Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

silverharp · 02-03-2015 12:57PM

Nick Park wrote: »

And yet your characterisation of Matthew having mistranslated Isaiah is one that gets regularly cut and pasted into this forum from biased ant-Christian apologetical sites.

The scholarly consensus is that the Isaiah text was translated into Greek, 2000 years ago, as 'parthenos' - a virgin. That translation was not by a Christian, it was by the Jewish scholars (who incidentally understood both Hebrew and Greek very well, better than you or me) who produced the Septuagint. That was not a mistranslation - it was a perfectly valid translation from Hebrew to Greek.

Therefore, to accuse Matthew of a 'mistranslation' flies in the face of scholarly consensus. Now, you can certainly argue that there were alternative translations - and there is a scholarly consensus to support such an argument. But the accusation of 'mistranslation' is not scholarly consensus - it is biased apologetics.

See it from my point of view. I accept Jesus was a real person but clearly not a god as there is no historical evidence that he was anything more than a trouble making figure from the authorities point of view. So he grew up a normal kid with no interesting birth story. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that he spoke about this alleged birth story , st Paul didn't hear of it , and the first gospel mark doesn't mention it either. Then the Matthew gospel is written later using the mark gospel as its main source. But now we have a writer that is biased into making his gospel relevant to the Jews. So I see a writer that is pouring through the Jewish books to look for prophecies to add into his gospel. Hence the example of Jesus riding 2 donkeys at the same time comes across as an author adding in a detail that never happened because he misunderstood the meaning of the Jewish text. A normal reading of the isiah passage is not discussing a future messiash hundreds of years in the future.
So I see a biased writer in the Matthew account.

Nick Park · 02-03-2015 01:08PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes, the sin of pride. My point is it's easy to fall into the no true Scotsman fallacie. Just because we find something abhorrent don't mean it's not Christian in the sense of being part of Christian laws or practice.

I think there's a problem here with the definition of 'Christian'. The word is defined in a multitude of ways, so we have Richard Dawkins describing himself as a Christian (in a cultural sense, of course).

I think it is reasonable, however, to say that something is 'not Christian' in the sense that it is inconsistent with the revelation of God we have been given in Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Himself would find it abhorrent.

RikuoAmero · 02-03-2015 01:13PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I think there's a problem here with the definition of 'Christian'. The word is defined in a multitude of ways, so we have Richard Dawkins describing himself as a Christian (in a cultural sense, of course).

I think it is reasonable, however, to say that something is 'not Christian' in the sense that it is inconsistent with the revelation of God we have been given in Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Himself would find it abhorrent.

How about, for the purposes of this thread, we take this simple definition
Christian = Person who believes the figure known as Jesus Christ was divine (in one way or another) and who taught and preached certain things, and whose teachings ought to be followed.
I don't see a problem with that definition, since we don't as of yet say what the things he teaches are. That can come later.

ScumLord · 02-03-2015 01:33PM

J C wrote: »

How does a secular education system encourage respect for religious diversity by banning all religious expression from its premises?

Religion shouldn't be banned from school but the school shouldn't promote any religious ideals. We should teach the history of religion though.

We can't really teach the likes of creationism in schools though, as we've seen by your posts it's based on misinformation, and medieval Catholic propaganda. The only reason it's around at all is because people want to believe it. If civilization went back to the stone age and people had to relearn everything there would be nothing in the world that would logically lead to the revival of Creationism. Science would more than likely be revived and end up being pretty much exactly like it is now.

katydid · 02-03-2015 02:15PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well no. It's not Islam condemning ISIS, it's Muslims, Muslims who read the same books as ISIS and implement their instructions differently. Islam like Christianity is whatever you want it to be.
Don't count child abuse as that was condemned by the RCC, just badly handled. The Magdalene laundry however were born of Christian values, run by religious and with the blessing of the RCC.
Not in the same ballpark of horror as ISIS, I'll grant you but still an abhorrent example of Christianity in action.

The original idea of the Magdalene laundries was a good one; to "rescue" women rejected by society and to offer them a place of shelter. It was abused by people who had forgotten the original purpose and saw it as a place of punishment. It is very likely that many of the nuns who ran it were bitter at having been psychologically pressured into become nuns, and were jealous of these women.

marienbad · 02-03-2015 02:33PM

katydid wrote: »

The original idea of the Magdalene laundries was a good one; to "rescue" women rejected by society and to offer them a place of shelter. It was abused by people who had forgotten the original purpose and saw it as a place of punishment. It is very likely that many of the nuns who ran it were bitter at having been psychologically pressured into become nuns, and were jealous of these women.

No matter what the original motives there was always the element of the fallen women and atonement , much like the notion of 'the deserving and undeserving poor ' that prevailed in this country right up into the 60's and 70's. So there was always the element of punishment , certainly in the RCC ones where the obsession with sex in general and female sexuality in particular was always a factor.

Do you have any sources outlining your psychological diagnosis of these nuns ?

As for being jealous of these women , if you knew anything about these institutions you would realize that that is simply ridiculous.

tommy2bad · 02-03-2015 04:10PM

marienbad wrote: »

No matter what the original motives there was always the element of the fallen women and atonement , much like the notion of 'the deserving and undeserving poor ' that prevailed in this country right up into the 60's and 70's. So there was always the element of punishment , certainly in the RCC ones where the obsession with sex in general and female sexuality in particular was always a factor.

Do you have any sources outlining your psychological diagnosis of these nuns ?

As for being jealous of these women , if you knew anything about these institutions you would realize that that is simply ridiculous.

Absolutely, calling them Magdalene is as clear an indication of the perception of the women they were helping. I don't deny that help was the original motivation or that the nuns thought they were doing gods work. The problem was the morality they worked from, that morality was the prevailing Christian morality of the time.
While it might not reflect JeJesus's morals that dosn't give Christianity a get out of jail card. Christians supported by their church and using quotations from their holy books did things that were wrong. Christianity did wrong.

Nick Park · 02-03-2015 06:03PM

marienbad wrote: »

Do you have any sources outlining your psychological diagnosis of these nuns ?

As for being jealous of these women , if you knew anything about these institutions you would realize that that is simply ridiculous.

I don't think it is a ridiculous notion at all.

It is quite common, where people perceive religion as primarily being about 'keeping the rules', for them to secretly feel jealous of those who break the rules and appear to enjoy themselves in the process. Often such jealousy is intertwined with a longing for the rule-breakers to be punished (which for some perverse reason makes the rule-keepers feel justified in their choices).

Of course the jealousy was not directed towards the horrible conditions of the institutions, but towards the girls who, even if was only for a brief period, had experienced something that was forever denied to the nuns themselves (including, on occasion 'being in love' and motherhood).

Rule-based religion is destructive enough on its own. In Ireland it was combined with a broken societal model where men and women were often pushed by their families into a life of celibacy and joyless loneliness.

marienbad · 02-03-2015 07:02PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think it is a ridiculous notion at all.

It is quite common, where people perceive religion as primarily being about 'keeping the rules', for them to secretly feel jealous of those who break the rules and appear to enjoy themselves in the process. Often such jealousy is intertwined with a longing for the rule-breakers to be punished (which for some perverse reason makes the rule-keepers feel justified in their choices).

Of course the jealousy was not directed towards the horrible conditions of the institutions, but towards the girls who, even if was only for a brief period, had experienced something that was forever denied to the nuns themselves (including, on occasion 'being in love' and motherhood).

Rule-based religion is destructive enough on its own. In Ireland it was combined with a broken societal model where men and women were often pushed by their families into a life of celibacy and joyless loneliness.

If you knew anything about the laundries and the girls that were incarcerated there you would realize how bizarre this thought process is.

katydid · 02-03-2015 07:03PM

marienbad wrote: »

No matter what the original motives there was always the element of the fallen women and atonement , much like the notion of 'the deserving and undeserving poor ' that prevailed in this country right up into the 60's and 70's. So there was always the element of punishment , certainly in the RCC ones where the obsession with sex in general and female sexuality in particular was always a factor.

Do you have any sources outlining your psychological diagnosis of these nuns ?

As for being jealous of these women , if you knew anything about these institutions you would realize that that is simply ridiculous.

Yes, there was the idea of atonement, but it was how that atonement was interpreted that was the issue. Atonement does not necessarily equate with suffering and punishment, but can involve making right a wrong one has done.

No sources at all; it's not a psychological diagnosis, just a remark based on common sense. Many women were pressurised into religious life, and it was bound to be the case that some resented it, and some of those took their resentment out on women who had experienced what they would never experience. They saw women who had been out in the world, enjoying life in a way they could only dream of.

So please explain why, in your opinion, those nuns would have had nothing to be jealous about?

Gunney · 02-03-2015 07:07PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

How about, for the purposes of this thread, we take this simple definition
Christian = Person who believes the figure known as Jesus Christ was divine (in one way or another) and who taught and preached certain things, and whose teachings ought to be followed.
I don't see a problem with that definition, since we don't as of yet say what the things he teaches are. That can come later.

Not a valid definition because authentic Christians, people who actually follow Christ and His teachings faithfully, not those who claim to follow Christ for reasons of fashion or otherwise, believe He is Divine.

marienbad · 02-03-2015 07:34PM

katydid wrote: »

Yes, there was the idea of atonement, but it was how that atonement was interpreted that was the issue. Atonement does not necessarily equate with suffering and punishment, but can involve making right a wrong one has done.

No sources at all; it's not a psychological diagnosis, just a remark based on common sense. Many women were pressurised into religious life, and it was bound to be the case that some resented it, and some of those took their resentment out on women who had experienced what they would never experience. They saw women who had been out in the world, enjoying life in a way they could only dream of.

So please explain why, in your opinion, those nuns would have had nothing to be jealous about?

If you really knew conditions in a Magdalene Laundry you would understand just how bizarre your proposition is . Huge numbers of 'women' or young girls,to be more accurate, were incarcerated for life for simply being orphans ,born out of wedlock (as the phrase went) or in many cases judged as too good looking . In many cases for life . Nothing common-sense about it at all.

Gunney · 02-03-2015 07:40PM

marienbad wrote: »

If you really knew conditions in a Magdalene Laundry you would understand just how bizarre your proposition is . Huge numbers of 'women' or young girls,to be more accurate, were incarcerated for life for simply being orphans ,born out of wedlock (as the phrase went) or in many cases judged as too good looking . In many cases for life . Nothing common-sense about it at all.

Do you get all your history from the movies?

You should read this http://www.irishtimes.com/news/are-factual-inaccuracies-in-movies-justified-by-role-in-highlighting-issues-1.1250910

A striking feature of the McAleese report is the number of women who spoke positively about the nuns, and strongly rejected allegations of physical abuse. Against this, the vast majority reported psychological abuse. One woman said she was sexually abused during her time in a laundry by a fellow “Magdalene” who had been in the institution for some time.

or this http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100202781/catholic-bashers-have-embellished-the-truth-about-abuse-in-catholic-institutions-its-time-to-put-the-record-straight/

The publication last week of the Irish government's McAleese Report on the Magdalene laundries has proved kind of awkward for Catholic-bashers. For if McAleese's thorough, 1,000-page study is to be believed, then it would appear that those laundries were not as evil and foul as they had been depicted over the past decade. Specifically the image of the laundries promoted by the popular, much-lauded film The Magdalene Sisters – which showed them as places where women were stripped, slapped, sexually abused and more – has been called into question by McAleese. This has led even The Irish Times, which never turns down an opportunity to wring its hands over Catholic wickedness, to say: "There is no escaping the fact that the [McAleese] report jars with popular perceptions."

This isn't the first time that observers or artists have massively embellished the alleged evilness of the modern Catholic Church. In September 2010, The Independent casually reported that in America "over 10,000 children have come forward to say they were raped [by Catholic priests]". This wasn't true. For the period 1950 to 2002, 10,667 Americans have made allegations of sexual abuse against priests but the majority do not concern rape – they include other foul things, from verbal abuse through to fondling. When the Irish government published its Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in 2009, newspaper headlines declared "Thousands were raped in Irish reform schools" or "Thousands raped in Ireland's Christian Brothers schools". But actually, the commission heard allegations of 68 rapes, not thousands. That is a horrific number as it is; why embellish it?

Catholic-bashers frequently accuse the Catholic religion of promoting a childish narrative of good and evil that is immune to factual evidence. Yet they do precisely the same, in the service of their fashionable and irrational new religion of anti-Catholicism.

katydid · 02-03-2015 08:00PM

marienbad wrote: »

If you knew anything about the laundries and the girls that were incarcerated there you would realize how bizarre this thought process is.

Can you elaborate, since you clearly know so much?

RikuoAmero · 02-03-2015 08:01PM

Gunney wrote: »

Do you get all your history from the movies?

You should read this http://www.irishtimes.com/news/are-factual-inaccuracies-in-movies-justified-by-role-in-highlighting-issues-1.1250910

A striking feature of the McAleese report is the number of women who spoke positively about the nuns, and strongly rejected allegations of physical abuse. Against this, the vast majority reported psychological abuse. One woman said she was sexually abused during her time in a laundry by a fellow “Magdalene” who had been in the institution for some time.

or this http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100202781/catholic-bashers-have-embellished-the-truth-about-abuse-in-catholic-institutions-its-time-to-put-the-record-straight/

The publication last week of the Irish government's McAleese Report on the Magdalene laundries has proved kind of awkward for Catholic-bashers. For if McAleese's thorough, 1,000-page study is to be believed, then it would appear that those laundries were not as evil and foul as they had been depicted over the past decade. Specifically the image of the laundries promoted by the popular, much-lauded film The Magdalene Sisters – which showed them as places where women were stripped, slapped, sexually abused and more – has been called into question by McAleese. This has led even The Irish Times, which never turns down an opportunity to wring its hands over Catholic wickedness, to say: "There is no escaping the fact that the [McAleese] report jars with popular perceptions."

This isn't the first time that observers or artists have massively embellished the alleged evilness of the modern Catholic Church. In September 2010, The Independent casually reported that in America "over 10,000 children have come forward to say they were raped [by Catholic priests]". This wasn't true. For the period 1950 to 2002, 10,667 Americans have made allegations of sexual abuse against priests but the majority do not concern rape – they include other foul things, from verbal abuse through to fondling. When the Irish government published its Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in 2009, newspaper headlines declared "Thousands were raped in Irish reform schools" or "Thousands raped in Ireland's Christian Brothers schools". But actually, the commission heard allegations of 68 rapes, not thousands. That is a horrific number as it is; why embellish it?

Catholic-bashers frequently accuse the Catholic religion of promoting a childish narrative of good and evil that is immune to factual evidence. Yet they do precisely the same, in the service of their fashionable and irrational new religion of anti-Catholicism.

I see your comment and raise you this...
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/mcaleese-report-leaves-questions-unanswered-259188.html

Similarly, chapter 12 contains 150 paragraphs of evidence about the working conditions experienced in these institutions from the government, the religious orders, retired inspectors, and, in one case, the manager of a laundry. A single paragraph (paragraph 152) makes reference to a recollection from one of the women themselves.

It is unfortunate that the report’s authors chose not to include anything more of the women’s evidence when they had 800 pages of survivor testimony which they simply left out.

For the McAleese committee, evidence from women is always just “stories”.

It described the first-hand evidence of the women who had been in the Magdalene institutions as merely “input to the process”.

They also showed no sign of attempting to reconcile conflicting evidence from the religious orders and the State.

This all leads to the final two chapters of the report. Chapter 19, nearly 1,000 pages in, says it intends to address the living and working conditions of the women who lived in the laundries.

However, right from the chapter’s introduction, the report’s authors refuse to say that what the women say is true — “The committee did not make specific findings in relation to this issue” — and drew on only a fraction of the evidence available to them, while giving the State and religious officials space to contradict and excuse the women’s account of their treatment.

marienbad · 02-03-2015 08:12PM

katydid wrote: »

Can you elaborate, since you clearly know so much?

No , you made the claim that the nuns were envious of the inmates , about as bizarre as claiming the jailers are envious of the convicts.

If you are going to make statements such at that the least you can do is educate yourself.

katydid · 02-03-2015 08:20PM

marienbad wrote: »

No , you made the claim that the nuns were envious of the inmates , about as bizarre as claiming the jailers are envious of the convicts.

If you are going to make statements such at that the least you can do is educate yourself.

Yes, I made the claim that in some cases the nuns were envious of the women. I explained why. I consider it a reasonable explanation, and you haven't said anything to counter it.

You claim to be very knowledgeable on the matter, so educate me as to why I'm wrong.

marienbad · 02-03-2015 08:21PM

Gunney wrote: »

Do you get all your history from the movies?

You should read this http://www.irishtimes.com/news/are-factual-inaccuracies-in-movies-justified-by-role-in-highlighting-issues-1.1250910

A striking feature of the McAleese report is the number of women who spoke positively about the nuns, and strongly rejected allegations of physical abuse. Against this, the vast majority reported psychological abuse. One woman said she was sexually abused during her time in a laundry by a fellow “Magdalene” who had been in the institution for some time.

or this http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100202781/catholic-bashers-have-embellished-the-truth-about-abuse-in-catholic-institutions-its-time-to-put-the-record-straight/

The publication last week of the Irish government's McAleese Report on the Magdalene laundries has proved kind of awkward for Catholic-bashers. For if McAleese's thorough, 1,000-page study is to be believed, then it would appear that those laundries were not as evil and foul as they had been depicted over the past decade. Specifically the image of the laundries promoted by the popular, much-lauded film The Magdalene Sisters – which showed them as places where women were stripped, slapped, sexually abused and more – has been called into question by McAleese. This has led even The Irish Times, which never turns down an opportunity to wring its hands over Catholic wickedness, to say: "There is no escaping the fact that the [McAleese] report jars with popular perceptions."

This isn't the first time that observers or artists have massively embellished the alleged evilness of the modern Catholic Church. In September 2010, The Independent casually reported that in America "over 10,000 children have come forward to say they were raped [by Catholic priests]". This wasn't true. For the period 1950 to 2002, 10,667 Americans have made allegations of sexual abuse against priests but the majority do not concern rape – they include other foul things, from verbal abuse through to fondling. When the Irish government published its Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in 2009, newspaper headlines declared "Thousands were raped in Irish reform schools" or "Thousands raped in Ireland's Christian Brothers schools". But actually, the commission heard allegations of 68 rapes, not thousands. That is a horrific number as it is; why embellish it?

Catholic-bashers frequently accuse the Catholic religion of promoting a childish narrative of good and evil that is immune to factual evidence. Yet they do precisely the same, in the service of their fashionable and irrational new religion of anti-Catholicism.

Do you get all your history in articles debunking the history shown in the movies ?

All you are saying is that it is not as bad as some have made it out to be . So what ? It was bad enough , there are enough first hand accounts available at this stage to make your own judgement.

Gunney · 02-03-2015 08:23PM

marienbad wrote: »

Do you get all your history in articles debunking the history shown in the movies ?

All you are saying is that it is not as bad as some have made it out to be . So what ? It was bad enough , there are enough first hand accounts available at this stage to make your own judgement.

Not me - Seanator McAleese

RikuoAmero · 02-03-2015 08:27PM

Gunney wrote: »

Not me - Seanator McAleese

Found this as well
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29307705

PopePalpatine · 02-03-2015 08:27PM

Gunney wrote: »

Not me - Seanator McAleese

As you can see from Rikuo's post, his report was a whitewash.

I also find it quite hard to believe that there were only 68 allegations of rapes, I'd imagine a much larger number are still too scared to speak out.

PopePalpatine · 02-03-2015 08:28PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Found this as well
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29307705

Sure that's the BBC with their LIBRUL PROD AGENDA!

marienbad · 02-03-2015 08:28PM

Gunney wrote: »

Not me - Seanator McAleese

Not a relevant answer . I am not attacking the RCC no matter how much you try to say I am . All you are saying is it was not as bad as some said it was . Again I ask so what ? It was bad enough ,or do you deny that ?

Gunney · 02-03-2015 08:29PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Found this as well
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29307705

I guess what you have proven is that there is no balance to this story and no one really knows the truth.

PopePalpatine · 02-03-2015 08:32PM

Gunney wrote: »

I guess what you have proven is that there is no balance to this story and no one really knows the truth.

Oh dear, shall we get Sister Hannah Landa, aka "The Whore Hunter" for balance?

RikuoAmero · 02-03-2015 08:32PM

Gunney wrote: »

I guess what you have proven is that there is no balance to this story and no one really knows the truth.

Thank you. That's a good start.

Father Ted Crilly · 02-03-2015 08:32PM

What is a thread like this going to prove? Atheists have no evidence to support their claims about God not existing. Us religious people have evidence that suggests there is a God.

What boggles my mind is why Atheists are so sure there is no God. Why do they have these reasons?

Until we can figure out how we got here, let's not argue about the existence of a greater being.

RikuoAmero · 02-03-2015 08:33PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

As you can see from Rikuo's post, his report was a whitewash.

I also find it quite hard to believe that there were only 68 allegations of rapes, I'd imagine a much larger number are still too scared to speak out.

That number could technically be true - it could be that only 68 people came forward to speak out about being raped, and that as you say, the rest didn't.

RikuoAmero · 02-03-2015 08:33PM

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

What is a thread like this going to prove? Atheists have no evidence to support their claims about God not existing. Us religious people have evidence that suggests there is a God.

What boggles my mind is why Atheists are so sure there is no God. Why do they have these reasons?

Until we can figure out how we got here, let's not argue about the existence of a greater being.

So let's hear your evidence then. I've got nothing else to do for the evening.

PopePalpatine · 02-03-2015 08:35PM

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

What is a thread like this going to prove? Atheists have no evidence to support their claims about God not existing. Us religious people have evidence that suggests there is a God.

What boggles my mind is why Atheists are so sure there is no God. Why do they have these reasons?

Until we can figure out how we got here, let's not argue about the existence of a greater being.

Firstly, you can't prove a negative. Also, you're thinking of nontheists. Atheists just don't believe any gods exist, as the vast majority of us haven't found any compelling evidence for them - just as any competent juror wouldn't believe someone is guilty without sufficient evidence.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments