Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on October 07, 2016, 11:07:11 AM
-
The Catholic church has done a lot of damage with its doctrines, purgatory, hell-fire, not permitting contraception etc. Whilst of course not all priests were paedophiles a significant number are/were. The Catholic Church covered up their crimes rather than handing them over to the police! Then there were the disgusting Magdalene Laundries where unmarried pregnant girls were sent to be abused by the nuns running them. Quite a number of people who have attended Catholic schools talk of the cruelty they received at the hands of those in charge.
Other faiths are far from blameless either, but the Catholic Church seems to be the leader of the pack where abuse is concerned.
Do present day Catholics feel any unease about the crimes of the past, and some which continue to this day?
-
Zzzz!
-
Yawn.
-
The Catholic church has done a lot of damage with its doctrines, purgatory, hell-fire, not permitting contraception etc. Whilst of course not all priests were paedophiles a significant number are/were. The Catholic Church covered up their crimes rather than handing them over to the police! Then there were the disgusting Magdalene Laundries where unmarried pregnant girls were sent to be abused by the nuns running them. Quite a number of people who have attended Catholic schools talk of the cruelty they received at the hands of those in charge.
Other faiths are far from blameless either, but the Catholic Church seems to be the leader of the pack where abuse is concerned.
Do present day Catholics feel any unease about the crimes of the past, and some which continue to this day?
Obviously it's fingers in the ears shut the eyes and La La La, they've a lot to account for, didn't the previous pope resign before it was exposed how much he was involved in the child abuse cover up?
I know they've signed off Limbo for still born children now but how cruel and pathetic that was and still they follow?
ippy
-
I don't think too many Catholics in the UK adhere to the anti-contraception rule nowadays.
-
The film, 'The Magdalene Sisters' was quite an eye opener for me.
-
The film, 'The Magdalene Sisters' was quite an eye opener for me.
Was that because there is a scene with naked ladies in it? :-[
-
The Catholic church has done a lot of damage with its doctrines, purgatory, hell-fire, not permitting contraception etc. Whilst of course not all priests were paedophiles a significant number are/were. The Catholic Church covered up their crimes rather than handing them over to the police! Then there were the disgusting Magdalene Laundries where unmarried pregnant girls were sent to be abused by the nuns running them. Quite a number of people who have attended Catholic schools talk of the cruelty they received at the hands of those in charge.
Other faiths are far from blameless either, but the Catholic Church seems to be the leader of the pack where abuse is concerned.
Do present day Catholics feel any unease about the crimes of the past, and some which continue to this day?
Do present day antitheists feel any unease about the crimes of Stalin which admittedly stopped around the 30 million mark?
-
Do we have any RC's posting here anymore?
-
Do present day antitheists feel any unease about the crimes of Stalin which admittedly stopped around the 30 million mark?
Have you asked any?
-
Someone asked about Stalin. Not Stalin, but when I was at school and found out what the Nazis did to the Jews (& others), I felt a terrible burden and for years had a sort of guilty feeling, that I was part of a section of humanity who had stood by and allowed it all to happen. Of course I know most ordinary people in this country, my mother for example, didn't know what was going on and only found out afterwards. I don't feel guilty about that now and it was irrational of me to feel that way but I couldn't help it. I was ashamed.
I'm an RC, albeit lapsed. No, I don't feel guilty about the abuse of children by clergy, I haven't abused anyone. Embarrassed, yes.
At one time I knew the statistics relating to said abuse, I've forgotten them now but floo is forever bringing this up in one place or another so she must know.
The Magdalene Laundries in Ireland were a scandal (as were the 'Industrial Schools' for boys). They were run by the Good Shepherd nuns. I spent two years in a Good Shepherd convent, in England from 1966-68, which was a little later than when the Irish mother and baby homes had their heyday and I wasn't pregnant so it was a different scenario; still I knew what the GS nuns were like, some of them anyway. Never quite got over it but I always get the impression they were far harsher in Ireland than here. It was just how they were, they'd have been the same had they not been Catholic. Some people just like to dominate and humiliate, seems to be built into their nature. Beats me.
-
Beats me.
They did that in Ireland, a lot!
-
I reckon if I had got pregnant before I married in 1969, my father, who was half Irish, would have been tempted to ship me off to one of those evil laundries, even though he wasn't Catholic!!!!!!
-
Have you asked any?
Shut up!
-
I reckon if I had got pregnant before I married in 1969, my father, who was half Irish, would have been tempted to ship me off to one of those evil laundries, even though he wasn't Catholic!!!!!!
Nonsense floo, they were in Ireland. I doubt your parents would have sent you to Ireland even if your dad was half Irish, maybe mainland England where, so I understand, the conditions were better than in the Magdalenes. In any case, you had a boyfriend from a young age and you loved eachother so you would most likely have got married quickly, which a lot of people did.
Had I become pregnant, I daresay my parents would have wanted me to go somewhere but, again, it wouldn't have been Ireland. I could be doing my parents an injustice of course, mothers often used to warn daughters and make veiled threats but very often, if it came to it, they looked after their daughter and child. We will never know what my mum and dad would have done.
The Good Shepherd convent where I was sent had a laundry, it was for the school and the convent and didn't take in outside laundry, except for that of one priest in the district. We didn't know about the infamous Magdalene laundries in Ireland, had never even heard of them. and some of the girls worked in there part time, in between lessons, but weren't pregnant. We were paid a little bit, I remember. A nun had overall charge and, under her, I worked in and was in charge of the wash house and I loved it!
The GS nuns did run a couple of mother and baby homes, one was near Bristol I think. Some girls visited us from there and seemed to like the place, they were well cared for and the GS order gave them a lot of help if they wanted to keep their babies. However, that was over here and it was later on in the 1960s than the film sets for the Magdalene laundries. It's amazing what difference even a couple of years makes, also being in a different countries.
-
They did that in Ireland, a lot!
I thought "beating" yourself was a sin in Catholic circles.
-
Well, there is "The Discipline", which is not supposed to happen now - but who knows what goes on in private?
Many of us regularly 'beat ourselves up' :D metaphorically speaking, but that's something different entirely.
-
The Magdalene Laundries in Ireland were a scandal (as were the 'Industrial Schools' for boys). They were run by the Good Shepherd nuns. I spent two years in a Good Shepherd convent, in England from 1966-68, which was a little later than when the Irish mother and baby homes had their heyday and I wasn't pregnant so it was a different scenario; still I knew what the GS nuns were like, some of them anyway. Never quite got over it but I always get the impression they were far harsher in Ireland than here. It was just how they were, they'd have been the same had they not been Catholic. Some people just like to dominate and humiliate, seems to be built into their nature. Beats me.
Don't forget that when the Irish constitution was drawn up by De Valera, the RC Church was given special status - effectively it became an independent organisation within the state of Ireland and could do pretty well what it wanted. The state deferred to the church in matters of morality and did not interfere with its activities. Thus the Magdalene laundries were not inspected and allowed to operate freely - that their treatment of inmates was totally unlawful and unconstitutional was never considered.
I'm sure that there were many good and humane nuns working in the laundries but the lack of external monitoring meant that the bullies and self-important managed to get control. And many were obsessed with idea that sex was equivalent to grave sin.
Don't forget that only a couple of years ago, or so, a pregnant woman was allowed to die in an Irish hospital rather than abort the non-viable foetus she was carrying, such was the confusion among the medical staff about the possible legal consequence of their actions.
-
I thought "beating" yourself was a sin in Catholic circles.
Atheists are always bashing the bishops.
-
Nonsense floo, they were in Ireland. I doubt your parents would have sent you to Ireland even if your dad was half Irish, maybe mainland England where, so I understand, the conditions were better than in the Magdalenes. In any case, you had a boyfriend from a young age and you loved eachother so you would most likely have got married quickly, which a lot of people did.
Had I become pregnant, I daresay my parents would have wanted me to go somewhere but, again, it wouldn't have been Ireland. I could be doing my parents an injustice of course, mothers often used to warn daughters and make veiled threats but very often, if it came to it, they looked after their daughter and child. We will never know what my mum and dad would have done.
The Good Shepherd convent where I was sent had a laundry, it was for the school and the convent and didn't take in outside laundry, except for that of one priest in the district. We didn't know about the infamous Magdalene laundries in Ireland, had never even heard of them. and some of the girls worked in there part time, in between lessons, but weren't pregnant. We were paid a little bit, I remember. A nun had overall charge and, under her, I worked in and was in charge of the wash house and I loved it!
The GS nuns did run a couple of mother and baby homes, one was near Bristol I think. Some girls visited us from there and seemed to like the place, they were well cared for and the GS order gave them a lot of help if they wanted to keep their babies. However, that was over here and it was later on in the 1960s than the film sets for the Magdalene laundries. It's amazing what difference even a couple of years makes, also being in a different countries.
If you actually read my post, I said my father would have been tempted to send me to Ireland, I didn't say he would have actually done so, or would have been able to do so had he wished!
-
Atheists are always bashing the bishops.
Yeah it.relieves the pressure of having to deal with inane theists.
-
Atheists are always bashing the bishops.
I praised Desmond Tutu who is an Archbishop!
-
So did I, floo, and I take your point about earlier discussion re dad and pregnancy (that sounds funny, I'll leave it as you'll know what I mean).
HH: I'm sure that there were many good and humane nuns working in the laundries but the lack of external monitoring meant that the bullies and self-important managed to get control. And many were obsessed with idea that sex was equivalent to grave sin.
Yes I agree with all of that - and we had a lot of that in England too which made life difficult. You are right too that there were some good and humane nuns, some quite jolly and humourous.
-
So did I, floo, and I take your point about earlier discussion re dad and pregnancy (that sounds funny, I'll leave it as you'll know what I mean).
HH: I'm sure that there were many good and humane nuns working in the laundries but the lack of external monitoring meant that the bullies and self-important managed to get control. And many were obsessed with idea that sex was equivalent to grave sin.
Yes I agree with all of that - and we had a lot of that in England too which made life difficult. You are right too that there were some good and humane nuns, some quite jolly and humourous.
I would have thought being a Nun would necessarily require a sense of humour.
ippy
-
May I suggest watching the following
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/the-catholic-church-is-a-force-for-good-in-the-world/
Stephen Fry, Christopher Hitchens debate the statement that "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the World" with Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe.
I am not a fan of Christopher Hitchens, but I am of Stephen Fry, but the pair of them seem to make a good case against the motion, as demonstrated by the vote at the end of the debate.
I will be inetersted to see your comments on the debate and it contents and result. Assuming, of course, anyone watches it.
-
May I suggest watching the following
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/the-catholic-church-is-a-force-for-good-in-the-world/
Stephen Fry, Christopher Hitchens debate the statement that "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the World" with Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe.
I am not a fan of Christopher Hitchens, but I am of Stephen Fry, but the pair of them seem to make a good case against the motion, as demonstrated by the vote at the end of the debate.
I will be interested to see your comments on the debate and it contents and result. Assuming, of course, anyone watches it.
I was there Owl, a large section of I assume RC's walked out en 'mass', (correct but an unintentional pun, a happy accidental one), after Chris H wiped them out with a vivid description of about fifty misdemeanours committed by the said RC's over the years.
Chris was on top form and so was Stephen F, the opposition were completely wiped out by both of them, Chris gave me the impression he would have had no trouble listing hundreds of the RC's misdemeanours and good old Stevie wouldn't have been far behind him.
The religionists invariably loose this kind of debate, such a shame ;).
ippy
-
I was there Owl, a large section of I assume RC's walked out en 'mass', (correct but an unintentional pun, a happy accidental one), after Chris H wiped them out with a vivid description of about fifty misdemeanours committed by the said RC's over the years.
Chris was on top form and so was Stephen F, the opposition were completely wiped out by both of them, Chris gave me the impression he would have had no trouble listing hundreds of the RC's misdemeanours and good old Stevie wouldn't have been far behind him.
The religionists invariably loose this kind of debate, such a shame ;).
ippy
That's exactly what PUKIP supporters wrote about Farage and Clegg. Bioth claims were politely speaking, preaching to the converted, both claims were more accurately speaking, bollocks.
-
That's exactly what PUKIP supporters wrote about Farage and Clegg. Bioth claims were politely speaking, preaching to the converted, both claims were more accurately speaking, bollocks.
What is "PUKIP"?
What, precisely, did it/they say about Farage and Clegg?
What claims made in the debate were bollocks?
-
I was there Owl, a large section of I assume RC's walked out en 'mass', (correct but an unintentional pun, a happy accidental one), after Chris H wiped them out with a vivid description of about fifty misdemeanours committed by the said RC's over the years.
Chris was on top form and so was Stephen F, the opposition were completely wiped out by both of them, Chris gave me the impression he would have had no trouble listing hundreds of the RC's misdemeanours and good old Stevie wouldn't have been far behind him.
The religionists invariably loose this kind of debate, such a shame ;).
ippy
. . . a large section of I assume RC's walked out en 'mass', . . .
I do not know who walked out, but they cannot have been part of the audience as the number of votes that were taken prior to the debate commencing were 52 less than the number taken at the end of the debate. At the beginning of the debate the audience were 678 for the motion; 1,102 against and 346 undecided; After the debate the audience were 268 for the motion, 1,876 against and 34 undecided.
-
I do not know who walked out, but they cannot have been part of the audience as the number of votes that were taken prior to the debate commencing were 52 less than the number taken at the end of the debate. At the beginning of the debate the audience were 678 for the motion; 1,102 against and 346 undecided; After the debate the audience were 268 for the motion, 1,876 against and 34 undecided.
Nor do I know who they were, but I didn't imagine the large section of people that did walk out; I didn't count how many there were and on thinking about it I would think there were somewhere between 30 to 40 of the audience that walked out in what looked like disgust.
ippy
P S I remember looking over to the left hand side of the stage at the highest seats there were over on that side and there were at least two longish rows of empty seats left after they exited the hall.
-
What is "PUKIP"?
What, precisely, did it/they say about Farage and Clegg?
What claims made in the debate were bollocks?
Doesn't really matter Qwl, the leavers won and we're on our way out, it'll only be sour grapes.
ippy
-
Doesn't really matter Qwl, the leavers won and we're on our way out, it'll only be sour grapes.
ippy
Oh, I see, off topic.
-
I was there Owl, a large section of I assume RC's walked out en 'mass', (correct but an unintentional pun, a happy accidental one), after Chris H wiped them out with a vivid description of about fifty misdemeanours committed by the said RC's over the years.
Perhaps the RC folk didn't want to shame CH & SF by enumerating the similar misdeameanours committed by ordinary people (remember that it is generally believed that the number of such events is no greater in the religious community than in any other group of adults.) That isn't to say that the behaviour isn't despicable, but that it is common to all parts of society.
Chris was on top form and so was Stephen F, the opposition were completely wiped out by both of them, Chris gave me the impression he would have had no trouble listing hundreds of the RC's misdemeanours and good old Stevie wouldn't have been far behind him.
The religionists invariably loose this kind of debate, such a shame ;).
Sadly for your argument, ippy, the numbers-game would suggest that both sides of the debate would be hoist with their own petard.
As both a human being and a Christian, I find the fact that it takes place at all absolutely horrifying, especially in a society that likes to claim that it is 'better' than older ones. One side trying to make out that the other side is worse than their own smacks - in my view - of ostrich-itis.
-
Perhaps the RC folk didn't want to shame CH & SF by enumerating the similar misdeameanours committed by ordinary people (remember that it is generally believed that the number of such events is no greater in the religious community than in any other group of adults.) That isn't to say that the behaviour isn't despicable, but that it is common to all parts of society.
Sadly for your argument, ippy, the numbers-game would suggest that both sides of the debate would be hoist with their own petard.
As both a human being and a Christian, I find the fact that it takes place at all absolutely horrifying, especially in a society that likes to claim that it is 'better' than older ones. One side trying to make out that the other side is worse than their own smacks - in my view - of ostrich-itis.
so the message here is that Christians act just like Satanists
-
Perhaps the RC folk didn't want to shame CH & SF by enumerating the similar misdeameanours committed by ordinary people (remember that it is generally believed that the number of such events is no greater in the religious community than in any other group of adults.) That isn't to say that the behaviour isn't despicable, but that it is common to all parts of society.
Sadly for your argument, ippy, the numbers-game would suggest that both sides of the debate would be hoist with their own petard.
Except, of course, that the RC Church was being called to account by CH and SF for acts committed by the RC Church as an organisation, supported by tg hierarchy of that organisation, the prpetrators of these atrocities hidden from justice by that organisation. An organisation which, supposedly is the direct descendant of your Christ!
As both a human being and a Christian, I find the fact that it takes place at all absolutely horrifying, especially in a society that likes to claim that it is 'better' than older ones. One side trying to make out that the other side is worse than their own smacks - in my view - of ostrich-itis.
As with my point above you are not comparing like with like. One side, the non-religious, is not an organised group, and the other is an an organisation, an organisation that considers itself to be above the common herd, i e the other side, yet their showing in this debate was dismal and this was amply demonstrated by the shift in the votes before and after.
This organisation, whether you like it or not, worships and follows the same God and the same Son of God as you do and excuses its abominable behaviour by quoting scripture from the same bible that your lot use!
I have yet to see a Protestant clergyman of any rank from parish priest to archbishop stand up publicly, on TV or in the press, and condemn the actions of the paedophile priests or the Magdelane nuns. Thus your lot are tarred with the same brush as the Catholics.
You, personally, may be exempt from blame or shame, your church is not.
-
Mother and baby homes started up about 1968 -1969 in England.
Some childrens homes turned into mother and baby homes for young pregnant girls.
The 60's may have radicalised social issues and social freedom. But a lot of girls were alienated and made to feel a leper and outcast because of unwanted pregnancies.
The shame was purely about the attitudes of people to those poor girls who didn't get themselves pregnant by themselves.
Whilst the Roman Catholic Church has a lot to answer for, Catholic is not a religion.
But I suppose it cannot really be called Christian given it's history.
Catholic means 'Universal' everywhere.. But the religion 'Catholic' doesn't exist.
What those girls needed was parents who loved them enough to stand by them.
There was more shame in abandoning your child than them being pregnant. :(
-
What those girls needed was parents who loved them enough to stand by them.
There was more shame in abandoning your child than them being pregnant. :(
The parents abandoned their daughters to the Magdalene nuns because the parents were Catholic and they followed the demands of the priests etc of the Catholic church.
The Catholic Chrurch which is part of the Christian faith. They worship the same God and revere the same Jesus Christ as you do!
-
Perhaps the RC folk didn't want to shame CH & SF by enumerating the similar misdeameanours committed by ordinary people (remember that it is generally believed that the number of such events is no greater in the religious community than in any other group of adults.) That isn't to say that the behaviour isn't despicable, but that it is common to all parts of society.
Who 'generally believes' this?
This reads like another of your bizarre tu quoque-like attempts to defend religion by claiming it is no worse than any other element within society. The event in question was about the RCC specifically, which has had well documented problems with both sexual abuse offending and attempts by the organistion to cover this up: I seem to recall the RCC has issued apologies for its conduct (which not too long ago claimed their senior chap here in Scotland).
The notion that RCC attendees would have come equipped to defend the RCC by citing 'similar misdeamenours' is utterly perverse: aside from whether or not there are such misdeameanors that can be presented as being comparable to the RCC, such as by being compared with the numbers committed by non-RCC clergy within the same geographic are and over the same timescale (which would be interesting to know - I have no idea what the figures are), but even so in what way do these 'similar misdemeanours' (if there are any) excuse any sexual conduct problems within the RCC?
Sadly for your argument, ippy, the numbers-game would suggest that both sides of the debate would be hoist with their own petard.
Then present the numbers, along with the methods used to both categorise and sample these 'sides' and then compare the incidences sexual offending between 'sides', and we'll see: if you can't then this is yet another of your genalised and unsupported assumptions.
-
The long and short of it is that being religious doesn't make you a better person, sometimes it exacerbates bad behaviour. Good religious people, and there are many, would probably be good even if they were non believers, imo.
-
Except, of course, that the RC Church was being called to account by CH and SF for acts committed by the RC Church as an organisation, supported by tg hierarchy of that organisation, the perpetrators of these atrocities hidden from justice by that organisation. An organisation which, supposedly is the direct descendant of your Christ!
As with my point above you are not comparing like with like. One side, the non-religious, is not an organised group, and the other is an an organisation, an organisation that considers itself to be above the common herd, i e the other side, yet their showing in this debate was dismal and this was amply demonstrated by the shift in the votes before and after.
This organisation, whether you like it or not, worships and follows the same God and the same Son of God as you do and excuses its abominable behaviour by quoting scripture from the same bible that your lot use!
I have yet to see a Protestant clergyman of any rank from parish priest to archbishop stand up publicly, on TV or in the press, and condemn the actions of the pedophile priests or the Magdalene nuns. Thus your lot are tarred with the same brush as the Catholics.
You, personally, may be exempt from blame or shame, your church is not.
Good one Owl, I'll stand behind you and hold your coat anytime, the only adjustment I would make to your post would be the underlined part in the next:
This organisation, whether you like it or not, worships and follows the same God and the same Son of God as you do and excuses its abominable behaviour by quoting scripture from the same bible that your lot use!
I would have said: 'the same god that you think you do', only because there's no evidence for the existence of gods and in the interests of accuracy.
ippy
-
Mother and baby homes started up about 1968 -1969 in England.
Some children's homes turned into mother and baby homes for young pregnant girls.
The 60's may have radicalised social issues and social freedom. But a lot of girls were alienated and made to feel a leper and outcast because of unwanted pregnancies.
The shame was purely about the attitudes of people to those poor girls who didn't get themselves pregnant by themselves.
Whilst the Roman Catholic Church has a lot to answer for, Catholic is not a religion.
But I suppose it cannot really be called Christian given it's history.
Catholic means 'Universal' everywhere.. But the religion 'Catholic' doesn't exist.
What those girls needed was parents who loved them enough to stand by them.
There was more shame in abandoning your child than them being pregnant. :(
This post of yours Sass, it shows that you're not always wrong, a good one and I share your sentiments entirely on this one.
ippy
-
Perhaps the RC folk didn't want to shame CH & SF by enumerating the similar misdeameanours committed by ordinary people (remember that it is generally believed that the number of such events is no greater in the religious community than in any other group of adults.) That isn't to say that the behaviour isn't despicable, but that it is common to all parts of society.
Sadly for your argument, ippy, the numbers-game would suggest that both sides of the debate would be hoist with their own petard.
As both a human being and a Christian, I find the fact that it takes place at all absolutely horrifying, especially in a society that likes to claim that it is 'better' than older ones. One side trying to make out that the other side is worse than their own smacks - in my view - of ostrich-itis.
The Debate was about, 'The Catholic Church is a Force For Good in the World'?
How come you missed this Hope?
ippy
-
I have been a practising Roman Catholic all my life. I attended RC primary school run by nuns and an RC secondary modern. I personally have met hundreds of fellow Roman Catholics at meetings and conferences throughout the country, and I have known dozens of Catholic priests. I have not come across a single case of abuse in all these personal contacts. I know there have been well documented cases of abuse, but my personal experiences within the RC faith indicates that they are nowhere near as widespread as the media would have us believe.
-
The Debate was about, 'The Catholic Church is a Force For Good in the World'?
How come you missed this Hope?
ippy
The Catholic Church has never been a force for good, the Spanish Inquisition wasn't one of its proudest moments! >:( Obviously many Catholics are good people, but in my opinion the institution itself is rotten to the core.
-
The Catholic Church has never been a force for good, the Spanish Inquisition wasn't one of its proudest moments! >:( Obviously many Catholics are good people, but in my opinion the institution itself is rotten to the core.
That debate is worth a watch, skim through it Floo, C H & S F, are certainly worth a listen, the others, well, ?
ippy
-
I have been a practising Roman Catholic all my life. I attended RC primary school run by nuns and an RC secondary modern. I personally have met hundreds of fellow Roman Catholics at meetings and conferences throughout the country, and I have known dozens of Catholic priests. I have not come across a single case of abuse in all these personal contacts. I know there have been well documented cases of abuse, but my personal experiences within the RC faith indicates that they are nowhere near as widespread as the media would have us believe.
Just because you didn't see it does NOT mean it didn't happen! You are trying to defend the indefensible, but, having read your previous posts. I would expect nothing less than total blindness to the negatives of your Church and its clergy.
-
I have been a practising Roman Catholic all my life. I attended RC primary school run by nuns and an RC secondary modern. I personally have met hundreds of fellow Roman Catholics at meetings and conferences throughout the country, and I have known dozens of Catholic priests. I have not come across a single case of abuse in all these personal contacts. I know there have been well documented cases of abuse, but my personal experiences within the RC faith indicates that they are nowhere near as widespread as the media would have us believe.
Explains a lot Alan.
ippy
-
The Catholic Church has never been a force for good, the Spanish Inquisition wasn't one of its proudest moments! >:( Obviously many Catholics are good people, but in my opinion the institution itself is rotten to the core.
Just a small point, Floo, but the Spanish Inquisition is often cited as being the worst offender, but it had a very specific agenda and that was to find and deal with Conversos. Jews who professed to having converted to Christianity but actually remained practicing Jews.
The Right Royal Bastards of the Inquisition were those operating mainly in France anf Germany - the Witch-hunters.
-
I have been a practising Roman Catholic all my life. I attended RC primary school run by nuns and an RC secondary modern. I personally have met hundreds of fellow Roman Catholics at meetings and conferences throughout the country, and I have known dozens of Catholic priests. I have not come across a single case of abuse in all these personal contacts. I know there have been well documented cases of abuse, but my personal experiences within the RC faith indicates that they are nowhere near as widespread as the media would have us believe.
I think you are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is not that RC priests are more likely to abuse children than anybody else - I couldn't tell you if that is true or not. The problem is twofold.
- The RC church sets itself up as God's moral authority on Earth. As such, its priests should be setting an example. What credibility do the RC church's moral missives have if its own employees can't keep to them.
- (This is the biggy.) The RC actively protected its priests from facing justice. It covered up instances o child abuse that it knew about. That is morally reprehensible.
-
I think you are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is not that RC priests are more likely to abuse children than anybody else - I couldn't tell you if that is true or not. The problem is twofold.
- The RC church sets itself up as God's moral authority on Earth. As such, its priests should be setting an example. What credibility do the RC church's moral missives have if its own employees can't keep to them.
- (This is the biggy.) The RC actively protected its priests from facing justice. It covered up instances o child abuse that it knew about. That is morally reprehensible.
Spot on!
-
I think you are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is not that RC priests are more likely to abuse children than anybody else - I couldn't tell you if that is true or not. The problem is twofold.
- The RC church sets itself up as God's moral authority on Earth. As such, its priests should be setting an example. What credibility do the RC church's moral missives have if its own employees can't keep to them.
- (This is the biggy.) The RC actively protected its priests from facing justice. It covered up instances o child abuse that it knew about. That is morally reprehensible.
And I think you're also missing the point, jeremy. We now know that over the years, a number of organisations, religious and otherwise, have actively protected their 'employees' from such accusations. To consistently pick out the same one such organisation - as Floo is prone to do every few months - is effectively hiding the reality: that the problem occurs across society; that it is a minority of any particular group of people who are involved in it; that it involves both men and women; and finally that it is a blight on society and one that suggests that society isn't as developed as it likes to believe.
The RCC isn't the only organisation that sets itself up as either God's moral authority on earth or a humanist or secular equivalent - yet they too have similar issues to contend with.
-
And I think you're also missing the point, jeremy. We now know that over the years, a number of organisations, religious and otherwise, have actively protected their 'employees' from such accusations. To consistently pick out the same one such organisation - as Floo is prone to do every few months - is effectively hiding the reality: that the problem occurs across society; that it is a minority of any particular group of people who are involved in it; that it involves both men and women; and finally that it is a blight on society and one that suggests that society isn't as developed as it likes to believe.
The RCC isn't the only organisation that sets itself up as either God's moral authority on earth or a humanist or secular equivalent - yet they too have similar issues to contend with.
I trust you can name these other organisations, Hope, that not only keep secret the abuse carried out by their employees, but then move them to new locations where they can carry on abusing!
An organisation that professes to be above such disgusting morality ...and has the gall to stand high up before it's captive audience every week and preach 'righteousness' ... that expects its followers to confess their sins every week!
What hypocrisy!
-
And I think you're also missing the point, jeremy. We now know that over the years, a number of organisations, religious and otherwise, have actively protected their 'employees' from such accusations.
The name of that fallacy is called Tu Quoque. The existence of other organisations that have similar problems does nothing to absolve the Catholic Church.
Try to keep your posts on topic.
The RCC isn't the only organisation that sets itself up as either God's moral authority on earth or a humanist or secular equivalent - yet they too have similar issues to contend with.
Really? Perhaps you can tell me which humanist organisation has set itself up as God's moral authority on Earth? I think you'll find none have.
Now, try to keep to the topic, which is the Catholic Church. If you want to talk about any other organisation, feel free to start another thread about it.
-
The name of that fallacy is called Tu Quoque. The existence of other organisations that have similar problems does nothing to absolve the Catholic Church.
Lest you have ignored or missed that veryt same point in previous posts of mine, I haven't attempted to absolve the Catholic Church, jeremy. What I've done is point out that Floo seems to believe or seems keen to make out that this is a problem unique to the RCC. There are many organisations who have just as much moral duty to do good by our children (and other vulnerable folk), but have signally failed to do over time - yet time after time Floo seems determined to sweep all that under the proverbial carpet.
Try to keep your posts on topic.
Try not to let your confirmation bias show.
Really? Perhaps you can tell me which humanist organisation has set itself up as God's moral authority on Earth? I think you'll find none have.
Try reading posts properly; as I said there are many other organisations who have set themselves up as the equivalent of God's moral authority on the Earth - in other words, they have used their own moral compass as their benchmark and have similarly failed to abide by those benchmarks. Something to do with human nature, I believe.
Now, try to keep to the topic, which is the Catholic Church. If you want to talk about any other organisation, feel free to start another thread about it.
No, I will keep the thread on track by making sure that it covers all the organisation that fail in their moral duty not simply one organisation that Floo insists on picking on every few months. If you would rather sweep the reality under the carpet, that's your look-out.
-
Lest you have ignored or missed that veryt same point in previous posts of mine, I haven't attempted to absolve the Catholic Church, jeremy. What I've done is point out that Floo seems to believe or seems keen to make out that this is a problem unique to the RCC. There are many organisations who have just as much moral duty to do good by our children (and other vulnerable folk), but have signally failed to do over time - yet time after time Floo seems determined to sweep all that under the proverbial carpet.
What organisations are you referring to, and in what ways is the conduct of these organisations directly comparable to the RCC situation?
Try reading posts properly; as I said there are many other organisations who have set themselves up as the equivalent of God's moral authority on the Earth - in other words, they have used their own moral compass as their benchmark and have similarly failed to abide by those benchmarks.
Again what organisations are comparable to the RCC as regards the abuse of children and subsequent covering-up said abuse?
No, I will keep the thread on track by making sure that it covers all the organisation that fail in their moral duty not simply one organisation that Floo insists on picking on every few months. If you would rather sweep the reality under the carpet, that's your look-out.
Fine, so in the interests of reality you should now name and shame these other organisations and describe the conduct that compares with the RCC situation. I do hope this isn't one of your tu quoque inspired generalisations.
-
I trust you can name these other organisations, Hope, that not only keep secret the abuse carried out by their employees, but then move them to new locations where they can carry on abusing!
An organisation that professes to be above such disgusting morality ...and has the gall to stand high up before it's captive audience every week and preach 'righteousness' ... that expects its followers to confess their sins every week!
What hypocrisy!
Very well said! Saved me from having to post it!
-
The parents abandoned their daughters to the Magdalene nuns because the parents were Catholic and they followed the demands of the priests etc of the Catholic church.
The Catholic Chrurch which is part of the Christian faith. They worship the same God and revere the same Jesus Christ as you do!
They certainly do not...
"Go away, I never knew you". It was not Christ or Love which motivated those parents or the religion they belonged to.
As the saying goes.... "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." and they instead judged them and punished them. "Love covers over many sins" but there was certainly NOTHING Christian about what they did.
-
They certainly do not...
"Go away, I never knew you". It was not Christ or Love which motivated those parents or the religion they belonged to.
As the saying goes.... "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." and they instead judged them and punished them. "Love covers over many sins" but there was certainly NOTHING Christian about what they did.
Of course, I forgot! No Christian would act like that would they?
YES! They would and yes they did and even you cannot whitewash the followers of your God who act like their and your God - vindictive, bloody minded and at tlmes totally heartless - read youir Bible - your God can be a right bastard - why should his followers be any different. Not all of them and not all the time - but he is and they are!
-
Of course, I forgot! No Christian would act like that would they?
YES! They would and yes they did and even you cannot whitewash the followers of your God who act like their and your God - vindictive, bloody minded and at tlmes totally heartless - read youir Bible - your God can be a right bastard - why should his followers be any different. Not all of them and not all the time - but he is and they are!
You and I, both know the above is a load of tripe.
If an atheist, or even if a pagan, I would not own up to writing the above.
It looks so bitter and the words of a desperate person who has no way of winning their argument. Is it any wonder people do evil and blame it on everyone but themselves?
-
You and I, both know the above is a load of tripe.
If an atheist, or even if a pagan, I would not own up to writing the above.
It looks so bitter and the words of a desperate person who has no way of winning their argument. Is it any wonder people do evil and blame it on everyone but themselves?
I know nothing of the sort!
You know damn well that for you to admit the truth of my words is to tear down the entire structure of your belief in the loving God of the Christians.
I am just glad that I will not have to suffer the level of disappointment that you inevitably will if you find that you are wrong; at least I am prepared to consider that I might well be wrong and my faith in the Summerlands is in error. I just hope that I do not meet your God because my first, and probably last, act in Christian Heaven will be to kick the sod tht is your God in the nads! And, if I wind up in Christian Hell, at least I am going to meet up again with some old friends who also rejected Christianity because they also found that its God was the very antithesis of the advertised product.
Farewell Sassy
-
I know nothing of the sort!
You know damn well that for you to admit the truth of my words is to tear down the entire structure of your belief in the loving God of the Christians.
NO! it is you who knows that you cannot tear down the truth that followers of Christ, do as he did. In no way on Gods earth can you relate anything which happened in the history of that one religion to the teachings of Christ. So you fail.
I am just glad that I will not have to suffer the level of disappointment that you inevitably will if you find that you are wrong;
Where is your atheist logic and belief? If there was no God and no Christ then all there is, is death and the end. So by your own beliefs how could anyone suffer disappointment?
You haven't even thought through what you are claiming. It makes man accountable for all the evil and suffering. So does that make you responsible for the sins of men in the past?
Since Christ many have tried to claim they are true Christians. The Roman Catholic Church originally seized on a way to keep the Roman Empire power somehow alive. But you cannot take the Kingdom of Heaven by force or make it a religion by force. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the true Kingdom because like Christ they love God and love others.
at least I am prepared to consider that I might well be wrong and my faith in the Summerlands is in error. I just hope that I do not meet your God because my first, and probably last, act in Christian Heaven will be to kick the sod tht is your God in the nads!
You mean you haven't clicked... That belief is about those being good in their life going to such a place. But it is created it is a cruel trick by Satan who tries to turn all mankind against God.
And, if I wind up in Christian Hell, at least I am going to meet up again with some old friends who also rejected Christianity because they also found that its God was the very antithesis of the advertised product.
Farewell Sassy
I suppose we look for different things. I look for truth and the end of suffering by one life and then to God in the resurrected life in a perfect world/heaven.
Revelation 21:4“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
In your belief you keep being reborn into a world of mans own suffering.
Which belief is really the kindest and most loving?
Could you be fooled into thinking you can ever be good of yourselves in a world where evil is always done and the good ridiculed and insulted?
-
Lest you have ignored or missed that veryt same point in previous posts of mine, I haven't attempted to absolve the Catholic Church, jeremy. What I've done is point out that Floo seems to believe or seems keen to make out that this is a problem unique to the RCC. There are many organisations who have just as much moral duty to do good by our children (and other vulnerable folk), but have signally failed to do over time - yet time after time Floo seems determined to sweep all that under the proverbial carpet.
Try not to let your confirmation bias show.
Try reading posts properly; as I said there are many other organisations who have set themselves up as the equivalent of God's moral authority on the Earth - in other words, they have used their own moral compass as their benchmark and have similarly failed to abide by those benchmarks. Something to do with human nature, I believe.
No, I will keep the thread on track by making sure that it covers all the organisation that fail in their moral duty not simply one organisation that Floo insists on picking on every few months. If you would rather sweep the reality under the carpet, that's your look-out.
I have never denied that other organisations, both religious and secular, have been responsible of abuse, but the CC seems unique in the way it has consistently covered up the abuse.
-
An organisation that professes to be above such disgusting morality ...and has the gall to stand high up before it's captive audience every week and preach 'righteousness' ... that expects its followers to confess their sins every week!
What hypocrisy!
I believe the moral rules of the RC church are directly inspired by God through the power of His Holy Spirit. They are not man made rules. The divine authority of the RC church is directly inherited from the authority given to Peter when Jesus told him "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."
The fact that there are some within the RC church who deliberately flout the rules is not a valid reason to decry the value of these rules. There are millions of Roman Catholics who sincerely accept that these are the rules which God wants us to follow, and with the help of God's grace they try to adhere to them, and in doing so will discover the amazing joy of doing God's will in their lives. A joy which will never be known to those who use the church for their own selfish aims.
-
I believe the moral rules of the RC church are directly inspired by God through the power of His Holy Spirit. They are not man made rules. The divine authority of the RC church is directly inherited from the authority given to Peter when Jesus told him "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."
The fact that there are some within the RC church who deliberately flout the rules is not a valid reason to decry the value of these rules. There are millions of Roman Catholics who sincerely accept that these are the rules which God wants us to follow, and with the help of God's grace they try to adhere to them, and in doing so will discover the amazing joy of doing God's will in their lives. A joy which will never be known to those who use the church for their own selfish aims.
Indoctrination works on a percentage basis, some are more affected by this process than others.
ippy
-
There is nothing moral about the Biblical god, so the Catholic Church would certainly be following in its footsteps. After all it is supposed to have got an unmarried girl pregnant!
-
I believe the moral rules of the RC church are directly inspired by God through the power of His Holy Spirit. They are not man made rules. The divine authority of the RC church is directly inherited from the authority given to Peter when Jesus told him "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."
The fact that there are some within the RC church who deliberately flout the rules is not a valid reason to decry the value of these rules. There are millions of Roman Catholics who sincerely accept that these are the rules which God wants us to follow, and with the help of God's grace they try to adhere to them, and in doing so will discover the amazing joy of doing God's will in their lives. A joy which will never be known to those who use the church for their own selfish aims.
Alan
While I respect your right to any belief you have in your church, your belief that the rules the RC lay down were inspired by God - as an atheist -obviously, I must disagree. I believe those rules were made in order to have some sort of control over ancient Rome's vast empire. It suited the Emperor to have a vision - most dictators do.
If you do no more than study the popes during those two millennia, it is pretty clear that the majority of them were the equivalent of Mafia chiefs. The poor suckers who believed it all lived in hovels while the priesthood lived in comparative luxury. Just look at the wealth and splendour of the Vatican and compare that with the way Jesus was supposed to have lived. They built cathedrals that no state today could ever afford to build, while the top men had palaces built for themselves. What on earth this had to do with Christ's teachings is beyond me!
No, i'm afraid, iike the vast majority of religions, Alan, the RC threatened people with eternal Hell if they disobeyed the rules and bribed them with everlasting heavenly bliss if they obeyed. They knew that once those suckers were dead there was no one going to ask for their money back or put in any complaints. A perfect set-up!
So if you find some comfort in your belief, Alan, I'm happy for you, but don't go on to forums if you're not prepared to have those beliefs challenged. .
-
Lest you have ignored or missed that veryt same point in previous posts of mine, I haven't attempted to absolve the Catholic Church, jeremy. What I've done is point out that Floo seems to believe or seems keen to make out that this is a problem unique to the RCC.
The systematic cover up seems to be more or less unique to the RCC.
as I said there are many other organisations who have set themselves up as the equivalent of God's moral authority on the Earth
Name one.
-
I believe the moral rules of the RC church are directly inspired by God through the power of His Holy Spirit. They are not man made rules.
Yes they are.
The divine authority of the RC church is directly inherited from the authority given to Peter when Jesus told him "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."
Which rules are directly inherited from Peter? Did Peter tell us that priests are meant to be celibate or that abortion and contraception is wrong?
The fact that there are some within the RC church who deliberately flout the rules is not a valid reason to decry the value of these rules.
It's the same group of men that flouted the rules that are making them up. They are not to be trusted.
-
I believe the moral rules of the RC church are directly inspired by God through the power of His Holy Spirit. They are not man made rules.
I'd have to disagree to a degree, Alan. For instance, there is absolutely no God-given instruction on celibacy of the priesthood - this is something that came into being in about the 12th century, as far as a definitive requirement. If you look at RC practice, some ideas are based on human thinking, not on Biblical bases.
-
The systematic cover up seems to be more or less unique to the RCC.
Well, you seem to forget the cover ups that have taken place in local authority social service programmes, political groupings and media organisations.
Name one.
In this particular context, the NSPCC and Parliament come to mind.
-
I'd have to disagree to a degree, Alan. For instance, there is absolutely no God-given instruction on celibacy of the priesthood - this is something that came into being in about the 12th century, as far as a definitive requirement. If you look at RC practice, some ideas are based on human thinking, not on Biblical bases.
I'd concur, Hope. While in no way detracting from the very genuine faith of RC Christians, I find it hard to explain how the medieval and renaisssance Papacy was anything other than a wine soaked political in fight between certain Italian families, the corruption and veniality culminating in thre scandalous sale of indulgences - for which there is absolutely not one jot (or even tittle) of permission in Scripture.
-
I'd have to disagree to a degree, Alan. For instance, there is absolutely no God-given instruction on celibacy of the priesthood - this is something that came into being in about the 12th century, as far as a definitive requirement. If you look at RC practice, some ideas are based on human thinking, not on Biblical bases.
I understand your point of view, but I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to guide His church on earth. I know some teachings are difficult to accept, but I concur with the thoughts of St Peter when he says, "Lord, where else can I go?". The alternative of relying on human intellect with all its potential failings is not an option I can trust.
-
I'd concur, Hope. While in no way detracting from the very genuine faith of RC Christians, I find it hard to explain how the medieval and renaisssance Papacy was anything other than a wine soaked political in fight between certain Italian families, the corruption and veniality culminating in thre scandalous sale of indulgences - for which there is absolutely not one jot (or even tittle) of permission in Scripture.
I can't let historical accounts detract from the reality I perceive, which is that every pope I have personally experienced, from Pious 12th to the present, have all been devoted holy men inspired to serve God and the people of the church.
-
The alternative of relying on human intellect with all its potential failings is not an option I can trust.
Yet you trust human intellect every time you, for example, get on an aeroplane (as you did recently, iirc).
-
Yet you trust human intellect every time you, for example, get on an aeroplane (as you did recently, iirc).
Flying an aeroplane is on a vastly different level to discerning the spiritual truths which reveal the reason for our existence.
-
Flying an aeroplane is on a vastly different level to discerning the spiritual truths which reveal the reason for our existence.
indeed one has evidence, the other has your assertion
-
Flying an aeroplane is on a vastly different level to discerning the spiritual truths which reveal the reason for our existence.
How are you measuring these 'levels'?
Nice to know that you chaps dealing in 'spiritual truths' know the 'reason for our existence', which is what exactly?
-
I can't let historical accounts detract from the reality I perceive, which is that every pope I have personally experienced, from Pious 12th to the present, have all been devoted holy men inspired to serve God and the people of the church.
Fair enough, Alan;
While I don't accept episcopacy as my form of church governance, nor recognise rank or heirarchy, I can relate to the personal faith of these men.
However you must concede the scandal of the RC Church in post medieval Europe, and the horror of the inquisition - in which the Gospel played very little part.
There is no perfect church.
-
In this particular context, the NSPCC and Parliament come to mind.
Please give specific cases, giving full details of those cases, in which the NSPCC systenatically covered up cases of child rape by its employees and the systematically moved them around to ensure that they were never prosecuted in a court of law for their crimes.
As I understand it the cases involving Parliamentarians who have been accused of child abuse are still under investigation, and, in view of the fact that most of those accused are dead, it is the fact that the supposed/alledged victims kept silent for so long that has prevented prosecution not any action by Parliament.
All persons who, again allegedly, hindered or prevented investigations at the time are also dead, so none of the accused are able to defend themselves against these allegations regardless of the truth or otherwise of the accusations against them.
Guilty or innocent they are easy targets, like to por bastard who was exonerated of all charges but his family did not find out he had been exonerated until after his death.
The Catholic priests accused are still alive and practicing within the Church.
-
Of course there was always Pope Pius IX who condemned any notion that the Pontiff ought to "come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilisation".
http://www.saint-mike.org/library/papal_library/piusix/encyclicals/nostis_et_nobiscum.html
Furthermore, let's not forget how the Catholic Church argued against free thinkers and enlightened men who were proclaiming that all men were created equal.
In 1878 they strongly objected to the idea of equality for all men.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm
-
Of course there was always Pope Pius IX who condemned any notion that the Pontiff ought to "come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilisation".
http://www.saint-mike.org/library/papal_library/piusix/encyclicals/nostis_et_nobiscum.html
Furthermore, let's not forget how the Catholic Church argued against free thinkers and enlightened men who were proclaiming that all men were created equal.
In 1878 they strongly objected to the idea of equality for all men.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm
If ever there was an organisation that needed, no, required, as a matter of urgency, dragging kicking, screaming, and fighting ito the 21st Century it is the Roman Catholic Church with the rest of the Christian religious groups not that far behind.
-
Fair enough, Alan;
While I don't accept episcopacy as my form of church governance, nor recognise rank or heirarchy, I can relate to the personal faith of these men.
However you must concede the scandal of the RC Church in post medieval Europe, and the horror of the inquisition - in which the Gospel played very little part.
There is no perfect church.
My personal take on the scandals, both past and present, in the RC church is evidence of the Devil at work in trying to bring down God's church. I put my trust in the faith of genuine believers, and in God's saving grace, to ensure that our church survives.
-
The subject should be " The iniquity of the ROMAN Catholic church.
The apostles creed clearly states: I believe in the Holy Catholic Church so saying the universal church. The Church of England is the Holy Catholic Church and it applies to all Christian denominations.
There is no CATHOLIC Church which is individually and solely Catholic.
There is the Roman Catholic and the English Catholic Churches... but they are Christian by faith but not all hold the true beliefs of the true Church of Christ.
-
The subject should be " The iniquity of the ROMAN Catholic church.
The apostles creed clearly states: I believe in the Holy Catholic Church so saying the universal church. The Church of England is the Holy Catholic Church and it applies to all Christian denominations.
There is no CATHOLIC Church which is individually and solely Catholic.
There is the Roman Catholic and the English Catholic Churches... but they are Christian by faith but not all hold the true beliefs of the true Church of Christ.
No one has the 'TRUTH', including you Sass! ::)
-
I'd have to disagree to a degree, Alan. For instance, there is absolutely no God-given instruction on celibacy of the priesthood - this is something that came into being in about the 12th century, as far as a definitive requirement. If you look at RC practice, some ideas are based on human thinking, not on Biblical bases.
Why does the Catholic church allow married Anglican Priests who convert act as priests if the celibacy rule is sacrosanct?
-
Why does the Catholic church allow married Anglican Priests who convert act as priests if the celibacy rule is sacrosanct?
Because married men have always been accepted into the priesthood. Yet it has always been the case that unmarried men who enter the priesthood may not marry. Rome chooses only to accept unmarried men, with only a few exceptions.
-
Why does the Catholic church allow married Anglican Priests who convert act as priests if the celibacy rule is sacrosanct?
Not quite.
The Roman Catholic Church is - to an extent - a federation of churches which accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as pope.
It is only in the majority (large majority) Latin rite that celibacy is the rule. There are churches in this federation where priests may be married, though not - I believe - bishops and abbots.
It should not be forgotten that celibacy was imposed to prevent married priests from leaving church property to their offspring.
-
My personal take on the scandals, both past and present, in the RC church is evidence of the Devil at work in trying to bring down God's church.
I'm curious. How exactly does the Devil go about his 'business'?
-
Because married men have always been accepted into the priesthood. Yet it has always been the case that unmarried men who enter the priesthood may not marry. Rome chooses only to accept unmarried men, with only a few exceptions.
How very unfair and stupid!!!!! >:(
-
My personal take on the scandals, both past and present, in the RC church is evidence of the Devil at work in trying to bring down God's church. I put my trust in the faith of genuine believers, and in God's saving grace, to ensure that our church survives.
Your personal take Alan?
More the take of the strong belief, so successfully indoctrinated into you from such an early age by your beloved R C church.
ippy
-
I'm a wee bit curious, Alan.
Would this 'devil's work' in the Middle Ages and rennaisance really hold up?
Why would God, if He thought the RC church was a great example of faith, allow venial, corrupt men to claim to be Christ's vicar on earth - whatever that means?
Why would He allow generations of Europeans to suffer and labour to finance this veniality in what was supposed to be His Holy City?
Why would He allow the abhorrance of the Conquistadores, Inquisition, etc?
Or was God really preparing the way for Luther?
You see, just attributing the corruption to the devil is a bit of a cop out.
In reality, the Western Church, modelled as it was on the civil structures of Imperial Rome, became subject to all the flaws and opportunities inherant in that very system.
That system was not some divine ordination; simply the result of a very pragmatic Constantinian interferance with church governance, centralising power with all the possibilities of misuse of that power.
-
I'm a wee bit curious, Alan.
Would this 'devil's work' in the Middle Ages and renaissance really hold up?
Why would God, if He thought the RC church was a great example of faith, allow venial, corrupt men to claim to be Christ's vicar on earth - whatever that means?
Why would He allow generations of Europeans to suffer and labour to finance this veniality in what was supposed to be His Holy City?
Why would He allow the abhorrence of the Conquistadores, Inquisition, etc?
Or was God really preparing the way for Luther?
6
You see, just attributing the corruption to the devil is a bit of a cop out.
In reality, the Western Church, modelled as it was on the civil structures of Imperial Rome, became subject to all the flaws and opportunities inherent in that very system.
That system was not some divine ordination; simply the result of a very pragmatic Constantinian interference with church governance, centralising power with all the possibilities of misuse of that power.
You're response to Alan makes sense to me and probably most that post here on the forum, the only trouble with any response to Alan is that he's had decades of built in get out clauses hammered into his head; these religious organisations all have a catch 22 like answers for virtually any challenges or suggestions that you would like to put to them.
It's, in Alan's mind, no doubt your scribbling are being directed by the devil using your hand, yes, most of them are as far gone as that.
The only answer is to try to stop them in some way from getting at our very young children.
ippy
-
Hi, Ippy.
I have no issues with the essential Christianity of the RCC, but with its claims.
That those claims don't date to the first or second centuries - or even the third, but from a time when Rome was trying to become a central authority in the Western Church (just, ironically, as it was losing its grip on temporal power with the slow collappse of the Western Empire).
It took several centuries for this Roman supremacy to be recognised in most areas of the West (as many as four in what is now Britain) This speaks to me, not as some spiritual revelation, but a very human tendency to gather authority.
The Roman church had no such authority for the first two centuries of its' existance, being only one of many bishoprics, and not always the most important one at that.
-
Hi, Ippy.
I have no issues with the essential Christianity of the RCC, but with its claims.
That those claims don't date to the first or second centuries - or even the third, but from a time when Rome was trying to become a central authority in the Western Church (just, ironically, as it was losing its grip on temporal power with the slow collappse of the Western Empire).
It took several centuries for this Roman supremacy to be recognised in most areas of the West (as many as four in what is now Britain) This speaks to me, not as some spiritual revelation, but a very human tendency to gather authority.
The Roman church had no such authority for the first two centuries of its' existance, being only one of many bishoprics, and not always the most important one at that.
Whatever the history is of the RCC, doesn't lend it much in the way of validity.
Ippy
-
Because married men have always been accepted into the priesthood. Yet it has always been the case that unmarried men who enter the priesthood may not marry. Rome chooses only to accept unmarried men, with only a few exceptions.
As we are all priests both men and women in the Church of Christ, it is pretty pointless isn't it as an exercise. It is purely the Roman Catholic Church making it's own rules.
King James Bible
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
A royal priesthood both men and women.
How can someone become what they already are?
-
My personal take on the scandals, both past and present, in the RC church is evidence of the Devil at work in trying to bring down God's church. I put my trust in the faith of genuine believers, and in God's saving grace, to ensure that our church survives.
You don't believe the words of your own saviour?
The true Church of Christ IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a denomination.
The Jews are the true Church and the we are grafted in it is their saviour and their religion.
God never made another church he simply established a new covenant to include all people.
And as Christ clearly taught...it is no longer about place..John 4. It is about those born of truth and the Spirit.
No one can replace the Jews and the gentiles being grafted in.
The builders are the true Church who rejected the important stone.
Even the gates of hell cannot prevail against the true Church.
King James Bible
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Peter recognised Jesus was the Christ the Messiah. Nothing prevails against the true Church.
-
I'm curious. How exactly does the Devil go about his 'business'?
Temptation
-
I'm a wee bit curious, Alan.
Would this 'devil's work' in the Middle Ages and rennaisance really hold up?
Why would God, if He thought the RC church was a great example of faith, allow venial, corrupt men to claim to be Christ's vicar on earth - whatever that means?
Why would He allow generations of Europeans to suffer and labour to finance this veniality in what was supposed to be His Holy City?
Why would He allow the abhorrance of the Conquistadores, Inquisition, etc?
Or was God really preparing the way for Luther?
You see, just attributing the corruption to the devil is a bit of a cop out.
In reality, the Western Church, modelled as it was on the civil structures of Imperial Rome, became subject to all the flaws and opportunities inherant in that very system.
That system was not some divine ordination; simply the result of a very pragmatic Constantinian interferance with church governance, centralising power with all the possibilities of misuse of that power.
Whatever the causes of splits in the Christian churches, the main thing for us all to hold on to is the acceptance of Jesus as our saviour.
-
Temptation
https://youtu.be/xWwtMrDX2o8
I know, wrong thread, but it's how I read it.
-
https://youtu.be/xWwtMrDX2o8
I know, wrong thread, but it's how I read it.
Me too
-
Temptation
And how exactly does he go about applying temptation?
-
And how exactly does he go about applying temptation?
We all experience the temptation to do what we know to be wrong. Can you define the source of this temptation? Can you demonstrate that it does not originate from an evil source which tries to separate us from God? The nature of temptation is described very well in the bible, and I can see no logical reason to explain it's source other than that described in the bible. C. S. Lewis describes it very well in his book "The Screwtape Letters".
-
We all experience the temptation to do what we know to be wrong. Can you define the source of this temptation? Can you demonstrate that it does not originate from an evil source which tries to separate us from God? The nature of temptation is described very well in the bible, and I can see no logical reason to explain it's source other than that described in the bible. C. S. Lewis describes it very well in his book "The Screwtape Letters".
All very nice but how does he do it exactly?
Which was after all, my question!
-
We all experience the temptation to do what we know to be wrong. Can you define the source of this temptation?
Your biology.
Can you demonstrate that it does not originate from an evil source which tries to separate us from God?
First NPF of the day.
The nature of temptation is described very well in the bible, and I can see no logical reason to explain it's source other than that described in the bible. C. S. Lewis describes it very well in his book "The Screwtape Letters".
You could try thinking for yourself instead of using an argument from authority (be it the Bible or the fantastical fiction of Lewis).
-
Your biology.
That's almost an ''original sin'' theory isnt it?
-
That's almost an ''original sin'' theory isnt it?
Not in the slightest, Vlad.
-
Your biology.
And what is the biological definition of temptation?
-
We all experience the temptation to do what we know to be wrong. Can you define the source of this temptation? Can you demonstrate that it does not originate from an evil source which tries to separate us from God? The nature of temptation is described very well in the bible, and I can see no logical reason to explain it's source other than that described in the bible. C. S. Lewis describes it very well in his book "The Screwtape Letters".
Alan,
Everyone experiences temptations. But how does Satan with Christians ever win?
If we have been given the power to overcome the enemy who really is the only persons at risk?
-
All very nice but how does he do it exactly?
Which was after all, my question!
We have no knowledge of how thought processes work, how they are perceived or where they originate from in scientific terms. If you are demanding a scientific explanation of what drives our thought processes you will not find one. The closest I can get to answering your question is to point to the quantum events occurring in your brain which have no discernible cause, as this could be the gateway for spiritual interaction, be it from your own soul, or the wilful temptation of Satan.
-
And what is the biological definition of temptation?
It is just thinking, Alan.
'Temptation' is a label that you might ascribe to your subjective thinking regarding any personal inclination you have to do something you may also subjectively regard as being questionable, ideally best avoided or plain wrong: your ability to think on those lines, or think at all for that matter, is a feature of the relevant bits of your biology.
-
I don't know why poor old Satan gets the blame, it is Biblical god who supposedly created human nature so it is to blame for human wrongdoing.
-
We have no knowledge of how thought processes work, how they are perceived or where they originate from in scientific terms. If you are demanding a scientific explanation of what drives our thought processes you will not find one.
No doubt there is more yet to be learned but I think you'll find that thinking requires a functioning brain, without which there is no thinking.
The closest I can get to answering your question is to point to the quantum events occurring in your brain which have no discernible cause, as this could be the gateway for spiritual interaction, be it from your own soul, or the wilful temptation of Satan.
Assertion: this would be your personal incredulity at work again.
-
You could try thinking for yourself instead of using an argument from authority (be it the Bible or the fantastical fiction of Lewis).
I certainly do think for myself, and I quote the bible and Lewis because they concur with my own thought processes. Materialist arguments come nowhere near.
-
I certainly do think for myself, and I quote the bible and Lewis because they concur with my own thought processes. Materialist arguments come nowhere near.
can you outline the methodology for a non materialist argument?
-
No doubt there is more yet to be learned but I think you'll find that thinking requires a functioning brain, without which there is no thinking.
Until you can define what a thought is, you can't assert that it requires a functioning brain. Thoughts may well interact with the physical brain to produce measurable brain activity, but this in no way defines the origin or nature of thought.
-
Until you can define what a thought is, you can't assert that it requires a functioning brain. Thoughts may well interact with the physical brain to produce measurable brain activity, but this in no way defines the origin or nature of thought.
All examples of thoughts that we know of occur in minds. Can you show an example of ones happening not in minds?
-
Surely only a brain is capable of thought? The brains of animals of other species can think to a certain extent too, imo.
-
Not in the slightest, Vlad.
In the absence of Gordon explaining himself let me outline where he is wrong.
Both original sin and Gordon confirrm there is such a thing as evil. Gordon accepts this by saying biology is the cause of temptation to it.
Both original sin and Gordon state that we are born with a bias toward temptation.
Gordon is therefore wrong to say there is no link between his assertion of biology and original sin.
-
can you outline the methodology for a non materialist argument?
Why is this important to you?
-
In the absence of Gordon explaining himself let me outline where he is wrong.
Both original sin and Gordon confirrm there is such a thing as evil. Gordon accepts this by saying biology is the cause of temptation to it.
Both original sin and Gordon state that we are born with a bias toward temptation.
Gordon is therefore wrong to say there is no link between his assertion of biology and original sin.
Gordon hasn't said there is such a thing as evil in the objective sense you are using here. I suggest you apologise for your misrepresentation.
-
Why is this important to you?
why is what important to me?
-
Until you can define what a thought is, you can't assert that it requires a functioning brain.
I'd suggest that thinking involves some neurological activity, and I suspect that those studying brain function tend to avoid people with non-functioning brains since they tend to be dead. The please explain how I can think in the absence of a functioning brain.
Thoughts may well interact with the physical brain to produce measurable brain activity, but this in no way defines the origin or nature of thought.
Then you'll be able to advise on the details of the source and origin of thoughts and this 'interaction' with the brain, including the methods used to support this claim.
-
Gordon hasn't said there is such a thing as evil in the objective sense you are using here. I suggest you apologise for your misrepresentation.
I don't believe I used the words ''Evil in the objective sense''. I suggest you apologise for your misrepresentaion.
-
why is what important to me?
That there is a methodology for non materialist argument.
-
Until you can define what a thought is, you can't assert that it requires a functioning brain. Thoughts may well interact with the physical brain to produce measurable brain activity, but this in no way defines the origin or nature of thought.
Well, there is plenty of research in neuroscience on the relation between brain activity, and things such as memory, feelings, emotions, thinking, decisions, and so on. For example, some kinds of brain damage seem to show an impairment in these processes, e.g. loss of memory, difficulty in thinking, emotional disturbance. Are you saying that there is plenty of research into the non-material aspects of thinking? Citation?
-
That there is a methodology for non materialist argument.
Because in the absence of one any such claims are white noise. I would also suggest it is rather more important to those making such claims than it is to me, if they want to make any sense.
-
I don't believe I used the words ''Evil in the objective sense''. I suggest you apologise for your misrepresentaion.
I didn't quote you as saying that. It is part of the argument for original sin though, so it's contained by implication.
-
In the absence of Gordon explaining himself let me outline where he is wrong.
Both original sin and Gordon confirrm there is such a thing as evil. Gordon accepts this by saying biology is the cause of temptation to it.
Both original sin and Gordon state that we are born with a bias toward temptation.
Gordon is therefore wrong to say there is no link between his assertion of biology and original sin.
Dear dear, Vlad - this is desperate stuff even for you.
'Original sin' is a theological notion that you mentioned earlier and that I simply dismissed (in #105) and did not pursue: therefore your suggestion that I have equated 'original sin' with biology misrepresents what I said.
Nor have I claimed a 'bias towards temptation' or that there is 'evil' in any objective sense. Indeed I have clearly indicated that I regard 'temptation' as being subjective opinion.
-
I didn't quote you as saying that. It is part of the argument for original sin though, so it's contained by implication.
Not nearly apologetic enough.
I was merely arguing that Gordon's argument was like an original sin argument and even spelt out where.
I made no mention that Gordon's theory was the same as original sin theory.
I did not say Gordon was talking about objective evil.
Gordon took it upon himself to suggest a reason for temptation. What does that even mean for someone for whom there is no such thing as objective evil anyway?
-
Nor have I claimed a 'bias towards temptation' or that there is 'evil' in any objective sense. Indeed I have clearly indicated that I regard 'temptation' as being subjective opinion.
If you say that temptation...(however you concieve it)........ is down to biology then you are suggesting predisposition to it.
-
Not nearly apologetic enough.
I was merely arguing that Gordon's argument was like an original sin argument and even spelt out where.
I made no mention that Gordon's theory was the same as original sin theory.
I did not say Gordon was talking about objective evil.
Gordon took it upon himself to suggest a reason for temptation. What does that even mean for someone for whom there is no such thing as objective evil anyway?
So it's like an original sin argument in relation to evil but not like an original sin argument in relation to evil.
-
Not nearly apologetic enough.
I was merely arguing that Gordon's argument was like an original sin argument and even spelt out where.
I made no mention that Gordon's theory was the same as original sin theory.
I did not say Gordon was talking about objective evil.
Gordon took it upon himself to suggest a reason for temptation. What does that even mean for someone for whom there is no such thing as objective evil anyway?
Why, Vlad, did you advance the notion of 'original sin' in the first place since surely you didn't think I was arguing in support of a Christian theological notion?
-
Post 103 Gordon Alan suggested a definition of temptation and asked you to suggest a cause and you said Biology...therefore you are suggesting biology (inherited characteristics) determines it.
-
If you say that temptation...(however you concieve it)........ is down to biology then you are suggesting predisposition to it.
I'm saying that it is a label for an aspect of subjective thought: so what you are complaining about is that I said people with functioning brains are predisposed to think: can't see much that is controversial about that!
-
So it's like an original sin argument in relation to evil but not like an original sin argument in relation to evil.
No it's like an original sin argument in the ways I outlined and not like an original sin in ways that would make it the same as original sin.
-
Post 103 Gordon Alan suggested a definition of temptation and asked you to suggest a cause and you said Biology...therefore you are suggesting biology (inherited characteristics) determines it.
I'm saying that thinking involves biology: do you deny that?
-
No it's like an original sin argument in the ways I outlined and not like an original sin in ways that would make it the same as original sin.
Vlad
This is contradictory nonsense: you seem to be re-defining 'original sin' to suit yourself.
-
No it's like an original sin argument in the ways I outlined and not like an original sin in ways that would make it the same as original sin.
so it's got nothing to do with evil existing as you originally stated?
-
Because in the absence of one any such claims are white noise. I would also suggest it is rather more important to those making such claims than it is to me, if they want to make any sense.
Non material arguments can be made from reason and logic.
Materialism as a philosophy is not even proved by methodological materialism. I thought you had twigged that long ago.
Nobody is philosophically bound to it not even philosophical materialists although it does undermine their very basis come to think of it. Blimey I really do need to reopen the trouble with PM...even I'm forgetting what a crock it is.
So certain things are susceptible to the scientific method and others aren't.
I don't understand this white noise business? what is all that about?
-
so it's got nothing to do with evil existing as you originally stated?
Did I state how evil exists? Go back to post 103 Gordon responds to Alan's proposal. Nobody made Gordon do that. he was tempted to answer Alan's terms.
-
Non material arguments can be made from reason and logic.
Materialism as a philosophy is not even proved by methodological materialism. I thought you had twigged that long ago.
Nobody is philosophically bound to it not even philosophical materialists although it does undermine their very basis come to think of it. Blimey I really do need to reopen the trouble with PM...even I'm forgetting what a crock it is.
So certain things are susceptible to the scientific method and others aren't.
I don't understand this white noise business? what is all that about?
As you so often do you equate a challenge to provide a methodology with a statement that someone is a philosophical materialist. Doing this once or twice could be forgiven as a simple mistake, but no you do it so often having had it pointed out to you, that it is more of your lying.
What on earth does an argument made by 'hope' mean?
-
I'm saying that thinking involves biology: do you deny that?
Biology determines behaviour and as YOU said in post 103 temptation...do you deny that?
-
As you so often do you equate a challenge to provide a methodology with a statement that someone is a philosophical materialist.
The only example of a methodology you have provided is methodological materialism and by your constant banging on about it suggested that this is somehow a ''clincher''. What else am I supposed to think?
After all you are saying that all else is white noise...................
-
Did I state how evil exists? Go back to post 103 Gordon responds to Alan's proposal. Nobody made Gordon do that. he was tempted to answer Alan's terms.
what does 'how evil exists?' mean? You said Gordon was stating that evil exists - see quote below, and then moved away from that when challenged about it being a misrepresentation. Your whole approach here us hopelessly confused
'Both original sin and Gordon confirrm there is such a thing as evil. Gordon accepts this by saying biology is the cause of temptation to it.'
-
'Both original sin and Gordon confirrm there is such a thing as evil. Gordon accepts this by saying biology is the cause of temptation to it.'
You've got it.
-
Biology determines behaviour and as YOU said in post 103 temptation...do you deny that?
You forgot to answer my question, Vlad.
I do think that everything that is associated with our thinking and associated behaviour is rooted in our biology, which includes the range of subjective thinking our species is capable of - since in the absence of functioning biology one is unable to think at all.
-
The only example of a methodology you have provided is methodological materialism and by your constant banging on about it suggested that this is somehow a ''clincher''. What else am I supposed to think?
After all you are saying that all else is white noise...................
I have never suggested it is a 'clincher' for philosophical naturalism, indeed I have on multiple occasions stated to you that I don't think it is. Why is it that you continually lie about this?
-
You've got it.
If by 'it' you mean that you have taken a position and then contradicted it, yes, indeed I have it
-
You forgot to answer my question, Vlad.
I do think that everything that is associated with our thinking and associated behaviour is rooted in our biology, which includes the range of subjective thinking our species is capable of - since in the absence of functioning biology one is unable to think at all.
Oh sorry, Gordon I think there is more to temptation than thinking I think there is the subconscious as well...and feelings.
Most people who succumb to temptation would put it down to not thinking wouldn't they?
Mind you you could put all that down to our inherited biology.
Why have a biology to deal with something which doesn't exist? Good and evil?
I just direct you back to 103 Gordon. You didn't need to offer Alan a scientific explanation for temptation to evil, You could have cut straight to the chase and said there were no such things as good and evil......far be it for a moral realist to tell a moral irrealist his job.
-
If by 'it' you mean that you have taken a position and then contradicted it, yes, indeed I have it
I rather think that was Gordon who seems to think Good and evil do not exist as such and then offers an explanation of how we are tempted to it.
I have brought this up with him.
-
Oh sorry, Gordon I think there is more to temptation than thinking I think there is the subconscious as well...and feelings.
Most people who succumb to temptation would put it down to not thinking wouldn't they?
Mind you you could put all that down to our inherited biology.
Why have a biology to deal with something which doesn't exist? Good and evil?
I just direct you back to 103 Gordon. You didn't need to offer Alan a scientific explanation for temptation to evil, You could have cut straight to the chase and said there were no such things as good and evil......far be it for a moral realist to tell a moral irrealist his job.
and again Gordon didn't say evil existed -stop lying
-
I rather think that was Gordon who seems to think Good and evil do not exist as such and then offers an explanation of how we are tempted to it.
I have brought this up with him.
He didn't sat good and evil existed in his statement on temptation. Stop lying.
-
He didn't sat good and evil existed in his statement on temptation. Stop lying.
What are you on about? I've just said he seems to think they don't exist. Please read my posts.
-
What are you on about? I've just said he seems to think they don't exist. Please read my posts.
I did to quote you
'I rather think that was Gordon who seems to think Good and evil do not exist as such and then offers an explanation of how we are tempted to it.'
The boldened bit is then arguing that Gordon's statement on temptation takes a position that evil does exist. His statement dies not do this. Stop lying.
-
Oh sorry, Gordon I think there is more to temptation than thinking I think there is the subconscious as well...and feelings.
Most people who succumb to temptation would put it down to not thinking wouldn't they?
So, how is the subconscious not part of the biology involved in thinking? That you don't need to consciously remember to keep breathing is also part of your biology - that you aren't aware of it doesn't change that. Surely for someone to 'succumb to temptation' they'd have to be thinking about their prospective conduct in order to feel 'tempted' in the first place.
Mind you you could put all that down to our inherited biology.
I could, since I can't see how thinking can be divorced from our biology.
Why have a biology to deal with something which doesn't exist? Good and evil?
You biology allows you to have subjective thoughts about all sorts of stuff.
I just direct you back to 103 Gordon. You didn't need to offer Alan a scientific explanation for temptation to evil, You could have cut straight to the chase and said there were no such things as good and evil......far be it for a moral realist to tell a moral irrealist his job.
That wasn't the point of my answer though: my point was simply that temptation involves thinking and coming to subjective opinions.
-
So, how is the subconscious not part of the biology involved in thinking? That you don't need to consciously remember to keep breathing is also part of your biology - that you aren't aware of it doesn't change that. Surely for someone to 'succumb to temptation' they'd have to be thinking about their prospective conduct in order to feel 'tempted' in the first place.
I could, since I can't see how thinking can be divorced from our biology.
You biology allows you to have subjective thoughts about all sorts of stuff.
That wasn't the point of my answer though: my point was simply that temptation involves thinking and coming to subjective opinions.
Yes We can put it down to Biology did it.....We are creatures after all.
However you haven't answered the question. If Evil doesn't exist how come biology has evolved strategies against it or conversely if there is temptation what on earth biologically is it for? This is important as I think you'll agree Biologydiddit is a theory of everything rather than an explanatory.
-
I did to quote you
'I rather think that was Gordon who seems to think Good and evil do not exist as such and then offers an explanation of how we are tempted to it.'
The boldened bit is then arguing that Gordon's statement on temptation takes a position that evil does exist. His statement dies not do this. Stop lying.
No No No that's what Gordon did!!!!!! Read 103!
You are having a go at me because your master is hopelessly confused!!!!??????!!!!!
-
No No No that's what Gordon did!!!!!! Read 103!
You are having a go at me because your master is hopelessly confused!!!!??????!!!!!
I am having a go at you because you are lying. 103 says nothing about the existence of evil.
-
I am having a go at you because you are lying. 103 says nothing about the existence of evil.
103 includes a quote from Alan about temptation to do wrong...That's Alan talking about it so I think that we can assume a fairly christian view of the word wrong.....and then....amazingly...Gordon takes up the challenge!!!
-
I don't believe good and evil exist outside the human psyche.
-
I don't believe good and evil exist outside the human psyche.
Do you believe that the human psyche exists?
-
Do you believe that the human psyche exists?
We all have minds don't we?
-
103 includes a quote from Alan about temptation to do wrong...That's Alan talking about it so I think that we can assume a fairly christian view of the word wrong.....and then....amazingly...Gordon takes up the challenge!!!
and Gordon writes that the whole concepts are merely thinking, not external. You shouldn't try and shoehorn words such as evil in as existing when they are not used.
-
We all have minds don't we?
Psyche was once, and can still be used, as synonymous for soul. Vlad is on a little funk odyssey of trying to say that when people use words with specific contextual meanings, that they are accepting the meaning he finds more 'useful
'
-
I did to quote you
'I rather think that was Gordon who seems to think Good and evil do not exist as such and then offers an explanation of how we are tempted to it.'
The boldened bit is then arguing that Gordon's statement on temptation takes a position that evil does exist. His statement dies not do this. Stop lying.
NS,
I think you miss the point.
Does temptation mean a position of good or evil?
Alan I believe said Satan tempts us. But is temptation relative to evil or good or both.
If good or evil does not exist but Satan is evil. Can you say (when resorting to say 'temptation' to a Christian from Satan) is to do evil that Gordon is speaking about temptation relevant to this or not? How are you going to maintain an argument in relation to the above situation?
For this purpose of this thread, Alan has asserted that Satan who is evil; tempts those who believe 'God is good', to do what God considers evil.
You need to hold on to the main concerns of the thread. That you cannot take Gordons comments or Vlads to refer to anything but the context set about by Alan as Satan tempting man to do evil.
-
We all have minds don't we?
Nicely sidestepped.
-
Psyche was once, and can still be used, as synonymous for soul. Vlad is on a little funk odyssey of trying to say that when people use words with specific contextual meanings, that they are accepting the meaning he finds more 'useful
'
I hadn't realised the term psyche could be used in reference to the soul!
-
Nicely sidestepped.
In my opinion, the word soul is just another term for consciousness.
-
We all have minds don't we?
So do you think that minds exist?
-
In my opinion, the word soul is just another term for consciousness.
Does consciousness exist?
-
Vlad is on a little funk odyssey
Funk odyssey? White noise? next you'll have me ''shaking my groove thing''???!!!!!!
-
NS,
I think you miss the point.
Does temptation mean a position of good or evil?
Alan I believe said Satan tempts us. But is temptation relative to evil or good or both.
If good or evil does not exist but Satan is evil. Can you say (when resorting to say 'temptation' to a Christian from Satan) is to do evil that Gordon is speaking about temptation relevant to this or not? How are you going to maintain an argument in relation to the above situation?
For this purpose of this thread, Alan has asserted that Satan who is evil; tempts those who believe 'God is good', to do what God considers evil.
You need to hold on to the main concerns of the thread. That you cannot take Gordons comments or Vlads to refer to anything but the context set about by Alan as Satan tempting man to do evil.
Since Gordon does not believe in Satan, that's contextually wrong
-
Funk odyssey? White noise? next you'll have me ''shaking my groove thing''???!!!!!!
as long as you don't get your ya yas out!
-
as long as you don't get your ya yas out!
Oh please that is as frightening as those idiots who have been jumping out at people wearing very unpleasant clown masks! :o
-
Since Gordon does not believe in Satan, that's contextually wrong
Gordon blundered. I have brought this up with him.
He does say that temptation is down to biology. he said that in response to Alan. These things are undeniable Sane.
While you have been playing Igor to the monster chimera Gordon seems to have created. I have tried to get Gordon to move beyond Biologydiddit to get him to say just how temptation works and what the hell it's working on if good and evil do not exist?
-
Gordon blundered. I have brought this up with him.
He does say that temptation is down to biology. he said that in response to Alan. These things are undeniable Sane.
While you have been playing Igor to the monster chimera Gordon seems to have created. I have tried to get Gordon to move beyond Biologydiddit to get him to say just how temptation works and what the hell it's working on if good and evil do not exist?
No, this again is just you desperately misrepresenting Gordon. BTW I am tempted to have a doughnut now, is that evil?
-
as long as you don't get your ya yas out!
LOL with a big side order of ROFL.
-
Gordon blundered. I have brought this up with him.
He does say that temptation is down to biology. he said that in response to Alan. These things are undeniable Sane.
While you have been playing Igor to the monster chimera Gordon seems to have created. I have tried to get Gordon to move beyond Biologydiddit to get him to say just how temptation works and what the hell it's working on if good and evil do not exist?
You can't move beyond biology.
-
No, this again is just you desperately misrepresenting Gordon. BTW I am tempted to have a doughnut now, is that evil?
Non sequiter and red herring. Alan clearly stated what he meant by temptation and Gordon played ball.
Have the doughnut...at least then you will have done one worthwhile thing today................snork.
-
You can't move beyond biology.
I never said ''Biology''. I said ''Biologydiddit.''
You seem to have moved beyond it by dodging a straight answer to my questions. Do the mind,psyche and consciousness exist....yes or no?
-
You can't move beyond biology.
which is the death knell of free will
-
Non sequiter and red herring. Alan clearly stated what he meant by temptation and Gordon played ball.
Have the doughnut...at least then you will have done one worthwhile thing today................snork.
Except that only makes sense if you then assume Gordon accepts the existence of Satan as well. Language is not controlled in the fashion you want to dishonestly represent here. Context is important but that context includes Gordon's post itself and his known views. That you want to ignore that just underlines your attempts at mendacious maundering.
-
Gordon blundered. I have brought this up with him.
He does say that temptation is down to biology. he said that in response to Alan. These things are undeniable Sane.
No Vlad: I've described 'temptation' as a form of subjective thinking, and that thinking involves functioning biology.
While you have been playing Igor to the monster chimera Gordon seems to have created. I have tried to get Gordon to move beyond Biologydiddit to get him to say just how temptation works and what the hell it's working on if good and evil do not exist?
You've tried, and failed since you are misrepresenting my position - which is that 'temptation' is just subjective thinking just as thoughts on 'good' and 'evil' are subjective opinions on whatever the issue is.
-
It seems to me that the words, 'good' and 'evil' are only general terms used by humans in relation to acts that seem to increase/negate such things as human flourishing. This attitude, of course, may vary in any individual according to his/her neurological make up, culture etc.
Actually the word 'temptation' doesn't have to be necessarily associated with 'evil' anyway. An individual can just as easily be tempted to do what is normally accepted as 'good' actions as 'bad' actions, it would depend to a large extent on which emotions are strongest at any particular point as to how a person would act.
-
Except that only makes sense if you then assume Gordon accepts the existence of Satan as well. Language is not controlled in the fashion you want to dishonestly represent here. Context is important but that context includes Gordon's post itself and his known views. That you want to ignore that just underlines your attempts at mendacious maundering.
I know what Gordon believes which is why i'm surprised he engaged.......but it didnt just end there did it Sane?....because he then went on to say temptation (postulated by Alan, Sane, that is undeniable Post 103) was due to Biology.
He laid himself open at that moment to everything I said about him and asked of him....and none of which has yet been answered because there is an Igor scampering about!
-
It seems to me that the words, 'good' and 'evil' are only general terms used by humans in relation to acts that seem to increase/negate such things as human flourishing. This attitude, of course, may vary in any individual according to his/her neurological make up, culture etc.
Actually the word 'temptation' doesn't have to be necessarily associated with 'evil' anyway. An individual can just as easily be tempted to do what is normally accepted as 'good' actions as 'bad' actions, it would depend to a large extent on which emotions are strongest at any particular point as to how a person would act.
In Alan's world though this positive temptation would surely be god doing quantum Morse code?
-
I know what Gordon believes which is why i'm surprised he engaged.......but it didnt just end there did it Sane?....because he then went on to say temptation (postulated by Alan, Sane, that is undeniable Post 103) was due to Biology.
He laid himself open at that moment to everything I said about him and asked of him....and none of which has yet been answered because there is an Igor scampering about!
When you asked, you ignored the answer, and gave continued to do so. Stop lying.
-
No Vlad: I've described 'temptation' as a form of subjective thinking, and that thinking involves functioning biology.
You've tried, and failed since you are misrepresenting my position - which is that 'temptation' is just subjective thinking just as thoughts on 'good' and 'evil' are subjective opinions on whatever the issue is.
...And i think I pointed out that ''Biologydiddit'' is not an explanatory and cannot fail as an argument but only because it is a theory of everything but if you want to flag up that you are trying to argue specific points by using an ''argument for everything'' then be my guest.
-
You need to read #103 again Vlad in relation to Alan's #101 I was replying to.
In this he's says 'Can you define the source of this temptation?', to which I replied 'Your biology' - but this is this beforehe goes on to say 'Can you demonstrate that it does not originate from an evil source which tries to separate us from God?', which I noted was a use of the NPF. Put simply, I referenced biology in relation to his 'source' question and before he introduced the 'evil source' idea which I noted was done fallaciously.
Therefore, I'd say you need to re-read for comprehension.
-
You need to read #103 again Vlad in relation to Alan's #101 I was replying to.
In this he's says 'Can you define the source of this temptation?', to which I replied 'Your biology'
Thank you. By George I think he's got it.
-
I know what Gordon believes which is why i'm surprised he engaged.......but it didnt just end there did it Sane?....because he then went on to say temptation (postulated by Alan, Sane, that is undeniable Post 103) was due to Biology.
Stop lying Vlad - I said this in #109.
'Temptation' is a label that you might ascribe to your subjective thinking regarding any personal inclination you have to do something you may also subjectively regard as being questionable, ideally best avoided or plain wrong: your ability to think on those lines, or think at all for that matter, is a feature of the relevant bits of your biology.
-
Thank you. By George I think he's got it.
Selective quoting, Vlad.
You need to read on, Vlad - try #109.
-
Stop lying Vlad - I said this in #109.
It's not about 109, it's about 103 Alan defines what he means by temptation and YOU responded.
-
It seems to me that the words, 'good' and 'evil' are only general terms used by humans in relation to acts that seem to increase/negate such things as human flourishing. This attitude, of course, may vary in any individual according to his/her neurological make up, culture etc.
Actually the word 'temptation' doesn't have to be necessarily associated with 'evil' anyway. An individual can just as easily be tempted to do what is normally accepted as 'good' actions as 'bad' actions, it would depend to a large extent on which emotions are strongest at any particular point as to how a person would act.
Good point.
-
Well, there is plenty of research in neuroscience on the relation between brain activity, and things such as memory, feelings, emotions, thinking, decisions, and so on.
If you accept that thoughts are made up from patterns of brain activity, you then have the problem of how this brain activity from many brain cells can be perceived as a thought by the single entity of consciousness which is you. Compare it to a picture which is made up from thousands of individual pixels of colour, but it can only be perceived as a picture by an outside entity of observation. The picture does not perceive itself. I put it to you that the activity of your brain cells which relate to thought can only be perceived as thought by the single entity of perception which is the human soul.
-
If you accept that thoughts are made up from patterns of brain activity, you then have the problem of how this brain activity from many brain cells can be perceived as a thought by the single entity of consciousness which is you. Compare it to a picture which is made up from thousands of individual pixels of colour, but it can only be perceived as a picture by an outside entity of observation. The picture does not perceive itself. I put it to you that the activity of your brain cells which relate to thought can only be perceived as thought by the single entity of perception which is the human soul.
that creates an infinite regress
-
that creates an infinite regress
But then the people who state it's just electrical patterns have to answer what it is which perceives them. Just like those who talk about an illusion of self have to answer what it is which is being illuded.
-
But then the people who state it's just electrical patterns have to answer what it is which perceives them. Just like those who talk about an illusion of self have to answer what it is which is being illuded.
Don't know. You should learn to understand what that means. You make a claim, your burden of proof. No claim...
-
If you accept that thoughts are made up from patterns of brain activity, you then have the problem of how this brain activity from many brain cells can be perceived as a thought by the single entity of consciousness which is you. Compare it to a picture which is made up from thousands of individual pixels of colour, but it can only be perceived as a picture by an outside entity of observation. The picture does not perceive itself. I put it to you that the activity of your brain cells which relate to thought can only be perceived as thought by the single entity of perception which is the human soul.
Well, you are moving the goal-posts, as you often do. You were saying before that there was no connection between thinking and the brain, quote, "Until you can define what a thought is, you can't assert that it requires a functioning brain. Thoughts may well interact with the physical brain to produce measurable brain activity, but this in no way defines the origin or nature of thought."
Now you seem to be accepting that the brain is involved. Eh?
-
It's not about 109, it's about 103 Alan defines what he means by temptation and YOU responded.
I did - and you are misrepresenting my response.
-
that creates an infinite regress
It is only an infinite regress if you view it in material terms. If the brain cells are perceived by other material elements, then something has to perceive the state of these elements ... and so on.
The only feasible explanation which makes sense to me is an entity of perception which is not material, but perceives material things.
-
It is only an infinite regress if you view it in material terms. If the brain cells are perceived by other material elements, then something has to perceive the state of these elements ... and so on.
The only feasible explanation which makes sense to me is an entity of perception which is not material, but perceives material things.
But you have already used materialist logic to get to the position. If you then ignore it, it's like climbing up a ladder and throwing it away and ignoring that you fall down.
-
Well, you are moving the goal-posts, as you often do. You were saying before that there was no connection between thinking and the brain, quote, "Until you can define what a thought is, you can't assert that it requires a functioning brain. Thoughts may well interact with the physical brain to produce measurable brain activity, but this in no way defines the origin or nature of thought."
Now you seem to be accepting that the brain is involved. Eh?
What I am trying to explain, though perhaps not very well, is that the thought only exists in conscious perception, not in the brain cells themselves. The thought may be represented by patterns of brain cell activity, just as the written word is represented by patterns of ink on a piece of paper, but the meaning of them both only exists in the conscious perception of the observer.
-
What I am trying to explain, though perhaps not very well, is that the thought only exists in conscious perception, not in the brain cells themselves. The thought may be represented by patterns of brain cell activity, just as the written word is represented by patterns of ink on a piece of paper, but the meaning of them both only exists in the conscious perception of the observer.
That sounds OK, but then you are introducing the idea of a soul, which does the work, although apparently no-one can demonstrate this soul, or its workings.
Consciousness research is in its infancy, but there is some interesting stuff coming out. Well, I expect more from it, than 'soul research'.
-
We have no knowledge of how thought processes work, how they are perceived or where they originate from in scientific terms. If you are demanding a scientific explanation of what drives our thought processes you will not find one. The closest I can get to answering your question is to point to the quantum events occurring in your brain which have no discernible cause, as this could be the gateway for spiritual interaction, be it from your own soul, or the wilful temptation of Satan.
Forget about scientific explanations.
The willful temptation of Satan......
Try non scientific ones for now and see where that gets you?