Mother Teresa

[ippy]

Especially when you could use those microseconds to add something interesting, useful and above all secular on this forum.....eh, Ippy

You don't seem to be getting the point of much these days Vlad things like this post, secularism etc, you're not really there and no I wont be elaborating on this post.

you work out a few things for yourself.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't seem to be getting the point of much these days Vlad things like this post, secularism etc, you're not really there and no I wont be elaborating on this post.

you work out a few things for yourself.

ippy

I always show my working out Ipples......You ought to try it sometime.

[ippy]

I always show my working out Ipples......You ought to try it sometime.

I'm sure you try Vlad, but most of your posts attribute things that have nothing to do with secularism, to secularism; whenever you happen to mention secularism they illustrate your very limited understanding of the subject.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sure you try Vlad, but most of your posts attribute things that have nothing to do with secularism, to secularism; whenever you happen to mention secularism they illustrate your very limited understanding of the subject.

ippy

My posts are against those using secularism as cover for a Stalinist anti theist agenda

[ippy]

My posts are against those using secularism as cover for a Stalinist anti theist agenda

Like I said clueless.

ippy

[Sassy]

Mother Teresa to be made a saint and they wonder why we, so called, atheists are unable to take religions seriously?

ippy

Well, if you knew your bible you would have known that those who belong to Christ are all, already SAINTS.

So the Church on earth cannot make her what she would already be....


7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


I guess you don't take religion seriously at all... otherwise you would have already known the People of God are all saints already...

[Red Giant]

Just out of interest, does anyone know how the investigating officials from the Vatican make the jump from medics saying, "we don't know how little Timmy got better" to, "that'll be a miracle then"?

They suss out what the Pope wants them to say, usually yes, and deliver the required verdict in standard form.

Miracles are boringly similar nowadays.  The old mass-produced medieval saints were pretty formulaic, but they had a wider repertoire than modern ones.

Of course "serious" Catholic theologians smile and look down on "popular piety", but they aren't going to rock any boats.  Not that C of E clergy are much different.  There's some deep cynicism in there somewhere, and always was.

[ippy]

Well, if you knew your bible you would have known that those who belong to Christ are all, already SAINTS.

So the Church on earth cannot make her what she would already be....


7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


I guess you don't take religion seriously at all... otherwise you would have already known the People of God are all saints already...

2

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Like I said clueless.

ippy

I have already explained in what sense it is Stalinist.
In his major work The Christians Atheist Bamber Gascoigne recalls with some horror that Stalin ordered no visible sign of religion. There are people who have been on this forum who echo Stalin.

[Shaker]

I have already explained in what sense it is Stalinist.
In his major work The Christians Atheist Bamber Gascoigne recalls with some horror that Stalin ordered no visible sign of religion. There are people who have been on this forum who echo Stalin.

Such as?

[floo]

Well, if you knew your bible you would have known that those who belong to Christ are all, already SAINTS.

So the Church on earth cannot make her what she would already be....


7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


I guess you don't take religion seriously at all... otherwise you would have already known the People of God are all saints already...

So Sass is a saint? Oh blimey a herd of pigs has just flown passed my window!

[ippy]

So Sass is a saint? Oh blimey a herd of pigs has just flown passed my window!

"those who belong to Christ are all, already SAINTS".

Since it's so unlikely that there was any such thing as a christ, although there is a very remote, very remote almost invisible chance there might have been, wouldn't that make it equally unlikely that there is any such thing as a saint?

Floo did you notice since my scoring system of how many assertions there are per Sassy post, there's fewer assertions coming from that direction, or is it me imagining things?

I thought she managed very well with that last post of hers, well I mean only two assertions, that's good for Sassy.

ippy   

[ippy]

I have already explained in what sense it is Stalinist.
In his major work The Christians Atheist Bamber Gascoigne recalls with some horror that Stalin ordered no visible sign of religion. There are people who have been on this forum who echo Stalin.

Looking forward to the day religisos come to their senses is just a tad different to banning religion outright.

ippy

[floo]

"those who belong to Christ are all, already SAINTS".

Since it's so unlikely that there was any such thing as a christ, although there is a very remote, very remote almost invisible chance there might have been, wouldn't that make it equally unlikely that there is any such thing as a saint?

Floo did you notice since my scoring system of how many assertions there are per Sassy post, there's fewer assertions coming from that direction, or is it me imagining things?

I thought she managed very well with that last post of hers, well I mean only two assertions, that's good for Sassy.

ippy   

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looking forward to the day religisos come to their senses is just a tad different to banning religion outright.

ippy

yes and I suppose that is how far certain peoples agendas go. But not many on here and certainly no one associated with BHA or NSS.

[jeremyp]

There are people who have been on this forum who echo Stalin.

Name names.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Name names.

They know who they are.

[jeremyp]

They know who they are.

So you were lying. Glad we got that cleared up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you were lying. Glad we got that cleared up.

lying that there are people on here wanting no public or political forum for religion. What do you think the BHA and NSS are supporting and who don't you think supports their agenda on here.

How can a secular humanist or anybody believe that a totally secular society doesn't support their life stance or world view......'Freedom from religion' and all that.

[ippy]

yes and I suppose that is how far certain peoples agendas go. But not many on here and certainly no one associated with BHA or NSS.

Well Vlad I must tell you I'm an active member in both the NSS and the BHA, and I also think it would be wrong to ban religions no matter how potty they might be.

There are a lot more of what you refer to as atheists in both organisations than any others and I don't know of anyone in either one that has even suggested religions should be banned, if anyone is a secularist, well they wouldn't be secularists if they wanted religions banned, because that's nothing to do with secularism.

That's yet another reason for telling you that you don't understand what it is secularism is all about, if you did know you wouldn't be writing so many silly posts about it.

ippy

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you were lying. Glad we got that cleared up.

Lying that there are people on here wanting no public or political forum for religion. What do you think the BHA and NSS are supporting and who don't you think supports their agenda on here.

How can a secular humanist or anybody believe that a totally secular society doesn't support their life stance or world view......'Freedom from religion' and all that.

[Shaker]

Lying that there are people on here wanting no public or political forum for religion. What do you think the BHA and NSS are supporting

Secularism, which isn't what you think it is.

and who don't you think supports their agenda on here.

By far the great majority, I should think.

How can a secular humanist or anybody believe that a totally secular society doesn't support their life stance or world view......'Freedom from religion' and all that.

Learn what secularism actually is and get back to us.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

lying that there are people on here wanting no public or political forum for religion. What do you think the BHA and NSS are supporting and who don't you think supports their agenda on here.

How can a secular humanist or anybody believe that a totally secular society doesn't support their life stance or world view......'Freedom from religion' and all that.

Completely barmy. No-one would ban the religious from saying whatever they want to say - set up a stall on the street, march up and down Oxford Street wearing a sandwich board, publish whatever pamphlets you want to publish - knock yourself out. None of that is threatened by anything the BHS or NSS have to say. What they do object too though (and I agree with them) is the claims of some religions to have privileged access to the attention of the rest of us - teaching their personal faith beliefs to children as if they were facts for example.

It's a simple enough distinction, but it passes you by entirely - private members clubs and their outputs are no-one's business but their own; demanding to be be taken seriously on the other hand are a different matter.

If you seriously think there to be someone here who is "Stalinist" - i.e., who would ban the former - why be so coy about naming this mystery person?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

Completely barmy. No-one would ban the religious from saying whatever they want to say - set up a stall on the street, march up and down Oxford Street wearing a sandwich board, publish whatever pamphlets you want to publish - knock yourself out. None of that is threatened by anything the BHS or NSS have to say. What they do object too though (and I agree with them) is the claims of some religions to have privileged access to the attention of the rest of us - teaching their personal faith beliefs to children as if they were facts for example.

It's a simple enough distinction, but it passes you by entirely - private members clubs and their outputs are no-one's business but their own; demanding to be be taken seriously on the other hand are a different matter.

If you seriously think there to be someone here who is "Stalinist" - i.e., who would ban the former - why be so coy about naming this mystery person?

Note ......'Freedom from religion'

Do you want religion to have public and political influence of the kind that capital enjoy's do you want to see the Salvation army banned from it's work in poor and deprived areas. Do you want to have people who talk about their faith influencing their politics removed from politics?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

Note ......'Freedom from religion'

Or from fascism, or from...

What's to note?

Do you want religion to have public and political influence of the kind that capital enjoy's do you want to see the Salvation army banned from it's work in poor and deprived areas. Do you want to have people who talk about their faith influencing their politics removed from politics?

What on earth are you even trying to say here? I "want" people to be free to express whatever views they wish to express. What I don't want is for some of those people to have state-sanctioned special rights to force them on others.

Why is the distinction so difficult for you to grasp?