Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…3536384041…196

Comments

  • #1852
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes.
    Are you suggesting there is none?
    Marien can you list the number of humanist centered governments that brought great things to society wher all or the vast majority of the people involved were humanists?

    Can you list the Totalitarian regimes which were Catholic Church controlled and not atheistic?
    And the ones that were and Totalitarian and atheistic?
    As many as possible please.

    again you are positing an either or situation ISAW ( which along with ''more or less'' seems to be your method of analysing everything).

    As I said before history is a continuum and in the western world in particular I believe we are into an age of secular humanism so we will have to wait and see how it plays out. But you can see humanist contributions all over the place if you care to look.

    There is little point yet again listing a load of fascist regimes that were predominantly catholic. All I ask is that you be consistent in your arguments. If in your view the catholic church and catholicism is not responsible for all those dictators then I don't see how you can abandon that position when it comes to atheism.

    Fascist/totalitarian regimes are about the pursuit and maintenance of power at any price- that is the only belief system than they are imbued with.


  • #1853
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    I am assuming that I represent the voice of reason because ISAW has stopped reading my posts :D
    None the less;
    Marien can you list the number of humanist centered governments that brought great things to society wher all or the vast majority of the people involved were humanists?
    The US, Ireland GB France all had humanist values as their core values. Whether the members were humanist atheist or Christian isn't relevant. We are talking about values that inform the actions. A secular state rather than a theocracy is the discussion. Yes I conceder anti theism just as much a theocracy as a Muslim state under Sharia law.


  • #1854
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I am assuming that I represent the voice of reason because ISAW has stopped reading my posts :D

    HAve I?
    Consider yourself proved wrong again.
    And don't presume to speak for me.
    And if you claim to represent reason then well...
    The US, Ireland GB France all had humanist values as their core values.

    Oh did they? But they didn't have "Christian " values?In spite of the fact that ALL were founded by Christians and atheists and humanists represented a tiny minority of the people framing these core values?
    Whether the members were humanist atheist or Christian isn't relevant.
    Indeed it isn't ! I agree. They were Christian as it happens.
    We are talking about values that inform the actions. A secular state rather than a theocracy is the discussion.

    Nope. the discussion is who framed their constitutions. Not atheists. Christians. The "secularists" in the Us for example were predominantly Christians who didn't want inter denominational rows which they knew of based on the European experience of that time.
    Yes I conceder anti theism just as much a theocracy as a Muslim state under Sharia law.

    And you are aware the anti-theist atheistic States killed much more than even the Muslim fundies?


  • #1855
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    ISAW wrote: »
    You are referring to the Official IRA not the Provisional IRA. You know Eamon Gilmore's old pals.
    While I am aware that many Protestants fought for Irish independence it is quite clear that from the 1960 on Republican Areas are readily identified with Catholics. And while the Loyalist para-militarists were more sectarian there are indications that Northern hard line Republicans did look upon themselves as overwhelmingly Catholic.


    They were certainly not Marxist and that is what caused the Official /Provisional split.



    I agree with that comment. The IRA and provos in particularly were not sectarian in their targets. But it would be common place for hard liners to describe loyalists and Republicans as "protestant" or "Catholic" even though the REpublican Movement as a whole was not so.

    In fact you make my case for me. Croats were nororiously anti-anti-Catholic even though they did not represent nor were recognised by the Catholic Church

    neither the provisional IRA or any other ira umbrella group were driven by anti protestant sentiment


  • #1856
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    irishh_bob wrote: »
    neither the provisional IRA or any other ira umbrella group were driven by anti protestant sentiment

    No it was a tribal war. A war against xenophobia, supposed superiority and inferior beings, forced occupation and the brutality that ensues from same - we have a pretty crap history - and equally a pretty cool one too!!

    There was a time when fighting was necessary imo absolutely, not anymore - thank God. Leaps and bounds, but we still retain that distinct Irish rebel thing, although it's got very pacifist, we fight with words now - we just have to learn where to engage that passion for Irish people as a whole, we were always unique, not the same as northern europe or south europe - I like that we are ourselves.

    I hope we always remember that we fought to be ourselves - that's my hope.


  • #1857
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    And you are aware the anti-theist atheistic States killed much more than even the Muslim fundies?
    So are we keeping score? Will god, big or small g, judge on a tally?
    What exactly is your point?
    All bad but Catholics are the least bad? only bad once a certain number of casualties are reached? Atheism is inherently bad because theirs no evidence of it ever doing anything good?
    All those claims have been answered, yet you continue to repeat the same whataboutery.


  • #1858
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    So are we keeping score? Will god, big or small g, judge on a tally?
    What exactly is your point?
    All bad but Catholics are the least bad? only bad once a certain number of casualties are reached? Atheism is inherently bad because theirs no evidence of it ever doing anything good?
    All those claims have been answered, yet you continue to repeat the same whataboutery.

    Tommy, ISAW has some kind of thing that allows him to remember points, facts etc. made by all sorts of writers, historical, and indeed contemporary too, it translates itself to boards too in his own way - in detail - point, by point - everything from many years, everything he ever read, every description, name and comprehension of same, he seems to absorb and talk about - he is not your average poster. He's like a super poster :) I don't think it's fair to assume he is tiresome, when so many want to debate him tirelessly? ;) no?

    I like reading through anyways.

    It's not 'whataboutary' - it's fact! People may argue that times move on, etc, Stalin, Mao had the means of wiping out millions -

    It doesn't matter about the 'cause' it's the lesson that is most important, every person with any kind of sense of freedom agrees.

    All human beings are made in the image of God, everybody gets a fair chance - God is both Mercy and Justice - he's the one who nags our conscience and seeks to rule it.


  • #1859
    Slav
    Registered Users Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Slav


    ISAW wrote: »
    Because the original question actually asked "as a consequence of their Catholicism" ?

    Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
    1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
    or
    2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.
    There are few problems with this approach. First, for this purpose it's nearly impossible to clearly define true Scotsman true Roman Catholic Church Catholicism. Second, it's not as black and white: there is whole spectrum of greys between 1 and 2 and that's where all the Catholics actually fall into I believe. Third, who in practice can be a judge to decide who's true and who's not?
    If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)
    This is actually a very important observation. Christianity does not teach about acceptance of atrocities. But neither does Atheism. It would be fair to say, if we are trying to be consistent and apply equal standards to both of them, that neither Christianity nor Atheism itself can sparkle atrocities. Or both of them can depending on you interpretation of historical events and motivation behind each particular atrocity.
    I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?
    No, you cannot mix the two. Marxists don't usually identify themselves as Catholics. If they do and then they get themselves involved in sectarian crusades against, say Protestants, then this is the consequence of their Catholicism and not their Marxism because Marxism and Marxists don't give crap about sectarian differences. Similarly, it's Marxism and not Catholicism accountable for those Catholic Marxists crusading against their right wing opponents because Catholicism does not give crap about left and right in politics.
    To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
    While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e
    Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic

    Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
    Put it this way:
    Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
    does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?
    You are substituting faith with organisation. I'm not too comfortable comparing Ustaša and IRA but if solely for the purpose of this discussion we assume that some IRA actions were driven by anti-Protestant stance to the same extent as some Ustaše actions were driven by anti-Orthodox stance then indeed IRA actions were criticised by most of the local clergy and the Pope while Ustaše actions were supported by most of local clergy and the by the silence of the Pope. It does not make huge difference really: in both cases their sectarian violence would be the consequence of their self-identification with Catholicism. The only thing that would be different between Ireland and Balkans (or rather, be incomparable) is the scale of the problem.

    Do you realise that by following your logic you will never be able to clam any atrocities to be the consequence of Atheism simply because there is no Atheistic Pope and there is no global Atheistic organisation in charge of guarding true Atheism? Also there it would not be right to say that, for example, Communists atrocities in Russia in 1918-1938 are the consequences of Communism because in fact Comintern did not sanction them.
    Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.
    And the Maoists may have had some good things and some bad things to their regime.
    How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?
    I don't see what's the connection between this and my example but don't we compare Atheism and Christianity (or Catholicism), and not Maoists and the Catholic Church?
    I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?
    It's just a sad irony. The genocide of Serbs is largely forgotten or even unknown - see how this thread did not even mention NDH together with Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri and Pinochet even though it overshadows them all combined. Historically it was not in anybody interests to make a big buzz out of it: new Yugoslav authorities were obviously interested in good relations between Serbs and Croats (and it worked pretty well for almost 50 years while they were in power); Vatican was also not interested in any publicity for obvious reasons. These days the clear message of the mass media is that the Serbs are the bad guys of Balkans: they occupied half of Croatia and Bosnia in 1990ies, they are accountable for Srebrenica massacre and other war crimes there, they oppresses Kosovars, etc. This way it's easier to justify in the eyes of public opinion any actions against Serbia as it was already the case with the NATO Belgrade bombings in 1999. By no means I see the scale as tiny - in fact it's one of the largest and cruelest genocide in the human history.
    ...If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.
    Not by the Catholic church!
    Look at the number of force conversions alone. You need priests for that, a lot of them. A project of that scale cannot be accomplished without careful planning and organising it on all levels starting from the head of the Croatian Church, through the bishops, and down to monks and parish priests.

    Then a lot of Catholic clergy were involved not just in force-conversions but in mass slaughtering of civilians. Many of them were Ustaša officers. With the extremely rare exceptions no action were taken by their bishops. Qui tacet consentire videtur.

    Also let's not forget that the Catholic press and pulpits were widely used to spread fascist, anti-Semitic and ant-Serbian propaganda.

    the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!
    The question is not whether RCC supported Nazis or not. It's sad but in WWII Croatia largely RCC were the Nazis. :(
    Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.
    Even if Vatican were in total opposition to Ustaše (and in reality they were far from it) but the Croatian Catholic Church maintained the same level of involvement into the genocide then it would make absolutely no difference to the matter of "atrocities as the consequences of Catholicism".


  • #1860
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    he's the one who nags our conscience and seeks to rule it.
    Not to rule but to guide.
    Not nags, more like that feeling that your have forgotten something.
    Not for His sake but ours.
    Not for our sake but His on our side.


  • Advertisement
  • #1861
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Not to rule but to guide.
    Not nags, more like that feeling that your have forgotten something.
    Not for His sake but ours.
    Not for our sake but His on our side.

    Exactly! It's the beginning of a journey, the joy is immeasurable!..and not a little inexplicable. The best of luck on yours.


  • #1862
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Slav, the reason I left out the Serbian genocide was not lack of awareness but I simply did'nt want to muddy the waters by bringing the Nazi element into it.

    This is not to say that the Serbs have not done terrible things in their own right, but there is no doubt that Croatia has always been given somewhat of a free ride in the main because of their catholicism, the examples you mentioned, their facilitating the escape of Nazis after the war, and their behaviour in the break-up of Yugoslavia. If Frano Tuchman had survived he may been/should have been tried for war-crimes but you never hear his name mentioned in that light.


  • #1863
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Tommy, ISAW has some kind of thing that allows him to remember points, facts etc. made by all sorts of writers, historical, and indeed contemporary too, it translates itself to boards too in his own way - in detail - point, by point - everything from many years, everything he ever read, every description, name and comprehension of same, he seems to absorb and talk about - he is not your average poster. He's like a super poster :) I don't think it's fair to assume he is tiresome, when so many want to debate him tirelessly? ;) no?

    I like reading through anyways.

    It's not 'whataboutary' - it's fact! People may argue that times move on, etc, Stalin, Mao had the means of wiping out millions -

    It doesn't matter about the 'cause' it's the lesson that is most important, every person with any kind of sense of freedom agrees.

    All human beings are made in the image of God, everybody gets a fair chance - God is both Mercy and Justice - he's the one who nags our conscience and seeks to rule it.

    Sorry Imaopml, I can't agree with your eulogy to ISAW, to me it is a distortion of terminology, a constant whataboutery , and the relentless use of sources like wikepedia which ( to me anyway) has the effect of making some of his posts unreadable.

    I half suspect at this stage that it is a deliberate tactic as if he was engaged in some holy war and to give an inch or actualy participate in a discussion where we may even learn from each other is anathema to him

    On your final point - the cause always matters- if you don't try to understand the cause you will never learn the lesson.


  • #1864
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    ISAW, I think your being pedantic about the extent that something can be attributed to atheism or catholicism.

    Nope! I'm only pointing out that atheistic regimes I define as those with "There is no God" as a central principle.
    Roman Catholicv is fairly much well defined by but I have offered "According to The Vatican , the Pope , a Council of the Church, or a widespread policy among the bishops having their Imprimatur and nihil obstat," as a central principle. It is fairly broad and takes in the fact that you might do away with the Vatican or a pope and still have a fairly agreed to set of "Roman" Catholic principles.

    I'm just saying if you look at history atheistic regimes killed hundreds of millions.
    There are usually two responses by atheists to this.

    1. They were not "atheistic regimes"
    2. Catholics/the church killed people too.

    To 1 i say "look at the definition I gave you " They WERE atheistic regimes.
    To 2 i say "Well go on then list the killings and we can compare them to atheistic regimes"
    Especially galling when all along everyone has been pointing out that your attributing of atrocities to atheism isn't consistent with any attribute of atheism.

    Attribute of atheism ="There is no God"
    atheistic regimes ="There is no God" as a central principle.

    Care to please explain the inconsistency you insist exists above?
    Anti theism is the windmill you should be tilting at.

    And it is! Antitheistic ATHEISM. I mean wher are all the anti theistic theists? I have been quite clear that agnostics or atheists who do not attack the Church or regard the Bible as silly or even dangerous or behave as "evangelical" atheists are fine by me. It is only the ones proposing atheism as a superiour belief or proposing it as a principle by which society should live with which I have a crow to pluck! Not alone that but fundamentalists may also be religious. I don't debate fundamentalist Jews, Muslims, Christians or Nazis in this thread either but i am quite happy to elsewhere.
    Everybody condemns genocide and ethnic or sectarian killings,

    you speak for "everybody" now do you? Well you would be wrong. fundamentalists ( whether they be atheistic or whatever DON'T condemn it and rather applaud it)
    however being unwilling to admit that thees events happen in a context that contributes to both their scale and nature isn't helping define the problem.

    What exactly do you mean by "these events" and " a context that contributes to both their scale and nature"
    Unfortunately Christianity has in some contexts contributed to appalling acts, as has anti theism which comes from a reaction to theism rather than atheism.
    Aha! back to 2 above.Care to list where christianity contributed to appalling acts and list how many dead and compare it "in context" to atheistic regimes?
    Yes you can describe a regime thats anti theistic as atheist but that leads to misatribution of the cause.

    And that is back to "they are real atheists but atheism didn't cause it" but how can you then attribute "Christians contributed " when you don't accept the same for atheists "Atheists didn't contribute" apparently? :)
    Your as guilty of painting all with one brush as the anti theistic atheists that you disagree with so venomously.
    I dont paint all atheists or all christians with the one brush!
    The point is of anyone claims "Christianity was a terrible thing for the world and continued to be" ansd attacks Christians for their beliefs then they are open to " atheism was a terrible thing for the world" F they then respond "that was not atheism that was just some totalitarian atheists" how come christians can't sauy "that was not Christianity it was just some totalitarian Christians" ?
    In other words if you are going to claim belief systems have nothing to do with it how can you then ever criticise Christianity or present atheism as a better way?


  • #1865
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    ISAW wrote: »

    And it is! Antitheistic ATHEISM. I mean wher are all the anti theistic theists? I have been quite clear that agnostics or atheists who do not attack the Church or regard the Bible as silly or even dangerous or behave as "evangelical" atheists are fine by me. It is only the ones proposing atheism as a superiour belief or proposing it as a principle by which society should live with which I have a crow to pluck!

    Let me give you an example.

    The A&A forum has a number of stickies. I think every forum is restricted to six. One is usually the charter. That leaves five. what are they.
    One is about laughing at and ridiculing religion.
    One is about the dangers of religion.
    One is about ongoing scandals (with the usual misinformed media myths about Vatican policy, and the tiny number of abusing clergy compared to the rest of society regularly trotted out)


  • #1866
    ironingbored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭ironingbored


    lmaopml wrote: »
    All human beings are made in the image of God

    Although it may not seem like it, this is a serious question.

    If we are made in the image of God, is this true for when we are straining on the toilet? Or when we urinate and procreate from the same orifice? Or is God like the aliens in Cocoon? I really don't understand how humans (with their inarguably badly "designed" bodies can be "as one" with the supreme creator of then universe.
    lmaopml wrote: »
    everybody gets a fair chance

    This is a phrase that really irks me. Like hell everyone get a second chance; whether it be people born into famine-ravaged communities in Ethiopia or the AIDS-infected children of South African prostitutes.


  • Advertisement
  • #1867
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ironingbored wrote: »
    Although it may not seem like it, this is a serious question.

    If we are made in the image of God, is this true for when we are straining on the toilet? Or when we urinate and procreate from the same orifice? Or is God like the aliens in Cocoon? I really don't understand how humans (with their inarguably badly "designed" bodies can be "as one" with the supreme creator of then universe.

    Being made in the image of God does not refer to our physical appearence, but to our possession of a spirit, and the ability to make good moral choices. So, even when we are straining on the jacks, or urinating, or procreating, we have the ability to love others, and even to make sacrifices for others. So, yes, at those moments it is still true that we are made in God's image.

    Of course that image has been horribly marred and defaced by making the wrong moral decisions (what we, on this side of the fence, call 'sin'). Which leads rather neatly to your next question.
    This is a phrase that really irks me. Like hell everyone get a second chance; whether it be people born into famine-ravaged communities in Ethiopia or the AIDS-infected children of South African prostitutes.
    I think she said 'a fair chance' not 'a second chance'.

    And that all depends on what chance she's talking about. If she's talking about a chance to respond to God's love, then the New Testament indicates that God has a special compassion for the poor. So I fully expect heaven to be full of Ethiopian famine victims and the AIDS infected children of South African prostitutes. Indeed, Jesus indicated that their very presence will stand in stark contrast to the proud and self-satisfied cubs of the Celtic Tiger who refused to lift a finger to help them.


  • #1868
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    ISAW you seen to mixing up forums. This is the Christianity forum not A&A.
    When I said 'everyone' I was talking in the context of this thread, not the whole damned world.
    Here we discuss christianity and alternatives and how they fit both us and the world we live in. Atheism is an option for people. Is it wrong to question our believes in the context of other options?
    You have chosen Christianity and cant seem to see any value in anything else. OK I'm fine with that, but to dismiss atheism because of the things that some atheists have done is as off the wall as the dismissing of all theistic systems because of Muslim terrorism, Christian crusades or protestant witch hunts.
    Atheism is the belief that their is no god. Full stop, it doesn't include any ideology of religion good or bad. It's all a human construct, the same as communism or liberalism or rave culture as far as an atheist world view is concerned.
    Yet you continue to howl about the excess of regimes that used tactics to maintain power that would shame the devil himself. Tactics that were also used by theistic regimes at different times in history.
    Evil is something that permeates every human endeavor, has done since a pink lady got bitten.


  • #1869
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    ISAW you seen to mixing up forums. This is the Christianity forum not A&A.
    When I said 'everyone' I was talking in the context of this thread, not the whole damned world.
    Here we discuss christianity and alternatives and how they fit both us and the world we live in. Atheism is an option for people. Is it wrong to question our believes in the context of other options?
    You have chosen Christianity and cant seem to see any value in anything else. OK I'm fine with that, but to dismiss atheism because of the things that some atheists have done is as off the wall as the dismissing of all theistic systems because of Muslim terrorism, Christian crusades or protestant witch hunts.
    Atheism is the belief that their is no god. Full stop, it doesn't include any ideology of religion good or bad. It's all a human construct, the same as communism or liberalism or rave culture as far as an atheist world view is concerned.
    Yet you continue to howl about the excess of regimes that used tactics to maintain power that would shame the devil himself. Tactics that were also used by theistic regimes at different times in history.
    Evil is something that permeates every human endeavor, has done since a pink lady got bitten.

    Hitler -catholic/Rudolph Hoess-catholic/Himmler-Catholic/Heydrich-catholic/Klaus Barbie -catholic
    Hess- Protestant/Bormann-Protestant/Heinrich Muller-Protestant/Speer-Protestant/Eichman-Protestant

    I could go on.. and on .. and on.

    What would that tell us about christianity?


  • #1870
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    ISAW you seen to mixing up forums. This is the Christianity forum not A&A.

    TommyYou seem to be mixing up logic and reason with something else.
    You proposed something about atheism not being anti theistic.
    I pointed out i am only referring to anti theistic elements.
    I pointed you to the nearest "atheist" forum.
    I pointed out that they are not unduly focused on how the world can be made a better place due to positive atheism.
    I pointed out there is a huge focus on
    1. Trying to show how the Church is illogical/unreasonable silly
    2. Claims about how dangerous belief is
    3. Focusing to an extreme degree on abuse by a tiny minority of clerics in particular which happens to a vanishingly small degree ( one or two single cases per decade compared to thousands and thousands by non clergy) and using this as a stick to beat the church.


    I am a member and have been to irish skeptics meetings. I have met religious people there. I don't view religion as anti skeptic . But there is an element who view skepticism as something which has to preach atheism and views belief as a social "evil"
    When I said 'everyone' I was talking in the context of this thread, not the whole damned world.

    When I stated "history" I was referring to the history of the human race and when I stated atheistic "atrocities" I was referring to atheistic regimes and not just the element of anti theist atheists in the A&A or any other forum.
    Here we discuss christianity and alternatives and how they fit both us and the world we live in. Atheism is an option for people. Is it wrong to question our believes in the context of other options?

    Given this id the thread for discussing atheism in the Christianity forum don't blame me for pointing out fundamentalist atheism killed hundreds of millions.
    You have chosen Christianity and cant seem to see any value in anything else.

    I almost never if at all mention my personal beliefs. They have nothing to do with the issue. If you look at the thread on "what do you believe in" I specifically state that I prefer to keep my personal beliefs out of the discussion and objectively discuss the claims made by other people.

    I don't claim my personal beliefs are superior in value to others so don't try to drag the discussion into that. I don't claim anything at all about my personal beliefs. This is about what atheists claim!
    OK I'm fine with that, but to dismiss atheism because of the things that some atheists have done is as off the wall as the dismissing of all theistic systems because of Muslim terrorism, Christian crusades or protestant witch hunts.

    Well now having stated this is about Christianity i note you slipped in Islam. As for crusades to which Protestant ones do you refer? From my recollection most of the posting here attacking is attacking two elements
    1. Fringe elements of fundamental Christians who are not mainstream and most would not even consider christian such as Creationists and Westboro Baptist types.
    2. The Roman Catholic church ( and their clergy in particular) . This anti Catholic element isn't restricted to just the Christianity forum as I have stated. The overspill of it is found in politics and afterhours even to the extent that criticising politicians by pointing to their atheism is considered a "sin"

    Atheism is the belief that their is no god. Full stop, it doesn't include any ideology of religion good or bad.

    A central principle of atheistic regimes is "there is no God"
    It's all a human construct, the same as communism or liberalism or rave culture as far as an atheist world view is concerned.

    Please don't divert into the failed theory of memetics or into sociological constructivism.
    Yet you continue to howl about the excess of regimes that used tactics to maintain power that would shame the devil himself. Tactics that were also used by theistic regimes at different times in history.

    Rarely used by the Roman Catholic Church and never to the extent atheistic regimes. And the Church East and West also provided stability, education, architecture etc. What did atheism supply?
    Evil is something that permeates every human endeavor, has done since a pink lady got bitten.

    So you agree in natural law with respect to morals whether or not atheism is true or false?


  • #1871
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    What did atheism supply?
    I think we are talking past each other here tbh.
    Anyway.....
    Atheism supplies nothing, its a non belief not a belief. Atheists work from something else, humanist values, belief in democracy, belief in authoritarianism whatever. Their is no atheist bible or ten commandments of atheism* or book of the dead.
    What an atheist dose is based on the assumption that this is all their is. Christians believe that their is a heaven and hell, that this world is not the end of the story.

    *http://
    reason.com/blog/2011/10/31/penn-jillettes-10-commandments
    Well OK their is but you get my point :)


  • Advertisement
  • #1872
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Hitler -catholic/Rudolph Hoess-catholic/Himmler-Catholic/Heydrich-catholic/Klaus Barbie -catholic
    Hess- Protestant/Bormann-Protestant/Heinrich Muller-Protestant/Speer-Protestant/Eichman-Protestant

    I could go on.. and on .. and on.

    Hitler -excommunicated I believe. Nazis , 29 papal encyclicals when hitler was in power - ALL were anti Nazi. RCC clergy persecuted because ofg anti Nazi stance. Catholics didnt vote for Hitler.
    I could go on and an.
    What would that tell us about christianity?

    It would tell us the roman catholic church opposed Naziism always.


  • #1873
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I think we are talking past each other here tbh.
    Anyway.....
    Atheism supplies nothing,

    Thank you for that. Cases closed.
    What an atheist dose is based on the assumption that this is all their is. Christians believe that their is a heaven and hell, that this world is not the end of the story.

    Slightly simplistic. Christians don't necessarily do things because of a promised reward or punishment. They do them because it is the good and right thing to do out of love for other people.


  • #1874
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    They do them because it is the good and right thing to do out of love for other people.
    Risking another Scotsman but some do and some don't. Christian, Muslim and Jew, even atheists.


  • #1875
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Risking another Scotsman but some do and some don't. Christian, Muslim and Jew, even atheists.

    REad the preceding sentence "don't necessarily do things" i.e yes some do but you have fallen into your own trap. Your counter argument for atheists committing atrocities was "that isn't all atheists only the fundamentalist/anti-theist ones" ;)

    Let me raise a relaed point. Let us ( since we agree on natural law or an overarching sense of "good" ) just classify all the nasty people ( whether atheist or Christian or not and whether they get to Hell or Heaven or not) as the group who destroy socvieties and the "good" people as thise who don't and who instead conbtribute to society. How is it historically speaking that the overwhelming majority of the nasties are atheistic and almost all the good group are believers?


  • #1876
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Hitler -excommunicated I believe. Nazis , 29 papal encyclicals when hitler was in power - ALL were anti Nazi. RCC clergy persecuted because ofg anti Nazi stance. Catholics didnt vote for Hitler.
    I could go on and an.


    It would tell us the roman catholic church opposed Naziism always.

    As you say yourself- simplistic and as far as I am aware Hitler was never excommunicated.And to my knowledge never renounced his catholicism. And in all the various oaths that the nazis were so fond of, hitler and god always had pride of place.

    Again your reading of history is flawed, Catholics did'nt initially vote for Hitler but that soon changed .It was the staunchly catholic Von Papen and the catholic party that finally enabled Hitler to get his mitts on power and this at a time when the nazis were losing votes .Despite serving in various roles for the nazis throughtout the war Von Papen had his papal titles restored by the Pope in the late 50's.

    Don't get me started on Heydrich Himmler and Tiso ( a serving catholic priest !) and the rest of that murderous gang.

    I could go on and on and on.

    But what does this say about Christianity ?


  • #1877
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    As you say yourself- simplistic and as far as I am aware Hitler was never excommunicated. And to my knowledge never renounced his catholicism. And in all the various oaths that the nazis were so fond of, hitler and god always had pride of place.

    Well let me inform your awarweness and conscience

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72543673&postcount=101
    all members of the Nazi party were excommunicated in 1930 by the conferrence of German bishops and catholics were forbidden to join the party.

    See pages 8-9 and comment on the bottom of page 66 in
    http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise.pdf

    Again your reading of history is flawed, Catholics did'nt initially vote for Hitler but that soon changed .

    Nope! See page 22-26
    And if you wish i can supply maps of voting patterns.

    It was the staunchly catholic Von Papen and the catholic party that finally enabled Hitler to get his mitts on power and this at a time when the nazis were losing votes .Despite serving in various roles for the nazis throughtout the war Von Papen had his papal titles restored by the Pope in the late 50's.

    see Chapter IV beginning page 33
    Don't get me started on Heydrich Himmler and Tiso ( a serving catholic priest !) and the rest of that murderous gang.

    Himmler saw Catholic allegiance to Rome as an ideological challenge to the SS Aryan Order, and regarded its influence on youth as pernicious. 'Heydrich pursued the SS vendetta against the Church with relentless venom.'
    Source: Killing of Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heydrich, C. MacDonald, 1989 p. 30 in the above p.61
    I could go on and on and on.

    As could I. I you have unsupported opinion. I have cited historical sources, meetings of roman Catholic Bishops etc.
    But what does this say about Christianity ?

    That the Roman Catholic church didnt vote for or support the Nazis.


  • #1878
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Well let me inform your awarweness and conscience

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72543673&postcount=101


    See pages 8-9 and comment on the bottom of page 66 in
    http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise.pdf


    That is not a source ISAW- that is church history and is suitable biased, but I would ask you to read my post more carefully - I never said that catholics supported Hitles initially, some did , most did'nt ( But overall Christians enabled the the gutting of democracy and the rise of Hitler, presumably on the notion that anything was better than communism), But it was Von Papen that facilitated Hitlers final push to power, and the catholic parties rowed in behind that.

    As for Himmler he was always a catholic and dragged in his own aryan mysticism crap into the mix. Heydrich' s family - his wife and children were all staunchly catholic and continued as such long after the war, his wife only died in the 80's.

    Like Von Paper I notice you skip on Father Tiso , I wonder why ?

    But you are answering any question but the question I am asking you,for at least the 3rd time, which is

    what does the fact the all these nazi leaders were christian say about christianity ?


  • #1879
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW wrote: »
    Well let me inform your awarweness and conscience

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72543673&postcount=101


    See pages 8-9 and comment on the bottom of page 66 in
    http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise.pdf





    That is not a source ISAW- that is church history and is suitable biased, but I would ask you to read my post more carefully

    It IS a source and if you think it is biased care to show where the writer is academically dishonest?
    I never said that catholics supported Hitles initially, some did , most did'nt ( But overall Christians enabled the the gutting of democracy and the rise of Hitler, presumably on the notion that anything was better than communism),

    You didn't read the chapter on Van Pappen did you? when you do would you care to show where it is wrong?
    But it was Von Papen that facilitated Hitlers final push to power, and the catholic parties rowed in behind that.

    Where is the chapter on him in error?
    As for Himmler he was always a catholic and dragged in his own aryan mysticism crap into the mix.

    One cant be both a theosophist and a Christian!
    Heydrich' s family - his wife and children were all staunchly catholic and continued as such long after the war, his wife only died in the 80's.

    Now you are switching the claim. what war crimes did his family commit and we will see if the church supported them.
    Like Von Paper I notice you skip on Father Tiso , I wonder why ?
    Because I was researching the journal article below.
    what does the fact the all these nazi leaders were christian say about christianity ?

    You seem to have ignored the fact

    Excommunicated and NOT chriostian deos not mean they were working for Rome or with the approval of the Vatican or even of the German bishops

    You have not admitted you acknowledge the correction of your "nazis not excommunicated" statement.


    Well let me inform your awarweness and conscience

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72543673&postcount=101
    all members of the Nazi party were excommunicated in 1930 by the conferrence of German bishops and catholics were forbidden to join the party.

    See pages 8-9 and comment on the bottom of page 66 in
    http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise.pdf

    Again your reading of history is flawed, Catholics did'nt initially vote for Hitler but that soon changed .

    And you evidence is?
    here is mine:
    http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/07/catholics-and-nazi-vote-1932.html


    See page 22-26 in the pdf . By "see" I mean actually read them and tell me anything that is in error!

    Addendum:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_fascism
    According to Griffin, the use of the term 'clerical fascism' should be limited to "the peculiar forms of politics that arise when religious clerics and professional theologians are drawn either into collusion with the secular ideology of fascism (an occurrence particularly common in interwar Europe)
    Roger Griffin, "The 'Holy Storm': 'Clerical fascism' through the Lens of Modernism", Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 8, N.2, 213-227, June 2007
    Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions is an academic journal Griffin edited
    http://history.brookes.ac.uk/staff/prof.asp?ID=584
    http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ftmp20/8/2
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14690760701321130
    Gives you the first page where you will note "collusion" by some clerics rather than "synthesis" between Catholic and fascist philosophies mentioned at the bottom.

    That IS a source in an academic journal!


  • #1880
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW are you at all capable of answering a straight question ? What does it say about Christianity that all of these guys were Christians ? If you want to make it Christian upbringing or Christian at one time , lapsed christians a la carte christians - no problem.

    What does it say about Christianity that it spawned this lot ?? Are you capable of answering that simple question ??


  • #1881
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW are you at all capable of answering a straight question ? What does it say about Christianity that all of these guys were Christians ? If you want to make it Christian upbringing or Christian at one time , lapsed christians a la carte christians - no problem.

    What does it say about Christianity that it spawned this lot ?? Are you capable of answering that simple question ??

    All we see is ISAW providing sources and facts, and yet you provide nothing to support your hysteria and prejudices.


  • Advertisement
  • #1882
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    marienbad wrote: »
    Sorry Imaopml, I can't agree with your eulogy to ISAW, to me it is a distortion of terminology, a constant whataboutery , and the relentless use of sources like wikepedia which ( to me anyway) has the effect of making some of his posts unreadable.

    It wasn't a eulogy Marien, and by all means Wiki ( jaded as it may seem ) is quoted a heck of a lot by various people..:pac:
    I half suspect at this stage that it is a deliberate tactic as if he was engaged in some holy war and to give an inch or actualy participate in a discussion where we may even learn from each other is anathema to him

    No, I think it's rather ridiculous to engage in debate and then resort to ad hominem or personalised replies that scream, 'poor me, having to debate with you, the way you debate etc. - even though I am engaging freely with you..' sounds kind of silly to be honest, nobody is hitting the keyboard in response except you yourself really that responds - and not a little pleading imo too - Heck, don't do it so! Simple.
    On your final point - the cause always matters- if you don't try to understand the cause you will never learn the lesson.

    True, the cause is worth examination; but where difficulty arises and arguementation, then the effect is a universal truth that is undeniable - we can examine the effect and in general right it down to fundamentalism of some sort - and that my friend, comes in every variety. That was the lesson I suppose. Well, it's what I see anyway!


  • #1883
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lmaopml wrote: »
    It wasn't a eulogy Marien, and by all means Wiki ( jaded as it may seem ) is quoted a heck of a lot by various people..:pac:



    No, I think it's rather ridiculous to engage in debate and then resort to ad hominem or personalised replies that scream, 'poor me, having to debate with you, the way you debate etc. - even though I am engaging freely with you..' sounds kind of silly to be honest, nobody is hitting the keyboard in response except you yourself really that responds - and not a little pleading imo too - Heck, don't do it so! Simple.



    True, the cause is worth examination; but where difficulty arises and arguementation, then the effect is a universal truth that is undeniable - we can examine the effect and in general right it down to fundamentalism of some sort - and that my friend, comes in every variety. That was the lesson I suppose. Well, it's what I see anyway!

    No ad hominem at all , Impaoml , or special pleading , or poor me . Just responding to your description of ISAW's posting - you did, after all, bring it up so don't be too surprised when not everyone agrees with your critique.


  • #1884
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    marienbad wrote: »
    No ad hominem at all , Impaoml , or special pleading , or poor me . Just responding to your description of ISAW's posting - you did, after all, bring it up so don't be too surprised when not everyone agrees with your critique.

    Well it's perfectly obvious that you don't agree with my critique! Or indeed my critique of anything in particular to do with Christianity, which is the forum I post on, on boards. So, that said - I wish you every success, but I don't subscribe and never will to your worldview - I hope you can accept that within your vision of a free society - that's your challenge, and mine Marien.


  • #1885
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW are you at all capable of answering a straight question ?
    yes
    What does it say about Christianity that all of these guys were Christians ?

    That question is what is called "loaded" . It is circular reasoning. If you already define all the bad people in the world as Christian and you then ask "Well what can you conclude about all these christians?" what kind of question is it?
    I have already shown you
    1.they were excommunicated
    2. the Church preached against them
    3. Clergy who opposed them were executed

    But you still try to claim all the nazis were Christian when the church actually opposed nazism?
    If you want to make it Christian upbringing or Christian at one time , lapsed christians a la carte christians - no problem.

    i clearly defined atheist and Catholic above . christian is a bit broader maybe but still not responsible for atrocities on any scale comparable with atheistic regimes.
    What does it say about Christianity that it spawned this lot ?? Are you capable of answering that simple question ??

    Yes. As regards the Catholic Church it says that
    1. they didn't spawn nazism- which has been explained here and in more depth elsewhere
    2. They didn't support the nazism after Hitler got in power.


  • #1886
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Well it's perfectly obvious that you don't agree with my critique! Or indeed my critique of anything in particular to do with Christianity, which is the forum I post on, on boards. So, that said - I wish you every success, but I don't subscribe and never will to your worldview - I hope you can accept that within your vision of a free society - that's your challenge, and mine Marien.


    Just out of interest imaopml as you brought it up what do you think is my world view, everything here is so adversarial though I think you may be quite surprised.


  • #1887
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Isaw try listening carefully this time- my question to you is what does Hitler Himmler Klause Barbie Rudelf Hoess Goebels, Bormann Arthur Nebe heydrich- goering speer eichman Heinrich muller spawed as they were in staunch christian houshoulds- what does does that say about christianity ??


    Could I have answer please


  • #1888
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Isaw try listening carefully this time- my question to you is what does Hitler Himmler Klause Barbie Rudelf Hoess Goebels, Bormann Arthur Nebe heydrich- goering speer eichman Heinrich muller spawed as they were in staunch christian houshoulds- what does does that say about christianity ??

    Hitler Himmler Klause Barbie Rudelf Hoess Goebels, Bormann Arthur Nebe heydrich- goering speer eichman and Heinrich muller were not christians with the possible exception of Speer.

    Stalin was laso brought up as a Christian. anyone brought up as a christian can reject it. Satan apparently rejected God too. Knowledge of Christianity and deciding to follow christ are two different things.
    Could I have answer please

    You already have. Ask and the door will be opened. when you see an open door you still can decide not to walk through it.
    Your continuous attempt to claim cristianuity is the cause of atheistic ot non Christian atrocities is a bit weak.


  • #1889
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Hitler Himmler Klause Barbie Rudelf Hoess Goebels, Bormann Arthur Nebe heydrich- goering speer eichman and Heinrich muller were not christians with the possible exception of Speer.

    Stalin was laso brought up as a Christian. anyone brought up as a christian can reject it. Satan apparently rejected God too. Knowledge of Christianity and deciding to follow christ are two different things.



    You already have. Ask and the door will be opened. when you see an open door you still can decide not to walk through it.
    Your continuous attempt to claim cristianuity is the cause of atheistic ot non Christian atrocities is a bit weak.


    Show me any attempt where I have tried to make such a claim ??

    Now stop dodging and tell me what does the fact that these toads had a staunch christian ubringing say about christianity ?


  • #1890
    Doc Farrell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭Doc Farrell


    Sorry, you can ignore this post, I'll leave it up but the word I was looking for was eisegesis.


    Can somebody help me out here, my brain isn't working for some reason. I'm looking for the word that defines when someone in the present day interprets historical events according to their current philosophical outlook.
    For example if a child says that Christopher Columbus was a very naughty man because he never stopped slave trading after the discovery of America.
    Its not hermeneutics, exegesis, teleology, historiology.
    There's another word for it.
    Another example would be condemning a scientist for investigating nuclear energy at the turn of the previous century because that knowledge was later used to create a bomb.
    I'm not trying to derail the thread, u can pm me if you like. Another example would be that the roman empire before Christ was somehow wrong because it wasn't Christian, a kind of naive ultra critical revisionism, what's the word please?


  • Advertisement
  • #1891
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    lmaopml wrote: »
    No, I think it's rather ridiculous to engage in debate and then resort to ad hominem or personalised replies that scream, 'poor me, having to debate with you, the way you debate etc. - even though I am engaging freely with you..' sounds kind of silly to be honest, nobody is hitting the keyboard in response except you yourself really that responds - and not a little pleading imo too - Heck, don't do it so! Simple

    The only reason I engage in extended debate is because others might be reading the argument. Debating with ISAW is very tedious. His thesis on atheism and atrocities is easily dismissed with a cursory glance at the historical evidence. Though he has now retreated to the position of "non-Catholics" and "anti-theists". He is still wrong, but he is at least leaving atheism alone.


  • #1892
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there"
    Cant think of the word myself but more to the point, do you think that thats whats happening here?
    If it is I can understand it because we are discussing Christianity as we live it not history.
    Distinguishing between how we live now and how people in the past lived is a difficult thing, so many differences that we cant ever really put ourselves in their shoes.
    All that being true we must consider the claim the church makes to universality. If the teachings of the church led to wrong in the past then its teachings were misunderstood or wrong. If it claims to be unchanging then, well its past is up for debate as relevant to its present.
    ISAW claims that the church hasn't changed but the culture it exists in changes leading to misuse of it teachings or misrepresentation of it intentions. Truth in what he says.
    Others, myself included, claim that whatever about the church teaching the fact that wrong happened tells us that Christianity, catholic or other seems to fail to deliver its promise. Comparing stats on murder is fine for ranking serial killers but useless for a debate on morality.


  • #1893
    Doc Farrell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭Doc Farrell


    Sorry tommy, no, I just posted in this thread because the average poster is more educated than in some other threads. It's just a word that is on the tip of my tongue and i'll locate it in the next few hours.
    The word defines the inevitable ethical understanding I bring as a 21st century westerner to understanding historical events, in particular ancient historical events. It's an inevitable emotional baggage/perspective that each person brings whether they like it or not. The word isn't emotivism. Ahhhhhh!
    It's quite often used as a criticism of someone else's viewpoint but is not in itself a morally critical term. Gahhhhhhh!
    When I think of it I'll post it.

    Edit: sorry tommy I think the word I'm looking for is eisegesis, which a couple of people have used in relation to the study of historical events but is normally just used for biblical studies. Hermeneutics is probably a more useful term but eisegesis has a more critical tone, it means I'm 'pouring' my own bias or bigotries or misunderstandings onto an historical event. I've only seen it used a couple of times which is probably why it was driving me nuts. I'm not sure if it's technically correct to use that word on an historical event rather than just a text.
    Anyway I shall be accusing people of historical eisegesis very soon! Just as soon as I learn how to use the phrase properly!


  • #1894
    Doc Farrell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭Doc Farrell


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Cant think of the word myself but more to the point, do you think that thats whats happening here?
    If it is I can understand it because we are discussing Christianity as we live it not history.
    Distinguishing between how we live now and how people in the past lived is a difficult thing, so many differences that we cant ever really put ourselves in their shoes.
    All that being true we must consider the claim the church makes to universality. If the teachings of the church led to wrong in the past then its teachings were misunderstood or wrong. If it claims to be unchanging then, well its past is up for debate as relevant to its present.
    ISAW claims that the church hasn't changed but the culture it exists in changes leading to misuse of it teachings or misrepresentation of it intentions. Truth in what he says.
    Others, myself included, claim that whatever about the church teaching the fact that wrong happened tells us that Christianity, catholic or other seems to fail to deliver its promise. Comparing stats on murder is fine for ranking serial killers but useless for a debate on morality.

    Many of the church's teachings in the past were wrong. There's a section on the Wikipedia page for John Paul II that lists the various mistakes that the church has made over the last 2000 years which he apologized for. However isn't this the old baby and the bath water argument. Basically I don't think any of Jesus's teachings are going to get somebody killed but my violent behavior based on my ignorant interpretation of those teachings might.
    I tend to avoid this thread because of the emotive polarization of views, generally Wikipedia has the general historical truth.


  • #1895
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Many of the church's teachings in the past were wrong.
    Ahh, you missed the whole 'rape' debate then. ;)
    I tend to avoid this thread because of the emotive polarization of views
    And as someone who finds my faith a surprise, I like the polarization, it helps me think things through better for myself. Duno if I'mm helping anyone else tho. No point talking to people you agree with if you want to learn.


  • #1896
    Doc Farrell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭Doc Farrell


    True, but some people want to learn and some just want see it burn. When I want to learn I ask my teachers. And then I double check! Many here just want to hone their argumentative skills, it's an adolescent obsession that has little value. There comes a time when one has to move on, investigate further, look deeper. For that one needs very learned and compassionate guides.

    Edit: howeve it's good to talk! Especially if you are stuck out in the countryside!


  • Advertisement
  • #1897
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Especially if you are stuck out in the countryside!
    You too ! :D
    Off to take the gran kid home now, more adolescent banter latter.


  • #1898
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Doc Farrell wrote: »
    Many of the church's teachings in the past were wrong.

    ? Unless you're reffering to stances outside the realm of religion, I'm not sure what you mean here

    Dogma never changes.


  • #1899
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    ? Unless you're reffering to stances outside the realm of religion, I'm not sure what you mean here

    Dogma never changes.

    Hes referring to this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologies_by_Pope_John_Paul_II


  • #1900
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    ''An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie; for an excuse is a lie guarded'' Pope JPII

    How very true, both on the large scale; and also in a personal way. Never moreso then than it is now those words are important. Yes, this Pope was all about reconciliation and outreach, he humbled himself, he was the servant of the servants... and I will never forget seeing him doing so, I was so glad in my heart!

    He apologised for the behaviour of Catholics throughout the ages, all the bad things that Catholics did - he never changed the faith though, I think this is what The Quadratic Equation was referring to. I must say, it took me some time to get used to Pope Benedict, as I only ever knew Pope John Paul in my lifetime - but I think he is cut out of the same stuff, he's a good man.


  • #1901
    Doc Farrell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭Doc Farrell


    I seem to be suffering from permanent foot in mouth disease these days. I meant the crimes and sins performed by the church or in the name of the church rather than her teachings. :o
    However I could be pedantic and suggest that there is a difference between teachings and dogma!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma
    Also one could argue that one teaches as much by ones actions as by ones words. Unfortunately I have personal experience of the failure of Catholics to practice what they preach.
    However I would never be that Pedantic! :D


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement