unenlightened persons all over college who will hopefully one day cop themselves on.

hairyheretic wrote:

Ireland has a well established drinking culture. People will go out, to bars and clubs, and once they've had a few, plenty of those who are single will try and change that.

This is the normalisation of promiscuity that I'm talking about. If people are going out and engaging in these kinds of activities all the time, the behaviour has been normalised and the liberalites, like sheep, automatically assume it is now right because everyone else is doing it.

hairyheretic wrote:

So you would not extend to others the religious freedoms you demand for yourself?

Would you go so far as to kill someone who followed a different belief to yourself? For your sake I hope thats a joke.

No I wouldn't kill another human being. I do extend religous freedoms to other people but not under a banner of 'tolerance and aren't we all great?', but more so in a way of acknowledging difference in a civilised sense whilst at the same time asserting our own beliefs.

hairyheretic wrote:

And what do you offer in return? My god is better than your god? Your god isn't real, mine is the only one true path?

Your arrogance is staggering.

My God is the only God and you might brand me as 'arrogant' in an attempt to ridicule my beliefs, but I will never compromise.

hairyheretic wrote:

You have no proof whatsoever that your religion is better than anyone elses. For that matter you've demonstrated the worst aspects of organised religion ... arrogance, intolerance, narrowmindedness, self righteouness, religious bigotry.

You are like a farmer branding cattle with your politically correct drivel. I'm 'arrogant, intolerant, narrow-minded, self-righteous, a bigot'. You don't have an audience to boo-hoo along with you and your brandings that you are all so scared of. I'm not afraid to assert my beliefs under such oppressive conditions. What gives you the right to demand I renage on my beliefs?

hairyheretic wrote:

Its people like that that contributed to my decision to leave catholicism.

No one has any proof that their beliefs are right. All they have is their own personal faith. Everyone who believes, in whatever religion, believes that it is right for them, that by living according to its guidelines, they will receive a just reward.

You obviously know better than the Catholic Church so. I hope you can one day take your place with God again.

hairyheretic wrote:

If you cast doubts on the validity of any belief, you open your own up to those charges. Whatever you feel about others beliefs, you can rest assured there are those who feel the exact same way about yours.

If someone has found the belief system they feel is right for them, who has the right to tell them its wrong?

I'm well aware that there are other belief systems out there that would adopt a no comprimise stance. Such systems are wrong and I have every right to say so.
I will not be dictated to by a liberal umbrella body who watch over all religions and demand that they all accept that each is as good as every other. This shopping mall idea about religion is flawed and inherently wrong and I will not stand for it.

DublinWriter

A friend of mine is an ex-Silesian priest. I asked him for his opinions on Opus Dei, in particular their culture of secrecy.

He said that Jesus said that when you find the truth, then hold it up to the light for all to see (or words to that effect, I can’t remember the exact quote).

Although I’m not a Christian, I would consider this to be a very simple and negative indictment of Opus-Dei and how they choose to conduct their affairs.

robindch

> I turn on the television and see programs such as 'Sex in
> the City' [...] This is [...] akin to masturbation.

Why not keep the telly turned off? I've found this quite effective whenever one of RTE's many pro-religious programs comes on (a part of the Irish media's famously pro-catholic agenda).

> I will not be dictated to by a liberal umbrella body
> who watch over all religions

Presumably you're referring to the authority of the state here -- all it's asking you to do is not to go around murdering, like you said you would, other people who believe that their invisible sky-pixie wears a different hat to your one.

hairyheretic

AndyWarhol wrote:

You some how seem to think that I have somehow 'judged' for myself what one of the myriad of religions I will choose. Just like as if I went in to a shopping mall and decided, 'oh, I think I'll buy a hat today, I might buy myself a new suit next week'. I have been brought up under Catholic teaching and believe in the one truth of the Holy and Apostolic Church.

Many people leave the religion they were initially raised with because they felt it was not right for them. The fact that you have remained (I presume) with the one you were raised with means that you have judged it, and consider it right for yourself.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Yes, Catholicism is the true religion. For me to say otherwise would be hypocrisy. I do not go looking for proofs of miracles etc. that some people need in order to be 'convinced'. The miracle of life and the ressurection of Jesus Himself is good enough proof for me.

Every religion has their own creation story.

You believe in Jesus and accept everything that was written about him. You have no proof that any of that happened ... you only have your belief that it did.

When it comes down to it, belief is all that anyone needs for their own faith, whatever that is.

AndyWarhol wrote:

You know, if you apply a basic logical deduction (yes, God gave man the faculty of reason), then you would say that because there is only one truth, all else are false. That's not to say all non-believers will not some day see the light of Christ.

For that to be the case, it would need to be proven that there was only one "true" religion. You believe this. I do not.

AndyWarhol wrote:

True happiness comes from God almight. Some hybrid Christians may not know any better than the true faith, but it is not nesecarrily their own faults.

What exactly is a hybrid christian?

AndyWarhol wrote:

This way of life must surely be recognised by God. They may come to refute false Gods, and live forever.

See now, thats the thing. How do you prove any god is real? All that defines them is the belief of their followers.

AndyWarhol wrote:

There are times when you must stand up for what you know is right.

Something else we can agree on. We just happen to disagree as to what those "right" things are.

Take the forced conversion of indiginous peoples. In a previous thread you said you believed that that was right. What part of christian teachings calls for the demonisation of others religious beliefs, and the forcible conversion of people, under pain of death? It happened in both europe and south america as christianity expanded.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I would argue that a large part of the death and suffering over the course of humanity's history is due to a lack of faith and political motives rather than religous ones.

Certainly politics has played a hand in much of the suffering of humanity over the centuries.

How would you define the lack of faith that you feel has contributed?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Finally we agree on something.

Don't worry, I'm sure there are still a few seals holding before the apocalpse comes

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently though. The truth you believe does .. the truth others believe doesn't.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Protestants use a King James hybrid bible. Yes the reformation was largely due to corruption and they were gotten rid of thank God.

I presume you mean the corrupt influences there, rather than the protestants?

AndyWarhol wrote:

No. The Pope is even considering a smaller church of true, pure believers which would be a strengthing of the faith rather than a weakening.

Grind a knife against a whetstone and it will get sharper and sharper, but in the end be worn down to nothing.

AndyWarhol wrote:

That's opinion based on perception.

A perception based on evidence I see around me.

That census you linked to. Between '91 and '02, the population in Ireland rose by some 11%. The % rise in those indicating themselves as catholics was about 7%. That would seem to me to indicate that the numbers are falling. If they were holding steady you'd expect to see a catholic percentage rise of around 11% as well, wouldn't you?

AndyWarhol wrote:

The Pope is quite right to dictate moral teaching, for otherwise there is no religion, no true faith and a disorded society ensues.

So, by that rational, somewhere like, say, Japan (with a neglible catholic population) must be a society in anarchy?

AndyWarhol wrote:

The gift of reasoning and free-will means you are quite free to reject God and we will pray for you.

Do as you see fit to.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I cannot accept that right and wrong is a result of 'cultural and societal standards of behaviour'.

Every society in history, regardless of their religion has had common codes og behaviour. Killing was wrong. Stealing was wrong. They may not always have been followed, but they're still there.

AndyWarhol wrote:

What do you think would happen if society and culture one day decided to legalise murder?

We'd have the death penality. Come to think of, we already do .. perhaps not here, but in plenty of other countires.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Laws stop people behaving immorally

No, the fear of being caught and punished is what stops people breaking the law.

AndyWarhol wrote:

(especially heathens).

Especially heathens? Your religious bigotry is showing again. With your comment in the postitution thread about most prostitutes like being drug addicted pagans, I can't say I'm really surprised by this one.

Tell me, exactly how many heathens do you know? And what do you know of heathanism?

I happen to be a heathen. I'm asatruar, and specifically a Tyr's-man. Tyr is a god of truth and justice, of honour and loyalty, and those are the characteristics I try to embody in my life.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Let's talk about the recent legalisation of homosexual activity in Ireland. I was too young to vote at the time, but I am still completely against the kind of sexual perversion homosexuals get up to. I'm not going around gay pubs physically restraining such persons, but I will let them know how wrong they are.

And how exactly are you affected by two men (or women) you don't know who are involved in a relationship?

AndyWarhol wrote:

You've conveniently ignored the follow on from the statement: "You know, if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't believe much. If I knew absolutely that someone I knew was a satanist, I would kill him. (no joke)." which is "It would probably never come down to it though because how could I know 100% he was a satanist? I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he could one day repent.".

I read it. I just wasn't sure exactly what you were trying to say, so I answered the bit I could.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Now even were the above thought experiment ever to actually arise (very unlikely), it would not be a killing because the devil is not a human becasue God created the world.

I'm speaking of another human being who has chosen a different belief from you. You said you would be willing to kill them. Now you say it doesn't count because they're the devil?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Silvio Berlisconi for example. A disgrace and frightening precedent.

I'm not familiar with it. Can you explain?

AndyWarhol wrote:

What kind of discrimination are you talking about?

You tell me. You brought up the issue of catholics being discriminated against by members of some liberal religion.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Thought discrimination? Maybe the fact that homosexuals are forbidden to be priests? Or that divorcees are not worthy of communion? (usual rebuttals). In this instance, discrimination is being confused with theological doctrine. No politically correctite, going around shouting 'discrimination' etc. will ever dictate to the Church of God.

I never gave any examples. You raise the initial topic of discrimination, and now select specific examples of behaviour within catholicism. Your initial point was of catholics being discriminated against. How can the examples you've selected illustrate your point?

AndyWarhol wrote:

No thanks. I'm pretty sure it will be a petty attempt to corrupt my mind.

No, I have a mind control laser hidden in my secret island lair for that.

I sincerely doubt that reading a web page is going to change a single oppinion you hold. But if you're worried that you're going to be jumped by some crazed liberal, let me post a couple of pieces from the frontpage of the site.

Our site mandate:
"To promote religious tolerance and freedom.
To describe religious faiths in all their diversity.
To describe controversial topics from all points of view."

Religious tolerance means:
to extend religious freedom to people of all religions, even though you sincerely disagree with their beliefs and/or practices.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Rubbish.

Read the links they have provided there. They quote specific examples from public recorded speeches, interviews, news stories, websites and other sources.

AndyWarhol wrote:

As I said above, discrimination is being confused with theological doctrine.

I happen to consider any kind of discrimination wrong ... whether it be based on a persons gender, ability, belief, colour, sexual orientation, or whatever.

To be Continued...dum dum duuuuuuuum

hairyheretic

AndyWarhol wrote:

I am affected by this individualism every time I turn on the television and see programs such as 'Sex in the City' and 'Desperate Housewives' which promote the message that 'if it feels good for me, it must be good and to hell with everybody else'. This is a selfish, greedy and wasteful way for a human being to live their lives and is akin to masturbation.

And have those programs influenced you to behave in that manner?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Look I'm not going to accept this three edged sword philosopy.

So then everything is black and white, good and evil, an absolute?

Only Sith deal in absolutes

The world comes in shades of grey. Its not black and white, as much as some people might like it to be so.

For every problem, for every issue, there are two opposing viewpoints. Each holds that theres is correct. Opposing viewpoints cannot by definiion both be correct, so where does that leave us? Maybe there are some parts correct on each side. Maybe the absolute truth lies somewhere between those opposing views.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Normal college kids. Yes, there are unenlightened persons all over college who will hopefully one day cop themselves on.

So because they act in a way you disapprove off, their unenlightened?

AndyWarhol wrote:

This is the normalisation of promiscuity that I'm talking about. If people are going out and engaging in these kinds of activities all the time, the behaviour has been normalised and the liberalites, like sheep, automatically assume it is now right because everyone else is doing it.

It is right for the people who choose to do it. If you don't feel something is right for you, don't do it.

Don't drink. Don't smoke. Don't go out, dance and try and pull someone.

What willing and consenting people choose to do, as long as it isn't harming anyone else, they have every right to.

AndyWarhol wrote:

No I wouldn't kill another human being. I do extend religous freedoms to other people but not under a banner of 'tolerance and aren't we all great?', but more so in a way of acknowledging difference in a civilised sense whilst at the same time asserting our own beliefs.

I believe that everyone has a right to believe what they choose, to follow the belief system they feel is right for them. Pray to who you choose, how you choose.

But the minute you try forcing those beliefs onto anyone else, for whatever reason, is when you cross the line.

AndyWarhol wrote:

My God is the only God and you might brand me as 'arrogant' in an attempt to ridicule my beliefs, but I will never compromise.

I brand you as arrogant because you refuse to believe that anyone else can hold an opposing viewpoint.

If your god is the only true god, then why has one religion not been followed by everyone throughout the course of human history? Why is your religion not as old as recorded history?

Is your mind really so closed that you cannot accept even the smallest possibility that others could have any kind of validity of belief?

AndyWarhol wrote:

You are like a farmer branding cattle with your politically correct drivel.

I care nothing for polical correctness. I care about the rights of individuals and individual freedoms.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I'm 'arrogant, intolerant, narrow-minded, self-righteous, a bigot'.

How would you decribe me if I said your god was a figment of someones imagination, your beliefs were false, you were eternally doomed unless you changed, and that you were likely an immoral, criminally inclined individual.

Those are all charges you've laid against those who aren't catholic.

AndyWarhol wrote:

You don't have an audience to boo-hoo along with you and your brandings that you are all so scared of.

Scared off? I have no idea what you're talking about now.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I'm not afraid to assert my beliefs under such oppressive conditions.

And how exactly is catholicism being oppressed today.

Anyone stopped you going into mass in recent Sundays?

Anyone forced you out of a job for wearing your crucifix?

Anyone come round and burned your bible on you?

AndyWarhol wrote:

What gives you the right to demand I renage on my beliefs?

Please point out to me at what point I demanded you renage on your beliefs.

I never did.

You have every right to follow your own beliefs.

So does everyone else.

AndyWarhol wrote:

You obviously know better than the Catholic Church so.

I know what is right for me. Thats all I need to know.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I hope you can one day take your place with God again.

I have taken my place with my Gods. I will live my life by the nine noble virtues (courage, truth, honour, fidelity, hospitality, discipline, industriousness, self reliance, and perserverence), honour the Gods as best I can, and treat others with the respect I would have them show me.

My choice is made, and I know it is the right one for me.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I'm well aware that there are other belief systems out there that would adopt a no comprimise stance. Such systems are wrong and I have every right to say so.

From what I can see, yours is the no compromise stance. You refuse to accept that others have a right to believe as they choose.

AndyWarhol wrote:

I will not be dictated to by a liberal umbrella body who watch over all religions and demand that they all accept that each is as good as every other. This shopping mall idea about religion is flawed and inherently wrong and I will not stand for it.

No one is dictacting to you. No one is demanding you follow any religion but your own.

All that is being said is you should give others the same right to belief as you demand for yourself.

DublinWriter

hairyheretic mate - I'm sure you're making some valid points somewhere - but those huuuuuuge responses are unreadable and complete debate-killers.

TheBigLebowski

DublinWriter wrote:

hairyheretic mate - I'm sure you're making some valid points somewhere - but those huuuuuuge responses are unreadable and complete debate-killers.

Agreed. I like most people just skip past the ridiculously long posts.

robindch

> the fear of being caught and punished is what
> stops people breaking the law.

For some people, this is certainly true, however, for the majority, it's not and it's got nothing to do with punishment. Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development is useful here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

or

http://students.usm.maine.edu/bmcpha61/Kohlberg_stages_of_morality.htm

The belief that a fear of being caught and punished leads people to follow laws only applies to pre-conventionally moral people, who are mostly kids, and some adults who, for one reason or another, have not been able to advance their sense of ethical reasoning past stage one.

In my experience, many religious people assert (or imply) that society exists at the pre-conventional level, and consequently, that retributive punishments based upon strong, heavily prescriptive + proscriptive laws are needed to prevent society from falling to bits. Which is complete nonsense, but I've yet to hear many people say so.

hairyheretic

TheBigLebowski wrote:

Agreed. I like most people just skip past the ridiculously long posts.

Not everything can be answered in just a few lines.

If a post is a point / counterpoint format, it shouldn't be that hard to follow.

Would you prefer to see it in 20 small posts?

hairyheretic

robindch wrote:

> the fear of being caught and punished is what
> stops people breaking the law.

For some people, this is certainly true, however, for the majority, it's not and it's got nothing to do with punishment. Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development is useful here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

The belief that a fear of being caught and punished leads people to follow laws only applies to pre-conventionally moral people, who are mostly kids, and some adults who, for one reason or another, have not been able to advance their sense of ethical reasoning past the recognition of black and white.

I'd never come across that before. I can see the points he makes, but I think I could argue that fear of consequences (i.e. being punished under the law as in part 1) is also a factor in the stage 3 development ... from a self interest perspective at least. Is it better to be publicly viewed as type A rather than type B person? Or "What would the neighbours think?"

robindch

> I could argue that fear of consequences
> (i.e. being punished under the law as in
> part 1) is also a factor in the stage 3

Yes, it is. However, in most people, as one ages, the fear of retribution for some illegal action recedes, as one slowly develops the notion that you shouldn't carry out the action simply because it's anti-social, and one wouldn't like it done to oneself by somebody else. They're not black+white divisions, but scales which people slide around on somewhat.

('pologies about the article edit after your post -- the second link is a bit shorter and more to the point).

TheBigLebowski

hairyheretic wrote:

Not everything can be answered in just a few lines.

If a post is a point / counterpoint format, it shouldn't be that hard to follow.

Would you prefer to see it in 20 small posts?

I'm not saying it's hard to follow. It's just very boring. A discussion should be 2 way interaction. Like when you have a discussion with someone in real life, you wouldn't talk for 10 minutes or more without an input from someone else. There is hardly a need to break down every single point of a thread into sections and make an argument on every one.

Starlight610

To AndyWarhol,

Hail Satan:eek: ! Hee-yaa-hee-yaa! Don't kill me!

(Only messing! I'm certainly not Satanist.:rolleyes:)

Asiaprod

Would someone like to convince me that I don`t smell a rat here!

Irish Independent 25th October, 2005

AN academic investigated using her lectures to promote ultra-Catholic beliefs has received a "golden handshake" of almost €100,000. Former lecturer Geraldine O'Connor will also get an enhanced pension from college authorities. UCD had ordered an inquiry into allegations that she told students it was compulsory to attend a talk given by an Opus Dei member last year. She taught in UCD for 26-and-a-half years. The inquiry was set up to investigate a number of complaints against the former lecturer in the School of Diagnostic Imaging. They include complaints that:

* She misused her position to advance her religious beliefs.

* She required students to attend a lecture in Glenard University Residence (run by Opus Dei).

* She took a note of who was there and suggested student absence might be academically prejudicial. The inquiry told her the complaints called her level of professional competence into question.

The students also alleged she regularly quoted the late Pope John Paul II in lectures and referred to the inspiration she felt from his struggle with Parkinson's disease. On another occasion she asked students in class if they believed in life after death. When one student said 'No' the former lecturer is alleged to have said "you won't get a first unless you believe". Relations between the students and lecturer deteriorated so much that in March last year, the second-year radiography students withdrew from her lectures on interpersonal skills and Equipment. They said no course work would be submitted until further notice. The College then ordered the enquiry. It was to be led by Prof Sheelagh Drudy but it never got off the ground as the lecturer went on sick leave. Last week the Governing Body approved a gratuity of Euro 96,339 at retirement on grounds of ill-health on 31 March 2005.

PENSION

It also approved an annual pension of euro 32,113 a year. That meant she retired with 8.849 years added to her pension, bringing it up 35.396/80th of salary. College sources say it is not unusual to enhance academic pensions in view of their qualifications and expertise. This was done to make up for the fact that many could not serve the full 40 years especially if they had spent a number of years working towards their doctorate. It is understood Ms O'Connor had contacted her union, the Irish Federation of University Teachers last year after the student allegations were made but that she never pursued the matter. It is also understood the 24 individuals approved last week for pensions all received some additional years. These ranged from just under two years to just over nine years in the case of another academic retiring on ill health grounds. The maximum they can get is ten extra years.

EXAMS

However, its official spokesperson repeated that any requirement for students to "attend an Opus Dei event in order to pass their exams" would be unjust and would run totally counter to the profound respect for individual freedom that Opus Dei fostered. He also pointed out that the marking of all exams in UCD was anonymous. He said decisions to fail students were made not by individuals but by exam boards on the recommendation of departments and of external examiners, based on exam performance. He denied that Opus Dei was sect-like or obsessed with secrecy.

Dades

Asiaprod wrote:

Would someone like to convince me that I don`t smell a rat here!

What, you think the students made it up? Too many copies of The Da Vinci Code floating about the SU?

Doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Opus Dei other than the fact that they have some loopy followers.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

What, you think the students made it up? Too many copies of The Da Vinci Code floating about the SU?

Doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Opus Dei other than the fact that they have some loopy followers.

Sorry for the short answers Atheist, but its real early morning in Tokyo and I need some sleep.

No, don't think students made it up.
Don't know how many copies of the book are floating around, but I loved his other book. Have you read it?
I cannot believe that the Opus Dei are not involved somehow. Again just my opinion, I could never prove that they were involved, but I do know enough about them to see their handywork in it.

UU

I don't think it was made up either. Opus Dei will do anything to get members of their organisation. Although not everything in the Da Vinci Code is true, most of what was said about Opus Dei is true and also Dan Brown wrote the book as a fictional novel so you can't take everything to be true as a lot is theories of what may be true. Before the Da Vinci Code was released, many people didn't have a clue of who or what Opus Dei are and Brown made many people aware of them.

Why would the students make up this story? They wouldn't be doing themselves any favours. Also, before a story is printed (in non-tabloid anyway) a certain amount of research has to be carried out from external sources. I think what Geraldine O'Connor did was very wrong and little is being done about it. If she was my lecturer, I tell her to stick her beliefs up her bum so I would. One thing I cannot tolerate is one attempting to force opinions and beliefs on somebody else.

Don't get me wrong, Opus Dei have good people in it also and I feel sorry for the few weirdos that give the organisation as a whole a bad name.

DublinWriter

Asiaprod wrote:

Irish Independent 25th October, 2005

...and there's the problem with this story.

After the "Liam Lawlor dies in car-crash in Moscow red-light district with teenage hooker" headline, I, and tens of thousands of others, won't trust the journalistic standards of the S/Indo anymore.

I'll only believe it when I see it in either the Times, Sunday Business Post, Examiner, or Sunday Sport.

UU

DublinWriter wrote:

...and there's the problem with this story.

After the "Liam Lawlor dies in car-crash in Moscow red-light district with teenage hooker" headline, I, and tens of thousands of others, won't trust the journalistic standards of the S/Indo anymore.

I'll only believe it when I see it in either the Times, Sunday Business Post, Examiner, or Sunday Sport.

Well, now you can believe it. Here is the original article in the Irish Times last year which tells clearly of what happened. Here's the address: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0403/3682700401HM1UCD.html

Also, try searching any Irish pages for Opus Dei and you may find some more.

Asiaprod

UU wrote:

Also, try searching any Irish pages for Opus Dei and you may find some more.

A very interesting source is to read what is written on the Wikipedia page. Not the main article but the discussion page leading from it. You will find that the good people at Wiki have even given up on the Opus Dei since every time somebody adds an entry that could in anyway seen as anyway negative, the Opus Dei Cyber Police come along and fix it.
While I am on the subject, read the story of the founder, his disrespect and vile treatment of women...in public I might add.
Then try to fathom out how IMO such a despicable person gets shot through the canonization process (a process that has become laughable since the last pope opened the doors to easy sainthood) so quickly. Sorry for going on about this, I just don`t like to see people led up the garden path so to speak. I am a very tolerant guy, Even if I don`t agree with, in general, I respect people`s right to their religions and belief systems.
In the case of Church of Scientology and Opus Dei, and some others, I have nothing but contempt for their hypocrisy. These people are driven by nothing other than power, wealth and control:mad: . And before anyone jumps on my case, I do of course understand that their are people in these organizations that have the best of intents. I wish them well in their quest.

DublinWriter

Asiaprod wrote:

You will find that the good people at Wiki have even given up on the Opus Dei since every time somebody adds an entry that could in anyway seen as anyway negative, the Opus Dei Cyber Police come along and fix it.

What else would you expect from an organisation that calls itself "The Work of God" and encourages self-flagulation?

...well, as for the Scientologists, at least they haven't inflitrated RTE *winks*

Asiaprod

...well, as for the Scientologists, at least they haven't inflitrated RTE *winks*

haha, Are you sure

Dades

Asiaprod wrote:

Sorry for the short answers Atheist, but its real early morning in Tokyo and I need some sleep.

No, don't think students made it up.

Ah wasn't sure how big a rat you smelt!

Asiaprod wrote:

Don't know how many copies of the book are floating around, but I loved his other book. Have you read it?

Only other one read was Deception Point which I thought was rubbish.

But the influence on people of the Da Vinci Code was nothing short of phenomenal.

Asiaprod

Ah wasn't sure how big a rat you smelt!

Sorry, I habe a cold ad by node is blocked up, but I suspect when it clears it will prove to be a BIG smell

Only other one read was Deception Point which I thought was rubbish.

I am talking about Angels & Demons, its a great fictional read about a corrupted Pope and his efforts to utilize the codes and ethics of the Illuminate to re-establish a new fundamentalist version of Catholicism. Well worth the read.

But the influence on people of the Da Vinci Code was nothing short of phenomenal.

It sure was, it struck close to the heart.
The church`s condemnation of it also helped tremendously in popularizing it, and just further added to the conspiracy theories in the book. I guess it caused people to really open their minds and accept that there just might be plausible alternate answers out there.
The book very much capitalized on Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a very enjoyable read, which posed some very intriguing questions.
If one were to accept as according to the book that Jesus was not God, but was in fact a remarkable man who indulged in sex with a woman he loved and raised a family, the Da Vinci code becomes a credible read to many.
This was further compounded by the church who openly condemned the Da Vinci Code, but said nothing about Angels & Demons which directly attacked the Pope. It is funny how many have related the Pope in the book to the current one. Could Dan Brown be the 21st century`s answer to Nostradamus:rolleyes:

Fallschirmjager

was i the only one who read da vinci code and thought 'what a big pile of steaming kak'

sure its a good read for the first half, but i honestly think if that book made you question your faith, you didnt have much to start with...

Dades

Fallschirmjager wrote:

sure its a good read for the first half, but i honestly think if that book made you question your faith, you didnt have much to start with...

I really enjoyed it as a holiday read. I think the concern that it would have people questioning their faith wasn't proportional to any such actual effect.

It was just a cleverly constructed book, and who is going to base their faith on that?

UU

I liked the Da Vinci Code. I really enjoyed the whole aspect of the truth about the symbolism - the pentacle represents feminisim [venus] not satanism, etc. and also many people have said that Opus Dei don't do any of the corrupt things that it said in the book but they do as many cases have been brought to court and self-flagellation is practised by some members. Dan Brown obviously did a great deal of research before producing this novel.

The Atheist wrote:

I really enjoyed it as a holiday read. I think the concern that it would have people questioning their faith wasn't proportional to any such actual effect.

It was just a cleverly constructed book, and who is going to base their faith on that?

Well if I was Christian, I probably wouldn't base my faith on it because it is a fictional novel and some parts are theories of what might of happened but there isn't sufficient evidence to support them - the Bible has been altered and modified for 2000 years so some parts were taken out, others were interpreted wrong, etc.