Re: Are RC's Christians?

by **HotParadox** Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:17 pm

Cartoon Head wrote:
HotParadox wrote:Furthermore, when the place where I volunteer feeds and totally cares for pregnant women and all their existing children and then totally takes care of the entire family until the new baby turns one year old, do you really think that we say to these unfortunate souls, "SORRY, you're not a Christian." Or "You must become a Christian or else we've got nothing for you." No, we don't care what they are or if they are non-believers. And just by the way, we are a bunch of Catholics and Protestants who respect each other and each others' faiths because we are doing what we do for one reason only:TO SERVE CHRIST AND NOT JUDGE EACH OTHER.

And who do you think orchestrates this worldwide charity? A bunch of men and women like me? No. It is ALL heads of Christian sects, started by the Catholic Church just by the way, who donate everything they can, in concert with each other, to help the less fortunate as Christ did. Together: Protestants including Evangelicals, and Catholics; Christians, in concert as one.

Some of you guys are unreal.

Yes.

But your one example is not a catch all example.

Nor is it historically reflective.

It may not be historically reflective, but it is very much what is happening today.
You want to keep going back in history, fine. But the truth is you, who are sympathetic to all, just can't seem to find a way to see anything good in anything that has to do with religion. It's just out of your realm, so I don't see a reason to try and help you soften your heart just a little. It really is a colossal waste of my time.

by **CarolinaHound** Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:19 pm

Cartoon Head wrote:
HotParadox wrote:Furthermore, when the place where I volunteer feeds and totally cares for pregnant women and all their existing children and then totally takes care of the entire family until the new baby turns one year old, do you really think that we say to these unfortunate souls, "SORRY, you're not a Christian." Or "You must become a Christian or else we've got nothing for you." No, we don't care what they are or if they are non-believers. And just by the way, we are a bunch of Catholics and Protestants who respect each other and each others' faiths because we are doing what we do for one reason only:TO SERVE CHRIST AND NOT JUDGE EACH OTHER.

And who do you think orchestrates this worldwide charity? A bunch of men and women like me? No. It is ALL heads of Christian sects, started by the Catholic Church just by the way, who donate everything they can, in concert with each other, to help the less fortunate as Christ did. Together: Protestants including Evangelicals, and Catholics; Christians, in concert as one.

Some of you guys are unreal.

Yes.

But your one example is not a catch all example.

Nor is it historically reflective.

Doctors, historically speaking, did things like bleed people. Should I refrain from going to one now because of what they have done historically?

by Americanadian Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:31 pm

HotParadox wrote:
CarolinaHound wrote:
Here's what I want to know. The catholics, baptist, methodist... what ever; does all this work to feed and help people, and all the other good things they try to promote. Why does it bug people so much that they do it in the name of God? Even those that don't believe in God. What do they care who's name they do it in? The main point is they are trying to do something to make things better for people and all they get is pissed on. So what if it's the pope that brings peace to the middle east? Are we going to have to say a hail marry every time we eat because of it or something? Or maybe we could actually eat without the thought of somebody stepping into wally world and blowing the hell out of our kids because one of them is late getting home. (exaggeration but you know what I mean)
Spoken as a tolerant and loving humanitarian instead of as an angry human being. You are taking it at face value instead of digging deep and not satisfied until you find a pile of crap. Bravo.

HP,

There are many good people within the RC church that continue to do good with what little light they have regarding Scripture. I hope you don't get acrimonious with me or resent my stance on this issue because it has nothing to do with you personally or my respect for you. I love you

I am trying to explain what I have learned about the Vatican and history reveals a dark picture. Even recently, more revelation of sexual abuse which has been silenced for decades is brought to light. Much of this has been done in Catholic schools. Does this make all RC's evil? No, there is bad prevalent in every group. However, the doctrine of Roman Catholicism has caused this issue with prohibiting men to marry women. Well, since the composition of a man is very sexual and not emotional, it is practically impossible for a man not to express some form of sexuality. It can only be repressed for so long. because of this, I blame Catholic doctrine. It can be changed. The question is, will it be changed? We will see.

Infallibility of the Pope is another big issue. The Pope is regarded almost as Christ Himself. The Pope has no power to excommunicate angels as proclaimed by the Catholic clergy. He is a sinful man like the rest of us as the Scriptures declare, "ALL have fallen short...". Another aspect of doctrine which should be changed to correlate with the Scriptures.

I have a problem with Catholic doctrine and what the faith does to its own members and what it has done throughout history. I am quick to forgive but that doesn't mean I shut my eyes and take their apology as sincere if they do harbor ulterior motives. To do so would be naive and foolhardy. Deceit doesn't warn of its impending strike.

by **HotParadox** Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:45 pm

AC, first of all, I could never resent you or dislike you, ever. I love you

And secondly, many of your points are valid. I agree with you on some but not all. Most important, the way you handled this is with class. Thank you.

by Americanadian Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:46 pm

HotParadox wrote:AC, first of all, I could never resent you or dislike you, ever.

And secondly, many of your points are valid. I agree with you on some but not all. Most important, the way you handled this is with class. Thank you.

Thanks Darlin'. I love you

by **CarolinaHound** Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:57 pm

I certainly don't resent anyone for how they feel. I have my issues with organised religion myself. Personally what I feel should be done to the priests and clergy, or anyone that harms a child would be considered a sin by most.

by Guest Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:08 pm

CarolinaHound wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:
HotParadox wrote:Furthermore, when the place where I volunteer feeds and totally cares for pregnant women and all their existing children and then totally takes care of the entire family until the new baby turns one year old, do you really think that we say to these unfortunate souls, "SORRY, you're not a Christian." Or "You must become a Christian or else we've got nothing for you." No, we don't care what they are or if they are non-believers. And just by the way, we are a bunch of Catholics and Protestants who respect each other and each others' faiths because we are doing what we do for one reason only:TO SERVE CHRIST AND NOT JUDGE EACH OTHER.

And who do you think orchestrates this worldwide charity? A bunch of men and women like me? No. It is ALL heads of Christian sects, started by the Catholic Church just by the way, who donate everything they can, in concert with each other, to help the less fortunate as Christ did. Together: Protestants including Evangelicals, and Catholics; Christians, in concert as one.

Some of you guys are unreal.

Yes.

But your one example is not a catch all example.

Nor is it historically reflective.

Doctors, historically speaking, did things like bleed people. Should I refrain from going to one now because of what they have done historically?

Yes, you should stop going to the doctor. They may not bleed your body anymore, just your pockets. Razz

(I'm totally kidding... just in case someone doesn't get that.)

by **CarolinaHound** Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:13 pm

lisan23 wrote:
CarolinaHound wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:
HotParadox wrote:Furthermore, when the place where I volunteer feeds and totally cares for pregnant women and all their existing children and then totally takes care of the entire family until the new baby turns one year old, do you really think that we say to these unfortunate souls, "SORRY, you're not a Christian." Or "You must become a Christian or else we've got nothing for you." No, we don't care what they are or if they are non-believers. And just by the way, we are a bunch of Catholics and Protestants who respect each other and each others' faiths because we are doing what we do for one reason only:TO SERVE CHRIST AND NOT JUDGE EACH OTHER.

And who do you think orchestrates this worldwide charity? A bunch of men and women like me? No. It is ALL heads of Christian sects, started by the Catholic Church just by the way, who donate everything they can, in concert with each other, to help the less fortunate as Christ did. Together: Protestants including Evangelicals, and Catholics; Christians, in concert as one.

Some of you guys are unreal.

Yes.

But your one example is not a catch all example.

Nor is it historically reflective.

Doctors, historically speaking, did things like bleed people. Should I refrain from going to one now because of what they have done historically?

Yes, you should stop going to the doctor. They may not bleed your body anymore, just your pockets. (I'm totally kidding... just in case someone doesn't get that.)

Aint that the truth? The pharmacuticals too. Now there's some mass brainwashing. Wink

by **HotParadox** Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:21 pm

lisan23 wrote:
CarolinaHound wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:
HotParadox wrote:Furthermore, when the place where I volunteer feeds and totally cares for pregnant women and all their existing children and then totally takes care of the entire family until the new baby turns one year old, do you really think that we say to these unfortunate souls, "SORRY, you're not a Christian." Or "You must become a Christian or else we've got nothing for you." No, we don't care what they are or if they are non-believers. And just by the way, we are a bunch of Catholics and Protestants who respect each other and each others' faiths because we are doing what we do for one reason only:TO SERVE CHRIST AND NOT JUDGE EACH OTHER.

And who do you think orchestrates this worldwide charity? A bunch of men and women like me? No. It is ALL heads of Christian sects, started by the Catholic Church just by the way, who donate everything they can, in concert with each other, to help the less fortunate as Christ did. Together: Protestants including Evangelicals, and Catholics; Christians, in concert as one.

Some of you guys are unreal.

Yes.

But your one example is not a catch all example.

Nor is it historically reflective.

Doctors, historically speaking, did things like bleed people. Should I refrain from going to one now because of what they have done historically?

Yes, you should stop going to the doctor. They may not bleed your body anymore, just your pockets. (I'm totally kidding... just in case someone doesn't get that.)

First good laugh I've had all night! I love you

Wait. Keute had a good one, too. Very Happy

by Americanadian Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:59 pm

lisan23 wrote:
Yes, you should stop going to the doctor. They may not bleed your body anymore, just your pockets. (I'm totally kidding... just in case someone doesn't get that.)

Ain't that the truth though Question

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:41 am

CarolinaHound wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:Are you stating that there is no organised brainwashing of the vulnerable?

I'll repeat...

Now I'm not saying there hasn't been instances of places like Jamestown and the Wacco deal. But in all honesty, you're going to have extreme examples like that of anything. People have to use a little common sense.

I speak not of 'extreme' examples, but those that are ingrained in our society.

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:43 am

HotParadox wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:
HotParadox wrote:Furthermore, when the place where I volunteer feeds and totally cares for pregnant women and all their existing children and then totally takes care of the entire family until the new baby turns one year old, do you really think that we say to these unfortunate souls, "SORRY, you're not a Christian." Or "You must become a Christian or else we've got nothing for you." No, we don't care what they are or if they are non-believers. And just by the way, we are a bunch of Catholics and Protestants who respect each other and each others' faiths because we are doing what we do for one reason only:TO SERVE CHRIST AND NOT JUDGE EACH OTHER.

And who do you think orchestrates this worldwide charity? A bunch of men and women like me? No. It is ALL heads of Christian sects, started by the Catholic Church just by the way, who donate everything they can, in concert with each other, to help the less fortunate as Christ did. Together: Protestants including Evangelicals, and Catholics; Christians, in concert as one.

Some of you guys are unreal.

Yes.

But your one example is not a catch all example.

Nor is it historically reflective.
It may not be historically reflective, but it is very much what is happening today.
You want to keep going back in history, fine. But the truth is you, who are sympathetic to all, just can't seem to find a way to see anything good in anything that has to do with religion. It's just out of your realm, so I don't see a reason to try and help you soften your heart just a little. It really is a colossal waste of my time.

Fair enough.

No offence, but I think you get a little too defensive on this subject.

And my heart is sufficiently soft enough, thanks.

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:45 am

CarolinaHound wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:
HotParadox wrote:Furthermore, when the place where I volunteer feeds and totally cares for pregnant women and all their existing children and then totally takes care of the entire family until the new baby turns one year old, do you really think that we say to these unfortunate souls, "SORRY, you're not a Christian." Or "You must become a Christian or else we've got nothing for you." No, we don't care what they are or if they are non-believers. And just by the way, we are a bunch of Catholics and Protestants who respect each other and each others' faiths because we are doing what we do for one reason only:TO SERVE CHRIST AND NOT JUDGE EACH OTHER.

And who do you think orchestrates this worldwide charity? A bunch of men and women like me? No. It is ALL heads of Christian sects, started by the Catholic Church just by the way, who donate everything they can, in concert with each other, to help the less fortunate as Christ did. Together: Protestants including Evangelicals, and Catholics; Christians, in concert as one.

Some of you guys are unreal.

Yes.

But your one example is not a catch all example.

Nor is it historically reflective.

Doctors, historically speaking, did things like bleed people. Should I refrain from going to one now because of what they have done historically?

An absurd comparison, chap.

by **Old Timer** Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:07 am

I have a question for you Steve. I know that you are an atheist. I have no problem with that. Mainly because I am a firm believer in freedom of choice. I, as I have stated here, do not belong to any organized religion not do I attend any church services. I have watched many of your threads both here and at the other place. My question is, why do you constantly involve religion in almost everything you post about before the thread is finished. It just seems to keep coming up. I am sure that all here know how you feel by now. All it seems to do is upset some of those here. Are you compelled to continuously bring religion up? It is like waving the proverbial red flag and issuing a challenge.

I do feel compelled to say one thing though. throughout the course of my life I have seen many religious charitable organizations that have, are and will be helping those in need. But I have never seen any organization that called itself athesits and did the same thing. Why is that do you think.

You know me well enough to know that I am not making fun of or taking sides with anyone. I am just curious.

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:12 pm

Old Timer wrote: My question is, why do you constantly involve religion in almost everything you post about before the thread is finished. It just seems to keep coming up. I am sure that all here know how you feel by now. All it seems to do is upset some of those here. Are you compelled to continuously bring religion up? It is like waving the proverbial red flag and issuing a challenge. .

It's a thread about religion.

I am posting about religion.

All subjects are eventually covered on forums.

All opinions eventually become recycled.

I am personally not going to avoid a subject, just because challenging it might upset someone.

I don't do censorship.

Thanks

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:15 pm

Old Timer wrote:I do feel compelled to say one thing though. throughout the course of my life I have seen many religious charitable organizations that have, are and will be helping those in need. But I have never seen any organization that called itself athesits and did the same thing. Why is that do you think..

Part one - True; There are. I have engaged their help myself. Religion didn't come into it for them, I was not compelled to subscribe to their religion. No place have I denied that such groups exist, in many forms.

Part Two - Because 'atheists' are not an organise group. There are many great people who happen to be doing great work, all over the world, and they do so, not hoping for kudos when they die, but because they just want to help people in this life, not the next.

by **CarolinaHound** Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:16 pm

Cartoon Head wrote:
CarolinaHound wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:
HotParadox wrote:Furthermore, when the place where I volunteer feeds and totally cares for pregnant women and all their existing children and then totally takes care of the entire family until the new baby turns one year old, do you really think that we say to these unfortunate souls, "SORRY, you're not a Christian." Or "You must become a Christian or else we've got nothing for you." No, we don't care what they are or if they are non-believers. And just by the way, we are a bunch of Catholics and Protestants who respect each other and each others' faiths because we are doing what we do for one reason only:TO SERVE CHRIST AND NOT JUDGE EACH OTHER.

And who do you think orchestrates this worldwide charity? A bunch of men and women like me? No. It is ALL heads of Christian sects, started by the Catholic Church just by the way, who donate everything they can, in concert with each other, to help the less fortunate as Christ did. Together: Protestants including Evangelicals, and Catholics; Christians, in concert as one.

Some of you guys are unreal.

Yes.

But your one example is not a catch all example.

Nor is it historically reflective.

Doctors, historically speaking, did things like bleed people. Should I refrain from going to one now because of what they have done historically?

An absurd comparison, chap.

Why absurd? Because one is religion and one is science? God can't be proven but what the doctors do can? Even though everytime you turn around doctors find what they had originaly proven and stated was wrong and change how they treet things? I think the comparison is dead on.

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:19 pm

No, it is apples and oranges. You are comparing two different things.

by **CarolinaHound** Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:21 pm

Cartoon Head wrote:No, it is apples and oranges. You are comparing two different things.

Like you never have. lol tongue

by **Peregrine(Endangered)** Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:04 pm

Theophilus wrote:I am not an expert. I would have to say yes. They believe in the new testament. So I am sure they would take John 3:16 to heart.

They are born again through the blood of Christ.

To me it seems just one version of many forms of christianity.

Though very different from some the newer forms of the religion.

Being Italian, I was raised Catholic...I was baptised. Catholics believe in the Trinity...I am no longer Catholic. I have my very own belief system that works well for me. I make no judgements and just wish happiness for every single human being on the face of the earth....

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:04 pm

CarolinaHound wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:No, it is apples and oranges. You are comparing two different things.

Like you never have. lol

Probably have.

But...but..I am alone, I do not have 'god' on my side to guide me with my replies.

You do.

rabbit

by **HotParadox** Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:05 pm

Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:
Theophilus wrote:I am not an expert. I would have to say yes. They believe in the new testament. So I am sure they would take John 3:16 to heart.

They are born again through the blood of Christ.

To me it seems just one version of many forms of christianity.

Though very different from some the newer forms of the religion.

Being Italian, I was raised Catholic...I was baptised. Catholics believe in the Trinity...I am no longer Catholic. I have my very own belief system that works well for me. I make no judgements and just wish happiness for every single human being on the face of the earth....

What a nice way to live your life. I love you

by Sir Bonvolio Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:10 pm

HotParadox wrote:
Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:
Theophilus wrote:I am not an expert. I would have to say yes. They believe in the new testament. So I am sure they would take John 3:16 to heart.

They are born again through the blood of Christ.

To me it seems just one version of many forms of christianity.

Though very different from some the newer forms of the religion.

Being Italian, I was raised Catholic...I was baptised. Catholics believe in the Trinity...I am no longer Catholic. I have my very own belief system that works well for me. I make no judgements and just wish happiness for every single human being on the face of the earth....
What a nice way to live your life.

Was that not the point of religion?

To have support and guidance in living your life in a harmonious way?

IMO, that was why they were started, they just got hijacked along the way by people with their own agenda, and people will always focus on the bad rather than the good.

You never hear about all the people that have been helped by religions.

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:12 pm

Sir Bonvolio wrote:You never hear about all the people that have been helped by religions.

Yes we do.

Over and over.

Sometimes when organised religion doesn't even merit it, they take the credit anyway.

by Keute Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:14 pm

Cartoon Head wrote:
Sir Bonvolio wrote:You never hear about all the people that have been helped by religions.

Yes we do.

Over and over.

Sometimes when organised religion doesn't even merit it, they take the credit anyway.

I couldn't agree more, E.

by Sir Bonvolio Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:17 pm

Ok, I never hear about it.

I've never seen it reported on either...

Question

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:20 pm

Keute wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:
Sir Bonvolio wrote:You never hear about all the people that have been helped by religions.

Yes we do.

Over and over.

Sometimes when organised religion doesn't even merit it, they take the credit anyway.

I couldn't agree more, E.

Thanks.

It's CH, btw - Wink

This is a well written article, by a respected individual.

I think it was Macaulay who said that the Roman Catholic Church deserved great credit for, and owed its longevity to, its ability to handle and contain fanaticism. This rather oblique compliment belongs to a more serious age. What is so striking about the "beatification" of the woman who styled herself "Mother" Teresa is the abject surrender, on the part of the church, to the forces of showbiz, superstition, and populism.

It's the sheer tawdriness that strikes the eye first of all. It used to be that a person could not even be nominated for "beatification," the first step to "sainthood," until five years after his or her death. This was to guard against local or popular enthusiasm in the promotion of dubious characters. The pope nominated MT a year after her death in 1997. It also used to be that an apparatus of inquiry was set in train, including the scrutiny of an advocatus diaboli or "devil's advocate," to test any extraordinary claims. The pope has abolished this office and has created more instant saints than all his predecessors combined as far back as the 16th century

As for the "miracle" that had to be attested, what can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of MT, which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican's investigators? No. (As it happens, I myself was interviewed by them but only in the most perfunctory way. The procedure still does demand a show of consultation with doubters, and a show of consultation was what, in this case, it got.)

According to an uncontradicted report in the Italian paper L'Eco di Bergamo, the Vatican's secretary of state sent a letter to senior cardinals in June, asking on behalf of the pope whether they favored making MT a saint right away. The pope's clear intention has been to speed the process up in order to perform the ceremony in his own lifetime. The response was in the negative, according to Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, the Canadian priest who has acted as postulator or advocate for the "canonization." But the damage, to such integrity as the process possesses, has already been done.

During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion, but they are not required to affirm that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace," as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize*. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996. Later in that same year, she told Ladies Home Journal that she was pleased by the divorce of her friend Princess Diana, because the marriage had so obviously been an unhappy one …

This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?

The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for "the poorest of the poor." People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the "Missionaries of Charity," but they had no audience for their story. George Orwell's admonition in his essay on Gandhi—that saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent—was drowned in a Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed, and uninquiring propaganda.

One of the curses of India, as of other poor countries, is the quack medicine man, who fleeces the sufferer by promises of miraculous healing. Sunday was a great day for these parasites, who saw their crummy methods endorsed by his holiness and given a more or less free ride in the international press. Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. More than that, we witnessed the elevation and consecration of extreme dogmatism, blinkered faith, and the cult of a mediocre human personality. Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of MT: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

by Sir Bonvolio Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:23 pm

Not that bollocks (no offense intended), people who were unhappy with life and just found friendship within a church/mosque/whatever.

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:36 pm

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Not that bollocks (no offense intended), people who were unhappy with life and just found friendship within a church/mosque/whatever.

What of them?

No one is denying them that, as far as I can see, Dan.

I certainly wouldn't.

See, this is the way it basically works.

Let us assume here that we are both non believers, in whatever religion.

That might be Christianity.

It might be Islam.

See, we don't actually threaten anything to 'believers' FOR believing, do we?

At most, we might ask for evidence, or even have a bit of a laugh about religion(s).

But you and I.

No matter what deeds we do in this life, in the eyes of the Christian, it matters not.

They will tell us that we are destined to burn forever(sic), for non compliance.

I mean, what is that if not institutionalised psychological terrorism - believe this or burn! Rolling Eyes

Of course, I take such threats as being empty, since I do not believe in gods and demons, anyway.

No matter.

The implication is always there, and who likes even a hollow threat?

by Sir Bonvolio Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:46 pm

I understand and appreciate that, all I was saying was it does alot of good that you probably won't ever hear about, i.e. 90 year old Mildred who has no friends and family and is very lonely, joins the local church, not because she whole-heartedly beleives, but just for the social aspect. Would change her from very unhappy, to happy. Capiche?

by **HotParadox** Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:53 pm

Sir Bonvolio wrote:
HotParadox wrote:
Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:
Theophilus wrote:I am not an expert. I would have to say yes. They believe in the new testament. So I am sure they would take John 3:16 to heart.

They are born again through the blood of Christ.

To me it seems just one version of many forms of christianity.

Though very different from some the newer forms of the religion.

Being Italian, I was raised Catholic...I was baptised. Catholics believe in the Trinity...I am no longer Catholic. I have my very own belief system that works well for me. I make no judgements and just wish happiness for every single human being on the face of the earth....
What a nice way to live your life.

Was that not the point of religion?

To have support and guidance in living your life in a harmonious way?

IMO, that was why they were started, they just got hijacked along the way by people with their own agenda, and people will always focus on the bad rather than the good.

You never hear about all the people that have been helped by religions.

Great post, Sir Bonvolio. And let me add that it is often the atheists who claim to be truly enlightened, compassionate and morally better people, "because we are not doing good things for the sole purpose of going to 'heaven' ", that seem, for such compassionate people, to have an awful lot of resentment and hostility towards faith and people of faith. And, for that matter, an awful lot to say about something they reject. This is contradictory to their claim of being intrinsically good and caring people. Actually, coupled with the fact that some are so strangely preoccupied and irritated with matters relating to God, they amuse me. To see how my faith causes the arrogant ones to come so unglued and uncomfortable, gives me a great deal of satisfaction. Very Happy

However, let me say, straight up, most atheists that I come in contact with, are not the type I just described. They are more like Peregrine, whose faith or lack of I do not know, bless her heart. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, I think you may fall in that category, too. I love you

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:01 pm

Sir Bonvolio wrote:I understand and appreciate that, all I was saying was it does alot of good that you probably won't ever hear about, i.e. 90 year old Mildred who has no friends and family and is very lonely, joins the local church, not because she whole-heartedly beleives, but just for the social aspect. Would change her from very unhappy, to happy. Capiche?

No I would not.

I thought I had made that clear in my previous post?

Indeed, I would state that the majority of those that attend church etc, in the UK today, are just like your 'Mildred'. It is a social thing for them, and deep down, they don't really beleive all the stories, but hey, they are good stories, and they have a nice cup of tea and a chat.

Tradionally, the disenfranchised and lonely have been good recruting ground for the various religions.

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:05 pm

Btw, all the other points I made about those 'threats', they are true, then we have religionists going off on one lest anyone dare even question them!

Pah.

Here's another thing.

Religionists will accuse atheists of 'arrogance', just because we, um, wish evidence to support these claims.

But, those same people, they will speedily dismiss OTHER religions as cults, and speak ill of them.

Hypocrisy?

At least I am consistant, in that I think it is all fables, be that Catholicism or the Book Of Mormon.

If that makes any sense..? confused

by Sir Bonvolio Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:15 pm

Cartoon Head wrote:
Sir Bonvolio wrote:I understand and appreciate that, all I was saying was it does alot of good that you probably won't ever hear about, i.e. 90 year old Mildred who has no friends and family and is very lonely, joins the local church, not because she whole-heartedly beleives, but just for the social aspect. Would change her from very unhappy, to happy. Capiche?

No I would not.

I thought I had made that clear in my previous post?

Indeed, I would state that the majority of those that attend church etc, in the UK today, are just like your 'Mildred'. It is a social thing for them, and deep down, they don't really beleive all the stories, but hey, they are good stories, and they have a nice cup of tea and a chat.

Tradionally, the disenfranchised and lonely have been good recruting ground for the various religions.

Is that a problem? Using them to wage Jihad is a problem, same as the crusades. But giving a social and support network.

HotParadox wrote:Great post, Sir Bonvolio. And let me add that it is often the atheists who claim to be truly enlightened, compassionate and morally better people, "because we are not doing good things for the sole purpose of going to 'heaven' ", that seem, for such compassionate people, to have an awful lot of resentment and hostility towards faith and people of faith. And, for that matter, an awful lot to say about something they reject. This is contradictory to their claim of being intrinsically good and caring people. Actually, coupled with the fact that some are so strangely preoccupied and irritated with matters relating to God, they amuse me. To see how my faith causes the arrogant ones to come so unglued and uncomfortable, gives me a great deal of satisfaction.

However, let me say, straight up, most atheists that I come in contact with, are not the type I just described. They are more like Peregrine, whose faith or lack of I do not know, bless her heart. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, I think you may fall in that category, too.

Thankyou, it reminds me of a film called Constantine. He is a demon hunter, sending them back to hell from Earth, but he knows he is going to hell. So he keeps hunting demons to try and 'buy' his way into heaven. It never works, it's only when he stops trying to get to heaven, and becomes good for the sake of being good does he earn redemption. And for the record, I'm an atheist, who likes books by Richard Dawkins. Exclamation

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:22 pm

I don't know, is it a problem? Is it a problem for any group, religion, or such to market themselves at the poor, the lonely, the uneducated, or the desperate?

by **HotParadox** Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:23 pm

Sir Bonvolio wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:
Sir Bonvolio wrote:I understand and appreciate that, all I was saying was it does alot of good that you probably won't ever hear about, i.e. 90 year old Mildred who has no friends and family and is very lonely, joins the local church, not because she whole-heartedly beleives, but just for the social aspect. Would change her from very unhappy, to happy. Capiche?

No I would not.

I thought I had made that clear in my previous post?

Indeed, I would state that the majority of those that attend church etc, in the UK today, are just like your 'Mildred'. It is a social thing for them, and deep down, they don't really beleive all the stories, but hey, they are good stories, and they have a nice cup of tea and a chat.

Tradionally, the disenfranchised and lonely have been good recruting ground for the various religions.

Is that a problem? Using them to wage Jihad is a problem, same as the crusades. But giving a social and support network.

HotParadox wrote:Great post, Sir Bonvolio. And let me add that it is often the atheists who claim to be truly enlightened, compassionate and morally better people, "because we are not doing good things for the sole purpose of going to 'heaven' ", that seem, for such compassionate people, to have an awful lot of resentment and hostility towards faith and people of faith. And, for that matter, an awful lot to say about something they reject. This is contradictory to their claim of being intrinsically good and caring people. Actually, coupled with the fact that some are so strangely preoccupied and irritated with matters relating to God, they amuse me. To see how my faith causes the arrogant ones to come so unglued and uncomfortable, gives me a great deal of satisfaction.

However, let me say, straight up, most atheists that I come in contact with, are not the type I just described. They are more like Peregrine, whose faith or lack of I do not know, bless her heart. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, I think you may fall in that category, too.

Thankyou, it reminds me of a film called Constantine. He is a demon hunter, sending them back to hell from Earth, but he knows he is going to hell. So he keeps hunting demons to try and 'buy' his way into heaven. It never works, it's only when he stops trying to get to heaven, and becomes good for the sake of being good does he earn redemption. And for the record, I'm an atheist, who likes books by Richard Dawkins.

Your welcome.

I know the movie, with Keanu Reeves, an excellent flick!
And for the record, it is a pleasure to meet you, an atheist, who likes books by Richard Dawkins. cheers

by Sir Bonvolio Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:31 pm

HotParadox wrote:
Sir Bonvolio wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:
Sir Bonvolio wrote:I understand and appreciate that, all I was saying was it does alot of good that you probably won't ever hear about, i.e. 90 year old Mildred who has no friends and family and is very lonely, joins the local church, not because she whole-heartedly beleives, but just for the social aspect. Would change her from very unhappy, to happy. Capiche?

No I would not.

I thought I had made that clear in my previous post?

Indeed, I would state that the majority of those that attend church etc, in the UK today, are just like your 'Mildred'. It is a social thing for them, and deep down, they don't really beleive all the stories, but hey, they are good stories, and they have a nice cup of tea and a chat.

Tradionally, the disenfranchised and lonely have been good recruting ground for the various religions.

Is that a problem? Using them to wage Jihad is a problem, same as the crusades. But giving a social and support network.

HotParadox wrote:Great post, Sir Bonvolio. And let me add that it is often the atheists who claim to be truly enlightened, compassionate and morally better people, "because we are not doing good things for the sole purpose of going to 'heaven' ", that seem, for such compassionate people, to have an awful lot of resentment and hostility towards faith and people of faith. And, for that matter, an awful lot to say about something they reject. This is contradictory to their claim of being intrinsically good and caring people. Actually, coupled with the fact that some are so strangely preoccupied and irritated with matters relating to God, they amuse me. To see how my faith causes the arrogant ones to come so unglued and uncomfortable, gives me a great deal of satisfaction.

However, let me say, straight up, most atheists that I come in contact with, are not the type I just described. They are more like Peregrine, whose faith or lack of I do not know, bless her heart. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, I think you may fall in that category, too.

Thankyou, it reminds me of a film called Constantine. He is a demon hunter, sending them back to hell from Earth, but he knows he is going to hell. So he keeps hunting demons to try and 'buy' his way into heaven. It never works, it's only when he stops trying to get to heaven, and becomes good for the sake of being good does he earn redemption. And for the record, I'm an atheist, who likes books by Richard Dawkins.
Your welcome.

I know the movie, with Keanu Reeves, an excellent flick!
And for the record, it is a pleasure to meet you, an atheist, who likes books by Richard Dawkins.

Then you know why it reminds me of the film then Smile

It is entirely reciprocal, I do find that some of Dawkins theories in the Selfish Gene lend themselves (inadvertantly) towards intelligent design. Shocked

And CH, it isn't when their aims are pure. The base level of most organisations are honest, it's only when you go up the ladder that the messages get convaluted. Think of it like this, just because the oil companies make shady business deals and exploit people causing death and unrest, doesn't mean that the man in the petrol station is also trying to fuck you over. You'll find that most vicars are actually very nice, very genuine people.

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:34 pm

Sir Bonvolio wrote:I do find that some of Dawkins theories in the Selfish Gene lend themselves (inadvertantly) towards intelligent design. .

Do you? I would sure like to hear which. And I am sure he would, more to the point. I have an address for him, if you care to write?

by Sir Bonvolio Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:39 pm

Cartoon Head wrote:
Sir Bonvolio wrote:I do find that some of Dawkins theories in the Selfish Gene lend themselves (inadvertantly) towards intelligent design. .

Do you? I would sure like to hear which. And I am sure he would, more to the point. I have an address for him, if you care to write?

It is widely accepted that the conditions in which life were created and the way that that came about, how DNA became the only replicator to have survived, and how they started working in cahoots with each other, i.e.to have a complex animal with multiple organs, they need to develop at almost the same time.

It was a flippant comment meant to be ironic. But with a little 'Development', you could do that with his arguments in Chapter two I believe.

by Cartoon Head Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:51 pm

Sir Bonvolio wrote:
Cartoon Head wrote:
Sir Bonvolio wrote:I do find that some of Dawkins theories in the Selfish Gene lend themselves (inadvertantly) towards intelligent design. .

Do you? I would sure like to hear which. And I am sure he would, more to the point. I have an address for him, if you care to write?

It is widely accepted that the conditions in which life were created and the way that that came about, how DNA became the only replicator to have survived, and how they started working in cahoots with each other, i.e.to have a complex animal with multiple organs, they need to develop at almost the same time.

It was a flippant comment meant to be ironic. But with a little 'Development', you could do that with his arguments in Chapter two I believe.

Gotcha.

No worries, fella.

cheers

by Sponsored content