nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Very religious equals not very Christian.

Lando Griffin

I went to mass on Sunday mainly because one of the little ones has started school and is learning about God etc.
We sat in front a few elderly people who knew all the mass prayers and responses and all the songs. The old lady had her handbag and hat on the bench that the OH was to be seated and wouldn't move them even after a few hints. We ended up virtually sitting on top of each other. As time ambled along my youngest a baby of a year and a half starting getting restless and was laughing and smiling at the people behind. I looked round and the gent gave me a scornful look shaking his head.
As more mass went by the older child quietly went up the aisle generflected and sat down again. I heard the old lady tut and pfftt every time the children made some noises.
On our way up to communion the old lady blocked our way and stood there with a face like a wrench as if say how dare we take her place before God.
I found these people very unnearving with their prayers and masses and not a bit of Christian value in them. They are through first to give out about young people not going to mass and when we do go make us unwelcome.
IMO; the more religious someone is the less Christian values they pocess.

Discuss.

I am actually going to go back next Sunday and sit in their seat just to rise them.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kylith

OP, try going into the cry chapel next time. It's a nice soundproof room so that your offspring won't upset those who are too righteous to give some leeway to small children.

philologos wrote: »

Eyewitness testimony is good enough for court. By the by the fundamental difference is time and detail. The Gospels were written and circulated while eyewitnesses were alive. If the Gospel was a lie it would have been disproven in the first century. People would have sought the named witnesses and shown it to be a load of tripe. The Romans would have loved to disprove it.

In Galatians we have a timeline of Paul's life from his conversion to his writing of Galatians. If you subtract the years from 54AD you'll start to see not only was Paul converted a mere few years after Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension but that he heard the same Gospel as in the texts that came later.

I.E The Gospel was the same since Jesus ascended.

Please actually read those two links in my signature.

Ah, now. Elvis' death is well within living memory, but there are still people who swear he's alive, and we have ton of evidence that he's dead. Cookery books can't even agree on the recipe for Elvis' favourite fried chicken. You can't argue for the veracity of things written down by people 50 years or more after the events, and then edited, re-edited, compiled, included, and discarded at a whim over the last 2000 years according to the political needs of the ruling class.

philologos

kylith wrote: »

Ah, now. Elvis' death is well within living memory, but there are still people who swear he's alive, and we have ton of evidence that he's dead. Cookery books can't even agree on the recipe for Elvis' favourite fried chicken. You can't argue for the veracity of things written down by people 50 years or more after the events, and then edited, re-edited, compiled, included, and discarded at a whim over the last 2000 years according to the political needs of the ruling class.

It's not about the death. It's about the eyewitness testimony concerning the life of Jesus as a whole. Claiming that some people remember a person called Elvis, isn't the same thing as claiming that you witnessed the entire life of Jesus, and that you saw Him crucified and resurrected.

You claim that the Bible was re-edited. There is no textual evidence to show this. In fact the New Testament manuscripts show us that over centuries, there have been no significant alterations. Biblical scholars have shown us this. Textually, the Bible is more authentic than any other work of ancient history. Therefore I'd have to honestly ask you, do you consistently treat other sources of ancient history in the way that you treat the Bible?

The Bible hasn't been "discarded" at the whims of a political class. That's honestly nonsense. The more and more I hear skeptics trot this stuff out, I wonder deeply how much have they actually investigated this for themselves, or have they given any consideration to who exactly Jesus was and what He came to do.

Where are you getting "more than 50 years from"?

Your post seems to be a strawman of what I've said.

EZ24GET

Religion is something you repeat- you can make Christianity your religion but lots of religions have nothing to do with the bible or masses or repetition. You are free to believe what you like. You shouldn't expect everyone occupying a pew to be Christians. To be a Christian you must follow Christ and I don't think he was a member of the Catholic church or any of the others. Christ is the church.

otto_26

Lando Griffin wrote: »

I am actually going to go back next Sunday and sit in their seat just to rise them.

Wow what great Christian values you process!!:rolleyes:

philologos

EZ24GET wrote: »

Religion is something you repeat- you can make Christianity your religion but lots of religions have nothing to do with the bible or masses or repetition. You are free to believe what you like. You shouldn't expect everyone occupying a pew to be Christians. To be a Christian you must follow Christ and I don't think he was a member of the Catholic church or any of the others. Christ is the church.

If you follow Christ that means desiring what He desires for the world. To proclaim the Gospel and to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:20). It also means that Jesus stood on that cross for you and for me to that the penalty of sin (the wrath of God) is satisfied. If people desperately need to hear this, and if believing in Jesus is the only way to God (John 14:6) then this becomes a lot more serious doesn't it?

You're right though He won't care about what church you go to, but He will ask if you surrendered your life in the here and now to honour Him. Did you repent and believe in the Gospel? You're either with Jesus and the Gospel or you're not. It's a bit more serious than choosing X or Y by mere preference.

gbee

EZ24GET wrote: »

To be a Christian you must follow Christ and I don't think he was a member of the Catholic church or any of the others. Christ is the church.

Indeed not. I maintain that Christ never made a church, I believe it was the vanity of Peter who played into the Roman hands for their own ends.

gbee

philologos wrote: »

If you follow Christ that means desiring what He desires for the world..

TBH, it means throwing away all this stuff.

We know that huge corruption and wars have taken place to establish the limited selection of text, more go back Christ's time and are buried or burnt, more are discarded by the Holy Roman Catholic Church over the centuries, the invention of the passion of Christ and Magdalene being a prostitute being perhaps the most recent changes.

Optimalprimerib

Mass goers are like LOI fans. They kick up a stink because not enough people go, but when more people go they give out more for taking their seat.

gobnaitolunacy

Zebra3 wrote: »

If you're not religious why have you got your kid learning that crap?

And what do you think a young child will learn from mass? 95% of it is just the same crap repeated every week.

Must be the notion of respectability. 'Oh dear, what will the neighbours think?'

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Eyewitness testimony is good enough for court.

To a degree. Other evidence can come into play. And the testimony has to be actually given, not dragged up from 1000s of years ago. I think in other words that the practice of presenting and processing eye witness testimony is a little more complex than you want it to appear to be.

philologos wrote: »

If the Gospel was a lie it would have been disproven in the first century.

Special pleading bull crap here. We can not prove unfalsifiable negatives even today let alone retrospectively 1000s of years. If a claim is thrown out without any evidence at all then no one can disprove it. That is why you yourself refuse to ever evidence your god claims too.

Take for example Sathya Sai Baba who is only just dead. This is modern times and not the first century we are talking here. Yet millions of people believe he had magical powers and no one "disproved" it. No one has "proved" it either though.

And that is today not the first century where people were massively superstitious, did not have the scientific method at their disposal, and at the best of times could not even READ the text you are talking about let alone proceed to disprove it.

In fact it has been generally shown that when people WANT to believe nonsense... like you yourself do... then even disproving it does nothing at all. Take the story of Peter Poppoff the faith healer. James Randi decimated him. He proved he was a fake and a cheat. He intercepted the radio waves being used to feed Poppoff the information he was pretending to get from angels.

What happened? He disappeared a short time, then came back, and is now even more successful and rich than ever!

So as I said you are engaging in nonsense special pleading here. And you well know it, you just hope no one will point it out.

philologos wrote: »

Please actually read those two links in my signature.

What... like you actually read anything when people decimate your claims?

philologos

gbee wrote: »

TBH, it means throwing away all this stuff.

We know that huge corruption and wars have taken place to establish the limited selection of text, more go back Christ's time and are buried or burnt, more are discarded by the Holy Roman Catholic Church over the centuries, the invention of the passion of Christ and Magdalene being a prostitute being perhaps the most recent changes.

By the by I agree with you to a large degree. I don't believe any institution has authority over Jesus.

What I don't believe is the Chinese whispers hypothesis concerning the Bible. There's textual evidence to show that it wasn't written as fiction, that it is textually the most authentic text of ancient times and that the Gospel wasn't cobbled together it was preached before Paul's writing and conversion which leaves very little room that it was conjured together, particularly since the Christian church met together.

Denying this textual evidence in favour of personal preference isn't rational. Its not reasonable to conclude that the Gospel was cobbled together as a fictional tale when there is evidence to say that's not true.

What texts were burned? What reason do you have to say the crucifixion was invented despite there being loads of non-Christian sources to back that up? It seems that skeptics aren't actually interested in rational investigation into the Gospel but making up a load of objections with no tangible basis.

Edit: my arguments for demonstrating the authenticity of the New Testament can be seen in my 'Why trust the Bible' links.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

There's textual evidence to show that it wasn't written as fiction

Even if that was a fact... which I doubt because you seem to continuously claim it without actually laying out this "Textual Evidence" you speak of.... that does not make the contents of the book true. MANY people set out to write books and more that they think represents the facts but do not.

There have been books "not written as fiction" on every subject from homeopathy to alien abduction. One guy recently not only writes but managed to do an 11 hour lecture without notes on the subject of how our planet is actually being run by alien lizard over lords.

You have tried this "The Bible was not written as fiction therefore we must believe it" line of nonsense before and have sustained it with nothing but a head in the sand response to people pointing out repeatedly that merely the intention to write fact does not mean you actually will/have.

philologos wrote: »

when there is evidence to say that's not true.

Evidence you adamantly and consistently refuse to present. Ever. You appear to have an ongoing notion that claiming there is evidence IS evidence enough. It is not. Rather than continuously claim there is evidence perhaps you will actually deign to present some some day. Or at least not run away crying when arguments you present get entirely debunked.

bhamsteve

Mods, would it be possible to move all posts arguing about the validity of religion into a huge mega-thread that we can avoid?
Any mention of religion, church, faith etc. attract the same boring people with the same boring arguments which add nothing of interest to a thread when you're listening to it for the thousandth time.
yawn

nozzferrahhtoo

bhamsteve wrote: »

Mods, would it be possible to move all posts arguing about the validity of religion into a huge mega-thread that we can avoid?

Oddly I am able to avoid all the subjects that do not interest me by simply not opening threads on those subjects.

But why stop with religion? There are several topics that show up again and again and again that have no greater or lesser claim to a mega thread than religion.

Abortion, homosexuality, Drugs, The Dole, Issues between the north and south of Ireland and the UK, American politics, The Travelling community, Foreigners, the banks all seem to crop up just as often as anything to do with Religion.

housetypeb

philologos wrote: »

... that it is textually the most authentic text of ancient times ...

By the by,apparently you could be posting/preaching here now as a Hindu if you had read the Rigveda before you read the bible.
After all,it's textually the most authentic text of ancient time-and there's no proof it was written as fiction.

From Wikipedia.
The Rigveda of Hinduism is proposed to have been composed between 1700–1100 BCE making it possibly the world's oldest religious text still in use...

Canis Lupus

housetypeb wrote: »

By the by,apparently you could be posting/preaching here now as a Hindu if you had read the Rigveda before you read the bible.
After all,it's textually the most authentic text of ancient time-and there's no proof it was written as fiction.

From Wikipedia.
The Rigveda of Hinduism is proposed to have been composed between 1700–1100 BCE making it possibly the world's oldest religious text still in use...

Holy crap.... He's gonna have to convert now!!!

Ellis Dee

Probably the only time I ever agreed with anything the late unlamented Conor Cruise O'Brien said was when he described religion in Ireland as "not so much a way of life as a bad habit.";)

However, you shouldn't judge all those who are foolish enough to be churchgoers by the behaviour of one bad-mannered and probably pig-ignorant aul bitch, who may have all kinds of problems of her own. Some of them are, I suppose, quite capable of kind and courteous behaviour despite the fact that they believe in some or other book of bullsh1t stories like the Bible.:):)

UCDVet

This thread seems to imply that only Christians can be religious.

Certainly a very religious Muslin is not very Christian.

philologos

housetypeb wrote: »

By the by,apparently you could be posting/preaching here now as a Hindu if you had read the Rigveda before you read the bible.
After all,it's textually the most authentic text of ancient time-and there's no proof it was written as fiction.

From Wikipedia.
The Rigveda of Hinduism is proposed to have been composed between 1700–1100 BCE making it possibly the world's oldest religious text still in use...

I don't think you're misunderstanding what I mean by authentic. I'm not engaging in a fallacy that says the oldest thing is true. That's daft reasoning as is the reverse. What I'm saying is that with 20,000+ manuscripts of the New Testament it's easy to see that the accounts haven't been significantly changed since the first century. It's based on manuscript evidence. It'sthe same test that historians use with Aristotle and Plato. The New Testament far surpasses texts like these or texts that speak about the Romans. I.E there's less reason to trust these texts than the Gospels yet people do so, and prove themselves hypocritical.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

It's based on manuscript evidence. It'sthe same test that historians use with Aristotle and Plato. The New Testament far surpasses texts like these or texts that speak about the Romans. I.E there's less reason to trust these texts than the Gospels yet people do so, and prove themselves hypocritical.

Not at all hypocritical. There is a vast difference between what is being claimed and believed off the back of such text. In the former case you are just being asked to believe some guy wrote some stuff and has some philosophical ideas. Nothing major there and the claim that some guy wrote some ideas down is evidenced by the ideas being there written down. Not a huge evidence leap there.

In the latter case however you are not just being asked to believe that a guy existed who espoused some philosophical ideas... but that said guy is the human flesh off spring of a non human entity for which there is no corroborating evidence and that said human being performed without the aid of technology feats of physics and biology that are far beyond that of any human beings. Up to and including surviving being dead not 3 hours but 3 days.

Comparing the two sets of claims and acting like it is hypocritical to lend credence to one and not the the other really is stretching credulity beyond limits.... even compared to your usual standards of espousing unsubstantiated nonsense.

jackal

philologos wrote: »

You're right though He won't care about what church you go to, but He will ask if you surrendered your life in the here and now to honour Him. Did you repent and believe in the Gospel? You're either with Jesus and the Gospel or you're not.

A strange sort of fella this god guy. Creating the world and life for the sole purpose of worshipping and honouring him. Bit of a big headed egomaniac by the sounds of it. Would he be interested in a stint on Big Brother do you think?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

(the wrath of God).....You're either with Jesus and the Gospel or you're not. It's a bit more serious than choosing X or Y by mere preference.

Isn't it funny how the less substantiated a persons nonsense ideas are.... the more they tend towards issuing veiled threats to try and cajole you into belief. The tactic appears to be "If you have no evidence, scaremonger people into accepting your ideas instead".

9959

philologos wrote: »

I don't think you're misunderstanding what I mean by authentic. I'm not engaging in a fallacy that says the oldest thing is true. That's daft reasoning as is the reverse. What I'm saying is that with 20,000+ manuscripts of the New Testament it's easy to see that the accounts haven't been significantly changed since the first century. It's based on manuscript evidence. It'sthe same test that historians use with Aristotle and Plato. The New Testament far surpasses texts like these or texts that speak about the Romans. I.E there's less reason to trust these texts than the Gospels yet people do so, and prove themselves hypocritical.

Don't be daft.
You're really not talking about 'history' here, let's not be coy, you're talking about 'supernatural' power.
Not Aristotle and Plato, but Zeus and Typhon!

stanley 2

The Catholic church was founded for sinners so if you go to our church dont be susprised to find sinners on a very long road but they would be mutch worse if they werent there maybe by your good example and friend ship you can help them

ejmaztec

A screaming kid gets the evil eye from some old bat in church, and then the usual suspects come crawling out of the woodwork after their "religion" sensors are activated.:pac:

philologos

jackal wrote: »

A strange sort of fella this god guy. Creating the world and life for the sole purpose of worshipping and honouring him. Bit of a big headed egomaniac by the sounds of it. Would he be interested in a stint on Big Brother do you think?

In short for now. I'll have more time this evening. But if you actually consider what we have done in respect to God, and what God through His Son Jesus did for us it starts becoming very clear that accusations of God being an egomaniac ring absolutely hollow (1 Peter 3:18)

philologos

9959 wrote: »

Don't be daft.
You're really not talking about 'history' here, let's not be coy, you're talking about 'supernatural' power.
Not Aristotle and Plato, but Zeus and Typhon!

My point is simple we have far less reason to conclude that ancient historical works about Caesar, Plato or Aristotle are textually the same as when they first were written.

The argument I'm making is there's no evidence that the New Testament has been significantly changed since the first century.

Zebra3

philologos wrote: »

My point is simple we have far less reason to conclude that ancient historical works about Caesar, Plato or Aristotle are textually the same as when they first were written.

The argument I'm making is there's no evidence that the New Testament has been significantly changed since the first century.

I wouldn't dispute that, but no doubt it suffered from Purplemonkeydishwasher Syndrome between events happening and the stories being put to paper.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

if you actually consider what we have done in respect to God, and what God through His Son Jesus did for us it starts becoming very clear that accusations of God being an egomaniac ring absolutely hollow

Given the entity appears to be wholly imaginary it has not "done" anything for us at all. If you mean in terms of the fairy tale itself however I still do not see it as having "done" anything for us. As the story goes the entity in question created us and anything we did for it is exactly what it intended and vice versa.

In other words you are trying to laud praise on god because this god does more for us than we do for it. But said god created us limited so that we could never do as much for it as it for us. In other words the egomaniac god you are portraying is trying to generate praise and gratitude from slaves by ensuring the slaves are forever in a position of inferiority and supplication.

Ensuring you have all the cards and then demanding praise and worship because you hold all the cards is not a relationship of respect and gratitude. It is the relationship of the egomaniac power holder over slaves. If that is the god you worship so be it. I just remain glad that in many 1000s of posts you have not offered a single shred of even a modicum of evidence that suggests any of that nonsense is actually true.

9959

philologos wrote: »

My point is simple we have far less reason to conclude that ancient historical works about Caesar, Plato or Aristotle are textually the same as when they first were written.

The argument I'm making is there's no evidence that the New Testament has been significantly changed since the first century.

In short, just because it's written down, doesn't make it true.

To quote the late Christopher Hitchens:

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof"

If you have proof that Jesus rose from the dead, other than, 'because it says so in The Bible and in my wild imaginings', then please produce.