Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Hazards of Belief

19192949697334

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The woman said that her "biggest fear is to not have my children and husband next to me in God's Kingdom because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs."
    This is why I cannot understand people who say that the bible provides answers and peace of mind. All it does is cause confusion and make people worry about things which aren't even real things.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The UK now requires free schools to teach evolution as a "comprehensive and coherent scientific theory" on pain of losing funding.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20547195
    BBC wrote:
    Any attempt to present as fact the view that God made the world could lead to new free schools losing their funding under government changes.

    The new rules state that from 2013, all free schools in England must teach evolution as a "comprehensive and coherent scientific theory". The move follows scientists' concerns that free schools run by creationists might avoid teaching evolution.

    Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said it was "delighted". Sir Paul told BBC News the previous rules on free schools and the teaching of evolution versus creationism had been "not tight enough". He said that although the previous rules had confined creationism to religious education lessons, "the Royal Society identified a potential issue that schools could have avoided teaching evolution by natural selection in science lessons or dealt with it in a such a perfunctory way, that the main experience for students was the creationist myth".

    So far 79 free schools have opened in England with 118 more due to open in 2013 and beyond. They are funded directly by central government but unlike other state-funded schools are run by groups of parents, teachers, charities and religious groups and do not have to abide by the national curriculum.

    The new rules mean if a free school is found to be acting in breach of its funding agreement - for example, teaching creationism as a scientific fact or not teaching evolution - the Department for Education will take "swift action which could result in the termination of that funding agreement".

    The development of the theory of evolution is an excellent example of how science works and there is a clear consensus within the scientific community regarding both its validity and importance ”

    In a letter to the Royal Society, the Schools Minister, Lord Hill, said: "While we have always been clear that we expect to see evolution included in schools' science curricula, this new clause will provide more explicit reassurance that free schools will have to meet that expectation." Sir Paul Nurse said: "The new clause in the funding agreement should ensure that all pupils at free schools have the opportunity to learn about evolution as an extensively evidenced theory and one of the most fundamentally important tenets of modern biology.

    "The development of the theory of evolution is an excellent example of how science works and there is a clear consensus within the scientific community regarding both its validity and importance." A spokesman for the Department for Education said that the new clause would apply to the Grindon Hall Christian school in Sunderland and two others that this year became the focus of concerns about the teaching of creationism in free schools.

    Grindon Hall, which was independent, reopened as a free school in September. The two others approved by ministers are not due to open until 2013. In July the principal of Grindon Hall said that creationism would never be taught in science lessons.

    Rachel Wolf, director of the New Schools Network, which provides advice and support for groups who want to set up free schools, welcomed the funding agreement changes but said that the existing rules meant free schools already had to teach evolution in science lessons. "To my knowledge free schools have always had to teach evolution in science, but it is great that the government has reaffirmed its commitment to this," she said.

    Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, organisers of a Teach Evolution not Creationism campaign, said: "A requirement to teach evolution in free schools is an excellent additional safeguard against state-funded creationist schools and must be welcomed. "However, we continue to be concerned about the three free schools recently approved which are supportive of teaching creationism as science and which we must worry will continue to find ways to circumvent a ban in practice."

    Dr Berry Billingsley who leads a Reading University project on how secondary schools handle questions that bridge science and religion cautioned against an oversimplified debate. "Evolution is a fantastic theory and explains so much about how humans come to be here. It is backed up by evidence and supported by the vast majority of scientists in the biological sciences. Many of those scientists also believe that the Universe is here because of God.

    "The importance of studying evolution is indeed the first thing to be said but children also need opportunities somewhere in the timetable to explore the 'Big Questions', which our research shows they want to consider and it is often the science lesson that stirs up those questions."

    Paul Bate, of the European Educators Christian Association, agreed schools should teach a broad and balanced curriculum: "Science and religion need each other in this debate. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists of all time said, 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    The UK now requires free schools to teach evolution as a "comprehensive and coherent scientific theory" on pain of losing funding.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20547195
    Well now, I think evolution is more than just a theory at this stage.
    These guys will present creationism and evolution as two theories, and guess which one they will emphasise more.
    So far 79 free schools have opened in England with 118 more due to open in 2013 and beyond. They are funded directly by central government but unlike other state-funded schools are run by groups of parents, teachers, charities and religious groups and do not have to abide by the national curriculum
    That's a very big mistake, funding schools without requiring them to follow the national curriculum. Its an open invitation to all sorts of wackos. The Brits will regret this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I think it may have been hazardous to believe that I could handle that last triple whiskey after just one plate of nachos :( <falls over>


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    recedite wrote: »
    Well now, I think evolution is more than just a theory at this stage.
    These guys will present creationism and evolution as two theories, and guess which one they will emphasise more.
    The problem is in the misunderstanding of what a 'theory' is in science. Evolution is a theory in that it best fits the available evidence, but cannot be proven in that you can't see something evolving. Creationism is a hypothesis.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    recedite wrote: »
    Well now, I think evolution is more than just a theory at this stage.

    I know what you mean, but in scientific terms you really can't get much 'better' than a theory. Science education should really nail home the point of what a theory actually is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    Beruthiel wrote: »

    I believe you have to be a special kind of idiot to think you are still a catholic if you do not believe it god.
    These kind of people have never engaged that particular part of the brain which houses logic and critical thinking.
    Or apparently the part that houses religious thinking.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The parents of an 11-year old girl who died as they prayed over her are appealing their conviction for reckless homicide. They had diagnosed a "spiritual attack" rather than diabetes:

    http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/wi/lawyers-ask-wis-court-to-rule-in-prayer-death/article_e8371dee-b457-532d-9732-6d976a89166b.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭JuliusCaesar


    FouxDaFaFa wrote: »
    It's incredible really that the RCC has so many female followers propping the church up when it so openly treats them as if they're second-class.

    Also about the Mary McAleese thing, it is mind-boggling that that Archbishop got away with effectively scolding a sitting President like a child in front of a group of people. He must be out of his mind.

    a friend directed me to this site:
    Allowing "women priests" would not be fitting and would confuse the proper God-given role of the sexes. The priesthood is a fatherly role, not a motherly role. When people want to go to their father, they do not want to go to a woman!

    "Women priests" may not be taken seriously by the congregation.

    Allowing "women priests" may be distracting/offensive to men (and women).

    Allowing "women priests" would put women over men (which is contrary to Scripture, as indicated above).

    Men in a congregation might "hit on" female "priests".

    Since men don't like to be commanded by women, they might leave the parish, possibly leading to an "all female" parish.

    Women in a congregation led by a "woman priest" may be distracted by her hair, dress, appearance, etc. They may also become jealous if they see her talking with their husbands.

    A female "priest" could become pregnant. Not only would this offend God and cause scandal, but what would become of the child?

    Allowing "women priests" would be irreparably scandalous, since it would tell the world that the scriptural precepts, constant tradition, and rulings of the Church mean nothing. (Not to mention that it would be impossible for the Church to go against teachings marked with infallibility.)

    Furthermore, on a practical level, many things about a woman's nature may be problematic with regard to priestly ministry. For example:
    Women generally have less powerful, less commanding voices than men (so necessary for preaching hard truths).

    Women tend to be more emotional than men.

    Women may not have as much physical stamina as men and may handle physically taxing duties less graciously.

    Women may tend to be "too compassionate" regarding sins - leading to the loss of souls!

    Women may be moodier due to feminine hormonal changes which tend to affect behavior.

    Women may be far more likely to allow emotions to get in the way of reason/logic.

    Women may be more gossipy / talkative, and may be more prone to discuss the secrets of the confessional.

    Women may be more concerned about appearance (both hers and yours).

    Women may be more influenced by flattery.

    Women may be weaker, making her safety an issue. She may often be alone with men who are stronger than she is.

    None of the above are or have ever been issues with male priests. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    I was sure that was a joke. But it's not.
    Also, this gem of a conclusion.
    Finally, although women do not belong in the sanctuary, it may still be said that women do "make the best priests" - that is, they make all the men that will be priests!
    *vomits everywhere*


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Aaaarrghhh!! But you missed one of the scariest reasons:

    "Allowing "women priests" may entice men to lust, as St. Thomas Aquinas indicates: ..........lest men's minds be enticed to lust, for it is written (Ecclesiasticus 9:8): 'Her conversation burneth as fire."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    Obliq wrote: »
    Aaaarrghhh!! But you missed one of the scariest reasons:

    "Allowing "women priests" may entice men to lust."

    At last, a church I can get on board with.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Obliq wrote: »
    Aaaarrghhh!! But you missed one of the scariest reasons:

    "Allowing "women priests" may entice men to lust, as St. Thomas Aquinas indicates: ..........lest men's minds be enticed to lust, for it is written (Ecclesiasticus 9:8): 'Her conversation burneth as fire."

    Then the solution is women priests have to wear burkas.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Then the solution is women priests have to wear burkas.

    That won't keep her from the ol' conversation which burneth like fire though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭wp_rathead


    A female "priest" could become pregnant. Not only would this offend God and cause scandal, but what would become of the child?

    ....Abortion? :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    Women should make known their lustful thoughts about male priests and then the church will have no choice but to ban male and female priests and introduce robot priests.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,625 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Would go nicely with the robot congregation!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    FouxDaFaFa wrote: »
    Women should make known their lustful thoughts about male priests and then the church will have no choice but to ban male and female priests and introduce robot priests.

    OOooo, yes - all that repression to play with :D


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Dades wrote: »
    Would go nicely with the robot congregation!
    Robot congregation? Wha da?

    Last time I was in a CC outlet, the whole lot looked pretty robotic to me, but I'm sure they were all fully human.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mother convicted of murdering her own son for failing to memorize bits of the koran:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20596854
    BBC wrote:
    A mother who beat her seven-year-old son "like a dog" when he failed to memorise passages of the Koran has been found guilty of his murder.

    Sara Ege, 33, beat Yaseen Ege to death at their home in Pontcanna, Cardiff, in July 2010 and set fire to his body. She was also found guilty of perverting the course of justice at Cardiff Crown Court. Sentence was adjourned. The boy's father, Yousuf Ege, 38, was acquitted of causing Yaseen's death by failing to protect him.

    Yaseen Ege was beaten to death by his mother, who then set fire to his body It was initially thought Yaseen had died in the blaze at the family home but tests later revealed he had died hours earlier. His mother had pleaded not guilty to his murder and claimed her husband was responsible for Yaseen's death. She said she feared her husband would kill her and target her family unless she confessed to the murder.

    That confession - made to police days after the death of her son - was captured on video and played to the jury during the five week trial. During the hour-long harrowing footage, university graduate Ege described how the young boy collapsed after she had beaten him while still murmuring extracts of the Koran. "He was breathing as if he was asleep when I left him," she said. "He was still murmuring the same thing over and over again. I thought that he was just tired." When she returned 10 minutes later she found her son shaking and shivering on the floor. He then died.

    Within moments she said she decided to burn his body and ran downstairs to get a lighter and a bottle of barbecue gel. In police interviews she also confessed to beating her son for no reason and that her anger often led to her being out of control. She and her taxi driver husband had enrolled Yaseen in advanced classes at their local mosque as they wanted him to become Hafiz - an Islamic term for someone who memorises the Koran.

    The court heard Ege become more and more frustrated with her son's inability to learn the passages he needed to. She told officers: "I was getting all this bad stuff in my head, like I couldn't concentrate, I was getting angry too much, I would shout at Yaseen all the time. "I was getting very wild and I hit Yaseen with a stick on his back like a dog." The prosecution said that Yaseen suffered significant abdominal injuries that were the cause of his death. They included fractures which were non-accidental.

    "Sara Ege made no attempt to seek the medical attention he so obviously needed," prosecutor Ian Murphy said. "He clearly suffered terribly. She started the fire to hide what she had done." However, Ege insisted that both she and Yaseen had been beaten by her husband, adding he had been violent throughout their marriage. She told the jury that she did not take the boy to the doctor because she feared for her safety and that social services would take her son away.

    Her mother Nafees Ahmed also gave evidence to say that Ege was a good mother who looked after him well. Ege was found guilty of murder and perverting the course of justice by burning Yaseen's body. Her husband was cleared of causing or allowing the death of a child by failing to protect him. The jury returned unanimous verdicts after eight hours of deliberation.

    As the verdict was read out Ege broke down in the dock, holding her head in her hands and crying. Judge Mr Justice Wyn Williams told her she faces a term of life imprisonment. Her husband showed no emotion as he walked free from court. Mr Justice Wyn Williams told the court he would determine a minimum sentence for Ege in the New Year after a medical report had been completed.

    Speaking after the verdicts, Deborah Rogers, district crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service, said the "deeply tragic nature" of the case had been "all too apparent". "We should not forget that at the heart of the case is the loss of a bright and friendly young boy who had his whole life ahead of him," she added.

    "It is therefore right that the circumstances of Yaseen's death were fully examined in a criminal court."


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    robindch wrote: »
    Robot congregation? Wha da?

    Last time I was in a CC outlet, the whole lot looked pretty robotic to me, but I'm sure they were all fully human.

    That's what they said about her :eek:
    Battlestar-Cylons-TriciaHelfer12.JPG


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Another seven-year old is beaten to death for failing to read a holy text in the approved manner and not doing homework. This child lived in Las Vegas and his christian mother and stepfather are being charged today with murder, child abuse and neglect.

    http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/dec/03/mother-stepfather-arrested-beating-death-7-year-ol/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    That's pretty horrific.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    robindch wrote: »
    Another seven-year old is beaten to death for failing to read a holy text in the approved manner and not doing homework. This child lived in Las Vegas and his christian mother and stepfather are being charged today with murder, child abuse and neglect.

    http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/dec/03/mother-stepfather-arrested-beating-death-7-year-ol/

    To protect the born we should ban religion.


  • Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Kate Echoing Tether


    Jesus christ that's horrible the poor child
    how can anyone do that to their own child, it's horrific


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    A friend is thinking of starting his own "conservative thinktank/lobby group" because there's clearly money in it. We've been thrashing out a series of things to push for. So far it'll lobby to bring back slates&chalk to the school room, remove the metric system in favour of a more biblical system, like cubits, and remove the vote from anyone who is not a male bishop that died before Vatican II. That'll show them liberal feminazi godless pagan atheist heathens.

    Edit: Whoops, was meant for the Iona Institute thread. Can't brain today, I have the dumb.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Jesus christ that's horrible the poor child
    how can anyone do that to their own child, it's horrific
    And people wonder why some atheists are passionately anti-religion?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    The poor child was only with them for 3 months before they killed him. The mother called her pastor before she called an ambulance. Says a lot really.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    http://news.discovery.com/human/psychic-sued-for-police-hoax-about-massacre-20121205.html

    Psychic sued for hoax

    what a charming person, wasting so much resources and terrorizing the owners of the farm. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Links234 wrote: »
    http://news.discovery.com/human/psychic-sued-for-police-hoax-about-massacre-20121205.html

    Psychic sued for hoax

    what a charming person, wasting so much resources and terrorizing the owners of the farm. :rolleyes:

    Sadly I think this one can be filed in the "believes they really are psychic" category rather than the "con-artist" one. Otherwise she wouldn't be making such specific claims.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement