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

Too much trash talk against Christianity

9de5q7tsr8u2im

MOD NOTE

Title edited seeing as this discussion isn't limited to just 'trash talk' on boards.ie

Original Title: 'Too much trash talk on boards.ie against Christianity'

Over the past few days i've seen so much debatable talks about Christianity as a whole, and i'm sick of it...

( primary school shouldn't have christian based ethos )
( census discussion about whether you are christian or not )
( non religious funerals )
( the good friday drinking ban )

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Elemonator

Slightly hypocritical, sorry OP. You are putting down people who have different beliefs to you.

Christian "tolerance" no doubt.

Stealthfins

Nola Microscopic Sucker wrote:

I wasn't asked for a baptismal cert when I enrolled my son in an RC school last year. In fact 10% of students are not RC which for a relatively small school is a fair chunk.

Exactly I don't see what's going on with people moaning about having to get their child baptized,so they can enroll in the school.

During the late 70's and 80's I went to a RC primary school in Shannon.

The kid's from other denominations were welcomed and there wasn't any problems with baptismal certs etc

We had kid's from all over the world in class,during religion they did their homework.

Some people use the school thing as an excuse to vent their resentments towards the church,others have a valid excuse to be wary or indifferent to Christianity.

lawred2

EirWatcher wrote: »

In fairness, those threads aren't started in the Christianity forum. You can discuss in here if you want a different bias.

Personally I find it interesting that Christianity is so foremost in some people's thoughts that they do start topics on it regularly, even outside the Christianity forum.

really?

El_Duderino 09

solodeogloria wrote:

You've missed the point entirely if you think that I'm seeking to police blasphemy. I certainly don't.

solodeogloria wrote:

If you're not a Christian the comments weren't for you.

That's fair.

Cheers got clearing that up.

solodeogloria

salmocab wrote: »

No you were replying to me thats why you quoted my post.

And who was I replying to originally? It was to another Christian poster alma73.

salmocab

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

No you were replying to me thats why you quoted my post.

nozzferrahhtoo

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

Over the past few days i've seen so much debatable talks about Christianity as a whole, and i'm sick of it...

Then perhaps boards.ie is not for you? This is, at the heart of it, a discussion and debate forum. So people will do just that.

And given the prevalence, and for some the importance, of religion in our world one expects it to be one of the most common themes or subjects.

That said I note while expressing your ire you have not actually shown what is "debatable" about the talks in the first place.

Are you bothered by the tone of them? The content of them? Or just the mere EXISTENCE of them? What EXACTLY is your issue here? It is not clear at all.

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"? That didn't end well for the children.

Aside from the comedy inherent in offering a work of fiction as evidence of.... well anything useful here..... the link you offer seems to say the opposite of the light you presented it in.

The children in the book were of an age were they HAD been indoctrinated into some system of ethics or morals.... and the book showed that that meant squat when it came down to it.

A parallel real world example not from the realms of fiction that I am not convinced you have read and even less convinced you have understood, would be Montreal's night of terror. These were grown adults indoctrinated into any number of varied ethical and moral structures.... and it meant squat on the night.

The point being made in Lord of the Flies and in real world examples is that when it comes down to it the system of ethics one has or sells is near irrelevant in the face of things like societal structures, judgement and expectations.... or the loss of them.

Which we see ramified in many social experiments viewing the behaviors of people when divorced from such norms. Such as, say, the effect of deindividuation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

Yet nothing in the piece of text you are replying to here is a comment on how people "identify themselves". But whether they genuinely or usefully fit the definition they choose.

I could "identify myself" as a neurosurgeon and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is ALSO nothing wrong with someone coming along and pointing out I do not fit the definition.

I feel you miss that distinction here in the post you reply to, in that if someone wants to identify as "catholic" I am not seeing many (if any) people saying they can not do so.

But there is also nothing wrong with pointing out the Catholic Churches definition of what constitutes a catholic, and evaluating if the person in question fits or not.

Nor does the person doing so require or deserve snide comments about "pedestals" or crass baseless comments about "preaching".

solodeogloria

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No no. The line of argument was that nobody can use the symbolism of easter (death and rising again) without blaspheming christian god. In face it's as ligitimate for my or you or Pearse or christians or pagans to use the symbolism.

Christians didn't invent it, they don't own it and they have no authority to police it.

Good afternoon,

You've missed the point entirely if you think that I'm seeking to police blasphemy. I certainly don't.

However I'm entitled to believe that someone likening their death to Jesus' is blasphemous. Pearse didn't save anyone through his death. Jesus powerfully did. Pearse didn't offer life eternal Jesus did. The point I made was for a poster alma73 who said we should have a Catholic forum because of the Easter Rising. Hence my comments. The fruits of 1916 if there were any won't survive the grave. From my standpoint Biblically it is very difficult to see nationalism and patriotism as anything other than a distraction from the Gospel. If you're not a Christian the comments weren't for you.

I expect nothing from the secular state other than freedom to live a peaceful godly life in the present age. Many haven't realised what living in a minority in such a country looks like. It is exciting and not something to be afraid of as a follower of Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

AtomicHorror

Nola Microscopic Sucker wrote: »

I wasn't asked for a baptismal cert when I enrolled my son in an RC school last year. In fact 10% of students are not RC which for a relatively small school is a fair chunk.

We cater for non RC children by them either remaining in class or leaving the roomcand being supervised by another member of staff.
I'm also on the board of management, so so much for Catholic bias !!

Interesting... so what you're saying is that if you don't personally experience something, it didn't happen?

Fact is, that if a school year is oversubscribed by even one pupil, and the school has a policy of prioritising Catholics (which some do), then a non-Catholic child can be denied admission regardless of other criteria. As long as that is even a possible scenario, I'm not happy and neither should you be.

Cabaal

Lets face it, the current catholic ethos model used in schools is a utter disaster,

Here we have an organization that holds strong beliefes that gay people are sinful and that marriage between two gay people is utterly wrong and against god. We have schools that are supposed to teach catholic value's into children from a very young age, these schools get about 16 years pushing these "values" into young people's minds and yet they utterly fail at it.

The biggest group to vote for marriage equality were the younger generation just in recent years out of schools!
A majority of the country also voted against the values the catholic church holds so dear...that marriage is between a man and women only.

But yet we have people claiming the ethos should remain, but when you look at it its been an utter failure.
People don't hold the value's of the catholic church, the hold the value of our society which the catholic church is more and more disconnected from.

Even though the Catholic church can't even do a decent job of instilling its views into young minds we still have them using it as a reason to discriminate against 5 year olds at the tax payer expensive. The bottom line is a different religion or lack of religion shouldn't ever be a reason to reject a child from a tax payer funded school, yet its common for schools to both use it as a reason and also outline it on their acceptance section.

uck51js9zml2yt

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.

I wasn't asked for a baptismal cert when I enrolled my son in an RC school last year. In fact 10% of students are not RC which for a relatively small school is a fair chunk.

We cater for non RC children by them either remaining in class or leaving the roomcand being supervised by another member of staff.
I'm also on the board of management, so so much for Catholic bias !!

El_Duderino 09

Nick Park wrote:

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

Nick Park wrote:

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."

No no. The line of argument was that nobody can use the symbolism of easter (death and rising again) without blaspheming christian god. In face it's as ligitimate for my or you or Pearse or christians or pagans to use the symbolism.

Christians didn't invent it, they don't own it and they have no authority to police it.

Speedwell

Nick Park wrote: »

That's an interesting quote from the Constitution.

Taken at face value, it asserts the right of a group of parents of a minority religious faith to provide religious education for their children in schools established by the State.

Has this ever been tested. For example, could a minority faith group claim the right to hold their Sunday Schools in a Catholic-run school that is established by the State? Any lawyers out there care to comment?

IANAL, but I would guess that "according to their means" would come into play.

Nick Park

steamengine wrote: »

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

That's an interesting quote from the Constitution.

Taken at face value, it asserts the right of a group of parents of a minority religious faith to provide religious education for their children in schools established by the State.

Has this ever been tested. For example, could a minority faith group claim the right to hold their Sunday Schools in a Catholic-run school that is established by the State? Any lawyers out there care to comment?

steamengine

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.

One eyed Jack

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.

Nick Park

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."

looksee

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.

NS77

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.

One eyed Jack

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!

El_Duderino 09

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.

solodeogloria

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

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

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

Speedwell

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.

salmocab

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.

El_Duderino 09

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.

NS77

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.

solodeogloria

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

salmocab

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.