What politicians need to understand about the Crucifixion

Cabaal · 03-06-2018 10:34am

So no testable, verifiable evidence then. That's grand, you just need to say that ðŸ˜Š

As I said, which God, there's thousands.

indioblack · 03-06-2018 4:12pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Evidence of God is subtle because it has to be. If it was abundant there would be no need for faith in which case being a good soul worthy of salvation would be motivated purely by self interest like saving to buy a car or a house as opposed to doing what is right because it is right.

Yet in order to be aware of the existence of God, some evidence is necessary. There is every reason to believe Christ existed but the miracles of Christ require faith. The new testament was predicted in the old testament, so there are fact based clues to support faith in one Christian God.

It amuses me when people try to disprove the existence of God because even when they present evidence, the faithful simply increase their faith for higher salvation. Final point, faith in a general sense is extremely important in the struggle for survival on earth. A priest once told a story of a guy in Africa with a pile of salvaged bricks which he had collected to build his house. The priest said that man had more faith than he had because he saw his future house in what most people would regard as a pile of rubble.

That "subtlety" causes negativity - disbelief or alternate beliefs. Human history demonstrates this. This subtlety may induce faith, bit it also allows the creation of negative behaviour - inconsistent with the Christian god.

smacl · 03-06-2018 4:49pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Before

That's reasonable, but there does seem to be a stark contrast between the Christianity that espouses the virtues you've described and the actions of the larger monolithic Christian churches. I suspect that many Irish people identify with the former and have little time or respect with the latter.

smacl · 03-06-2018 4:59pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Evidence of God is subtle because it has to be. If it was abundant there would be no need for faith in which case being a good soul worthy of salvation would be motivated purely by self interest like saving to buy a car or a house as opposed to doing what is right because it is right.

Yet if your good behaviour is motivated primarily out of a desire to be saved, surely that amounts to avarice. While I accept this still has positive social value, surely we should be doing good for its own sake. As an atheist, I can and do donate to charity and help out with elderly neighbours and community efforts without ever considering being saved or having faith. Doing right for the sake of doing right doesn't need faith, it is its own reward.

realitykeeper · 03-06-2018 11:41pm

Cabaal wrote: »

So no testable, verifiable evidence then. That's grand, you just need to say that ��

As I said, which God, there's thousands.

If there were evidence, how could there be faith? The more faith we have, the more we gravitate toward God. Faith helps us to see beyond the machinations of Satan but also, when Christians behave in an un-Christian way like you alluded to earlier, that helps Satan to obfuscate the truth. In other words, Christians need to practice what they preach.

As individuals, we cannot hide behind the sins of priests as an excuse for the abandonment of faith. The priests have their souls as do lay people and everyone is responsible for their own behaviour. By their deeds, you will know them. It should also be noted that the priests gave up everything in order to devote their lives to God. That would be an incredibly difficult thing to do.

realitykeeper · 03-06-2018 11:52pm

smacl wrote: »

That's reasonable, but there does seem to be a stark contrast between the Christianity that espouses the virtues you've described and the actions of the larger monolithic Christian churches. I suspect that many Irish people identify with the former and have little time or respect with the latter.

Agreed, but as Catholics we try to focus on our own individual sinfulness and not on the sinfulness of priests or other people generally. Just as there are pedophile priests (who the Church must accept responsibility for), there are also inspirational examples of priests like Fr Damien, the leper priest.

smacl · 04-06-2018 12:42pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Agreed, but as Catholics we try to focus on our own individual sinfulness and not on the sinfulness of priests or other people generally. Just as there are pedophile priests (who the Church must accept responsibility for), there are also inspirational examples of priests like Fr Damien, the leper priest.

Given the above, where does that leave an individual Catholic who strongly disagrees with the moral position taken by the Vatican? Thinking of the outcomes of the last couple of referenda as examples, where in both cases the majority of Catholics in this country voted against the Vatican position.

Cabaal · 04-06-2018 5:03pm

smacl wrote: »

Given the above, where does that leave an individual Catholic who strongly disagrees with the moral position taken by the Vatican? Thinking of the outcomes of the last couple of referenda as examples, where in both cases the majority of Catholics in this country voted against the Vatican position.

Based in prev comments made on this forum by countless posters, in such a situation they are not actually Catholics.

Or so the more extreme Catholics will claim

realitykeeper · 05-06-2018 1:33am

smacl wrote: »

Given the above, where does that leave an individual Catholic who strongly disagrees with the moral position taken by the Vatican? Thinking of the outcomes of the last couple of referenda as examples, where in both cases the majority of Catholics in this country voted against the Vatican position.

That is not a dilemma I fully share given that I agree with the Church on the previous referendums. I disagree with the Church on other things, e.g. I think the Catholic Church in particular but also other churches should try harder achieve consensus and put aside their differences.

Also, I think some Protestant perspectives are more likely to be correct than some of the Catholic interpretations. The fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church is not a reason to assume other churches cannot offer valuable perspectives to the Catholic Church.

The Papacy does not claim a monopoly on the truth because if it did, Pope John Paul II would not have apologized to Muslims and Jews for the crusades.

smacl · 05-06-2018 7:05am

realitykeeper wrote: »

That is not a dilemma I fully share given that I agree with the Church on the previous referendums. I disagree with the Church on other things, e.g. I think the Catholic Church in particular but also other churches should try harder achieve consensus and put aside their differences.

Also, I think some Protestant perspectives are more likely to be correct than some of the Catholic interpretations. The fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church is not a reason to assume other churches cannot offer valuable perspectives to the Catholic Church.

The Papacy does not claim a monopoly on the truth because if it did, Pope John Paul II would not have apologized to Muslims and Jews for the crusades.

I think the key word here is consensus, which if you think about it is both dynamic and contextual. Referenda reflect these values, i.e. how a society as a whole considers a moral dilemma in the context of that society. In my opinion, if that society broadly identifies as Catholic or Christian, that is a reflection of what it means to be Catholic or Christian in that society. This is true regardless of the position of the Church hierarchy, which doesn't seek consensus and tends to prefer moral absolutes independent of context. The former position tends to be egalitarian and left leaning, where the latter tends towards conservatism. Which would you say better describes the core Christian values you listed earlier?

realitykeeper · 05-06-2018 10:17am

smacl wrote: »

I think the key word here is consensus, which if you think about it is both dynamic and contextual. Referenda reflect these values, i.e. how a society as a whole considers a moral dilemma in the context of that society. In my opinion, if that society broadly identifies as Catholic or Christian, that is a reflection of what it means to be Catholic or Christian in that society. This is true regardless of the position of the Church hierarchy, which doesn't seek consensus and tends to prefer moral absolutes independent of context. The former position tends to be egalitarian and left leaning, where the latter tends towards conservatism. Which would you say better describes the core Christian values you listed earlier?

I agree with you to a point. That said, I think the Church is absolutely right to stick with what it says if and when it is a matter of siding with God vs society. On the other hand, Christ explained that the reason Moses said divorce was ok was because the people were ignorant back in the times of the Pharaohs. This implies Christ makes allowances for unenlightened societies.

So, are contemporary people ignorant? And should we be, given that we have had the benefit of the gospels and the example of unconditional love as exemplified by the crucifixion?

The story of Noah`s Arc is presumably fiction but may have been based loosely on fact. A decadent society brought to heel and forced to reflect as a result of some natural calamity. This would suggest that while God is slow to anger, his patience is not unlimited.

Contemporary societies sometimes use Churches as discos, pubs, etc. So there are plenty of people to use the church, they just don`t want to use the church as a church. This situation does not please God I suspect.

smacl · 05-06-2018 12:32pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

I agree with you to a point. That said, I think the Church is absolutely right to stick with what it says if and when it is a matter of siding with God vs society. On the other hand, Christ explained that the reason Moses said divorce was ok was because the people were ignorant back in the times of the Pharaohs. This implies Christ makes allowances for unenlightened societies.

It's an interesting dichotomy, in that you have the church on one side not acting in the interests of society, and Christ on the other hand whose actions could be described as socialist and egalitarian. When you look at the lengths the papacy went to to wipe out other less hierarchical Christian traditions such as the Cathars and Bogomils, you have to question whether their motives were more self serving than altruistic. While you denigrate our politicians at the start of this thread, and no doubt deservedly so in certain cases, it would seem reasonable that you could paint the entirety of the Vatican and much of the Catholic hierarchy with the same brush.

realitykeeper · 06-06-2018 6:50am

smacl wrote: »

It's an interesting dichotomy, in that you have the church on one side not acting in the interests of society, and Christ on the other hand whose actions could be described as socialist and egalitarian. When you look at the lengths the papacy went to to wipe out other less hierarchical Christian traditions such as the Cathars and Bogomils, you have to question whether their motives were more self serving than altruistic. While you denigrate our politicians at the start of this thread, and no doubt deservedly so in certain cases, it would seem reasonable that you could paint the entirety of the Vatican and much of the Catholic hierarchy with the same brush.

Attempting to wipe out other churches was not exclusive to Catholicism. Here, Protestants applied penal laws whereby priests had to operate incognito, disguised as labourers and hedgerow masses were held in secret for the starving and dispossessed population. Several waves of genocide were perpetrated on the Irish over the centuries because they were Catholic.

Catholic clergy do not have sons or daughters who they appoint to nice cushy jobs as lavishly paid personal assistants/secretaries etc at the tax payers expense. Priests give up starting a family in order to serve everyone else. I would not be prepared to make that sacrifice and neither would most other people.

smacl · 06-06-2018 9:07am

realitykeeper wrote: »

Attempting to wipe out other churches was not exclusive to Catholicism. Here, Protestants applied penal laws whereby priests had to operate incognito, disguised as labourers and hedgerow masses were held in secret for the starving and dispossessed population. Several waves of genocide were perpetrated on the Irish over the centuries because they were Catholic.

Catholic clergy do not have sons or daughters who they appoint to nice cushy jobs as lavishly paid personal assistants/secretaries etc at the tax payers expense. Priests give up starting a family in order to serve everyone else. I would not be prepared to make that sacrifice and neither would most other people.

No doubt, I picked Catholicism as the most obvious example, but the point remains that large Christian churches of various denominations have in the past acted against society to serve their own interests and arguably still do. As for the family thing, nepotism aside, I suspect that priests of either gender with families are better equipped to meet the needs of their parishioners, who largely comprise of families. For example, you really have to question the value of an organisation run by single celibate men when it comes to advocating against contraception. This results in a huge disconnect between the Catholic church and Catholic society, where the former advocates against the likes of same sex marriage, contraception and abortion, where majority of the latter is demonstrably in favour of the same.

I don't think you can blame our politicians for any of the above, as their job is to serve society, not the church.

Nick Park · 06-06-2018 11:41am

realitykeeper wrote: »

Catholic clergy do not have sons or daughters who they appoint to nice cushy jobs as lavishly paid personal assistants/secretaries etc at the tax payers expense.

Not today, they don't. But there is a considerable history of such clerical appointments. Of course, the sons and daughters of senior clergy were illegitimate, and were officially called 'nieces' and 'nephews'. Hence our English word 'nepotism' (nepos being Latin for 'nephew').

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 06-06-2018 11:59am

realitykeeper wrote: »

I was the cause of Christ`s suffering, as was all of humanity.

Speak for yourself.

realitykeeper wrote: »

One thing I would be very critical of the Catholic Church for is that it does not participate in the World Council of Churches.

What an odd thing to be critical about. The one thing, as you put it, that people should be critical of, from any religion is how that religion/church treats humanity. One thing that people should be very critical of the CC would be the treatment of women throughout the ages, the prisons they ran, the thousands of dead babies buried around the country and the cover up of child sex abuse....

Cabaal · 06-06-2018 10:13pm

Nick Park wrote: »

Not today, they don't. But there is a considerable history of such clerical appointments. Of course, the sons and daughters of senior clergy were illegitimate, and were officially called 'nieces' and 'nephews'. Hence our English word 'nepotism' (nepos being Latin for 'nephew').

Listening to a stuff you should know podcast on nepotism a few weeks back and they explained this, learn something new every day

realitykeeper · 08-06-2018 12:53am

Nick Park wrote: »

Not today, they don't. But there is a considerable history of such clerical appointments. Of course, the sons and daughters of senior clergy were illegitimate, and were officially called 'nieces' and 'nephews'. Hence our English word 'nepotism' (nepos being Latin for 'nephew').

Correct. There were outlandish practices in the past but these are remembered to because they were the exception and not the norm.

realitykeeper · 08-06-2018 1:00am

Freya Damp Commando wrote: »

Speak for yourself.

What an odd thing to be critical about. The one thing, as you put it, that people should be critical of, from any religion is how that religion/church treats humanity. One thing that people should be very critical of the CC would be the treatment of women throughout the ages, the prisons they ran, the thousands of dead babies buried around the country and the cover up of child sex abuse....

Today`s hype was yesterday`s benevolence. It may take a hundred years but I would not be at all surprised if future generations were to pour scorn on today`s society and return to Catholicism with greater passion than ever before. Just look at what is happening in Orthodox Russia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmvuzvqd6Y

realitykeeper · 08-06-2018 1:15am

smacl wrote: »

This results in a huge disconnect between the Catholic church and Catholic society, where the former advocates against the likes of same sex marriage, contraception and abortion, where majority of the latter is demonstrably in favour of the same.

I don't think you can blame our politicians for any of the above, as their job is to serve society, not the church.

It is the job of politicians to serve society but of course they don`t do that. They serve themselves. In recent times it has become popular to criticize the church so they do. In the past it wasn`t so they didn`t.

The disconnect between society and the church is not really the issue. The connection between God and mankind is what matters. The church is right not to bend to the will of a society that would rather use a church as a night club than a place of prayer.

smacl · 09-06-2018 10:03am

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is the job of politicians to serve society but of course they don`t do that. They serve themselves. In recent times it has become popular to criticize the church so they do. In the past it wasn`t so they didn`t.

Agreed, more importantly from the politicians point of view, the church has far less influence over the voting public and hence far less sway with politicians. All for the good in my opinion.

The disconnect between society and the church is not really the issue. The connection between God and mankind is what matters. The church is right not to bend to the will of a society that would rather use a church as a night club than a place of prayer.

I'd question the value of a church that isn't strongly connected to society if it wishes to influence that society. I'm currently looking at the exit poll on the referendum and it has some interesting stats independent of the main question asked. What we see is about 30%-44% of the voting population are regular church goers while 78% identify as religious. I'd guess that if the Catholic church remains entrenched in dogma we'll soon see a generation that simply stops identifying as religious at all. Where do you place the 56% of the population that don't go to a church, and why not use a church as a nightclub if it has ceased being a place of worship?

realitykeeper · 10-06-2018 10:31am

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, more importantly from the politicians point of view, the church has far less influence over the voting public and hence far less sway with politicians. All for the good in my opinion.

I'd question the value of a church that isn't strongly connected to society if it wishes to influence that society. I'm currently looking at the exit poll on the referendum and it has some interesting stats independent of the main question asked. What we see is about 30%-44% of the voting population are regular church goers while 78% identify as religious. I'd guess that if the Catholic church remains entrenched in dogma we'll soon see a generation that simply stops identifying as religious at all. Where do you place the 56% of the population that don't go to a church, and why not use a church as a nightclub if it has ceased being a place of worship?

The decline in religiosity tends to couple with a rise in leftism. Communism will bring misery to those who think they want it and when the people have suffered sufficiently, the survivors will return to God. History is full of incredible turns of fate. Do you think capitalism in the west could survive the sort of economic implosion that would dwarf the credit crunch of 2008? I don`t, but that is what I think will happen before the end of this decade. It would certainly make an interesting chapter in the history books for future generations. Within 30 years of the collapse of Communism, Capitalism collapses in the west.

Is it a co-incidence that in the lead up to this event, the west becomes such a comradely place where women finally achieve equality and where genders proliferate and all are treated the same (except they each get their own public toilet)?

Is it a coincidence that China has spent trillions building ghost cities where nobody lives, as though they were anticipating the economic implosion of the American and European economies?

As a religiously minded person, everything I see points to a great comeuppance for this world and Ireland will be at the forefront of that. Ironically, people will blame the church for the failures of the politicians but lest we forget, hell fire awaits all who do not abide by the will of God. Society and democratic desires will count for little on judgement day where individual accountability applies.

Anthracite · 10-06-2018 10:33am

realitykeeper wrote: »

So, even though I was born nearly 2000 years after the event, I was the cause of Christ`s suffering, as was all of humanity.

Well, as the guy who invented the universe, plus suffering, sin, souls, and us, I think more of the blame rests on God's shoulders to be honest.

realitykeeper · 10-06-2018 11:01am

Anthracite wrote: »

Well, as the guy who invented the universe, plus suffering, sin, souls, and us, I think more of the blame rests on God's shoulders to be honest.

Nope. You see, God also gave us free will. Thanks to the mercy of God, the righteous will have mercy shown to them. The unrepentant on the other hand will get what they have chosen.

Anthracite · 10-06-2018 11:16am

realitykeeper wrote: »

Nope. You see, God also gave us free will. Thanks to the mercy of God, the righteous will have mercy shown to them. The unrepentant on the other hand will get what they have chosen.

God gave us free will, exactly. If you give your child the keys to the car, don't be surprised if they crash it.

You don't send the child to hell for it - anyone in their right mind would blame you as the parent.

smacl · 10-06-2018 8:08pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

The decline in religiosity tends to couple with a rise in leftism.

Nope. If you look at religiosity by country, you'll note for example that religion is more important in Russia than in the UK. Religion actually correlates more closely with poverty, where people who have very little can at least look forward to a better promised next life. Hard to find anyone more apt than Marx here "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

Is it a co-incidence that in the lead up to this event, the west becomes such a comradely place where women finally achieve equality and where genders proliferate and all are treated the same (except they each get their own public toilet)?

With respect, in my opinion using religion as an excuse for misogyny and gender discrimination would be considered entirely unacceptably by most Christians in this country and by very many members of the clergy as well.

As a religiously minded person, everything I see points to a great comeuppance for this world and Ireland will be at the forefront of that. Ironically, people will blame the church for the failures of the politicians but lest we forget, hell fire awaits all who do not abide by the will of God. Society and democratic desires will count for little on judgement day where individual accountability applies.

So you're predicting a future apocalyptic event on the basis that your moral compass is in line with that of your God? Nothing new there, religious people bearing placards that 'the end is nigh' were common enough at one point to be a stereotype. Not so much now, given the number of times the apocalypse has been put off.

Purely speculation, but I reckon that many of the Christians who have stopped attending their churches have done so because they essentially believe in a Christianity that is rooted in compassion first and foremost which will always be left leaning and favour people over dogma.

realitykeeper · 11-06-2018 9:51am

Anthracite wrote: »

God gave us free will, exactly. If you give your child the keys to the car, don't be surprised if they crash it.

You don't send the child to hell for it - anyone in their right mind would blame you as the parent.

God does not send people to hell. People choose hell by rejecting God. People are clever enough to master space travel so it is hardly unreasonable to expect them to master basic wisdom.

realitykeeper · 11-06-2018 10:14am

smacl wrote: »

Nope. If you look at religiosity by country, you'll note for example that religion is more important in Russia than in the UK.

I don`t have to look, I knew that already and it proves what I just said. As religiosity decreases, leftism tends to increase.

smacl wrote: »

Religion actually correlates more closely with poverty, where people who have very little can at least look forward to a better promised next life. Hard to find anyone more apt than Marx here "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

There is a lag factor between cause and effect. Everything seems fine in an economy until it crashes. The benefits of religiosity take time to accumulate and the wages of sin often come late. Interesting you should mention Marx. The only reason the Soviet Union belatedly allowed people to return to religion was because the soviet system had nothing to offer and they figured religion would at least offer hope, and that was for their atheist perspective. To the believers, it offered infinitely more.

smacl wrote: »

With respect, in my opinion using religion as an excuse for misogyny and gender discrimination would be considered entirely unacceptably by most Christians in this country and by very many members of the clergy as well.

Myself included. The point I am making is that applied equality is a symptom of socialism which is an unsustainable economic model. Misogyny and gender discrimination are wrong and should never have happened but as in any jigsaw, the pieces have to fit and if you try forcing mismatched pieces to comply with your Utopian vision, you get a mess.

smacl wrote: »

I reckon that many of the Christians who have stopped attending their churches have done so because they essentially believe in a Christianity that is rooted in compassion first and foremost which will always be left leaning and favour people over dogma.

Perhaps but as you know, people are sinners. In any case, God will be the final arbiter in these matters.

Anthracite · 14-06-2018 9:09pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

God does not send people to hell. People choose hell by rejecting God. People are clever enough to master space travel so it is hardly unreasonable to expect them to master basic wisdom.

Clearly most people are incapable of mastering basic wisdom. Again, isn't this really the fault of who or whatever made them mostly incapable?

If the nails you buy aren't up to the job of holding your house together, you don't blame the nails, you blame the people who made the nails.

Nick Park · 15-06-2018 8:20am

Anthracite wrote: »

Clearly most people are incapable of mastering basic wisdom. Again, isn't this really the fault of who or whatever made them mostly incapable?

There's a world of difference between being incapable of mastering basic wisdom and choosing not to.

What politicians need to understand about the Crucifixion

Comments