BS: Religion, which is the best one?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 14 Oct 13 - 10:06 AM

As usually, you misunderstood half of what I wrote - not too bad a proportion. I am not talking about ethos at all.

Secondly, I prefer to avoid the word "believe" mainly because you and Pete have a different notion of it from Joe and Keith. The latter are perfectly entitled to use that word in their own sense; we should just try to avoid misunderstandings. You obviously fail to understand even the most commonplace of Keith's statements. If you do not wish to improve your understanding, it is alright with me, but you cannot hope to become a respected discussion partner here.

Thirdly, it is a fundamental error to think that a religion (- if countable at all -) is defined by a club of professional clergy. Religion exists and is about the existence of its community (not primarily of God or other elements of dogma). We have the right and the duty to criticize the clergy and their theology, but we must decide whether they are ours or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Claire M
Date: 14 Oct 13 - 09:36 AM

Hiya,

Love all that KJ thee & thou; I wish people still talked like that

1] I love mediaeval fiction, [any rec's??] & I want a stained-glass window film in my flat

2] I'll never forget a day out I had @ a shrine

3] I want to go to a church w/ a shouting preacher man, bellowing his head off like this
Hallelujah Brother! 

4] & this song  reminds a lot of people of me.

So maybe I'm not as atheist as I thought I was.

Can you like all that w/o the belief behind it??

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 14 Oct 13 - 08:57 AM

I can't do any more than agree with most of what you put.

Of course there is a position of supporting the ethos without giving credence to the conjuring tricks. My noting is based on those who, like Keith, point out their Christian beliefs but leave the bemused onlooker no wiser. A position of " I choose which bits to believe but don't insult my belief" is disingenuous hypocrisy and makes the increasing irrelevance of the church all the more pertinent.

I do not agree however over your stance that a Stuart / Tudor approach would be as relevant. It wouldn't because the object of the exercise is comfort through nostalgia. Hence I loved a wedding I was at which was very traditional but failed to see the point of a bloke called Steve in a loud shirt introducing the rock section as they chanted their repetitive few words to 6/8 rock, and called it a hymn.

If churches are to survive long term they need to be of interest to the vast majority of people, and not expect obedience to their cause in return.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 14 Oct 13 - 08:40 AM

Musket, a lot of material to comment on.

Language of KJ: few vicars can do it properly; chances are that an actor would perform much better. My guess is that what you find "convincing" is the fact that the vicar represents the continuity of religion as a person - regardless of what s/he says. Most of us have similar feelings. What we really want is a meaningful connection to our ancestors, our community members, and their ancestors. In other words, our collective identity. Old forms such as the KJV can serve as symbols for that, but they are not the real thing themselves. Nostalgia always implies a surrogate. In fact there is no rational reason to assign any more "genuineness" to the Stuart era or the Middle Ages than to the present.

For the real thing to work, first of all we have to develop a respectful understanding of our own human nature and our fellow humans', including its roots in history. Those who do not want to take the trouble are not likely to get anything better than "a humanist bloke in a silly gown".

The real thing is about being, not about subscribing to any dogma connected to physical reality - or to any other dogma. In Joe's words, it is about honesty, not (dogmatic) truth. I was surprised to read that you were surprised to read that Keith and most Christians, notably including theologians and vicars, have similar views - though, honestly, conflicts exist. I personally avoid both words "truth" and "believe/belief" in a religious context; I prefer "faith". With your idea of cherry picking you are quite mistaken; if you ask me whether I believe the literal text of the Bible, the clear answer is no.

Do not ask me to defend any religious organization either; like most organizations, they are infested with incompetence, arrogance, and striving for power, in one word: sin. However, no clergy has the power to seize my notion of religious identity. (Please do not confuse that with "spiritual" - another topic.)

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Musket playing your game
Date: 14 Oct 13 - 05:38 AM

I could keep this up for hours...

Who, other than a vicar can sound convincing when speaking in the language of James I? It's the nostalgia for most of us. School head teachers thinking they are in a pulpit each morning in assembly. I said above that I enjoyed tradition and you get a church, get a real one. Otherwise it would be like I assume visiting a prostitute would be. You get the sex but lose the experience.

Michael seems to have had a rest and has come back with an interesting point. A church near us ripped the pews out recently and the anguish, threats even and debate around it... The pews were unsafe, (two had collapsed in as many weeks due to pie smugglers sitting on them) and they just had to go. Now, the church is Elizabethan, been left foot, right foot, high, low and everywhere you go. But the pews were put in in 1889. I too prefer to say neo gothic to gothic as applicable.

In short, no. I doubt someone dressed up as a vicar would be as good as the real thing. But that's my view. Others have theirs. Although Keith from La La Land raises an interesting point, inadvertently, when he mentioned that he picks and chooses what to believe. Most vicars have to keep the faithful happy, but I am sure that once you get a job, your outlook changes over the years and perhaps some people get a vicar who is as doubtful of their faith as a humanist bloke in a silly gown?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Oct 13 - 12:54 AM

Indeed: esp as what you call "a genuine gothic church building" will actually almost certainly be mid-Victorian, and not "genuine gothic" at all.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 06:20 PM

Musket, how stupid of me to think that you could be fobbed off with neo-gothic stuff; of course you deserve a genuine gothic church building, with all bells and whistles. There are unused ones for rent as well.

Now for the crucial point - the clergy person. Have I understood you correctly that you want them to be genuine as well, in particular Christian believers, but their words not to be listened to? Why that? If you wish religion to disappear, why would you finance its functionaries? (... if not for the trollish pleasure to see them corrupted, which would turn the solemn celebration to its opposite?) What is silly about what you call the rather silly "alternatives without God" people - assuming they could offer the style you prefer, Bach and all?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 04:00 PM

The ceremony bits that include the legal recorder are either vicar or registrar. A vicar if you want to be in a church, or a registrar elsewhere. As I am not a member of any cult with other arrangements, including the rather silly "alternatives without God" people, I fail to see how they apply.

Churches with organs, drafty hard pews, up to a thousand years of history etc are an ideal place for a traditional wedding. If you can't have the experience of King James language, Bach and a quarter peal, then for me personally, the only alternative is a registrar asking the questions and filling in the legal forms. A local hotel supplied the food, drink, bed and somewhere for the band to plug in their p.a.

If you ask people to think about what the vicar is actually saying, then watch out. Far better people let it wash over them than realise they are saying you cannot raise children unless you are grateful to their imaginary friend, or you need a fictional 2000 year old bloke to guide you because you cannot be trusted to do the right things in life without the concept.

I did listen to the irrelevant waffle at a funeral a while ago and thought it rather insulting, as my friend wasn't superstitious yet he was one of the nicest people I had ever met. To listen to a bloke who never met him say he was guided by Jesus blah blah was disgraceful.

No. Far Better normal people enjoy the tradition when it suits them or they want it as a public service. Churches might do well to be grateful for that if they want to remain churches. Already, my wife says there are a large number of rings of bells in buildings that used to be churches but are no more, but their new use included keeping the bells, for which she and her fellow bell ringers are grateful. One close to us actually, now a council run arts centre, but a Victorian town centre church.

Which brings us back to Keith from La La Land.

Just think. Real Christians reckon the demise of the church is due to boutique Christians who think they are too clever and sophisticated to actually believe but think they are clever by saying they have belief.

Buggered if I can get my head around that. I must be ignorant after all! Thanks for telling me. Takes one to know one I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 02:10 PM

Musket, thanks for taking the trouble to repeat your earlier statement, which I had understood alright. Unfortunately you dodged my question, essentially: if you had had the choice at your second wedding, would you have insisted on a genuine priest/minster, thus a Christian believer, or would you have preferred a good actor in a gown, who may share your own convictions? And why? Don't bother with moral justifications; the question is interesting in itself.

(That BHA organization only serves as an example that such services exist, not requiring any membership. Customers will be asked what they want to hear; KJV Canticles would be no problem.)

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 01:20 PM

Keith of La La Land state that the bible isn't literal, but to then piously accuse people of insulting their belief beggars belief.

I do not accuse and do not care.
Insult away.

It is just amusing when you show you ignorance about that which you mock.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Musket using simple language
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 10:11 AM

Ok Grishka. Max can't afford to run a website where I can use pictorial rather than scriptive posts, otherwise I would do. I have a programme that suggests pictorial and easy read, as I used to write reports on residential facilities for health related challenged people...

So whilst I answered your question before you asked it, I shall humour you and repeat my stance.

I don't know what a humanist wedding would be like? Not being a member of their club, it wouldn't feel right anyway. I married once in a church and once in a hotel. Both were good, both had Bach. I would have liked a church wedding for the second time, but apparently, picking and choosing Christianity is only allowed if you actually call yourself a Christian, even if you don't believe it. Me? I prefer to be honest. I know it is fairy stories that serve a purpose, especially for those in need of a comfort blanket, but I also accept that there is a whiff of pious hypocrisy in using the words with your fingers firmly crossed.


The Church of England has spent the last few hundred years ingratiating itself to the point of being an aspect of society, including in the secular sense, through the Lords Spiritual and inviting the vicar to indulge in village pump affairs.

To say that having built up the tradition, you then restrict on the basis of belief is a bit rich. It may seem refreshing to hear Joe Offer and Keith of La La Land state that the bible isn't literal, but to then piously accuse people of insulting their belief beggars belief. It may insult their choices on the menu, but the minute you pick and choose what to believe, your stance "as a Christian" is meaningless. There is only one Christian on these threads a far as I can see, and he isn gong to convince me of any argument any time soon....

So why you want me to comment on humanist issues is beyond me? I don't need their services. I have churches that will take my money if I want to be traditional, if I look hard enough. I have local government registrars who can make weddings real and legal in a hotel, (and a well stocked bar in our case.)

I said which is the best religion at the very beginning of this thread if you bother to look....

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 09:38 AM

Joe O
Like many in Mudcat, I have little recent and direct experience with the RC church, beyond research and perspectives I read and hear from
Others, in the media, on the web and from my RC neighbours and family members. I try and fine tune my experience and logic with what I learn from others to form a picture of current affairs.

You frequently remind us that you have much direct experience with a RC perspective on religion and have ample knowledge from your local involvement.This certainly ppsitions you well to provide finer details that few of us would have (thanks for thisn as it does contribute much to many. Christian -related discussions (most that I don't participate in much). However, sometimes being "too close" distorts the broader view and perspective - much like getting an accurate picture of the Sun and beyond, if you are positioned too close to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 09:07 AM

Christian rules?
Enlighten us Musket.
And, which ones are we breaking?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 09:03 AM

Musket, if you answered my question of 12 Oct 13 - 04:46 AM, you would finally write something that I find really interesting.

MtheGM, never feed 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 07:11 AM

Whilst you are in one of your weird moods it isn't the right time to tell a little story but I shall anyway.

In my recent past as a health regulator I wrote and had published many Dept of Health reports on the ability of NHS trusts to monitor and act upon alert organisms. My mental block, Freudian as it may sound, has always been that I type orgasm instead and never pick it up when proof reading it. It once got past me, the QA peer review, publications edit etc and was published on the Healthcare Commission website how the board of a particular trust monitored orgasms.

In a similar way, as mortality rates at a hospital trust fell after a new chief executive came in and made a few changes, the local paper either accidentally or otherwise reported that morality rates had reduced.



Hence I couldn't resist confusing orgasm with organism. Same as you confuse people who claim to be Christians without obeying Christian rules with normal people who want the public service the Church has happily provided over the years. You think the former worthy of respect but the latter otherwise.

Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 06:26 AM

BTW, do you really not know the difference between an organism and an orgasm? Or can't you read? Or if, as I suspect, it was meant as some sort of joke, then I can honestly aver that I have never come across a more feeble one.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 05:13 AM

But you said you'd let me know when you wanted to give a fuck. I am just asking - why? Can't you make your own arrangements?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Musket being blasé
Date: 13 Oct 13 - 04:13 AM

Nothing nasty about orgasms Michael.

Even wankers need an eventual aim eh?

Why do you not see churches as public utility? Boutique Christians do! Why not rational people also?

You'll have to explain pimping for me. Decent upbringing you see. I know nothing of your world.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Oct 13 - 03:38 PM

If you think I am going to pimp for you, you nasty little organism Musket...

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Oct 13 - 02:46 PM

When I want to give a fuck Michael and Keith, you'll be the first to know.

I only have contempt for one person I know on the basis of their Christianity. They know my feelings too. That's real people by the way. Not we pretend ones.

If churches feel the way you say, they'd insist on people not sniggering or having their fingers crossed when they promise to love Jesus or whatever. But the double bluff is they generally don't care one way or the other.

Why?

Because people get a tradition upheld and churches pretend they are still relevant to rational society.

We all win!

Even the ones who use their so called Christianity as a tool. Eh Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 13 - 01:42 PM

""I think that the idea of "obedience to authority" in the Catholic Church has often been overstated, and sometimes understood as "obedience to the Pope." It has long been Catholic teaching that obedience to one's conscience takes precedence over any other authority. The Catholic Church is supposed to inform believers, who then must make the final decision regarding their own lives. At least in current times, official statements by the Catholic Church on moral issues, are rarely, if ever, stated in the form of commands - although the press and the right-wingers often reinterpret such statements in the form of absolute commands.

""What do they say, Ed (Canadian RCs)? I will admit to being on the progressive side of Roman Catholicism, but what I say is generally consistent with what I was taught in a Catholic seminary in the 1960s.""


Joe, a read of the RC generational survey indicates that it is an "overapplication of representativeness" to put all people in the RC church church in one grouping. The survey (which I can't certify that it was conducted well) indicates significant generational differences in the "adherence to the church's authority" (which seems reasonable to me). Since there are social and cultural difference among nations, it is not also "reasonable" to at least consider that there may also be similar differences among RC members from the many diverse RC countries (note that I have not seen any related research).

I am not sure just how reflective the comments I have heard from friends and relatives who are practicing RC's (none in the youngest generation noted in the survey). However, they indicate a greater acceptance of the authority of the church than you indicate from your experience above? If accurate, this may be a reflection of the difference in acceptance of authority between the USA and Canada? However, I have detect much frustration with the many sexual misconduct scandals by those in a position of trust(some may be more recent than in the USA).



Generational differences-survey

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 12 Oct 13 - 04:46 AM

I guess you can get a "humanist" wedding as traditionally as you want, with colourful gowns (worn by actors), bells, and whistles. Just with the G word and all theology avoided. Even KJ excerpts would be available, e.g. from the Canticles. It is also not hard to rent a building with neo-gothic windows. Would that suit you, Musket? If not, what else do you want for a wedding? If it is a real priest and a religious ceremony, why so?

Dawkins is prominent because he is hailed by the atheist movement (including the BHA who feature him on the top of their home page with as friendly a look as he can manage). I personally am also interested in his former scientific work and the connections between science and ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Oct 13 - 02:35 AM

I am as convinced an atheist as anyone, Ian. But I also value both sincerity & courtesy: and I feel your attitude that churches are a useful sort of public utility for you to disport yourself in fashionably, because you think it "the best place", is an affront to the sincerity of its true worshippers, and a gross discourtesy to them on your part.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 13 - 02:03 AM

For the religious friends and family

Do they know how much contempt you feel towards anyone with faith?
Not just non-belief but the rabid contempt you have expressed so fully here for such "morons."

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 11 Oct 13 - 11:45 PM

Such ceremonies are, for me personally, traditional. Hence a church is the best place.

I thoroughly enjoyed a family wedding the other year. Lots of King James style thee and thou from the vicar. I had heard of all the hymns (mostly written by my near neighbour Charles Wesley) my wife helped the locals with the bell ringing and the organist had heard of Bach.

Conversely, a christening I went to last year had electric guitar, drums, bass, flashing lights, a vicar called Steve in a Hawiian shirt, various members of the congregation getting the microphone crying saying "thank you Jesus for being wonderful" and the words of the "hymns" seemed to consist of "he is great, live for him" ad nauseum as a repeating chant. In case you didn't notice the subliminal message, the words were on the wall in a PowerPoint presentation.

The former was a joy, the latter a fair shot at Dante's Inferno.

A humanist ceremony? About as relevant as the born again idiots who love their Lord but seem disdainful of tradition.

My first wedding was in a church. Loved the whole experience. My second wedding was in a hotel. Loved the whole experience. For the religious friends and family, it was sad that the church they love prevented them from enjoying a Church wedding, and we would have liked it too. They had no ceremonies to help pay the bills that day, I am reliably informed. Their loss. If they think people use churches for traditional ceremony due to having an imaginary friend, then this Dawkins that God botherers are fascinated about seems to have a point in the title God Delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 11 Oct 13 - 03:18 PM

Just reading that Dawkins is the vice president of the BHA (British Humanist Association). My previous information was dated.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 11 Oct 13 - 03:12 PM

Musket (GUEST), the BHS claims to have no ideological agenda other than being non-religious - quite differently from Masons etc. My question was just generally whether you would prefer ceremonies from such an organization to the corresponding church ceremonies.

(The international "Humanist" movement does have a history, but let us disregard that for the moment. Dawkins is not a member but he and the BHS speak very favourably of one another.)

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 13 - 01:47 PM

Joe. I have no issue with anyone over their faith. None whatsoever. Your commentaries on these threads mentioning your own interpretation are at any level refreshingly honest. Ok. I fail to see how I personally could handle the dichotomy of conformity and personal take, hence my pick and choose comments.

However, increasingly on these threads there has been a "because I am a Christian" or "Christians get a raw deal. " you yourself have been known to question them.

If what constitutes being a Christian is personal and somewhat variable, my point is that judgement from a "Christian" angle is meaningless. Some, not you, need to stop using their faith as a temporal tool. You need, in my humble opinion, to stop criticising other interpretations of Christianity as being embarrassing because it's their word too.

Grishka. I know nothing really of humanist ceremonies. I know very little of masonic ceremonies, boy scout ceremonies or many religious ceremonies. The humanist movement is, I believe, saying you you can enjoy a nice garden without seeing fairies at the bottom of it. As to ceremonies, it seems like the organisations calling themselves atheist organisations to me. If we didn't have religion, someone would invent it.

Not every religion can be right. I just think there is one more preaching bollocks than most believers do. Perhaps if I understood why you asked me?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 11 Oct 13 - 11:27 AM

One to watch out for?

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 11 Oct 13 - 08:54 AM

this geek has been a science fiction fan since before she could read, and gravitated towards those stories that presents ideas and forced you to think and examine your way of thinking about different things.

And the television series Babylon 5 by J. Michael Straczynski was one of the few that actually did an intelligent job dealing with religious thinking. At least moved it from dogma & superstition to a philosophical examination of the universe & our possible roles in it. I'm sure others could expound further on this than I can.

The alternate universe series of 1634 by Eric Flint goes into incredible detail regarding some of the various Christian faiths - and usually more than I can handle in a single sitting because it just brings to mind the arguments re: "how many angels can sit on the head of a pin" - something I always regarded as a futile waste of time. But it does hi-lite some of the historical/cultural bachground of our western civilization.

I bring this up because the eastern relgions have not been mentioned at all in the thread... the relgious beliefs of way more than half of the current human population has been ignored. I find that facinating, she says in her best Spock like voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 11 Oct 13 - 08:32 AM

Musket, for the slim chance that we learn something new here, would you please tell us what you think of the Humanist ceremonies I mentioned upthread - preferably abstracting from financial considerations?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 11:28 PM

Musket, when I was a kid in the 1950s, social pressure required people to belong to a church and to attend services regularly. There were a lot of people in church who didn't want to be there, and their unwilling presence and empty participation detracted from the spirit of the congregation. That social obligation to belong to a church no longer exists, and I think that has done a lot to improve the spirit of congregations at church services. The rituals are no longer empty, because the people in the pews are there because they want to participate. Churches have reemphasized the original meaning of their rituals, and often require education before a sacrament is given to an individual. And yes, sacraments are refused to people who are unwilling to make a faith commitment. You want it to be the 1950s again, when you could take advantage of religious practices when they were appealing to you, without making a religious commitment.

And what, specifically, is this "picking and choosing" you accuse me of? That I reject simplistic misconceptions of Catholic teachings? That I, as a Catholic with a theology degree, take a stand on issues that are debated within the Catholic Church instead of waiting to be told what to think? What is it?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 10:41 PM

Think on this then Joe.

If churches relied on people who genuinely had any form of belief, they would have been all turned into bingo halls years ago.

It is the hypocrisy of accepting money for weddings, funerals and christenings that keeps their flaky stake in most communities. In The UK at any rate. To say you have to say you believe in things that are intellectually abhorrent to you in order to have a public service performed is to misread the tolerance normal people indulge the Church with.

Here of all places, the wish for tradition should be understood. 99% of christenings are nothing to do with belief and everything to do with rites of passage in the tradition of your community.

I repeat. pete is someone I fundamentally disagree with but he seems to be the only one here with faith you could argue with, because he is consistent and doesn't keep changing the menu before the food arrives.

To pick and choose is fine but it loses any sense of meaning to the rest of us and makes any stance on religious grounds meaningless.

So. Who's for a raging debate on stamp collecting?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 10:08 PM

I was going to type this up for you to illustrate how hard it is to teach the Catholic religion to kids and for them to get it straight, but electricscotland.com told it so well.

Little Zachary was doing very badly in math. His parents had tried everything…tutors, mentors, flash cards, special learning centers, and more. In short, everything they could think of to help his math. Finally, in a last ditch effort, they took Zachary down and enrolled him In the local Catholic school. After the first day, little Zachary came home with a very serious look on his face. He didn't even kiss his mother hello. Instead, he went straight to his room and started studying. Books and papers were spread out all over the room and little Zachary was hard at work. His mother was amazed. She called him down to dinner. To her shock, the minute he was done, he marched back to his room without a word, and in no time, he was back hitting the books as hard as before. This went on for some time, day after day, while the mother tried to understand what made all the difference. Finally, little Zachary brought home his Report Card. He quietly laid it on the table, went up to his room and hit the books. With great trepidation, His Mom looked at it and to her great surprise, Little Zachary got an 'A' in math. She could no longer hold her curiosity. She went to his room and said, 'Son, what was it? Was it the nuns?' Little Zachary looked at her and shook his head, no. 'Well, then,' she replied, Was it the books, the discipline, the structure, the uniforms? WHAT WAS IT?' Little Zachary looked at her and said, 'Well, on the first day of school when I saw that guy nailed to the plus sign, I knew they weren't fooling around.'

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 08:29 PM

speaking of those who do not fully understand their own religion...

I wonder if it was a Catholic boy who, when I was in 3rd or 4th grade, told me: "It's a sin to eat meat on Friday!".

It kinda worried me..until I finally asked someone... who said it WASN'T... which was one of my very early experiences of wondering how several different 'truths' could all be right. I think I was in high school before I finally began to how it all worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 08:17 PM

Before Vatican II, Catholics did not study the Bible, so the idea developed that Catholics relied on a catechism instead of the Bible. But as I studied the Bible in later years, I learned that many, many things in that catechism came straight from the Bible, or from the Nicene Creed that is held by most Christians. There are a few Catholic beliefs not in the Bible or Nicene Creed, but very few and usually not central beliefs. Now, there is a vast amount of theology built upon the Bible and Creed, but that's explanation, not doctrine.

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church was published in 1992. A revised edition was published in 1997, including stronger language opposing capital punishment. The previous catechism, the Roman Catechism (or Catechism of the Council of Trent) was published in 1566. The "Baltimore Catechism" and other popular question-and-answer catechisms were based on the Roman Catechism. Both of the major catechisms follow the same four-part outline: The Creed, Sacraments and Worship, The Commandments, and Prayer. I find that current Catholic teaching is quite consistent with those questions and answers I memorized back in the 1950s - I just didn't understand all the implications of the questions and answers at the time, and I find that many people have some very distorted understandings of what they learned as kids in catechism class.

Many Catholics don't really understand their religion, especially since they have had no education in their faith as adults. Oftentimes, I find that Catholics in the U.S. talk more like evangelical Christians than Catholics, because Evangelical Christianity rules the airwaves. There are many good Catholic periodicals, but not many Catholics read them.

The right-wingers have the corner on Catholic electronic media. Most "Catholic" Websites I've seen are extremely right-wing - they bought up catholic.org and catholic.com early on. The Jesuits and Franciscans have good Websites, but hard-to-find URLS. There is a nationwide Catholic radio network in the U.S.; and Mother Angelica's godawful EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) is also nationwide and very popular. All of these present themselves as true Catholicism, but Catholicism is much wider than they pretend it to be. I find the Catechism and most official documents from the Catholic Church to be quite satisfying - but the right-wingers interpret them with a lot of right-wing "spin."

Ed T sez: The "local interpretation" of what the RC church stands for is quite different, as defined by local differences and time, as the concept of the individual and the church is evolving. What Joe O describes, seems quite foreign to what I am told by local Rc's? Consistancy, maybe not?

What do they say, Ed? I will admit to being on the progressive side of Roman Catholicism, but what I say is generally consistent with what I was taught in a Catholic seminary in the 1960s.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 07:25 PM

Just found this:

"It is conceivable that religion may be morally useful without being intellectually sustainable.
John Stuart Mill

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 07:02 PM

well, Ed... I only spent 8 years in Catholic school which ended in 1964,

so I have no clue what changes have occurred since they went from masses said in Latin to English. but they did make a big deal out of having free will. They have a different catechism now than I did, I think, as well.

I am an atheist because it is the outlook most compatible with me as a person. I expect that there are those who gravitate towards some kind of spiritual belief that works for them.

this thread topic is highly subjective and impossible to answer to the satisfaction of all. it assumes a definitive answer where none can exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 05:19 PM

I am also confused sciencegeek,(if I take a bit of liberty to include you in that category).

I was raised on a RC diet - and attended all that is required - but I am (proudly) no longer an organized RC affiliate (but, darn, it is difficult to shake the RC upbringing. I have turned to a few similar groups for religious insight, which I enjoy. I suspect that I am not alone.

The "local interpretation" of what the RC church stands for is quite different, as defined by local differences and time, as the concept of the individual and the church is evolving. What Joe O describes, seems quite foreign to what I am told by local Rc's? Consistancy, maybe not?


I suspect that this leaves a lot of people confused, as to what this church actually stands for, including me?

Hopefully, the new leadership may make it clearer for "the wayward Christian flock" to feel comfortable returning. But,I suspect it is more likely not so.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Ed small t
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 04:17 PM

A good logical point MtheGM.

A case in point:
I seem to recall that this is not required in Canadian law. For example, no minister or priest is required to marry a gay person,or make their facilities available for such a union, if it goes against their rights.

So, it only seems logical that Christian churches and rights should be limited to "the faithful" I doubt if in the USA that civil rights organizations are required to provide "equal access" to their sites or events to the KKK organization (or, vice versa).

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 03:56 PM

Joe, correct me if I'm wrong... but what I remember from Catholic school teachings was that God gave mankind free will - that double edged sword that gets us into all kinds of mischief.

Instead of studying the bible - new or old testament- we used the catechism. In my case it was write the question three times and the answer five for homework. If it had the imprematur, then it meant it was pope or cardinal approved for belief.

So we were taught what they thought was correct beliefs and behavior.. but it was still up to us to follow or not follow. And the need for confession was to wash away the sins we'd committed, since it was automatically presumed that we humans would sucumb to temptation. Simplified greatly, but still on track I think.

It was the mortal sins that had us scared silly... missing church or eating meat on Friday that meant a one way ticket to hell if we died before confessing & getting absolved. At least it scared me until I got a bit older and admitted to myself that it all seemed like superstition to me and not anything that brought comfort or enlightenment into my life. More of a royal pain in the ass that I wanted no part of anymore.

But back to RC who decide for themselves what to follow... I think that the acceptance of free will is important. I don't recall any of the gospels including the directives found in the catechism. This all came later and only the belief in papal infallability regarding church teachings gives them any validity. in the opinion of this atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 02:40 PM

and I believe you are quite right, ed.
the orthodox and anglo catholics adopt some RC ritual and belief not common to most protestants.
in addition the word "catholic" means universal, I believe ,and in that sense applies to all Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 11:50 AM

MtheGM, I was not making any kind of moral judgment. My point was simply that some self-styled humanists do not analyze their own needs correctly. I could write a lot more if asked, though my experience with you is that you do not really appreciate comprehensive answers ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 11:17 AM

No, Grishka, not in my case. I can well see the attraction; but I don't think it should be factitiously misused. I find that peculiarly insulting to those to whom it does have real meaning. The fact that 'humankind ... really is like' that doesn't make it OK IMO.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 11:07 AM

There are organizations that organize non-religious ceremonies, as "traditionally" as desired and possible, e.g. the BHA. However, many customers are dissatisfied and prefer a priest of however questionable intellectual and moral authority, and talent as a maître d'. The reason seems quite clear to me, but unfathomable to many "humanists" who are not interested in what humankind, including themselves, really is like.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,ME
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 10:58 AM

I was devastated to find out my wife was having an affair; but, by turning to religion, I was soon able to come to terms with the whole thing. I converted to Islam, and we're stoning her in the morning!

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 10:35 AM

I don't know what the matter is with me. I have just posted on Christian Persecution in agreement with Jim Carroll; and now here I am agreeing with Joe on a matter, if not of religion, yet of the rights of the religious. Why should churches provide facilities for non-believers to show off? It seems to me the height of vile manners to lie to the authorities of a Church in order to persuade them to marry you, when the ritual means nothing to you but a bit of agreeable ostentation. People who do that should be ashamed, and I think the Church [any church] quite right to decline to provide facilities for what is nothing but a showy opportunity to wear tall hats and white lace for people to whom the actual faith-content of the ritual means nothing. I say again ~~ it's rude of them even to ask.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 06:47 AM

Pete, a point related to your last post:

I believe there is a difference between the terms "Catholic" and Roman Catholic. Anglicans and some of the Orthodox religious groups consider themselves as Catholic, but do not accept the pope as the head of their church.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 01:34 AM

...and yet another thing, Musket - you cannot define my faith in fundamentalist terms, because I am not a fundamentalist. What is important to me, is my relationship with God, and the prayer and ritual and social justice action that go along with that. For the fundamentalist, what's most important is belief, adhering to certain doctrines. That's a bird of a different color.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Oct 13 - 12:23 AM

I'm not finished yet, Musket. You pushed one of my hot buttons. Although it may seem important to you, many churches (including the Catholic Church) do not require uniformity of thinking as a requirement for membership. Outsiders and right-wingers may see this as a requirement, but it is not. What is required, is that diverse people join together in faith and in mutual respect as a community to worship God in ritual. And if you don't want to worship God, then you have no business demanding services of a church. It's up to the church to decide what services it wants to provide to non-members.

-Joe-