# The beauty in religion



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

Plenty of threads here vilifying religion so it's time for a positive one. If you want to post bigotry or conspiracist nonsense please go elsewhere. Just the good here.

=======================================================
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/03/23/the_richest_man_in_town/?page=1



> (Tom White) gave away his first chunk of money after World War II,
> when an Army buddy needed some cash. White gave him $200. Since then, he estimates he has given away $75 million, pretty much all of his assets. He has supported more than 100 causes over the years, but his biggest gift by far has gone to Partners in Health, the program made famous last year with the publication of Tracy Kidder's book "Mountains Beyond Mountains." The book details the work done in Haiti and other Third World countries by Dr. Paul Farmer, a Harvard professor and infectious-disease specialist whose work on AIDS and tuberculosis for the world's poorest has been hailed as groundbreaking.






> Ask him why, and White, who attends Mass daily, replies: "I'm motivated a lot by what Jesus wants me to do, or what I think he wants me to do. And I think he wants me to help make the world a better place."


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

heres some real beauty of religion...sunsets and all..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKG59NUdn8A


.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

Jean Vanier, who practices his beliefs about the value of all humans as special because they carry the image of God.



> For nearly four decades, Jean Vanier has travelled the world fashioning a network of homes where people with developmental disabilities, volunteers and a sprinkling of staff live together in community. Those we lock away and think worthless, he says, have the power to teach and even to heal us. We are all “broken” in some way, he believes. (…) “When you start living with people with disabilities”, he says, “you begin to discover a whole lot of things about yourself.” He learned that to “be human is to be bonded together, each with our own weaknesses and strengths, because we need each other.” (…) Tall and stooped, Vanier radiates the strength of a man who has fought his own inner battles and surfaced with peace. (Maclean’s/September 4, 2000, p.33)




http://www.larche.org/jean-vanier-founder-of-l-arche.en-gb.23.13.content.htm

=================

Hopefully there will be contributions from people of other religions but I'll be posting inspiring people in the Christian tradition as that's my heritage.


----------



## Sean K (26 May 2009)

Good luck MS&T! 

I remember how well 'Bible Quote of the Day' went...eeeeek.

I DO agree, there is much beauty in some of what religion preaches. 

Hope this unfolds reasonably...


----------



## Tink (26 May 2009)

Hear Hear MS+Tradesim well done ; )


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

its hard to see beauty in religion. i see it in humanity. beautiful acts of kindness inspired by men and women, with a religion taking the credit....

.


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

well, comeon, show us some religious beauty that man hasnt done himself...



.


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

a 'confusion of beauty one may say?




> Tenets of the Historical Jesus.
> 
> 1: Anti-Monetarism / Anti-Capitalism
> 
> ...




http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63676


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Plenty of threads here vilifying religion so it's time for a positive one. If you want to post bigotry or conspiracist nonsense please go elsewhere. Just the good here.




Metric, do you have trouble respecting a simple request?


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Metric, do you have trouble respecting a simple request?




are you saying jesus words are not beautiful?


.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (26 May 2009)

Are you saying you can't respect a simple request?


----------



## metric (26 May 2009)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Are you saying you can't respect a simple request?




if the request was to post beautiful god stuff, well i did. jesus words. or are you saying they arent beautiful?



.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

Dave Andrews intentionally lives in community with the disenfranchised, understanding and helping their situation. He has founded or works with organisations that exemplify this tradition.



> Dave, his wife Ange, and their family, have lived and worked in intentional communities with marginalised groups of people in Australia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Nepal for more than thirty years. He now lives in a large joint household with his wife, children, grandchildren and others in an inner city community in Brisbane, Australia.
> Dave is particularly interested in radical spirituality, incarnational community and the dynamics of personal and social transformation. He is author of many books and articles, including 'Christi-Anarchy', 'Not Religion, But Love', 'Building A Better World' and the forthcoming ‘Compassionate Community Work’ manual exploring the principles and practices of Christ-like community work.
> 
> Dave and Ange and their friends started a residential community called Aashiana out of which grew Sahara, Sharan and Sahasee – three well-known Christian community organisations working with slum dwellers, sex workers, drug addicts, and people with HIV/AIDS in India. They are currently a part of the Waiters Union, an inner city Christian community network working with Aborigines, refugees and people with disabilities in Australia. Out of the Waiters Union has grown the Community Initiatives Resource Association, auspicing local experimental community activities, and the Community Praxis Coop, providing holistic community work training.



http://www.daveandrews.com.au/index.htm


----------



## dhukka (26 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Plenty of threads here vilifying religion so it's time for a positive one. If you want to post bigotry or conspiracist nonsense please go elsewhere. Just the good here.
> 
> =======================================================
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/03/23/the_richest_man_in_town/?page=1




I'm sorry, you don't set the parameters of debate on a discussion forum. There is nothing virtuous in posting only the good points of religion. Anyone with an objective bone in their body would recognize both positive and negative aspects of religion. I'm sure you can find plenty of websites that indulge the backslapping needs of god botherers.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

I think the attitude of participants speaks volumes.

Anyway....

Science and religion are often viewed as pitted against each other. This is an unfortunate viewpoint which is exacerbated by debates between biblical literalists and their detractors. The reality is there is a rich history of co-operation and mutual growth which is overlooked by the polemicists on both sides.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html#Beyond

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I think the attitude of participants speaks volumes.
> 
> Anyway....
> 
> ...




Was He a Chartist or a Fundamentalist?

gg


----------



## beamstas (26 May 2009)

metric said:


> well, comeon, show us some religious beauty that man hasnt done himself...
> 
> 
> 
> .




Every post i have ever seen of yours is complete garbage.

Man is Man, religous or not. Being religous doesn't elevate you from being a Man to being something greater than Man that has a different human nature. 

Everyone is made the same, religous or not. Great people can do great things, no matter what their religion.

You think that you know everything and that you are better than everyone else, im sure you think you have it all worked out. 

You are simply ignorant and shallow minded.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (26 May 2009)

:iagree:


----------



## Julia (26 May 2009)

In the interest of supporting the theme of this thread I've been trying to think of something positive or beautiful to do with religion. 

Can't say it's been easy but I do have a friend who is devoutly religious.
Somehow we've managed to remain friends over many years, probably because we agree not to discuss religion.

Every Christmas she looks around her neighbourhood, workplace etc for anyone who might not have someone with whom to spend Christmas Day and invites these people to join her and her family.  There are often a quite motley collection of people but she makes them all feel welcome and wanted.

So I reckon that's a plus for religion.

And then there's the work the Salvos do.   They get down in the gutters if they have to and make no judgements.


----------



## gav (26 May 2009)

metric said:


> its hard to see beauty in religion. i see it in humanity. beautiful acts of kindness inspired by men and women, with a religion taking the credit....
> .




Well then, we may as well change the name of the "Religion gone crazy" thread to "Humanity gone crazy", because it is humans that have gone crazy and religion is getting the blame for it...


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

World Vision directly confronts humanitarian crises and community development.

http://www.worldvision.com.au/Issues.aspx
http://www.worldvision.org/about_us.nsf/child/history?Open


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

Right wing though they were, William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson among others, were instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Clarkson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wilberforce_william.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/william_wilberforce_article_01.shtml


----------



## darkside (26 May 2009)

I see a lot of beauty in religion, we sure taught those "jews" a lesson, we held onto slavery as long as possible in fact we used it as an excuse to not try and  abolish it , and we managed to treat women as 2nd class and use religion as  an excuse.Plus it gave us a great book of incredible amazing bizare and sometime downright evil fairy tales with which to scare the kiddies with. So lets all rejoyce in it's beauty.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (26 May 2009)

Which goes to show how much you know or understand. But that is your problem, not mine 

Why bother? I mean seriously. If you don't like it, don't read it, you don't HAVE to do anything.....so don't even open the thread with the word "religion" in it. Create your own thread with your own beliefs. Simple.

Why not just let MS have his thread for those that are interested. It's really not that hard I wouldn't have thought.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

Thomas Barnardo, while somewhat sectarian, was nevertheless commited to the welfare of children, especially the homeless and poor. The modern Barnardo's organisations are more holistic but the influence of the founder is there.

http://www.barnardos.org.au/barnardos/html/index.cfm


----------



## darkside (26 May 2009)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Which goes to show how much you know or understand. But that is your problem, not mine
> 
> Why bother? I mean seriously. If you don't like it, don't read it, you don't HAVE to do anything.....so don't even open the thread with the word "religion" in it. Create your own thread with your own beliefs. Simple.
> 
> Why not just let MS have his thread for those that are interested. It's really not that hard I wouldn't have thought.




Your kidding aren't you, i followed the thread to the letter, i gave examples ,and yes i" do know and understand", thanks for pointing that out, and yet you chastise me for opening a thread and making  a comment, who made you the "ASF Nazi"


----------



## ColB (26 May 2009)

> Originally posted by MS Tradeism
> 
> Thomas Barnardo, while somewhat sectarian, was nevertheless commited to the welfare of children, especially the homeless and poor. The modern Barnardo's organisations are more holistic but the influence of the founder is there.




I've found a few more to add to your list MS.  Like many you've highlighted some of these people have also been extremely generous to many worthy causes.  I am sure that even christians would probably ackowledge their generosity.



> Meet A Few Rich Atheists!
> 
> “...the God in whose hand THY BREATH IS, and whose are all thy ways, HAST THOU NOT GLORIFIED” (Daniel 5:23).
> 
> ...


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

Religion has a rich history of inspiration for art, architecture and music.
There is simply too much here to cover.

http://www.all-art.org/contents.html
http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=24673


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (26 May 2009)

darkside said:


> Your kidding aren't you, i followed the thread to the letter, i gave examples ,and yes i" do know and understand", thanks for pointing that out, and yet you chastise me for opening a thread and making  a comment, who made you the "ASF Nazi"





Yes you're right. You have contributed well to this thread.

For some weird reason I thought your post was full of sarcasm, and it definitely wasn't vilifying religion. 

How silly of me, my apologies. 

End of discussion, keep it up MS. Back on topic.


----------



## darkside (26 May 2009)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Yes you're right. You have contributed well to this thread.
> 
> For some weird reason I thought your post was full of sarcasm, and it definitely wasn't vilifying religion.
> 
> ...




Sam apology accepted, and yes all i was trying to do was conrtibute to this very informative thread! sorry if i was misconstrued in any way, i love beauty in any form and yes religion certainy has it's place,why  who didn't like the holocaust, Christianity was the main catalyst for it, and look how it shaped the countryside, not too mention the Nations, surely that must have some sort of weird  beauty about it .


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 May 2009)

Martin Luther King Jr was committed to non-violent political activism against racism, and was an advocate for justice and civil rights.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

The dignity and worth of all human life, as an idea, originates in religion. 

In the west it is attributable to Christianity and has its roots in Judaism. The human has inherent value by virtue of being bearers of the image of God. Thus, even immoral and repugnantly behaving people still have as much value as a saint. So we are taught to love and respect all, not just those who love us in return - we have hope for the potential in all, not just those who are already examples of selfless love. All of nature is sacred and to be respected because it is a gift to us. Animals should not be abused because they have their own value, distinct from any "material resource" view for which they are exploited.
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/02/human-value-in-ancient-world.html

Islam has a view of the dignity of all humans, though I have not studied Islam in much detail.
http://www.crescentlife.com/spirituality/muslims_for_human_dignity.htm

In the east, the Buddhist tradition taught that the dignity of the human lay in the ability to choose between right and wrong, to make moral and conscious decisions, not to merely act on instinct. All of life has a sacred spark and humans have a rare privilege to consciously explore divinity.
http://www.sgi.org/buddhismHuman.html

There are similarities and differences between these views. 

Modern, secular westerns piggyback off the historic cultural currency provided by religion but as evidenced on a large scale across many cultures and countries through history, the inherent value of a human is not universally believed and practiced.


----------



## Julia (27 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> TThus, even immoral and repugnantly behaving people still have as much value as a saint.



Sorry, not to me they don't.
Why would you value some immoral and badly behaved person as much as a saint ?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

Mohandas (Mahatma) Ghandi, was a political and spiritual activist who lived out his beliefs in non-violent resistance during India's struggle for independence. He was an influence on Martin Luther King Jr.

http://www.mkgandhi.org/main.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Why would you value some immoral and badly behaved person as much as a saint ?




Because no-one is so hopelessly lost in depravity that they cannot still discover and fulfill their potential. Each person has inherent dignity and value, not just the ones who behave as we would like others to behave.


----------



## gav (28 May 2009)

metric said:


> its hard to see beauty in religion. i see it in humanity. beautiful acts of kindness inspired by men and women, with a religion taking the credit....
> 
> .






gav said:


> Well then, we may as well change the name of the "Religion gone crazy" thread to "Humanity gone crazy", because it is humans that have gone crazy and religion is getting the blame for it...




Well, Metric?

If it is humanity (not religion) that creates these acts of kindness and beauty, then religion cannot be blamed for the atrocities committed by humanity either.


----------



## Boggo (28 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Mohandas (Mahatma) Ghandi, was a political and spiritual activist who lived out his beliefs in non-violent resistance during India's struggle for independence. He was an influence on Martin Luther King Jr.




I do like these by Ghandi...

*Mahatma Ghandi's list of seven deadly sins:*
1 Wealth without work
2 Pleasure without conscience
3 Knowledge without character
4 Business without morality
5 Science without humanity
6 Worship without sacrifice
7 Politics without principle


There was also this comment attributed to some yank general (who else  )

"Dammit boy, there are no atheists here, everyone gets religion in a combat zone"


----------



## ColB (28 May 2009)

> Quote: Originally Posted by Julia:
> 
> 'Why would you value some immoral and badly behaved person as much as a saint ?
> 
> ...




So there is still hope for Ivan Milat!!


----------



## ColB (28 May 2009)

> Originally posted by *Julia*
> 
> In the interest of supporting the theme of this thread I've been trying to think of something positive or beautiful to do with religion.
> 
> ...




Couldn't agree more Julia, but I can't help but feel sorry for that 'Motley Collection' for the other 364 days of the year!  

Please tell me your religious friends generosity extends beyond one day a year.


----------



## Julia (28 May 2009)

ColB said:


> Couldn't agree more Julia, but I can't help but feel sorry for that 'Motley Collection' for the other 364 days of the year!
> 
> Please tell me your religious friends generosity extends beyond one day a year.



Yes, Col, she's simply a kind and thoughtful person.  But no, she can't look after these people every day of their lives.  She's a working psychologist with other responsibilities within her own family.  

How many people do you know who even gives a moment's thought to those people who might be alone on Christmas Day?  I don't know anyone else who does this.


----------



## Duckman#72 (28 May 2009)

ColB said:


> Couldn't agree more Julia, but I can't help but feel sorry for that 'Motley Collection' for the other 364 days of the year!
> 
> Please tell me your religious friends generosity extends beyond one day a year.




Hi Col

That comment is a great example of how religious people are often perceived by others. They are put on a pedestal only for the purpose of being brought down. Nothing is ever _quite_ good enough.

She invites people to dinner one day a year? "Surely if she was really religious she would be doing much more than helping people one day of the year."    

She invites people to dinner once a month? "Surely if she was really religious she would be doing much more than helping people 12 times year."

She helps invites people to dinner 365 days a year? "Surely if she was really religious she would be doing much more than just making dinner for these people." 

Often people do beautiful things in the name of religion - it is just that others can't see it. While at boarding school, classmates and I were taken down town by the local parish priest, visiting elderly locals helping them do odd jobs, mending fences, painting, mowing etc. We did it as part of our spiritual learning. 

Where some people see religion at work, others just see common decency at work - thats fine, but don't tell me they can't co-exist.      

Duckman


----------



## Tink (28 May 2009)

Good post Duckman#72


----------



## Bobby (29 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Col
> 
> 
> Where some people see religion at work, others just see common decency at work - thats fine, but don't tell me they can't co-exist.
> ...




Hello Duckman ,
Hope your having fun & being a good boy  ?

 Did you know there was a pope that sold indulgences , thats religion at work also


----------



## Duckman#72 (29 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> Hello Duckman ,
> Hope your having fun & being a good boy  ?
> 
> Did you know there was a pope that sold indulgences , thats religion at work also




Hi Bobby

Always mate, always.

Actually that isn't religion at work. That is someone hiding behind religion, using religion and tarnishing religion....................... but it isn't religion at work.  

People confuse the two.  

Cheers
Duckman


----------



## MS+Tradesim (29 May 2009)

The claim that the world would be more peaceful without religion has been popularised of late by militant evangelical atheists:



> “There is a logical path from religious faith to evil deeds. There is no logical path from atheism to evil deeds.”



 – Richard Dawkins, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...s/2007/10/for_good_people_to_go_evil_thi.html 



> "A glance at history, or at the pages of any newspaper reveal that ideas which divide one group of human beings from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion. It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because it was written in the stars but because it was written in our [religious] books..."



 - Sam Harris, _The End of Faith_, p12 

Sounds good but as with a lot of fundamentalist rhetoric, it is not supported by facts.



> “Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what atheists have considered to be "most" really *amounts to less than 7% of all wars.* It is interesting to note that 66 of these 123 wars (more than 50%) involved Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000 years of recorded human warfare.”



http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/war_and_religion.html

(Nb: The Encyclopedia of Wars is not exhaustive but the large sample size provides broad representative coverage.) 

In other words, excluding Islam, just over 3% of wars were motivated by religion. Or, even including Islam, 93% of wars were not motivated by religion. So what really causes war and its resultant suffering? Probably politics (and the thesis of Rummel in the Democide Project is that of concentrated, absolute power). Consider some facts just from the 20th Century. 

Around 180,000,000 people dead through the numerous atrocities. The largest and most numerically fatal were decisively not based on religion unless one argues that their purpose was to wipe out (a) religion. 

*Germany:* 
1) The Nazi Holocaust: @ 5 - 6 million Jews (not counting gypsies, homosexuals, euthanasia of some German subgroups, and prisoners of war)
2) World War II:  @ 42 million deaths (includes Holocaust) in Europe where guilt lies largely with Hitler (raised Catholic but grew to hate Christianity – Nazi Germany was arguably pagan) 

*Russia:* 
1) Civil war: @  9 million dead (started with the collapse of the monarchy and ended with establishment of a secular socialist govt.)
2) Stalin’s regime: 9 – 50 million deaths (depending on historian) but probably at least 20 million  

*China:* 
1) Chinese civil war: @ 2.5 million dead (resulted in establishment of secular socialist govt.)
2) Mao Zedong’s rule after the war: @ 40 million dead 

*Cambodia:* 
@ 2 – 3.5 million deaths (depending on historian) under secular socialist Khmer Rouge govt. 

Sources: 
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

There are many, many other atrocities of the century but taking middle-of-the-road numbers, around 116 million deaths resulted from the above mentioned events only. So out of @ 180m deaths from atrocities in the century @ 64% are directly attributable to just these . If we ignore WW2 as a whole and count only the slaughtered Jews then that figure drops to about 44% of deaths through large-scale atrocity in the century attributable to ideologies directly opposed to freedom and religion.

(Nb. I am not arguing that secularism is the direct influence behind these instances of democide.)

Given that (a) currently somewhere around 84% of the world are religious, and roughly a further 8% are theistic but non-religious, and (b) the low percentage of war/conflict attributable to religion historically where arguably the secular percentage of population may have been even lower, and (c) the massive casualty rate of democide and homocide attributable to overtly secular states in the 20th century....

....I am left to wonder if perhaps religion is a greater inspiration for peace and community than is recognised.


----------



## ColB (29 May 2009)

> Originally posted by Julia
> 
> In the interest of supporting the theme of this thread *I've been trying* to think of something positive or beautiful to do with religion.
> 
> ...




Julia's comments are interesting.  If you note the comments I have bolded, it is fairly obvious that Julia appears not to be a religious person even though we at ASF know she presents as a good person. (although I Don't know what dastardly secrets she has in her closet).  

I did say in my reply to Julia that I couldn't agree more with her friends act of kindness being 'a plus for religion'

My contention is that other people perform similar acts of kindness who are not religious.  Refer to my post (27) where it highlights the generosity of Bill Gates and others, who whilst not religious are significant contributers to many charities.  One might argue that they can afford it but at the same time there are many other wealthy people who wouldn't part with a cent whether they are religious or not.

My comment that I hoped Julia's friend did something more than on just one day a year was a tongue in cheek remark merely implying that I hoped that her act of kindness was not a feel good religious exercise that would carry her conscience for the next 364 days.  I suppose it may have come across cynical but it was not my intention.

Brad (Beamstas) sums it up pretty well with these comments: 



> 'Man is Man, religous or not. Being religous doesn't elevate you from being a Man to being something greater than Man that has a different human nature.
> 
> Everyone is made the same, religous or not. Great people can do great things, no matter what their religion.



  (and even if they have no religion).

It really is a silly thread.  If the thread is to have any credibility you need to seperate the individual from the religion otherwise we may as well have threads like 'The beauty of Daytraders' or 'the beauty of homosexuals' like they're some 'other elitist group'.

I am not religious although I have friends and relo's that are.  Like Julia, I don't discuss religion (much) with these people because most of them can't indulge in objective debate about religion without feeling persecuted or getting all flustered like some on this thread. 

Call it blind faith but when you have religious people making comments like 







> "no-one is so hopelessly lost in depravity that they cannot still discover and fulfill their potential. Each person has inherent dignity and value, not just the ones who behave as we would like others to behave."



is symptomatic of someone looking through rose coloured glasses and simply only seeing what they want to see.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (29 May 2009)

ColB said:


> It really is a silly thread.  If the thread is to have any credibility you need to seperate the individual from the religion...




These are people who have made a difference *because* of their beliefs. As Gav pointed out, if one can't give credit to religion inspiring good then it is ridiculous to want to debit it just with the bad. No-one has so far as I see, denigrated secular people for humanitarian contributions but that isn't the topic of the thread. This point of this is about balancing the "Religion Gone Crazy" thread. I don't remember you over there telling contributors to separate the individual from the religion and claiming it has no credibility? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



> I don't discuss religion (much) with these people because most of them can't indulge in objective debate about religion without feeling persecuted or getting all flustered like some on this thread.




Then start a thread and try it. 



> Call it blind faith but when you have religious people making comments like [...] is symptomatic of someone looking through rose coloured glasses and simply only seeing what they want to see.




You are entitled to your opinion but to assume to think you know my experiences and background from which I make such a comment and then call it "rose-coloured glasses" and "seeing only what they want to see" indicates that you're probably not as accomplished at objective debate as you would like to have us believe.


----------



## ColB (29 May 2009)

> Originally posted by MS Tradeism
> 
> "no-one is so hopelessly lost in depravity that they cannot still discover and fulfill their potential. Each person has inherent dignity and value, not just the ones who behave as we would like others to behave."




So is there hope for Ivan Milat?  Would you be happy to have him as your neighbour?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (29 May 2009)

ColB said:


> (1)So is there hope for Ivan Milat?  (2)Would you be happy to have him as your neighbour?




Despite the fact this is in the "have you stopped beating your wife" category of questions....

The short answers:
(1) Yes
(2) Unrehabilitated and untreated for psychiatric disorders, no.

What does it mean to have hope for Milat?  Is there hope that he could come to experience genuine remorse and accept responsibility for his actions? Yes. Is there hope that in taking responsibility, he could over time come to a place where he may be able to contribute something back (even while incarcerated) despite what he has destroyed? Yes. Is there hope, however small, that he could ever be completely treated and rehabilitated back into society as a functional participant? Yes, but improbable - for societal, emotional and legal reasons. eg. How does one distinguish a genuinely rehabilitated and treated person from a master deceiver? There is inherent risk. How does one balance justice and the victims' (and their families) rights against the right for one become a functional citizen again? Does the perpetrator have such a right?...and so on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7899143.stm
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=iw_Ch08W3UAC&printsec=frontcover
http://www.pfi.org/cjr

So posing simplisitic scenarios that are transparently designed to 'trap' someone else into a 'naive' answer only serves to trivialize the issues.


----------



## Julia (29 May 2009)

ColB said:


> Julia's comments are interesting.  If you note the comments I have bolded, it is fairly obvious that Julia appears not to be a religious person even though we at ASF know she presents as a good person. (although I Don't know what dastardly secrets she has in her closet).
> 
> I did say in my reply to Julia that I couldn't agree more with her friends act of kindness being 'a plus for religion'
> 
> ...



Col, I realised your comment re the other 364 days of the year was a bit facetious and understood the point you were trying to make.
There are indeed plenty of people who pay lip service to the tenets of their religion but in true practice often fail to practise a basic kindness that can be equally seen in atheists or agnostics.




MS+Tradesim said:


> These are people who have made a difference *because* of their beliefs. As Gav pointed out, if one can't give credit to religion inspiring good then it is ridiculous to want to debit it just with the bad. No-one has so far as I see, denigrated secular people for humanitarian contributions but that isn't the topic of the thread. This point of this is about balancing the "Religion Gone Crazy" thread. I don't remember you over there telling contributors to separate the individual from the religion and claiming it has no credibility? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Then start a thread and try it.



Oh, please no!!  Not yet another thread on religion.






MS+Tradesim said:


> Despite the fact this is in the "have you stopped beating your wife" category of questions....
> 
> The short answers:
> (1) Yes
> (2) Unrehabilitated and untreated for psychiatric disorders, no.



But presumably you wouldn't hold the same reservations if Mother Teresa (pre-dying) were to come to live next door?

Yes, it's a simplistic approach to your argument, but nonetheless demonstrates the point, doesn't it?  i.e. that you don't in fact regard a criminal as having the same value as a saint, as you earlier suggested.



> What does it mean to have hope for Milat?  Is there hope that he could come to experience genuine remorse and accept responsibility for his actions? Yes. Is there hope that in taking responsibility, he could over time come to a place where he may be able to contribute something back (even while incarcerated) despite what he has destroyed? Yes. Is there hope, however small, that he could ever be completely treated and rehabilitated back into society as a functional participant? Yes, but improbable - for societal, emotional and legal reasons. eg. How does one distinguish a genuinely rehabilitated and treated person from a master deceiver? There is inherent risk. How does one balance justice and the victims' (and their families) rights against the right for one become a functional citizen again? Does the perpetrator have such a right?...and so on.



When victims enjoy the same level of understanding and rights as the perpetrators, then I'll start worrying about the further rights of the criminals.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (29 May 2009)

Julia said:


> But presumably you wouldn't hold the same reservations if Mother Teresa (pre-dying) were to come to live next door?
> 
> Yes, it's a simplistic approach to your argument, but nonetheless demonstrates the point, doesn't it?  i.e. that you don't in fact regard a criminal as having the same value as a saint, as you earlier suggested.




No, it doesn't. One lived out their potential. The other hasn't, but could still contribute. If I did not consider them to have the same value I would be an advocate for capital punishment, or throwing away the key and letting them rot.


----------



## Julia (29 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> No, it doesn't. One lived out their potential. The other hasn't, but could still contribute. If I did not consider them to have the same value I would be an advocate for capital punishment, or throwing away the key and letting them rot.



But if you consider they have the same value why are you not equally happy to have the criminal living next door?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (29 May 2009)

Julia said:


> But if you consider they have the same value why are you not equally happy to have the criminal living next door?




See posts 35, 49 and 51.

And if those secularised answers really don't suffice, I'll give a Christian one and that will have to wait a few days.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (30 May 2009)

Julia says:



Julia said:


> But presumably you wouldn't hold the same reservations if Mother Teresa (pre-dying) were to come to live next door?
> 
> Yes, it's a simplistic approach to your argument, but nonetheless demonstrates the point, doesn't it?  i.e. that you don't in fact regard a criminal as having the same value as a saint, as you earlier suggested.




If I state that a criminal and a saint have the same value, but my applying different boundaries to interaction leads Julia to think I don't view them as having the same value, I'd suggest we do not mean the same thing by 'value'. 

In my worldview, value is an intrinsic property of humans. Being a human means one has value, analagous to being a square means having four sides. Value is a fundamental, indestructible property deriving from the fact that all humans bear the image of God. A person's behaviour cannot change this value and my dislike for their behaviour cannot reduce their value. On the other hand, a person's good behaviour does not increase their value even if I believe their actions to be praiseworthy. My subjective likes and dislikes, and society's arbitrary ascriptions based on economic or social contribution have no relevance whatsoever to any individual's value. In my worldview.

I'm guessing Julia believes that value is acquired. Perhaps believing not everyone has the same value and a person can increase or decrease their value through their behaviour. Or something close to this.

If this is the case it might be easier to understand that there is no inconsistency in what I have stated.


----------



## Julia (30 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Julia says:



MS+Tradesim, why not simply address your comments to me, rather than refer to me as though I'm not participating here?



> If I state that a criminal and a saint have the same value, but my applying different boundaries to interaction leads Julia to think I don't view them as having the same value, I'd suggest we do not mean the same thing by 'value'.



Agree.  We do not.



> In my worldview, value is an intrinsic property of humans. Being a human means one has value, analagous to being a square means having four sides. Value is a fundamental, indestructible property deriving from the fact that all humans bear the image of God. A person's behaviour cannot change this value and my dislike for their behaviour cannot reduce their value. On the other hand, a person's good behaviour does not increase their value even if I believe their actions to be praiseworthy. My subjective likes and dislikes, and society's arbitrary ascriptions based on economic or social contribution have no relevance whatsoever to any individual's value. In my worldview.



Disagree.



> I'm guessing Julia believes that value is acquired. Perhaps believing not everyone has the same value and a person can increase or decrease their value through their behaviour. Or something close to this.



Yes, I'd say that's pretty much what I believe.  My view is that a person's value can be determined by the contribution they make to those around them, including the wider society.

I understand the point you're making about intrinsic value.  I think about animals like this.  But given the human being's greater capacity for reasoning and decision making, I'd hold him/her to the need for a reasonable standard of behaviour.


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Julia says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It seems like you are fishing for the big P, `perception`. I had a fun time with 2020 hindsight about how everything perceived by human consciousness is via agreement. As you typed, value is a concept of mind!


----------



## Hedders (31 May 2009)

Julia said:


> But if you consider they have the same value why are you not equally happy to have the criminal living next door?




There are a number of people I wouldn't like to live next door to- it has nothing to do with their worth as a human being. I wouldn't live next door to a bagpipe academy for example. It's not because I hate people who play bagpipes, it's because I would find the noise too invasive! Likewise I wouldn't like to live nextdoor to a family that all smoked cigars and pipes day and night. I think it's okay to use wisdom and common sense to decide what risks you're willing to face, and what you're not. I wouldn't choose to live next door to Ivan Milat because I'd worry about my kids' safety, but let me further explain my view on Ivan-

1. If Ivan Milat asked me to visit him in jail to go through the Bible with him, and there were guards present, I'd go. I have visited people in jail before.

2. If Ivan Milat asked me to meet him in a dark alley to see his brand new axe, I wouldn't go. 

Both scenarios involve Ivan, but the decisions are different. I think it's possible to value another human being and still avoid what I consider unnecessary risk. It's a wisdom thing, not a love thing.

Julia, I do agree that religious people, like non-religious people, often consider one human being to have a higher inherent value than another. The Bible asks me not to do this. The fact that I do occasionally stuff up and esteem one person over another is a failing of mine, not God's.


----------



## sails (31 May 2009)

Is it possible that different interpretations of "value" are being discussed?

Eg most humans are born with equal value or potential (1st interpretation) - however their value to the good of society is generally judged on how they conduct their future lives  (2nd interpretation).

Some people can change their ways - either for better or worse.  So the perception of "value to the good of society" can fluctuate depending on a persons actions at the time.  This is why some caring folk visit prisoners in jail as they see unfulfilled value in those people's lives.

I haven't read all this thread so apologies if this has already been discussed...


----------



## Julia (31 May 2009)

Hedders said:


> There are a number of people I wouldn't like to live next door to- it has nothing to do with their worth as a human being. I wouldn't live next door to a bagpipe academy for example. It's not because I hate people who play bagpipes, it's because I would find the noise too invasive! Likewise I wouldn't like to live nextdoor to a family that all smoked cigars and pipes day and night. I think it's okay to use wisdom and common sense to decide what risks you're willing to face, and what you're not. I wouldn't choose to live next door to Ivan Milat because I'd worry about my kids' safety, but let me further explain my view on Ivan-
> 
> 1. If Ivan Milat asked me to visit him in jail to go through the Bible with him, and there were guards present, I'd go. I have visited people in jail before.



Interesting.  Care to tell us more about this?   Did you know the people?
Was it as part of some religious programme?



> 2. If Ivan Milat asked me to meet him in a dark alley to see his brand new axe, I wouldn't go.



Oh, what a wuss!



> Both scenarios involve Ivan, but the decisions are different. I think it's possible to value another human being and still avoid what I consider unnecessary risk. It's a wisdom thing, not a love thing.



Yep, sensible comment.  But the original question was if you were happy to have a murderer next door, and did the murderer have the same value as a saint.
So presumably you regard all human beings, regardless of atrocities committed, as still of value to our society? 
And the saint to have equal value to the murderer?





> Julia, I do agree that religious people, like non-religious people, often consider one human being to have a higher inherent value than another. The Bible asks me not to do this. The fact that I do occasionally stuff up and esteem one person over another is a failing of mine, not God's.



My remarks haven't been made in the context of God/religion.  Just simply on the basis of the value of the individual regardless of his/her religious beliefs.


----------



## Hedders (1 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Interesting.  Care to tell us more about this?   Did you know the people?
> Was it as part of some religious programme?
> 
> 
> ...




Now there's a key term I overlooked up until now- "value to society". And this is where opinions can differ wildly- on the definition of "society". If our society believes justice is not done after justice is served, then the likes of murderers and child molesters (to take the criminals that probably disturb us the most) will never have a place in society. I would be as worried as the next person if an unreformed murderer/sex offender was leaving jail, but again, that reflects my concern for the safety of others, not an inherent hatred of the criminal. But what about the criminal who genuinely turns away from their life of crime? Do we allow them the chance to show they've changed? What does society offer them? 

If we take society as secular society, certain crimes are never forgiven, so these people are indeed less valuable to society. From a Christian perspective, I'm asked to love even my enemies. This is neither easy nor does it make sense to mainstream culture. But hanging on to hate eats away at your insides, so the person you hate ends up having a hold over part of your life, even after they're dead! 

I've never killed or assaulted anyone but I've still said and done things that were wrong and/or hurtful to others. Since I'm not perfect, I can't see that I'm in a position to assign a value on someone's life whose shortcomings are simply different to mine (even if some wrongs have a greater impact than others). I'm thankful that I don't have to carry around a complete list of all the wrong things I've done, for everyone to see. I can assure you that "society" would value me less!  

As for the jail visits, yes they were part of the ministry of a Church I went to. It took place in Soweto, South Africa, and the jail was a bleak and depressing place. The inmates appreciated us being there, though. I was expecting more hostility. I'm also involved in helping people to overcome addictions to various things, and many people I've met through these kinds of programmes have done time. Seeing people struggle with addictions has taught me that anyone can fall from any "position in society". It strengthens my resolve to avoid judging others. People are capable of amazing falls and equally amazing recoveries.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 June 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> The claim that the world would be more peaceful without religion has been popularised of late by militant evangelical atheists:
> 
> – Richard Dawkins, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...s/2007/10/for_good_people_to_go_evil_thi.html




Since when has Richard Dawkins been a militant evangelical atheist. :bs:

I'm actually having a little trouble getting my head around those 3 words

militant evangelical atheists....Is that like an atheist that wont sit quietly in the 
corner and let the religions do as they please?

An atheist that actually challenges the religions and wants them to be accountable?


----------



## ColB (9 June 2009)

*Ritual Abuse - The Beauty in Religion*

Semela Harris - The Adelaide Advertiser

A mystery which ranks up there with the existence of God is that of why and how the Catholic Church has ended up as an institution notorious for the abuse of young people entrusted to its care.

The Child Abuse Commission this week has released a report finding that behavioural aberrations of priests, nuns and lay people in the Catholic schools and care homes have been 'endemic'.  The report encompassed some 35 000 victims over 60 years of life within Irish Church-run institutions.  It fond them heavy with sexual abuse of boys and humiliation or girls beatings, scaldings, rape and emotional abuse.

Some of the culprits in this sad piece of Irish Catholic history  now live in Australia.

Some of the offending priests were recorded as having gone from one institution to another repeating their offences wherever they went.  Moving into schools, education departments rarely were informed of the history and offenders could simply take up work as teachers and keep offending.  Their religious raiments and the taking of vows tended to give an impression of integrity.

"When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the religious authority was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again," said the report.

"The safety of children in general was not a consideration," it added.

To the immense disdain and disappointment of the victims, the irish Catholic Church's response to the litany of horrors in the 3500-page, five volume report, does not include prosecution.  Instead, head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, has simply said that he is "profoundly sorry".

While the Irish phenomenon has the world reeling in shock and sadness, it is not surprising to many, particularly the Catholics of Boston, USA where the mighty Cardinal Bernard Law, the most influential bishop in the USA, was undone for his years of trying to prevent such scandels from being aired and harming the church.

The Archdiocese of Boston ended up selling properties and fund-raising desperately to pay the damages claimed by its myriad victims of priestly sexual abuse.

In Australia an organisation called Broken Rites has been devoted to fighting church sexual abuse since 1992.  Broken Rites' research showed an uncanny parallel with the latest report from Ireland.

It found that: "too often, sexually-abusive personnel survived in the church while their colleagues and superiors looked the other way.  The apathy or negligence of these colleagues and superiors encouraged the offenders to continue offending.  The offenders hoped that their religious status would protect them from exposure".

Last year when Pope Benedict visited Australia, victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and brothers in Australia called upon him to apologise, he did so, saying "those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice."

Victims nonetheless have been angry that perpetrators have been protected and even given anonymity.

John Walsh, a victim and spokesperson for irish Survivors of Child Abuse, said that the lack of prosecutions of the culprits would have a devastating effect on the victims.

"I would never have opend my wounds if i'd known this was going to be the end result," Mr Walsh said.  Broken Rites spokesman Dr Wayne Chamley suggested to the ABC radio yesterday that a Royal Commission would bring "the real figures" to light.

The Australian Christian Lobby disagreed.

Its managing director jim Wallace was quoted as saying that a Royal Commission would be an over-reaction since Australian churches had looked "diligently" at the issue of sexual abuse and he hoped that the long-awaited report "has satisfied the need to get rid of this scourge from religious institutions and schools,"

Foundation professor of Psychiatry at Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, Professor Ross Kalucy added that there had yet to be a clear analysis of why there was such a trend for abuse of those in the care of Catholic Institutions.  "There may be an element of character in those who have heightened sense of sin and who seek protection in such institutions", he said.  "Then again, one could not generalise.  What is known is that the phenomenon of abuse in these contexts of religious care is not new.  It is hundreds, if not thousands, of years old.  What is new is people's willingness to challenge them and a media which will support this."

Source: www.clan.org.au/news_details.php?newsID=88


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 June 2009)

ColB said:


> *Ritual Abuse - The Beauty in Religion*
> 
> Semela Harris - The Adelaide Advertiser
> 
> Source: www.clan.org.au/news_details.php?newsID=88




Interesting article Col. Thanks. Finally some action is being taken!!

By the way, what a coincidental headline *Ritual Abuse - The Beauty in Religion*. Exactly the same as the thread title.

Duckman


----------



## Julia (9 June 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Interesting article Col. Thanks. Finally some action is being taken!!
> 
> 
> 
> Duckman



Duckman, what action is being taken?

My understanding of Col's article was the sense of frustration and injustice that the Catholic Church once again says,
" oh goodness, we've very sorry, but we're not going to make known the names of the perpetrators, and we're certainly not going to take action against them in terms of bringing charges."

Doesn't sound like justice or basic attempt at genuine remorsefulness to me.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (9 June 2009)

About 99% of rapes are committed by men. There's no good in them.

I suppose I can see how that kind of thinking passes for objective debate....in pre-school.


----------



## Aargh! (9 June 2009)

metric said:


> its hard to see beauty in religion. i see it in humanity. beautiful acts of kindness inspired by men and women, with a religion taking the credit....
> 
> .




I second that. Why attribute the better side of humanity to religion? Kindness and giving is within us all not something that can only be obtained from mild to severe brainwashing.


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Duckman, what action is being taken?
> 
> My understanding of Col's article was the sense of frustration and injustice that the Catholic Church once again says,
> " oh goodness, we've very sorry, but we're not going to make known the names of the perpetrators, and we're certainly not going to take action against them in terms of bringing charges."
> ...




Hi Julia

No I think you may have misunderstood Col's email. He was obviously trying to suggest that ever so slowly but surely the truth is being exposed. Brick by brick, chip by chip the wall is coming down. The world expects more from its religious leaders - they cannot hide anymore.

Just look at the title of the article, "Ritual Abuse - The Beauty in Religion". Why would he be posting it here if that was not what he meant? Wouldn't it be off topic?   

Duckman


----------



## Julia (9 June 2009)

Oh my goodness, Duckman, so now we have to look for subtleties for which to be grateful from the Catholic Church!

Probably I did misunderstand the article.  All I can think of is the point I made, i.e. that they know who these sexual predators are, but don't care enough about the victims to name and punish them.

And the Church still tells people what is morally right and wrong!

It's all I can do not to utter profanities.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (9 June 2009)

I'm not a Catholic and while the cover-up and protection of perpetrators is heinous, to put things in perspective:



> The purpose of this special report is to put the recent scandal in the Catholic Church in perspective.  It does not seek to exculpate anyone who had anything to do with priestly sexual misconduct, but it does seek to challenge those who continue to treat this issue in isolation.  Indeed, to discuss the incidence of sexual abuse committed by Roman Catholic priests without reference to the level of offense found among the clergy of other religions, or to that of other professionals, is grossly unfair.






> The issue of child sexual molestation is deserving of serious scholarship.  Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society.  This report does not support this conclusion.  Indeed, it shows that family members are the most likely to sexually molest a child.  It also shows that *the incidence of the sexual abuse of a minor* is slightly higher among the Protestant clergy than among the Catholic clergy, and that it *is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests.*



http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm



> General observations:
> 
> It is important to keep one's eye on the forest and not on the trees. Even if, as this report estimates, four percent of priests have sexually abused youths or children, that still leaves about 96% of priests (24 priests out of every 25) who are non-abusive.
> A very large percentage of the victims of sexual abuse by priests are 16 or 17 years of age. In some jurisdictions, young persons of this age range can consent to sexual activity. Sexual activity with youth in that age range would be a gross violation of the Church's expectation of priestly chastity. It would be considered by many to be an abuse of trust by a person in authority. However, it might not be considered a criminal act in some areas.
> If the report's estimate that 22% of the abuse involves victims under the age of ten, then a case can be made that abuse of young, pre-pubertal, children by priests may be lower than among the general population of males in the U.S.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex20.htm


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Oh my goodness, Duckman, so now we have to look for subtleties for which to be grateful from the Catholic Church!
> 
> Probably I did misunderstand the article.  All I can think of is the point I made, i.e. that they know who these sexual predators are, but don't care enough about the victims to name and punish them.
> 
> ...




 Stop banging your head Julia. I'm sorry - I know exactly why Col posted the article. I'm just being a smart @&&.

I just think its funny that posters tell "Religious Nuts" to go and take a hike when they try and spread "Religious Propaganda" in threads, yet it's OK for those spreading negative religious messages to post on a thread title "The Beauty in Religion". 

I'm not defending the Church, they have dealt with these issues atrociously, however there are any number of associations, schools, states and countries that have treated, AND CONTINUE TO TREAT, other people in a despicable manner - it is not a monopoly for the Catholic Church. 

What do all these groups and organisations have in common? Human beings!!  Sexual predators have worn the cloak of religion while performing dastardly deeds since time began, it doesn't mean that religion is evil, it just highlights the ability of human beings to take advantage and exploit circumstances.    

If Col wants to make a point about the unfairness of the Churches response to the 3500 page report - fine!! But why not just start a new thread and comment on it rather than throw it in a thread that from conception had been obviously created to highlight positive isues relating to religion?  Col even changed the title of the article to highlight his position. 

I set up a Thread entitled Essendon Supporter Support - I don't expect Carlton supporters to gather in that thread to talk about their teams woes!!  Am I asking too much?

Duckman


----------



## Tink (10 June 2009)

Excellent post and well done Duckman 

Never ceases to amaze me with some people....


----------



## Sean K (10 June 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I'm not a Catholic and while the cover-up and protection of perpetrators is heinous, to put things in perspective:



Doesn't surprise me the church goes to lengths to defend themselves and put things in perspective. Priests and Ministers behaviour ought to be compared to just the average folk before making judgement. Right? Yeah right! 

They've just relinquished the moral high ground.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (10 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Doesn't surprise me the church goes to lengths to defend themselves and put things in perspective. Priests and Ministers behaviour ought to be compared to just the average folk before making judgement. Right? Yeah right!
> 
> They've just relinquished the moral high ground.




The study was independently undertaken and the incidence of abuse by Catholic clergy is probably *lower* than that of other professions. I've seen other studies that found similarly.

The cover up and protection of perpetrators is despicable.

What is obvious here is that some people cannot see beyond their prejudices and have a transparent agenda to derail this thread, despite the fact that there is already a thread for those kind of posts.


----------



## Sean K (10 June 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> The study was independently undertaken



Huh?

SEXUAL ABUSE IN SOCIAL CONTEXT: 
CATHOLIC CLERGY AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS 

Special Report 
by 
*Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights*

February 2004


You're right, sorry for commenting off topic. I just couldn't help responding to your post after visiting the link. Hang on ... 

Maybe they didn't write it, and I have it mixed up.


----------



## gav (10 June 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> What do all these groups and organisations have in common? Human beings!!  Sexual predators have worn the cloak of religion while performing dastardly deeds since time began, it doesn't mean that religion is evil, it just highlights the ability of human beings to take advantage and exploit circumstances.




Exactly.  Everyone is quick to jump on blaming religion when it is human beings committing these awful acts.  Yet as soon as a religious person does something good (eg. helps others in need), people here are saying it is human beings doing the kind acts and religion is just taking the credit...  

Something bad happen = blame religion
Something good happen = its humanity with religion taking the credit


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Doesn't surprise me the church goes to lengths to defend themselves and put things in perspective. Priests and Ministers behaviour ought to be compared to just the average folk before making judgement. Right? Yeah right!
> 
> They've just relinquished the moral high ground.




Tell it to them , grasshopper.

gg


----------



## Julia (10 June 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Stop banging your head Julia. I'm sorry - I know exactly why Col posted the article. I'm just being a smart @&&.



Hi Duckman, it was unfair of me to direct my frustration towards you, who I know to be fair and reasonable.   I've calmed down now.



> I just think its funny that posters tell "Religious Nuts" to go and take a hike when they try and spread "Religious Propaganda" in threads, yet it's OK for those spreading negative religious messages to post on a thread title "The Beauty in Religion".



OK, my apologies for responding.  I just read the post and responded, didn't even consider the meaning of the thread title.  Presumably Col posted it with a sense of irony but I suppose it should have gone in one of the other threads.





> I'm not defending the Church, they have dealt with these issues atrociously, however there are any number of associations, schools, states and countries that have treated, AND CONTINUE TO TREAT, other people in a despicable manner - it is not a monopoly for the Catholic Church.
> 
> What do all these groups and organisations have in common? Human beings!!  Sexual predators have worn the cloak of religion while performing dastardly deeds since time began, it doesn't mean that religion is evil, it just highlights the ability of human beings to take advantage and exploit circumstances.



Yes, I understand the point you're making.  But there's something particularly unpleasant and amoral about an organisation which preaches morality having its members behave in such a way.  





MS+Tradesim said:


> The study was independently undertaken and the incidence of abuse by Catholic clergy is probably *lower* than that of other professions.



Really?  I'd like to see some stats on this.




> What is obvious here is that some people cannot see beyond their prejudices and have a transparent agenda to derail this thread, despite the fact that there is already a thread for those kind of posts.



I don't think any such thing is obvious.  As I've explained above I didn't even consider the title of the thread when responding to Col's post.  Just read through all the "New Posts" and clicked the Reply button.
I have already apologised for my thoughtlessness and gross stupidity.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (10 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Maybe they didn't write it, and I have it mixed up.




That article was written by some Catholic but the main underlying research was undertaken by an external body. The article also collates findings from a number of other relevant studies as cited throughout it.



> Specifically, this report was prepared to guide the discussion that will inevitably follow two major studies that will be issued on February 27.  One of them, a national study on the extent of sexual abuse of minors by priests since 1950, will be released by *John Jay College of Criminal Justice* in New York City.



http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm



> Catholic Bishops Reports on Child Sex Abuse
> In late February, 2004, the United States Conference of Bishops released two reports on the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests and deacons. This site contains links to both reports as well as press releases and videos of the press conference. A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States was prepared by the National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People. The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States is a research study conducted by John Jay College, which also hosts the study report.



http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/links/index.cfm?subid=162
http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp


----------



## Tink (10 June 2009)

Thats exactly right Gav

When its good -- its humanity
When its bad -- its religion

Why bother trying to explain anything....


----------



## MS+Tradesim (10 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Really?  I'd like to see some stats on this.




Follow up on the sources cited in the article I linked to in post #69. And check with relevant statistics collecting organisations. I did so recently and the popular public perception is not balanced. 100%, there is a grievous breach of trust when it occurs and the cover-ups are disgusting but the situation is not what is painted by the media and lapped up by Joe Public. And I'm not a Catholic and I have nothing to gain by defending them. I just get sick of bigotry.



> I don't think any such thing is obvious.  As I've explained above I didn't even consider the title of the thread when responding to Col's post.  Just read through all the "New Posts" and clicked the Reply button. *I have already apologised for my thoughtlessness and gross stupidity.*




Actually, I wasn't referring to you Julia. If you must know, I refer primarily to ColB and secondarily to the random pipsqueak brigade who feel the need to insert their 'incisive' comments. The overdone 'apology' kind of negates itself through the sarcasm. Next time just call me a name and be done with it.


----------



## Sean K (10 June 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> That article was written by some Catholic but the main underlying research was undertaken by an external body. The article also collates findings from a number of other relevant studies as cited throughout it.



Would they present any information that would not support their position? 

Hardly an 'independant' study. 

I liked the second quote you provided above also. That only 1 in 25 Priests abuses children. Nice.



> four percent of priests have sexually abused youths or children, that still leaves about 96% of priests (24 priests out of every 25) who are non-abusive.




There's something to hang your hat on. They seem to be proud of this for some reason...


----------



## Julia (10 June 2009)

gav said:


> Exactly.  Everyone is quick to jump on blaming religion when it is human beings committing these awful acts.  Yet as soon as a religious person does something good (eg. helps others in need), people here are saying it is human beings doing the kind acts and religion is just taking the credit...
> 
> Something bad happen = blame religion
> Something good happen = its humanity with religion taking the credit






Tink said:


> Thats exactly right Gav
> 
> When its good -- its humanity
> When its bad -- its religion
> ...



No explanations needed.  People are always going to take the view that supports their own bias.

You do both make a reasonable point, however.   There are plenty of examples of religion-based good actions, e.g. the Salvos.
And I'm currently facilitating a group of gambling addicts for a church based organisation.   Most of the participants don't have any interest in religion and there is no requirement from this church for God to even be mentioned.
They see it as a necessary community service in the same way they give food to people who need help.



MS+Tradesim said:


> Actually, I wasn't referring to you Julia. If you must know, I refer primarily to ColB and secondarily to the random pipsqueak brigade who feel the need to insert their 'incisive' comments. The overdone 'apology' kind of negates itself through the sarcasm. Next time just call me a name and be done with it.



OK, I don't feel any need to call you names.  You believe what you believe and are defending that in the face of opposition.  Nothing wrong with that.
And yes, I didn't need to add the sarcasm.  I apologise a second time.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (10 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Would they present any information that would not support their position?
> 
> Hardly an 'independant' study.



I see. So you don't believe in assessing the different sides of a situation? They must be as bad as the media makes out? A study undertaken by an external, unrelated agency is not independent? Even when I provided the link directly to the study on that agency's site in post #78? Here it is again for reference, http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp. 



> I liked the second quote you provided above also. That only 1 in 25 Priests abuses children. Nice.
> 
> There's something to hang your hat on. They seem to be proud of this for some reason...




That second quote came from the religioustolerance.org site and was made by the author of that article. The site can hardly be said to be pro-Christian. The incidence of sexual abuse is higher in the general male population and the perpetrator is likely to be a relative. People should be more concerned over leaving their children with relatives than Catholic priests. 

I thought you were a little more objective than this Kennas.


----------



## lasty (10 June 2009)

No divine intervention here 
THE world's richest and largest Anglican diocese has lost more than $100 million on the sharemarket and is investigating ways to cut programs and ministries across Sydney.

Two years ago the Anglican diocese of Sydney was able to allocate $30 million to educate new ministers, spread the Gospel and reach out to young people. But returns from investments have plummeted so steeply that the funds available next year have been slashed to $5.6 million.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (10 June 2009)

Julia said:


> OK, I don't feel any need to call you names.  You believe what you believe and are defending that in the face of opposition.  Nothing wrong with that. And yes, I didn't need to add the sarcasm.  I apologise a second time.




No apology necessary. Julia, we clearly have different beliefs and disagree at a worldview level but that doesn't mean I don't like you and don't respect you. I think you are generally fair and inject balance into discussions.

For myself, I rarely make off-the-cuff remarks on important issues though I was guilty in the NZ football scandal thread. I prefer to only engage in discussions where I am informed and have supporting evidence for my contributions. And that's the kind of people I like to talk with.


----------



## Sean K (10 June 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Even when I provided the link directly to the study on that agency's site in post #78? Here it is again for reference, http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp.



Isn't that a seperate article? The one you quoted was there for all to see, composed by a Catholic organisation. 



> That second quote came from the religioustolerance.org site and was made by the author of that article. The site can hardly be said to be pro-Christian. The incidence of sexual abuse is higher in the general male population and the perpetrator is likely to be a relative. People should be more concerned over leaving their children with relatives than Catholic priests.
> 
> I thought you were a little more objective than this Kennas.



Had a look at the site and they are not just Christian. 

Just curious about their statement/finding that sexual abuse is more likely to be a relative. How many relatives do people have compared to Priests? Who even has a Priest these days? Would have been damn hard for me to be abused by one, that's for sure. 

Or, maybe I'm not making the right assumptions with how they've come up with those conclusions.

Sorry you perceive me to be unobjective at the moment.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (10 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Isn't that a seperate article? The one you quoted was there for all to see, composed by a Catholic organisation.




I wrote a huge reply and the freaking browser refreshed itself and wiped it. 

In summary....

The first article was written by a Catholic. Yes. But the underlying research for that article as cited is drawn from external studies. Particularly and especially this one: http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp.

Based on all the statistics I have read from a broad spectrum of backgrounds, from a victim's perspective a male relative is the most likely source of child sexual abuse. 1/3 of cases.

From the perpetrator's perspective, catholic priests are less likely to be abusers than other groups. Around 2-5% as a group compared with about 8% of males overall and as an example around 13% of public school teachers (that's in the USA).

Is any cover-up and culture of sweeping it under the carpet disgusting? Yes. I grew up in a similar culture and it's sickening. Those who appoint themselves as moral guardians should also hold themselves to a higher standard of accountability. No argument. I have no sympathy for their predicament. But keep it in perspective. Catholic priests are not the dangerous, depraved predators that the media beat-ups would have us all believe. I think it's the opposite conclusion that is most surprising. Given that priests are generally meant to be celibate and IMO live an unnatural lifestyle, it is very remarkable that catholic priests as a group are less of a threat than others.


----------



## Duckman#72 (10 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Hi Duckman, it was unfair of me to direct my frustration towards you, who I know to be fair and reasonable.   I've calmed down now.



Hi Julia

I know you had no intention of just stirring the pot!!  We go back a long way. 

I think you and I are a good example of how two people can find themselves travelling down the same road, despite having arrived there using two completely different maps. Shared values.

As a side issue - can you believe that I first starting posting to you back in 2005!!!! I know I don't PM very often and I don't always have the time to reply to all the posts I'd like to - but I love the fact that you (and the rest of the gang) are here each day. 

Duckman


----------



## Julia (10 June 2009)

Hi Duckman, many thanks.  Your sentiments are 100% reciprocated, of course.
Do you remember the post you made when you announced the last pregnancy?
I think of it from time to time, and smile.
Hope Adam, as the product, is doing well and that all the other ducklings are fine also.

All the best
Julia


----------



## Sean K (10 June 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I wrote a huge reply and the freaking browser refreshed itself and wiped it.
> 
> In summary....
> 
> The first article was written by a Catholic. Yes. But the underlying research for that article as cited is drawn from external studies. Particularly and especially this one: http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp.



OK, I think I'm with you now. 

I'm still a bit taken back with the 4% of Priests have abused fact. That seems like quite a lot.

If 4% of adult males in the US were child abusers (say 100m) that's about 40,000 sexual abusers. Eeeek. Maybe that's average. 

I'm also a bit taken back by the amount of money the church has paid in regard to abuse.



> The amount of money already paid by the Church, as a result of allegations, to victims, for the treatment of priests and for legal expenses reported in our surveys was over $572,000,000.



 I wonder how much of the 1/2 bil went to victims compared to legal costs? Just being the skeptic now. 

Off topic. Would be nice if just the good things about religion could be discussed, but these things get sidetracked. Like the Why Religion? thread...


----------



## ColB (11 June 2009)

> *Originally Posted by Julia*
> 
> "Presumably Col posted it with a sense of irony but I suppose it should have gone in one of the other threads..."




Yes, you're right Julia.  It was with a sense of irony that I posted that article and Duck I did manipulate the title but I make no apology for putting it in this thread.  As someone else quite rightly pointed out, why post to a forum if you can't accept a little balanced debate about the issue.  I think we at least owe that to the victims of abuse perpetrated by some hiding under the cloak of religion.



> *Originally posted by MS+Tradeism*
> 
> "...Actually, I wasn't referring to you Julia. If you must know, I refer primarily to *ColB and secondarily to the random pipsqueak brigade* who feel the need to insert their 'incisive' comments. The overdone 'apology' kind of negates itself through the sarcasm. Next time just call me a name and be done with it...."




I have already stated that I am not religious but i don't think anywhere in my commentary on this thread have I made derogatory comments about those who do believe in religion or indeed any person on this thread.  There is a certain sense of irony however that some who purport to follow religion have little reluctance to belittle some posters who offer no more than an article sourced from the internet or their view.  Some people appear to live in a bubble and can't acknowledge or seek to defend or deflect the seriousness of some atrocities committed in the name of the church or under their banner. Not withstanding that there are other people who commit similar acts who are not religious it is the trust and integrity bestowed upon the clergy that some so readily betray.  That detracts from the Beauty In Religion which on the whole has far more good than bad.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 June 2009)

ColB said:


> Yes, you're right Julia.  It was with a sense of irony that I posted that article and Duck I did manipulate the title but I make no apology for putting it in this thread.  As someone else quite rightly pointed out, why post to a forum if you can't accept a little balanced debate about the issue.  I think we at least owe that to the victims of abuse perpetrated by some hiding under the cloak of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> I have already stated that I am not religious but i don't think anywhere in my commentary on this thread have I made derogatory comments about those who do believe in religion or indeed any person on this thread.  There is a certain sense of irony however that some who purport to follow religion have little reluctance to belittle some posters who offer no more than an article sourced from the internet or their view.  Some people appear to live in a bubble and can't acknowledge or seek to defend or deflect the seriousness of some atrocities committed in the name of the church or under their banner. Not withstanding that there are other people who commit similar acts who are not religious it is the trust and integrity bestowed upon the clergy that some so readily betray.  That detracts from the Beauty In Religion which on the whole has far more good than bad.




This is from atheistcartoons.com.

Its well worth subscribing. Its free and the toons are not copyright.

The abuses by Catholic and Protestant clergy have sullied the practice and propogation of Christianity. The behaviour of Terror Islamists and Vengeful US TV Christians has further harmed folk's perception of religion.

Revelation is what you guys are on about.

But you have to take the good with the bad.

It is reasonable for people on this thread, to point out the horrors that religion or its practice , has wrought on the world.

gg


----------



## MS+Tradesim (11 June 2009)

ColB,

There are several threads here where people are free to criticise religion as openly as they please. The intent in starting this one was to *bring* the balance that was lacking. Thus attempting to claim that you are only presenting balanced debate is insubstantial.

Had you genuinely wished 'balanced debate' you would have posted the article in an appropriate thread like this one and offered your own commentary. 



> I have already stated that I am not religious but i don't think anywhere in my commentary on this thread have I made derogatory comments about those who do believe in religion or indeed any person on this thread.




I suppose you could make an argument that me starting "a silly thread" with no "credibility" and that with "blind faith" I look through "rose-coloured glasses" is neither belittling nor derogatory but I doubt it would be convincing.



> There is a certain sense of irony however that some who purport to follow religion have little reluctance to belittle some posters who offer no more than an article sourced from the internet or their view.




Yes. I'm afraid one of my faults is having little tolerance for uninformed bigotry. Should someone wish to confront me and state that I hurt their feelings, I will be more than happy to apologise. 

When *you* are ready to have objective discussion please do so.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (11 June 2009)

On reflection,

I openly apologise to anyone who might have felt slurred by any comment I have made. That was not my intention. I had hoped that participants in this thread might have been able to self-moderate and avoid mockery. In that, I was guilty of over-optimism.


----------



## darkside (11 June 2009)

Unfortunately intolerance for others who don't share the same religious beliefs is rife and will always cause problems, christianity believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share their beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.  And yet consider their religion the most "tolerant" and "loving." WTF .
And on the subject of child abuse amongst the clergy , the tradgedy is that they are way over represented as opposed to the rest of the community, mind you , our so called "blue card holders"  who one would assume are more than safe to work with children are also above the average as far as the general population is concerned.


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 June 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is reasonable for people on this thread, to point out the horrors that religion or its practice , has wrought on the world.
> 
> gg




GG

No one in this thread has denied, disputed nor dismissed the woeful shame that the Church must accept in relation to its sexual abuse horrors. We accept and acknowledge the bad but are *trying to highlight the good.* Can you? Can you accept the good? If not - what are you doing posting on this thread? 

I completely disagree with the position you and Col have taken. To suggest that we somehow owe it to the victims of sexual abuse to bring it to light in this thread, is fanciful and misguided at best, and mischievous and spiteful at worst. 

Col, if you want debate - why not debate some of the actual material that people have posted here regarding "The Beauty in Religion". Not just attaching a media article relating to sexual abuse within the Church, with almost zero commentary from yourself, with the exception of the ironical title change to help validate its inclusion on this thread.

There is a subtle and distinct difference in what you and I are saying GG. I am saying - It is reasonable for people on this *forum*, to point out the horrors that religion or its practice , has wrought on the world. You are saying - It is reasonable for people on this *thread*, to point out the horrors that religion or its practice , has wrought on the world.  I am not trying to cut down debate - just have it in the right thread. Try these for thread starters, "The Evil In Religion", "Callous Catholic Convent Coverups" and "Poll:Hitler v Catholic Priests - Who is more Evil?"

When I first started on ASF the moderators were very big on staying "on topic". Unfortunately when it comes to religion, I am a realist and understand that a different set of rules apply. If you want to debate the injustices of religion - go for your life, start your thread and fire away. But it's not as much fun is it? 

It is hard to be the bully when no one else is in the playground. 

Duckman


----------



## Mr J (12 June 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> From the perpetrator's perspective, catholic priests are less likely to be abusers than other groups. Around 2-5% as a group compared with about 8% of males overall and as an example around 13% of public school teachers (that's in the USA).




Where did you get those figures? I have no idea myself, I am just amazed that it may be that high.



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> If 4% of adult males in the US were child abusers (say 100m) that's about 40,000 sexual abusers. Eeeek. Maybe that's average.




Missing a couple of zeros there. If the 4% figure is true, that's certainly millions of kiddie fiddlers running around in the US. Ten's of thousands in our capital cities, dozens in our communities, and probably one every time we go for a walk.


----------



## Sean K (12 June 2009)

Mr J said:


> Where did you get those figures? I have no idea myself, I am just amazed that it may be that high.



 They're in those links provided earlier.



Mr J said:


> Missing a couple of zeros there. If the 4% figure is true,



 Cripes I did too. It's four million! 

That 4% is just using the figures from the study done on the incidence of abuse by Priests in the US. If the general pop abuse to the same level, that's 4 million, about the size of Melbourne.


----------



## Sean K (12 June 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> When I first started on ASF the moderators were very big on staying "on topic". Unfortunately when it comes to religion, I am a realist and understand that a different set of rules apply.



It's just impossible to control Duckman.


----------



## Mr J (12 June 2009)

Think about it globally though, there's enough to fill the USA .


----------



## Tink (12 June 2009)

Funny isnt it?
People complain about religions starting wars - what I see are people that dont leave them alone to be happy and do their own thing.

When this world starts respecting other people, it will be a happier place 

Makes me question why people have to always stick their two bobs worth in when it has nothing to do with them in their lives.. they cant relax knowing someone believes in a religion.

Plenty of threads here already started on Religion, but oh no, they have to come in THIS ONE...

well said MS+T


----------



## Sean K (12 June 2009)

Tink said:


> Funny isnt it?
> 
> Plenty of threads here already started on Religion, but oh no, they have to come in THIS ONE...
> 
> well said MS+T



LOL 

Did any of the pro religion people post in the other threads?


----------



## Tink (12 June 2009)

Yeah we did : )

Said our bit..


----------



## bunyip (12 June 2009)

Julia said:


> In the interest of supporting the theme of this thread I've been trying to think of something positive or beautiful to do with religion.
> 
> Can't say it's been easy but I do have a friend who is devoutly religious.
> Somehow we've managed to remain friends over many years, probably because we agree not to discuss religion.
> ...




Julia

Yes, you have to admire the Salvos for the work they do. Also people like your religious friend who show compassion and kindness to the less fortunate.
But I wonder if their kindness and compassion are motivated by religion?

I know that there's not a religious bone in your body, yet you also have given many years of selfless and unpaid voluntary service towards helping the less fortunate members of your community, and you continue to do so to this day. 
Just like your religious friend and the Salvos, you've dealt with some pretty motley people, some of whom have shown no appreciation and have actually abused you for trying to help them.

This begs a number of questions.......
1. Is the kindness of your friend and the Salvos motivated by their religious beliefs?
2. What motivates your kindness?
3. Is it possible that both you and they are just kind and decent people by nature, and religion doesn't come into it?

Whatever the answer, I have great admiration for people like you and others who help people less fortunate than yourselves.


----------



## bunyip (12 June 2009)

Tink said:


> Funny isnt it?
> People complain about religions starting wars - what I see are people that dont leave them alone to be happy and do their own thing.
> 
> When this world starts respecting other people, it will be a happier place
> ...




I'm more than happy to leave religious people alone to do their own thing - I think most people are. But it should work both ways.
It starts wearing a bit thin when religious people start trying to impose their views on people who aren't religious.
I'm constantly pestered by Jehovah Witnesses knocking on my door, even though I've explained to them, always politely, that I'm not interested in their views and would they please stop calling on me, and would they pass this request on to their church.
We had somebody start that Bible Verse of The Day thread, because he wanted to push his religious views on to this forum.
We have religions constantly trying to expand their horizons, convert non-believers, bring their particular brand of religion to entire countries. 
Now we have Islam with their publicly stated objective to make Australia an Islamic state.

Frankly I wish religious people would just leave me alone, in the same way that I leave them alone.


----------



## Trevor_S (12 June 2009)

Tink said:


> Funny isnt it?
> People complain about religions starting wars - what I see are people that dont leave them alone to be happy and do their own thing.
> 
> When this world starts respecting other people, it will be a happier place




That has to work both ways though.  Unfortunately we are awash with legislation and politicians that give pre-eminence to religious beliefs over non-religion.  Tony Abott and Steve Fielding to name two that spring to mind locally.  Other examples would be  Shari Law and it's application to non Muslims in countries that follow it for example .  

I have no problem with anyone's religious beliefs, except when they use them to justify legislation that subjugates others.

There is no beauty in religion, good people will do good regardless of their religious beliefs, not because of them.

"Religion" is however the only thing that can make good people do evil things.


----------



## gav (12 June 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> There is no beauty in religion, good people will do good regardless of their religious beliefs, not because of them.
> 
> "Religion" is however the only thing that can make good people do evil things.




I'd laugh if I didn't think you were serious...


----------



## Tink (12 June 2009)

Sad isnt it?

Had so much I was going to write, but not even going to bother..........

They only see what they want to see..


----------



## gav (12 June 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> There is no beauty in religion, good people will do good regardless of their religious beliefs, not because of them.
> 
> "Religion" is however the only thing that can make good people do evil things.




This is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned this earlier...



gav said:


> Exactly.  Everyone is quick to jump on blaming religion when it is human beings committing these awful acts.  Yet as soon as a religious person does something good (eg. helps others in need), people here are saying it is human beings doing the kind acts and religion is just taking the credit...
> 
> Something bad happen = blame religion
> Something good happen = its humanity with religion taking the credit


----------



## Sean K (12 June 2009)

gav said:


> I'd laugh if I didn't think you were serious...



Actually, I think he has a point, to some extent.

However, there are a few reasons why a good person would do something bad.

Revenge.
War.
Um....

But, if religion indoctrinates someones into thinking a certain way, against their 'natural' tendencies, then they might well do 'evil' things because their religion demands it of them.

The Muslim extremist references are valid.
There's many other things that religion enforces on people which are bad acts. How about chopping part of a penis off a baby for a start. wtf!


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 June 2009)

So I suppose that a bad person cannot keep their natural tendencies in check through the influence of a religion? 

Anyway....

Destiny Rescue is primarily involved in saving children who have been exploited by sex traffickers or who are caught in prostitution via the poverty cycle.

http://www.destinyrescue.org/aus/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=38


----------



## Sean K (12 June 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> So I suppose that a bad person cannot keep their natural tendencies in check through the influence of a religion?



Yes, religion absolutely does that and has through the ages. That is one of the reason's for it to have survived imo. As a control mechanism in the absence of more powerful incentives. 

Does that make it 'beautiful' though?


----------



## gav (12 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Actually, I think he has a point, to some extent.
> 
> However, there are a few reasons why a good person would do something bad.
> 
> ...




You can add "money" to that list of reasons why a good person would do something bad...

As for religion making someone do "evil" things because they demand it, what about the flip side - people who'd normally do something bad but do something good because their religion demands it... 

I am not a religious person myself however I am not that ignorant that I would dismiss the possibility of a higher spiritual being.  It is amazing how people will only see one side (as stated in my earlier posts) 

As for the chopping of part of a babies penis, many scientists believe this to be more hygenic and reduces the risk of spreading disease (including the World Health Organisation).  However there are many that believe it makes no difference.

This is from the World Health Organisation:

The Population Reference burea (www.prb.org), in conjunction with the 
Africa Population and Health Resource Center, has just published the 
latest data on HIV in Africa.   Africa had a long head start with HIV 
before it spread to the rest of the world, and the mature epidemic 
there reveals the importance of foreskins, or lack of them, in the 
transmission of HIV,   (The world HIV rate is 0.8;  the African rate 
is 4.0).   Here are the latest HIV rates by region: 

North Africa (virtually all circ)............. ..............0.3 
West Africa (mixed circ and uncirc)..................2.5 
Central Africa (mixed circ and uncirc)...............2.5 
East Africa (mixed circ and uncirc)...................5.8 
Southern Arica (mostly uncirc)................... ....18.5 

The total African population is 967,000,000,  of whom 66 percent live 
on less than two dollars a day.   Logistical and economic factors make 
the regular, lifelong use of condoms by this population impractical. 
The World Health Organization therefore recommends circumcision as a 
cost-effective, one-time intervention that could drastically reduce 
HIV transmission in the affected countries. Of course, circumcision 
would be only one of several strategies to combat HIV, but its proven 
effectiveness makes it an essential element in the arsenal.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Does that make it 'beautiful' though?




I don't recall claiming religion was beautiful. Religion is not a uniform monolith. There are many varieties. The thread is about the beauty *in* religion, and to that end I have been posting among other things, specific examples of people who have taken their beliefs seriously and made/make a difference *because* of what they believe.


----------



## happytown (12 June 2009)

gav said:


> ...
> 
> I am not a religious person myself however I am not that *ignorant* that I would *dismiss the possibility of a higher spiritual being*.  It is amazing how *people will only see one side* (as stated in my earlier posts)
> 
> ...




what of those that dismiss the possibility of there not being a higher spiritual being

cheers


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 June 2009)

happytown said:


> what of those that dismiss the possibility of there *not* being a higher spiritual being
> 
> cheers




The "not" makes the sentence difficult to understand so I'm going to make the assumption you didn't mean to include it. On that basis...

It would be an example of technical ignorance. The only way to know for sure that there is no higher spiritual being would be to know everything. If one does not know everything there always remains the possibility of a higher spiritual being existing outside of one's knowledge content.

*Ps. I just read gav's comment and I now get what you're saying and I agree.*


----------



## gav (12 June 2009)

happytown said:


> what of those that dismiss the possibility of there not being a higher spiritual being
> 
> cheers




Yes, it goes both ways


----------



## bunyip (12 June 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> So I suppose that a bad person cannot keep their natural tendencies in check through the influence of a religion?




Some can, many of them can't. For example, Catholic priests who molest little kids, despite being devoutly religious themselves.
Nuns who inflicted beatings and other cruelty on kids in orphanages for such 'crimes' such as bed wetting, or crying from loneliness and lack of love.
And I'm not just singling out the Catholic religion here either, there are many other examples from other religions.

And then there are others whose worst natural tendencies are encouraged and promoted by the influence of religion. Islamic suicide bombers for example.


----------



## bunyip (12 June 2009)

Tink said:


> Sad isnt it?
> 
> Had so much I was going to write, but not even going to bother..........
> 
> They only see what they want to see..





It can work both ways. I could give you hundreds of examples of religious people only seeing and believing what they want to see and believe.


----------



## bunyip (12 June 2009)

About 13 years ago my wife nursed with a widow who had three young kids under nine years old. She was really struggling financially and emotionally, having recently lost her husband who had no life insurance.
She bought a block of land out of town because she couldn't afford to buy a block in town, put a cheap removal house on it because she couldn't afford to build a new one.
It was an old house in need of repair, paint peeling off, no kitchen worth mentioning, very sub-standard bathroom, no floor coverings. To top things off, the house removalist did a shonky job and had damaged the roof and broken several windows, but was refusing to fix his mistakes. The roof leaked when it rained.
She couldn't afford the repairs, intended doing them bit by bit over several years whenever she had a few dollars available. She couldn't even afford to have the power connected.
She and her family faced a bleak winter in a substandard house with no power.

My wife and I told the folks at church about the plight of this widow. (yes, I went to church back in those days). It was a biggish church congregation made up of people from various occupations......we had plumbers, builders, electricians, farmers, businessmen, and people from various other occupations.
A couple of the blokes who were in trades relating to house building and renovation, visited the widow and checked out her house to see what was needed in the way of materials. A couple of farmers turned up to see what was needed in the way of fencing her block.
Within weeks we had enough materials, all donated from local business, to re-roof her house, re-wire it, renovate the bathroom and kitchen, paint it and generally do all the repairs needed to bring it up to a reasonably comfortable and liveable residence. We also got donations of fencing materials.
Over a three day long weekend, about thirty to forty blokes renovated the house and fenced the block of land, rewired the house and put the power on, spruced up the garden, generally brought things up to scratch so that the widow and her young family could live in reasonable comfort.
The church women kept us plied with sandwiches and tea throughout the day. Someone brought a mobile barbeque and we cooked up a storm after we finished work each day.

I remember the widow standing back and watching us work as tears rolled down her cheeks. After we'd finished and she stood back and surveyed what we'd done she really caved in, cried her eyes out, and of course was profuse in her thanks.

So I guess that's a pretty good example of the goodness (I'm hesitant to use the word 'beauty') in religion. Without that church congregation getting behind that widow, she would have struggled for many years to have a comfortable home for herself and her kids.


----------



## Struzball (12 June 2009)

Great story bunyip.  

Not to take anything away from how nice a story it is, but I wish there could be some sort of congregation outside of the church that has the power and numbers to do good things like that.  

Even as a non-christian, I would still have loved to help her out.  But sadly I don't feel the need to attend a congregation on my Sunday mornings to find out about such needing people.


----------



## Tink (12 June 2009)

Finally some positives -- yay 

Beautiful story Bunyip and thanks for sharing

The Church IS about goodness in people 

I have seen many helped, be it religious or not..

No one agrees with any of the bad that has happened.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 June 2009)

Ditto. Yes, thanks for contributing. We all know the bad.


----------



## bunyip (12 June 2009)

Struzball said:


> Great story bunyip.
> 
> Not to take anything away from how nice a story it is, but I wish there could be some sort of congregation outside of the church that has the power and numbers to do good things like that.





Well actually there are a number of 'congregations' unrelated to religion that do some very caring and compassionate work in the community. 
For example, when I was in the Lions Club we raised money and got donations of materials and used the skills of tradesmen within our club to build a kids playground at a local park.

We heard of an elderly widow who had recently lost her husband and was doing it hard. We painted her fence and cleaned up her yard and top dressed her lawn, did some minor repairs to her house.

We never did any projects on the scale of that renovation done by the church congregation for the widow, but we plugged away with smaller projects month after month, year after year.

Rotary clubs do similar voluntary projects in the community, as do a number of other organizations.


----------



## bunyip (12 June 2009)

Tink said:


> Finally some positives -- yay
> 
> Beautiful story Bunyip and thanks for sharing
> 
> ...





I agree with you Tink....the church _*is*_ mostly about goodness in people. Well the Christian church is anyway, but I'm not so sure about other religions.
Most of the people I've met in churches have been pretty decent folks who are willing to help others.
A few not so pure types among them of course, but you get that in any organisation.


----------



## Tink (12 June 2009)

Yep I agree - I have been involved in the Catholic Church all of my life and have had nothing but good from it..
I have had the same feedback from my children..

I can even say they have helped me at times.. and I have seen and been involved in helping alot of others too..
My daughter sings at the Church as well as other places..


----------



## Happy (12 June 2009)

It almost looks that people cannot be good without religion.


----------



## Tink (12 June 2009)

well when the Pope came down, with a huge congregation of people of all faiths, did you hear of any violence?

Now how many times do you see so many young people gather together in concert form, in the open like that with no trouble..?

Feedback was peaceful and the atmosphere was happy and friendly..


----------



## ColB (12 June 2009)

> Originally posted by Tink:
> 
> well when the Pope came down, with a huge congregation of people of all faiths, did you hear of any violence?
> 
> ...




So you didn't see the "No to Pope Coalition" protest Tink?

You didn't see Sydney Gay Groups protesting against the Pope's Visit only 500 metres away from the World Youth Day official tent?

Even special legislation introduced by Government to muzzle protest against WYD was thwarted in the Federal Court.

Having said that It was good to see everyone have a good time but I am a bit miffed that my taxes were paying for it but not much more miffed than subsidising a Melbourne Grand Prix.

I did hear that many really enjoyed the event.......

A SYDNEY brothel is welcoming World Youth Day pilgrims, urging "potential sinners to commit their sins" before the Pope leaves Australia.

Xclusive Gentlemen's Club says it is hiring extra staff during the week-long Catholic event and has already noticed an increase in patronage. 

The brothel, in Sydney's east, is only minutes from many WYD events and nearby Randwick Racecourse - the site of the papal mass with Pope Benedict XVI on June 20. 

Xclusive said in a statement it was not targeting pilgrims, but would welcome everyone during WYD. 

Up to 500,000 people, including more than 100,000 international pilgrims, are expected to flock to Sydney to WYD events, which run until July 20. 

"Of course, any pilgrims who want to spend their money and experience the pleasures and delights that Xclusive gives Sydneysiders, are welcome. 

"We had already anticipated the increase in demand and put on extra workers in anticipation. 

"We are ready, willing and able, and have discreet credit card transaction service and a rear lane entrance.   Mum will never know." 

The brothel is also offering a 10 per cent discount to the more than 3,000 media with WYD accreditation. 

Meanwhile, Catholic organisers say free condoms being handed to pilgrims will be a laugh, after a group vowed to distribute them.

The bishop in charge of organising the huge gathering in Sydney the national sexual health group’s actions would add comic relief to celebrations. 

The Pope is a strident advocate of sex only after marriage, and leads the church’s position against artificial contraception such as condoms. 

But Marie Stopes International said it wanted to promote safe sex among the pilgrims. 

“World Youth Day is expected to attract up to 225,000 international and local youth and the simple fact is that many young people – including Catholics - have sex," Marie Stopes International spokeswoman Jill Michelson said. 

A protest group, the NoToPope Coalition, is also planning to hand out condoms to pilgrims as they walk through Sydney's eastern suburbs on July 19

But World Youth Day co-ordinator Bishop Anthony Fisher said today the condoms would add a bit of humour to the event but he hoped the group would also respect the pilgrims' beliefs. 

"It will probably be part of the comedy at times," he said. 

Bishop Fisher also defended the right of people to protest the event and said heavy handed policing should not be necessary. 

"It's a very open question whether such laws are necessary, given the powers the police already have," he said. 

"The laws are a matter for government ... (but) we've said we don't think there'll be any need for fines or police action. I think our protesters, if there are any, are going to be very peaceable." 

Bishop Fisher said the hostile reception some Sydneysiders were giving the World Youth Day event was confusing to pilgrims. 

"It's a pity that sometimes there's been a lot of negativity in the air - some of our pilgrims are coming saying, `What's going on here? This is the most wonderful thing for your country and for your church, they should be happy like we are,'" he said. 

World Youth Day activist Rachel Evans and her NoToPope Coalition associate Amber Pike are taking the New South Wales Government to court over the controversial laws prohibiting "annoyance" and are urging people to reclaim their right to protest. 

www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24003622-661,00.html


----------



## Tink (12 June 2009)

Ha - typical
I saw better advertisements in the paper than that one..

*Yep I was glad everyone had a good time *


----------



## bunyip (12 June 2009)

Happy said:


> It almost looks that people cannot be good without religion.




Not at all. 
In an earlier post I mentioned that Julia works tirelessly for her community - and she doesn't have a religious bone in her.
Neither do I, and I consider myself to be basically a good person, although I'm not in the same league as Julia and others like her who devote themselves to helping others.
Many of the blokes I worked with in service clubs weren't religious, but that didn't hold them back when it came to helping people and living their lives as good and decent people.


----------



## Julia (12 June 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> "Religion" is however the only thing that can make good people do evil things.



That's pretty unfair, Trevor.   Can you really say that all the people who have done evil things , e.g. murder, assaults, fraud, any crime really, have been motivated by religion?  I don't think so.



bunyip said:


> About 13 years ago my wife nursed with a widow who had three young kids under nine years old. She was really struggling financially and emotionally, having recently lost her husband who had no life insurance.......................
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that's a pretty good example of the goodness (I'm hesitant to use the word 'beauty') in religion. Without that church congregation getting behind that widow, she would have struggled for many years to have a comfortable home for herself and her kids.



Nice story of course.  That church congregation could set up in opposition to "Backyard Blitz" and make a motza for the church.

But later in the thread, Bunyip, you point out yourself that other non-religious groups will equally do good works, e.g. Rotary, Lions et al.
So it doesn't have to be religion that motivates kindness to others, just as you pointed out with respect to my friend's charity at Christmas, or for that matter, my own hundreds of hours voluntarily contributing to the community.





Happy said:


> It almost looks that people cannot be good without religion.



Tongue in cheek, of course, Happy?



Tink said:


> well when the Pope came down, with a huge congregation of people of all faiths, did you hear of any violence?
> 
> Now how many times do you see so many young people gather together in concert form, in the open like that with no trouble..?
> 
> Feedback was peaceful and the atmosphere was happy and friendly..



As Col has subsequently described, this is a good case of your seeing what you want to see Tink.  That's not a criticism.  We all do it.  We look for that which will substantiate our entrenched views.

There was huge resentment about the way this event just took over Sydney, forced people to change their usual activities, transport etc., and any notion of violence would have been instantly quelled by simple virtue of the huge numbers of police everywhere.

I, for one, was not happy about my taxes being used for such a partisan event.





Tink said:


> Ha - typical
> I saw better advertisements in the paper than that one..
> 
> *Yep I was glad everyone had a good time *



No, everyone did not have a good time.  Those who were wanting to be involved in the event may have, but anyone wanting to go about their normal affairs during that period was simply out of luck.

And when you respond to a reasonable response to your assertion that it was all sweetness and light for everyone (from Col), with "Ha - typical", do you really wonder that the argument does not progress in a mood of respect for opposite points of view?


----------



## beerwm (12 June 2009)

i dont at all think its 'beautiful' that people need religion to do something kind.

more... sad than anything.


----------



## Tink (12 June 2009)

We have had plenty of people here that I wasnt too happy paying taxes for that have caused chaos.. thats the way it goes..


----------



## bellenuit (12 June 2009)

Happy said:


> It almost looks that people cannot be good without religion.




I think that remark is over the top. 

I would agree that where the practice and observance of a particular religion requires that people do good and be good, as is the case with many religions, then one would expect those who actively practice and observe the tenets of that religion to more likely be "do gooders" (using the positive meaning of this phrase) than the general population. That is one reason that many church groups contribute so positively to the communities in which they are based. 

However, religion is not the only grouping of people that espouses that its members do good within the community and one can equally say that the members of those other groupings are also more likely to be "do gooders" than the general population. 

Examples of Rotary and Lions Clubs have been given. On a bigger scale there are organizations like the Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontiers, Amnesty International and a myriad of secular charitable organizations.

The "goodness" is in the human, not in the organization or religion. The organization or religion just provides a structure that attracts like minded people.


----------



## Sean K (12 June 2009)

Tink said:


> Yep I agree - I have been involved in the Catholic Church all of my life and have had nothing but good from it..
> I have had the same feedback from my children..



Either of your kids gay or lesbian Tink?


----------



## Tink (13 June 2009)

Now why would you ask something like that Kenna, not that I have a problem with gay/lesbian people. They are human beings and entitled to be happy in their choices, but the answers no.

Col showing me that there were protests wasnt something that just happens with the Pope so why put something like that in this thread..
I brought up that teenagers were happy with no problems in an open forum and you bring up protests?

People bring up stuff that happens with Religion like its the only time it happens 
- no I dont see only what I want to see.


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2009)

Tink said:


> Now why would you ask something like that Kenna, not that I have a problem with gay/lesbian people.



The Catholic church teaches that homosexuality is in the least wrong. Worst it's an abomination. My anecdotal experience is that the church can create a massive divide between parents and their siblings in regard to sexual orientation. I think it's something religion (particularly Catholicism) is perpetuating at the cost of a lot of individual and family happiness. I don't see a lot of beauty in this regard. I suppose my point is, that while you have had a wonderful experience with your faith, there are others who have been faithful all their lives, and it's actually resulted in great pain and suffering within their family. Are you sure you'd be OK if your daughter came out? I hope so.


----------



## gav (13 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Either of your kids gay or lesbian Tink?




Are any of your family members devout muslims Kennas?


----------



## Tink (13 June 2009)

Just because I have my faith in the background, doesnt mean I go by all their rules - sheesh

I think its up to the individual and what makes them happy. My daughter knows some gay guys as friends, no big deal...
My family comes first.....


----------



## darkside (13 June 2009)

kennas said:


> The Catholic church teaches that homosexuality is in the least wrong. Worst it's an abomination. My anecdotal experience is that the church can create a massive divide between parents and their siblings in regard to sexual orientation. I think it's something religion (particularly Catholicism) is perpetuating at the cost of a lot of individual and family happiness. I don't see a lot of beauty in this regard. I suppose my point is, that while you have had a wonderful experience with your faith, there are others who have been faithful all their lives, and it's actually resulted in great pain and suffering within their family. Are you sure you'd be OK if your daughter came out? I hope so.




Kennas , it's not just the Catholic Church that promote a divide in families if you do not adhere to their beliefs.My parents have been banned by the church from seeing my family and of course their grandchildren because i choose not to be brainwashed by this organisation, a few years ago my parents gave us the ultimatum of joining their church or never having contact with them again , they used the bible to justify their stand ;Don’t associate with non-Christians.  Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them.  2 John 1:10
Shun those who disagree with your religious views.  Romans 16:17
Judge other religions for not following Christ:
Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7
So since then they dont see their grandkids , dont do any family things , but the main thing is the church gave them this option , and they have missed many years of family life, because of this cult like brainwashing.


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2009)

gav said:


> Are any of your family members devout muslims Kennas?



No



Tink said:


> Just because I have my faith in the background, doesnt mean I go by all their rules - sheesh
> 
> I think its up to the individual and what makes them happy. My daughter knows some gay guys as friends, no big deal...
> My family comes first.....



OK.

I don't think religious teaching is of the same approach though. Just doing 'what makes you happy' isn't in any of the scriptures that I've read. 

I just asked this question because it's a very important international Catholic issue. There are many people who follow the law in regard to homosexuality, and it has created great hardships. Especially for the individuals who discover they are gay in a Catholic family. The level of guilt placed apon them is quite destructive. Maybe it's just a minority though and not worth discussing. 

I'm glad it's no big deal for you Tink.


----------



## Tink (13 June 2009)

Thanks Kennas

I dont think they are as strict as they used to be - they have to change with the changeing times..
The people I know through the association in the Church are all pretty laid back..


----------



## gav (13 June 2009)

kennas said:


> No




What if a family member decided to become a devout muslim?  You may not agree with it, but I doubt you'd shun them out of your life - just as Tinks wouldn't shun their child if they were gay...


----------



## noirua (13 June 2009)

In some religions people, privately, no longer follow their chosen or born into religion that seriously.  It does vary widely of course. This is on matters like going to church, synagogue etc., that regularly.  Bothering to get married or really believing on views on abortion etc., they just trundle on regardless.

Unfortunately, in some countries, they take things more seriously and may put you in prison, stone you or chop off your head. That really means you have to go along with the teachings and beliefs, even if you believe it to be a load of rubbish, and few would risk the alternatives.

Iran may or may not loosen up and give a lead to other Muslim countries. We must wait and see.


----------



## gav (13 June 2009)

darkside said:


> Kennas , it's not just the Catholic Church that promote a divide in families if you do not adhere to their beliefs.My parents have been banned by the church from seeing my family and of course their grandchildren because i choose not to be brainwashed by this organisation, a few years ago my parents gave us the ultimatum of joining their church or never having contact with them again , they used the bible to justify their stand ;Don’t associate with non-Christians.  Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them.  2 John 1:10
> Shun those who disagree with your religious views.  Romans 16:17
> Judge other religions for not following Christ:
> Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
> ...




That is truly awful.

I have many friends who are religious, I grew up in quite a religious community.  They have not been banned from seeing me, or anyone else who grew up in the area who chooses not to be religious.  I think the problem lays soley with your parents, in the end it was their decision...


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2009)

gav said:


> What if a family member decided to become a devout muslim?  You may not agree with it, but I doubt you'd shun them out of your life - just as Tinks wouldn't shun their child if they were gay...



There is no moral law being enforced on me that dictates I shun Muslims. 

The Pope says homosexuals go to hell.


----------



## gav (13 June 2009)

kennas said:


> There is no moral law being enforced on me that dictates I shun Muslims.
> 
> The Pope says homosexuals go to hell.




Yes but your own beliefs completely contradict the way a devout muslim lives.  I doubt Tinks has any pressure to abandon her children if they were gay.


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2009)

gav said:


> Yes but your own beliefs completely contradict the way a devout muslim lives.  I doubt Tinks has any pressure to abandon her children if they were gay.



Yes, it would be my own secular beliefs shaped by what's best in the year 2009 in Melbourne. Or, Lima at the moment.

Gav, my point is (making it poorly obviously) that religion (Catholicism in this case) lays down some moral laws that it's follows must abide by. Some churches probably try to enforce this dogma more than others. The Catholic church's stance on homosexuality can *not* be changed. I've forgotten the term, but it's a policy that they can NEVER back down on. If you want to be a good Catholic, you have to follow this teaching. No ifs or butts according to the Vatican. This is a law interpreted from the Books, which probably made some sence in the ancient world. There was a good social reason for it I am sure.  

While Tink, and I assume many many other Catholics are 'ok' with homosexuality, I'm just saying that there can be instances where this moral law causes some hardship when it need not. This whole discussion is just in responce to Tink saying that the Catholic Church has made her and her family very happy. I'm just providing the other perspective where the Catholic Church has actually destroyed a mother-daughter relationship because of their stance on homosexuality. That's all.


----------



## darkside (13 June 2009)

gav said:


> That is truly awful.
> 
> I have many friends who are religious, I grew up in quite a religious community.  They have not been banned from seeing me, or anyone else who grew up in the area who chooses not to be religious.  I think the problem lays soley with your parents, in the end it was their decision...




Gav, your right it is absolutly disgracefull, but their church has lost sight of the big picture , and to them they are motivated by the amount of money that my parents contribute to them and the amount of people my parents can recruit to their church. Just like "amway" only evil i suppose.


----------



## Tink (13 June 2009)

thats sad Darkside
Thats not a religion, thats a cult..

I agree with Gav, comes down to the parents


----------



## darkside (13 June 2009)

Tink said:


> thats sad Darkside
> Thats not a religion, thats a cult..
> 
> I agree with Gav, comes down to the parents





Tink , they are a mainstream church , and they follow the bible to the letter , hence when they told us the church had given them this ultimatum, they produced scripts from the bible to reinforce their justification, and explain that to continue seeing us was a crime against their beliefs.Some scripts used also included ;  Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10
A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33
Shun those who disagree with your religious views.  Romans 16:17
Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8
So at the end of the day they are doing the right thing by their beliefs , and i can't condemn them for that. But yes very sad for my kids and hard for them to get their heads around.


----------



## Julia (13 June 2009)

darkside said:


> Kennas , it's not just the Catholic Church that promote a divide in families if you do not adhere to their beliefs.My parents have been banned by the church from seeing my family and of course their grandchildren because i choose not to be brainwashed by this organisation, a few years ago my parents gave us the ultimatum of joining their church or never having contact with them again



I'm really sorry to hear that, darkside.  It's their loss, of course, but so unnecessary and silly.
It may be a mainstream church, but such a view seems, as suggested, very cult-like.


----------



## gav (13 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Yes, it would be my own secular beliefs shaped by what's best in the year 2009 in Melbourne. Or, Lima at the moment.
> 
> Gav, my point is (making it poorly obviously) that religion (Catholicism in this case) lays down some moral laws that it's follows must abide by. Some churches probably try to enforce this dogma more than others. The Catholic church's stance on homosexuality can *not* be changed. I've forgotten the term, but it's a policy that they can NEVER back down on. If you want to be a good Catholic, you have to follow this teaching. No ifs or butts according to the Vatican. This is a law interpreted from the Books, which probably made some sence in the ancient world. There was a good social reason for it I am sure.
> 
> While Tink, and I assume many many other Catholics are 'ok' with homosexuality, I'm just saying that there can be instances where this moral law causes some hardship when it need not. This whole discussion is just in responce to Tink saying that the Catholic Church has made her and her family very happy. *I'm just providing the other perspective where the Catholic Church has actually destroyed a mother-daughter relationship because of their stance on homosexuality. That's all.*




I understand the point you are making Kennas, and of course I believe it is wrong to suggest to someone to end their relationship with their child due to sexual preference.  But at the end of the day it is still the parent's that made the decision, not the Church.


----------



## Julia (13 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Gav, my point is (making it poorly obviously)



On the contrary, Kennas, it's a very valid point and you've made it well.



> that religion (Catholicism in this case) lays down some moral laws that it's follows must abide by. Some churches probably try to enforce this dogma more than others. The Catholic church's stance on homosexuality can *not* be changed. I've forgotten the term, but it's a policy that they can NEVER back down on. If you want to be a good Catholic, you have to follow this teaching. No ifs or butts according to the Vatican. This is a law interpreted from the Books, which probably made some sence in the ancient world. There was a good social reason for it I am sure.
> 
> While Tink, and I assume many many other Catholics are 'ok' with homosexuality, I'm just saying that there can be instances where this moral law causes some hardship when it need not. This whole discussion is just in responce to Tink saying that the Catholic Church has made her and her family very happy. I'm just providing the other perspective where the Catholic Church has actually destroyed a mother-daughter relationship because of their stance on homosexuality. That's all.


----------



## noirua (13 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Yes, it would be my own secular beliefs shaped by what's best in the year 2009 in Melbourne. Or, Lima at the moment.
> 
> Gav, my point is (making it poorly obviously) that religion (Catholicism in this case) lays down some moral laws that it's follows must abide by. Some churches probably try to enforce this dogma more than others. The Catholic church's stance on homosexuality can *not* be changed. I've forgotten the term, but it's a policy that they can NEVER back down on. If you want to be a good Catholic, you have to follow this teaching. No ifs or butts according to the Vatican. This is a law interpreted from the Books, which probably made some sence in the ancient world. There was a good social reason for it I am sure.
> 
> While Tink, and I assume many many other Catholics are 'ok' with homosexuality, I'm just saying that there can be instances where this moral law causes some hardship when it need not. This whole discussion is just in responce to Tink saying that the Catholic Church has made her and her family very happy. I'm just providing the other perspective where the Catholic Church has actually destroyed a mother-daughter relationship because of their stance on homosexuality. That's all.



One day the Catholic Church will elect a with it Pope who will change things and bring the Church out of the 16th century. Maybe, even he will have to pretend he agrees with the mainstream to get elected.


----------



## peterh (13 June 2009)

noirua said:


> One day the Catholic Church will elect a with it Pope who will change things and bring the Church out of the 16th century. Maybe, even he will have to pretend he agrees with the mainstream to get elected.




I would rather the church stands up clearly for what it believes in and what it was built upon, rather than be swayed by the mainstream opinion of the day.


----------



## bellenuit (14 June 2009)

peterh said:


> I would rather the church stands up clearly for what it believes in and what it was built upon, rather than be swayed by the mainstream opinion of the day.




But isn't the history of the Christian churches that of belatedly accepting the mainstream opinion of the day?

What the Christian churches believed in in the 12 century is vastly different to what they believed in in the 16th century which is vastly different to what they believe in today. Adulterers aren't stoned to death any more nor are ladies with Tourette syndrome burned at the stake. As society became enlightened over the ages, so too did the churches, though often reluctantly and always belatedly.

I know the churches are not democracies and would not expect them to be swayed by the populist opinions of the day. But the churches are their people and people, even those who are fundamentally conservative, who open their minds to new ideas will change over time. The churches will follow suit. The old guard will die out and young blood will take its place. That's how it is and I suppose how it should be.


----------



## Tink (14 June 2009)

The core of the churches teachings will never change 

but they have moved with changes in society...


----------



## bellenuit (14 June 2009)

Tink said:


> The core of the churches teachings will never change
> 
> but they have moved with changes in society...




The core has always been changing. As science made certain positions and beliefs untenable, then the church slowly dropped those positions. 

We may say that they were never core beliefs, so abandoning those beliefs is inconsequential. But at one stage they were core beliefs and the churchmen of the day would equally have said that they were part of the fundamental foundations of their faith.


----------



## peterh (14 June 2009)

bellenuit said:


> But isn't the history of the Christian churches that of belatedly accepting the mainstream opinion of the day?
> 
> What the Christian churches believed in in the 12 century is vastly different to what they believed in in the 16th century which is vastly different to what they believe in today. Adulterers aren't stoned to death any more nor are ladies with Tourette syndrome burned at the stake. As society became enlightened over the ages, so too did the churches, though often reluctantly and always belatedly.
> 
> I know the churches are not democracies and would not expect them to be swayed by the populist opinions of the day. But the churches are their people and people, even those who are fundamentally conservative, who open their minds to new ideas will change over time. The churches will follow suit. The old guard will die out and young blood will take its place. That's how it is and I suppose how it should be.




For the church to be true to its basis then it needs to be aware of the mainstream opinion of the day but stick to its foundations. Adulterers being stoned to death and ladies with Tourette syndrome burned at the stake are certainly not instructions from the christian bible. What the church believed during the 12th century should have been the same as they believed in the 16th century and also what they believe today. The teachings in the bible are amazingly timeless.


----------



## peterh (14 June 2009)

bellenuit said:


> The core has always been changing. As science made certain positions and beliefs untenable, then the church slowly dropped those positions.
> 
> We may say that they were never core beliefs, so abandoning those beliefs is inconsequential. But at one stage they were core beliefs and the churchmen of the day would equally have said that they were part of the fundamental foundations of their faith.




I agree that the church has been changing and dropping parts of its foundation. I also think this is one of the reasons why the church is becoming more and more irrelevant today. Our increased understanding of science has not made various positions and beliefs untenable, though that is certainly what we are told in the mainstream media.


----------



## bellenuit (14 June 2009)

peterh said:


> Adulterers being stoned to death and ladies with Tourette syndrome burned at the stake are certainly not instructions from the christian bible.




Tourette syndrome was obviously unknown until relatively recently, so I don't expect extracts in the Bible to mention it. What I should have emphasized was that people with such disorders were often seen as being sinners (or proof of being sinners) and the churchmen of previous times then used that together with statements in the Bible as an excuse to torture and kill them.

Below are some biblical instructions (thanks to Google). I know these have been hacked to death in many forums and that most non-fundamental Christial churches do not espouse these instructions today. But that is my point. The selective reading of the Bible today is because of the Church being influenced by an enlightened society, causing the church to gradually change too.

_Leviticus 20:10 >>
If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

1 Kings 21:13 >>
Then the two worthless men came in and sat before him; and the worthless men testified against him, even against Naboth, before the people, saying, "Naboth cursed God and the king." So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death with stones. 

Deuteronomy. Preceding number represents Chapter.

12.10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
17.2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman who hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God in transgressing His covenant,
17.3 and hath gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded,
17.4 and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it and inquired diligently, and behold, it be true and the thing certain that such abomination is wrought in Israel,
17.5 then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman who has committed that wicked thing unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die.
17.6 At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to death, but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Stonning to death punishment for disobidient sons.
21.21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, so that he die. So shalt thou put evil away from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

Stonning to death punishment for non virgin women.
22.20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel,(unmarried women)
22.21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the ***** in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Death punishment for adultery.
22.22 “If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Stoning to death punishment for virgin women for adultery.
22.23 If a damsel who is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her,
22.24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones, that they die ”” the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man,because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife; so thou shalt put away evil from among you._


----------



## peterh (14 June 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Tourette syndrome was obviously unknown until relatively recently, so I don't expect extracts in the Bible to mention it. What I should have emphasized was that people with such disorders were often seen as being sinners (or proof of being sinners) and the churchmen of previous times then used that together with statements in the Bible as an excuse to torture and kill them.
> 
> Below are some biblical instructions (thanks to Google). I know these have been hacked to death in many forums and that most non-fundamental Christial churches do not espouse these instructions today. But that is my point. The selective reading of the Bible today is because of the Church being influenced by an enlightened society, causing the church to gradually change too.
> 
> ...




The Bible can say whatever you want it to say when verses are taken in isolation. It needs to be read as a whole book, including the Old and New Testament.

You are right that an awful lot of evil has been committed by people taking the Bible out of context. An obvious example is the 'Christian' crusades. Those people called themselves Christians, but they can't have been based on what we are taught in the Bible.


----------



## darkside (14 June 2009)

peterh said:


> The Bible can say whatever you want it to say when verses are taken in isolation. It needs to be read as a whole book, including the Old and New Testament.
> 
> You are right that an awful lot of evil has been committed by people taking the Bible out of context. An obvious example is the 'Christian' crusades. Those people called themselves Christians, but they can't have been based on what we are taught in the Bible.




So true a lot of evil has been performed in the name of christianity,  a favourite Tee shirt of mine says " if you can get a man to believe absurditys, you can get him to commit attrocities". But by the same token , it is obvious that christians believeing they are doing the right thing , tend to use a lot of lattitude regarding interpretation of the babble.
If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you” (2 Kings 18:27)?  Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered.  The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men.  Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?And how else can you interperate this other than disgracefull and evil.


----------



## peterh (14 June 2009)

darkside said:


> So true a lot of evil has been performed in the name of christianity,  a favourite Tee shirt of mine says " if you can get a man to believe absurditys, you can get him to commit attrocities". But by the same token , it is obvious that christians believeing they are doing the right thing , tend to use a lot of lattitude regarding interpretation of the babble.
> If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you” (2 Kings 18:27)?  Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered.  The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men.  Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?And how else can you interperate this other than disgracefull and evil.




This will be a matter of context and interpretation, but I agree that the verses in isolation look extremely nasty. I need some time but leave it with me and I'll provide a fuller response.


----------



## bunyip (14 June 2009)

peterh said:


> Adulterers being stoned to death and ladies with Tourette syndrome burned at the stake are certainly not instructions from the christian bible.




Well I don't know if they are or are not instructions from the Bible.

But I can tell you of one instruction that definitely _*is*_ in the Bible.....
*'Stone your son to death if he's a drunkard'. *
The actual wording in the Bible is somewhat more colourful, but the instruction is clear....._*Kill your son if he's a drunkard!*_
Perhaps a drunkard is someone who is habitually drunk, or maybe it's just some poor bugger who gets a bit under the weather after a booze up with his mates when they win their weekend football match, same as my mates and I used to do. Whatever.....it's hypocrisy of the worst kind when the Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill' on the one hand, then instructs you to kill your son.

There are many examples of the Bible glorifying, promoting and encouraging the most horrible acts of murder and cruelty. 
I'm happy to acknowledge that the Bible contains a lot of good advice, and that the ten commandments lay some pretty solid foundations for living life as a decent person.
But at the same time, the Bible contains a lot of very bad advice and instructions to commit barbaric and criminal acts that no decent person would countenance.

 There's a lot of goodness in the Christian religion, and I've already given an example in a previous post. But there's an uglier side to it too.


----------



## bellenuit (14 June 2009)

peterh said:


> The Bible can say whatever you want it to say when verses are taken in isolation. It needs to be read as a whole book, including the Old and New Testament.




I have some difficulty with that statement as it seems to imply that taken as a whole The Bible gives a different set of instructions/teaching than individual books or verses.

It is not in the same category as a writer saying that a critic has taken a line from his book out of context and that one must read the whole paragraph to understand or appreciate what he has written.

Verses from The Bible read in isolation are explicit (in most cases) in their meaning. There is no alternative interpretation. Those same lines read in the broader context of the Biblical Book from which they are quoted, or of the Old or of the New Testament or of both together, don't suddenly start to take on a different meaning from the initial interpretation. When read in the broader context one can only conclude that The Bible is full of contradictions. Statements about killing and raping innocents (as quoted by Darkside from Numbers 31) are not seen in a different light because of statements in the New Testament about loving your enemies or your neighbours. 

The contradictions come from the origin of The Bible itself. The books were written by different people, at different times, in different places and perhaps even with different agendas. We also know some books of The Bible were suppressed by the rulers or popes in later centuries because they didn't suit their agendas or because they gave a different meaning to what was then the accepted interpretations. 

The mainstream churches today no longer suppress particular books or passages in The Bible. They simply ignore them. The reason, in my opinion, is that it is hard to argue that The Bible is the word of God, while at the same time having to justify the contradictions it poses. If it is not all seen as the word of God, why should any of it be seen as the word of God.


----------



## Tink (14 June 2009)

To darkside and bunyip 

Thats the difference between a 'cult' and a 'religion' - how the words are interpreted 

Mine is a religion - not a cult - where they hurt people...


----------



## Tink (14 June 2009)

As for the core/ foundations/ teachings - they have been the same from when I learnt to when my children learnt - nothing has changed...

same everything to the word...


----------



## bunyip (14 June 2009)

Tink said:


> To darkside and bunyip
> 
> Thats the difference between a 'cult' and a 'religion' - how the words are interpreted
> 
> Mine is a religion - not a cult - where they hurt people...




So tell me then Tink.....how would you interpret an instruction that tells you to stone your son to death if he gets drunk?


----------



## Tink (14 June 2009)

I would interpret that as moral ground - give your child an earful, its not the right thing to do..

If you go back over old songs in history, their words are harsh, not meaning to hurt people.. some of the old Aussie songs and poems are the same..


----------



## ColB (14 June 2009)

> Originally posted by Bunyip:
> 
> "So tell me then Tink.....how would you interpret an instruction that tells you to stone your son to death if he gets drunk?"






> Originally posted by Tink....."I would interpret that as moral ground - give your child an earful, its not the right thing to do..
> 
> If you go back over old songs in history, their words are harsh, not meaning to hurt people.. some of the old Aussie songs and poems are the same.."




Strange sort of analogy to compare the teachings of the Bible to old songs in history.

Were any of these songs or poems that you refer to written by someone that seeks to influence or lay guidelines for people on how to live their life like the Bible does?

Or let's step it up a level.  Would you have the same response had Bunyip asked "how would you interpret an instruction that tells you to stone your son to death if he were an adulterer?"


----------



## Tink (14 June 2009)

well you never know - Banjo Patterson and the like might have...lol

Its all history talk - they arent gonna change the words to redo it..
You gotta read between the lines...


----------



## bellenuit (14 June 2009)

Tink said:


> I would interpret that as moral ground - give your child an earful, its not the right thing to do..




Out of curiosity, how do you think an early Christian would have interpreted that instruction? And if it is the word of God, why did he not say that you should "give your son an earful, if he gets drunk?

Not wanting to challenge your beliefs, but it is all so contradictory and arbitrary.

The other thing I find confusing is the use of the term "core" in relation to teachings and beliefs. Why should some things be core and others not. If one truly believes that The Bible is the word of God, then how can one discriminate between his instructions. Isn't that saying you know better than God what God meant?


----------



## matty2.0 (14 June 2009)

1. One should separate spirituality vs. religion. 

Religion is an unchecked belief in a higher being. 
Whereas spirituality is a core value system with which you live your life. 

Christianity incorporates both:
- a belief in a God
- and a value system, code of living e.g. "The Golden Rule - Do unto others". 

You can live a life of spirituality and get along without the need for religion. 

2. You can say "The Beauty in Religion", but you can also show a video of "The Ugliness of Religion", like all the extremists who use religion to destroy and destruct. If the latter, there are plenty of examples, especially in our current times. 

3. This is gonna be a very long thread. Why start it for? This forum is supposed to be about stocks/trading.


----------



## ColB (14 June 2009)

> Originally Posted by Matty:
> 
> This is gonna be a very long thread. Why start it for? This forum is supposed to be about stocks/trading.




It's Sunday Matty, the market is not open


----------



## bunyip (14 June 2009)

Tink said:


> I would interpret that as moral ground - give your child an earful, its not the right thing to do..
> 
> If you go back over old songs in history, their words are harsh, not meaning to hurt people.. some of the old Aussie songs and poems are the same..




But we're not talking about a song here - we're talking about a book that's revered by Christians the world over, a book that has all the instructions and guidelines by which they're supposed to live.
I think it's highly likely that the _'Kill you son for drunkenness'_ command was for real, rather than just a way of saying '_give your son an earful.' _
People lived by very strict codes back in those days...promiscuity, drunkenness, thieving and such like were regarded as deadly serious crimes and were punishable by death. In some countries and in some religions they still are.
Of course, nobody in their right mind would suggest these days that you should kill your son for drunkenness. 

This is, in my opinion, where the Bible falls apart as a credible book of instructions for decent living.
The entire book needs to be re-written. Any instruction that goes against all codes of decency, (e.g. kill your son if he's a drunkard) should be taken out of the Bible.
Ditto for the obscene glorification of crimes in which esteemed biblical characters sacked, burned and murdered entire tribes and villages, raped women etc.

It's just not on for a book to glorify horrific crimes and promote murder, and for that very same book to be revered as a road map for Christians and recommended as essential reading for little kids, or anyone else for that matter.
Christians need to take a long hard look at what they believe in, not just on the issues of God and creation, but also in regard to what sort of behaviour they consider to be decent and acceptable. Then they need to produce a book that clearly outlines those views.
If it's not Christain policy, it shouldn't be in the Bible.

There is much in the present day Bible that's worthy of inclusion in a new updated version, but there's also much that is unworthy.


----------



## Julia (14 June 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I have some difficulty with that statement as it seems to imply that taken as a whole The Bible gives a different set of instructions/teaching than individual books or verses.
> 
> It is not in the same category as a writer saying that a critic has taken a line from his book out of context and that one must read the whole paragraph to understand or appreciate what he has written.
> 
> ...






bellenuit said:


> Out of curiosity, how do you think an early Christian would have interpreted that instruction? And if it is the word of God, why did he not say that you should "give your son an earful, if he gets drunk?
> 
> Not wanting to challenge your beliefs, but it is all so contradictory and arbitrary.
> 
> The other thing I find confusing is the use of the term "core" in relation to teachings and beliefs. Why should some things be core and others not. If one truly believes that The Bible is the word of God, then how can one discriminate between his instructions. Isn't that saying you know better than God what God meant?



Bellenuit, if I were religious I'd say
 "Thank God for the commonsense and rational approach of Bellenuit's posts'.


----------



## bunyip (14 June 2009)

Tink said:


> well you never know - Banjo Patterson and the like might have...lol
> 
> Its all history talk - they arent gonna change the words to redo it..
> You gotta read between the lines...




The only reason '_you gotta read between the lines_' is if you don't want to accept the confronting reality that the Bible is in many respects a very harsh and cruel book that promotes, glorifies, and instructs people to commit some very nasty crimes.

Your assertion that 'you gotta read between the lines' is a good example of you seeing only what you want to see. 
I believe this is something that you accused others of earlier in this thread in post 108 when you said, in reference to posters who had spoken out against religion..."They only see what they want to see."


----------



## bunyip (15 June 2009)

Here's another true story that shows a positive side of religion. 
I don't say it shows the beauty of religion - I think the word 'beauty' does a poor job of accurately describing religion - but there's no question that many people have changed their lives for the better as a result of religion.

I was present when the minister of our church stood up in front of the congregation and told this story.
Here it is in his own words, as best I can remember it.

_A small boy grew up in a violent family. His father was a drunk and a womaniser who habitually subjected his wife and children to abuse and physical violence.
His mother finally turned to alcohol herself as a way of dealing with the abuse and beatings.
One by one, the children of the family started spending more and more time on the streets, mixing with the wrong crowd and getting into petty crime....anything was better than being at home and getting yelled at and beaten by their father.
By this time the boy reached his teenage years he was spending most of his time as a street kid, rarely going home to his family. He'd been in a number of scrapes with the police and was well on his way to becoming a junkie and alcoholic.
He was aware that his life was spiralling out of control but he felt powerless to change it. At the age of nineteen he was suicidal and on the verge of killing himself to end the pain and misery of his life. Only a lack of courage to actually 'do it', held him back.
In a desperate bid for help before it was too late, he wandered into a Salvation Army hall and poured out his heart to one of the Salvo men. 
He visited the Salvos frequently after that. They steered him back on the right path, taught him that he was a person of worth and potential, got him an electrical apprenticeship. 
After qualifying as an electrician, he expressed his desire to join the ministry. 
That young boy is now a grown man with a wife and family, and is a fully ordained minister of the Uniting Church. He stands before you today....that man is me._

Well, there were quite a few wet eyes in the congregation after he told that story, believe me. This particular minister was one of the most likeable and decent people you'd ever meet...it was very difficult to associate him with the image of a street kid who was into drugs and booze and petty crime.
I spoke to him at some length after the service, and he told me that if he hadn't found Christianity there is no doubt whatsoever that he would have killed himself or have been killed or ended up in jail.


----------



## noirua (15 June 2009)

peterh said:


> I would rather the church stands up clearly for what it believes in and what it was built upon, rather than be swayed by the mainstream opinion of the day.



That's all very good, but there are matters that have nothing to do with belief that the church will not budge on. St Peter, the first Pope, no doubt believed that Apostles,and disciples should be allowed to marry. Strange that the present Pope is strongly against its Priests marrying and this is a sad disaster of Catholicism.

However, If a priest of another religion, Church of England for instance, joins the Roman Catholic Church he is allowed to become one of its Priests and this, even if he is married.


----------



## peterh (15 June 2009)

noirua said:


> That's all very good, but there are matters that have nothing to do with belief that the church will not budge on. St Peter, the first Pope, no doubt believed that Apostles,and disciples should be allowed to marry. Strange that the present Pope is strongly against its Priests marrying and this is a sad disaster of Catholicism.
> 
> However, If a priest of another religion, Church of England for instance, joins the Roman Catholic Church he is allowed to become one of its Priests and this, even if he is married.




Personally I would have thought there is enough to keep us going within the Bible, so I would tend to agree that adding more complexity on top of this might not be a good idea.


----------



## bunyip (15 June 2009)

peterh said:


> You are right that an awful lot of evil has been committed by people taking the Bible out of context. An obvious example is the 'Christian' crusades. Those people called themselves Christians, but they can't have been based on what we are taught in the Bible.




Why not?


----------



## bellenuit (15 June 2009)

bunyip said:


> Here's another true story that shows a positive side of religion. I don't say it shows the beauty of religion - I think the word 'beauty' does a poor job of accurately describing religion




IMO that's an excellent way of putting it. There is no beauty in religion itself, but it does have a positive side that inspires many of its followers to do beautiful things and create beautiful things. But such inspiration is not the exclusive domain of religion, as some previous examples have attested.


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2009)

bellenuit said:


> IMO that's an excellent way of putting it. There is no beauty in religion itself, but it does have a positive side that inspires many of its followers to do beautiful things and create beautiful things. But such inspiration is not the exclusive domain of religion, as some previous examples have attested.



Nice point. 

Perhaps it's a matter of assessing the act and whether it is based on religious dogma, or on general modern day social customs.


----------



## bunyip (15 June 2009)

matty2.0 said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. This is gonna be a very long thread. Why start it for? This forum is supposed to be about stocks/trading.




Matty ol' son.......It's a stock forum in name but it also encourages discussion on a wide range of issues unrelated to stocks. You can confirm this for yourself by having a quick look through the topics of the various threads, or you can email Joe, who owns and moderates this forum, and get his take on it.
You'll find that he confirms what I'm telling you.


----------



## darkside (15 June 2009)

peterh said:


> This will be a matter of context and interpretation, but I agree that the verses in isolation look extremely nasty. I need some time but leave it with me and I'll provide a fuller response.




Peterh, thanks for looking into that for me , when your done perhaps you could explain to me in what context we could all take this ;Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you."  (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

    Even though he didn't kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone's prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God's love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.


----------



## ColB (15 June 2009)

> Originally Posted by Tink:
> 
> well you never know - Banjo Patterson and the like might have...lol
> 
> ...






> Originally posted by Bunyip:
> 
> The only reason _'you gotta read between the lines'_ is if you don't want to accept the *confronting* reality that the Bible is in many respects a very harsh and cruel book that promotes, glorifies, and instructs people to commit some very nasty crimes.
> 
> ...




Well put Bunyip!  I was rather bemused by the fluffy reply to my post and it does show that when some hard questions are put some people go missing.


----------



## Tink (16 June 2009)

Another beautiful story Bunyip, thanks for sharing
I still dont agree with you that I see what I want to see

I gave you my interpretation, if you dont agree with it, then thats your problem..

I see what I have seen in the Catholic Church all my life, and as I have stated, it has been all good, for myself, my family and the billion of others that are involved in the Church.

The Catholic Church is one of the oldest Religions with alot of history

I noticed you said 'our church' - what church are you in?

and for the record, my childrens school has a 3 year waiting list and its not a small school. Part of the acceptance is that the people have to attend Church

Alot of people still have the Catholic faith... like it or not...


----------



## Tink (16 June 2009)

well Matty, this thread is about beauty in religion, but people cant help hijacking it..
Plenty of other threads but they always seem to come in this one......
If they arent interested, they keep wanting to be interested...

Unless you want to add something about the beauty of religion, I will leave this thread to MS+T, who started it...

On topic folks


----------



## bunyip (16 June 2009)

Tink said:


> Another beautiful story Bunyip, thanks for sharing
> I still dont agree with you that I see what I want to see
> 
> I gave you my interpretation, if you dont agree with it, then thats your problem..
> ...





No Tink, my disagreement with your interpretation is not my problem at all - it's simply my view and it's no more a problem for me than it is for you or anyone else.

What church am I in? I'm not in any church.

I'm not sure why you're defending the Catholic church so strongly to me. Have I attacked your church? Not that I'm aware of.
My opinion that you're seeing only what you want to see was related to your interpretation of a command in the Bible, and had nothing to do with your church.

However, I must challenge your statement that it's been 'all good' for the billions who have been involved in the Catholic church.
Here again, you appear to be seeing only what you want to see.

The thousands of people who were molested by Catholic priests as children would be highly unlikely to agree that their experience with the Catholic church has been 'all good'. 
Neither would a friend of mine, and thousands of others like him, who were subjected to regular beatings as children in Catholic boarding schools.
And the orphans who were subjected to beatings and sexual abuse at the hands of nuns and priests in Catholic run orphanages - I doubt if they'd agree with your contention that it's been 'all good' for members of the Catholic church.

My sister in law spent years in a convent, training to be a Catholic nun, before she quit with less than a year to go. She can tell some harrowing stories of what goes on in those convents. 
She's another one who would strongly disagree with your contention that it's 'all good' for everyone in the Catholic church. 
Her experiences in the Catholic church are the reason why she's no longer a Catholic.

Anyway, I'm not here to attack your church - I'm just trying to bring a bit of balance to the discussion. If your church has been good for you and your family and the people you know through your church, then that's great.


Tink, on this thread we have people who are so enraptured with religion and Christianity, and in your case Catholicism, that they appear to be completely unable to acknowledge the uglier side to churches, Christianity and the Bible.

At the other end of the scale we have people who can never say a good word about churches or religion, and appear to be completely blind to the tremendous amount of good in these organizations.

In the middle you have people like me who try to embrace a more balanced viewpoint.
I'm more than happy to acknowledge that the Bible contains some very good advice and lessons for life. But I'm honest and realistic enough to also point out the more unsavoury and contradictory side of the Bible.

I readily admit that Christian churches are for the most part decent institutions comprised of decent people who live decent and wholesome lives.
They're supportive of people who are less fortunate than themselves, and will go to extraordinary lengths in some cases to help these people.
I've told two true real life stories to support this.
But at the same time, I'm not so unrealistic as to claim it's 'all good' for everyone who is involved in churches, whether it's the Catholic church or any other.
I'm well aware that there's an uglier side of religion as well as the good side.
And you're aware of it too.


----------



## Tink (16 June 2009)

Sorry if I came across as blunt Bunyip, wasnt suppose to sound like that

Of course I have heard of the bad side, by the billion, I meant the ones involved now and happy..

I am not defending the catholic church, there is good and bad in all religions

This thread is about the good..


----------



## bunyip (16 June 2009)

Tink said:


> Sorry if I came across as blunt Bunyip, wasnt suppose to sound like that
> 
> Of course I have heard of the bad side, by the billion, I meant the ones involved now and happy..
> 
> ...




No apology needed really, but I'll graciously accept it anyway.

Yes, there's good and bad in churches and religion and in the Bible too.

What do you think of my suggestion that the Bible needs to be re-written to better reflect true Christian values?
I see no point in subjecting people, particularly young children in religious instruction classes in schools and Sunday schools, to stories of respected Biblical characters committing rape and murder and other evil behaviour, all in the name of Christianity.
I see no point in instructions that tell you to stone your son to death for drunkenness, no matter what interpretation we put on that command.

There's a lot of bad mixed in with the good in the Bible....there's no question about that.
Don't you think that an updated version is in order - a version that tosses out the references that glorify violence and incite people to commit murder and other cruelty in the name of Christianity and God?
Such a version would keep all the good and solid foundations of the Bible, and get rid of the bad. I doubt if it's going to happen. 
But don't you think it _*should*_ happen? The Bible would surely be better for it.


----------



## Sean K (16 June 2009)

bunyip said:


> What do you think of my suggestion that the Bible needs to be re-written to better reflect true Christian values?



Couldn't happen bunyip. Their authority is written in the pages. It was probably easier to alter it centuries ago due to a lack of readily available photocopy machines and scanners, but we're stuck with the rules now, as absurd as they may be. 

I actually have a small project underway tentitively titled 'The New 10 Commandments', which I hope will capture modern day moral values.

I'll be keeping most of the 10th Commandment in of course. I definately do not want to covert my neighbour's goat, or male or female slave.

Actually, maybe the female slave is OK....


----------



## GumbyLearner (16 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Couldn't happen bunyip. Their authority is written in the pages. It was probably easier to alter it centuries ago due to a lack of readily available photocopy machines and scanners, but we're stuck with the rules now, as absurd as they may be.
> 
> I actually have a small project underway tentitively titled 'The New 10 Commandments', which I hope will capture modern day moral values.
> 
> ...




I like this quote Kennas  

The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes.

Mark Twain


----------



## peterh (16 June 2009)

darkside said:


> So true a lot of evil has been performed in the name of christianity,  a favourite Tee shirt of mine says " if you can get a man to believe absurditys, you can get him to commit attrocities". But by the same token , it is obvious that christians believeing they are doing the right thing , tend to use a lot of lattitude regarding interpretation of the babble.
> If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you” (2 Kings 18:27)?  Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered.  The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men.  Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?And how else can you interperate this other than disgracefull and evil.






peterh said:


> This will be a matter of context and interpretation, but I agree that the verses in isolation look extremely nasty. I need some time but leave it with me and I'll provide a fuller response.




2 Kings 18:27
"He replied, 'Do you think you and the king are the only ones the emperor sent me to say all these things to? No, I am also talking to the people who are sitting on the wall, who will have to eat their excrement and drink their urine, just as you will.'"

Who says this? One of the three highest officials of the Assyrian emperor.

Who is he saying it to? Directly to Eliakim, Shebna and Joah, three officials of Hezekiah, king of Judah. Indirectly to King Hezekiah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Context? The Assyrian emperor has sent an army to conquer Jerusalem. The army is right outside Jerusalem and the three Assyrian officials are threatening three officials of King Hezekiah. The officials of Judah ask the official of Assyria to speak in Aramaic, not Hebrew:

2 Kings 18: 26
"Then Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah told the official, 'Speak Aramaic to us, sir. We understand it. Don't speak Hebrew; all the people on the wall are listening.'"

They didn't want the soldiers and citizens in Jerusalem to hear the conversation as it could effect their morale. That only encouraged the Assyrian official to continue speaking in Aramaic and become even more threatening. The Assyrians were going to siege Jerusalem and force all its inhabitants to "eat their excrement and drink their urine...". These words were a threat to the people of Jerusalem to make them terrified and surrender the city to the Assyrians.

Hopefully that helps with the context of those words. I'm still to look into Numbers 31.


----------



## darkside (16 June 2009)

peterh said:


> 2 Kings 18:27
> "He replied, 'Do you think you and the king are the only ones the emperor sent me to say all these things to? No, I am also talking to the people who are sitting on the wall, who will have to eat their excrement and drink their urine, just as you will.'"
> 
> Who says this? One of the three highest officials of the Assyrian emperor.
> ...




Peterh , thank you for that , and as i asked before if you could also give me your spin on Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God, and how that isn't the most evil wicked bit of child abuse a father could ever perform on his son , i would really appreciate that as well.


----------



## peterh (22 June 2009)

darkside said:


> So true a lot of evil has been performed in the name of christianity,  a favourite Tee shirt of mine says " if you can get a man to believe absurditys, you can get him to commit attrocities". But by the same token , it is obvious that christians believeing they are doing the right thing , tend to use a lot of lattitude regarding interpretation of the babble.
> If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you” (2 Kings 18:27)?  Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered.  The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men.  Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?And how else can you interperate this other than disgracefull and evil.






peterh said:


> This will be a matter of context and interpretation, but I agree that the verses in isolation look extremely nasty. I need some time but leave it with me and I'll provide a fuller response.




I assume these are the verses you speak of:

Numbers 31

1-2: "The Lord said to Moses, 'Punish the Midianites for what they did to the people of Israel. After you have done that, you will die.'"

7-8: "They attacked Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed all the men, including the five kings of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba. They also killed Balaam son of Beor."

17-18: "So now kill every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins."

Numbers is an account of a people who were often discouraged and afraid in the face of hardship, and who rebelled against God. This is during their 40 years in the wilderness.

God sent the Israelites to war against the Midianites because the Midianite women (daughters of Moab) enticed the Israelites to sexual immorality and idolatry. Before God sent them to war he severely punished the Israelites. See Numbers 25 for more on this.

The Midianite women were killed because they led the Israelites astray, they were not spared. The surviving women were not raped by Moses and his men, though they were taken to the Israelite camp. This war was waged due to sexual immorality, so this wouldn't be continued through rape after all that blood had just been spilt.

God provided rules for the Israelites to follow, and when they turned away from God, the punishment was often severe.

As for children reading this at Sunday School, they wouldn't as it isn't age appropriate. The focus at Sunday School would be mainly the New Testament.


----------



## peterh (24 June 2009)

darkside said:


> Peterh, thanks for looking into that for me , when your done perhaps you could explain to me in what context we could all take this ;Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you."  (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.
> 
> Even though he didn't kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone's prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God's love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.






darkside said:


> Peterh , thank you for that , and as i asked before if you could also give me your spin on Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God, and how that isn't the most evil wicked bit of child abuse a father could ever perform on his son , i would really appreciate that as well.




Genesis 22: 1-18

These are complex and thought provoking verses. God was testing Abraham's faith in a very powerful way.

(v2) "'Take your son,' God said, 'your only son, Isaac, whom you love so much, and go to the land of Moriah. There on a mountain that I will show you, offer him as a sacrifice to me.'"

Would he be willing to forfeit the promise of being a great nation [Genesis 17: 1-8]? Would his love for God be greater than love for his son? Would he forfeit the security of his only son to help him in his old age? Would he trust God to show him his destination later? Would Abraham be obedient?

Abraham proved his obedience to, and faith in, God.

Abraham didn't lie when Isaac asked about the sacrifice and he said "God himself will provide one." (v8) Abraham knew that he would have many decendants through his son Isaac (Genesis 17: 2, 16, 18-19), so he assumed he would not have to kill his son, or if he did he would be brought back to life (clearly this is the hardest test a father could undertake). Also in verse 5 he says, "Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go over there and worship, and then we will come back to you." He assumed that Isaac would be coming back with him.

Isaac was a young adult when this occurred, and Abraham an old man, so this can't be considered child abuse. Isaac could easily have overpowered his father, but he chose not to. There are clear links in this story to God sending Jesus to die on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice.


----------



## darkside (25 June 2009)

peterh said:


> Genesis 22: 1-18
> 
> Isaac was a young adult when this occurred, and Abraham an old man, so this can't be considered child abuse. Isaac could easily have overpowered his father, but he chose not to. There are clear links in this story to God sending Jesus to die on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice.




Peterh , i'm not quite sure that because Isaac isnt a young child it justifies this attrocious act, or for that matter makes it right, perhaps one of us should check our "moral compass", i then suppose the rest of the story offends me even more , being against animal cruelty i found it distressing that God  still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram, if the RSPCA doesn't scream for a jail sentence for this then i give up, and no decent person can find this acceptable.


----------



## bellenuit (25 June 2009)

peterh said:


> Abraham proved his obedience to, and faith in, God.
> 
> Abraham didn't lie when Isaac asked about the sacrifice and he said "God himself will provide one." (v8) Abraham knew that he would have many decendants through his son Isaac (Genesis 17: 2, 16, 18-19), so he assumed he would not have to kill his son, or if he did he would be brought back to life (clearly this is the hardest test a father could undertake). Also in verse 5 he says, "Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go over there and worship, and then we will come back to you." He assumed that Isaac would be coming back with him.




What the posted extracts don't reveal is how God manifested himself to Abraham. I presume it couldn't have been in the form of a person as I was under the impression that Jesus was the first personification of God. Was it a voice from Heaven, like in the movies, or some such supernatural manifestation?

If Abraham was convinced that the person was God (and I assume a voice from Heaven would be pretty convincing), aren't you really saying that Abraham knew he wasn't really sacrificing his son, as he deducted his son would be brought back to life (and knew God had the power to do it) or that God was going to stop him at the last moment. Isn't there a bit of nod nod, wink wink there?

It would be a different matter if it were Jesus who was asking him to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Then Abraham would have had to have enormous faith to believe that the person asking him to do that act is truly the son of God and has the power to resurrect his son after the act. If his faith was misdirected, then he would be making a massive blunder.

As an aside, who was he talking to when he said: "Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go over there and worship, and then we will come back to you."


----------



## wayneL (25 June 2009)

bellenuit said:


> What the posted extracts don't reveal is how God manifested himself to Abraham. I presume it couldn't have been in the form of a person as I was under the impression that Jesus was the first personification of God. Was it a voice from Heaven, like in the movies, or some such supernatural manifestation?




Magic Mushies is my hypothesis... presuming said events actually did happen as written. 

Perhaps a case of Chinese whispers involved too.


----------



## darkside (25 June 2009)

Bellenuit, apparently, thats how God shows his love , by first off asking you to murder your son, then he does a bit of " tricked you" haha "april fool " but no seriously , i still yearn for the smell of burning flesh , so how about slaughtering a ram and burning that for me. 
See how much i love you people,  as a matter of fact because you have all been so bad i may even kill my own child , but don't worry too much , he will get better in a few days, then you can go on worshipping him. Yes i can't shoot any holes in that story !!!


----------



## Julia (25 June 2009)

darkside said:


> i then suppose the rest of the story offends me even more , being against animal cruelty i found it distressing that God  still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram, if the RSPCA doesn't scream for a jail sentence for this then i give up, and no decent person can find this acceptable.



Completely agree.   If adults, young and/or old, want to follow advice from celestial voices to sacrifice themselves, that's fine with me, but don't involve innocent animals.  This makes me more sick and furious than pretty much anything.   Just as well I believe the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of silly fairy stories anyway.


----------



## Bobby (26 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Completely agree.   If adults, young and/or old, want to follow advice from celestial voices to sacrifice themselves, that's fine with me, but don't involve innocent animals.  This makes me more sick and furious than pretty much anything.   Just as well I believe the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of silly fairy stories anyway.




Yep , only the muff-its & puppets follow the book called the bible ,  Requiem of the brain dead  ...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Completely agree.   If adults, young and/or old, want to follow advice from celestial voices to sacrifice themselves, that's fine with me, but don't involve innocent animals.  This makes me more sick and furious than pretty much anything.   Just as well I believe *the Bible* is nothing more than a bunch of silly fairy stories anyway.



Good evening Julia,

Actually the bible has some good stuff to take from. But it comes from a time much unlike the present. 

The new religion of man made global warming is the stuff of real fairy tales.


----------



## peterh (26 June 2009)

bellenuit said:


> What the posted extracts don't reveal is how God manifested himself to Abraham. I presume it couldn't have been in the form of a person as I was under the impression that Jesus was the first personification of God. Was it a voice from Heaven, like in the movies, or some such supernatural manifestation?
> 
> If Abraham was convinced that the person was God (and I assume a voice from Heaven would be pretty convincing), aren't you really saying that Abraham knew he wasn't really sacrificing his son, as he deducted his son would be brought back to life (and knew God had the power to do it) or that God was going to stop him at the last moment. Isn't there a bit of nod nod, wink wink there?
> 
> ...




It is not clear in what form God spoke to Abraham in this situation. In the past he had appeared to Abraham as a vision and some sort of angel, as two examples. They had already been communicating for many years. It may well have been a voice from Heaven.

This story is about Abraham's incredible faith in God. Abraham thought that God would save his son, but he could not be absolutely sure. This was an unimaginably tough test, and Abraham's faith proved to be strong enough.

Abraham was speaking to two servants when he said, "Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go over there and worship, and then we will come back to you."


----------



## peterh (26 June 2009)

darkside said:


> Peterh , i'm not quite sure that because Isaac isnt a young child it justifies this attrocious act, or for that matter makes it right, perhaps one of us should check our "moral compass", i then suppose the rest of the story offends me even more , being against animal cruelty i found it distressing that God  still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram, if the RSPCA doesn't scream for a jail sentence for this then i give up, and no decent person can find this acceptable.




The following comment I found explains animal sacrifice quite well.

"The wages of sin is death. The payment for that sin was the shed blood of the innocent. Since all mankind is inherently sinful, none could qualify as a sacrifice. So the innocent animal became the sacrifice.

When Jesus came on the scene, John the Baptist remarked that He was the lamb who takes away the sin of the world - the only innocent man.

We no longer need to sacrifice animals to cover our sins. Now all we need do is trust in Jesus for our salvation and He washes away all our sins. Good deal!"

I'm certainly far from perfect, but I'm confident that my moral compass is pointing in generally the right direction, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.


----------



## darkside (26 June 2009)

Peterh , please stop , regardless of beliefs , "John the Baptist" crazy superstitions , voodoo or whatever , there is absolutly no justification for cruelly mistreating any creature.!! 

No one honestly in their right mind could subscribe to a God that wants innocent animals sacrificed , or his own "child murdered" and the inhumane treatment of animals was well documented in the babble and used to please God. Tell me how this is not morally reprehensible: 

God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10 

Or If an ox gores a slave, the owner of the ox must pay the owner of the slave 30 shekels of silver, and "the ox shall be stoned." 21:32 .

 So we love both slavery and stoning , it's so wrong and if you can put spin on this to convince me and other decent people otherwise then i will stand corrected, otherwise that compass isn't pointing due north!


----------



## wayneL (26 June 2009)

To lighten to mood:

INTERVIEW WITH GOD 


George Burns was fantastic.


----------



## explod (26 June 2009)

> peterh Re: The beauty in religion
> 
> The following comment I found explains animal sacrifice quite well.
> 
> "The wages of sin is death. The payment for that sin was the shed blood of the innocent. Since all mankind is inherently sinful, none could qualify as a sacrifice. So the innocent animal became the sacrifice.




What gobbledygook.   My experience is that mankind is inherently good.  Explains only the interpretation of the scriptures, words which cannot be verified.

And the rest of the post, mere musings based on improbable stories with an intent to brainwash and control the sheeple.    

Done a fine job of it too.



> It's Snake Pliskin Re: The beauty in religion
> 
> The new religion of man made global warming is the stuff of real fairy tales.




Yeh, need to call it "global overpopulation" cause the Pope does not believe condoms stop aids and another great mantra, "suffer the little children and bring them unto me"    wonderful stuff from the pulpit, remember it well in fear as a child and we find out now many are/were PED'S.


----------



## Julia (26 June 2009)

peterh said:


> The following comment I found explains animal sacrifice quite well.
> 
> "The wages of sin is death. The payment for that sin was the shed blood of the innocent. Since all mankind is inherently sinful, none could qualify as a sacrifice. So the innocent animal became the sacrifice.




Oh, what utter twaddle.  

I usually try to be polite but this complete rubbish just is too much for me!

I have no idea how any reasonable person can take any notice of such absolute nonsense.

And, Peter, I hope you don't have any pets, given how little regard you have for animals.


----------



## peterh (26 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Oh, what utter twaddle.
> 
> I usually try to be polite but this complete rubbish just is too much for me!
> 
> ...




You don't agree with me Julia, that's fine, but why the diatribe? I'm attempting to explain a practice that took place more than 2000 years ago, not something I do in my backyard of a weekend.

I don't appreciate your comment about pets, that is not helpful and just plain wrong.


----------



## Tink (20 December 2009)

Hail *Mary MacKillop*, the Australian saint


----------



## Julia (20 December 2009)

Tink said:


> Hail *Mary MacKillop*, the Australian saint




Tink, can you explain (if you are so inclined) what this means to you?

I understand she is believed to be the source of two 'miracles', both involved in healing cancer.
Where can interested people find documentation about the medical aspects of these cures?


----------



## Tink (6 October 2010)

Beautiful story this morning 

*Miracle in our midst*

http://www.theage.com.au/national/miracle-in-our-midst-says-vatican-20101005-1664k.html


----------



## Ruby (6 October 2010)

Tink said:


> Beautiful story this morning
> 
> *Miracle in our midst*
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/miracle-in-our-midst-says-vatican-20101005-1664k.html




Ha ha....... yes, another 'god' to add to the thousands you catholics pray to!!   Whatever happened to "Thou shalt have no other gods but me"?   What utter nonsense!!  Such beliefs belong to the age when our primitive ancestors thought the earth was flat and the sky was a dome with holes in it, through which the stars shone at night.


----------



## Boognish (6 October 2010)

Tink said:


> Beautiful story this morning
> 
> *Miracle in our midst*
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/miracle-in-our-midst-says-vatican-20101005-1664k.html




Gosh what a loving God that gave this kid all those diseases at once.  Truly miraculous, that.


----------



## Sean K (6 October 2010)

Boognish said:


> Gosh what a loving God that gave this kid all those diseases at once.  Truly miraculous, that.



They were the work of the Devil.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 October 2010)

Tink said:


> Beautiful story this morning
> 
> *Miracle in our midst*
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/miracle-in-our-midst-says-vatican-20101005-1664k.html




Tink

Good Weekend (The Age / The Sydney Morning Herald) main story is about the investigation of the two miracles that enabled her canonisation.
Both are cancers but the second one, the more modern one, is an amazing story. The doctors sublitted it to their main journal as an amazing recovery. You should read it.


----------



## Tink (10 October 2010)

Thanks Knobby   I read the article too, it is an amazing story 

We will all be at St Patricks this Sunday, the Mary MacKillop Centre is pretty much across the road, and her memorial is on Brunswick St, where she was born.  

Then onto the Exhibition Buildings.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 October 2010)

Hope it is a great event.


----------



## Julia (10 October 2010)

Flicking through the channels this evening, I came across a '60 Minutes' segment about soon to be Saint Mary McKillop.

Apparently Sophie Delezio's family put Sophie up as a rival contender in the sainthood of Ms McKillop.

Now this little girl has had worse misfortune than any other kid her age I can think of:  two horrific accidents, the first involving burns to 80% of her body and where she lost both feet and several fingers.

It ran across the news media for weeks, as did her subsequent accident where she was hit by a car and suffered multiple serious fractures, so we are all well aware of the massive medical interventions (quite appropriately) devoted to young Sophie's recovery.

But it seems the family are attributing her survival to the fact that they prayed to Mary McKillop during Sophie's recovery phase.

Really?  Isn't that rather an insult to the intensive medical skills and thousands of taxpayer dollars devoted to this child's medical care?

And if it comes to that, why didn't the miraculous Mary McKillop save little Sophie from not just one but two horrific events in the first place?


----------



## Tink (11 October 2010)

There is a fine line between medical and spiritual, Julia, as I mentioned in another thread, I had my own experiences in Rome at a young age.

I dont understand the insult question - why would they be insulted?

Mary MacKillop has done alot more than just what has been written the last couple of days in the paper.


----------



## spooly74 (11 October 2010)

Tink said:


> There is a *fine line between medical and spiritual*, Julia, as I mentioned in another thread




_What _? Could you expand this (in bold) so it makes some sense? Any sense?
Of course, it could just be the psychological state you hold to be true. That pesky little 'b' word.


----------



## Ruby (11 October 2010)

Tink said:


> There is a fine line between medical and spiritual, Julia,




Tink, there is *not *a fine line between the medical and the spiritual. There is a very big dividing line. They are quite different things!  



> I dont understand the insult question - why would they be insulted?




Really? I am sure you understand the question very well but are choosing to avoid answering it.  Why would they *not *be insulted?   It was the brilliance and dedication of the medical teams, Sophie's strong fighting spirit, and the love and support of her family which saved her life!  How insulting to dismiss all of that and attribute her recovery to some long dead person.  



> Mary MacKillop has done alot more than just what has been written the last couple of days in the paper.




What?   People are free to believe any nonsense they like, but that does not make it fact.  

You didn't answer Julia's question about why little Sophie was not saved from two horrendous accidents in the first place, because, of course, such questions never get answered.

What we don't know, and what you catholics love to avoid confronting, is how many millions of prayers have been offered up to your saints which have *not *been answered!


----------



## basilio (11 October 2010)

All getting very theological here. 

Ruby asks why didn't GOD directly save little Sophia from her first 2 horrific accidents. That brings up the whole question free will versus determinism.  In religious theology mankind has the power to decide what they will do. God is not supposed to be pulling the strings.

With regard to miracles. When something really, really outrageous occurs in the seemingly spontaneous healing of person the medical profession does sit up and take notice. That was the reference to  the Medical journal writing up the second miracle.

And finally there isn't a big gap between the mind and medical science.  For example when it comes to curing people little old sugar pills are often far more effective than many of the drugs currently prescribed by drug companies.

It is very hard to consider the idea of a god willing to heal people on the intercession of some long dead person. That is why doctors stick to the facts and simply acknowledged that  there have been  spectacular recoveries tat seem to break every current medical rule.


----------



## Ruby (11 October 2010)

basilio said:


> All getting very theological here.
> 
> And finally there isn't a big gap between the mind and medical science.  For example when it comes to curing people little old sugar pills are often far more effective than many of the drugs currently prescribed by drug companies.




I didn't say there was a big gap between *mind *and medical science.  On the contrary, I strongly believe in the power of the mind to heal and to bring about seemingly impossible things.   I said there was a big gap between *spirituality *and medical science.


----------



## spooly74 (11 October 2010)

basilio said:


> And finally there isn't a big gap between the mind and medical science.  For example when it comes to curing people little old sugar pills are *often far more effective *than many of the drugs currently prescribed by drug companies.



Refenence for this, if possible? 
It take it we're not talking about amputies or 1st degree burns.

Btw, I'm not saying the placebo or nocebo effects aren't demonstrable, but measuring how someone actually feels rarther than how they say they feel is pertinent.


----------



## Julia (11 October 2010)

Tink said:


> There is a fine line between medical and spiritual, Julia,



I try quite hard to be tolerant about religious beliefs, and some posters on ASF - e.g. Sails and Malaachi - make that not too difficult.
But honestly, Tink, when you put up something as obviously nonsensical as this it's pushing credibility too far.
Little Sophie had months of the best medical care Australia could provide, so to suggest her survival was due to some incantations toward a dead nun is, as I earlier suggested, insulting to all those doctors and nurses who cared for the child.



basilio said:


> All getting very theological here.



I don't think there's any such intention, basilio.  Rather, just a questioning of attribution for a child's recovery.



> Ruby asks why didn't GOD directly save little Sophia from her first 2 horrific accidents. That brings up the whole question free will versus determinism.  In religious theology mankind has the power to decide what they will do. God is not supposed to be pulling the strings.



Now, I'm entirely ignorant about religious theology, so perhaps you wouldn't mind giving us an explanation of the concept of "free will versus determinism".

There seems to me to be a disconnect here.  On the one hand when something bad happens, it's man's freewill that's the cause, but then when something good happens, e.g. a child survives, that's due to the intervention of a dead nun.

I'd really like to understand how this works.



> With regard to miracles. When something really, really outrageous occurs in the seemingly spontaneous healing of person the medical profession does sit up and take notice.



 My comment was about Sophie Delezio.  I don't see anything at all outrageous or amazing about her recovery.  Neither would I see that she experienced 'spontaneous healing'.
There is nothing in her recovery that cannot be explained by the intensive and sustained medical care, plus of course all the support and encouragement she received.  No miracle here.



> And finally there isn't a big gap between the mind and medical science.  For example when it comes to curing people little old sugar pills are often far more effective than many of the drugs currently prescribed by drug companies.



To be picky, drug companies make drugs.  They don't prescribe them.
One of the fundamental factors in any therapy is the belief the patient has in the therapist.  So if a doctor in whom the patient believes and trusts prescribes something and says "this will fix the problem", the patient is going to be more disposed to believing they will feel better after taking whatever it is, placebo included.

This theory, however, falls right over if we're talking about e.g. an infection.
(Plenty of other examples, too.)  Giving a placebo to cure an infection isn't going to do the job, and all the belief in the world on the patient's part ain't going to make it so.


----------



## Ruby (11 October 2010)

basilio said:


> Ruby asks why didn't GOD directly save little Sophia from her first 2 horrific accidents.




Incidentally,that was not my question; it was Julia's


----------



## Tink (11 October 2010)

Thanks for understanding what I was saying basilio : )

Julia, well thats the beauty in religion and if thats what Sophie or her mum felt then so be it. 

You dont know what she experienced.

As for the doctors being insulted, I thought the best interests of the child is all that matters, and I am sure they are thankful to them too.

Hope they enjoy their trip to Rome : )


----------



## Sean K (11 October 2010)

Do any of the knowledgeable people here know the success rate of Mary McKillop?

ie, how many people Mary McK prayed for for the three 'miracles'?

Is it the same as like someone entering the lotto all their life and eventually winning three times? On a redraw 100 years later? 

Or, if someone got struck by lightening more than once perhaps?

Or, Collingwood winning a Grand Final?


----------



## insightful (14 October 2010)

Interesting topic. 

I think that religion is a subjective set of beliefs which is a mere impossibility to embrace from a position of an "outsider" and to convince its validity objectively. Its primary goal is seeing/experiencing from within. 

As a wise man once said, "Religion is not primarily a set of beliefs, a collection of prayers or a series of rituals. Religion is first and foremost a way of seeing. It can't change the facts about the world we live in, but it can change the way we see those facts, and that in itself can often make a difference."


----------



## Boognish (15 October 2010)

LSD does that too.


----------



## Tink (18 October 2010)

*Australians celebrate Mary's canonisation*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/18/3040655.htm

It was a beautiful day yesterday : )

I always liked the Nuns


----------



## Boognish (18 October 2010)

The beauty of religion:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/18/3040760.htm?section=justin



> Exclusion zones needed for abortion clinics
> 
> There has been a call for exclusion zones around Victorian abortion clinics to stop protesters harassing patients and staff.
> 
> ...


----------



## pilots (18 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Flicking through the channels this evening, I came across a '60 Minutes' segment about soon to be Saint Mary McKillop.
> 
> Apparently Sophie Delezio's family put Sophie up as a rival contender in the sainthood of Ms McKillop.
> 
> ...




Top post J, what I gets me is why God lets so many children starve the death EVERY DAY, you would have to have some thing wrong with you if you had the power to stop that from happening and you did not, then lets talk about all the kids that still to day get ripped apart from land mines, why would he/she let that happen????????????. I worked most of my life in the poorest country's on earth and saw the things that happen to children every day. If we have a God he/she is one sick person.


----------



## spooly74 (20 October 2010)

‘What is a religious mind ... one needs a radical revolution... revolution is synonymous with religion ... 
I mean a revolution in consciousness ... so that the mind is capable of seeing what is true... this is the way of religion. 
I think the real, the true religious mind does exist, can exist ... one can discover such a mind for oneself ... a mind that has gone beyond to discover what is true, is the true religious mind. 
I want to find out, through denial, what is a religious mind ... 
I feel that through negation one can find out what is true. 
So, we are going to inquire into what the religious mind is through denial ... surely, to find reality, to find God ... 
the mind must be alone... a fearless state in which there is no death ... for a mind that is alone there is no death. 
It is really extraordinary. 
If you have gone into that thing you discover for yourself that there is no such thing as death. Such a mind knows what destruction is ... destruction is creation ... so for the religious mind there is no time ... it is only the religious mind that can be in a state of creation ... in this creation is beauty ... 
a religious mind has this beauty which is not the appreciation of nature, the lovely mountains and the roaring stream ... a different beauty with which goes love... you cannot separate beauty and love ... and with them is passion... one cannot go far without passion ... beauty can only be there when there is passion. 
The religious mind, being in this state, has a peculiar quality of strength ... so, the religious mind does exist ... it is apart from all human endeavours ... therefore a religious mind can receive that which is not measurable by the brain ... that thing is unnameable ... 

to live in this state is the true religious mind’.

j.krishnamurti


----------



## motorway (20 October 2010)

kennas said:


> Do any of the knowledgeable people here know the success rate of Mary McKillop?
> 
> ie, how many people Mary McK prayed for for the three 'miracles'?
> 
> ...






> THE celebration of Mary MacKillop's miracle cancer cures is a worrying example of the lack of scientific literacy in the community, says an expert in evidence-based medicine.
> 
> The question is not whether the NSW mother Kathleen Evans recovered from her cancer after praying to MacKillop but how many others prayed and did not go into remission, said Chris Del Mar, a professor of primary care research at Bond University




http://www.smh.com.au/national/mackillop-cancer-prayers-betray-a-false-thinking-20101011-16g2u.html

Motorway


----------



## bellenuit (20 October 2010)

Even if one were to accept that (religious) miracles do happen, what I find most illogical about attributing the miracle to Mary MacKillop is that it assumes that the person cured ONLY prayed to Mary MacKillop (to intercede with God to grant a cure), but never ever prayed to God directly to grant a cure. Otherwise, why attribute the miracle to Mary MacKillop, when it would have been more likely (if one believed in this sort of thing) that it was God directly answering the person's prayers.

To assume that the person never ever prayed directly to God for a cure is beyond belief.

Though Mary MacKillop was undoubtedly a great woman, IMO it doesn't make sense that God would need persuasion to make a miracle.


----------



## motorway (20 October 2010)

> To assume that the person never ever prayed directly to God for a cure is beyond belief.




Or anyone else ... A remote Acquaintance.. Or a even perfect Stranger.


Motorway


----------



## Tink (20 October 2010)

Well thats the Beauty in Religion, and Mary MacKillop was a Nun that dedicated her life to God and the people, helping the poor, educating the children, opening schools and centres, which in those times there would have been no help.

Had it not been for Religion, this wouldnt have been, which is the whole picture.


----------



## Ruby (20 October 2010)

Tink said:


> Well thats the Beauty in Religion, and Mary MacKillop was a Nun that dedicated her life to God and the people, helping the poor, educating the children, opening schools and centres, which in those times there would have been no help.
> 
> Had it not been for Religion, this wouldnt have been, which is the whole picture.




No, that was the beauty in Mary MacKillop, who was undoubtedly a very good person, but that does not mean she had supernatural powers.


----------



## Julia (20 October 2010)

Tink said:


> Well thats the Beauty in Religion, and Mary MacKillop was a Nun that dedicated her life to God and the people, helping the poor, educating the children, opening schools and centres, which in those times there would have been no help.
> 
> Had it not been for Religion, this wouldnt have been, which is the whole picture.



No one is denying she altruistically worked to make a great difference and deserves all credit for that.

But why could she not have done that simply because she was that sort of person, the fact that she was religious being not the prime motivator?

In other words, anyone could have done all the stuff she did who had no belief in God, i.e. helping the poor, opening schools etc etc.

If the Catholic Church wants to call her a saint for this work, it's fine by me.
But the whole miracle thing because  sick people prayed to her is where it all falls over imo.

I don't want to deride people who believe in religion and understand many find great comfort and support in believing in a God.  You might be right for all I know.  I just find it hard to credit that anyone is going to believe a dead nun cured someone's sickness.


----------



## Boognish (20 October 2010)

If anyone who claims to believe in miracles in general and Mary MacKillop's healing powers in particular is serious about their beliefs, they will have no need for medical care provided by doctors.  

If they get cancer, blindness or some other horrible disease they will simply have to pray and wait to be miraculously healed from on high.  To do otherwise shows their faith is not genuine.  Once healed, they can contact the Vatican and confirm Saint Mary's new status.

Obviously the exception is lost limbs because God works in mysterious ways and doesn't regenerate these.  If you lose a finger or a leg, go see a doctor.


----------



## Tink (20 October 2010)

Yep Ruby, that was the beauty of Mary, but nuns and priests feel a calling to work for God, and had she not done that, those schools and centres would not have been opened to help those people, and those Nuns are still doing the same overseas, opening schools and centres, following on from her work, all under the umbrella of Religion.

Julia, I believe in God but I am not phased if others do or not, I have had my own experiences and thats enough for me : )


----------



## explod (20 October 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Even if one were to accept that (religious) miracles do happen, what I find most illogical about attributing the miracle to Mary MacKillop is that it assumes that the person cured ONLY prayed to Mary MacKillop (to intercede with God to grant a cure), but never ever prayed to God directly to grant a cure. Otherwise, why attribute the miracle to Mary MacKillop, when it would have been more likely (if one believed in this sort of thing) that it was God directly answering the person's prayers.
> 
> To assume that the person never ever prayed directly to God for a cure is beyond belief.
> 
> Though Mary MacKillop was undoubtedly a great woman, IMO it doesn't make sense that God would need persuasion to make a miracle.




The belief is that Saints (Canonised) have a greater influence on God himself.  She is part of the recognised spiritual lobby group.  And in my young days I understood this as standard teaching.  God's Mother Mary is particularly prayed to in this vein.   As youngters at the end of each nights Rosary session we prayed to Mary for the conversion of Russia.  The huge fear of Communism was in every home in those days way down to the little children.  And you wonder why some of us are a bit bent now.

And, for example, at our mortal level, the best way for one to get through to the Prime Minister would be to write to or lobby the local member of the ALP.  Straight forward really.


----------



## bellenuit (20 October 2010)

explod said:


> The belief is that Saints (Canonised) have a greater influence on God himself.  She is part of the recognised spiritual lobby group.




But she was not canonised when they attributed the miracle to her. 

I know where you you are coming from because that is my background too. IMO this has no basis in Christianity but is just a layer of mumbo jumbo added to justify a hierarchical order in the church, with the ignorant people at the bottom and then deacons, priests right up through the church hierarchy to the pope, saints and eventually God.

If I were to be a believer, then I could only see it as some understanding between me and the deity, with all the middlemen a complete irrelevance.


----------



## Joules MM1 (24 November 2012)

*
2 tons of pigeon droppings in Swedish church tower*
Nov. 22 11:21 AM EST



> STOCKHOLM (AP) ”” A hatch on a Swedish church tower inadvertently left open for some three decades resulted in 2 tons of pigeon droppings amassing in the tower.
> 
> The church's property manager says the layer of droppings was 30 centimeters (12 inches) deep when it was discovered during a May inspection of the Heliga Trefaldighets Kyrka in Gavle, 170 kilometers (105 miles) north of Stockholm.
> 
> ...




http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2-to.../austrias-ice-cream-killer-gets-life-sentence

*Church of England compromise sees introduction of women Father Christmasses*
Posted: Nov 23rd, 2012 by roybland


> After the vote to allow women bishops was narrowly defeated, the Church of England has agreed a compromise deal which will see the introduction of women Father Christmasses instead.
> 
> A majority of church members support the measure, arguing that women have more experience than men of dressing up in outlandish costumes.
> 
> ...


----------



## McLovin (24 November 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> *
> 2 tons of pigeon droppings in Swedish church tower*
> Nov. 22 11:21 AM EST




I bet the Catholic church are praying that all their troubles have GUANO-way.


----------



## Joules MM1 (24 November 2012)

McLovin said:


> I bet the Catholic church are praying that all their troubles have GUANO-way.




Go West wrote King of wishful thinking
Dire Straights wrote Sultans of Swing
McLovin wrote .......puns

and you beak so eloquently, words well nestled, flocked together.....


----------



## jancha (24 November 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Even if one were to accept that (religious) miracles do happen, what I find most illogical about attributing the miracle to Mary MacKillop is that it assumes that the person cured ONLY prayed to Mary MacKillop (to intercede with God to grant a cure), but never ever prayed to God directly to grant a cure. Otherwise, why attribute the miracle to Mary MacKillop, when it would have been more likely (if one believed in this sort of thing) that it was God directly answering the person's prayers.
> 
> To assume that the person never ever prayed directly to God for a cure is beyond belief.
> 
> Though Mary MacKillop was undoubtedly a great woman, IMO it doesn't make sense that God would need persuasion to make a miracle.




Maybe Mary MacKillop was the medium to God. You know...sift out the good from the bad before it went upstairs for approval.
I actually have a piece of wood from the tree that stood out front of Mary MacKillop house in Yankalilla SA. Funny things happened in that town. Apparitions appeared on the local church wall. People would come from all over the world to pray and take home the holy water from the well out back. Bishop and followers parading down the main road.
Certainly didn't do my business any harm.
If it helps sick people get better whats the harm? Ye who has faith


----------



## pixel (24 November 2012)

jancha said:


> Maybe Mary MacKillop was the medium to God. You know...sift out the good from the bad before it went upstairs for approval.
> I actually have a piece of wood from the tree that stood out front of Mary MacKillop house in Yankalilla SA. Funny things happened in that town. Apparitions appeared on the local church wall. People would come from all over the world to pray and take home the holy water from the well out back. Bishop and followers parading down the main road.
> Certainly didn't do my business any harm.
> If it helps sick people get better whats the harm? Ye who has faith




of course - why has nobody else thought of that:
*An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god does need an army of helpers, mediums, secretaries.* Doesn't every tycoon, minister, general manager of a multinational corporation need such an army of flappers? The bigger the boss, the larger the support crew.
Just proves the point that every tribe of humans create their god in their own image, outfitting him/her with attributes they're familiar with. And the more people relate to that image and "buy" it, the better for the merchants. 

"nummus non olet." :


----------



## Tink (14 December 2012)

With Christmas around the corner, the beauty in religion is shown around the globe, Carols by candlelight sang around the country, nativity scenes in their alcoves, so beautiful to see.
St Francis of Assisi is one of my favourite saints, he loved animals, and I often go to the St Francis Church in Melbourne.

I love this time of year, families and friends gathering together enjoying its true meaning -- love one another as I have loved you -- peace, love and blessings.
Making that time for people that are alone.
God taught us to treat people as we want to be treated, help one another, and through religion and Church, Gods meaning moves on through our children and all future generations, and through our community.

Merry Christmas.


----------



## explod (14 December 2012)

pixel said:


> of course - why has nobody else thought of that:
> *An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god does need an army of helpers, mediums, secretaries.* Doesn't every tycoon, minister, general manager of a multinational corporation need such an army of flappers? The bigger the boss, the larger the support crew.
> Just proves the point that every tribe of humans create their god in their own image, outfitting him/her with attributes they're familiar with. And the more people relate to that image and "buy" it, the better for the merchants.
> 
> "nummus non olet." :




Spot on, the Great Roman Emperor, Constantine set up the Muslims and Christians as he saw them good for holding his Empire together.

Nothing has changed and the gullible still recite the fairy tales of Santa and the Lad from Bethlehem to fill the pockets of business.

Frazier's "Golden Bough" is a good read for those seeking a bit of truth about the whole charade.  Then maybe you could move onto Dawkins.


----------



## Miss Hale (14 December 2012)

Tink said:


> With Christmas around the corner, the beauty in religion is shown around the globe, Carols by candlelight sang around the country, nativity scenes in their alcoves, so beautiful to see.
> St Francis of Assisi is one of my favourite saints, he loved animals, and I often go to the St Francis Church in Melbourne.
> 
> I love this time of year, families and friends gathering together enjoying its true meaning -- love one another as I have loved you -- peace, love and blessings.
> ...




Thanks Tink, Merry Christmas to you too


----------



## Tink (12 March 2013)

> When a whole country experiences a revival of religion there is a great improvement in the society of that land. The virtues encouraged by religion are of great benefit to the whole of civilisation.
> 
> "That the tendency of virtue to promote the order of society, when we consider it coolly and philosophically, reflects a very great beauty upon it, cannot be called into question. Human society, when we contemplate it in a certain abstract and philosophical light, appears like a great, an immense machine, whose regular and harmonious movements produce a thousand agreeable effects. As in any other beautiful and noble machine that was the production of human art, whatever tended to render its movements more smooth and easy, would derive a beauty from this effect, and, on the contrary, whatever tended to obstruct them would displease upon that account: so virtue, which is, as it were, the fine polish to the wheels of society, necessarily pleases; while vice, like the vile rust, which makes them jar and grate upon one another, is as necessarily offensive." (Adam Smith)
> 
> A life of religious virtue is not a wretched existence of unhappiness, rather it is the means by which we, and all of those around us, may grow and prosper in love and peace.




Very true


----------



## tech/a (12 March 2013)

Humans need direction/order/compassion and authority.
Many societies/communities exist without religion.
But none that I know of without direction/order/compassion and Authority.

It is even true of the smallest communities--- schools/workplaces/sports teams/families/partnerships and or relationships.


----------



## explod (12 March 2013)

tech/a said:


> Humans need direction/order/compassion and authority.
> Many societies/communities exist without religion.
> But none that I know of without direction/order/compassion and Authority.
> 
> It is even true of the smallest communities--- schools/workplaces/sports teams/families/partnerships and or relationships.




An insightful post. 

The dilemma of course, in my view, is leadership.  It would appear that there may be some real soul searching in Rome at this time and our own Cardinal seems uncomfortable.

With hard times, poverty on the increase a good cleansing of the church would be timely.


----------



## Tink (16 March 2013)

Agree, great post tech, thanks


----------



## Tink (29 March 2013)

An important time in the Christian faith is Easter, which is coming upon us now
Today, we commemorate the day that Jesus Christ died on the Cross. 
We reflect on his suffering and death, his Passion  and points us to a new way of living.
Infinite love for humanity.
Silence until Sunday, then the bells start ringing
The eggs symbolizing new life and celebrations.
The Passion of Christ was an excellent movie with Mel Gibson.
Hope you all have a wonderful and safe Easter  

Whatever happened to MS+Tradesim?


----------



## antares (29 March 2013)

“Passover and Easter are the only Jewish and Christian holidays that move in sync, like the ice skating pairs we saw during the winter Olympics.”
~ Marvin Olasky. 
So I'm needing a broker for forex, because for binary options i trade with Vault Options.


----------



## Tink (8 April 2013)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Religion has a rich history of inspiration for art, architecture and music.
> There is simply too much here to cover.
> 
> http://www.all-art.org/contents.html
> http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=24673




http://www.vatican.va/various/cappelle/sistina_vr/
and some of our own
The Ladye Chapel at St Francis Church, Melbourne. 
St Francis is Victoria's oldest Catholic Church (built 1841) and was Melbourne's initial Catholic cathedral. The Ladye Chapel was constructed between 1856-8.



St Patrick's Cathedral is the mother church of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne. The Centenary of its official opening and Consecration was marked in 1997; however, the first Mass was celebrated on the site in February 1858 in a former partially completed church, some of which was incorporated into the south aisle of the present building.


----------



## Tink (2 June 2013)

Well, now that we have come to the conclusion that education is best in the Christian schools, I think its the right time to write in this thread 

Religion has always been the basis of ethics and principles, and it shows that people are still choosing religious schools over the public system

http://www.smh.com.au/national/educ...g-the-faith-20130217-2el4a.html#ixzz2UshUIzxO
Thanks McLovin for the link

Excellent posts cynic


----------



## DocK (2 June 2013)

Tink said:


> Well, now that we have come to the conclusion that education is best in the Christian schools, I think its the right time to write in this thread
> 
> Religion has always been the basis of ethics and principles, and it shows that people are still choosing religious schools over the public system
> 
> ...




If you're insinuating that people are choosing Christian schools for faith-based reasons you clearly haven't interpreted the article correctly.  The overriding reason parents are choosing religious-based schools is not for the religion, but in spite of it. A lot of parents simply don't want to send their children to State (public) schools, and the alternative private education arena is dominated by schools with a religious affiliation.  IMO the major reasons for the increasing shift away from the public school system is for reasons of discipline - which naturally private schools can administer with less restrictions.  It's also often the case that tertiary outcomes from private/religious schools are higher than those from the alternative state school in many areas - many non-religious parents who prioritise education and can afford the fees will often choose a Catholic/Anglican/Lutheran etc school only for the enhanced likelihood of a higher OP/ATR etc, and see the religious stuff as the price their kids have to pay for the good education.  I'd be interested to know how many children attending a religiously affiliated school would be doing so were there a non-religious private school option available - often the local catholic school is simply the "least bad" option.


----------



## Tink (3 June 2013)

Thanks DocK
Well going by the census, I wouldnt say its too low, and the intake is 5-8% non religious.

Christianity (61.1%)
No religion (22.3%)
Undeclared (9.4%)
Buddhism (2.5%)
 Islam (2.2%)
Hinduism (1.3%)
Other religions (1.2%)

 Nice to see the new generation of academics coming through


----------



## bellenuit (3 June 2013)

Tink said:


> Well, now that we have come to the conclusion that education is best in the Christian schools, I think its the right time to write in this thread.




Not too fast there. How do you account for the much higher standard of education in Scandinavian and many Asian countries. Both groups would be predominantly secular.


----------



## McLovin (3 June 2013)

DocK said:


> I'd be interested to know how many children attending a religiously affiliated school would be doing so were there a non-religious private school option available - often the local catholic school is simply the "least bad" option.




The Catholic option is also usually significantly cheaper than all other private schools in the area. Somewhere like Marcellin in Randwick will cost ~$4k/annum, Waverly costs about ~$10k. The non-Catholic private schools in the Eastern Suburbs will cost between $25-$30k/annum. So for many families it's just not an option. 

I have to take the 61% in the census with a grain of salt. It seems like a lot of people will nominally call themselves Christian as long as they don't have to do anything. The gap between those identifying as Christian and Church attendance seems to make that point. Here's some research for anyone interested.

http://mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/spirituality-and-christianity-in-australia-today

Over 50% say they either are not now religious or never have been. Only 27% say they are committed to the religion they were brought up in.

27% of those who identified as Christian say they are not at all active in practising.

47% Do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. 50% believe that he was not born to a virgin. 53% do not believe he walked on water.

61% believe Jesus either did not exist or he if he did he was just an ordinary person with no divine powers and was not the son of God.

And not surprisingly, 82% said they were only slightly open or not open at all to changing their religious views.

Those sort of statistics put the census into number into relief.


----------



## Ruby (3 June 2013)

Tink said:


> Well, now that we have come to the conclusion that education is best in the Christian schools, I think its the right time to write in this thread




I don't think we have............ *you *have come this conclusion Tink.  Education is best in *private *schools - whether they are affiliated with the church or not.  I have a friend who has removed his children from the local catholic school and moved them to another, non-religious school, because the education standard is much higher at the latter.  Other parents in the area have done the same thing.


----------



## Ruby (3 June 2013)

Tink said:


> Thanks DocK
> Well going by the census, I wouldnt say its too low, and the intake is 5-8% non religious.
> 
> Christianity (61.1%)
> ...




This 61% of people who ticked "Christianity" includes those who:-

are 'lapsed' catholics, who openly do not believe, but who are convinced they cannot actually leave the church (such is the power of its indoctrination).  These are the 'once a catholic, always a catholic' non-believers.

were baptised as babies by parents who weren't christians, for no other reason than that it is 'what people do', and into whose lives religion has never intruded.  They have only a vague idea of what Christianity is about.

call themselves Christians because they feel a need to belong, but who, once again, don't know what Christianity is.

need to tick a box on the form, and since we live in a 'Christian' country, it is an obvious box to tick.
There are probably lots of other categories as well.

I have a friend who insists he is a Christian, but in the same breath will say he believes when we die we rot and that is the end of it.  Neither does he believe in the Christian doctrine.

I also heard someone quoted on television as saying "Christianity is a way of life"  Well....  no...... Christianity is a faith; and if you don't have that faith you are not a Christian.

So........ I too take the 61% with a grain of salt.


----------



## Tink (4 June 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Not too fast there. How do you account for the much higher standard of education in Scandinavian and many Asian countries. Both groups would be predominantly secular.




We were talking about Australia, werent we? That a majority go to the Christian/private schools for a good education?
Well you all agreed.

God, is this twitter and the outraged


----------



## DocK (4 June 2013)

Tink said:


> We were talking about Australia, werent we? That a majority go to the Christian/private schools for a good education?
> Well you all agreed.
> 
> God, is this twitter and the outraged




No, not outraged, just a little annoyed.  You seem to be implying by this statement:  







> Religion has always been the basis of ethics and principles, and it shows that people are still choosing religious schools over the public system



 that people are choosing religious schools over the public system because they are the basis of ethics and principles, and the natural inference is that those schools are being chosen for religiously-based reasons.  I often become frustrated when religious people just assume that all good things done in the name of religion could not possibly occur without the religious backing - such as private shooling, charity work etc.  I just want to make the point that sometimes those options are chosen _in spite _of the religious affiliation, and not because of it.  I send my kids to private school, and if there weren't a non-faith based one in my area I'd sooner send them to the local Catholic school than any of the State schools in my area - and I would regard the religious stuff as a price to be endured in order for the superior discipline offered.  I often give to charities run by various churches and religions - not because I have any belief in the various faiths backing them, but because I approve of the underlying purpose.  I don't think I'm part of the minority in this regard.

I'm not saying religious schools don't offer a good education - just making the point that imo they'd be even better without the religion


----------



## bellenuit (4 June 2013)

Tink said:


> We were talking about Australia, werent we? That a majority go to the Christian/private schools for a good education?
> Well you all agreed.
> 
> God, is this twitter and the outraged




I clearly wasn't when I spoke of Scandinavia and Asia. And what you made was a generalised statement on Christian schools which is incorrect when a proper sample is taken that includes all demographics. There are specific historical and current reasons why this might be the case in Australia, as many have pointed out to you.

Not in the least bit outraged, but I certainly won't let pass you trying to imply that we all share a common viewpoint that is an extrapolation beyond what we we conceded and specifically when what we conceded was in relation to a specific situation.


----------



## Tink (6 June 2013)

Thanks for both your posts, abit of balance is good 

I agree DocK, that the standard of education is higher and the superior discipline wins hands down, I havent met too many that didnt have the faith as well from the schools, but I am not saying there isnt. 
Of course there are decent people in all, be it religious or not.

I do think having a firm grounding from home and school works together.


----------



## explod (6 June 2013)

Tink said:


> Thanks for both your posts, abit of balance is good
> 
> I agree DocK, that the standard of education is higher and the superior discipline wins hands down, I havent met too many that didnt have the faith as well from the schools, but I am not saying there isnt.
> Of course there are decent people in all, be it religious or not.
> ...




Great post there Tink.

What I ponder, as an artist, is first the architecture and from that point the psycological power of the churches; placed usually on a high hill they draw the people, or used to anyway, like Collingwood supporters to the MCG.

The power of a symbol is so bright that it can blind one.

But yes the home support of children to launch into life is the area lacking.  Education, education, education.


----------



## Tink (7 June 2013)

Thanks for your post explod.

They are beautiful, arent they 
Dont get me started on architecture and Churches, I will never leave this thread lol
The love, determination, blood, sweat and tears that were put into building those Churches says so much from so many people. They are exquisite.
How could anyone not admire them, their beauty and elegance.
They speak volumes.

The steeple points to the heavens. heavenly thoughts, and the Churches were all high on the hill so that everyone could find them in the Community and gather together.

As MS+T mentioned in a post, the rich history of architecture, art and music in religion is endless.


----------



## Tink (8 June 2013)

Yoga, TaiChi, Reiki - all buddhism
I have probably missed some
Spiritual healing, mind body and soul, meditation.

The benefits for many speak for themselves.


----------



## Tink (26 September 2013)

This week has brought to the front, footy players that use their faith in helping others, which makes me think of the person that was most involved in the Club I am a part of, Melbourne, and Jimmy Stynes.
A wonderful man that gave alot in the Community, through his faith.

Through God, and living through the teachings of Jesus, that through this journey, we are a part of each other and helping others is what its all about.

Gary Ablett has come forward this week which has caused abit of hoo-ha in this forum. He says he feels blessed to be where he is today.

_Gary Ablett becomes the first Gold Coast Suns player to win a Brownlow medal. He says he wants to be a good role model for kids.
_http://video.cairns.com.au/v/134738/...model-for-kids 

I think its a wonderful thing, not that I know him personally, but through his faith and his achievements, he has set out to help others in the footy with their journey.
This was reported on the footy show as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlNkWSfdym4

I say good on him for being there and speaking out in what he believes in, helping others in the Club, talking through issues if they feel they need to and using his achievements to try and keep kids away from drugs and to work spiritually with them.

A good role model and mentor.

I dont remember ever seeing him in trouble or on the news hurting someone.

If he is helping one person along the way, then good for him.


----------



## pavilion103 (26 September 2013)

Tink, the people that knock Christianity in this forum don't actually understand what Christianity is. So in one way I understand their perspective. They are knocking a Christianity which is one they have been told about by society, which has nothing to do with Christ's teachings. So the thing they are arguing against isn't even the thing we are defending. 

Secondly, people don't differentiate between concrete scientific evidence and scientific assumption/theory. I would understand if someone didn't accept Christianity because they weren't aware of the evidence for it, but to have the worldview that there is no God at all is incredulous. Completely unscientific. You can't get past the very first question. Can something come from nothing? well.... NO. A 5 year old kid could tell you this. 

Too many people also focus on those who represent Christianity poorly (and who are theorefore not even real Christians), rather than focusing on what Christ actually taught. This is also very silly. 

Lastly, people want to just do things their own way. They don't want to obey any principles no matter how good. Even with trading. Yet when we recognise that the world was created with these principles are the cornerstone for success (and we get over ourselves) and follow them, we experience a life beyond belief. That is what I am experiencing more and more. 

It's like a kid who would has the choice to choose between a cardboard box (atheism) or a ticket to disney land (God). The kid chooses the box because he sees the ticket to Disney Land as only a piece of paper. If he knew what that really was of course he would choose it. There is no comparison. 

Day to day I feel so much love, joy, peace. My life is amazing. Praise God. 

And the great thing is as we grow, we want to make it about others. Help those in need. Better the world. Not because it's our duty (it is) but because we just love so much.


----------



## Tink (1 November 2013)

Pope Francis is doing a wonderful job for the Church, and has alot of positive feedback, not just from the religious folk. This is one of the occasions that was in the media yesterday with his talks on family day, but there has been many.

*Boy wanders on stage, hugs Pope Francis *

_PEOPLE seem to love Pope Francis, and here's an excellent example of why. 

Previous pontiffs have been a little stuffy and largely unapproachable to the common person. But not this Pope.
At an event in the Vatican this week, Catholic families from around the world gathered to celebrate the Year of Faith with His Holiness.
Six-year-old orphan Carlos was a little besotted with the leader of the world's Catholics.
Other popes may have sent the lad away, but Pope Francis showed the true meaning of the phrase Holy Father - acting like a proud father rather than a distant public figure.

Carlos, who was born in Colombia and was adopted by an Italian family last year, made his way on to stage as the Pontiff gave a speech. 

Several cardinals tried to usher him away, even using lollies as a lure. But Carlos could not be moved

There were even hugs and pats-on-the-head from Francis, who continued with his speech.
Carlos even plonked himself down in the Pope's chair and the two had a small discussion amongst themselves.
His adopted mother, who wished to remain anonymous, said none of this was planned.
"The blessing our son receives goes out to all the abandoned children in this world," she said via social media, Italian news sites reported.
"Just another display of the pope and his kindness."
Awwwww.
Far be it for us to go all preachy, but we've got a fair idea that Jesus himself would have done something similar._
http://www.news.com.au/world/boy-wanders-on-stage-hugs-pope-francis/story-fndir2ev-1226750094623


----------



## Tink (3 December 2013)

Sums up the Beauty in Religion, throughout History
2,000+ years


----------



## explod (3 December 2013)

Yes, and to look up at that sensual space within the groin vaults, backed by hues of blue from the stained glass windows you are literally carried away on a cloud.

The humble architects did a good job.


----------



## bellenuit (3 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Sums up the Beauty in Religion, throughout History
> 2,000+ years





That was the ad Tink. The reality is vastly different. Some of the statements in that ad are blatant lies. For example, that concerning every pope since Peter. I can't remember the exact words, something about lovingly cared for his flock. Some probably yes, but everyone? History tells a very different story. Many were no better than war lords. Many of the other statements made are similarly false. No mention of the Spanish Inquisition! The Crusades. 

Even if everything said were true, it certainly does not SUM UP the story of the Catholic Church, with all the bad bits missing. It may, as you said, sum up the beauty, but ignoring the rest paints a false picture.


----------



## Chris45 (3 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Pope Francis is doing a wonderful job for the Church, and has alot of positive feedback, not just from the religious folk. This is one of the occasions that was in the media yesterday with his talks on family day, but there has been many.
> 
> *Boy wanders on stage, hugs Pope Francis *



Great story Tink!

I suppose it was a tricky situation, and probably not one to be encouraged, but wouldn't it have been really excellent if he had shown a bit more affection for the kid and maybe given him a hug, or sat him on his knee?

Then again the cynics would probably say he was "grooming" the kid or something, so maybe it's best he just did what he did and left it at that.


----------



## Tink (4 December 2013)

Bellenuit, I am bringing in some balance, and that is exactly what the Church/Religion has contributed through the years, and what they stand for, hospitals, orphanages, schools, founded university, the list goes on.

We have all heard the bad.

As I have said before, I am glad the Church is there standing up for the things I believe in, for the common good in society, for all life, and they stand firm in their beliefs, passed on to all generations.
Order and tradition.
They are the peacemakers in this world. 

Thanks Chris, it is a good story.
He didnt even seem surprised by the boy walking on stage, the children were all sitting in the front row away from the parents and the boy just wanted to go and hug him.

Lovely.


----------



## bellenuit (4 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Bellenuit, I am bringing in some balance, and that is exactly what the Church/Religion has contributed through the years, and what they stand for, hospitals, orphanages, schools, founded university, the list goes on.




I wonder if they considered the words of their God, when the produced that ad?

Matthew 6:2: “When you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others.” Instead, give discreetly, “Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”


----------



## bellenuit (4 December 2013)

Unlike the Vatican Press Bureau, the new pope seems to have read his Bible. Good on him, if true.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/03/3011421/pope-francis-homeless/


----------



## Tink (12 December 2013)

Yes, he is doing a great service.

Time magazine has selected Pope Francis as the 'Person of the Year 2013'

_For pulling the papacy out of the palace and into the streets, for committing the world's largest church to confronting its deepest needs and for balancing judgment with mercy
The magazine said the Catholic Church's new leader has changed the perception of the 2000-year-old institution in an extraordinary way in a short time.

"Rarely has a new player on the world stage captured so much attention so quickly - young and old, faithful and cynical - as Pope Francis.

"In his nine months in office, he has placed himself at the very centre of the central conversations of our time: about wealth and poverty, fairness and justice, transparency, modernity, globalisation, the role of women, the nature of marriage, the temptations of power.''

Pope Francis says he isn't interested in praise or fame but in preaching and living the Gospel. If being person of the year, draws people to this very message then he welcomes being selected._ 
http://ti.me/1goGKWV


----------



## Chris45 (13 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Time magazine has selected Pope Francis as the 'Person of the Year 2013'



Excellent choice! And the cardinals seem to have got it right in voting for him.

Pope Francis certainly has a huge job ahead to repair the damage done by the recent scandals.


----------



## Tink (25 December 2013)

Merry Christmas everyone.

We went to the Carols by Candlelight last night, was absolutely beautiful and too many songs to share, but sharing this one..





Tink said:


> With Christmas around the corner, the beauty in religion is shown around the globe, Carols by candlelight sang around the country, nativity scenes in their alcoves, so beautiful to see.
> St Francis of Assisi is one of my favourite saints, he loved animals, and I often go to the St Francis Church in Melbourne.
> 
> I love this time of year, families and friends gathering together enjoying its true meaning -- love one another as I have loved you -- peace, love and blessings.
> ...


----------



## Ruby (26 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Sums up the Beauty in Religion, throughout History
> 2,000+ years





Tink, this is a piece of very biased, and in parts, fallacious, propaganda.   And no, you are not bringing in balance - your view is quite unbalanced.  The catholic church has NOT had 2000 years of unbroken leadership (was the term "shepherds"?).  Have you not heard of the Schism?  The history of the papacy is riddled with greed, corruption, cruelty, fraud........   For example, Popes and the hierarchy right down to bishops in the middle ages had mistresses, wielded enormous political power, lived in great wealth, frequently had people tortured and sent to their death.

There is no time in its history that the catholic church has been squeaky clean, or has not brought misery to many of its adherents.

How can anyone be so gullible!   There may be beauty in religion, but it also has its dark and very dirty side.


----------



## Tink (27 December 2013)

Merry Christmas, Ruby 

You know what the Pope said today, we should all strive for PEACE. 
Atheists jump on board and follow Jesus teachings, the world would be a better place.

We all know the bad Ruby, but you can't say that the Church didn't contribute through the years for all the people misplaced in society, they don't run on survival of the fittest. 

Throw the babies overboard, they aren't wanted, or the elderly, they are useless.
They will stand up for all life, no matter where they are.

The balance is there, as without religion, there was no moral compass, and as we can see in society its slowly taking a dive as people become more selfish and its all about themselves rather than having responsibilities and caring for others.

The Mental Health units are all booming with drugs and alcohol as we have a crisis with all these children that have no direction in life.

As I have said, Ruby, I am glad the Church is there standing up for family values.


----------



## FxTrader (27 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Atheists jump on board and follow Jesus teachings, the world would be a better place.



Some of his teachings are useful along with many others over the centuries who have contributed much more to our understanding of the human condition, moral principles, ethics and philosophy than Jesus ever did.  Your singular focus on Jesus as the only moral philosopher of significance is typical of Christians who believe the fantastic, unsubstantiated and totally unverifiable claim that he was "God in the flesh".



> We all know the bad Ruby, but you can't say that the Church didn't contribute through the years for all the people misplaced in society, they don't run on survival of the fittest.



True, churches run on the money contributed by millions of gullible believers who are conned into believing the church is the best institution to dispense charity (usually after a heavy dose of religious indoctrination) to the needy.

Churches exist to perpetuate themselves and their influence using religious myth as the primary tool of control over their congregations.  Their "survival" depends solely on the generosity those held captive by the religious fiction they peddle.



> The balance is there, as without religion, there was no moral compass, and as we can see in society its slowly taking a dive as people become more selfish and its all about themselves rather than having responsibilities and caring for others.



Presumably you mean Christian religion here and not religion in general.  Human society needs laws regarding how we treat each other to form a civil society.  The argument that human society would descend into some amoral abyss without religion is utter nonsense.  The basis of this argument is that the edicts of religious mythology of whatever variety should dictate how we all conduct our lives irrespective of whether or not the incredible claims made by the underlying religious doctrine are true or not.  So then, religion is good and true because it's useful - ridiculous reasoning.



> The Mental Health units are all booming with drugs and alcohol as we have a crisis with all these children that have no direction in life.



The religious indoctrination and brainwashing of children is an evil in itself and should be recognized as such in modern human societies.  Telling a child they are evil by nature and fallen creatures who must pay homage to an imaginary God to redeem their sinful nature is more than mental abuse and insidious manipulation, it's a gross betrayal of the trust a child places in a parent to tell them the truth about what is myth and legend versus what is known, true and real.


----------



## CanOz (27 December 2013)

You know, I've got to agree that religion has shaped western morals to a great degree, for the better. Here in China there is no 'care' for the common man. Its like an absence of humanity...family is strong though. 

I suspect this is because most of the growth of this nation took place without any religion as the center of the culture. 

An example. My wife and i were returning home from dinner one night when we saw a car stopped in front of us a few hundred meters....as we got closer i saw there was a woman just off the road in front of the car, she was covered in blood from a head injury. My wife was driving as i had a couple of glasses of red with dinner so i instructed her to pull over in a way that would protect the injured woman from another car running her over, clearly a risk at that stage.

I ran over to see if the women was ok and my wife spotted a group of people talking off the side of the road and went over to find out what happened. The women had a gash in her scalp line somewhere and a badly injured leg. After a while i just held her and told her that everything was going to be ok...she was in shock and wanted to lay down. While my wife was talking to people, the driver of the car told my wife to tell me to leave the woman alone, she replied to him that i was a foreigner and "there would be no way that i would leave that woman alone"...

After a while the ambulance came and what looked like her boyfriend arrived on a scooter, who was covered in what looked like her blood, not his own. They'd had a scooter accident, hit the car and she took the full brunt and he'd gone to get help.

Riding back home in the car, i couldn't help but wonder with my wife why no-one had come the side of the women to keep her calm and safe while they'd gone for help. My wife explained that no-one wants to get involved and people are afraid the person will accuse them of being responsible for their injuries and ask for money...

Its sad though, that women could have been run over by a car that was not so observant as us that night. There at times, such as this when i wonder where the lack of care comes from...its part of the culture for sure. 

Culture is the beliefs, values and attitudes of the people. Clearly their beliefs and moral compass has not been shaped by religion.

Then again, neither have my beliefs....but my parents parents had their beliefs and moral compass shaped by it and my friends and relatives as well...and that's been passed on, thankfully.


----------



## FxTrader (27 December 2013)

CanOz said:


> You know, I've got to agree that religion has shaped western morals to a great degree, for the better. Here in China there is no 'care' for the common man. Its like an absence of humanity...family is strong though.



Contributions to modern thought on ethics and morality have come from many sources over time including religious teachings.  The idea though that without religion we would have "no moral compass" is a nonsense that must be challenged.  Even if true, it would not validate any of the fantastic, magical claims made in iron-age scrolls.  Morality is concept that varies from culture to culture and has a relative rather than absolute definition.

Personally, I find Asian culture family centric values to be more appealing than the focus on individualism in western societies.  The real appeal of religion in my view is communitarianism it engenders among believers (and rejection of individualism), bringing them together to (hopefully) support one another based on shared values.

I have seen many examples in western societies of neglect for the welfare of others of the kind you describe here.  Sadly, this is not a problem excusive to eastern cultures.


----------



## CanOz (27 December 2013)

FxTrader said:


> I have seen many examples in western societies of neglect for the welfare of others of the kind you describe here.  Sadly, this is not a problem excusive to eastern cultures.




I haven't seen it as much as I've seen it here in China. But then I'm a country boy and I've lived in rural areas all my life, perhaps i have a different view than those that live in cities...


----------



## Ruby (27 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Merry Christmas, Ruby




And merry xmas to you too, Tink!




> ........ Atheists jump on board and follow Jesus teachings, the world would be a better place.




Such sweeping generalisations are your trade marks Tink!  How dare you be so arrogant as to suggest that atheists don't follow the teachings of Jesus!  What evidence do you have that connects atheism with any lack of morals?  Which leads me to two further points:-  Firstly, the world would be a better place if the *catholic church* followed Jesus' teachings; and secondly, the teachings of Jesus did not originate with him and are not "owned" by the Christian church.  They are the guiding principles of all good people - and have been for thousands of years - long before Jesus was born - as others before me have pointed out.  You might say that JC hijacked them from other ancient philosophies.



> .......... you can't say that the Church didn't contribute through the years for all the people misplaced in society, they don't run on survival of the fittest.




I haven't said that, but that is only one part of the story.  The church has also been responsible for untold misery and upheaval in society since its beginnings.



> Throw the babies overboard, they aren't wanted, or the elderly, they are useless.




And your point here is........?



> They will stand up for all life, no matter where they are.




Who? The catholic church?    History will tell you otherwise.



> The balance is there, as without religion, there was no moral compass, and as we can see in society its slowly taking a dive as people become more selfish and its all about themselves rather than having responsibilities and caring for others.




Throughout history people have been selfish, greedy and irresponsible - it has nothing to do with religion.



> The Mental Health units are all booming with drugs and alcohol as we have a crisis with all these children that have no direction in life.




You would discover (if you did some research) that many of these people come from good Christian homes; and there are many mental health patients and drug addicts whose lives have been totally ruined by the abuse of catholic nuns and priests in church run schools and homes, and by the sexual abuse of paedophile priests.    At the same time, many of society's finest, most balanced, community minded people have no religious affiliations.



> As I have said, Ruby, I am glad the Church is there standing up for family values.




Hmmm! yes.......  allowing children to be abused; taking children away from their families; forbidding couples to use contraception, and therefore forcing them to into poverty and untold misery through repeated pregnancies ...... all that family friendly stuff!!!

Tink, I am happy to accept that religion gives some of its adherents comfort, but please stop trying to white wash it. You have obviously been brainwashed but others among us haven't.


----------



## Tink (28 December 2013)

Ruby, this nation was built on Christianity and has shaped it to what it is today. I don't know where you get Jesus isn't a Christian.

If you cant see how much the Church contributed through the years, then that's your choice, and that video sums it up perfectly.

Its my choice to choose that I prefer the teachings of the Church.
I prefer what they stand for which is for all life, for the common good, and family values.

I am glad they are there standing up for what I believe in.


----------



## pavilion103 (28 December 2013)

The fundamental part of Jesus teachings were not about "good life principles." They included these but these were not the main message at all.

Jesus message was a very clear one about eternal salvation. He unquestionably claimed to be the messiah, the only Son of God. And he spoke of salvation for those who received Him and the sacrifice He was about to make. He predicted His own death and bodily resurrection.

This is very very clear. He was not some good teacher.
He is either a lunatic, a liar or Lord.
He left no room for the title "good teacher"


----------



## Ruby (28 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Ruby, this nation was built on Christianity and has shaped it to what it is today.




??? Didn't you just say the following - a few posts back:- _".....and as we can see in society its slowly taking a dive as people become more selfish and its all about themselves rather than having responsibilities and caring for others.

The Mental Health units are all booming with drugs and alcohol as we have a crisis with all these children that have no direction in life."_ ?  

 So you are saying that this is the society Christianity has shaped?  



> I don't know where you get Jesus isn't a Christian.




I didn't say that either, so please don't misquote me.   However, since you mention it, he wasn't.  Christianity wasn't invented until well after JC died.  He was a Jew.



> If you cant see how much the Church contributed through the years, then that's your choice, and that video sums it up perfectly.




As stated, I do see the church's contributions, but I don't filter out everything I don't want to see - as you do Tink.   



> Its my choice to choose that I prefer the teachings of the Church.
> I prefer what they stand for which is for all life, for the common good, and family values.
> 
> I am glad they are there standing up for what I believe in.




As I said before, you are welcome to believe any fairy tale you like.  If you are happy to overlook centuries of greed, corruption, power struggles, and total control of the population through fear - then that is fine by me, but please spare the rest of us the lie.


----------



## Chris45 (29 December 2013)

FxTrader said:


> ...



FxTrader, the venom with which you discuss religion and churches and attack Tink suggests that you not only disbelieve in God, you really hate him and the church and Christians with a vengeance! Most people are prepared to give some credit where credit is due, but you appear to have nothing positive to say. Were you a victim of church abuse by any chance?



Ruby said:


> ... and secondly, the teachings of Jesus did not originate with him and are not "owned" by the Christian church.  They are the guiding principles of all good people - and have been for thousands of years - long before Jesus was born - as others before me have pointed out.  You might say that JC hijacked them from other ancient philosophies.



Ruby, are you saying that none of Jesus' teachings are original?

Can you give some specific examples plus the ancient philosophies from which they were hijacked?



> As stated, I do see the church's contributions, but I don't filter out everything I don't want to see - as you do Tink.
> 
> Tink, I am happy to accept that religion gives some of its adherents comfort, but please stop trying to white wash it. You have obviously been brainwashed but others among us haven't.



Your criticism of Tink is both harsh and unjustified!

I think Tink is trying to compensate for the religious negativity and hatred that seems to abound these days. The media is full of the horrific abuse stories and there is probably a growing perception in the general community that the church is rotten to the core and all priests are pedophiles, etc. which must make the VAST MAJORITY of decent and honorable church people very concerned.

In _"A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse"_ by Thomas Plante, a psychiatrist specializing in abuse counseling and considered an expert on clerical abuse, he states _"approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor."_ According to Newsweek magazine, the figure is similar to that in the rest of the adult population. But the media generally aren't interested in stressing this because it's the sensational that sells.

Churches are composed of people, the overwhelming majority of whom are decent and compassionate, and if you ever find yourself in a desperately unfortunate situation, it's *more likely* to be a Christian, or other religious person, who comes to your aid than a hardened atheist, at least that's been my experience.


----------



## McLovin (29 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Churches are composed of people, the overwhelming majority of whom are decent and compassionate, and if you ever find yourself in a desperately unfortunate situation, it's *more likely* to be a Christian, or other religious person, who comes to your aid than a hardened atheist, at least that's been my experience.




It's rubbish statements like this that are the reason people have such little time for Bible bashers.


----------



## CanOz (30 December 2013)

McLovin said:


> It's rubbish statements like this that are the reason people have such little time for Bible bashers.




Yup. pretty much turned me off to the rest of the drivel here...just when i was trying hard to relate


----------



## Tink (30 December 2013)

Thanks Chris, for your post.

No one agrees with the abuse that has happened as I have stated numerous times, and I agree with you that the balance in the papers is out of context, its a pity that they dont zone in on all pedophiles in all areas rather than only on the Church.
I have been involved in the Church my whole life and am yet to meet one that was abused.

The balance of what the Church/religion has contributed over the years and still contributes is what I have been bringing forward when I put up this video.


As stated, I prefer the teachings of the Church, and if I want to say that, I can.

As mentioned, in previous posts, the private/religious schools are all booming with long waiting lists because of their higher standard of education and their superior discipline.

I think that speaks volumes.


----------



## Chris45 (30 December 2013)

McLovin said:


> It's rubbish statements like this that are the reason people have such little time for Bible bashers.



A predictable response from a REAL Bible basher. 
CanOz you disappoint me.


----------



## muir (30 December 2013)

_______


Harry Lime: Nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don't. Why should we? They talk about the people and the proletariat, I talk about the suckers and the mugs - it's the same thing. They have their five-year plans, so have I.

Martins: You used to believe in *God*.

Harry Lime: Oh, I still do believe in *God*, old man. I believe in *God *and Mercy and all that. But the dead are happier dead. They don't miss much here, poor devils.


----------



## cynic (30 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> A predictable response from a REAL Bible basher.
> CanOz you disappoint me.




Chris, whilst I can respect the right of another to form opinions derived from personal experience, I believe that the sentiments expressed in that last paragraph of your earlier post were very unwise.

I not only fully with sympathise McLovin's and Canoz's response, I join them in their indignation at the offensive suggestion that the Christian religion holds a monopoly on morality!


----------



## Chris45 (30 December 2013)

cynic said:


> I not only fully with sympathise McLovin's and Canoz's response, I join them in their indignation at the offensive suggestion that the Christian religion holds a monopoly on morality!



With respect Cynic, some of us find the strident atheist views and language expressed here equally offensive.

Everyone should be entitled to express their views without being treated rudely and disrespectfully, and ridiculed.

It strikes me that hardened aggressive atheists have much in common with religious extremist nutters. Both are intolerant, both lack compassion, both are hate-mongers and both should be condemned.

I don't know where the suggestion that "the Christian religion holds a monopoly on morality!" came from. My comments were referring to acts of charitable kindness that I have witnessed.


----------



## Ruby (30 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Ruby, are you saying that none of Jesus' teachings are original?




Yes, I am.   They have been expressed differently, but the essence of them had been around for thousands of years.  All the "do unto others" stuff has appeared in various guises in many ancient philosophies.  The "believe in me and you will be saved and live everlasting life" has also been the promise of other more ancient gods, or some variant of it has.  My point is that religion was around long before Christianity, and the promises it provided the hopeful were all variations on the same theme.  The "live a good moral life" bit was written about and taught by ancient philosophers well before Christ.



> Can you give some specific examples plus the ancient philosophies from which they were hijacked?




Chris - no, I can't give specific examples, I'm afraid, but if you read some of the ancient Greek myths and legends you will find them buried there - for a start.   Philosophers.............. Socrates (around 400bc), for example, taught (in the manner of his era - dialogue with small groups of fellow citizens) such things as justice to fellow man, virtue, the importance of seeking wisdom while retaining humility, piety, self-mastery, etc.  And there were many others.  

This is not a criticism of Jesus' teachings, but he was not the first to propose them.



> Your criticism of Tink is both harsh and unjustified!




I'm sorry you think that.  I believe it is quite justified.   



> In _"A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse"_ by Thomas Plante, a psychiatrist specializing in abuse counseling and considered an expert on clerical abuse, he states _"approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor."_ According to Newsweek magazine, the figure is similar to that in the rest of the adult population. But the media generally aren't interested in stressing this because it's the sensational that sells.




I don't know what the figures are, so I can't argue with you, but what upsets people so much is not just the paedophilia (which is horrific in itself) but the way the church knowingly covered it up and allowed it to continue unabated for decades.  That is what is rotten to the core.  I have just been reading a book about a catholic priest called John Day who raped hundreds of children in and around Mildura for decades - took his pick of the local youth - and was never brought to justice owing to the protection offered him by the church and a corrupt catholic police officer.  This disgusting pervert also consorted with prostitutes - also known by the church.   This is what makes people think the church is rotten to the core!!!!!  The hierarchy knowingly allowing this to go on - as it has, for decades!



> Churches are composed of people, the overwhelming majority of whom are decent and compassionate ......




Agreed, absolutely!



> .........and if you ever find yourself in a desperately unfortunate situation, it's *more likely* to be a Christian, or other religious person, who comes to your aid than a hardened atheist, at least that's been my experience.




What a bigoted, sanctimonious, nonsensical statement that is!!!   You have no evidence to back that up!  And what makes you think atheists are 'hardened'???   It is no wonder people are turned off Christianity with ambassadors like you.


----------



## bellenuit (30 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Ruby, are you saying that none of Jesus' teachings are original?
> 
> Can you give some specific examples plus the ancient philosophies from which they were hijacked?




Chris. Not quite what you asked for, but while looking for examples I came across this, which is interesting in its own right. It looks at similarities in the "story of Jesus" and the stories of deities which preceded him. It would be hard to conclude that although Jesus may be a real historical figure (debatable), much of what is attributed to him was "hijacked" from the stories of deities long before his time. These deities are of course today regarded as mythological figures.

I have checked some of the deities listed at this link and though some of the claims made are disputable, a great deal of their stories are as stated.

*10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus*

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/


----------



## Ruby (30 December 2013)

Tink said:


> I have been involved in the Church my whole life and am yet to meet one that was abused.




Do you think that a man who was raped by a priest when he was a child in 1970 (for example) would be likely to tell you?  You may know lots of people to whom that has happened.


----------



## bellenuit (30 December 2013)

On searching whether Jesus' teachings were original, I came across this.

_Gautama Buddha taught that all men are brothers, that charity ought to be extended to all, even to enemies; that men ought to love truth and hate the lie; that good work ought not to be done openly; but rather in secret; that the dangers of riches are to be avoided; that man's highest aim ought to be purity in thought, word and deed, since the higher things are pure, whose nature is akin to that of man._

http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000121.html

This one is from a website that suggests that Jesus may be a reincarnation of Buddha. What is interesting is that this following section quotes the holy books of each (BTW, "identical" would not be my choice of word, I would opt for "similar"):

_Identical Teachings of Buddha and Christ

1.	 "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31)
"Consider others as yourself." (Dhammapada 10:1)

2.	 "If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also." (Luke 6:29)
"If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." (Majjhima Nikaya 21:6)

3.	
"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." (Luke 6:27-28)

"Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love: this is an eternal truth. Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good ... Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth." (Dhammapada 1.5 & 17.3)

4.	
"He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.Ã¢€™" (Matthew 25:45)

"If you do not tend one another, then who is there to tend to you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick." (Vinaya, Mahavagga 8:26:3)

5.	
"Put your sword back in its place,Ã¢€  Jesus said to him, Ã¢€œfor all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)

"Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword." (Digha Nikaya 1:1:8)

6.	
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down oneÃ¢€™s life for oneÃ¢€™s friends." (John 15:12-13)

"Just as a mother would protect her only child at the risk of her own life, even so, cultivate a boundless heart towards all beings. Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world." (Sutta Nipata 149-150)

7.	 "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)
"The body of the Buddha is born of love, patience, gentleness and truth." (Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra 2)

8.	
"He told them another parable: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches." (Matthew 13:31-32)

"Do not underestimate good, thinking it will not affect you. Dripping water can fill a pitcher, drop by drop; one who is wise is filled with good, even if one accumulates it little by little." (Dhammapada 9:7)

9.	
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brotherÃ¢€™s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brotherÃ¢€™s eye." (Luke 6:41-42)

"The faults of others are easier to see than one's own; the faults of others are easily seen, for they are sifted like chaff, but one's own faults are hard to see. This is like the cheat who hides his dice and shows the dice of his opponent, calling attention to the other's shortcomings, continually thinking of accusing him." (Udanavarga 27:1)

10.	
"They said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" He said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:4-7)

"Do not look at the faults of others, or what others have done or not done; observe what you yourself have done and have not done." (Dhammapada 4:7)

11.	
"Your eye is the lamp of your body. If your eye is healthy your whole body is full of light; but if it is not healthy, your body is full of darkness. Therefore consider whether the light in you is full of darkness. If then your whole body is full of light, with no part of it in darkness, it will be as full of light as when a lamp gives you light with its rays." (Luke 11:34-36)

"As a man with eyes who carries a lamp sees all objects, so too with one who has heard the Moral Law. He will become perfectly wise." (Udanavarga 22:4)

12.	
"Your father in heaven makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous." (Matthew 5:45)

"That great cloud rains down on all whether their nature is superior or inferior. The light of the sun and the moon illuminates the whole world, both him who does well and him who does ill, both him who stands high and him who stands low." (Saddharma Pundarika Sutra 5)

13.	 "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20)
"Let us live most happily, possessing nothing; let us feed on joy, like the radiant gods." (Dhammapada 15:4)

14.	
"If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19:21)

"The avaricious do not go to heaven, the foolish do not extol charity. The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond." (Dhammapada 13:11)

15.	
"He looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. He said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on." (Luke 21:1-4)

"Giving is the noble expression of the benevolence of the mighty. Even dust, given in childish innocence, is a good gift. No gift that is given in good faith to a worthy recipient can be called small; it effects us so great." (Jatakamala 3:23)

16.	 "Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die." (John 11:26)
"Those who have sufficient faith in me, sufficient love for me, are all headed for heaven or beyond." (Majjhima Nikaya 22:47)

17.	
"Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it." (Mark 8:35)

"With the relinquishing of all thought and egotism, the enlightened one is liberated through not clinging." (Majjhima Nikaya 72:15)

18.	
"Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." (Matthew 8:20)

"The thoughtful exert themselves; they do not delight in an abode. Like swans who have left their lake they leave their house and home." (Majjhima Nikaya)

19.	
"When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time." (Luke 4:13)

"During the six years that the Bodhisattva practiced austerities, the demon followed behind him step by step, seeking an opportunity to harm him. But he found no opportunity whatsoever and went away discouraged and discontent." (Lalitavistara Sutra 18)

20.	 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." (Matthew 5:8)
"Anyone who enters into meditation on compassion can see Brahma with his own eyes, talk to him face to face and consult with him." (Digha Nikaya 19:43)

21.	 "Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them." (John 20:26)
"He goes unhindered through a wall." (Anguttara Nikaya 3:60)
22.	
"And after six days Jesus takes with him Peter, and James, and John, and leads them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on Earth can white them." (Mark 9:2-3)

"Ananda, having arranged one set of golden robes on the body of the Lord, observed that against the Lord's body it appeared dulled. And he said, "It is wonderful, Lord, it is marvelous how clear and bright the Lord's skin appears! It looks even brighter than the golden robes in which it is clothed." (Digha Nikaya 16:4:37)_

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen045.html


----------



## Chris45 (30 December 2013)

Ruby said:


> What a bigoted, sanctimonious, nonsensical statement that is!!!   You have no evidence to back that up!  And what makes you think atheists are 'hardened'???   It is no wonder people are turned off Christianity with ambassadors like you.



I was quite enjoying your post until I got to the last bit of abusive, venomous, unwarranted over-reaction!

What part of _*"at least that's been my experience"*_ didn't you understand? 

If you are turned off Christianity by such a simple observation then there is obviously no way you would ever become one!!!

Not all atheists are "hardened", rude, and abusive, and most I have met are considerate and reasonable, but there are a few here that *definitely* fit the former description!!!


----------



## Chris45 (30 December 2013)

bellenuit said:


> On searching whether Jesus' teachings were original, I came across this.



Thanks Bellenuit, that's most interesting! Especially, _"Buddha and Jesus were *both holy prophets of God* who appeared in their own times for the spiritual rejuvenation of the people to whom they were sent. Buddha appeared in India about six hundred years before Jesus. In both were found a purity of life, sanctity of character and patient endurance under fierce persecution. It appears that they were both very near in resemblance as suggested by the following analogies."_ ... and the bit about ... _"Jesus may be a reincarnation of Buddha"_

According to Wikipedia, _"Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity, refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering."_ which conflicts with the above.

But, apart from the creator deity bit, basically both religions are teaching the same good stuff but to different congregations. Learn something new every day.


----------



## Ruby (30 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> Not all atheists are "hardened", rude, and abusive, and most I have met are considerate and reasonable, but there are a few here that *definitely* fit the former description!!!




Now you are contradicting yourself.   A few posts ago atheists were "hardened".   My objection was to your deciding that atheists were "hardened" as if being one meant you were automatically the other.   You would not even know the religious leanings of most people you meet on an everyday basis, so why make such a judgement?


----------



## cynic (31 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> With respect Cynic, some of us find the strident atheist views and language expressed here equally offensive.
> 
> Everyone should be entitled to express their views without being treated rudely and disrespectfully, and ridiculed.
> 
> ...



Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me. 
I can now more comfortably relate to what you've expressed. As you've no doubt already noticed, a certain phrase was sufficiently ambiguous to be mistaken by a number of members as a sweeping generalisation with which anyone identifying with atheism could easily take offense. I now understand that was not your intent. 

Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding.

P.S. "monopoly on morality" was my misconstrued understanding of the paragraph in question. (I know! Very naughty of me! Naughty, naughty cynic!!!)


----------



## Tink (31 December 2013)

Thanks for saying that, Chris. 

It gets tiring hearing that language when you express an opinion and thats not just in this thread, we should be entitled to express our views without hearing that.


----------



## Ruby (31 December 2013)

Tink said:


> Thanks for saying that, Chris.
> 
> It gets tiring hearing that language when you express an opinion and thats not just in this thread, we should be entitled to express our views without hearing that.




Tink - I fully respect your right to express your views, but if you do so, you must also respect the right of others to disagree.  There is nothing wrong with robust discussion!  What is wrong, however, is the sweeping assertions (made on numerous occasions on this thread and others) that the Christian church has a monopoly on morality, and the implication that somehow Christians are better people than non-believers.   I am not the first (or only) person to point this out.  What is also wrong is making statements which are blatantly without any basis in fact, and which have no evidence to support them.  This has also been done on this thread by people supporting the Christian viewpoint.

If you and Chris find my objections to such utterances offensive, then perhaps you would be better not making offensive statements in the first place.

If some of the claims you make were more factual and less biased, and with less white-washing of the truth, we could probably have a more interesting and respectful debate.

I apologise in advance if you find my language rude; I don't intend it that way.


----------



## FxTrader (31 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> FxTrader, the venom with which you discuss religion and churches and attack Tink suggests that you not only disbelieve in God, you really hate him and the church and Christians with a vengeance! Most people are prepared to give some credit where credit is due, but you appear to have nothing positive to say. Were you a victim of church abuse by any chance?



Not only to you continue to not address any of my arguments against religion but now you brand me a hater so you can conveniently dismiss everything I say on the subject out of hand. To put your asinine statement in perspective, some of my best friends are Christians whom, I might add, argue the case for Christianity and religion far more intelligently and maturely than you do. Your assertion that I am "intolerent" then is yet more nonsense.

How can one hate an imaginary supernatural being exactly, an imaginary Satan perhaps?  I consider that religion, and Christianity in particular, is a fraud that deceives millions of gullible superstitious people into believing, saying and doing things they would not otherwise be inclined to and do not subject this belief to serious scrutiny.  My "venom" is directed at religious fiction and the institutions that perpetuate this false mythology for whatever motive.  I am quite happy to detail why I believe Christianity is a fraud but I doubt your thoroughly indoctrinated mind would accept anything I say on the subject given your responses or lack thereof on this forum to date.

Actually I do acknowledge the positive aspects of belief in imaginary beings, including Santa and the tooth fairy, but I don't worship them or pretend for a moment that they are real.  There is a difference between self-delusion and rational reality.

While your patronizing and insulting statement regarding abuse deserves no response I will say this, I am fairly certain that, after many years of attending Christian Churches (non-Catholic) and reading the Bible and commentaries on it, I understand Christian mythology far better than you do.  

Unlike you, I have spent considerable time investigating the claims and origins of Christian belief in particular and reached the inevitable conclusion that it's hopelessly flawed, inaccurate, inconsistent and comprised of fantastic fictional tales on the origins of human kind, our genealogy and genesis, based on an assemblage of writings (of which many are from unknown authors and modified many times over the ages) called the Bible that properly belong on the same shelf as books on Zeus and the Kraken.



> It strikes me that hardened aggressive atheists have much in common with religious extremist nutters. Both are intolerant, both lack compassion, both are hate-mongers and both should be condemned.



Such a ignorant statement regarding atheists and commonality with religious extremists is contemptible nonsense.  Your scorn for atheism (simply a declaration of non-belief based on insufficient evidence) and those who identify as such is typical of religious bigots who deeply resent the notion and evidence that what they believe in so strongly is a fiction that should not dictate how they live their lives or indeed how others should live theirs.



> Churches are composed of people, the overwhelming majority of whom are decent and compassionate, and if you ever find yourself in a desperately unfortunate situation, it's more likely to be a Christian, or other religious person, who comes to your aid than a hardened atheist, at least that's been my experience.



Please try and comprehend the following: how people act toward others based on religious belief is unrelated to the validity of what they believe.  The extent to which religion compels one to live one's life in a manner that is beneficial to human society is not evidence for belief in, or the truth of, supernatural claims in iron-age scrolls.


----------



## Ruby (31 December 2013)

FxTrader said:


> ....... I have spent considerable time investigating the claims and origins of Christian belief in particular and reached the inevitable conclusion that it's hopelessly flawed, inaccurate, inconsistent and comprised of fantastic fictional tales on the origins of human kind, our genealogy and genesis, based on an assemblage of writings (of which many are from unknown authors and modified many times over the ages) called the Bible that properly belong on the same shelf as books on Zeus and the Kraken.




FX - I would like to add my support to this.  This is the case with many once-Christians who are now atheists.  We have taken the trouble to do some investigation.


----------



## McLovin (31 December 2013)

Chris45 said:


> A predictable response from a REAL Bible basher.




Like most people who don't believe in your version of the tooth fairy I get tired of hearing about how pious you all think you are.

Don't worry, it's not just religion that tries to claim certain human characteristics as their own. 



			
				Chris45 said:
			
		

> It strikes me that hardened aggressive atheists have much in common with religious extremist nutters. Both are intolerant, both lack compassion, both are hate-mongers and both should be condemned.




Yeah OK. Come back to me when an atheist jams a plane into the side of a building or blows up an abortion clinic.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2013)

Just a sidebar peeps:

I'm not a Christian, just a seeker of the truth so no agenda here, but how does demonstrating the nonsense of one or another religious text (which afetr all, have been written by men) prove the non existence of a deity or deities or other whateverisms?

Proving the Bible is rubbish just proves the Bible is rubbish, that's all.


----------



## cynic (31 December 2013)

wayneL said:


> Just a sidebar peeps:
> 
> I'm not a Christian, just a seeker of the truth so no agenda here, but how does demonstrating the nonsense of one or another religious text (which afetr all, have been written by men) prove the non existence of a deity or deities or other whateverisms?
> 
> Proving the Bible is rubbish just proves the Bible is rubbish, that's all.




+1

I believe that there are many people across a broad spectrum of belief (and disbelief) systems that will be in full agreeance with the logical integrity of your observation.


----------



## Chris45 (31 December 2013)

cynic said:


> Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me.
> I can now more comfortably relate to what you've expressed. As you've no doubt already noticed, a certain phrase was sufficiently ambiguous to be mistaken by a number of members as a sweeping generalisation with which anyone identifying with atheism could easily take offense. I now understand that was not your intent.
> 
> Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding.
> ...



Cynic, I thank you warmly for your most gracious post! The calm graciousness and humility with which you express yourself is an excellent example to us all. 

I take your point and if I'd anticipated that my earlier comment was going to cause such anger, I would certainly have been more circumspect, so with the EXCEPTION of that who responded with the insulting and vehement anger, I apologize to those I offended.



MS+Tradesim said:


> Plenty of threads here vilifying religion so it's time for a positive one. If you want to post bigotry or conspiracist nonsense please go elsewhere. Just the good here.



These aggressive attacks against Christianity and theism in general are becoming very tiresome and are inappropriate in this thread. At the risk of being verbose and boring everyone to tears, I'd like to clarify a few things about my current perspective, for what it's worth. No doubt others see things differently, and if you disagree, fine, but please leave out all of the angry, inflammatory and derogatory language and try to be gracious.

I was neither raised nor do I live in a religious enclave. I have not been indoctrinated and brain washed by religious teachers, any more than any other person has been indoctrinated and brain washed by their secular educators. I have listened to a variety of views and made my own informed decisions.

I believe all children should be given the opportunity to hear Jesus' or Buddha's teachings, or similar, to help them make their own informed decisions. Whether they choose to adopt all or part of them, or ignore them completely, is then their choice.

I live in a society that was created by intelligent beings and I have witnessed part of its evolution to its present form.
I was educated by a system that was created and has evolved significantly since my time.
I worked in an organisation that was created and I participated in its evolution.
I am surrounded by material possessions that were created and have evolved to their present form.
The car I drive has evolved significantly from the horse drawn Roman chariots that were created over 2000 years ago.
My computer has evolved significantly from the primitive diode that was created approximately 100 years ago.

Do you see a pattern developing here? Virtually everything in our lives has evolved from its original creation.
Since there is strong evidence that we have also evolved, I think it's a reasonable assumption that we might also have been created.

Like most others, I have encountered a wide variety of people over the years and the ones whose companionship I have found to be the most enjoyable, thankfully the majority, have been either theists or agnostics, with one memorable Christian girl showing me exceptional generosity when I found myself in a very desperate situation. A small minority with nasty, cold and hardened personalities have been acknowledged atheists and I have never witnessed an act of charitable kindness from one of their kind. Others may have had completely different experiences, so again I stress, this has been *my experience*.

It's very difficult to be both concise and accurate with complex issues like human behaviour. When trying to make sense of the world I tend to see things from a mathematical/scientific perspective and often think in terms of normal distribution curves and spectrums.  *http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/images/normal-distrubution-large.gif*

I see "belief" as a sort of spectrally coloured normal distribution. At the red end are warm compassionate theists and at the blue end are hardened soulless atheists and the rest are scattered in between with agnostics holding the middle ground. It's an imperfect model and there are always exceptions to every generalisation. Not all theists are warm compassionate good people (eg Adolf Hitler), and not all atheists are hardened soulless bad people (eg an atheist neighbour whose company I enjoy, and to whom I often lend a helping hand, frequently reciprocated).

I don't know where Muslim extremists are positioned.

I understand that, strictly speaking, atheism it is not a belief, it's supposed to be an absence of belief, but it comes across as a belief, so please let's not get bogged down in petty semantics. Belief is any cognitive content held as true and atheists hold that there is no God and that we evolved from spontaneously generated primitive pond life, ... that's close enough to a belief for me. Atheism is almost a religion and it even has its messiahs!  *http://www.atheistmessiah.com/*  plus several others who go around preaching their belief in non-belief.

Atheists see all theists as brain washed idiots, which is as absurd as theists seeing all atheists as ignorant primitives.


----------



## Chris45 (31 December 2013)

FxTrader said:


> Not only to you continue to not address any of my arguments against religion ...
> 
> Your assertion that I am "intolerent" then is yet more nonsense.






FxTrader said:


> I happily wear the intolerant tag in the context of the fantastic, supernatural and faith-based claims made by the religious and religion in general without a shred of credible evidence.






> asinine ... gullible superstitious people ... your thoroughly indoctrinated mind ... self-delusion ... I understand Christian mythology far better than you do ... hopelessly flawed, inaccurate, inconsistent and comprised of fantastic fictional tales on the origins of human kind ... religious bigots ... etc.



FxTrader, you continue to use insulting, derogatory and inflammatory language. You have your views and I see no point in wasting my time engaging in a discussion with you.


----------



## FxTrader (1 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> You continue to use insulting, derogatory and inflammatory language.



However you wish to brand my statements here one important thing escapes your attention, your own offensive, insulting and dismissive statements for which you are unapologetic.  That you despise atheists and atheism in general is clear, non-belief itself seems to offend you.

I must say I don't recognize the straw-man caricature of the "hardened" atheist you frequently attack here.  The atheists I know don't declare there is no God just no evidence for one.  Neither do they declare evolution theory as perfect science but acknowledge the weight of evidence supporting it.  Atheists are not a homogenous community with identical views so the stereotypical atheist you seek to create and attack does not exist. 

It's currently in vogue for the religious to label non-belief as a belief system as well so they can attack atheism as a form of unacknowledged religion (the religion of belief in evolution that is).  Therefore, the religious conclude that atheism is a kind of faith based belief system on par with other faith based religions to create a "my faith vs your faith" scenario.  Such faulty reasoning needs to be exposed as such.

Your limited "experience" with atheists has crowded out reason in favor of prejudice. I echo the statements of others here by reminding you that you don't see atheists doing any of the following (short list):


Flying planes into buildings in the name of a God killing 3,000 people and hopefully collecting a clutch of virgins in the afterlife as a result
Chanting in the streets to kill infidels and cartoonists
Dressing women head to toe in black garments
Telling children they are going to hell for non-belief
Denying children life saving health care in favor of prayer
Creating religious institutions that shield child rapists and abusers
Arrogantly asserting moral superiority and authority due to belief in the inerrancy of God-inspired text in magic books  
I could go on and on of course but point made I think.  Perhaps your disgust for and loathing of atheists should be redirected at such things instead.

As for the "beauty in religion", it's significantly overshadowed by the darkness it casts over modern human civilization.  We humans have survived and come a long way over the last 150,000 years or so in spite of religious repression and superstition.  How much longer will it take I wonder for an enlightened humanity to emerge where reason and rationality finally prevail over religious superstition and dogma. Happy New Year.


----------



## McLovin (1 January 2014)

FxTrader said:


> How much longer will it take I wonder for an enlightened humanity to emerge where reason and rationality finally prevail over religious superstition and dogma. Happy New Year.




I doubt much longer. One has to imagine the reflexive outrage they express whenever their superstition is questioned is because the tall tales are no longer getting through to many people with an education beyond year 3. It's no great mystery that education and religious belief are negatively correlated.

Happy new year to you too.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> I doubt much longer. One has to imagine the reflexive outrage they express whenever their superstition is questioned is because the tall tales are no longer getting through to many people with an education beyond year 3. It's no great mystery that education and religious belief are negatively correlated.
> 
> Happy new year to you too.




If a person were to say "It's no great mystery that education and *indoctrination* are negatively correlated."

I'd be inclined to agree.

But expressing it the way you did McLovin, is strongly suggestive of a viewing of history through the filters of one's personal bias/es.

I'm sure you haven't forgotten the historical origins of our current day universities.

And a very happy new year to you also.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2014)

I plan to give mysticism and reflection a go this year.

There seems to be something missing in my meaning for life.

I do hope I don't turn in to a godbotherer.

Wish me the best.

gg


----------



## cynic (1 January 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I plan to give mysticism and reflection a go this year.
> 
> There seems to be something missing in my meaning for life.
> 
> ...




GG,

You have my best wishes in all your noble endeavours.

May I allay your fears about selftransmutation into a "godbotherer".

An adept scholar such as yourself is more at risk of becoming a godbothererbotherer from an ardent study of mysticism.


----------



## bellenuit (1 January 2014)




----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2014)

cynic said:


> GG,
> 
> You have my best wishes in all your noble endeavours.
> 
> ...




Many thanks cynic,

My force and yours will be with us this year.

Hal et Lou. Yeah.

gg


----------



## Chris45 (1 January 2014)

FxTrader said:


> However you wish to brand my statements here one important thing escapes your attention, your own offensive, insulting and dismissive statements for which you are unapologetic.



Happy New Year to you too, and in that spirit, I'll renege on my previous comment and try engaging in a civilised and courteous discussion with you, but if you start reintroducing the offensive, insulting and dismissive statements for which *you* are unapologetic, I'll just take Joe's advice and put you on Ignore.



> That you despise atheists and atheism in general is clear, non-belief itself seems to offend you.



Where have I said that I despise atheists and atheism in general? If that's the conclusion you have come to then you are incorrect.
Did you not bother to read the fourth last paragraph in my post #326? 

It *concerns* me that some of the "evils" of society (call them what you will) eg sickening violence, drug abuse, etc. are on the increase and I feel there could be a correlation with the rise of atheism and the decline of the church, but that's just my impression and I offer no data to support it, and you will probably disagree.

If I *despise* anything, it's the offensive, insulting and dismissive language and trolling behaviour that you have exhibited, which has prompted my reactions, to which you object.



> I must say I don't recognize the straw-man caricature of the "hardened" atheist you frequently attack here.  The atheists I know don't declare there is no God just no evidence for one.



We obviously have had quite different experiences with atheists!

Your opinion of me is quite clear and I don't know you personally, but from the language and views you have expressed in your recent posts, you fit the image I have of a nasty, cold, blue-hardened atheist. Please prove me incorrect!

I agree there is no evidence for God, nor is there any evidence for autogenesis.
So, if a young child were to ask you where we came from, what would you tell him?



> Neither do they declare evolution theory as perfect science but acknowledge the weight of evidence supporting it.



I totally agree!



> Atheists are not a homogenous community with identical views so the stereotypical atheist you seek to create and attack does not exist.



Theists are not a homogenous community with identical views either, so why do you bundle them all together and stereotype and attack them with your demeaning labels?



> It's currently in vogue for the religious to label non-belief as a belief system as well so they can attack atheism as a form of unacknowledged religion (the religion of belief in evolution that is).  Therefore, the religious conclude that atheism is a kind of faith based belief system on par with other faith based religions to create a "my faith vs your faith" scenario.  Such faulty reasoning needs to be exposed as such.



Perhaps you should have a word to Darwin Bedford!

This senseless war should cease and *both* sides should stop attacking each other. The atheist side could set a good example by ceasing the insulting and demeaning attacks on people who choose to believe in God. If you don't believe, that's fine, but why attack and belittle those who do? Christians usually experience benefits from their faith that are difficult to describe, and need to be experienced to be appreciated. Why do you want to take that away from them?



> Your limited "experience" with atheists has crowded out reason in favor of prejudice. I echo the statements of others here by reminding you that you don't see atheists doing any of the following (short list):
> 
> Flying planes into buildings in the name of a God killing 3,000 people and hopefully collecting a clutch of virgins in the afterlife as a result
> Chanting in the streets to kill infidels and cartoonists
> ...



Again, an incorrect assessment of me!
I also condemn most of the above items, so again, you misunderstand me.
Do atheists have a squeaky clean record and have atheists never committed any atrocities?

I assume you are referring to the Bible in your last point. I think that's an unnecessary and demeaning label and I find the sarcasm offensive.



> As for the "beauty in religion", it's significantly overshadowed by the darkness it casts over modern human civilization.



I probably disagree with that assessment ... but I don't really understand your point, so what is this "darkness" that you claim religion casts over modern human civilization?



> We humans have survived and come a long way over the last 150,000 years or so in spite of religious repression and superstition.



Again, you focus on the darkness of the past. Can you not appreciate any of the positive achievements?

As a species we're often quite incompetent in many of our endeavours and some well-meaning projects have had unfortunate consequences, but I give credit to those very brave Christian missionaries who brought some peace to the uncivilized primitives in our region and ended tribal cannibalism.

I also give credit to the Christian charity workers who selflessly give their time, energy and money to helping the unfortunate souls in our society, and around the world. There are many more but I won't go on.



> How much longer will it take I wonder for an enlightened humanity to emerge where reason and rationality finally prevail over religious superstition and dogma. Happy New Year.



If the day ever arrives that either life is discovered elsewhere in our universe, or a scientist proves autogenesis, how do you think the world will be affected? Do you think we'll be more contented and peaceful?

-------
Garpal Gumnut, I never know when to take you seriously. I suspect you're taking the pee again.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> -------
> Garpal Gumnut, I never know when to take you seriously. I suspect you're taking the pee again.




I was fair dinkum in my post.

I have always relied on mathematics and philosophy for grounding, thus my interest in charting, chance and determinism.

I do feel a certain vacuole in my armoury and will pursue mysticism and transcendence for 2014, in tandem with my wide philosophy which includes but is not entirely composed of being agin bicycle helmets, financial advisers and black box spruikers,  and other crutches of a desperate proletariat.

Laplace would not take the wager that there was not a god.

Why should I?

gg


----------



## Chris45 (1 January 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I was fair dinkum in my post.
> 
> Laplace would not take the wager that there was not a god.
> Why should I?
> gg



Well good on you! 

I don't know if you're up to date with String Theory, Multiverse Theory with its 10 dimensions of space-time , Reincarnation Theory, etc. (not saying for one second that I am ... it's a major struggle!) but if anything will dissuade you from betting your soul on there being no God, they should! Wikipedia is a good place to start.

At my stage in life, I'm *definitely* keeping my options open ... and starting to discover the benefits as well!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Well good on you!
> 
> I don't know if you're up to date with String Theory, Multiverse Theory with its 10 dimensions of space-time , Reincarnation Theory, etc. (not saying for one second that I am ... it's a major struggle!) but if anything will dissuade you from betting your soul on there being no God, they should! Wikipedia is a good place to start.
> 
> At my stage in life, I'm *definitely* keeping my options open ... and starting to discover the benefits as well!




Variably up to speed with the above.

As a kid I was a believer in Rome and then the Maharishi.

I will just glide back in to my Mantra and Church Attendance and see how it goes.

Francis seems like a good bloke.

Will keep you posted.

gg


----------



## Ruby (3 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> It *concerns* me that some of the "evils" of society (call them what you will) eg sickening violence, drug abuse, etc. are on the increase and I feel there could be a correlation with the rise of atheism and the decline of the church, but that's just my impression and I offer no data to support it, and you will probably disagree.




There have always been evils in society; there has always been sickening violence, dreadful cruelty of man to fellow man, drug abuse (alcohol, before we had the other stuff); so why do you draw a correlation with the rise of atheism? On your own admission you have no evidence to support this viewpoint.  You are still, by implication, associating atheism with the negative, and attributing the positive aspects of humanity to the church and Christianity.  This attitude is what people find offensive.   



> If I *despise* anything, it's the offensive, insulting and dismissive language and trolling behaviour that you have exhibited, which has prompted my reactions, to which you object.




Chris, you use some very offensive, insulting, dismissive and patronising language yourself.  If you don't wish people to respond in kind, then perhaps you should desist.

Happy New Year


----------



## bellenuit (3 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> It *concerns* me that some of the "evils" of society (call them what you will) eg sickening violence, drug abuse, etc. are on the increase and I feel there could be a correlation with the rise of atheism and the decline of the church, but that's just my impression and I offer no data to support it, and you will probably disagree.




Chris. I would disagree with that. Although there may be a correlation between the increase in violence and the rise of atheism, I think the causal relationship is with the increasing disregard for basic human values and responsibilities among sections of modern society.

Atheism is not believing the evidence put forward for the existence of a god or gods. It is not a position that people who have been brought up in a mainstream religion assume without much thought and soul searching. Although there is a weak correlation and associated causation between the rise in atheism and the decline in of the church, the main reason for the decline in the church is because it has lost its relevance to many people. There are many reasons for this; the sexual scandals that we constantly hear about, increased education, increased standard of living (religion can be a crutch for the poor) and what I think is the most important reason, the multitude of more enticing distractions available today. But I would think that most who have gravitated away from the church for those reasons have simply become disinterested and disengaged Christians rather than atheists. 

If you were to ask the people who are drunk on the streets and causing violence whether they have some sort of religious belief or are atheist, they will just laugh at you and punch you on the face. It is probably something they never think about or care about. They are just hooligans and thugs and are the product of a society that has raised them with a sense of entitlement and no responsibility. A society that glorifies violence. A society that is afraid to teach respect for others.

Most of the atheists I know either directly or though social media are intelligent and thoughtful people guided by a humanistic and secular moral compass. They are as abhorrent of the street violence as anybody else. Religious people I know, specifically those who have thought through their religious beliefs and are more than just followers, share the same values in general, with perhaps some differences in respect to specific areas such as abortion or birth control. Outside of these two groups you have a large portion of society that simply follow a religion because they were brought up that way and have never really thought about it or those who have no religion and just couldn't be bothered, but have never really though about it either. These are neither religious nor atheist as they don't really hold a thought through position, though they may tick a box one way or another on a census form.

The decline in the church is, IMO, due to the increase of those in the latter two groups rather than the rise in atheism. And I would think that it is a subset of these groups that are the cause of the increased violence we see. They have no moral compass, whether that comes from humanistic values or religious teachings. They simply do not care.


----------



## Tink (3 January 2014)

bellenuit, if they don't believe in a religion, they are atheist.


----------



## lindsayf (3 January 2014)

I think we ( the masses that question the historical validity and benefits of 'religion' and hold clergy and institutions accountable for their atrocities towards individuals and communities,  as discussed in this thread) live in a very fortunate time.  You don't have to go too far back in history to find that those that questioned prevailing religious doctrine did so at their own peril - on fear of persecution, torture and execution.  Because of this I think there is a potent legacy that carries through to the current day 'atheists'.  It does not surprise me to see the vehemence of the language used on both sides.  One, as always, does not want to have the dogma challenged for many subtle and blatant reasons.  The other has been for too long silenced and in this age of free thinking, free speech and knowledge from physics, astronomy, genetics, evolutionary biology, psychology etc, will not be silenced or wrongly belittled or marginalised any longer.  IMO this is an exceptionally good thing and I am glad that there are eloquent writers here that do not allow the generalisations, judgements and slights from believers to stand unchallenged.


----------



## bellenuit (3 January 2014)

Tink said:


> bellenuit, if they don't believe in a religion, they are atheist.




An atheist is someone who doesn't accept the evidence offered to date that their is a god. It is not uncommon to hear people respond to the question, "Do you believe in God", with the answer "I have never really thought about it". Such people do not fit easily into the believer/atheist category. Not accepting the evidence to date for a god requires thinking and taking a position.

Also, there are many people who believe in a higher power, whether it be a god or some superior being of sorts, that are not religious. They don't follow a religion, but are not atheists. 

In my post I identified three categories; the atheist who has thought through his position, the committed Christian and a larger grouping _"that simply follow a religion because they were brought up that way and have never really thought about it or those who have no religion and just couldn't be bothered, but have never really thought about it either. These are neither religious nor atheist as they don't really hold a thought through position, though they may tick a box one way or another on a census form."_

If you want to separate out the latter into lapsed/disengaged Christians and "haven't thought about it" atheists, then you can. It does not change the gist of what I was saying. But since the violence seems to be among a subset of these rather then the first two, then you will need to accept that the Christians (though they be lapsed/disengaged) are just as responsible as atheists (though they be of the sort "haven't thought about it").You can't, assuming that is what you are trying to do, lump all the disengaged Christians into the atheist camp.

BTW, since we are basically talking about Australia, I have assumed Church (as per Chris' original post) to mean Christian, though my comments would be applicable to other religious sects.


----------



## burglar (4 January 2014)

Tink said:


> bellenuit, if they don't believe in a religion, they are atheist.




atheist definition
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...e_rd=ctrl&ei=T8PGUsiJG8iN8Qf54IH4BQ&gws_rd=cr

agnostic definition
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...q=agnostic+def&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

agnostic definition vs atheist
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ion+vs+atheist&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official


----------



## Chris45 (4 January 2014)

Ruby said:


> Happy New Year



Ruby, Happy New Year to you too. 

I propose that we draw a line under the unpleasantness of the past and try to make 2014 a happier year for all here. Let's try to be a bit more gracious towards each other and leave out all of the offensive, insulting, dismissive and patronizing language.

We have different experiences and opinions so if I say something that offends please draw my attention to it diplomatically and give me a chance to explain or correct myself. 

I have just read Bellenuit's courteous and most interesting post #340 and will pen a comment in due course.


----------



## Tink (4 January 2014)

Thanks burglar, for your definitions.

Bellenuit, I have agreed that there are good and bad in all, but there is no point sugar coating it. 

If they have no interest in God, they are atheists, you cant start picking and choosing who is in your camp. You can't open threads putting down religious people and saying that these people aren't atheists. 

I might have to open a thread, atheists gone crazy.

As I have said before, I believe that with the decline of principles and care for others, the disgusting language and behaviour that is rising, not just in the youth, through all generations, including our politicians, society is deteriorating, and that is my view.


----------



## Tink (4 January 2014)

Also want to add, great posts, Chris.

I often wonder what happened to MS+T, I used to enjoy reading his input on theism.


----------



## McLovin (4 January 2014)

Tink said:


> I might have to open a thread, atheists gone crazy.




Please do. I'd love to see what examples you have.


----------



## burglar (4 January 2014)

Tink said:


> Thanks burglar, for your definitions ...




No worries! (a meaningless platitude)

As a person who is drifting from agnostic to atheist, I need to be aware of the nuances.



Tink said:


> ... I might have to open a thread, atheists gone crazy ...




A thread on the moral compass? ... mmm yes, I would view that!



Tink said:


> ... society is deteriorating, and that is my view.




Society is deteriorating  ...    and Religion is waning!
But I strongly believe that there is no solid causal link between the two.
It would, however, be an interesting debate (until it overheats).


----------



## McLovin (4 January 2014)

burglar said:


> Society is deteriorating  ...    and Religion is waning!
> But I strongly believe that there is no solid causal link between the two.
> It would, however, be an interesting debate (until it overheats).




Is there any actual evidence that society is deteriorating? Crime has been falling for decades. Fifty years ago, aboriginals couldn't get a look in, you couldn't move to Australia unless your skin was the right colour, being gay could mean a gaol sentence. Going back even further, my grandfather used to tell me about being unable to get a job during the depression at certain businesses, and much of the public service, because he was an Irish Catholic, even though he was born in Australia.

As far as I can see, society has moved along in leaps and bounds.


----------



## bellenuit (4 January 2014)

Tink said:


> Thanks burglar, for your definitions.
> 
> Bellenuit, I have agreed that there are good and bad in all, but there is no point sugar coating it.
> 
> ...




Tink. You are the one picking and choosing who is in your camp. You just thanked Burglar for providing definitions, definitions that are universally accepted and then you ignore them by saying that people who have no interest in God are atheists. That is incorrect. If you can't tell the difference between "not believing in the existence of" and "ignoring", then I can't really argue further on that issue. Bad Christians ignore God, but they are not atheists.


----------



## burglar (4 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> Is there any actual evidence that society is deteriorating? Crime has been falling for decades ...




Agree. It is hard to measure.

How do you reduce Bank Robberies? Stop calling them banks!!
Crime stats are rigged.


----------



## Ruby (4 January 2014)

Bellenuit - you express it very well - thanks!   (Posts 340 and 343)


----------



## burglar (4 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> ... disengaged Christians ...




I've never thought of myself in that way!!
Definitely, still live by christian values.


----------



## Chris45 (4 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Chris. I would disagree with that.
> 
> BTW, since we are basically talking about Australia, I have assumed Church (as per Chris' original post) to mean Christian



Yes, let's confine the discussion to Christianity and since my concern is with youth violence, I'll be thinking mainly of the Gen-Ys & Zs in my comments. After reading your posts carefully, I think we agree on many points and I hope you can at least agree with that .

My Christian education was through a Baptist church, although I must confess I haven't been to any church since my 20's so I'm out of touch with what is being preached these days. The church I attended was a very traditional one and they used the old King James Bible which, like Shakespeare, was a foreign language to me and I found it all rather boring, but it was my introduction to Christianity and, like many of today's youth, I probably would never have got to hear Jesus Christ's teachings of peace, love, humility, etc. without it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ _atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods._
That definition suggests more of a definite stance *against* God than the one you gave. So atheists can be God disbelievers or God deniers. A denier sounds more emphatic than a disbeliever.

People are entitled to make their own decisions and if, after hearing the full story, a person conscientiously decides against God and religion, then that's their personal decision and they must accept any consequences. That doesn't automatically make them bad people and providing they live by basically the same rules and have the same respect for basic human values and responsibilities and laws as Christians do, then "live and let live" is fine with me.

Both intelligent and caring Christian parents, and intelligent and caring atheist parents, teach their children proper regard for basic human values and responsibilities and the law, and both endeavor to give them good moral compasses to guide them, and their children usually grow up to be decent and law abiding citizens.

Your "three categories" roughly correspond with my spectrally coloured normal distribution curve model. In UK, 70% believe in God or some sort of spirit or life force and 25% don't. I don't know how accurately it fits the data but this diagram gives a rough idea.





I see "the committed Christians" in the red region, the "lapsed/disengaged" Christians in the orange-yellow region, the God disbelievers in the yellow-blue region and "the atheist who has thought through his position", ie the God deniers, in the violet region.

If someone ticks a box on a census form then they have considered their position, albeit briefly, and made a decision. There might not be conviction in their decision, but they have voted and that will put them on one side of the mean or the other.

The problem I see with today's youth is that, due to the atheist messages continually put out by their "music" and celebrity idols, and the media in general, plus people like Richard Dawkins writing books and going on TV "preaching" his atheistic views, many youths think it's "cool" to be an atheist and very "uncool" to be a Christian, without fully understanding what it is they don't believe in, and because they see it as uncool, they don't bother to even investigate, which is what I'm thinking when I refer to the "rise in atheism". I think they might be what you refer to as the "haven't thought about it" atheists. We need a name for them, perhaps "htai" atheists? I don't think they're agnostics because an agnostic is a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist) which suggests that they have at least thought about it. I guess it's much easier just to go with the majority of non-thinkers than join one of the minorities of thinkers. But some of these "htai" atheist youths then go around bullying, often physically, and persecuting those who choose Christianity. Why???

You say that "lapsed/disengaged" Christians are just as responsible as "htai" atheists for the violence we see. Really? While there are always exceptions, Christians, lapsed or otherwise, don't usually go around bullying and persecuting atheists or other Christians do they?

Youths seem to enjoy wearing black clothes and images of the "dark side" ... skulls, skeletons, etc. Most people don't see a problem with this, and laugh it off as harmless fashion which it could very well be, but is this obsession with the "dark side" healthy? Why is it so "uncool" to encourage the good and positive aspects of life? Alcohol (and previously cigarette) vendors continually try to tell us that their aim in advertising is to increase their market share. Could Satan be trying to do the same ... a form of subtle "grooming" perhaps? Atheists deny the existence of God, and ridicule the existence of Satan even more vigorously which, as I understand it, is just what Satan wants because his objective is to turn people away from God by whatever means possible. Just a thought and by all means, choose what you want to believe, but do your research.

The recent revelations about string and multiverse theory and then reincarnation were a real wake-up call for me and got me thinking, if the atheists are right and there isn't a God or a Satan, then apart from having to put up with some abuse of no real importance on an internet forum, I will have lost nothing by being a theist. But if the atheists are wrong and there is a God and a Satan, then the prospect of my soul ultimately ending up in Hell, whatever form it takes, is something to consider because Hell is unlikely to be pleasant. I wonder how many here can appreciate the implications of 10 spacetime dimensions? I've often wondered about Hell. Putting aside the old "fire and brimstone" model, I imagine being a space walker with an infinite life support system whose lifeline was cut so that he was left to drift endlessly in dark and empty space would be rather bad. Forget about stoking furnaces and laughing and joking with all of your mates, for a disembodied soul to be banished for eternity to the outer extremities of a lonely and empty universe in another dimension would be a Hell I would like to avoid.

Meanwhile, back here on Earth, there's a growing perception that society is becoming increasingly violent, with the rise in OMCGs, drug crimes etc. Assaults are no longer just bloody noses or black eyes, they're now stabbings, glassings, head stompings, etc. You say that if you asked the drunken thugs about their religious beliefs, they would "just laugh at you and punch you on the face." I'm more inclined to think they would scream, *"I DON'T (expletive) BELIEVE IN ANY OF THAT (expletive) GOD S**T"*, and then punch you to the ground and stomp on your head, which would be a fairly strong admission of their atheism I think. If they have never thought or cared about God or Jesus, don't you think it would be good if they did?

I remember reading a book in the 60's titled _"The Cross and the Switchblade"_. It tells the true story of pastor David Wilkerson's first five years in New York City, where he ministered to disillusioned youth, encouraging them to turn away from the drugs and gang violence they were involved with.  BBC radio did a program about it:  *http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00w7psw*  Sounds like it should be compulsory reading for all young people, especially those hooligans and thugs.

Do you have any details of the number of Christian charity workers vs atheist charity workers? I'm guessing that they're all out there working tirelessly together to help those in need and we should all follow their example of peace, love and harmony, assuming that is the case.

I think most of us (I know I am) are tired of hearing about the sexual scandals. Some horrific crimes were committed, but the law has now dealt with the offenders and we've had the inquiries and the royal commission, and I think it's time to move on and focus on how we can improve our society in the future.

I am also tired of anyone who dares to mention God or Jesus or the Bible, being reviled and labeled as "godbotherer", "brainwashed", "gullible", etc. which is as offensive to me as all atheists being labeled as "ignorant savages" would be to you. Yes, atheists have been persecuted in the past but our thinking has evolved since then and we should now try to respect each others views. Anyway, we probably won't find out which side is really correct until it is too late to do anything.



burglar said:


> agnostic definition vs atheist
> https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ion+vs+atheist&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official



Burglar, which of those "agnostic definition vs atheist" links do you favour?



McLovin said:


> Is there any actual evidence that society is deteriorating? Crime has been falling for decades.



There are many categories of crime but I saw some data that indicated that violent crime in recent years has increased.


----------



## burglar (5 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... Burglar, which of those "agnostic definition vs atheist" links do you favour? ...




I threw up the definitions to show that "choice of words" cause some views to appear opposed.

In throwing up many links, I see that the populace has added to the confusion.
(One of the fruits of internet dictionaries.  

I have been an agnostic ... I would have believed if reasonable evidence was produced!
I am leaning to atheism ... I can no longer believe.


----------



## bellenuit (5 January 2014)

There are some points I disagree with and some I think need clarification.



> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ _atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods._




I don't like that definition because it really mixes up two distinct sets of atheists (there really should be two different words for it). I would prefer (and other definitions do it similar to this): _One who disbelieves the existence of God or gods or one who denies the existence of God or gods._  Pretty much all the "leading" atheist thinkers, such as Dawkins, Harris and Dennett profess to be of the sort that disbelieves the existence of God or gods. That is they are open to believing the existence of God, but haven't seen any evidence to support such a belief. Being open doesn't mean they see it as a 50/50 bet and they are more inclined to hold the view that he doesn't exist, but don't rule it out. I personally regard myself as one who disbelieves God exists from the evidence I have seen, but would accept his existence should I see sufficient proof.  



> That definition suggests more of a definite stance *against* God than the one you gave. So atheists can be God disbelievers or God deniers. A denier sounds more emphatic than a disbeliever.




Agreed and that is why I dislike the definition and in particular because it is probably not representative of what we now regard as mainstream atheism. 



> Both intelligent and caring Christian parents, and intelligent and caring atheist parents, teach their children proper regard for basic human values and responsibilities and the law, and both endeavor to give them good moral compasses to guide them, and their children usually grow up to be decent and law abiding citizens.




Agreed



> The problem I see with today's youth is that, due to the atheist messages continually put out by their "music" and celebrity idols, and the media in general, plus people like Richard Dawkins writing books and going on TV "preaching" his atheistic views, many youths think it's "cool" to be an atheist and very "uncool" to be a Christian, without fully understanding what it is they don't believe in, and because they see it as uncool, they don't bother to even investigate, which is what I'm thinking when I refer to the "rise in atheism".




No way would I put Dawkins in the same category as musicians and celebrity idols. I follow Dawkins extensively and he continuously strives to expose and fight injustice where he sees it. He expresses a very positive message for youth, not the nihilistic message of some musicians. Most of his books do not directly concern religion (apart from some well publicist titles such as The God Delusion) but are scientifically important (The Selfish Gene) or are  expressions of joy in nature and the universe (*Magic of Reality*: _Richard Dawkins, bestselling author and the world’s most celebrated evolutionary biologist, has spent his career elucidating the many wonders of science. Here, he takes a broader approach and uses his unrivaled explanatory powers to illuminate the ways in which the world really works. Filled with clever thought experiments and jaw-dropping facts, The Magic of Reality explains a stunningly wide range of natural phenomena: How old is the universe? Why do the continents look like disconnected pieces of a jigsaw puzzle? What causes tsunamis? Why are there so many kinds of plants and animals? Who was the first man, or woman? Starting with the magical, mythical explanations for the wonders of nature, Dawkins reveals the exhilarating scientific truths behind these occurrences. This is a page-turning detective story that not only mines all the sciences for its clues but primes the reader to think like a scientist as well_). Dawkins promotes a positive outlook on life but urges readers to view our universe with an open and scientific mind. The musicians who promote nihilistic and anti-social attitudes could be believers or non believers. One cannot tell unless they expressly state their position but are probably of the sort that couldn't care less either way.



> But some of these "htai" atheist youths then go around bullying, often physically, and persecuting those who choose Christianity. Why???
> 
> You say that "lapsed/disengaged" Christians are just as responsible as "htai" atheists for the violence we see. Really? While there are always exceptions, Christians, lapsed or otherwise, don't usually go around bullying and persecuting atheists or other Christians do they?




I'm a bit lost here as I was never suggesting that the violence we see from drunken youths in Australia is religiously motivated. I think the religion or lack of religion is irrelevant and many of the gangs probably contain youths from both camps in the same gang or group. They have no strong conviction either way and they seek violence for the sake of violence, not as some religious issue (apart from some ethnic gangs that due to their ethnicity share a common religion).



> Youths seem to enjoy wearing black clothes and images of the "dark side" ... skulls, skeletons, etc. Most people don't see a problem with this, and laugh it off as harmless fashion which it could very well be, but is this obsession with the "dark side" healthy?




I agree that it is not healthy, but that is not something promoted by atheists. They oppose using the supernatural as an explanation of things. 



> Why is it so "uncool" to encourage the good and positive aspects of life?




I agree. If you don't believe in an afterlife, you hopefully will try to make the best of this life.



> Atheists deny the existence of God, and ridicule the existence of Satan even more vigorously



 as discussed above many atheists do not believe the evidence for God's or Satan's existence, denial applies to just some. 



> The recent revelations about string and multiverse theory and then reincarnation were a real wake-up call for me and got me thinking, if the atheists are right and there isn't a God or a Satan, then apart from having to put up with some abuse of no real importance on an internet forum, I will have lost nothing by being a theist. But if the atheists are wrong and there is a God and a Satan, then the prospect of my soul ultimately ending up in Hell, whatever form it takes, is something to consider because Hell is unlikely to be pleasant.




Pascal's wager once more. An *all loving all forgiving* God sentences you to eternal suffering for using the brain he gave you.  Doesn't make any sense to me, but it has been discussed ad nauseum before in other forums.



> Meanwhile, back here on Earth, there's a growing perception that society is becoming increasingly violent, with the rise in OMCGs, drug crimes etc. Assaults are no longer just bloody noses or black eyes, they're now stabbings, glassings, head stompings, etc. You say that if you asked the drunken thugs about their religious beliefs, they would "just laugh at you and punch you on the face." I'm more inclined to think they would scream, *"I DON'T (expletive) BELIEVE IN ANY OF THAT (expletive) GOD S**T"*, and then punch you to the ground and stomp on your head, which would be a fairly strong admission of their atheism I think




A complete non-sequiter Chris. Atheists have a moral compass too and there are bad atheists and bad Christians.



> If they have never thought or cared about God or Jesus, don't you think it would be good if they did?



 It would be much better if they thought about their fellow humans and our shared humanity. If they get that through religion or through a humanist upbringing, that is OK with me.


----------



## Tink (5 January 2014)

Great posts..

I do agree that the ramifications of people actions is the problem, and sadly, justice isn't getting served in society as we can see, and for some reason, some people are feeling this entitlement mentality which is coming from home and society, at the moment.

In religion, its taught that you are answerable to all your actions, it is your responsibility to look after yourself and your fellow man -- equally, not just at Christmas, but every day of the year. Children should be taught that, that helping others is what its all about.

Until these things are strengthened in the home, and that's how I see also, through the Church, that the world doesn't owe you. To make the world a better place, you need to give. 
Also appreciation in things, some of these people seem so angry. Its not all about you!!!
We seem to be becoming a very selfish society.
Instead of it being about US its about ME!

Our choices affect others.
Happiness doesn't come from just getting what you want in life.
Its becoming a cold society.

Also agree about the media, swearing, the sexualization of everything, the list goes on 
The balance needs to be brought back in and its concerning.

Just my thoughts..


----------



## McLovin (5 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Youths seem to enjoy wearing black clothes and images of the "dark side" ... skulls, skeletons, etc. Most people don't see a problem with this, and laugh it off as harmless fashion which it could very well be, but is this obsession with the "dark side" healthy? Why is it so "uncool" to encourage the good and positive aspects of life? Alcohol (and previously cigarette) vendors continually try to tell us that their aim in advertising is to increase their market share. Could Satan be trying to do the same ... a form of subtle "grooming" perhaps? Atheists deny the existence of God, and ridicule the existence of Satan even more vigorously which, as I understand it, is just what Satan wants because his objective is to turn people away from God by whatever means possible. Just a thought and by all means, choose what you want to believe, but do your research.




Wow.


----------



## Judd (5 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> Wow.




That's what happens when someone doesn't take their prescribed medication. :screwy:


----------



## Chris45 (5 January 2014)

Judd said:


> That's what happens when someone doesn't take their prescribed medication. :screwy:



Inappropriate sarcasm Judd. If you disagree, fine, but keep it civil.


----------



## Judd (5 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Inappropriate sarcasm Judd. If you disagree, fine, but keep it civil.




Not inappropriate at all from my perspective.  I've seen the tactics employed many times by evangelists.  As argument after argument is rejected, they introduce totally irrelevant and nonsense propositions, eg vagaries in fashion trends, as justification that those who dress in such a fashion are the result being atheists and so the spawn of Satan.

So I respond in very appropriate and factious manner.  The response to that is predictable outrage which is also employed by the evangelists against those who do not hold their views in religion.

TTFN


----------



## Chris45 (7 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I personally regard myself as one who disbelieves God exists from the evidence I have seen, but would accept his existence should I see sufficient proof.



You sound more like an agnostic than an God denying atheist. If you're waiting for proof of God's existence, I think either you'll be waiting a very long time or, when the proof arrives it will be too late for you to change your mind.



> Pascal's wager once more. An *all loving all forgiving* God sentences you to eternal suffering for using the brain he gave you.  Doesn't make any sense to me, but it has been discussed ad nauseum before in other forums.



Ah yes, Pascal's Wager. I knew I'd seen that argument somewhere before. I know his Triangle quite well but had forgotten his Wager. I wonder what Pascal would say if he knew what we know now.

I'm certainly not interested in getting bogged down in an endless discussion about God's love which, as you say, has been discussed ad nauseum. However the concept of "Tough Love" comes to mind.

My main reason for posting in these two religion threads was to draw attention to the scientific ideas about string theory, multiverses and reincarnation and try and get people thinking outside the box.

Do yourselves a favour and read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Google "Reincarnation Research"

I'm not trying to recruit on behalf on any church and if you think it's all a load of rubbish, fine, ya makes ya decisions and ya takes ya chances, to paraphrase an old saying.


----------

