1000's of kids making their communion today

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By that logic, I have no integrity or morals according to your standards. So if I were to disassociate myself from the RCC, I will meet your standard of morals and integrity then?

You might.

Isn't that the same line the RCC tried to use to get people to tow the line in the past?

No. I don't condone or cover up child rape, so that puts me a step above that lot.
And it's toe the line. Toe.

But what if they do not want "alternatives"? That's like me suggesting that there are alternatives to your lack of belief. I'm sure you're well aware of the fact, but I'll just go ahead and patronise you anyways...

If Anglicanism really is too much of a stretch for you, you could set up or join an alternative church with identical doctrines to the RCC, but which is not vastly wealthy and at the head of a global conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and which does not use a fake state to gain sovereign immunity.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You might.

Y'know I absolutely have the utmost respect for you and all HD, but if you judged me by my affiliation with a particular club that you didn't approve of, I'd be thinking meeting your standards of morals and integrity would be the least of my worries.

No. I don't condone or cover up child rape, so that puts me a step above that lot.
And it's toe the line. Toe.

I'd have taken that sentiment more seriously if it hadn't come with the spelling correction. That being said, I don't condone or cover up child rape either. I also don't see child rape and covering up child rape as an issue unique to the RCC. If I were to disassociate myself from every organisation which tried to cover up child rape, I'd eventually find myself in a position where I would have to distance myself from the whole of humanity.

As I said to Bristolscale earlier, I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater - you don't address an issue by running away from it and leaving them to carry on as before, ruining something which I value greatly. You identify and punish the culprits, and work within the organisation to effect change. I'm not going to change the organisation from the outside, nobody is, but by all of us within the organisation saying "why the hell should we leave, we didn't do anything wrong?", it forces the organisation to rethink their policies. LGBT members of the RCC didn't leave. Women who have had abortions didn't leave. People who have been the victims of horrific abuse didn't leave, why the hell should they? Because the leaders of the organisation are corrupt as fcuk? Yeah, then it's time to have them leave, not the vast, vast majority of people who have never done anything to be punished for!!

If Anglicanism really is too much of a stretch for you, you could set up or join an alternative church with identical doctrines to the RCC, but which is not vastly wealthy and at the head of a global conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and which does not use a fake state to gain sovereign immunity.

Look, I'll put this as simply as I can for you. If I say I like apples, and you say to me - but wouldn't you rather an orange instead? I'm going to tell you what you can do with your orange.

I have massive, massive issues with the RCC, and some of those issues have been covered in this thread, and been mentioned by other posters already, and you know I have never been an apologist of any sort for the RCC. I have never shied away from being critical of the RCC Hierarchy when they absolutely deserved it.

But to suggest that I lack morality and integrity because I choose to exercise my human right to freedom of religion, well, I'm going to tell you with the greatest of respect to blow it out your other end tbh. I would hope you don't take that personally though, it's just a difference of opinion based upon our different perspectives. I still think you're alright all the same.

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Yes. If you are in fact a catholic you had a moral obligation and responsibility to reject the church based on its defense and protection of rapists. Failure to do so implies acceptance. In ethical terms, failure to act when you have a special moral obligation is only justifiable in situations like nazi germany where standing up to the institution responsible for atrocities would have resulted in death.

That's absolute nonsense. Not rejecting something in no way implies accepting it, that's rhetorical rubbish designed to provoke people who aren't part of your personal crusade to feel obliged to take your side or be portrayed as guilty parties. It's disingenuous and shows that unable to rely on your own ability to put forward your position you have to rely on underhand tactics to drag people into agreeing to look they support you when they don't. Godwinning it only proves the point; your attempt doesn't carry enough weight even in your own eyes so you need to throw in Nazism to try and get it across the line.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You wouldn't judge someone if they said they were part of the KKK?

I don't think HD is a member of the KKK though? (I like to think I've gotten to know people around here a little bit over time), but of course it would raise an eyebrow, in the same way as people assume I couldn't possibly be religious, and then when they find out I am, it raises an eyebrow for them because it's a bit odd and they'd never have thought it. If they decided they could no longer associate with me based on that fact, or based on the fact that I'm a member of the RCC, why should that be my fault?

If their morals and integrity are more important to a person than showing compassion, kindness and caring to another human being, then how are they any different to the people whom they despise?


Edited to give an example:


A friend of mine who is Catholic, black, unmarried mother, someone whom I care for deeply. We're spending the evening together and knocking back a few whiskeys and chatting about life, love, happiness, sadness and everything in between. She loves to hear how my child is getting on and I love to hear how her child is getting on.

So I tell her about my child going to mosque with his mates, and she comes out with "Nooo! Don't let him do that, they will try to convert him!", and she's deadly serious! Now I know my son, and I know his friends, and I'm as good friends with their parents as I am with this girl. I know there's absolutely nobody has any intention of having him convert (hard enough for their parents to get their own children to go to mosque at the best of times ).

But this friend of mine, I know her opinion is based upon preconceived ideas about other people based upon what she doesn't know of them. I'm absolutely not going to fall out with her or abandon our friendship because she's got some funky views about people she doesn't know.

I can only hope that in time she comes to realise that you can't make generalisations about people on the basis of particular identifiers and make assumptions about whole groups of people on that limited basis! It flies in the face of objective reason, it's the basis of identity politics, and I have absolutely no time whatsoever for that shìte, because as fcuked up and all as religion is, identity politics is so, so much more fcuked up, and is absolutely detrimental to society IMO.

recedite wrote: »

Except the Imam, and most of the congregation. Very few religions are not actively trying to recruit new members. Judaism is the only one I can think of, off-hand.

recedite you're absolutely right in fairness, but I don't think that's a trait exclusive of religion either. I think it's more a people thing though than a religion thing. It's marketing at the end of the day really. Best example of it though I can think of from the perspective of religion are JW's and Scientologists (recognised religion in UK, not too sure about here). They'd put Apple to shame for their ability to convince people their lives aren't complete without a shiny turd, or God, or Thetan Xenu or whoever the fcuk anyway.

If I didn't know better about Jews, I'd say every single one of them were a difficult birth, telling the doctors they're not coming out, just for the sake of argument! :pac:

Pentecostals are a fun bunch alright, lively as fcuk, I go to a Pentecostal service in the afternoon on Sundays (mass in the morning, service in the afternoon), and it's the complete opposite of the Irish Catholic mass, you really feel lifted after coming out, of a service! :pac: But that's the thing - the minute I heard they wanted my PPSN, it left a nasty taste in my mouth that as much as I enjoy the service, it's tainted by the whole money issue again.

I enjoy other religions for what they are, other religions, other belief systems (Hinduism seems alright actually from what I know of it, and the Baha'i faith, if I wasn't RC I'd probably be leaning more that way, but they're a very, very small community in Ireland), but I'm not going to be converting any time soon, when I simply don't feel a need to. I'm perfectly happy as I am.

My son is equally perfectly happy as he is. If there comes a time when he's decided that another religion better suits what he's searching for, I'll be more than happy to encourage him to pursue it. If he feels at some point that what he's searching for won't be found in religion, I'll be more than happy to support him and encourage him to continue to look elsewhere too.

I'd feel it would be wrong of me to raise my child by someone else's standards. That's why I don't envy single parents sometimes - it means they have one less person arguing with them over the best way to raise their children! That's why I truly do wish when people don't understand something, that they would never be afraid to ask, rather than assume the worst in people.

Assuming the worst in people you don't understand, is a horrible way for anyone to live IMO, regardless of their particular brand of funky ideology.

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Does it not bother you that none of it is true though, Jack?

No Kenny.

Does that bother you?

How do you reconcile your beliefs with the lack of evidence?

Cognitive dissonance.

Just stick your head in the sand?

Quite the opposite actually Kenny - I've spent my life questioning and searching for the truth, and that's exactly why I've studied numerous funky ideologies, and their history, and their philosophies, and I've tried to source as many primary sources as my resources have allowed me to investigate in the search for the truth.

I know you Jack, you're a smart bloke, you're a compassionate individual. It's a riddle to me how someone like you can associate with a backward organisation. I know a lot of people like you, people who have their heads screwed on and who are open minded but who also go to mass every Sunday. I don't judge them for it but it's a hard thing to understand. Do you think it's healthy to bring your son there with all the anti gay, anti women sentiment?

recedite wrote: »

Plenty of people only go to mass/church/mosque for the social aspect and the feel good factor. Its a form of entertainment.

So why are you then so "dead set" against paying them their money?
If I go to the cinema, I don't mind paying for a ticket.

If you invite someone to a feast in your house, you'd make for a very poor host if you charged them for giving you the privilege of their company.

It's the vulgarity of it I can't stand. There's no humility, there's no graciousness. It adds nothing, but takes so much away IMO. But like I said, that's not an issue that can be addressed from outside the Church, it has to come from within the Church if the Church has any hope of reform, which I believe can be done, and is happening, because people are getting sick of the greed and the hypocrisy of their leaders.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think HD is a member of the KKK though? (I like to think I've gotten to know people around here a little bit over time), but of course it would raise an eyebrow, in the same way as people assume I couldn't possibly be religious, and then when they find out I am, it raises an eyebrow for them because it's a bit odd and they'd never have thought it.

So you would judge someone for being a member of the KKK, just because it's odd? Not because the KKK is racist? You wouldn't judge then as racist too?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they decided they could no longer associate with me based on that fact, or based on the fact that I'm a member of the RCC, why should that be my fault?

If their morals and integrity are more important to a person than showing compassion, kindness and caring to another human being, then how are they any different to the people whom they despise?

What has morals and integrity got to do with the church? What has compassion, kindness and caring got to do with the church? The haven't shown any of that to the likes of gay or trans people, not to mention the children the raped, abused, sold or murdered.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you would judge someone for being a member of the KKK, just because it's odd? Not because the KKK is racist? You wouldn't judge then as racist too?

I generally don't give two fcuks what organisations anyone affiliates themselves with. If they made any sort of hateful comments about anyone, or any group, then I'd give a shìt.

What has morals and integrity got to do with the church? What has compassion, kindness and caring got to do with the church? The haven't shown any of that to the likes of gay or trans people, not to mention the children the raped, abused, sold or murdered.

We were talking about people, not the Church.

eviltwin wrote: »

That's a cop out. The church actively campaigned against ssm last year and have not changed their minds on the subject. It's not acceptable to the church to be a practicing homosexual. What message is that to give to a child? What about the church's position on abortion even in cases of rape or when the mother is a child herself? Is that the kind of morality you want your son adopting? The church and pope Francis in particular have come out with the softly spoken language of compassion and tolerance but when that's at odds with their core message it's meaningless. Someone who takes their shoes off to kick your head in is still kicking your head in.

I get where you're coming from and it absolutely wasn't meant as a cop out. I mean, did I adopt that morality?

Of course I didn't, and neither has my son. In fact whereas I'm far more conservative, he's far more liberal, he's got a mind of his own.

Like I said, I have fundamental disagreement with the Church on many issues, but I don't agree that what Pope Frank has said is meaningless, clearly it has an influence on society. If someone is a hate mongering fcuknut, they're going to be a hate mongering fcuknut regardless of religion. Their religion simply provides them with a convenient justification. For everyone else, there's identity politics.

eviltwin wrote: »

What do you get out of the church that you think would be missing if you didn't go?

A sense of belonging to a community, a religious identity that aligns with my spiritual identity, a sense of purpose.

unseenfootage wrote: »

The elephant in the room is that atheists lack an objective moral authority. Everything they say is subjective. According to their own whims and desires.
On what basis can they judge homosexuality, incest, ssm etc. to be good or bad.
I heard Lawrence Krauss say in a debate that incest could be allowed, (if protection was used.) As if condoms are foolproof.

That doesn't just apply to atheism, many a Catholic has raped a child, robbed, committed incest etc. I don't need to believe in a God to be a good person.

Kenny Bania wrote: »

lol - it's not en elephant in the room at all. I have my own moral compass - and it's certainly better than the churches.

Okay.
Let's scrutinize your "moral compass."
Humans are animals and are made from star dust.

Is incest right or wrong?
Please justify your answer.

eviltwin wrote: »

That doesn't just apply to atheism, many a Catholic has raped a child, robbed, committed incest etc. I don't need to believe in a God to be a good person.

I'm not here to defend Catholicism.
Certainly not all religious people are free from doing "wrong" just like not all godless people are bereft from doing "right."

Why is child rape, robbing and committing incest wrong, in your opinion?

unseenfootage wrote: »

I'm not here to defend Catholicism.
Certainly not all religious people are free from doing "wrong" just like not all godless people are bereft from doing "right."

Why is child rape, robbing and committing incest wrong, in your opinion?

Ahh stop ffs :rolleyes:

unseenfootage wrote: »

Atheist want to mock religious practices like communion, yet champion the cause of homosexuals that want to perform marriage - which is a religious practice.
Complete nonsense.

Marriage is a legal partnership first, a religious ceremony second

Kenny Bania wrote: »

It's just unfortunate he doesn't realise that, passes his ignorance onto his kids, and thus the cycle continues. Ignorance perpetuates ignorance - that's how religion works.

How do you explain your own ignorance then Kenny if it wasn't religion? Or was it your rejection of religion that made you feel like you were now an enlightened human being? Or was it... science?

Get them while they're young & have the people they look up to most (their parents) indoctrinate them during their formative years, so it's harder to shake.

Kenny that could be applied to any type of parenting that you personally do not approve of. I can guarantee you for a fact that my child is nowhere near as ignorant as you're currently displaying.

A lot of us do shake it off when we reach our teens and start exercising common sense & logic - but some of us are too weak to.

Kenny just how old are you exactly, because you have yet to display so much as an ounce of common sense or logic?

eviltwin wrote: »

Marriage is a legal partnership first, a religious ceremony second

A religious partnership with its basis in religion.
Traditionally all the laws pertaining to marriage are derived from religious principles. .i.e: (age, gender, filial relations, religious affiliation, economics etc.)
In most christian countries, the secular establishment inherited the bulk of the marriage laws from the church.