Religion IS crazy!

[pavilion103]

So what I am trying to say is that the law refelects the majority OPINION of what morality is (rather than what the morality actually is).

 

[Value Collector]

Holy crap! (pardon the pun)

That is one of the most ill-informed, ignorant posts I have ever seen.

If someone isn't prepared to do their homework, there is nothing more for me to add.


Jesus never existing as a person.
The quaran and hindu texts historicity compared with the Bible.
None of the authors met Jesus

I am sorry Pav, But it appears I have done a lot more research than you.

The fact that you are unaware that the authors of the bible never met Jesus shocks me,

 

[Value Collector]

An Internet Troll is:

Answer: An internet 'troll' is an abusive or obnoxious user who uses shock value to promote arguments and disharmony in online communities. Named after the wicked troll creatures of children's tales, an internet troll is someone who stirs up drama and abuses their online anonymity by purposely sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, mysogyny, or just simple bickering between others. Trolls like a big audience, so they frequent blog sites, news sites, discussion forums, and game chat. Trolls thrive in any environment where they are allowed to make public comments

Well I think most here would agree that I have never been Abusive or obnoxious, and none of the thoughts or opinions I have expressed could be described as sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny. In fact its those things I am speaking out against.

thanks for clearing my name

 

[pavilion103]

I am sorry Pav, But it appears I have done a lot more research than you.

The fact that you are unaware that the authors of the bible never met Jesus shocks me,

Matthew and John. Both disciples of Jesus.

Accepted as the authors early on (as seen in letters as early as 100AD).
This obviously wasn't a myth that built up over time.

 

[pavilion103]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

In many cultures sending an elderly relative to a nursing home away from their family in their final years would be considered particularly cruel, yet it's commonplace here.

In 100 years time will we look back and say...



...about nursing homes?

You're missing the point.

We don't look back at racism for example (take african american slavery), and say OK that WAS moral at the time but by today's standards it ISN'T moral.

We look at it and think it was NEVER moral, but people believed that it was moral at the time.

Evidenced by the fact that people rose up against this. Not because one day it all of a sudden changed from wrong to right, but because it was ALWAYS wrong and there were people who recognised this even at the time.

 

[McLovin]

You're missing the point.

We don't look back at racism for example (take african american slavery), and say OK that WAS moral at the time but by today's standards it ISN'T moral.

We look at it and think it was NEVER moral, but people believed that it was moral at the time.

Evidenced by the fact that people rose up against this. Not because one day it all of a sudden changed from wrong to right, but because it was ALWAYS wrong and there were people who recognised this even at the time.

So can you answer my question then? It should be relatively easy if you're suggesting morality is absolutely self-evident, black and white. It's either immoral to cart off an old relative to a home or it's not (if I'm understanding you correctly).

 

[Value Collector]

Matthew and John. Both disciples of Jesus.

Accepted as the authors early on (as seen in letters as early as 100AD).
This obviously wasn't a myth that built up over time.

The Disciples were not the authors of those gospels.

Matthew (written 40 - 70 years after jesus died)

According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness. While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew. The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.

Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100

John ( written 50 - 65 years after jesus died)

In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John. Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely. Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus. Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."

Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95

 

[Calliope]

VC has an ally in Eva Cox;

Cox told Q&A last week that Australia has “a reputation at the moment as being one of the nastiest countries in the world”, and on this she and Badar would agree.

It would be interesting to know where Cox and Badar think Australia rates in the nastiness table compared to, say, Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates, countries where lapidation (stoning as a form of community justice) remains on the statute books.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-islamic-madness/story-fnhulhjj-1226972830484

( Uthman Badar is the guy who thinks it’s OK to stone your sister, if indeed that’s what he was proposing to argue at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas. The title of his talk, “Honour killings are morally justified”. He is an Economics tutor at the University of Western Sydney)

 

[pavilion103]

So can you answer my question then? It should be relatively easy if you're suggesting morality is absolute, black and white. It's either immoral to cart off an old relative to a home or it's not (if I'm understanding you correctly).

Well you'd need to know more details about the circumstance to know whether it was moral or not.

Do they want to go to the home?

Do they have any adult children that are able to look after them?

Are the adult children in a realistic position to be able to look after them in terms of expertise, pressures on their own family etc?

Are there any other possible options in terms of loved ones who may be able to reasonably look after them?

Are their own adult kids just blatently shirking responsibilities, or are there genuine reasons why it is not reasonably possible to look after them themselves?

What level of care have the adult children gone to to find the best possible home? How appropriate is it?



I'm not saying that there are not issues that we don't have to make judgement calls on by weighing up evidence. Of course there are. Many different circumstances might result in a different answer.


And whether in 2014 or in 2064, people will still have the same information in front of them when making a judgement call about whether this is moral in 2014.

Just like in 1850 or in 2014 we can know that african american people are not infeior to white people.
We don't have any more information now to say "aha, they actually are equal humans".
Let's not be silly.
Heck you would have gone to the words of Jesus and Paul to know this.

 

[Value Collector]

VC has an ally in Eva Cox;

Why would you think he would be an Ally of mine?

 

[pavilion103]

McLovin,

Did African American people in 1850 have less worth than in 2014 (inate worth as a human being)?
Or were they just perceived to have less worth?

Did they "gain" more worth once people recognised them as equal?
Or was that worth always there and just unrecognised by a large number in society (whose morality was incredibly misguided)?

 

[sydboy007]

Even with an extension the Commission has no authority to depart from its Terms of Reference and the Letters Patent, which certainly excludes Islamic paedophilia in the family environment.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that this Commission was set up, with the full support of the public and the media, with the sole purpose of targetting the Catholic Church with a little collateral damage along the way to the Salvation Army and some church schools etc.

It is fitting that the spotlight should be shone on thes odious practices, but the vast majority of child sexual abuse occurs in a closed family environment with the predators being family friends or relatives. In the case of Muslims, because of the complete subjugation of their women and children in the family environment, the Commission takes the easy way out and excludes them from their terms of reference.

So the fact that no family environment is subject to these terms of reference has been interpreted by you as a sop to the Islamic theocracy. Good to know Christian families would never engage in such disgusting behaviour.

The RC was formed to investigate the child abuse that occurred within institutions that purportedly were about family values yet too often allowed practices that few families would approve of. It's designed to shine some disinfecting sunlight into the practices and cover ups that allowed child abusers to engage in their activities with near impunity.

As you've rightly highlighted, most child abuse sadly occurs within a family home or by a known person of the family. Possibly you should be arguing for better public campaigns to dob in a paedophile or child abuser. I doubt a royal commission would be the best way forward in terms of highlighting child abuse within families.

 

[Calliope]

So the fact that no family environment is subject to these terms of reference has been interpreted by you as a sop to the Islamic theocracy.

Not at all. Now sid you are resuming your bad habit of making things up. I said all cases outside institutions got a blanket exclusion

Good to know Christian families would never engage in such disgusting behaviour.

They're your words not mine. Cheap shot.

But you admit;

"you've rightly highlighted, most child abuse sadly occurs within a family home or by a known person of the family"

I doubt a royal commission would be the best way forward in terms of highlighting child abuse within families.

I doubt if there is any solution to this problem, whether it occurs in the homes of people who dub themselves Christians, Atheists, Muslims or whatever. That is why the Commission ignored the big issue and took the populist approach of ferretting out thousands of complaints mainly against Catholic institutions. If you encourage complaints you will get them, (if you build it they will come) especially when there are hints that there may be compensation. Now they have asked for an extension of time as they are snowed under with complaints.

 

[Tink]

Great posts, Calliope.

I see it as an attack on Christianity, not just the Catholic Church.

Maybe I need to start calling out, 'I am offended', and see how far I get.

 

[Julia]

The provides evidence that moarlity is not the consensus of the majority.

I would argue that whether taking aboriginal children from their homes was considered right or not back then it was still ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

I understand that your Christian self-righteousness dictates that you know absolutely right from wrong in every situation, but in reality back then, as now, the fate of many aboriginal children was dire if left within their dysfunctional families where sexual, emotional and physical abuse was and is rife.
Obviously the ideal is for children always to remain with their birth family, but if they are coming to gross harm in that environment, then surely it's better to remove them to caring, safe environment.

You are fond of telling others to do some research. May I suggest you do likewise and read some of the recent reports about the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in pre-pubescent children and other problems that are the result of dysfunctional behaviour in remote aboriginal communities.
Imo the wrong would be in failing to remove some of these little kids from such a poisonous position.

You're very young. We think we understand everything before we grow up, especially if we're driven by some religious ideology. Perhaps take a more broad view of the reality that there is very little in life which is black and white: mostly it's all the shades of grey.

So what I am trying to say is that the law refelects the majority OPINION of what morality is (rather than what the morality actually is).

And again, you seem to believe that you have some sort of casting vote about what constitutes an appropriate sense of morality. Frankly, that's just insulting to so many people who decline to believe in your religious dogma but who are entirely capable of living a caring and morally thoughtful existence.
The sense of superiority is one of the most offputting characteristics of the religious zealot imo.

Well I think most here would agree that I have never been Abusive or obnoxious, and none of the thoughts or opinions I have expressed could be described as sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny. In fact its those things I am speaking out against.

Yes, I'd agree about that. You have argued your case articulately and without personal nastiness which is more than can be said for some of your opposition.

Well you'd need to know more details about the circumstance to know whether it was moral or not.

Do they want to go to the home?

Do they have any adult children that are able to look after them?

Are the adult children in a realistic position to be able to look after them in terms of expertise, pressures on their own family etc?

Are there any other possible options in terms of loved ones who may be able to reasonably look after them?

Are their own adult kids just blatently shirking responsibilities, or are there genuine reasons why it is not reasonably possible to look after them themselves?

What level of care have the adult children gone to to find the best possible home? How appropriate is it?

I'm not saying that there are not issues that we don't have to make judgement calls on by weighing up evidence. Of course there are. Many different circumstances might result in a different answer.

All good questions to ask. I don't think there would be too many families in Australia who have happily consigned a parent to a nursing home. Usually it's the most reluctant decision made with great sadness and usually a sense of exhaustion from some years of looking after someone eg with dementia or other very debilitating disease.

McLovin, you raised the issue. I'd be interested to hear your view on this very fraught and difficult issue.

 

[Calliope]

Great posts, Calliope.

I see it as an attack on Christianity, not just the Catholic Church.

Maybe I need to start calling out, 'I am offended', and see how far I get.

Thanks Tink. There are a few posters on this thread who seem to have an irrational hate for Christianity. It's almost as though they are claiming victim status.

Try to ignore them. If you let them see you are upset, it will just encourage them.

 

[Julia]

So the fact that no family environment is subject to these terms of reference has been interpreted by you as a sop to the Islamic theocracy. Good to know Christian families would never engage in such disgusting behaviour.

The RC was formed to investigate the child abuse that occurred within institutions that purportedly were about family values yet too often allowed practices that few families would approve of. It's designed to shine some disinfecting sunlight into the practices and cover ups that allowed child abusers to engage in their activities with near impunity.

As you've rightly highlighted, most child abuse sadly occurs within a family home or by a known person of the family. Possibly you should be arguing for better public campaigns to dob in a paedophile or child abuser. I doubt a royal commission would be the best way forward in terms of highlighting child abuse within families.

Not at all. Now sid you are resuming your bad habit of making things up. I said all cases outside institutions got a blanket exclusion

No, you did not. What you said was:

I suppose that's why they excluded Muslim paedophilia from the terms of reference...otherwise it would go on forever.

This very specifically referred to Muslims rather than incest in general.
You repeatedly accuse others of saying what they did not say and similarly excuse yourself by denying what you have said or implied.

 

[Calliope]

I am the target of trolling, provocation and lies all because I said I prefer Christians to Muslims. Is that a bad thing. VC thinks its Xenophobia. But we all have our likes and dislikes and our preferences. I prefer apples to oranges. Does that make me a citrus hater?

Our Julia of course is cherry picking. i.e.

What you said was:
"I suppose that's why they excluded Muslim paedophilia from the terms of reference...otherwise it would go on forever."
This very specifically referred to Muslims rather than incest in general.

I don't know what prompted the incest bit, but my main argument was;

It is fitting that the spotlight should be shone on these odious practices, but the vast majority of child sexual abuse occurs in a closed family environment with the predators being family friends or relatives. In the case of Muslims, because of the complete subjugation of their women and children in the family environment, the Commission takes the easy way out and excludes them from their terms of reference.

If you want to dispute this be my guest.

 

[Value Collector]

I am the target of trolling, provocation and lies all because I said I prefer Christians to Muslims. .

No one is trolling, provoking or lying about you

all because I said I prefer Christians to Muslims. Is that a bad thing. VC thinks its Xenophobia. But we all have our likes and dislikes and our preferences.

Yes, I think you are probably xenophobic, I don't know you personally, but your comments here give me that impression, and yes I consider that a bad thing.

It's also irrational to judge people solely on which religion they identify with, rather than their actions and character, I mean you can't tell anything about a person if all you know is that they are Christian or Muslim, Hitler and Joseph Kony were both Christians.

 

[Calliope]

No one is trolling, provoking or lying about you

Pull the other leg.

Yes, I think you are probably xenophobic

It's also irrational to judge people solely on which religion they identify with,

It is you who is doing the judging purely on the flimsy basis that I prefer a Christian society to a Muslim society.Its a free country, if I prefer one thing to another that's none of your business If you can't accept that...too bad. Please cease your provocation and stupid accusations.