Respecting religion???
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo
This sums up everything I believe perfectly. From a bloke I don't even like that much.
+1 (Though he's a bloody nice bloke).This sums up everything I believe perfectly. From a bloke I don't even like that much.
Derek Smith said:
Not only that, in the main the Germans are appalled by their history and condemn it. They have some of the most stringent anti racist legislation in the world.
In this country the transformation of the refugee camps to concentration camps was condemned at the time and later by the Fawcett Commission.
Americans fought a war that was ostensibly over slavery.
The various abrahamic churches still use the same manual of guidance, written 3,500 years ago initially, they used in the dark ages. Some pay lip service but others are more strict. We are still learning of the cover up of child abuse by the church. Churches are resistant to change, even when there is a moral imperative. Slavery, as mentioned above, is expressly permitted in the bible and this was used by the pro-slavery group to justify their actions.
Whilst we should, must I'd suggest, remember where we went wrong in the past, this is not the most important aspect. What is vital that we learn from the past and modify our mores. We need to accept that what was reasonable in the past is not nowadays.
If we take the Boer War camps, they were justified by many at the time. Nowadays it is seen, quite rightly, as a blot. Kitchener, quite rightly, suffered for his actions later.
I think you'll find the American Civil War was one of economics and power. Slavery and discrimination was a byproduct of the economic endeavours of the 'Southern' States, the fight was not for the slaves benefit, directly. And any slave owner would be more driven by money than some supposed Biblical permission. The proof in the pudding is how discrimination against African-Americans continued well into the second half of the twentieth century.In this country the transformation of the refugee camps to concentration camps was condemned at the time and later by the Fawcett Commission.
Americans fought a war that was ostensibly over slavery.
The various abrahamic churches still use the same manual of guidance, written 3,500 years ago initially, they used in the dark ages. Some pay lip service but others are more strict. We are still learning of the cover up of child abuse by the church. Churches are resistant to change, even when there is a moral imperative. Slavery, as mentioned above, is expressly permitted in the bible and this was used by the pro-slavery group to justify their actions.
Whilst we should, must I'd suggest, remember where we went wrong in the past, this is not the most important aspect. What is vital that we learn from the past and modify our mores. We need to accept that what was reasonable in the past is not nowadays.
If we take the Boer War camps, they were justified by many at the time. Nowadays it is seen, quite rightly, as a blot. Kitchener, quite rightly, suffered for his actions later.
A question for you, why are you so keen to use terms like 'lip service'? You seem to suggest there are only two types of religious people, the strict (which you say are bad) and the rest who just offer 'lip service'. Well no, there are many that question and choose against any negative elements (or choose to interpret the scriptures positively) who by no means are just 'paying lip service' to anyone.
Also don't forget that Christians only exist as a result of Jesus, their whole raison d'etre is a result of him rebelling against the O.T ways (which you love to focus on) and hence the reason for the N.T.
I just watched the Intelligence Squared 2009 debate. I'm staggered at how the Vatican handled the child abuse problem.
57:30 in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA&sp...
Ratzinger's letter to bishops ordering them under pain of ex-communication not to talk to the police or anyone else.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/doc...
Ratzinger said - "One cannot put on trial such a close friend of the Pope"
The sentence handed out to one bishop for endemic child abuse was "a life of prayer and penitence."
Then we have Archbishop Bernard Law. He fled the country - and his punishment was to become a Cardinal.
The current Pope - actually popped around to visit him a couple of years back
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope...
To my eyes - the Catholic Church is riddled with well organised and well funded Paedophiles in position of power.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus - Outside the Church there is no salvation.
And we should be respectful?
57:30 in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA&sp...
Ratzinger's letter to bishops ordering them under pain of ex-communication not to talk to the police or anyone else.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/doc...
Ratzinger said - "One cannot put on trial such a close friend of the Pope"
The sentence handed out to one bishop for endemic child abuse was "a life of prayer and penitence."
Then we have Archbishop Bernard Law. He fled the country - and his punishment was to become a Cardinal.
The current Pope - actually popped around to visit him a couple of years back
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope...
To my eyes - the Catholic Church is riddled with well organised and well funded Paedophiles in position of power.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus - Outside the Church there is no salvation.
And we should be respectful?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, even Jesus, credited by some as the virgin-conceived son of the almighty was a bit confused by the, previously true, word of God? Sent here to "save us" as he was.I had wondered how the National Trust had come about....
I can go along with the either fundamentalist or lip-service "moderates" thing, I made the same point a few weeks ago.
Troubleatmill said:
According to the Catholic Church that is not true. -" Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" - Outside the Church there is no salvation.
You're not grasping my point here. What the church says about it's views is neither here nor there. It is the view of the person external to the religion that is the one showing or not showing respect to another individual. There is no need to coment on the many, and widely differing pronouncements, of a man made institution.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think you will find, if you read my posts, that I did not suggest there are only two types of religious people.Jesus did not bin the OT. Far from it. He was preaching to Jews. He wanted to modify, reform Judaism. To him, the OT was the bible. However, he was unhappy with the interpretations.
He said that the 10 (sic) commandments should be interpreted in another way, not that the OT should be ignored.
As for the ACW, I did say ostensibly. Religion’s support for it was used as a lever, a justification, for the appalling treatment. It was not only the massed slaves of the plantation owners remember.
The discrimination against the blacks, and other racial types, into the 20thC was supported by many churches in the region. Look for the sermons against the busing in of students. My college organised a demonstration at one time.
Further, according to a TV documentary some time ago, religious schools in the south were playing their part to ensure that schools continue to be segregated in the main. The mechanism of this passed me by.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why do they have any special status to judge anyone?Are scientists not able to judge? Why cannot the law and human rights legislation be left to judge? What on earth could a homophobic sexist club offer in the way of enlightened judgement? As often proved in the past, little judgement of any merit to any atheist. Where is their voice?
And finally, it is rather pointless to start suggesting some christianity is ok and should not be judged by tge actions of others. They are all flawed, in my opinion, and ALL religion is tainted and stained to some extent by the actions of ANY religious movement. You can't lump atheists together in the same way at all.
Troubleatmill said:
I just watched the Intelligence Squared 2009 debate. I'm staggered at how the Vatican handled the child abuse problem.
57:30 in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA&sp...
Ratzinger's letter to bishops ordering them under pain of ex-communication not to talk to the police or anyone else.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/doc...
Ratzinger said - "One cannot put on trial such a close friend of the Pope"
The sentence handed out to one bishop for endemic child abuse was "a life of prayer and penitence."
Then we have Archbishop Bernard Law. He fled the country - and his punishment was to become a Cardinal.
The current Pope - actually popped around to visit him a couple of years back
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope...
To my eyes - the Catholic Church is riddled with well organised and well funded Paedophiles in position of power.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus - Outside the Church there is no salvation.
And we should be respectful?
It's sickening isn't it. The former pope, who is still alive and living in luxury, is banged to rights as a paedophile enabler, a protector of child rapists, and no one, least of all the current pope, is doing anything to bring him to justice.57:30 in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA&sp...
Ratzinger's letter to bishops ordering them under pain of ex-communication not to talk to the police or anyone else.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/doc...
Ratzinger said - "One cannot put on trial such a close friend of the Pope"
The sentence handed out to one bishop for endemic child abuse was "a life of prayer and penitence."
Then we have Archbishop Bernard Law. He fled the country - and his punishment was to become a Cardinal.
The current Pope - actually popped around to visit him a couple of years back
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope...
To my eyes - the Catholic Church is riddled with well organised and well funded Paedophiles in position of power.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus - Outside the Church there is no salvation.
And we should be respectful?
Respect......I wouldn't cross the road to piss on a catholic church if it was on fire.
///ajd said:
Why do they have any special status to judge anyone?
Are scientists not able to judge? Why cannot the law and human rights legislation be left to judge? What on earth could a homophobic sexist club offer in the way of enlightened judgement? As often proved in the past, little judgement of any merit to any atheist. Where is their voice?
And finally, it is rather pointless to start suggesting some christianity is ok and should not be judged by tge actions of others. They are all flawed, in my opinion, and ALL religion is tainted and stained to some extent by the actions of ANY religious movement. You can't lump atheists together in the same way at all.
I think your thinking is flawed, because you seek to create connections that don't exist to enable you to criticise all religions and all religious people for the sake of the actions of a few. Are scientists not able to judge? Why cannot the law and human rights legislation be left to judge? What on earth could a homophobic sexist club offer in the way of enlightened judgement? As often proved in the past, little judgement of any merit to any atheist. Where is their voice?
And finally, it is rather pointless to start suggesting some christianity is ok and should not be judged by tge actions of others. They are all flawed, in my opinion, and ALL religion is tainted and stained to some extent by the actions of ANY religious movement. You can't lump atheists together in the same way at all.
Nice one there. Really logical, sounds quite fundamentalist actually.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
We'll have to disagree VK,I thought we had already established that belief and faith are not proveable by science and evidence etc., a fact that binds all religions without exception.
It is flawed to think human belief systems are not - by definition - basically similar, however much you want 'yours' to be OK. I'm sure all believers think 'theirs' is the best and should be acceptable to all.
It is the same irrationality that drive some "to kill infidels", that leads others - who consider themselves innocuous - to be homophobic and sexist. Is the CofE homophobic and sexist?
Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 1st February 18:31
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What does the CoE know about efficacy or medical safety? Certainly nothing like that of the medical researchers that do it every day.As to ethics their actions in this matter speak for themselves.
You are also still avoiding the issue that this is still evidence of religion standing in the way of progress for human kind. Which disproved your apparent thesis that the church doesn't do this (any more).
Edited by Martin4x4 on Sunday 1st February 18:49
///ajd said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
We'll have to disagree VK,I thought we had already established that belief and faith are not proveable by science and evidence etc., a fact that binds all religions without exception.
It is flawed to think human belief systems are not - by definition - basically similar, however much you want 'yours' to be OK. I'm sure all believers think 'theirs' is the best and should be acceptable to all.
It is the same irrationality that drive some "to kill infidels", that leads others - who consider themselves innocuous - to be homophobic and sexist. Is the CofE homophobic and sexist?
Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 1st February 18:31
Martin4x4 said:
What does the CoE know about efficacy or medical safety? Certainly nothing like that of the medical researchers that do it every day.
As to ethics their actions in this matter speak for themselves.
You are also still avoiding the issue that this is still evidence of religion standing in the way of progress for human kind. Which disproved your apparent thesis that the church doesn't do this (any more).
It is only them standing in the way of progress, in your opinion, if you agree that these three concerns have been very well addressed by the scientists.As to ethics their actions in this matter speak for themselves.
You are also still avoiding the issue that this is still evidence of religion standing in the way of progress for human kind. Which disproved your apparent thesis that the church doesn't do this (any more).
Edited by Martin4x4 on Sunday 1st February 18:49
I detect a hint of the arrogance of 'what do they know about x' in your argument. Who do you think is allowed to know and to comment on such matters? Scientists alone? Ethics, safety and efficacy are always considered in healthcare for example. Every well intended solution can bring about its own problems, to weigh these up and to question the actual net gain of said solution.
Thalidomide, for one example, was a well intended solution to a problem faced by pregnant mothers that created problems for their children of epic proportions.
Genetics is a really tricky subject as there are so many moral and ethical questions raised by the scientific endeavour to solve problems, bringing me right back to Dawkins' (geneticist) opinion on the genetics of Downs Syndrome and the validity of life when a foetus is likely to have the condition. He is a geneticist but is he unquestionable on the moral and ethical issues of his science?
///ajd said:
Really? He used to favour science and logical reason? When was this?
I see your lack of logic when you are unable to distinguish between someone who is driven by their (irrational in your opinion) beliefs to carry out negative actions and someone whose beliefs leads them to help others and to do good things.Your hatred of religion and desire to see 'it' and everyone involved with 'it' as one big nasty and culpable mass is irrational.
Ellroy touches on it when asking people to distinguish between the actions and policies of religious organisations (actions and policies chosen by mere humans) and the personal beliefs and actions of people who believe in the same core values but disagree about the policies of the organisation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff