Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Owlswing on November 18, 2015, 08:22:41 PM
-
How in the name of humanity can anyone, supposedly hiuman or Christian, justify this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2651484/I-thought-Id-seen-Philomena-And-I-nuns-secret-grave-800-babies-By-Martin-Sixsmith-exposed-Sisters-sold-children-fallen-girls.html
And people wonder why I have problems with Christianity?
-
People do bad thing in the name of almost anything, it doesn't disprove everyone who takes that position
The OP is like all the stuff asking Muslims to condemn. What happened in Paris. Me old mother would be shocked and condemn this but she isn't responsible for it.
-
People do bad thing in the name of almost anything, it doesn't disprove everyone who takes that position
The OP is like all the stuff asking Muslims to condemn. What happened in Paris. Me old mother would be shocked and condemn this but she isn't responsible for it.
What connection does your ol' mother have with Tuam? Her reaction, shock and condemnation, is what I would expect from any human being, Catholic or not. It is not what we are getting from the Church.
My problem is with the way in which virtually the entire Catholic Church, the Sisterhood that ran the place, the local Catholic clergy, are racing to distance themselves from it!
The hiding of the bodies of these children has achieved what it was intended to achieve - time for those responsible to "disappear" or be able to claim that they didn't know or don't remember.
The article makes it obvious that they are still doing this, the denial and the distancing, today.
-
You don't condemn a whole religion, millions of people; or indeed any vast organisation, because of the failings of some. How would any ordinary, average, Catholics, or any denomination, respond to the link?
-
You don't condemn a whole religion, millions of people; or indeed any vast organisation, because of the failings of some. How would any ordinary, average, Catholics, or any denomination, respond to the link?
Yep, pretty much my feelings, and I am sure those of me old mother, who is RC. The point is surely to work to deal with the suffering caused, and seek to see how we avoid it in the future. It underlines for me that you cannot intertwine religion in this way with the state.
-
What connection does your ol' mother have with Tuam? He reaction, shock and condemnation, is what I would expect from any human being, Catholic or not. It is not what we are getting from the Church.
My problem is with the way in which virtually the entire Catholic Church, the Sisterhood that ran the place, the local Catholic clergy, are racing to distance themselves from it!
The hiding of the bodies of these children has achieved what it was intended to achieve - time for those responsible to "disappear" or be able to claim that they didn't know or don't remember.
The article makes it obvious that they are still doing this, the denial and the distancing, today.
you were the one looking for Christians to justify it, given that me mammy, (quick nod to Milo o'Shea), is an RC she might then be expected to cover it more than a Southern Baptist.
-
How in the name of humanity can anyone, supposedly hiuman or Christian, justify this?
...
And people wonder why I have problems with Christianity?
OK, Matt, In order to be able to justify something, one has to know about it. I'm afraid that I was in the dark about this particular event until you provided a link. I think I would justify it in much the same way that your average Soviet citizen would have justified the Katyn massacre - in other words, they wouldn't have. Instead they would have held up their hands in horror and disbelief instead.
-
Typical!
Not one comment of condemnation!
These people were not parishioners, like your mam, NS, they are the officers of the Church - supposed to show an example - what a crap example of, supposedly, Christ's love!
The women were denied even the most basic care, medication, the children allowed to die ibn pain and suffering, thrown into cesspit and forgotten.
And what is your answer?
You can't blame us! We didn't do it!
It was done in the name of your Christian God because the girls were Sinners. They might have been the children wrre not! This was a 20th century Slaughter of the Innocents.
Not one comment asking what has been done about finding those responsible!
Not one question about what the Church has done to find any children, if any, who survived.
If this is, or was, an example of your God's love, and according to those in charge of this branch of your Church, it was . . . then Hellfire is just not enough!
-
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. First you ask for justification and then you are wanting condemnation, but at base why? As I already raised this is like all those people wanting random Muslims to condemn what happened in Paris. I have no reason to suspect that any of the Christians on here would support this, so what is the point?
Men have done bad stuff, as have Scots, as have tall people. I am not responsible for that. I doubt there is an organisation or set of beliefs that that isn't true of either. So let he/she who isn't associated with evil dicks cast the first stone.
The facts are horrendous, concentrate on how you make that better for those who suffered, rather than seeking contrition from people not involved.
-
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. First you ask for justification and then you are wanting condemnation, but at base why? As I already raised this is like all those people wanting random Muslims to condemn what happened in Paris. I have no reason to suspect that any of the Christians on here would support this, so what is the point?
Men have done bad stuff, as have Scots, as have tall people. I am not responsible for that. I doubt there is an organisation or set of beliefs that that isn't true of either. So let he/she who isn't associated with evil dicks cast the first stone.
The facts are horrendous, concentrate on how you make that better for those who suffered, rather than seeking contrition from people not involved.
I am NOT seeking contrition from those not involved.
What I am seeking is a an explanation of such behaviour can be explained as being, ever, considered to be part of the following of the Christian doctrine.
I am not asking if others did anything similar, I am saying that these actions were done specifically by the members, not the congtregations, of a specific religion - I know of no other religion where its officers have over an extended period condemned girls and children to such suffereing in the name of their God!
And all I get is dodge dodge dodge!
Just skip it - I'm getting the usual - let's close ranks and deny we are any different to any other group!
I asked, specifically - how in the name of humanity can anyone, supposedly hiuman or Christian, justify this?
NOt one of you, not even the Saintly BA, to whom I say, where did I condemn and entire religion by my question, thought to say the very least that I expected - as a human or Christian - YOU CANNOT!
Like I said - skip it!
-
Owlswing has a bee in his bonnet, but hhen he's a pagan.
-
Dear Owlswing,
And people wonder why I have problems with Christianity?
You have a problem with Christianity, try walking a mile in my shoes.
When I read of a Christian condemning another religion I think, does Mathew 7 mean nothing to you.
Gonnagle.
PS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owjuIDwiKtU
-
Dear Owlswing,
You have a problem with Christianity, try walking a mile in my shoes.
When I read of a Christian condemning another religion I think, does Mathew 7 mean nothing to you.
Gonnagle.
PS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owjuIDwiKtU
What's Matthew 7 got to do with other religions?
-
Dear ad,
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
What's Matthew 7 got to do with other religions?
Nothing I suppose, but I think the thread is about Christian hypocrisy, Christian intolerance, the very dark side of Christianity, do we just dismiss it or maybe start a hashtag, not in my name :(
Gonnagle.
-
The passage is about personal holiness (or lack of it) not false religions.
-
Dear Owlswing,
You have a problem with Christianity, try walking a mile in my shoes.
When I read of a Christian condemning another religion I think, does Mathew 7 mean nothing to you.
Gonnagle.
PS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owjuIDwiKtU
Gonners (if I may be permitted to use that familiarity)
Having no idea where yours shoes have led you I cannot. Perhaps, in view of your comment, I should be glad of this. I have, over the years, walked through enough knee-deep shit to know just how much sticks and how hard it can be to get free of it. In fact, some of it sticks so hard you might never free yourself from it and its effects.
What I have issue with (what a polite way of putting what I feel that is!) is the fact that these iniquities were perpetrated in the name of the Christian God and of his son by the clergy and adherents of the religion based, supposedly, the book of rules of the former and the teachings of the latter. Yet the entire mess from parish priests to the Pontiff himself are in denial and refuse to take action against those still living who killed thousands, children who did not ask to be concieved much less did they ask to be born, mothers starved beaten and worked to death for the sin of having sex outside marriage. Yet where were those punishing the men who took the innocence of these women and left them to torture and death from the Church that made the rules that they, the fathers, (a standing prick has no conscience) so blithely ignored.
The Church has also made no efforts to aid the survivors and has, instead, done everything it can to deny that anything ever happened.
It is this turn your back attitude repeated on this topic that makes me almost physically sick.
-
The passage is about personal holiness (or lack of it) not false religions.
I cannot find words that I would be allowed to publish in this Forum to say what I think of your attitude and your particualr version of this poisonous philosophy!
I will be laughing myself silly when you pass from this life and find yourself standing in front of Odin, or Zeus, or Allah, or Cerridwen and trying to find an answer to their question - "What am I going to do with you, Christian?"
It is just as likely as your getting a warm welcome from your God!
-
Dear ad,
Nothing I suppose, but I think the thread is about Christian hypocrisy, Christian intolerance, the very dark side of Christianity, do we just dismiss it or maybe start a hashtag, not in my name :(
Gonnagle.
Morning Gonners,
May I take you to task: there is no dark side to Christianity, which is based on love; but there is a dark side to some Christians; just as there is to some Muslims, as we have so tragically seen; and indeed to all religious groups.
To condemn a religion, and all its adherents on the basis of a few wicked people, is nothing more than point-scoring and ignorance. Further, to suggest right-thinking Christian people do not condemn what happened, is a disgrace.
-
Dear ad,
The passage is about personal holiness
True, very true, it is also about pointing the finger.
not false religions.
Well I suppose me and you have different definitions of false religion, maybe the word I am looking for is hollow.
Where true religion starts for me, and maybe ends, call it a work in progress :o
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Bashers,
May I take you to task: there is no dark side to Christianity, which is based on love; but there is a dark side to some Christians; just as there is to some Muslims, as we have so tragically seen; and indeed to all religious groups.
You my old son ;) can take me to task anytime :P
but there is a dark side to some Christians
I don't have an argument with this, but as I am trying to explain to our ad, we, all Christians need to face up to past mistakes ( mistakes, definitely the wrong word ) confessing our past sins is not enough.
Owlswing is railing against ( and I think with justification ) the horrors which have happened in supposedly Christian establishments, he wants to see justice, retribution, and I think, evidence of this loving God we all profess to.
We can't point the finger until we have cleaned our own house.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Owlswing,
Having no idea where yours shoes have led you I cannot.
My rubbish posting again, what I mean't was from a Christian perspective, any self respecting Christian should hang their head in shame at the Tuam horrors, but at the same time should say, never again, not in my Lords name.
Gonnagle.
-
Why should any self respecting Christian hang their head in shame? We're back straddling Muslims to be ashamed of Paris and Beirut. Condemn it fair enough but feel shame when you are responsible.
Ad_o should feel shame about his lazy generalisation about pagans.
-
Dear Sane,
Why should any self respecting Christian hang their head in shame? We're back straddling Muslims to be ashamed of Paris and Beirut. Condemn it fair enough but feel shame when you are responsible.
Damn you man!! do you never get tired of being right all the time, which does not suppose that I am wrong, me wrong, ha!!
Gonnagle.
-
Why should any self respecting Christian hang their head in shame?
Because by maintaining the idea that unsubstantiated beliefs in ancient superstitions are a valid philosophy you've fed into the cultural acceptance of religion that allows the underlying philosophy of these nutjobs to stand in the modern world.
Rather than being a violent fringe of an outdated superstition they are instead the violent of fringe of a mainstream position.
O.
-
I cannot find words that I would be allowed to publish in this Forum to say what I think of your attitude and your particualr version of this poisonous philosophy!
I will be laughing myself silly when you pass from this life and find yourself standing in front of Odin, or Zeus, or Allah, or Cerridwen and trying to find an answer to their question - "What am I going to do with you, Christian?"
It is just as likely as your getting a warm welcome from your God!
I am not afraid of your gods for they are nothing but men, idols and demons. If you really would like to see a complete ripping to shreds of the pagan gods then I'd suggest reading the first ten books of Blessed Augustine's City of God and you will never look at your gods seriously again.
-
I am not afraid of your gods for they are nothing but men, idols and demons. If you really would like to see a complete ripping to shreds of the pagan gods then I'd suggest reading the first ten books of Blessed Augustine's City of God and you will never look at your gods seriously again.
I feel a disturbance in the force, like a million irony-meters crying out 'Sproing' in the darkness...
O.
-
:-\
Because by maintaining the idea that unsubstantiated beliefs in ancient superstitions are a valid philosophy you've fed into the cultural acceptance of religion that allows the underlying philosophy of these nutjobs to stand in the modern world.
Rather than being a violent fringe of an outdated superstition they are instead the violent of fringe of a mainstream position.
O.
First of all since we don't choose what to believe that isn't even allowing for free will an action.
Second since people seem to be able to find justifications for hatred no matter what,this whole idea that it takes religion for good people to do bad is nonsense.
Third this is blaming me sainted old mother for something she had no part in and would be horrified by, and that sort of blame by proxy is attitude I find deeply scary.
-
First of all since we don't choose what to believe that isn't even allowing for free will an action.
You can choose to believe in a God without adopting a religion. Faith is weird, but religion is scary. And whilst we can't choose what we believe, who knows whose belief might be modified or updated by exposure to the argument? It's a long shot, but against such a pernicious idea as religion it's worth a go.
Second since people seem to be able to find justifications for hatred no matter what,this whole idea that it takes religion for good people to do bad is nonsense.
Ridding ourselves of religion won't rid us of all bad acts, but it will remove some of them, and it will remove some of the barriers to addressing some of them too.
Third this is blaming me sainted old mother for something she had no part in and would be horrified by, and that sort of blame by proxy is attitude I find deeply scary.
If you support the idea of religions, you support the idea that baseless superstition justifies wordly actions - we are all part of the world, we all espouse ideas and philosophies, and we all have to accept the outcomes of that. That your mother might well have been a lovely woman in almost every way, that doesn't change the fact that supporting the idea that religions have validity has consequences.
O.
-
As said I find this proxy guilt thing very scary, btw my mother is still alive, it seems to me the logic of racism.
-
I agree, NS. My mother's a Christian too and she doesn't 'support the validity' of religion; nor does she share any blame for this or any other barbarous act carried out by the church.
-
As said I find this proxy guilt thing very scary, btw my mother is still alive, it seems to me the logic of racism.
Show me someone that has joined their ethnic group, or that can choose to leave it. Guilt is too strong, perhaps - religion is a complex beast, after all - but an acknowledgement of that interdependency is required, I think, if we're to try and get a perspective on why these things happen in order to prevent them happening again.
The undue respect given to faith positions and organised religions is part of the problem in how we address the issue of religious violence and extremism. That we have to pretend there's a valid differentiation between 'good i.e. moderate' interpretations of beliefs and 'bad i.e. extreme' interpretations of beliefs as thought that were anything more than an aesthetic account is ludicrous.
We say extremism when we mean 'a version that doesn't comply with modern sensibilities' rather than any sort of doctrinal or creed position. If there's no means to differentiate, externally (or internally), any sort of validity for these positions, then they aren't functionally any different, we're classifying them by our impact on us, not on any inherent justification.
O.
-
Which is true of all moral positions.
-
As said I find this proxy guilt thing very scary, btw my mother is still alive, it seems to me the logic of racism.
I have accused your mother of NOTHING! I have asked that the Catholic Church acknowledge its guilt, the guilt of its clergy NOT its congregation INCLUDING YTOUR MOTHER!
How about instead of a load of rubbish because you haven't read what I posted you start thinking about what your mother might feel if one of the bodies in the septic tank had been born to her!
Or is that just too painful for you sensitivities?
Nearly Sane? Your comments here make me wonder if you are even Nearly Human!
-
Dear Owlswing,
Its a forum for discussion, calm down please, you made your statement in your OP, now we can discuss.
Gonnagle.
-
Owlswing, mate, my mother's a Christian too and I feel much as NS does. I'm an England football fan but I bear no blame for the football hooliganism of the past. And you and I as pagans bear no blame for the abuses carried out over the years by some over the vulnerable. Any group of people will have among them those that are stupid and those that are rotten to the core.
-
Dear Outrider,
The undue respect given to faith positions and organised religions is part of the problem in how we address the issue of religious violence and extremism.
Undue respect!! another argument for another day, what have the Romans ever did for us. No leave it Gonnagle ( maybe its my confirmation bias, or maybe my self serving bias )
Gonnagle.
-
I have accused your mother of NOTHING! I have asked that the Catholic Church acknowledge its guilt, the guilt of its clergy NOT its congregation INCLUDING YTOUR MOTHER!
How about instead of a load of rubbish because you haven't read what I posted you start thinking about what your mother might feel if one of the bodies in the septic tank had been born to her!
Or is that just too painful for you sensitivities?
Nearly Sane? Your comments here make me wonder if you are even Nearly Human!
Since I was taking issue with a point from Outrider, I haven't said anything about you accusing my mother of anything.
I have already stated clearly that my mother would condemn this and be horrified by it and rightly so.
I understand that you feel the suffering involved in this deeply, but I would suggest that it is leading you to rush the reading on this because you are, no doubt innocently, misrepresenting what I have written quite seriously.
-
I have accused your mother of NOTHING! I have asked that the Catholic Church acknowledge its guilt, the guilt of its clergy NOT its congregation INCLUDING YTOUR MOTHER!
How about instead of a load of rubbish because you haven't read what I posted you start thinking about what your mother might feel if one of the bodies in the septic tank had been born to her!
Or is that just too painful for you sensitivities?
Nearly Sane? Your comments here make me wonder if you are even Nearly Human!
I think that particular comment was probably aimed at my contention that everyone that supports the idea of religion is partially responsible for the fact that religion is acceptable, which feeds the problem of extremist religious terrorism.
O.
-
To suggest that religion isn't acceptable leads to tyranny.
Tricky, isn't it?
-
Dear Outrider,
Undue respect!! another argument for another day, what have the Romans ever did for us. No leave it Gonnagle ( maybe its my confirmation bias, or maybe my self serving bias )
Gonnagle.
Undue respect. I can respect your right to a religion, I can acknowledge that many good things have come from religious people, many good things have been credited to religious inspiration, but that doesn't change the underlying fact that religion as a concept doesn't merit respect.
I can acknowledge the fact that the Great Fire of London had a significant impact on subsequent architecture, the subsidence of the plague in the area and didn't actually kill nearly as many people as is generally presumed, but that doesn't mean I have to think setting fire to London is a good idea*.
O.
* even that, I suspect, will be open to discussion from some :)
-
Dear Outrider,
Undue respect. I can respect your right to a religion, I can acknowledge that many good things have come from religious people, many good things have been credited to religious inspiration, but that doesn't change the underlying fact that religion as a concept doesn't merit respect.
I can acknowledge the fact that the Great Fire of London had a significant impact on subsequent architecture, the subsidence of the plague in the area and didn't actually kill nearly as many people as is generally presumed, but that doesn't mean I have to think setting fire to London is a good idea*.
Sorry but I don't get your analogy, or that you say,
but that doesn't change the underlying fact that religion as a concept doesn't merit respect.
Underlying fact! or religion as a concept!
concept
an abstract idea.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"
synonyms: idea, notion, conception, abstraction, conceptualization; More
a plan or intention.
"the centre has kept firmly to its original concept"
an idea or invention to help sell or publicize a commodity.
"a new concept in corporate hospitality"
My idea of religion, the world in harmony, but maybe that is pie in the sky.
Nope, you have officially burn't a few of my old grey cells, not to worry, gives more room for the few remaining :P :P
Gonnagle
-
Dear Owlswing,
Its a forum for discussion, calm down please, you made your statement in your OP, now we can discuss.
Gonnagle.
Probably the nicest politest way in which I have ever been asked to piss off!
Cinsider it done!
-
Dear Owlswing,
Probably the nicest politest way in which I have ever been asked to piss off!
Nope, I never tell pagans to piss off, atheists on the other hand :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Owlswing,
Nope, I never tell pagans to piss off, atheists on the other hand :P :P
Gonnagle.
I said you "asked" - I did not say you "told" - it was BA who "told" me, so I stayed - you "asked" me so I am going.
-
Typical!
Not one comment of condemnation!
Is condemnation the right emotion anyway, Matt. Surely, a better attitude is horror and, as Gonners has said subsequently - 'never again on my watch'.
In my view condemnation is both negative and potentially as destructive as the original event. I regard a positive 'what can we do to stop this happening again' attitude far more constructive.
Not one comment asking what has been done about finding those responsible!
Not one question about what the Church has done to find any children, if any, who survived.
That could simply because those of us who are Christians take that as read.
If this is, or was, an example of your God's love, and according to those in charge of this branch of your Church, it was . . . then Hellfire is just not enough!
Matt, Druidism had a pretty poor 'health and safety' record if history is to be believed. Was that the fault of their deity, or their human action?
-
Hope
TOO LITTLE and TOO LATE!
The same bullshit repeated again!
-
Dear Owlswing,
Nope, I never tell pagans to piss off, atheists on the other hand :P :P
Gonnagle.
Getting rid of us won't make gods any more real. They are all the fruit of the human imagination.
-
Because by maintaining the idea that unsubstantiated beliefs in ancient superstitions are a valid philosophy you've fed into the cultural acceptance of religion that allows the underlying philosophy of these nutjobs to stand in the modern world.
Rather than being a violent fringe of an outdated superstition they are instead the violent of fringe of a mainstream position.
O.
O, the position you take is no less a 'nutjob' position.
-
Getting rid of us won't make gods any more real. They are all the fruit of the human imagination.
Mind you, if the latter are also the fruit of a deity's actions, then your arguemnt is turned on itself. Do you have any conclusive evidence that they aren't (and no Shakes, again, this is not a negative proof argument: I am asking LJ to provide evidence to support his particular assertion).
-
Hope
TOO LITTLE and TOO LATE!
The same bullshit repeated again!
Matt, in view of the large number of horrific events that occur across the globe, it can be difficult to keep up with all of them. I will only accept your condemnation if you can prove that Pagans have never perpetrated anything similar.
-
O, the position you take is no less a 'nutjob' position.
How? How is my position a 'nutjob' position? Can you show me the 'definitive' interpretation of Christianity, or Islam or Judaism? No, no-one can, most likely because there isn't one. In that absence there is no way to justify telling one person their belief system is invalid and someone else's is valid, we have to say that they're all equally likely.
We can object to the outcomes, certainly, but whilst 'moderate' religious belief is acceptable all religious belief is acceptable because it's impossible to differentiate between them. All you have is more or less desirable outcomes from an outsider's perspective. People are willing to kill in the hundreds, thousands for this, and yet none of you can demonstrate any reason to think that any of it's worth printing on toilet paper.
You're defending fairy tales, and fairy tales are killing people.
I'm not the nut-job in that scenario when I'm the one advocating putting the book back on the shelf.
O.
-
How? How is my position a 'nutjob' position? Can you show me the 'definitive' interpretation of Christianity, or Islam or Judaism? No, no-one can, most likely because there isn't one. In that absence there is no way to justify telling one person their belief system is invalid and someone else's is valid, we have to say that they're all equally likely.
We can object to the outcomes, certainly, but whilst 'moderate' religious belief is acceptable all religious belief is acceptable because it's impossible to differentiate between them. All you have is more or less desirable outcomes from an outsider's perspective. People are willing to kill in the hundreds, thousands for this, and yet none of you can demonstrate any reason to think that any of it's worth printing on toilet paper.
You're defending fairy tales, and fairy tales are killing people.
I'm not the nut-job in that scenario when I'm the one advocating putting the book back on the shelf.
O.
Bravo!
-
How? How is my position a 'nutjob' position? Can you show me the 'definitive' interpretation of Christianity, or Islam or Judaism? No, no-one can, most likely because there isn't one. In that absence there is no way to justify telling one person their belief system is invalid and someone else's is valid, we have to say that they're all equally likely.
I don't know the full ins and outs of Islam to be able to give anything definitive, but I could do so with both Christianity and Judaism. I appreciate that there are humans who would probably disagree with me in these definitions, but then they would have to argue with the founder of those inter-related faiths, and not me.
Judaism teaches that the people of Israel were chosen, by the Creator God, to be his witnesses to the peoples living around them. This choice didn't reflect anything that the people exhibited - intellect, strength, size, etc. If anything, they were chosen because of their lack of strength and size. They were to witness to the uniqueness of God, and his grace and mercy in the face of humanity's failings.
The Old Testament is testament to the way in which the people of Israel were less than successful in this role, to the extent that, for some of their leaders, the 'good news' that they were meant to share was only to be shared amongst themselves.
Christianity came about when God chose to 'reboot' the process and to widen the role of witnesses both in terms of who could be a witness and who could be the recipient of said witness. Under the terms of this 'reboot', the tradition of annual sacrifice to ask for and receive forgiveness (both animal and other sacrifices) was relaced by a once for all sacrifice (once for all time and once for all people). In the same way that the Old Testament Jews had to 'trust in' and accept the efficacy of their various sacrifices, so with the advent of the reboot, people of all nations simply have to 'trust in' and accept the efficacy of this once for all sacrifice.
Some choose to do so, some don't; its up to each individual to make that choice.
-
I don't know the full ins and outs of Islam to be able to give anything definitive, but I could do so with both Christianity and Judaism. I appreciate that there are humans who would probably disagree with me in these definitions, but then they would have to argue with the founder of those inter-related faiths, and not me.
That's fine, except that:
a) the 'founder' you refer to is probably a myth
b) even if he isn't, he's not here trying to stop this or clarify anything.
Judaism teaches that the people of Israel were chosen, by the Creator God, to be his witnesses to the peoples living around them. This choice didn't reflect anything that the people exhibited - intellect, strength, size, etc. If anything, they were chosen because of their lack of strength and size. They were to witness to the uniqueness of God, and his grace and mercy in the face of humanity's failings.
You don't see a tendency towards hostile action towards members of other tribes in that?
The Old Testament is testament to the way in which the people of Israel were less than successful in this role, to the extent that, for some of their leaders, the 'good news' that they were meant to share was only to be shared amongst themselves.
I'm sure that's one interpretation, but I'm equally sure that there are some interpretations that say the ancient Jews were absolutely fine, and that this justifies, say, occupying swathes of what modern politics considers Palestine.
Christianity came about when God chose to 'reboot' the process and to widen the role of witnesses both in terms of who could be a witness and who could be the recipient of said witness. Under the terms of this 'reboot', the tradition of annual sacrifice to ask for and receive forgiveness (both animal and other sacrifices) was relaced by a once for all sacrifice (once for all time and once for all people). In the same way that the Old Testament Jews had to 'trust in' and accept the efficacy of their various sacrifices, so with the advent of the reboot, people of all nations simply have to 'trust in' and accept the efficacy of this once for all sacrifice.
Again, one interpretation, but not the only one.
Some choose to do so, some don't; its up to each individual to make that choice.
And how does that enable us to turn to people who believe other things from their interpretation and say 'that's not a valid interpretation'?
I don't doubt that there are non-hostile interpretations. I doubt there's a 'true' interpretation, because I think it's all made up in the first place, but even if it isn't hundreds of years of theology hasn't produced a definitive understanding, and even if it had the overwhelming majority of the faithful have no idea of the involved complex theology of scholars.
Those are the people that are out killing in the names of gods. If your idea of God has validity in the absence of anything definitive, why is their idea any less valid?
That's the problem, that's why ANY religious belief is a mandate for all of it. That's why religious moderatism is the political shield behind which extremism hides, because as long as moderates cling to their religions and say 'Religion is valid' we are on the back foot against the extremists.
O.
-
That's fine, except that:
a) the 'founder' you refer to is probably a myth
b) even if he isn't, he's not here trying to stop this or clarify anything.
That's your opinion - which you are perfectly entitled to, O. It's not mine.
You don't see a tendency towards hostile action towards members of other tribes in that?
Only if you feel that the 'model' tribe isn't equally bad as any other - and of course, if that was the case, what would they be being able to 'model'?
I'm sure that's one interpretation, but I'm equally sure that there are some interpretations that say the ancient Jews were absolutely fine, and that this justifies, say, occupying swathes of what modern politics considers Palestine.
Maybe there are, but can you indicate where, in the Old Testament, this 'absolutely fine' thinking comes from?
Again, one interpretation, but not the only one.
In fact, that is pretty well the standard Christian understanding. OK, I've put it into more modern language than many might be accustomed to, but that is the basic tenet of Christianity. I accept that there are a lot of other ideas - such as the place of celicacy, or of women in ministry, or the precise nature of substitutionary atonement, or ..., or ..., but what I have outlined above is pretty well core.
And how does that enable us to turn to people who believe other things from their interpretation and say 'that's not a valid interpretation'?
I'd use much the same way that historians might use about history - 'where does your interpretation fit with the totality of the documentary and other evidence we have?'
I don't doubt that there are non-hostile interpretations. I doubt there's a 'true' interpretation, because I think it's all made up in the first place, but even if it isn't hundreds of years of theology hasn't produced a definitive understanding, and even if it had the overwhelming majority of the faithful have no idea of the involved complex theology of scholars.
As I said above - "That's your opinion - which you are perfectly entitled to, O. It's not mine." I have spoken to and with Christians from across the theological spectrum, cultural spectrum, wealth spectrum, etc. over the years, and what I outlined above, albeit fairly simplistically, is the core to their thinking.
Those are the people that are out killing in the names of gods. If your idea of God has validity in the absence of anything definitive, why is their idea any less valid?
Can you produce a single verse, let a reasoned and scripture-wide theme, that says that Christians ought to be out killing people?
That's the problem, that's why ANY religious belief is a mandate for all of it. That's why religious moderatism is the political shield behind which extremism hides, because as long as moderates cling to their religions and say 'Religion is valid' we are on the back foot against the extremists.
OK, but then you could replace the terms 'religious/religions' with 'political' and you'd have an equally legitimate argument. I don't see people suggesting that politics - which is most definitely a man-made concept - should be 'got rid of' or that we ought to be 'nibbling away at the politic-ists', to adapt a phrase ippy introduced.
-
Only if you feel that the 'model' tribe isn't equally bad as any other - and of course, if that was the case, what would they be being able to 'model'?
Not really - it doesn't matter how good or bad they were in comparison to any others, it's the idea of a 'chosen' people that engenders the idea of special treatment and permits mistreatment of 'other'.
Maybe there are, but can you indicate where, in the Old Testament, this 'absolutely fine' thinking comes from?
It really doesn't matter whether I can, and to a degree it doesn't matter whether you can, it only matters that they can.
In fact, that is pretty well the standard Christian understanding. OK, I've put it into more modern language than many might be accustomed to, but that is the basic tenet of Christianity. I accept that there are a lot of other ideas - such as the place of celicacy, or of women in ministry, or the precise nature of substitutionary atonement, or ..., or ..., but what I have outlined above is pretty well core.
And yet we see groups that don't hold to that, or who claim to hold to that and then have caveats and provisos.
I'd use much the same way that historians might use about history - 'where does your interpretation fit with the totality of the documentary and other evidence we have?'
The overwhelming majority of believers, though, are not highly educated people with a knowledge of the historical context. Quite the opposite, the correlation is that people who are more highly educated are less likely to be believers.
As I said above - "That's your opinion - which you are perfectly entitled to, O. It's not mine." I have spoken to and with Christians from across the theological spectrum, cultural spectrum, wealth spectrum, etc. over the years, and what I outlined above, albeit fairly simplistically, is the core to their thinking.
And, again, it's exactly the same base materials that justified the Crusades, that justified slavery - and justified abolition - and justified the political manouevring of the English Civil War, and justified centuries of anti-Semitism... It's open to interpretation, it isn't precise and there's no way to update it, but at the same time the nature of the idea of gods embodies anyone's heartfelt interpretation with the weight of God behind it.
Can you produce a single verse, let a reasoned and scripture-wide theme, that says that Christians ought to be out killing people?
Metaphorically, yes. An absolute instruction to kill, not that I can immediately think of, but that's the object lesson of large swathes of the Old Testament that Jesus endorses (not that you accept THAT interpretation of THAT particular component); the description of segments of the populace (i.e. black people, homosexuals, women) as inherently less worthy or deserving of opprobrium. Couple those two concepts and violence is not only justified it's actively encouraged.
OK, but then you could replace the terms 'religious/religions' with 'political' and you'd have an equally legitimate argument.
Some political systems, yes, but not all. The problem, ultimately, is the idea of an absolute, unquestionable authority. In religion you have gods or god, in (say) Soviet Russia you had Stalin, in Nazi Germany you had Hitler and the Nazi party. Other political systems balance that power out so that it doesn't get focussed anywhere, so that no-one and nothing is the absolute authority.
I don't see people suggesting that politics - which is most definitely a man-made concept - should be 'got rid of' or that we ought to be 'nibbling away at the politic-ists', to adapt a phrase ippy introduced.
Politics, no, but fascism? Communism - some would say that's inherently centralised and authoritarian, others would contest that it doesn't need to be but the practical applications in history have happened that way.
O.
-
Heck of a lot of pretentious rubbish in this thread. Christianity is a belief in the life and teachings, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
-
Heck of a lot of pretentious rubbish in this thread. Christianity is a belief in the life and teachings, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Glad we cleared that one up after all these years ::)
-
Glad we cleared that one up after all these years ::)
Well, obviously the uninformed, and biased, need to be reminded constantly.
-
Well, obviously the uninformed, and biased, need to be reminded constantly.
No, only once, and then the uninformed have been informed so can no longer be uninformed.
-
No, only once, and then the uninformed have been informed so can no longer be uninformed.
Right, but that's assuming they had a clue what you were telling them in the first place! And then there are the dumbbells who pretend not to know, just for the sake of argument (they've been doing it for years!) Wonder which you are?
-
No, only once, and then the uninformed have been informed so can no longer be uninformed.
Not sure that that necessarily works, Shakes. Informing someone of something doesn't guarantee that they hear what they are being informed of. So, someone can remain uninformed regardless of how many times one informs them of something. It all has to do with the linguistic notion of 'exchange'. :)
-
Heck of a lot of pretentious rubbish in this thread. Christianity is a belief in the life and teachings, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Or, from the outside, a hell of a lot of denial in this thread.
Christianity at its best might be a belief in the more charitable teachings of Jesus, perhaps. Christianity at its worst is a belief in the less civilised lessons of Jesus (relatively few, I'll admit), his disciples and his espousement of the Old Testament.
Christianity is the sum of the actions of people who believe in a divine Jesus, and that's a very, very mixed bag.
O.
-
Not sure that that necessarily works, Shakes. Informing someone of something doesn't guarantee that they hear what they are being informed of. So, someone can remain uninformed regardless of how many times one informs them of something.
Yes, very true - I know of a prime example of same.
-
Or, from the outside, a hell of a lot of denial in this thread.
Christianity at its best might be a belief in the more charitable teachings of Jesus, perhaps. Christianity at its worst is a belief in the less civilised lessons of Jesus (relatively few, I'll admit), his disciples and his espousement of the Old Testament.
Christianity is the sum of the actions of people who believe in a divine Jesus, and that's a very, very mixed bag.
O.
Apart from anything else, Jesus came to replace the archaic views of the OT, with His new Gospel of "Good News."
-
Apart from anything else, Jesus came to replace the archaic views of the OT, with His new Gospel of "Good News."
That's your take, perhaps, Hope's too from memory - apologies if I've mischaracterised either of you in that. It's not other people's view, who think that Jesus explicitly reinforced the Old Testament laws (Sassy?).
Then things just devolve into the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy with added sky-fairy, and four generations down the line you're blowing people up at restaurants and claiming that 'it's not religion, it's politics, just ask those Proddy/Sunni/Jewish bastards*'...
O.
* Insert religious slur of choice, obviously.
-
That's your take, perhaps, Hope's too from memory - apologies if I've mischaracterised either of you in that. It's not other people's view, who think that Jesus explicitly reinforced the Old Testament laws (Sassy?).
Then things just devolve into the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy with added sky-fairy, and four generations down the line you're blowing people up at restaurants and claiming that 'it's not religion, it's politics, just ask those Proddy/Sunni/Jewish bastards*'...
O.
* Insert religious slur of choice, obviously.
Sorry Sassy, but you got that wrong.
No true Christian is blowing up anything. When you talk of such people, you are talking about homicidal maniacs, not true believers. To a Christian, all life is sacrosanct. Anybody preaching otherwise is wrong, or nuts, or both.
-
Sorry Sassy, but you got that wrong.
No true Christian is blowing up anything. When you talk of such people, you are talking about homicidal maniacs, not true believers. To a Christian, all life is sacrosanct. Anybody preaching otherwise is wrong, or nuts, or both.
I'm so glad you avoided the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy - having had it called out in advance you'd have to be a massive tool to go and make exactly that pathetic excuse for an argument.
(That, by the way, was 'irony'. Look it up, you appear to be naturally immune)
O.
-
I'm so glad you avoided the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy - having had it called out in advance you'd have to be a massive tool to go and make exactly that pathetic excuse for an argument.
(That, by the way, was 'irony'. Look it up, you appear to be naturally immune)
O.
No; I just ignore such meagre comments.
-
Probably best: how you would try to make that argument and square it with your attempt to convince us that it isn't the No True Scotsman fallacy would set you a-squirming for pages and pages and pages.
-
Probably best: how you would t
Oh dear! Now look what I've done: I've gone and woken Shaker up. Sorry, mate; I know you need your beauty sleep; but let's be honest, it ain't working.
-
I'm so glad you avoided the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy - having had it called out in advance you'd have to be a massive tool to go and make exactly that pathetic excuse for an argument.
(That, by the way, was 'irony'. Look it up, you appear to be naturally immune)
O.
BA is immune to any facts that don't agree with his version of the Bible.
-
Probably best: how you would try to make that argument and square it with your attempt to convince us that it isn't the No True Scotsman fallacy would set you a-squirming for pages and pages and pages.
Oh dear! Now look what I've done: I've gone and woken Shaker up. Sorry, mate; I know you need your beauty sleep; but let's be honest, it ain't working.