BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:20 PM

I wouldn't actually rate calling something a person has said bigotted, if you think it is, an attack rather than an expression of difference. (I don,t like to noun "bigot", because it is a lot more wide ranging, and refers to a person as a whole rather than something they may have said on some occasion.) "Ant in a swarm" is pretty mild, and "born again" for someone who has radically changed their world view in adult life, either in a religious or political context, is surely fair enough?

As for only one kind of evidence... I doubt very much if you or anyone else uses scientific evidence in relation to views about Mozart or Beethoven. (Which isn't an analogy this time, but a counter-example.)

But never mind. Not to worry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 08:10 PM

"I'd rate those kind of thing more as expressions of difference than "attacks".

I honestly don't care. If you really think that calling a non-bigot a bigot, calling someone who doesn't agree with you an ant in a swarm (not that ants in a disturbed nest swarm anyway. Poor Joe. Pity he prefers God to reality!), and calling me "born again" are just "expressions of difference", well maybe we don't speak the same brand of English. I'd call those attacks myself, but hey ho. We can easily see whose side you're on. Fine.

"...but you clearly do, because you don't accept it as an answer to your demand for the kind of evidence you ask for, or you wouldn't keep making the same demand."

Well as far as I'm concerned I'm not going to debate "kinds of evidence" with you. I have only one kind, for which the bar is set high. You invent your own if you like. You have plenty of of allies. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would be a start (even though they were about as close to Jesus as I am to Queen Victoria). Then you have all that tradition and ceremony and whatever a celibate old man in the Vatican tells you, and St Bernadette to boot. Good luck!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:10 PM

Well, Jack, I suppose the Qu'ran is an improvement in that case, but let's still admit it. There was no virgin birth. I've heard about it in aphids and dandelions and one or two other organisms, but I think Jesus might have been slightly annoyed to have been aligned with bugs that suck the sap out of rose bushes or piss-the-bed flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

I'd rate those kind of thing more as expressions of difference than "attacks".

"I don't give a fig whether anyone believes that or not" - but you clearly do, because you don't accept it as an answer to your demand for the kind of evidence you ask for, or you wouldn't keep making the same demand.

You require that kind of evidence to make a decision. Fine, that's understood. Why should I "tell you where you're going wrong"? In relation to a whole range of things you're quite right. It's just not the way I work in relation to certain things, and I gave aethetic judgements as an illustration of another field in which I don't work in that way - and one where I rather suspect you might not either, not being an automaton, as I have always assumed. As for using analogies, I see that as a perfectly valid way of explaining my meaning. Problems arise when they get extended beyond strict limits, and I avoid doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:32 PM

I appreciate your low-grade sarcasm, Kevin :-). However, I have been called a bigot, a literalist, a fundamentalist, an absolutist, mean-spirited, an evolutionist, a member of a swarm of ants, a born-again atheist and, worst of all, Mr Shaw. And that's just in the last few days. It's evidence, Kevin, but not as you may want to recognise it. :-)

"As for the suggestion of repetition on your part, perhaps the main example is your constant trope that evidence has to be the only basis for any decision as to what to accept as true, and to demand such evidence."

Well how else can we find truth? Wildest imaginings? Fanciful speculation? Whimsy? Resort to magic and the supernatural? Mystic Meg?? Would you please tell me what is wrong with seeking evidence? While you're at it, what alternative paths to truth are there? Seeking deeper truths by telling lies, maybe? Well tell us what your concept of truth is, and tell us how we can get there without evidence. I'm blowed if I know of any other way.

"You just won't accept the response you have been given, which essentially is that religious belief is essentially a matter of making a decision, rather than of evidence."

I don't give a fig whether anyone believes that or not. All I'd say is that when I make a decision about something I want it to be predicated on being informed. Personally, although I fail quite often in my efforts like most people do, I want my decisions to be on a rational basis. Please tell me where I'm going wrong if you have a minute. Oh, and I'm no automaton, you know. This weekend I've been indulging in my lifelong love of Beethoven's late music and Mozart's piano concertos and I've been reading my two journals from the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland and the Royal Meteorological Society, and last week I went to see Carmen. I've made some great advances in the last few months with my knowledge of Britain's moths and butterflies and I've been to a talk on the dragonflies of Andalucia. Mr Spock would be scratching his Vulcan head.

"Demands for "scientific evidence" just aren't relevant. It's analogous to aesthetic judgements..."

So you judge whether to adhere to a belief system on analogies to aesthetic grounds? I mean, are you feeling OK? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:55 PM

the 'state', must follow biblical Christianity or be defied?

NOW you're catching on, Bill! All hail Kim Davis!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:39 PM

very briefly:

" Christians are called to confront, or at least decline submission to the system when it would involve accepting anything contradictory to biblical belief or morality. "

That is what scares me, pete. Did you just admit/state that "the system", which I take it means the 'state', must follow biblical Christianity or be defied? Even when it involves morality?

I had never seen you go quite that far before... at least not explicitly. I don't have time to explain in detail MY reactions... but perhaps you'd reflect on the detailed implications of that attitude.... and what it might mean for YOU if something other than Christianity were to achieve a majority and act as YOU seem to feel....

Think about it.... that's why the 1st amendment to the US constitution is worded as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:18 PM

As for the virgin birth, well answer me one simple question. If it's irrelevant, why is it in the story in the first place and why are we going to be regaled with the assertion all over the next few tedious weeks as we run up to Christmas? You know full well why it's in the story. It's because the story needs Jesus to be set apart as someone a bit more special than everybody else, the possessor of a uniqueness. You can't just tell us that he's unique, you have to prove it by giving him magic powers, and the virgin birth was just the start!

Not quite that simple. The Koran also asserts the virgin birth of Jesus but doesn't ascribe superhuman powers to him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:48 PM

the informed creationist,

Contradiction in terms.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:49 PM

"Much social reform followed from Christians involved in politics , following their convictions."

Pete, much the same can be said of any ideologists following the dictates of their beliefs. But beliefs don't make it right. Christians are a large minority of religiously-affiliated peoples in the world, true. But then so are Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others. Buddhists are basically non-theistic and although I'm not Buddhist, I am also a- or non-theistic.

Some religions like Islam and Christianity would perceive me/label me as spawn of the devil, but I'm not.

I don't support any religion--and I won't--just because the top guy behaves like a Mafia don and his followers like apostles who hang around to ensure everyone listens to the don. So I try to follow a simpler trail and listen to reason instead of platitudes. When humans are subservient to religious 'systems of belief' it makes me wonder what they'll do in the name of their leader, because after all is said and done, they read from their own rule book and despite my having read and understood the books, I just don't agree with much that's being espoused.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:34 PM

This is the issue. Read what pete star has put.

Then tell me that religion isn't a danger to society.

You'd be moaning if we taught kids that 1+1+3 or that wind farms are there to cool the fields down. Yet allowing the search for knowledge to be suppressed? I told mine Santa and the tooth fairy existed and now my eldest tells my granddaughter the same thing. But stopping believing in child fantasy is a rite of passage. My youngest's room mate at 'uni spent a lot of his first year reading Harry Potter novels because his loony parents refused to let him read it. Apparently wizards and other fantasy confuse you when your parents want their Jesus fantasy to rule supreme. I'd laugh If it weren't so fucking tragic that God botherers crave respect and want to influence society.

Teaching superstition as fact and calling the search for knowledge a story is child abuse, it really is.

Perpetuating it by embracing literal idiots as your own just abuses their low intellect and their vulnerability. We see the problem with believing superstition literally with the Middle East now. It's too damned convenient to abuse their low intelligence to nefarious ends by manipulative evil bastards.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:16 PM

By far the most attacked person around this thread is me.

I'm impressed. I'd rather taken it that you were hard wired to insist on evidence for extraordinary claims.

Still, I must admit I haven't read all the 1,500 + posts, so I've presumably missed the attacks. But it strikes me that no one has been challenging your views (I won't call them beliefs, in deference to how you define that word), just defending their right to have different views.

As for the suggestion of repetition on your part, perhaps the main example is your constant trope that evidence has to be the only basis for any decision as to what to accept as true, and to demand such evidence. You just won't accept the response you have been given, which essentially is that religious belief is essentially a matter of making a decision, rather than of evidence. Demands for "scientific evidence" just aren't relevant. It's analogous to aesthetic judgements - scientific evidence just don't have any connection with such matters, and asking for them time and time again would be pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:07 PM

Well Guest#, I've definitely cut down on the name-calling. I'd put Joe way above me in that particular league table in recent times. I suppose I could work harder on being diplomatic, like Bill, with whom I agree on almost everything (don't want to make him feel too uncomfortable...), but sometimes I feel that certain people just need to be told straight ;-). It's the Celt in me, I've been told. You know that I think that religion cries out to be attacked. For centuries it's got away with murder (sometimes literally) and it's damaged millions of people in all kinds of ways and discouraged people from seeking the truth. Hiding behind ridiculous heresy laws, poking its nose into every facet of life, and demanding respect for things that adherents think should be held sacred that in reality sorely need to be confronted, has all gone on for too long. All right, so it's sometimes impossible to attack religion without criticising what many believers hold dear. That's their problem I'm afraid, not mine. But always it's the belief that's under attack, not the believer, unless that person is trying to do harm with their beliefs, to children for example. Anyway, that's where I am, so excuse me while I duck.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM

Part 2 bill is tolerant of people's beliefs as long as they keep them out of politics and schools....    This presupposes that only Christians and others of theist persuasion have beliefs.   But this is not true. Atheists try to squirm out of the predicament by claiming theirs is an absence of belief , but it is obvious to me that if you believe there is no god ,you must believe. that the universe got here by itself. And that materialism is all there is , or that anything else derives from it.      Secondly, though perhaps Christians should not be involved in party politics , ie equating only one party with with Christianity, Christians are called to confront, or at least decline submission to the system when it would involve accepting anything contradictory to biblical belief or morality. Much social reform followed from Christians involved in politics , following their convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 01:41 PM

Steve, my apologies if you thought my last post was directed at you specifically. It wasn't. True that you have been attacked, but in fairness you're no slouch at dishing it out either.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:57 PM

Well that's about as perfect a strategy for naked indoctrination as I've ever read. Boys and girls, you now know how pete would do it. Harmless, smiley little pete. There you have it. And you still think we should just leave him and his ilk alone, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:51 PM

Sorry, I'm guilty of conflation meself there, misreading it as "methodologies" for both, which is not what you said. One of my sentences is no longer valid. I'll stick with the rest of it though!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:48 PM

Well bill, if you are still around........yes children will believe just about anything.   And it depends on the age, IMO, how you handle it. As the parent, believing scripture as authoritative why would I want to sow doubts. In their heads. As they get older, they will get enough indoctrination at school. I don't really imagine Steve telling the kids that evolutionism is just a story and cannot be shown to be true !   So, for young children I think it is perfectly proper to instruct and expose their kids to Christian teaching as being true, just as I am convinced it is. However, as they get older the game plan will change to telling them why we believe it is true , with the hope that they will retain / embrace the faith as they grow into adults, or perhaps return to it later.   Part of that game plan will involve telling them facts that are contradictory to evolutionary theory and it's deep time story.   On the one hand evolutionism has the upper hand (at least in the UK ) because it is all pervasive and presented as factual, but on the other hand for the informed creationist, it is relatively easy to highlight a few glaring holes in the evolutionary faith. After all , after all these posts and threads , you,s still not demonstrated it is true.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 11:06 AM

By far the most attacked person around here in this thread is me! You are the one doing the conflating here, conflating attacks on religion and attacks on Joe Offer. Reading your sentence again, I'm not at all sure that you're not muddling the word with something else, actually. What you're doing is what I'm not doing, as a matter of fact.
You are equating science and religion as somehow being academic-style disciplines with respectably-equivalent but different methodologies. Well I think you're being way too nice about religion. Science is the process that delivers all human knowledge. Religion is a take-it or leave-it (or force-it) instrument of control. No equivalence whatsoever. As for magic powers being "one way to see it", well tell me another way of seeing feeding five thousand on a few scraps, walking on water, raising the dead, turning water into wine, predicting exactly what would happen when a cock crows and coming back to life having been bled dry two days earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:48 AM

Well said #

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:46 AM

"You can't just tell us that he's unique, you have to prove it by giving him magic powers, and the virgin birth was just the start!"

Yes and no, Steve. It's worth reading about the Marian Dogmas because they make clear the changing position of the Catholic Church from its 'official' earliest days (which I take to be more-or-less defined by the Edict of Milan, 313 CE). The so-called virgin birth was not a new story because there had been others according to the literature. As for magic powers, that's one way to see it. But for many Catholics, JC's resurrection just about caps it. And that happens early on in the tale.

I think religions and their collective ideologies are one area of study, and the sciences with their collective methodologies are quite another. As an aside, I neither like nor accept the conflation of the two.

For those who rail against religion, have at it. For those who rail against evolution, have at it. But there is no need to attack the individual Mudcatters involved regardless which side of or where on the issue they come down. I

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:14 AM

Joe, I'm not winding you up here- I'm genuinely curious.

What's your take on the Catholic Worker Movement, Walter Rauschenbusch's approach and Winwood Reade's "Martyrdom Of Man"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:11 AM

Not that it happened in Virginia. Pesky phone knows more than I do.

Wasn't it A senator from Virginia who said if the English language was good enough for Jesus. It's good enough for Hispanics?

I could be geographically astray but unlike the subject, factual.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:04 AM

It all makes for a great story. It would just be nice if everybody who was told it KNEW it was just a story. I quite like stories myself as it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:47 AM

I thought the Virginia birth, stable, wise men and other bits were borrowed from older religions? Weaving other religions into a Judean cult was a way of attracting members. They kept adding them to a folder which eventually evolved into a book called bible.

See? Even sky fairy superstition itself is subject to evolution.

By the way, what in the name of everything that is fun has working at a homeless shelter to do with it? You sound like one of those idiots who claim they do charitable works because their religion demands it. The rest of us do whatever we do because it is a nice thing to do.

A serious question for Mr Offer. Does your religion require you to help others in need or do you ascribe your natural sense of altruism to it in order to extend your default goodness to it? Is it giving you a good name or are you lending yours to it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:10 AM

My word, Joe Offer hasn't half gone on off on one. The trouble is, Joe, when you get mad and start spraying your accusations out in all directions, the first victim is accuracy. No-one on this side of the divide is claiming that they own the truth or is obsessed by it. Requiring evidence before you embrace any notion is neither Spock-like nor obsessive. It is RATIONAL. And now you're telling us that the truth isn't so important after all. Well, a few months ago you were telling me that all the myths and stories and all the rest of religion's contrivances were all about seeking deeper truths. I see that that concept has now gone out of the window. Well in a sense I can agree that having the whole truth is not the be-all and end-all. What is important is the trajectory towards truth. Religious superstition is a massive obstacle on that trajectory, so much so that it prevents us from having any chance of getting there. Supernatural "explanations" are not explanations at all, and they too easily satisfy incurious minds, with the effect that the search for real explanations, such as Darwin's quest, is either sidelined, perverted (as in your case) or scornfully dismissed (pete). You are getting cross because we attack this. Well how do you think scientists feel under such an effective barrage from faith that almost half of the population believe in magic instead?

As for the virgin birth, well answer me one simple question. If it's irrelevant, why is it in the story in the first place and why are we going to be regaled with the assertion all over the next few tedious weeks as we run up to Christmas? You know full well why it's in the story. It's because the story needs Jesus to be set apart as someone a bit more special than everybody else, the possessor of a uniqueness. You can't just tell us that he's unique, you have to prove it by giving him magic powers, and the virgin birth was just the start! As ever, Joe Offer can get his head round this but fails to acknowledge that most Catholics actually believe that it's true. By the way, Joe, many of your posts are now filled with your good deeds. Kudos to you for them. But we heathens do good stuff too at times but we don't necessarily feel that it's evidence for the defence. What was that about hiding your light under a bushel...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:00 AM

"Pete holds to a more direct method of creation. He believes in a God who can do anything, ..."

If he believes such a thing then he has no business talking about science. Such a belief implies that every observable phenomenon is attributable to God - end of story. If that is really the nature of the Universe, then there's no point in any further study - everything there is to know, is known already. That leaves us stuck in the Dark Ages though. Is that what God intended?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:55 AM

Wow. I log onto Mudcat only very occasionally these days. This is only the second time in six months. Yet deja vu doesn't even begin to cover it.

As this thread is as long as it is surreal, I have only skimmed till the last couple of pages. Glad I did though, it's fascinating.

Joe Offer states above that he fights for the civil rights of homosexuals. Funny that I gave up on Mudcat and my good friend Musket (of the kilted variety) complained at his ISP after Joe sent me an email saying he couldn't find anything in Akenaton's posts that displayed homophobia. Before you fight Joe, best to get an idea what they looked like. In Hartlepool they thought the enemy was small and hairy and couldn't speak English.

Nobody is decrying your or anyone else's right to get a warm and a cup of tea on a Sunday morning (or the California equivalent.) many people get a lot out of their hobby and find a good social outlet from it. Me? I prefer hugs that are spontaneous rather than the next item on the agenda but I digress.

The Mary virgin bit is s red herring anyway because Jesus is an amalgamation of would be rebel leaders brought into a rather touching fable a couple of hundred years later. Unless archaeologists find 2,000 years old test tubes, any mother has had a bit of rumpy pumpy with a bloke. Period. Once you sort out the bits of the bible that cannot physically happen and the bits demonstrating a point by a story, you are left with what? A historical book of interest to scholars concerning how people 400 years ago thought, and perhaps if you can read Latin, a slightly earlier version. If you can read Ancient Greek or Hebrew, your study of how people thought and dreamt might go back 1800 years or so.

Look at pete. That's what happens when superstition is encouraged. I'm sure he can tie his own shoe laces and I'm sure he smiles more than me, but is it right to perpetuate ignorance on such an appalling scale? He is right. He is allowed to fuck with his kids' heads. Tragic but true. Luckily you can see Star Wars this winter without endangering your own kids. (Another story in the news at the moment is a Canon who says reading banns is irrelevant to this day and age coupled with a reply from CofE saying it is a good earner and there may be the opportunity to convince a few people to join the club.)

If the club is headed by a magician, why bother? Just make everybody go to church. Alter the minds of Muslims, Sikhs and even normal rational people.

Well? What is he waiting for?

That's my point. Enjoy your hobby but like the man who likes wearing his wife's knickers, just don't go boasting about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:26 AM

By the way, let me make it clear that I don't think it's very important whether Mary was a virgin or not. It's part of the foundational myth/story of the Catholic faith, so I accept it. As I teach my students in Bible study, it's important to respect the integrity of the story. Better to take the story as it is, and not worry too much about what is myth and what is factual. Save the arguments for the crucial matters.

Pete holds to a more direct method of creation. He believes in a God who can do anything, so why can't such a God create a world in whatever way that God deigns to create? He has a point there. It's not the way I see things, but what good does it do for me to fight him about it? Face it people, Pete is never going to accept the idea of evolution as factual. No amount of derision is going to change his mind. That being the case, then the derision is just derision - and what's the value of that?

I suppose I don't hold on to my Creed quite so tightly. I see it as enlightening my understanding of God, not as contradicting science. I figure that if the creed is supposed to be literally true, then there will someday be a way to reconcile the Creed and science. In the meantime, I'll heed science for scientific things and religion for religious things. And it will all work out in the end, without my having to disprove either science or my creed. And generally, I don't think most modern Christians hold onto beliefs as some would have us think. I just don't think most people see such a chasm separating science and religious faith.

And as for me, the most important aspect of my faith is the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew:

34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'

This is the only time in the Bible that Jesus describes the Last Judgment. Note that it is based completely on serving those in need, not in sexual morality or in having possession of the Truth. Jesus gives this list four times, which makes me think it is of primary importance.

So, while you people argue about who's right and who's wrong, I'll go work at the homeless shelter. See you later. Don't kill each other in the process.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:08 PM

God, you guys are running around like a swarm of mad ants after the ant hill got disturbed. You are all so fucking obsessed with the truth that you cannot see how foolish you all look - and how you all look like little Jerry Falwells screaming about how everybody else in the world is wrong and therefore evil. It's far more important to get along with people in mutual respect, than it is to be right. But you people just can't see that. You can't fathom the idea of having peace with anybody who doesn't agree with you, who doesn't follow your idea of "correct" thinking. And that's just like all the religious extremists out there do - uniform "correct" thinking is far more important to them, than peace and tolerance. Yes, I've run into many right-wing Catholics who are just as obsessed with the truth - and I don't want any part of it. The truth, such as it is, is just not that important.

Greg F sez: Just curious, Joe, but I suspect you didn't talk about trying to prevent bigots from persecuting or violating the civil rights of homosexuals or preventing idiots from teaching that the world is only 10,000 years old in Public Schools, either.


Actually, Greg, I'm on your side on both causes, and I take every opportunity I get to speak for the civil rights of homosexuals. Our young Filipino priest told me I was contradicting Church teaching, and he "unfriended" me on Facebook to stop me from posting things opposing his homophobia. And I campaigned against California Proposition 8, a measure funded by Mormon and Catholic leaders in an attempt to outlaw gay marriage. The measure passed, but the court declared it invalid.

And I haven't lived in a place in my lifetime where teaching "creationism" has been proposed in either public or Catholic schools, so I haven't had reason to be an activist on the topic. And as I said, I'm not inclined to go do battle against creationists just for the sake of doing battle.

But no, Greg, to answer your question exactly: today the subjects of evolution and homosexuality did not come up, and I saw no need for off-the-subject proselytizing. It was far more important today to listen to a couple people talk about their parents, who are at death's door.

I certainly oppose any attempt to impose conservative Christian values on my community - but I also oppose attempts to force conservative Christians to accept progressive thinking. I think people must be allowed to think what they want to think - and to express their thinking to the world and to their children.

But you guys can only swarm about, obsessing about the importance of your so-called "truth." Do you ever accomplish anything in life, or do you just argue?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:57 PM

That is spot on, Bill. Exactly what I think but with diplomacy added. I really wish these people could see that it is not their faith that is being attacked. In line with my lack of diplomacy, I should like to suggest that the conflation of "faith" with "what you DO with your faith" is deliberate. By affecting insult over this, they are trying to protect their actions, not just their faith. Telling someone who has sent their child to a faith school that they were wrong to do so is not an attack on their faith. It's an attack on what they DO with that faith. Yet I am seen here as an attacker of faith. It simply isn't so. It would be very nice if everyone abandoned their belief in fairy stories, but I'll defend to the hilt their right to those beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:28 PM

Pete... about 'teaching your children your faith'....

When children are very young, they are very suggestive. They believe almost anything.. until they learn about stories & fibs & outright lies. They accept, then reject, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy...etc, as they learn that some stories are just for children to 'enhance' a holiday.
But at the same time they are learning Santa Claus, they are often hearing about Jesus and/or other 'serious' figures. This usually continues, with varying degrees of pressure according to their family & church, until real choice about religion is not easy to make.... it is too ingrained to easily doubt - and of course that is the point in most cases. Seriously religious parents do not want the children to have any doubts, and if by some odd chance, the kids do have doubts, it can lead to very hard feelings and crisis.

Is there any fair & practical way around this? I doubt it.... some children grow disillusioned with religion for various reasons: liberal education, bad experiences (like abuse), or just simply thinking for themselves- as happened with me. I was a Methodist, but it was not *firmly driven into me*. Religion was not a part of daily life, and no one threatened me one way or another.

If I could choose, this is how it would be for everyone. "Here's what various people believe... most of our family & friends believe 'X'... others believe 'Y' 'Z' or nothing. YOU must decide if you 'like' the idea of church and the afterlife... etc."

   There would STILL be religions & churches, I'd still respect their beliefs.. if they kept them out of schools & politics...etc.

The issues is... when people **seriously believe**, they tend to feel obligated to get others to believe the same way, "go, and become fishers of men" and 'fair' gives way to schemes and pressures & often, outright lies.

I DO understand why many believers do believe... and for some, they emotionally & psychologically NEED that.... no matter what form it may take.... and the issues of whether it's all true or not gets lost- because 'truth' and 'proof' in religion simply are not easily dealt with.

That, in the smallest nutshell I can reduce it to, is what all these posts are really about. Some need/want to defend various religious stances, others react and say hold on.. "It ain't necessarily so.." (like in the song).
I have tried for several years now to explain & categorize the logic, language, history, science and cultural norms that are involved, but if my attempts get too close to a nerve, you..(and a few others).. seek various ways to dodge what I'm saying by challenging the very basis of my reasoning!..and in doing so, you break the very rules fair debate & analysis are based on... (and of course, you will deny THIS)... and so it goes.

There are no winners in this, and yet all forge ahead. I will be VERY busy the next 10 days and will not try to keep up. I have no idea how I'll feel when I glance at another couple of hundreds posts.... frustrated, I'd guess.

Take care: :>)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:59 PM

"Why is it so fucking important to you to prove that Mary wasn't a virgin?"

Well this is really quite Interesting. Mary's alleged virginity is not an isolated example of the miraculous claims in your scripture. A couple of things from your remark. First, I don't give a monkey's whether you think Mary was a virgin or not. If there was a Mary, and she had a son called Jesus (or anything else, come to think of it), then she was not a virgin. Believe me, I don't need to prove it, just like I don't need to prove anything at all. If you want to believe that a virgin had a baby, that is entirely your problem. Do continue. However, I'm slightly curious to know why you think that such ridiculous stories are deemed to be necessary at all. The truth is so much better.   Save it. I have to go to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 06:49 PM

the fact that so many Christians adopted evolutionary ideas so relatively recently in history only illustrates my point. Before uniformitarianism and Darwinism took hold on the culture just about no Christian read anything into the text but divine act of creation

pete, you've really outdone yourself. That has to be the most assinine, idiotic and ignorant thing you've said yet - and it has some pretty stiff competition.

You know - or perhaps you don't? - that before Galileo proved otherwise (he was one of those Devilish scientists, dontcha know) all Christians believed that the sun revolved around the earth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 06:28 PM

That's absolutely it, Greg. You're In a huge, billion-strong club called the Catholic Church. But you might as well not be, because as long as you see you own path as being virtuous you need say nothing about any rottenness that any of your co-members get up to. And I seem to vaguely remember something about sins of omission. Not too many Pastor Niemöllers in this thread, eh? Oh, I remember now. He was a Lutheran!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 06:05 PM

And gee, we never once spoke about evolution, or homosexuality, or any of those other things you outsiders condemn us for.

Just curious, Joe, but I suspect you didn't talk about trying to prevent bigots from persecuting or violating the civil rights of homosexuals or preventing idiots from teaching that the world is only 10,000 years old in Public Schools, either.

Perhaps you should have. Think abiut it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 06:02 PM

What a load of rubbish, Joe. Just focus and cut the straw man stuff. I get accused of repeating myself but I'll take a risk and try again. I don't care what you believe. What goes on inside your head is your business alone. Now try rereading your long post bearing that in mind, and it's hardly as if I've never said it before, is it now!   But I do care what people of faith DO with their beliefs. I especially care what you do with those beliefs apropos of CHILDREN. Are you getting this yet, Joe? Joe Offer is a rare breed, a Catholic who spent eight years getting a theology degree. I don't know whether he's one in a million Catholics, one in a thousand or even one in eight or one in twenty. But one thing's for sure. His educated, measured take on what he told his kids is NOT representative of what goes on in Catholicism. He absolutely NEVER addresses this. He seems perfectly happy knowing that nearly all Catholics around the world go around with the beardie-in-the-sky image of God, and, by the way, everyone forgot to remind them that you're allowed a dose of Joe Offer free thinking in order to ditch it all if you wanted to.

And just get this:

"It's the principle that underlies all bigotry: find the wost individuals in a group, and then attack the entire group on the basis of the conduct of that minority.

And then there are all the condemnations based on the born-ageain atheists' concept of what they think people believe. Steve Shaw provides a wealth of examples..."

Wow, I didn't even have to snip. The irony of that is completely lost on you, eh, Joe?

You talk about non-negotiable beliefs. You spent eight years studying theology and you talk about "non-negotiable beliefs!" Well, non-negotiable means that you are not permitted to ditch them. You are not allowed to think for yourself. Eight years doing theology and you can't think for yourself. Well I pity the hundreds of millions of other poor buggers who didn't have your opportunities, that's all I can say to that. Get off yer knees, Joe!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:44 PM

How you people have the nerve to condemn that, I'll never know.

je vous en prie

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:10 PM

I thought the ad was very well done , and far from pushy.....but the thought police strike again.       Paul, your reply was mildly amusing . One mans nonsense is another mans sense.   And the fact that so many Christians adopted evolutionary ideas so relatively recently in history only illustrates my point. Before uniformitarianism and Darwinism took hold on the culture just about no Christian read anything into the text but divine act of creation only about 6,000 yr ago. And so the sad situation where Christians...not all by any means...started to find long ages in the text demonstrates that they were imposing the "science" on the text.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:10 PM

It seems to me that most of the religious attacks here at Mudcat are built on one basic fallacy: that any group of people can be monolithic. It's the principle that underlies all bigotry: find the worst individuals in a group, and then attack the entire group on the basis of the conduct of that minority.

And then there are all the condemnations based on the born-ageain atheists' concept of what they think people believe. Steve Shaw provides a wealth of examples, but let me call to mind his condemnation of my support for the sainthood of a pope he didn't name. As I suspected, he was condemning me for supporting the sainthood of John Paul II, a man I have held absolute disdain for almost since the day he was elected Pope in 1978. I agreed that JPII was the one responsible for the coverup of the sexual abuse of children, and said that coverup was a primary reason for my contempt for the man. Steve admitted it was JPII he spoke of - but did he apologize for accusing me of supporting the man? No, of course not. Steve's goal in life is to attack, not to apologize.

I'm a Catholic, and I've been so all my life, so it's clear that my Catholic faith is sacred to me. And I have a college degree in Theology from a Catholic seminary I attended eight years, so I know my faith quite well. I know what's doctrine, and what's not. I believe in the Creed, and I believe in the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Those are the non-negotiable beliefs of the Catholic faith - but there is a wide and healthy spectrum of understanding of those beliefs, and all else is more-or-less open to discussion. Do I believe in the incarnation (God becoming man) and the virgin birth? Yes. The resurrection? Yes. But as I've said before, the Scriptures do not give detailed information about the specifics of how these events took place, so I leave them in a cloud and figure I'll understand them some day. I have faith that some day it will all make sense to me. And no, these are not things that I can argue about or defend - and I believe that unless I force others to believe these things, I have no reason to defend my beliefs. I do believe that I have a right to share my beliefs with my children, although they exercised their clear right to reject those beliefs in their teenage years. I didn't "force" my beliefs on my children - I just told them what I believe, and they went along with those beliefs for a time and then sorted out what they wanted to believe and what they didn't.

Those are the beliefs of a typical Catholic, which is what I am. They are part of who I am. If you attack and ridicule my beliefs, then you attack and ridicule me. You're not going to change my mind or prove I'm wrong, so why bother? What good would it do you or the world to prove my beliefs wrong? Why is it so fucking important to you to prove that Mary wasn't a virgin?

Now, Pete has a different set of beliefs, and those beliefs are as important to him as mine are to me. You're not going to prove to him that his beliefs are wrong, so why bother? What would you accomplish if you did succeed in proving him wrong? Nothing, really - you would just take away something that is important to him.

Your attacks on religious belief serve no constructive purpose. They serve only to attempt to destroy traditions that are dear to the hearts of people who believe. Nobody here at Mudcat has tried to force religion on you. In fact, the religious people here, including me, have been very reluctant to even share what it is we believe. And it's clear that you naysayers have no chance of understanding what is the essence of our faith - the fact you don't want to understand or respect us is just the first reason.

But whatever you think of our beliefs, those beliefs are ours, and they are sacred to us. If you attack our beliefs, as Mr. Shaw does incessantly, you attack us. And on top of that, you attack us in a place where we are very vulnerable, a place deep in our hearts.

And what satisfaction do you get from your attacks? Do your attacks prove that you are better than we are, smarter than we are, more powerful than we are?

Nope, about all your attacks prove, is how mean-spirited you are.

I spent the morning in church today, as I do almost every Sunday. I hugged people and shook hands, laughed a lot, sang a lot, and listened to the joys and sorrows expressed by a number of people. And we came together to celebrate a sacred ritual that went beyond doctrine and debate, a ritual that brought us together in worship although we have a wide variety of political and theological and ethnic and generational perspectives. And we had a good time. No guilt, no condemnation, no looking down on others who don't believe as we do. We just enjoyed our morning together.

And gee, we never once spoke about evolution, or homosexuality, or any of those other things you outsiders condemn us for. We did talk about the homeless shelter we opened this year, and we talked about people we know who are sick, and we prayed for peace. And then we prayed for healing of those who were hurt in the violence of the last two weeks. And then we prayed for peace again. Oh, and the priest talked how important it is to forgive and to accept forgiveness, so we don't go through life burdened with grudges and guilt.

How you people have the nerve to condemn that, I'll never know.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 04:18 PM

Hear hear. I am not particularly a Bible scholar but I do sometimes wonder whether I haven't got a better handle on the bloody thing than some of the faithful around here. I will not condemn the Bible as a pack of lies because I don't know whether any, some, all, or none of it was ever meant to be regarded as true. There have been two thousand years of tendentious charlatanism to corrupt it and turn it into a tool of proselytisation, so who knows. If only Christianity was honest enough to say to us that the Bible consists of some history, some myth, all a bit inseparable, that we can take some moral lessons from it, but should take absolutely none of it as true stories, because we don't have the evidence. That would be honest. Instead, children in Christian schools are told that Jesus is true and that the stories about him are true, including the faux-magical bits. The prayers and hymns say it, just to reinforce it, and if they're really unlucky they'll have to relive the whole thing in the school nativity play. Sentient beings on this forum just know that all this is so wrong. Come and join us.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:45 PM

Potssl: but I am sure that if I asked you what you think the bible actually says

I know pretty well what it says, both versions, and you can't reconcile them unless you're a better sophist than the apologists of the last half millennium. It's demonstrable nonsense, and thinking Christians have realised long ago - about two hundred years ago- that it's a story, like the parable of the sower. No one (not even you) thinks that the story of the sower was about a factual event, it was just a story illustrating a point. Which of course leads to the question that, if some bits of the Bible are metaphorical, how do we distinguish (and more importantly WHO gets to distinguish) between the straight "facts" and the edification?

But as Les Barker said (quoting whom I know not), never argue with an idiot, for he is doing the same. And I've just burnt the dinner writing this nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:26 PM

Not stopping, but I just wanted to say that I think whoever dreamt up the idea of an advert for any church before Star Wars should take a long hard look at themselves. I find it pretty abhorrent in a wide variety of ways.

So in this case I am firmly in the shaw-shimrod wing of this thread. Just saying.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:01 PM

My ideas are already perfectly legal and I have no desire to make yours illegal. I'd far sooner use argument and, in your case, ridicule, when the fancy takes me. Much more fun than having you banned. Don't talk such twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:53 PM

Have to admit I laughed at your duck quip joe, though I should ,nt really as it's quite sad.    Btw, I live in England where it is still legal to teach your kids your faith, but as you can see certain posters here , and the Dawkins brigade in general tend to equate that to child abuse. Must be coincidental that Steve and co assert the same accusation. They are doing their best to legalise their restrictive ideas by campaigning and pressure from government.         Of course, they don't want their own unproven (and contradicted by observational science) beliefs to be curtailed !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:49 PM

Heheh. "Evolutionary story."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:34 PM

Paul, I am quite aware that there are many Christians that accept the evolution story , but I am sure that if I asked you what you think the bible actually says, I doubt that you would tell me that it says that billions of years ago nothing exploded. Etc etc. I suspect that the Christians who accept the secular story do so believing science demonstrates it's veracity , and are imposing that on what the text actually says. When someone can actually demonstrate that the evolutionary story is true, I shall have no more to say on the subject. ......I won't hold my breath !    Of course many of those Christians also don't hold all the narrative text to be dependable. I do , and I shall leave the others to speak for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:17 PM

I was thinking about that bus advert. At least it expressed doubt, saying that there PROBABLY isn't a God. You won't find a scintilla of doubt in that Lord's Prayer, even though the whole thing is completely false.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 12:59 PM

What is it that Steve attacks that you hold sacred Mr Offer? Religion wishes to be relevant beyond its membership. ISIS are trying to build a fucking country on the basis, Iran already had and Saudi Arabia is hypocritical. The USA is getting there, shameful speech at a time.

If religion is so "sacred" then nobody can get offended by criticism because your mate Jesus will come and sort us all out.

Or Allah, Buddha, the Noodly one, whatever.

No. If you have a faith then fine, enjoy. This thread is about the damage organised religion does to society, fucks people up and makes them bigots. As Steve Shaw points out, the supposedly moderate Church of England is bleating over a short film of people praying being banned from being shown before Star Wars in cinemas. Good! If people want their children to be fucked up, they'd take them to church. Nobody pays good money to see a film and be subjected to offensive claptrap. Meanwhile the same church defends their vicars when they ban yoga sessions from church halls because of a historical link long forgotten to a religion that isn't theirs, and support attempts to ban adverts on buses saying there probably is no God so go and enjoy your life.

If you can't understand why people are fed up with shallow low intelligence mumbo jumbo, it's because it isn't benign. It really is bad for society. We vote in politicians and therefore the laws they bring are as high as it gets. With the film, I heard a bishop on the radio today claim that the church is above the law. No it fucking isn't, and neither is the mosque, chapel, synagogue or Lloyds.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 12:31 PM

But Raggytash, the picture is so warm, so cosy, the little children so beautiful and so neat and scrubbed, so obedient, so serene. The fact that they are far too young to have a clue about what they're chanting is beside the point! But the prayer they're chanting is so full of certainty! It doesn't matter that what they're chanting is completely untrue. The power and the glory have eased them ever so gently into line. Things will get a little sterner when they grow up a bit more. They should thank God they're not Catholics, as that's sterner still, or Muslims, the sternest bunch of the lot. All the same God, though, all the same truth deficit, just a matter of degree.