Too much trash talk against Christianity

Benny_Cake · 31-03-2016 07:34PM

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I've been in a position where experiencing a life threatening emergency, the lady at admissions stalled me from getting treatment, because she wouldn't accept 'no religion' as my religion. I wouldn't let her bully me, but that's what she was doing.....it's time for payback. I'm ticking no religion on the census. And before I'm dead, I hope to see some name changes on institutions. St. James to James Connolly, the Mater to Karl Marx Hospital.

I've quite a bit of time for old Marx, but naming a hospital after him doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in an Irish context. The Mater is at least reflective of the people who developed the hospital on the first place. Revenge isn't much of a reason.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I don't know why anyone in this day and age is comfortable letting a parish priest in proximity to primary school children. I mean you might have a belief that's okay, because of your religion, but do you have to put the children of others at such risk.

Schools and other institutions are required to have detailed child protection plans in place. My place of worship on a Sunday doesn't have either children or priests, but we still have a child protection officer (an easy gig in the circumstances). At this point, I don't see how children are at any greater risk from a priest than anyone else - probably less, given the sensitivity of priests towards avoiding any situation that could possibly be seen as incriminating. You may have no time for the Catholic church but that doesn't justify slandering an entire category of men solely based on their occupation.

One eyed Jack · 31-03-2016 07:56PM

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Yeah, well you're sick of it. How sick do you think the rest of us are over your sense of entitlement.

I think the OP was more an expression of bewilderment than entitlement.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Oh yeah. Christian ethos, makes it sound like if the children weren't indoctrinated with ethics, they'd be out murdering robbing and stealing.

Well, it's quite likely they would be if children were not indoctrinated with a system of ethics, morals and values. Are you familiar with the book "Lord of the Flies"? That didn't end well for the children.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

What are these ethics? Priests are fantastic people because they're closer to God for being so holy. God and the priests can see exactly what you're doing at all times. Perpetual virginity is the only desirable state for women, and I know you're only children now, but all the subtle poison in relation to sexuality is going to really screw you up when you're grown. But don't worry, you'll be "normal", because what we say is normal is "normal". And so many of you will be paranoid social and sexual misfits, you'll all fit in together.

You know, if you're claiming that religion turns people into paranoid social and sexual misfits, it's probably best to demonstrate that without your argument descending to levels that would make a paranoid sexual misfit appear positively reasonable by comparison.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

We're just asking people to tell the truth. If you don't go to mass every Sunday, you're not a Catholic. You could be an admirer of Jesus all you like, but if you don't follow the rules, you're not really in the club.

Spoken like a true ambo occupier. Is there anything else you'd like to tell people they are while you're up there on that pedestal? Who exactly are you to determine anyone else's personal relationship with either Jesus or God for that matter, or how they choose to identify themselves? You're really not all that different then from the preachy sort you claim to despise.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Be the Jaysus. I don't want a religious funeral. That would be the final insult. Having a pedophile con artist saying some hokey and getting paid as they lower me in. Over me dead body, they will.

Whatever about the priest being a pedophile con artist (highly unlikely), the fact that he would be saying some hokey over your dead body is a distinct possibility, given that's the way you suggest yourself it would happen. I'd imagine they may wait till after the ceremony to be paid, seems a bit crass to be talking about money while you're being lowered into the ground.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

You're not forced to dance naked round a May pole for the witches sabbaths, though you force the witches not to have a pint on festival of Ester. Jaysus, talk aboush entitled. I'm fine with the good Friday drinking ban. It's a reminder of our past......I'll say that again....It's a reminder of our past...It's also a huge house party drinking day, where we celebrate the present and the future.

There's nobody actually prohibiting the witches from having a pint on the festival of Ester. Public houses are closed for the day, that's all. They are perfectly entitled as you suggest to have a huge house party and drink all day if they want to. I might even call round for a few myself if there's going to be naked Maypole dancing. Sounds like quite a party!

Labarbapostiza · 31-03-2016 08:16PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I've quite a bit of time for old Marx, but naming a hospital after him doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in an Irish context. The Mater is at least reflective of the people who developed the hospital on the first place. Revenge isn't much of a reason.

The church were not involved in medicine and hospitals for the goodness of their health. They were used as a source of revenue and power. My grandmother died of TB in the 50s, because the church would not allow the use of antibiotics that could have saved her life. The reason being they made so much money from these TB hospitals. That sounds outrageous and unbelievable, but that is the truth. The institutions for care of children were also cash cows. That is a documented fact.

At this point, I don't see how children are at any greater risk from a priest than anyone else - probably less, given the sensitivity of priests towards avoiding any situation that could possibly be seen as incriminating.

Unfortunately they are still a high risk group. And surprising as it sounds, there have been recent convictions of Catholic priests for recent offences.

You may have no time for the Catholic church but that doesn't justify slandering an entire category of men solely based on their occupation.

It would be slanderous if it were not true, unfortunately it is true. And there are reasons to believe, the institution may have been a factor in itself of conditioning these men into what they became.

Most Irish people are atheists. And the animus is really with the Catholic Church, than it is with Christianity. As the saying went, the Christian brothers lacked Christianity, and the Sisters of Mercy were unmerciful.

It's a fact, many parish priests spend their entire day hanging around primary schools, because there's nowhere else in public they can go. People literally spit at them in the streets. I saw people do it to an old priest living in my parish...I felt bad.....and then he was convicted for historical sexual abuse, and I don't know what to feel.

There are a growing number of evangelicals in Ireland. I don't think they'd be really crazy about having their children receive Catholic indoctrination; the bits that are so close to voodoo, that they are voodoo.

Anyway, these are our vampires....and we're nearly finished, just a few more stakes through a few more black hearts, and it will be done.

This thread prompted me to fill out my census form early; no religion. Next time I'm at deaths door, where every second delay draws me closer, I'm hope very much not to be stalled by a request for a death bed conversion.

eviltwin · 31-03-2016 08:29PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, it's quite likely they would be if children were not indoctrinated with a system of ethics, morals and values. Are you familiar with the book "Lord of the Flies"?

It wouldn't be like that at all. Children don't need a religious education to learn how to be decent individuals.

FortySeven · 31-03-2016 08:40PM

Not enough trash talk for my liking. The sooner we cast these witch doctors from our midst the better.

One eyed Jack · 31-03-2016 08:42PM

eviltwin wrote: »

It wouldn't be like that at all. Children don't need a religious education to learn how to be decent individuals.

That's absolutely true, but Labarbapostiza's point seems to be that they don't need ethics, which is entirely untrue, otherwise it's quite likely they would be out murdering, robbing and stealing -

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Oh yeah. Christian ethos, makes it sound like if the children weren't indoctrinated with ethics, they'd be out murdering robbing and stealing.

That's not to mention the the fact that even children with ethics informed by religion are any more likely to turn to murdering, robbing and stealing, than their non-religious counterparts.

alma73 · 31-03-2016 08:54PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't know what the men of 1916 would have made of Boards, Reddit or the Web in general. Who cares!?

Christianity is the largest religion in Ireland, and guess where you're posting!

Yet would it not be a good gesture to have a forum for like minded people to believe in the same fundamentals of faith?

B_Wayne · 31-03-2016 09:03PM

alma73 wrote: »

Yet would it not be a good gesture to have a forum for like minded people to believe in the same fundamentals of faith?

People are free to do so in this very forum, however it's not a right to eliminate discussion in the forum. Also, even in Christianity, there's tonnes of differences in terms of beliefs.... Catholics even disagree.... Anyway nonetheless, a forum forum devoid of discussion in memory of those who fought in 1916 is pretty idiotics... I'm doubtful if they'd have even agreed with such a proposition tbh.

Delirium · 31-03-2016 09:17PM

steamengine wrote: »

That's not the full picture though - preferential treatment for particular denominations only kicks in when there is pressure on school spaces. The same would apply to Protestant schools and other religious schools. If there is undue pressure on school places presently it's because there are generally not enough places to go round in total - not because of any wish to discriminate.

Preferential treatment is system wide pretty much. Something like 92% of primary schools are Catholic. So that's preferntial. Then you have the admissions policy that gives priority to Catholic kids. After that, the school facilitates religious instruction as part of the school term.

How do they use the census as justification for preferential treatment ?

Generally to agrue to maintain the status quo in the schools by citing that the majority is Roman Catholic in census (84% in the last one AFAIK).

steamengine · 31-03-2016 09:49PM

Delirium wrote: »

Preferential treatment is system wide pretty much. Something like 92% of primary schools are Catholic. So that's preferntial. Then you have the admissions policy that gives priority to Catholic kids. After that, the school facilitates religious instruction as part of the school term.

It's not that out of kilter with the declared 84% Catholic census figure below. The problem seems to be that that non-religious parents and their children don't have access to the same fine tuned set-up regarding their beliefs or, more accurately non-beliefs, as Catholics, Protestants, and others. There is no onus for students from non-religious backgrounds to attend religious instruction in schools. Facilitating is not the same as indoctrination.

Generally to agrue to maintain the status quo in the schools by citing that the majority is Roman Catholic in census (84% in the last one AFAIK).

I don't know if that holds true as the Protestant minority has organised its schools in exactly the same fashion as Catholic majority and therefore the precedent has been well set for other minorities, secular or otherwise to do the same.

uck51js9zml2yt · 31-03-2016 11:21PM

Delirium wrote: »

Preferential treatment is system wide pretty much. Something like 92% of primary schools are Catholic. So that's preferntial. Then you have the admissions policy that gives priority to Catholic kids. After that, the school facilitates religious instruction as part of the school term.

Even the secular schools have their class time doing world religions...whats your point?

My son is in an RC school, I'm now on the board of management, we're not RC and we have the choice of him being taken out of class class during RE. We saw no need for that action to be taken.

Delirium · 01-04-2016 07:07AM

Nola Microscopic Sucker wrote: »

Even the secular schools have their class time doing world religions...whats your point?

My son is in an RC school, I'm now on the board of management, we're not RC and we have the choice of him being taken out of class class during RE. We saw no need for that action to be taken.

You're confusing learning about religion and religious instruction (i.e training a person to be Roman Catholic/Protestant etc).

I've no problem with the former happening in schools, but I think the latter is for parents and the church to take of instead of public schools.

El_Duderino 09 · 01-04-2016 07:54AM

Nola Microscopic Sucker wrote:

Even the secular schools have their class time doing world religions...whats your point?

One teaches 'this is what this religion says, and this is what this religion says'

The other teaches 'this is what you believe'.

Be serious. They're not to even similar.

solodeogloria · 01-04-2016 08:25AM

Good morning all!

alma73 wrote: »

Boards.ie is pretty much Atheist from what I gathered. I see there isn't even a Forum for the Largest Religion in Ireland. (those Catholic Rebels of 1916 who said the Rosary daily would be turning in their graves.)

The largest religion in Ireland is Christianity. The largest denomination as of the 2011 census is Roman Catholicism. The largest weekly observance however is none because most of the former have lapsed.

As for 1916 admittedly I don't have much stock in it. The only Easter rising that matters is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Some of the thinking of the rebels was downright blasphemous. Pearse likening himself to Jesus Christ in claiming that he made a blood sacrifice like Jesus for the Irish people. No, he didn't. The only person who died for all people everywhere so that they might have life eternal is Jesus Christ (John 11:26)

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ and His Easter rising from the dead,
solodeogloria

salmocab · 01-04-2016 08:33AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

The largest religion in Ireland is Christianity. The largest denomination as of the 2011 census is Roman Catholicism. The largest weekly observance however is none because most of the former have lapsed.

As for 1916 admittedly I don't have much stock in it. The only Easter rising that matters is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Some of the thinking of the rebels was downright blasphemous. Pearse likening himself to Jesus Christ in claiming that he made a blood sacrifice like Jesus for the Irish people. No, he didn't. The only person who died for all people everywhere so that they might have life eternal is Jesus Christ (John 11:26)

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ and His Easter rising from the dead,
solodeogloria

well to be fair the only Easter rising that matters to you is jesus from the dead. Plenty of people only care about the one in 1916.
Blasphemy is surely in the eyes of the individual and not for others to judge I would think.

solodeogloria · 01-04-2016 08:45AM

salmocab wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

The largest religion in Ireland is Christianity. The largest denomination as of the 2011 census is Roman Catholicism. The largest weekly observance however is none because most of the former have lapsed.

As for 1916 admittedly I don't have much stock in it. The only Easter rising that matters is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Some of the thinking of the rebels was downright blasphemous. Pearse likening himself to Jesus Christ in claiming that he made a blood sacrifice like Jesus for the Irish people. No, he didn't. The only person who died for all people everywhere so that they might have life eternal is Jesus Christ (John 11:26)

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ and His Easter rising from the dead,
solodeogloria

well to be fair the only Easter rising that matters to you is jesus from the dead. Plenty of people only care about the one in 1916.
Blasphemy is surely in the eyes of the individual and not for others to judge I would think.

Good morning!

I agree with you. My post is strongly worded and intentionally so. Blasphemy however isn't a matter of opinion. If someone likens his death to Jesus' sacrifice that is problematic. I'm sure on a secular level one can find hope in 1916 and I welcome them to do so but there was nothing Christian about this event.

If I may continue to be inflammatory

- patriotism or nationalism is a cancer to the Christian. I could have been born in Botswana if my God ordained it. Also nations rise and fall by God's will. He dashed a global superpower into pieces (Egypt) and He could do the same to Ireland. Another reason it is a cancer is because it undermines the true source of our hope in Jesus. Did you not know that all Christians are a royal priesthood and a holy nation in Jesus? (1 Peter 2:5) If so I should long that people think of me as the Christian guy rather than the Irish one.

Ever think that Christianity might be more radical than what you think? I'm glad to be called a radical or a fundamentalist for the right reasons.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ and His radical Gospel,
solodeogloria

NS77 · 01-04-2016 08:55AM

steamengine wrote: »

It's not that out of kilter with the declared 84% Catholic census figure below. The problem seems to be that that non-religious parents and their children don't have access to the same fine tuned set-up regarding their beliefs or, more accurately non-beliefs, as Catholics, Protestants, and others. There is no onus for students from non-religious backgrounds to attend religious instruction in schools. Facilitating is not the same as indoctrination.

I don't know if that holds true as the Protestant minority has organised its schools in exactly the same fashion as Catholic majority and therefore the precedent has been well set for other minorities, secular or otherwise to do the same.

You see, this is the attitude that gets non-religious and minority religious people's backs up. Education is a State service. We don't have Catholic libraries, where non-Catholics are allowed in - if there's room.

El_Duderino 09 · 01-04-2016 09:12AM

solodeogloria wrote:

I agree with you. My post is strongly wordedjtnd intentionally so. Blasphemy however isn't a matter of opinion. If someone likens his death to Jesus' sacrifice that is problematic. I'm sure on a secular level one can find hope in 1916 and I welcome them to do so but there was nothing Christian about this event.

The 1916 rising piggy backed on the symbolism of the Jesus story. Blood sacrifice of the one to pave the way for a broader rising of the movement.

Given that the Jesus story piggy backs on the older tradition of celebrating death and rebirth of nature at this time of year. It's a bit rich to draw a line under the Jesus story and say that nobody else can use the symbolism.

Christians are entitled to borrow the symbolism of death and rebirth, but you can't take it home with you.

salmocab · 01-04-2016 09:12AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I agree with you. My post is strongly worded and intentionally so. Blasphemy however isn't a matter of opinion. If someone likens his death to Jesus' sacrifice that is problematic. I'm sure on a secular level one can find hope in 1916 and I welcome them to do so but there was nothing Christian about this event.

Well it surely is a matter of opinion, world religions seem to agree on very little so I doubt that they have both agreed on this and gotten approval from their gods. Everything in religion is opinion as without proof everything is conjecture.
I never claimed there was anything Christian about 1916.

Speedwell · 01-04-2016 09:15AM

Hi folks, I'm an atheist.

(waves to solodeogloria) Hey dude

I was a mod in an atheist chatroom for ten years. Some of you have probably met me there and didn't know it. I'm semi-retired now (heh) and the lot of you over in the A/A section seem to have things pretty well wrapped up. I don't post there much.

Right now, I'm kind of trying to make sense of my Christian past, and I'm trying to understand Christianity better, so I can deal with the legitimate thoughts and feelings of people I know and meet who identify as religious. It seems to me that the prevailing prejudice among Christians is that atheists are either willfully ignorant for hateful or self-indulgent reasons or else "banished into the outer darkness" by the actions of others, and among atheists that Christians are either, and I use the word advisedly, retarded, or else plain liars for personal gain. Well, I wasn't any less intelligent than I am now when I was a Christian, and I wasn't a liar. (Maybe if I had been either one I would have been better able to fit in, instead of being a hard questioner who insisted on real answers.)

I know there are many Christians who are raising sincere issues that atheists cannot dismiss with glib one-liners from the old tiger Hitchens et al. The Christianity forum is where they raise them. That's pretty much why I am posting here. I am pretty much past the point where I get any entertainment out of going to war against the fact that Christianity exists; I prefer to leave that to the young people and newer deconverts. My focus right now is more on religion as a whole, why it exists, what people get out of it, what it does to people, how it has developed and evolved over time, why it survives in an age of rationality. If boards.ie was in a predominantly Buddhist country, for example, and I was an ex-Buddhist, then I suppose I'd be saying similar things from the point of view of an ex-Buddhist in a Buddhist context.

But anyway. This is the Christianity forum. That over there is the atheism/agnosticism forum. They exist within a larger forum. In the A/A forum, it makes a certain amount of sense to deride people who are bearbaiting atheists, and less sense to attack people who are trying to understand the atheist point of view. In the larger context, we can speak just as if we were at the pub about issues that affect everyone (and if the conversation appears to have a certain slant, it's simply a barometer of the majority view). I think it's just plain good manners for me to respect respectable Christians in any forum, and to exercise a little more caution in their own forum.

If God has a problem with anything we say here, I suppose he can exercise the option to clearly indicate his opinion, just the same as the rest of us. If such a being exists, I would expect him to be happy to be invited to a sincere discussion. The question of how he can communicate to us convincingly as God is literally a topic for another thread.

solodeogloria · 01-04-2016 09:20AM

salmocab wrote: »

Well it surely is a matter of opinion, world religions seem to agree on very little so I doubt that they have both agreed on this and gotten approval from their gods. Everything in religion is opinion as without proof everything is conjecture.
I never claimed there was anything Christian about 1916.

Good morning!

I was replying to a Christian poster on the Christianity forum in all fairness. You can happily ignore what I wrote. My post is about the implications for Christians linking 1916 to Christianity. I think that's blasphemous.

El Duderino - I don't believe Christianity borrowed from any religion. It is the logical fulfilment of Judaism. Feel free to open another thread to convince me otherwise.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

El_Duderino 09 · 01-04-2016 09:32AM

solodeogloria wrote:

El Duderino - I don't believe Christianity borrowed from any religion. It is the logical fulfilment of Judaism. Feel free to open another thread to convince me otherwise.

No need for that. If anyone has the most basic interest on history they can find out.

Easter is merged with the older pagan tradition of Oestre/Eastre. It was to do with fertility and that's why the curent easter celebration is linked to the moon cycles rather than having a fixed date.

Like I said, christians can continue to borrow the symbolism but you can't claim to have invented it or have some kind of exclusive rights to its use.

solodeogloria · 01-04-2016 09:34AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No need for that. If anyone has the most basic interest on history they can find out.

Easter is merged with the older pagan tradition of Oestre/Eastre. It was to do with fertility and that's why the curent easter celebration is linked to the moon cycles rather than having a fixed date.

Like I said, christians can continue to borrow the symbolism but you can't claim to have invented it or have some kind of exclusive rights to its use.

Good morning.

Last post till later but do you mean refuted things like Zeitgeist the movie?

Or can you provide something tangible?

I've been through a lot of the junk of atheists comparing Jesus to Horus, Osiris, Mithras and Krishna before but on looking up all the sources they all post-date the New Testament.

Sorry for the flippant response but I've been through it all before on different forums and it's turned out to be a fruitless waste of time.

I agree with your point on timing. The reason for Easter being chosen was it was the closest festival to Passover. This happened centuries after the New Testament though. The crucifixion is more based on Passover than on anything to do with Easter. The time was chosen much much later.

Much tanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

El_Duderino 09 · 01-04-2016 09:45AM

solodeogloria wrote:

Last post till later but do you mean refuted things like Zeitgeist the movie?

No not zeitgeist.

Just look up the history of the pagan goddess I mentioned. It's not a ln anti christian thing, it's a reality thing. People have always celebrated the return of the sun and the beginning if the process of flora flowering which eventually turns to fruit, and fauna giving birth which eventually turns to meat.

It was celebrated before christians were around Europe and it's a bit rich to lay claim to a festival that was celebrated before christians thought to chime in.

The point isn't that pagans invented the symbolism of rebirth. I imagine they co opted it too. The point is that christians can't claim to have invented it or own it because... they didn't and they don't.

One eyed Jack · 01-04-2016 09:50AM

NS77 wrote: »

You see, this is the attitude that gets non-religious and minority religious people's backs up. Education is a State service. We don't have Catholic libraries, where non-Catholics are allowed in - if there's room.

Education itself isn't a State service. The State is obliged to provide for education. Whoever provides that education, is providing a service to the State.

Libraries and who does or doesn't have access to them is another matter entirely - you aren't permitted to take a book home with you for example if you aren't a member. Some libraries won't even allow you access to their IT resources if you aren't a member, and if you want to print anything, well some libraries will expect you to pay for that service too, member or not!

NS77 · 01-04-2016 10:02AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Libraries and who does or doesn't have access to them is another matter entirely - you aren't permitted to take a book home with you for example if you aren't a member. Some libraries won't even allow you access to their IT resources if you aren't a member, and if you want to print anything, well some libraries will expect you to pay for that service too, member or not!

Indeed - good public administration practice. Similar, in fact, to enrolling in a school. One can't just drive up and deposit a child at school without filling out the necessary forms.

The difference being, on joining, I won't be asked for a Baptismal Cert. at my local library. I won't feel the pressure to baptise my child at birth, just in case they might want to borrow books in the local library in the future. My local library also carries books on a wide range of topics (including Christianity and Atheism), without favouring any one in particular.

looksee · 01-04-2016 10:06AM

There have been some interesting happenings in the Christianity forum recently. There were some contentious threads in which both Christians and atheists posted. There was some aggressive posting which got several people banned for various periods of time - mostly people who claimed to subscribe to the Christian point of view.

Then it all went quiet. The Christianity forum was used solely for discussion of Christian matters - belief, faith, prayers etc - and there were very few posts by atheists. The link was that the Christians were discussing matters that did not impinge on atheist lives, and the atheists therefore did not get involved.

Now a poster who is not, I think, a usual visitor to this forum pops up and makes a nonsensical argument about non-Christians - rounding up from another forum topics which affect atheists, and commenting on them, apparently expecting a free ride as he was posting in Christianity.

Sorry guys, there is no way that religious matters which affect my life are going to be allowed to be reinforced here or anywhere else. You want to discuss religion, fine, get on with it. You want to discuss matters that affect people who do not subscribe to your views, without them getting involved - that is not going to happen.

Nick Park · 01-04-2016 10:17AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No not zeitgeist.

Just look up the history of the pagan goddess I mentioned. It's not a ln anti christian thing, it's a reality thing. People have always celebrated the return of the sun and the beginning if the process of flora flowering which eventually turns to fruit, and fauna giving birth which eventually turns to meat.

It was celebrated before christians were around Europe and it's a bit rich to lay claim to a festival that was celebrated before christians thought to chime in.

The point isn't that pagans invented the symbolism of rebirth. I imagine they co opted it too. The point is that christians can't claim to have invented it or own it because... they didn't and they don't.

Yes, people have celebrated the return of the sun - they did so with solstices and equinoxes and suchlike.

They also celebrated the flora flowering with events such as MayDay.

But surely you understand that Easter weekend is fixed purely due to its relation to a biblical event (the Jewish Passover)? An event which Christians understand as being part of one redemptive history.

It's a bit rich to say Christians 'borrowed' Easter. Then, when pressed as to from where Christians borrowed the idea of the Son of God dying for the sins of the world and rising from the grave, to say, "Ah well, you know, flowers blooming and winter ending and stuff like that."

One eyed Jack · 01-04-2016 10:18AM

NS77 wrote: »

Indeed - good public administration practice. Similar, in fact, to enrolling in a school. One can't just drive up and deposit a child at school without filling out the necessary forms.

The difference being, on joining, I won't be asked for a Baptismal Cert. at my local library. I won't feel the pressure to baptise my child at birth, just in case they might want to borrow books in the local library in the future. My local library also carries books on a wide range of topics (including Christianity and Atheism), without favouring any one in particular.

Well of course you won't be asked for a Baptismal Cert, nor are you any more likely to be asked for a Baptismal Cert. to enrol your child in most schools in Ireland. You cannot seriously hold anyone else responsible for choices that you make for your child - don't want to have your child baptised? Then don't. There are many children in Irish schools that weren't baptised, of many different faiths and none.

Your analogy is all over the place tbh. It just isn't fit for purpose.

steamengine · 01-04-2016 10:19AM

NS77 wrote: »

You see, this is the attitude that gets non-religious and minority religious people's backs up. Education is a State service. We don't have Catholic libraries, where non-Catholics are allowed in - if there's room.

Article 42.1&2 of the State's Constitution

1. The state acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of the parents tp provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools established by the state.

My emphasis above, but as can be seen religious education in school is supported by the Constitution.

Too much trash talk against Christianity

Comments