BS: An Easter Question

Subject: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 08:29 AM

This has always puzzled me, and I wondered if anyone on here could enlighten me.
We are told Jesus' body was left in the tomb overnight wrapped in a shroud. When the open tomb was discovered on Easter Sunday, this gravecloth was found neatly folded, but Jesus had disappeared.
Soon afterwards he was seen by various folk, walking about quite the thing. Now what was he wearing? And where had he obtained the clothes?
Also I presume he wore some form of sandals. Where had he managed to find them? I just can't explain this. Even if he'd pinched them from somewhere, he'd have been naked as he came out from the tomb. Very strange...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 08:38 AM

Oh dear ............. I hope you are not suggesting that Christ was a thief.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 08:39 AM

It was a miracle.........sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 08:39 AM

One of the questions often asked in Liverpool when I was young was "Who did the washing up after the Last Supper" - bet it was a woman!!.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 09:13 AM

A miracle...
So not only was he resurrected, but an entire set of clothes of the right size appeared too. Did they sort of float down from the sky, or appear on hangers in the cave, or did an angel come up and ask him what size he required in sandals?

Believe it or not, I'm a regular churchgoer and our Rector would be a bit displeased to hear of my doubts.

This is tongue in cheek to some extent, but I'd still like to know the official line on these matters!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 09:15 AM

Whatever he was wearing, it caused Mary Magdelene to mistake him first off for the gardener (John 20 15). Maybe he had borrowed some ordinary looking working clothes?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 09:28 AM

Then he met two disciples walking to Emmaeus and they didn't recognise him [tho they had been doing everything together continuously & nonstop for 3 years] till they sat down to eat and he said grace & 'their eyes were opened' and he disappeared [Luke 24].

All a bit confused and mysterious and folklorish, eh?

I think Caravaggio's The Supper at Emmaeus perhaps the greatest painting in the National Gallery in London, mind.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 09:34 AM

Or alternatively, go back before the Christianity story and ask how Mithras or any of the fabled messiahs pulled the trick. It's all the same story

Nowadays, we'd call it a continuity error and have a pop at the film director.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 09:35 AM

Well, for a fellow capable of dying after being bled dry then coming back to life, the matter of obtaining a few clothes, by comparison, must have been an absolute cinch.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 09:49 AM

Wardrobe provided by Miracle Clothing.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 09:57 AM

Hahaha Guest! That must be it!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 12:35 PM

Going back to Caravaggio's painting I mentioned 5 posts back. Jesus appears in it without a beard. I have always taken this to be the artist's explanation as to why those who met him, altho they had long known him, didn't recognise him at first after he rose from the dead. He avoided immediate recognition by shaving off his characteristic beard.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 12:48 PM

What happened with his foreskin? Was it discarded, preserved, has it become a wallet which when rubbed turns into a suitcase? Anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 12:49 PM

Most famous people employ doubles. Explains a lot of things, especially if his agent inadvertently told his double the beard had to go, relaunch of image and all that.

Worked for David Bowie and look how much adulation and respect he got (and deserved.)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 03:16 PM

"What happened with his foreskin? "
I thought that it became the ring around Saturn

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 03:45 PM

I'm sure Mary (His Mother) and the other women there washed and dressed Him. Wouldn't you have?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 04:14 PM

Ah .......... isn't that nice and civilised, just the sort of thing that would happen in Palestine 2000 years ago.

Streuth, the lengths some people will go to.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 04:20 PM

People is People

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:04 PM

How did he die?

Evidence seems to show he was crucified in the Roman manner which was on an X propped on the ground and tied to a stake.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: BobL
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:04 PM

I seem to remember that Mel Gibson's film on the Passion ended with Jesus exiting the tomb in his birthday suit, so a least this question has been considered before.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:06 PM

Must admit Eliza , that it had,nt occurred to me that Jesus would need to requisition new clothes after conquering death. Certainly a God who validates the sacrifice of his Son by raising him from death is unlikely to be thwarted by what he will wear , but of course I don't know either where the new apparel came from. We are told that in creation he only had to speak and it was created, so I guess a new suit is small fry in comparison. As to not being recognised post resurrection we are told in one place that they were prevented from recognition till he broke bread.   And of course they were not expecting to see him , especially well and whole.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:13 PM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 09:35 AM

Well, for a fellow capable of dying after being bled dry then coming back to life, the matter of obtaining a few clothes, by comparison, must have been an absolute cinch.

Surely a 'cinch' is just the belt, or rope, around his robes!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:19 PM

So was Jesus one of the earliest recorded accounts of a zombie ?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:29 PM

I'm going to spend this Easter emulating Jesus. Piss off tonight and reappear on Sunday morning...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: keberoxu
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:29 PM

Good point, MGM Lion, about Mary Magdalene: They have taken him away, and I know not where they have lain him.

Ought to double-check "The Man Who Died" by D. H. Lawrence. I recall that Lawrence's modus operandi was that Jesus was not dead, but catatonic. But I don't recall about the clothing.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:37 PM

In most cases in the real world, lots of unanswered questions and contradictions cause people to have....ummm.. suspicions... about the story being told.

In religious matters, it's just "Oh, god(s) can easily do anything." Very convenient.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:44 PM

But Pete, he wasn't 'well and whole' because apparently he still had the holes in his hands for Thomas to look at.

Oddly, I find it perfectly acceptable that he rose from the dead in the tomb, but getting hold of some clothes/footwear and tidily folding up his shroud before he left somehow makes me giggle.

Our Rector will probably excommunicate me now as a heretic. She's quite broad-minded though, so maybe I'll be spared.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:52 PM

Ah, but he will have kept the stigmata, Eliza, as a sort of memento, and identifier. It's not everyone, after all, whose palms have been pierced by bloody great nails!

I don't think parish clergy in the C·of·E actually have power of excommunication, BTW!

Best ··· ≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 06:03 PM

I watched a documentary years ago which pointed out that nails through the palms of the hands wouldn't hold the weight of the body. The nails would in fact have been knocked through the wrist bones. (barbaric and unspeakably cruel)

Oh phew, Michael, that's a comfort! (She's actually very nice, and I doubt if she'd throw a strop at my over-logical doubts)

After his resurrection, Jesus apparently stood on the shore and told a group of disciples who were out fishing where to get a large catch. They brought the fish ashore and they all sat down and had a feast. Does this mean Jesus actually ate and drank? With his hands, brow, side and back lacerated and wounded? And presumably his digestive tract was in working order which I find strange, though I can't explain why.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 06:07 PM

His wrists would surely have been tied to the arms of the cross, like those of the thieves crucified along with him, and nails added just as a bit of extra nasty just for him...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 07:29 PM

True Eliza , he still had the marks of his passion , but otherwise a ressurection body. It may well be that it was as he broke the bread that the deciples saw the wounds. To Thomas was shown the wounds in his feet and hands, and nothing was said about any other wounds preserved in his ressurected body. I am uncommitted as far as the Turin shroud is concerned but I understand that image shows the nail marks as on the wrists.   Another interesting detail as regards the grave clothes is it is thought the text indicates not their being folded but vacated .....but I might need to check that....so in his ressurection body he passed through them , as it seems he did the stone which was not rolled to let Jesus out but that others might see he was not there. And, also, in one of his post ressurection appearances when "the doors being shut" he stood among them. And the gospels do record him eating with the deciples and this would be evidence (for them, not our resident skeptics!) that it was not a spirit/ghost but he himself .

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 07:47 PM

You know, with most novels you can just read what it says. Not having read it, does the bible say what he did to look decent?

Anyway, a nice story but plagiarised from earlier ones apparently.

History however relates that crucifixion had a pretty good success rate so if anyone of that name got nailed to a cross, I doubt it failed to kill him. They tended to leave you till you were really dead.

A nice aside concerning clothes but unless the story says something about them, any question should start with the idea nobody ever got up again once they actually died and doesn't the story say he dies up there? The novelist cocked up with that one because unless he introduced a ghost, it's a bit difficult attributing adventures to a stiff.

Still, I do like Eliza's question concerning the continuity error. pete's reply that God can do anything is good too. Perhaps he can sort out the carnage, mayhem and obscene loss of life in the name of him going on at present then pete!

No, thought not zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 08:55 PM

anyone remember the book
The Passover plot

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 10:27 PM

How crucifixion kills.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 01:55 AM

Didn't St Catherine of Siena have a supposed relic of the circumcision of Jesus, a ring that she wore, saying that she had been married to God "not with a ring of silver but with a ring of his holy flesh…"

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 03:32 AM

MGM says: All a bit confused and mysterious and folklorish, eh?

I think there's a lot of truth in Mike's comment.

It always seems strange to me that people here on a folk music Website can't accept folklore if it has religious implications. When it comes to religion, they accept only the "literal interpretation."

I get this a lot when I'm telling stories to kids. I tell the story and 95% of the kids are going along with me, and some damn kid interrupts and wants to know what color shoes the hero is wearing.

It ruins the whole friggin' story. Sometimes, it's best just to enjoy a story as a story, and not get bogged down in the details. Those people experienced something that had a profound experience on them. What was it? Maybe they didn't get the details right, but there must have been something that had such a profound effect on them.

And no matter what, it's a good story, so don't sweat the details.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 03:41 AM

Thompson sez: Didn't St Catherine of Siena have a supposed relic of the circumcision of Jesus, a ring that she wore, saying that she had been married to God "not with a ring of silver but with a ring of his holy flesh…"

Yuck! Better to leave the foreskins to David. He had a thing about them. And by the way, is Michaelangelo's David circumcised?

But yes, Catherine of Siena had some strangeness to her writings, and much of what we know about her is mostly folklore. The most important thing about Catherine is that she was a woman who dared to confront the Pope. And yes, she and a number of other female mystics had some sort of "mystical marriage" to Jesus. I can't get too concerned about that, until they start having mystical children...

Never heard the foreskin story before. Maybe it's an absurd conversion of a metaphor into literalism. Apparently, Catherine claimed the ring indicating her marriage to Christ, was invisible.

Odd, but interesting story, nonetheless. And Siena, by the way, is a strange and interesting city to visit.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 03:53 AM

And for that matter, are foreskins kept by any culture after circumcision? Seems to me, it might be a good idea to keep them for David when he's told to collect 100 and decides to collect 200 instead.
I wonder what he did with all of them...sold them to Catholic virgins for use as wedding rings?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 05:08 AM

In my husband's culture (Malinke/Muslim Senoufou ivorian) foreskins are buried wrapped in a large leaf under the floor of the family hut (earth floor) but this is in the remote villages. I must ask him what happens to them in the city of Abidjan. As most of the shanty shack floors are solid concrete, they'd need a pneumatic drill to make a hole.

Joe, I often concern myself with the details as it's among them one can verify the big story. (A bit like Sherlock Holmes.) I tend to subscribe to the explanation that Jesus was in the form of a very clear 'apparition' so he could walk through walls and so on. Thus the clothes would be part of the vision and not actually real clothes at all. I'm rather suspicious of doctrine which counters a perfectly reasonable doubt with "Well, it's so, and you should concentrate on the spiritual and holy side of things, not quibble like this!" If I'm going to subscribe to an entire religion I like to read the small print so to speak. Jesus' disciples were men of their age; they hadn't the benefit of modern science and knowledge. We have, and should be allowed to exercise them.


I've taught eight year-olds for thirty years and know only too well the pertinent questions with which they interrupt a gripping story. But that's natural scepticism and a very healthy thing.

Musket, my biggest stumbling block with accepting God is the point you make above. If he's all powerful, whatever is his mindset regarding the unspeakable suffering and pain inflicted in his name all over the world. My sister says it's people doing it not God. But presumably with a wave of his hand he could put a stop to it all. She says 'free will'. But I sometimes wonder if he has any pity in him at all. When I pray I often have a rant at him about this, but one has to 'let it go' or faith would wither completely.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 05:12 AM

"I wonder what he did with all of them..."

He used to ping them like rubber bands at the heads of passing Samaritans.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 05:12 AM

My sister says it's people doing it not God. people are not smallpox or maleria

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 08:55 AM

Exactly Les. And volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, myriad nasty, painful diseases, venomous creatures.
It's true humans have free will and free choice, but the victims on the receiving end of evil actions have no choice about it whatsoever.
As the Scots say, "Ah hae mae doots aboot it a'."

Husband says cut-off foreskins in the city are taken away by the circumciser and 'disposed of'. He thinks probably chucked in a bin. (ugh)

Ah I nearly forgot: Happy Easter everyone!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 12:28 PM

I'm a life long agnostic/atheist - ie i'm not exactly certain of my exact position on that spectrum.

But I like the tradition of enjoying a good jesus movie at easter.

.. part of my culture, along with Zulu, The Great Escape, The Magnificent 7, The Italian Job, The Battle of Britain, Planet of the Apes, etc
on other bank holidays....

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 12:43 PM

that last guest was me...😜

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 12:55 PM

Yea, have another three marks and TWO gold stars AND you can give out the inkwells !!! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 02:05 PM

Hi, Eliza-

You say "Jesus was in the form of a very clear 'apparition.'" That's more-or-less the way I see it.

The question of suffering is a big one. I guess I think that suffering just happens. I don't see God as scripting what happens in our lives. We're in a universe that works according to certain principles that are best defined by science. We operate within those principles, affected by the very powerful forces of consequences and coincidences. It takes real effort to go beyond those forces and accomplish significant change. I see God as a spiritual force that inspires that effort.

I usually give my definition of God as an essence that is both within and beyond each of us, and I see that essence as good and as calling us to good. If I respond to that essence, I can accomplish things beyond the ordinary flow of things.

Other people have other understandings, but mine is what works for me. I don't see an interventionist God that defies the laws of physics - including natural consequences and coincidences.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 05:10 PM

", are foreskins kept by any culture after circumcision?"

About 46 years ago, a college roommate and I surmised what those so-called "pork skins" in the vending machines really were...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 05:17 PM

Well he. might as well defy the laws of physics, as his very existence is predicated on just that. No matter how you define him.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 07:39 PM

Steve, I think it's only your definition of God that requires the Divinity to defy the laws of physics; and you seem to require that all people of faith adhere to your narrow definition, so that you can more handily refute them.

I came across an article about Rob Bell, an evangelical pastor who has recently been on a speaking tour, promoting the concept of evolution to evangelicals. He says that any conflict between religion and science has been overblown by small groups of extremists at either pole. I agree.

Frogprince, wasn't it George H.W. Bush who was very fond of pork rinds? Makes you wonder. Maybe there's a comparison between Bush senior and King David?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 08:03 PM

"Steve, I think it's only your definition of God that requires the Divinity to defy the laws of physics; and you seem to require that all people of faith adhere to your narrow definition, so that you can more handily refute them."

Now why would I bother to come up with a definition of something that isn't there? What's my definition of God, Joe? And when have I ever required anyone to do anything? I don't know whether there's a God and I don't care whether you believe in him or not. You don't know whether there's a God or not but you organise a whole institution around him notwithstanding, and you're cool with passing that uncertainty-wrapped-in-certainty down to your kids. Refuting isn't my modus operandi. All I want is your evidence. I don't expect a direct, honest reply, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Mr Red
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 03:46 AM

perhaps he nicked the emperor's new clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 10:07 AM

Controversial new evidence unearthed: Exclusive.

As soon as the cave was sealed shut from prying eyes Jesus was beamed back up to the mothership
Where his circuitry & cyber-mechanisms were checked for faulty components, his battery recharged, software upgraded,
and human camouflage bio exterior repaired...

Then when all system diagnostics passed satisfactorily and his new mission directives programmed to continue conquest of planet Earth ,
he was beamed back in time for Easter Monday...

Watch "Was Jesus an Alien Conquest Spy-Bot ?" on The Crackpot History Channel - Tonight 8.00pm..... 👽

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 10:34 AM

Easter Question: What about those Cadbury eggs? Do rabbits actually lay them?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 11:08 AM

We are told Jesus' body was left in the tomb overnight wrapped in a shroud. When the open tomb was discovered on Easter Sunday, this gravecloth was found neatly folded, but Jesus had disappeared.
Soon afterwards he was seen by various folk, walking about quite the thing. Now what was he wearing? And where had he obtained the clothes?

His father beamed down a Hawaiian shirt, Bermuda shorts, flip-flops and a "kiss me quick" hat, but the disciples couldn't bring themselves to describe it.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 11:35 AM

" The Bible does not say anything about what happened on Easter Monday, the day after Jesus' resurrection"

Newly declassified redacted files provide strong evidence of cataclysmic events the day after regeneration:
Jesus-Bot V.2.00 reactivated and re-equipped with even more powerful 'miracle' weaponry;
an army of disciple clones ready to march relentlessly on the world.
The day the conquest began....

And the saviour said "I'll be back !!!"

Tonight 10.00pm special exclusive only on The Crackpot History Channel.

"Invasion of the Disciples - Almighty Clone Army War Against Mankind"... 💥

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: EBarnacle
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 12:18 PM

I recommend RA Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Justice" which will put some of the questions raised here into a somewhat different context.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 04:34 PM

Jack says: His father beamed down a Hawaiian shirt, Bermuda shorts, flip-flops and a "kiss me quick" hat, but the disciples couldn't bring themselves to describe it.

Hey, Jack, that's how He looks on those packets of Zig-Zag cigarette papers!

---

PFR sez: And the saviour said "I'll be back !!!"

Somehow, I can't picture Arnold Schwarzenegger playing The Redeemer...

---

Steve Shaw sez: All I want is your evidence. I don't expect a direct, honest reply, of course.

That's the whole deal with faith Steve. People choose to believe, without evidence. My faith tradition has been very rich and fulfilling to me, and I like being a believer and I am convinced that my believing does nobody any harm. If that's not satisfactory, then feel free not to believe. What I can't understand, is why you feel so compelled to deride and attack people who do believe. Although you deny that you do this, your compulsion is clear.
There's nobody here at Mudcat who promotes religion; but yet it's clear that there are many here who feel free to attack and insult it. Why is that? And for that matter, is there anyone here who attacks and insults and derides nonbelief?
The choice to believe or not to believe is a very personal decision. I don't think anyone has a right to question or challenge or deride my decision, as long as I don't try to force my faith on anyone else - and I never have, unless you feel you have some right to question my bringing my children up in a church. I don't think you have a right to question how I raise my children, either - and you certainly will never really know how I raised them. You can only speculate, and that sort of speculation is none of your business. There are aspects of other peoples' personal lives that are best left for them to determine. And your derision is not welcome, thankyouverymuch. I suppose you think you have a right to demand me to defend the kind of car I drive, too, huh? And the names I gave my children? And the woman I chose to marry?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 06:34 PM

That's the whole deal with faith Steve. People choose to believe, without evidence.

Sigh.

Like alien abduction, chupacabras, the moon landing was faked in Hollywood, Prez. Obama's a Muslim, Donald Trump's vomit, vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax................................................................................................................

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 06:54 PM

Excuse me, but at least two people above have derided your faith far more than I have.

"People choose to believe.."

Er, really? Most people of religion were forced into their particular faith initially by their families, thereafter by religious instruction from the institutions in which they received their schooling. Even for bright people who have had this drummed Into them for the best part of their first two decades, it isn't easy to get out of it. There's the family pull, the guilt, the fear of earthly and heavenly consequences... Hmmm, " choose," eh?

I don't deride people who believe. I defend them, whilst still considering them to be misguided. Said it so many times. What I deride is the compulsion of people of faith to propagate it, without evidence, to other vulnerable people.

We all have the right to be vigilant about the way all children are raised. The line between parental privacy and the best interests of children and the society they will be required to contribute to is a hard one to draw, I admit. But you don't get to do just anything you like, let's put it that way. 25 years of being a teacher in rough areas, seeing a hands-off, keep-your-nose-out policy of that kind, taught me that much. And religion can't be sacrosanct, I'm afraid. Allowing everyone to do exactly what they want to, faith-wise, with their children leads to fundamentalism and the perpetuation of bigotry. And that affects all of us. Which kind of makes it all our business.

I don't give a damn who you marry or what you call your kids. But if you charge around America, burning your ultra-cheap yankee petrol in a six-pot car that does fifteen to the gallon, I do give a damn. That's my business. You can't keep those emissions to yourself, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 07:06 PM

By the way, what is it about your faith that makes you feel so offended when people attack or insult it? Would you like us to bring back the heresy laws, perhaps? Your faith gets attacked or insulted because it has made itself the default position of society. It's everywhere. I've been Eastered up to my bloody eyeballs on the telly and radio all day today. Services, holy music, bloody Messiaen Catholic organ music, Bach cantatas, Songs of Praise, papal bullshit all over every news bulletin... Well, for someone like me who doesn't buy into it, it's bloody annoying (don't worry, I'll get over it). Why shouldn't I do a bit of offending back?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 07:14 PM

Actually, anything by Bach will do me. I confess to listening to the John Passion on Friday. Sublime. I went to the Matthew Passion decades ago and, grand as it was, you needed to take a picnic with you. The John Passion is far more concise. But Messiaen? Sheesh...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 07:35 PM

Doesn't take much to set ol' Steve off, does it?

But gee, I got Greg going, too.

Greg, maybe to some people belief doesn't necessarily mean accepting an ideology with an absolutely literal understanding. Maybe there are people of faith who understand that their faith is rooted in myth, and yet they still have reason to practice that faith because they see profound value in myth and ritual and tradition and shared values and ideals. Maybe they see their sacred myth as the embodiment of those values and ideals.

Maybe some people of faith fully acknowledge that there are people of their faith tradition who have done terrible things in the name of that faith, just as people have done terrible things in the name of just about everything - including "truth."

Maybe to some people, it isn't all that important to be in possession of the absolute "truth," whatever that is.

Maybe some people just like being who they are, warts and all.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 07:57 PM

Steve Shaw, infallible as always, sez: We all have the right to be vigilant about the way all children are raised. The line between parental privacy and the best interests of children and the society they will be required to contribute to is a hard one to draw, I admit. But you don't get to do just anything you like, let's put it that way. 25 years of being a teacher in rough areas, seeing a hands-off, keep-your-nose-out policy of that kind, taught me that much. And religion can't be sacrosanct, I'm afraid. Allowing everyone to do exactly what they want to, faith-wise, with their children leads to fundamentalism and the perpetuation of bigotry. And that affects all of us. Which kind of makes it all our business.

Why does that sound so scary to me? And yet so "sacrosanct" at the same time. I remember a time when I felt more comfortable with atheists than I did with Christians, because the atheists didn't bother with ideologies and agendas. But now, they're getting downright huffy about their right to condemn the rest of us. Just like that "old-time religion."

Whatever happened to tolerance?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 08:10 PM

Maybe there are people of faith who understand that their faith is rooted in myth, and yet they still have reason to practice that faith because they see profound value in myth and ritual and tradition and shared values and ideals.

Absolutely, Joe, and for that I respect them. And you.

And yet there are far too many who, thru "belief" are conditined to accept any unsubstantiated garbage that happens come along.

vide the "Christan"[sic} supporters of Cruz, Trump, and David Duke, et. al.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 09:02 PM

Absolutely, Greg. Thousands of years of evolution and human advance have left us with populist, fundamentalist claptrap, all because we weren't allowed to keep an eye on what religion was getting up to.

Don't be scared, Joe Offer. We are like the little fleas on your great big Christian dog. You are the scary buggers, not us, with your fearsome unsupportable doctrines and lack of escape clauses. Note that I said we should be vigilant, not controlling (the latter being the modus operandi of all big religions - do you actually deny that?). As for what happened to tolerance, where exactly is the tolerance in bringing your kids up in the faith that you happened to be accidentally born into, when there are so many others available? I call that the height of intolerance. I call letting children grow up before they make up their minds about religion tolerant. Of course, that wouldn't work, because they simply wouldn't sign up, and your Church would quickly pass into history. Oh yes. We "scary" atheists know only too well why you believers do things the way you do!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 01:20 AM

Steve Shaw says: As for what happened to tolerance, where exactly is the tolerance in bringing your kids up in the faith that you happened to be accidentally born into, when there are so many others available? I call that the height of intolerance. I call letting children grow up before they make up their minds about religion tolerant. Of course, that wouldn't work, because they simply wouldn't sign up, and your Church would quickly pass into history. Oh yes. We "scary" atheists know only too well why you believers do things the way you do!

I guess Mr. Shaw was conditioned as a child to see faith only as ideology, and that's too bad. I see bringing kids up in a church as bringing them up in a tradition, a tradition that celebrates and explores birth, death, and life and the events of life according to a treasured tradition and set of rituals. My own Catholic upbringing had little to do with ideology. It was growing up in an interesting, rich tradition that I enjoyed - and I received an exceptionally good (and critical) education in the practices of that tradition and the reasoning behind those practices. A tradition that you choose as an adult because it's tailored to your needs, just doesn't feel authentic to me - although my neopagan Catholic wife and many others have made that choice.

I realize that there are some people who see faith as ideology, but I don't. Neither does my wife. She respects but doesn't feel at home in the stricter Polish Catholic tradition she was raised in, so she has chosen another path. She sees faith and religious practice as a method and school of insight, but not an ideology. What she does is good for her, and what I do is good for me - and we respect that in each other.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: EBarnacle
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 01:25 AM

It is possible to be religious or areligious without being hostile. This thread began with a semi tongue in cheek question and now people are shouting at each other. Let's get back to the question of miracles.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 01:41 AM

Well, EBarnacle, I don't know if that's the original question, either. But you're right to try to bring the discussion to a more constructive place. I don't know that I feel safe from attack if I answer your question, but I'll say what I think. I tend to view miracles with skepticism, and I'm a little embarrassed by them when they are claimed to happen within the context of my faith tradition. I am very embarrassed by my church's requirement of two miracles for sainthood, and I think a lot of good saints get forgotten because they've failed to perform the requisite miracles. And I think that there's almost always too much hysteria tied to miracles.

I do believe in mystical appearances, things that happen that are somewhere in the unknown realm between reality and spirituality. Such experiences can have a profound effect on those who have had them. I see them as a trip into the deeper meanings of what surrounds us. And yes, they can have great detail, like a person wearing the clothes of a gardener and the cloths being neatly folded. But what actually happened? I dunno, but I think this is a true account of what the witnesses experienced. I think that in mystical experiences, people are NOT sure what happened or if it really did happen, even though they may have perceived vivid detail. That sort of doubt and confusion doesn't exist in miracles, which is why I'm more at ease about believing in mystical experiences. I think that if you read the Easter stories very carefully and with an open mind, you will see that all the witnesses were full of doubt - but yet they were remarkably inspired, and that doubtful inspiration is what inspires my own faith.

I long for the day when I can simply say what I think, without a half-dozen people jumping around saying I'm wrong. Why can't they just give their own observations without having to refute somebody else?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 02:10 AM

We recorded "King of Kings" off the telly today.....

if the rest of this long movie is as good as the opening minutes of stirring theme music and visual spectacle
then I'm well happy to suspend disbelief for 2 and a half hours or more...

Though bloody annoyed about all these recent spoilers everywhere that tell how the story ends....

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 04:32 AM


I long for the day when I can simply say what I think, without a half-dozen people jumping around saying I'm wrong

I am a practicing Catholic, my eldest son is married to a Hindu, my second son is atheist, my daughter is recently back from Thailand where she attended (on the sidelines, as it were) in many Buddhist ceremonies and they commended her on how she showed them respect.

We can, and occasionally do, discuss religion. In every case it is genuinely seeking knowledge, whether it is Anoushka wanting to understand some of the symbolism in the Easter Vigil, or me wanting to ask about some aspect of a temple complex.

It is possible to talk about such things without insisting that you are the only one with the correct view and that everyone else must admit it.


Back to miracles. It is not that important to me, because at heart for me religion is all about how I behave, not some list of beliefs. Like Joe, I feel uncomfortable with asking for miracles today as part of nominating people for sainthood. I think it confuses the unexplained with the inexplicable, in many cases.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 07:33 AM

"I guess Mr. Shaw was conditioned as a child to see faith only as ideology, and that's too bad."

Guess again. As it happens, my Catholic upbringing was informal, even casual. Not a great start though. A Catholic primary school that wouldn't let us play with the Protestant kids from the school a hundred yards down School Street. Teachers and priests who told us that heaven contained only baptised Catholics. Much concentration on the classification of sins, the wrong kinds of confession and conscience and guilt by the bucketload. Springing people out of purgatory by saying three Hail Marys in an empty church if you chose the right day. Hellfire for eating meat on Fridays until a certain date, after which you could do what you liked. A secondary school that I was sent to, in spite of a bloody long bus journey, because it had a "good reputation," even though there was a perfectly good non-Catholic alternative just down the road. Perish the thought! When I look back, I realise now that the school was run by a bunch of bigoted, narrow-minded Salesian sad cases. But I was soon able to truant from Sunday Mass and go instead to the local dodgy back-street dive with all the other miscreants. Now that WAS an education. But there was no ostracism for slipping away from the faith, no fatwa. Not everyone forced into a religion at birth is so lucky.

" I see bringing kids up in a church as bringing them up in a tradition, a tradition that celebrates and explores birth, death, and life and the events of life according to a treasured tradition and set of rituals."

There is absolutely nothing special about Catholicism with regard to those things. I like tradition myself, but tradition needs to be questioned. We don't like traditional street dancers blacking up, even though the practice is rooted in tradition. We don't hang people in public or sacrifice goats, all honoured traditions. We ridicule people who declare that the woman's place is in the home, but a hundred years ago you'd have taken that to be a sage aphorism.

"My own Catholic upbringing had little to do with ideology. It was growing up in an interesting, rich tradition that I enjoyed - and I received an exceptionally good (and critical) education in the practices of that tradition and the reasoning behind those practices."

Education is giving people the skills to acquire knowledge and to seek what is really true. Your tradition is predicated on a tenet that is almost certainly false, that God exists. An "education" built on that foundation isn't an education at all. there are more appropriate words for it.

"A tradition that you choose as an adult because it's tailored to your needs, just doesn't feel authentic to me..."

If it's tailored to your needs, it isn't a tradition.

As for viewing miracles with scepticism, I don't. Miracles are simply not true. Scepticism means you are open to persuasion, given that further information may be provided. Well that doesn't speak well for your education. Miracles are a big lie. A proper education teaches you to reject such stupidity, along with ghosts, apparitions of the Virgin and telepathy. An education that let's you um and ahh about miracles is seriously flawed.

As for half a dozen people jumping around criticising you, well that's exactly what you do to me! Let's face it, Joe. A revival of those heresy laws would suit you very well!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 08:25 AM

""My own Catholic upbringing had little to do with ideology. It was growing up in an interesting, rich tradition that I enjoyed - and I received an exceptionally good (and critical) education in the practices of that tradition and the reasoning behind those practices."

In the UK we have many traditions, Morris Dancing, Cheese rolling, Plough Monday, Swan Upping, Well Dressing, Maypole Dancing and countless others. All these things have a long and rich history. They can be fascinating, educational and some times bloody great fun but I doubt if anyone who either attends or partakes in these rites believe the reasons that were given originally for the tradition to start.

Take Well Dressing for instance. Wells are garlanded with clay tablets on which pictures are created using flower petals. The Peak District in Derbyshire is probably the area were this is carried out most and it is a joy to behold but I doubt if most people believe to old traditional meaning which was this was done to ensure the purity of the water and give thanks for the same.

The ideology has gone, was needed really in the first place. People have grown up and found that the practices and rituals were totally unnecessary.

It could be an idea if religions were to do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 08:29 AM

I should add that although the practise is probably pagan in origin the church has taken steps to ensure they put their tuppence worth in.

Well Dressing Pictures

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Stu
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 10:20 AM

"Why can't they just give their own observations without having to refute somebody else?"

With the greases respect Joe, sometimes even your sage observations are patently wrong, as was the case with your Trumpish and dare I say ignorant observations on British Muslim integration. In such cases, it's legit to call out any of us who speak erroneously.


"And for that matter, is there anyone here who attacks and insults and derides non belief?"

Yup, but you can't see it.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 12:07 PM

Stu, a constructive way to carry on a discussion is to present one's point of view, backed up by facts. If another person disagrees, then the appropriate response is for the second person to present the opposing point of view, again backed up by facts. This tends to clarify the discussion and lead to common ground, rather than polarizing it.

I observed extreme and ugly prejudice against Muslims in London; and I observed things that impressed me very positively, like female immigration officers at Heathrow wearing Islamic head coverings. In Paris, it seems that Muslims are far more segregated. I have read that there was legislation proposed in France to prohibit the wearing of religious clothing, but I can't recall whether it passed or not.

But that was the subject of another thread.

And I have nothing but disdain for Mr. Trump.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 01:31 PM

"Since 1981, in a small village called Medjugorje, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Blessed Virgin Mary has been appearing and giving messages to the world..."

Sure. And I heard today on Radio 4 (appropriately enough, in a religious programme called Beyond Belief) that supposedly senior, serious men in the Vatican are sitting around conflabbing about whether to declare these alleged sightings genuine. You couldn't make it up, could you. Well somebody did! I suppose it's tradition to have these things. Isn't Lourdes "dogma" now? Blimey, what a club!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 03:44 PM

Well, no, Steve, the cult of the Medjugorje "apparitions" is officially discouraged by the Catholic Church, despite wide acceptance by right-wingers (and yes, there are some conservatives even in the Vatican). Some of those who claim to have seen the "apparitions," have exploited their experience for commercial purposes.

Lourdes is an approved shrine, but the Catholic Church never has and never will include any apparitions in doctrine or infallible dogma, other than those described in the Bible. The doctrine is that the church will not define any post-biblical apparition as doctrine.

I really like Lourdes and I am quite ready to believe that Bernadette had some sort of mystical experience there; but Fatima and Knock make me nervous. Lourdes has a very healthy atmosphere - everybody there seems to be having a good time.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 05:44 PM

Ah yes, got that slightly amiss. The dogma (just as ridiculous, actually) came four years earlier, when it was decreed that the Immaculate Conception was unassailable. A childish and unnecessary add-on if ever I saw one. But listen to that programme if possible. I didn't detect any official discouragement. They hadn't made their minds up.

Out of date, definitely, but I went to Lourdes in 1965. It was full of tacky little gift shops selling cheap plaster virgins and sacred hearts. But I did do the Stations. I think my mum still has the cheap virgin I bought for my gran for a franc or two. A little statue, I hasten to add. I've always tended towards shop-soiled rather than virgins myself.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: keberoxu
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 06:08 PM

....another thread gone sour.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 06:23 PM

"When Threads Go Sour" - 40 minutes of hilarious clips of threads going off course, off the rails, and completely out of control.
Feel the agony, endure the anguish, Shudder and laugh at thrills and spills as fights break out.
40 minutes of the best sourness ever experienced. All sent in by you the viewers.
Only on Mudcat Channel. Membership required. Ask a parent or guardian for permission if under 55..... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 06:57 PM

Please justify your remark that the thread has gone sour.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 08:57 PM

Oh, Steve, you're going to lead me to damnation now. Here are photos I took in the gift shop at the shrine in Fatima:

(click)

I suppose I should be more compassionate toward those who take such things seriously, but I had a grand time taking tacky photos of tacky statues in tacky displays.

The Virgin Mary allegedly appeared to three teenagers in Fatima (note the Morish name) in the hills of northern Portugal, 6 times from May to October, 1917. The Virgin left the children with a decidedly anti-Communist message in three "secrets" that were released over the years until the time of Pope John Paul II. And the shrine was built, and stimulated the economy of the entire area. There's a procession every night, led by a soldier carrying a neon cross, and then there's the Blessed Sacrament about 2/3 of the way back in the procession, sheltered by a canopy held aloft by soldiers in uniform (did I mention that Portugal was fascist for a significant part of the 20th century?). Now, I have to admit that the grounds of the shrine are beautiful and that it means a lot to many people, but I was taken aback by the tackiness and the militarism.

Enjoy the photos.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 09:32 PM

In the early 1970s I looked just like the Joseph in that third photo. I was young and foolish enough then, but definitely not as naive as that cuckold.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Stu
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 06:54 AM

"Stu, a constructive way to carry on a discussion is to present one's point of view, backed up by facts."

Fair enough and I apologise for the tone of my post, but I intended to address this point in the other thread but it had been closed when I returned to it. There is so much scaremongering about Muslim (and immigrant) integration in the UK it drives me crackers to see this being regurgitated. We have people of all colours and creeds from across in our small, northern market town and as my relatives come from Southall, now an almost exclusively Asian area I have first-hand knowledge of what a vibrant, colourful and exciting place it is, full of my polite and pleasant UK citizens.

This crap being peddled in the US (*cough*) about how dangerous it is in Europe is just that: total, scaremongering bullshit.

"Here are photos I took in the gift shop at the shrine in Fatima"

Now here's a thing, but I really love the tacky religious stuff like that shown in Joe's photos. I can't place what it is I like about it, but it appeals to me for some reason. I really like those busy little shrines you see in films set in Italy, situated at the bottom of stairwells and in homes with pictures of saints and offerings and often lit beautifully.

I've started to collect smaller statues and pictures, thinking I might make a shrine of my own (albeit with some non-religious additions).

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Llanfair
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 06:59 AM

This has been a fascinating thread, there's nothing like religious opinions to get discussions moving.
I believe that Jesus and the prophets really lived, and that their stories have guided and motivated people for centuries.
I also believe that the scriptures have been tweaked over time to be a form of social control. Translated by the powerful literate to keep the "great unwashed" in their place.
I follow the pagan path. I can see, feel and hear what mother earth is up to, and thank her for her bounty, as well as try to protect her from those who don't understand.
The original question? Just suppose........that Jesus wasn't dead when Joseph of Arimathea put him in his own personal tomb. took him out and tended his wounds in the dead of night. It explains all that happened afterwards, including the legends that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and went on to have children.
All stories, and we at Mudcat know how legends and stories, in many guises persist through the ages.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 07:14 AM

I've been to Knock ...................... I was appalled by what I saw there. A tacky, tawdry religious Blackpool is understating the position. The whole place was gross.

Now, I've also visited small local shrines that probably started as a well or spring in pagan times where people left offerings. These are frequently half hidden away, visited by local people, who leave all manner of items from a set of rosary beads and coins to playing cards and cigarette lighters.

I am moved by these places and I do respect the belief of the people who place a trust in such shrines.

Do I believe they have any power or do any good, well no, except form the mental wellbeing of the people who make offerings there. If that is the case then all well and good.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 04:11 PM

Strange then that contemporary Roman writers studiously ignored a man who was leading an insurrection and who was very publicly tortured and executed. Of course, the gospel writers, who were getting their new cult off the ground, were far more enthusiastic about promoting their man. Pity they couldn't agree on the details and, moreover, felt compelled to make up stories of how he worked magic.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 04:24 PM

I once worked out how he could have done the water into wine magic trick with existing technology of his era...
He wouldn't have even needed a scantily clad assistant to divert the audiences eyes away from his hands...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 04:37 PM

Holy prestidigitator, Batman!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 06:25 PM

" I am very embarrassed by my church's requirement of two miracles for sainthood"

I'm not sure what brought Joe's comment back to mind, but: I really think my wife should be eligible for sainthood; on more than two occasions, she has resurrected something when I felt like it might never rise again.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: keberoxu
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 06:48 PM

By the way, punkfolkrocker, regarding 28 March 2016 at 6:23 PM:

ROFLMBFAO !

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 07:20 PM

Steve Shaw says: Roman writers studiously ignored a man who was leading an insurrection and who was very publicly tortured and executed.

Such insurrectionists were a dime a dozen at the time, Steve. At times, the roads to towns in Palestine were lined with crucifixes bearing the bodies of crucified insurrectionists. Jesus was one of many. Trying to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus is futile. There were lots of Jewish insurrectionists who suffered undocumented crucifixions. Jesus was important only to those who loved him and followed him.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 08:28 PM

I wouldn't dream of trying to disprove Jesus. There's not enough to go on whatever one's preference. But an assumption that he did exist, and that the stories about him are true enough to build a whole religion around, has been an assumption too far for two thousand years. You may also need to explain away the serious discrepancies about him in the gospels that were arbitrarily selected to be the ones to go into the New Testament, and why the other gospels have been kept under wraps. I wouldn't mind betting that the average Catholic hasn't even heard of them. Finally, how odd that you know about all those two-a-penny insurgents, yet there is no contemporary Roman account of the most important one. Just a couple of doubtful references by Josephus and one by Tacitus, writing decades after Jesus's supposed death. Hmm, that's something in common with those gospel writers' efforts, come to think of it. Talk about a house built on sand..

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: EBarnacle
Date: 29 Mar 16 - 11:44 PM

It has been said that any sufficiently advanced technology will be seen as miracles by the indigenes.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 02:12 AM

Raggy, I've made two trips to Ireland, both with church groups. I went to Knock on the first trip, and I wasn't impressed. There was a "basilica" that looked like a football stadium, with the bleacher seats divided into different sections for each county. There were basins outside with faucets for holy water. In downtown Knock, there was an outdoor marketplace with all sorts of religious mementos, mostly made in Taiwan. Tacky, tacky, tacky. I did find some good songbooks at a store in downtown Knock, though.
We had Mass in the glass chapel that was built onto the back of the Knock parish church where the people had the apparition. I admit that was nice - the vision was very complex, with about 7 figures (including a lamb) that were seen on the outside back wall of the church. Inside the glass chapel were statues mounted on the outside wall of the church, depicting the vision.
But I didn't like Knock enough to ever want to go back. The second trip, I left the group during their day at Knock, and I went birdwatching on Galway Bay with Martin Ryan, and then to a pub sing and a barbecue at Martin's house. Beat the hell out of Knock.

The religious articles at Fatima were of far better quality, and there was an interesting quaintness to them. But the way they were displayed, side-by-side-by-side, but struck me as very funny - this one (click), especially.

I guess I might say that the original people who had the visions at Knock and at Fatima, may have been having a mystical experience. But when crowds of people gathered after hearing about the original visions, all of a sudden what was once a mystical experience, became a miracle. The doubt and confusion were gone then, replaced by hysteria and mindless certainty.

There's a strong element of folklore in all these shrines and apparitions and saints and such, and I find it all very interesting. My seminary education made me skeptical of all these things, and we seminarians and our professors made fun of a lot of this stuff. Over the years, I've collected preposterous religious stories and saint stories, because I found them so entertaining. The Miracle of Santarem (Portugal) is one of the most colorful and entertaining ones.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 03:20 AM

Hello all. I've been resurrected from a 'defunct' Eliza and come back as a member - Senoufou!

I've been to a local Norfolk shrine at Walsingham, and found it very tacky and contrived. Not just the plastic tat on sale, but the whole place was a bit 'Disney Does Jesus'. Not my thing I'm afraid. I felt much closer to God sitting on a straw bale beside a newly-ploughed field, with my feet on the good earth and a lark singing overhead. (we still have many of those here, although they're getting scarce elsewhere) The peace was so moving I found tears in my eyes. But then, I've always felt at home in the quiet countryside. (That place is called Stratton Strawless, which is a lie as they seem to have plenty of straw!)

Animism in W Africa is alive and well, and consists of a belief in magic and wichcraft (which I don't subscribe to) but they also see the supernatural in nature (sacred trees, birds with extra powers, a small much-revered stream which can heal etc) I've often wondered if way back in prehistoric times there's a link somewhere with the Celtic peoples. I've always felt at home there too.

What I find most fascinating is that adherents to the major religions also often have underlying, more primitive beliefs in magical events and beings.The Irish (I'm half Irish) have leprechauns and the fairies, people cross their fingers for luck, even my husband (a Muslim) has an abject terror of marabous (witchdoctors). There's more to our religious psyche than meets the eye!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 03:35 AM

I concur with what has been said about Knock - probably the most soulless place we have ever been in crammed full of commercial tat.
In contrast, the folk-religious sites or those that have fallen into disuse are usually well are well worth a visit,
We've been on several guided trips around The Burren, a dozen or so miles North of here, to visit the Holy Wells and ruined churches - on a good day you wouldn't want to be anywhere else, but to my atheist's view, they are monuments of man's creation - nothing to do with spirits and superstition.
We're lucky enough to be able to visit these places all the year round when the visitors have gone home and the commericalism has been put to bed for the winter.
We've always made a point of visiting religious sites on our numerous trips abroad, from the Egyptian temples built by slave labour to the monasteries of Meteora in Greece built by labourers and monks hauling building material up the hills in baskets - all testimonies to man art and artisan skills.
The fact that they were built to worship something that I believe does not exist is immaterial.
I have to say that we were often struck by the poor taste of the established church - the glut of wealth of the Vatican was like being presented with many dozens of dishes of exquisite food and having to eat it all in one sitting - at first impressive, but totally joyless and, in a way, artless.
Monreale Cathedral in Sicily was probably one of the most exquisitely beautiful large buildings we were ever in, every inch of the walls covered with beautiful images, even the alcoves of the windows - all hideously marred by a giant neon cross stuck right in the centre of the building, which, to me, sums up the poor taste I am referring to.
I often came away from these places with a feeling of an organisation which is more concerned with over-impressing and imposing rather than giving praise to their god.
Still - some of the buildings are certainly well worth a visit - if you forget what they represent.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 03:59 AM

I have had a love of architecture since my schooldays when we studied English Architecture in our art classes. I have visited wonderful buildings my favourite being Durham Cathedral which is magnificent. Certainly a sure way of controlling the peasantry.

However the one place where I felt the builders had done a superb job of creating a place of worship was the Italian Chapel on the Orkney Isles. A simple reconstruction of a Nissan Hut with all metal work forged from old corned beef tins. I recommend a visit to it if you ever get the opportunity.

Italian Chapel

I am sad to see there is now a charge to visit, there wasn't 40 years ago although I gladly made a contribution to it's upkeep. The story behind the building is a testament to the men's faith even though I don't believe in it myself.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 03:59 AM

Looking at Joe's photo of the Holy Family taken in the gift shop at the shrine in Fatima, Joseph is shown standing next to the infant Jesus holding a crucifix. If he had the foresight to recognise the significance of such a symbol some thirty-odd years before the event, it wouldn't have been difficult to arrange for a spare change of clothes to be left in the tomb, knowing that they would be used eventually.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 04:36 AM

100.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 05:34 AM

Hahaha Doug! Joseph of Aremethea (spelling?) may have put some clothes, a toothbrush and a pair of sandals in a little box labelled 'for later use by JC' in a corner of the tomb when he completed it. Good idea!

I too find it odd that the Romans didn't record Jesus' conviction and execution. Granted there were numerous anti-Roman rebels going about in those times, but none who healed the sick and performed miracles. And Pontius Pilate himself washing his hands in front of the crowds tells us that Jesus was rather important. The Romans were great ones for documentation, so it is strange there's nothing about it in their records. Also, once rumours began that Jesus wasn't dead after all, you'd have thought the Romans would have been livid that the execution hadn't been correctly carried out, and have carried out exhaustive investigations.

I did a short course quite recently on Cathedral Architecture in UK and Europe; completely fascinating. I know Durham Cathedral well. (love the Sanctuary Knocker) I've also visited several huge mosques abroad, and they can be stunningly beautiful (the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, and the Great Mosque at Kairouan in Tunisia for example) But I think these things tend to limit God to a building or place, whereas to me, he's everywhere. Like Martini ("any time any place anywhere...")
I reckon God gets a bit fed up with me, as I'm always questioning things, and getting on his nerves about suffering. I'm not as reverend as perhaps I should be. I once considered becoming a C of E nun; one of my friends nearly died laughing. She threatened to tell the Mother Superior all about me. I made many retreats but in the end, I chose the world rather than a convent. I've never regretted that.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 05:40 AM

It's a bit strange that the Sanctuary Knocker is seemingly so Pagan in design. But there you go, the church has never been backward when it comes to pinching other faiths bits and piece, Easter for example.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 05:45 AM

Talking of Sicily, Jim, one of the nicest places we went to was the tiny church just outside Taormina, Chiesa Madonna della Rocca (reached via an energetic walk up hundreds of steps from the town, used to justify the giant ice cream you've just eaten). It looks like nothing much from the outside, just an unassuming little entrance built into the hillside. Plenty of the usual Catholic paraphernalia inside, as ever, but not too distasteful for a change. Parts of the ceiling and walls are actually the rock face and it's a haven of peace and quiet and coolness out of the sun. Generally speaking, we found the Catholic churches in that part of Sicily to be charmless places full of scary side chapels, ugly altars and glowering statues of no artistic merit, designed to subdue, I'd say. I haven't been to the Monreale one, but we'll be back there soon. We never pass up the opportunity of looking round any church that's open.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 06:04 AM

Hello all. I've been resurrected from a 'defunct' Eliza and come back as a member - Senoufou!

When you were resurrected, did you notice if you were you wearing any clothes?; or, at least, different ones than before? You should be in the position to answer the Easter Question from personal experience. :-)

DC

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 06:10 AM

I'm surprised that people haven't taken up the notion that the church of England stole many churches and cathedrals from the catholics.

I'm also surprised that the catholics haven't tried to get the best one's back.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 06:34 AM

"What I find most fascinating is that adherents to the major religions also often have underlying, more primitive beliefs in magical events and beings."

There's an almost irresistible inclination to explain unexplained things by resorting to belief in magic. It appeals to the romance in the soul, a delicious need to feel slightly scared (as you do when watching a horror movie), and, somewhat more depressingly, it's an intellectual get-out from having to do the hard work of looking for what's really true.

I was once hoisted, unwillingly, on to a stage by a magician who needed a stooge, having been vociferously "volunteered" by my mischievous in-laws. In the half hour I was up there, I watched him like a hawk close up, but I failed to rumble a single trick. At one point he borrowed my watch, which he put into a pair of tights which he then whirled around in the air, periodically smashing the end with my watch inside down on the stage. He then returned my watch to me, totally unscathed. But did I go backstage afterwards to bow down in awe of his supernatural powers? No, I did not. He and I, and the rest of the audience, were co-conspirators in his sorcery, which, of course, had a perfectly normal explanation that we were not going to seek and he was not going to give. Spot the similarity with religious belief in the supernatural. The difference being that he wasn't going to claim to be a latter-day Jesus and we weren't going to think that his "magic" was anything other then skilful trickery.

The real magic is that the world and the universe are full of wonderful, mind-blowing phenomena, life on earth being just one, amazing in its diversity, its sheer complexity and, in whatever way you want to interpret the word, its beauty. But the most amazing thing of all is that it can all be explained by the ordinary laws of nature. There has never been a single example of a phenomenon that has needed any supernatural gloss put on it, except for the fake ones such as apparitions of virgins and ghostly hauntings, promoted by dishonest people with some advantage to gain. The joy of living is to keep looking for what is really true, not settling for dismal and childish superstitions that have been invented for no other reason but to shackle our minds, control us and stunt our intellects. If there really was a God, he'd hate that.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 06:47 AM

I was just about to post when I noticed something wrong with my 'name' in the 'From: box'

It said "punkpeoplerocker" !!???

Then I noticed a little balloon at the top of my browser page saying something to the effect that

"This page has been translated"...?????

what ?? why ??? by who ???? mankind or gods ????

It's a MIRACLE....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 06:54 AM

The miracle of Peckham episode of 'Only fools and horses' was on last night. Brilliant :-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 06:54 AM

..... what I was going to post was...

It'd make an interesting bank holiday TV special to challenge leading celebrity magicians
to do the Jesus miracles in a live broadcast.
Ideally using only the materials and technology available in that region 2000 years ago...

Though I'd be surprised if a program like this hasn't already been done by the likes of Mythbusters...???

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 07:07 AM

Jesus had an audience of suckers who wanted to believe. A stage magician is confronted by a bunch of sceptics who are looking for him to betray his secrets, though secretly they hope he won't. Not even if he's Tommy Cooper.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 07:17 AM

Hmmmm.. a religion founded on Tommy Cooper...??? now you're talking... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 07:24 AM

It could be done.

Just like that...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 08:02 AM

"It could be done."
Probably end up with water being turned into -- water, if my memory of Tommy Cooper serves me right!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 08:12 AM

Placing the jesus miracles in historical / cultural context...

If I was a proper academic researcher, I'd be seeking documented records of the nature of the bible land entertainment industry before and during the roman occupation....

Were there known popular entertainers, and did they include travelling conjures, hypnotists, and clairvoyants amongst their ranks...???

Also any crossover between 'magicians and their accomplices, and criminal gangs of fraudulent 'tricksters'...

Finding all this out makes sense to me....

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 08:26 AM

Doug, being so old as to be almost senile, it's quite probable that I forgot to look to see if I was wearing any clothes. I have been known to go out in the car wearing my slippers.

Regarding the Sanctuary Knocker on the great west door of Durham cathedral, and its pagan style, our cathedral in Norwich has loads of green man bosses around the cloisters and above the nave. I really love the green man, and have several representations of him around our home. In Norfolk (and I'm sure elsewhere) straw dollies representing a John Barleycorn type of being are used to decorate churches during harvest festivals. And you've only got to think of Hallowe'en and all its trappings to realise that the pagan is intertwined with the Christian in lots of ways.

I wonder if Dynamo (the excellent magician who does amazing things around the world) could be persuaded to try reproducing the water-into-wine thing? He walked on water on the Thames, so maybe he'd find it quite simple.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:38 AM

Jesus' tricks.
Most were just healing people.

The water into wine was not for an audience.
It was to save the host's humiliation and so was secret at the time.

Loaves and fishes. Wherever they came from the folk were fed in a remote place.

Walking on water. Again no audience but his disciples, who believed in Him anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:52 AM

Seriously, so if there was no audience.. that can also be taken to mean there were no witnesses... ???

.. so we just take their word for it... ???

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 12:42 PM

Yep!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 12:43 PM

The water walking and wine changing tricks were those most mentioned here.
No witnesses, but just two of the many tricks.

The loaves and fishes trick had thousands.
Most of the tricks involved healing people and they were usually well witnessed, although Jesus sometimes asked recipients not to tell.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 01:11 PM

They were well witnessed according to the people who wrote the stories down long after Jesus allegedly died, at least 40 years or more. There is no corroboration, and the writers were arguably biased. Keith, this fails your much-vaunted historicity test on several counts: too many years had passed, the writers are dead and there is no corroboration. On top of that, we are talking about highly unlikely acts of magic. Well, Keith, it's good to know that even you can suspend disbelief...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 01:18 PM

I do see that Jesus was tremendously compassionate, and was often moved by the plight of, say, lepers, or the blind. He healed quite a large number of folk during his ministry. What I can't get my head round (and bombard God with in my prayers) is why he seems to let people the world over go on suffering appallingly, doing absolutely zilch in the way of eradicating their distress & agony. OK, there are some successes at Lourdes, and some prayers are answered, but generally speaking, people (and even little children) suffer most terribly from famine, disease, terror, disabilities etc while God looks down unmoved. If Jesus and God are the same chap, why has this compassion not been put into operation?
And why should just one person's ardent prayers be answered but others get no response? Why should one sick child be healed but all the others go on suffering?
Surely if Jesus could heal ten lepers at one go, he could have healed the blooming lot of everything and done the job properly? And when one considers the Holocaust... where was God in all that eh? Just a spectator? I can almost hear God groaning when I begin my nightly prayers! "Oh Lord here she is again! That nagging old biddy!" while the angels get him a cup of tea and a digestive biscuit.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 02:38 PM

And when one considers the Holocaust

Obviouisly, Jesus was a Jew-hating antisemite.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 03:49 PM

"I do see that Jesus was tremendously compassionate"

I'm puzzled Senoufou. How can you say this when there is no contemporary record of Jesus having ever existed.

All the documentation regarding Jesus was written decades (and in some cases hundreds of years) after he is supposed to have lived.

Now, some Christian teaching could be seen as compassionate...........

Again I have stopped myself because I am being a good boy.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 04:08 PM

raggytash, I see what you mean. I expect I should have said, "The Bible tells us that Jesus was compassionate..."

We're now heading towards Pentecost, and the rushing wind, flames on the disciples' heads, and the speaking with tongues etc. Now that does interest me, as I'm absolutely obsessed with languages and heartily wish I could speak many more than I actually do.

I have been confirmed in the C of E, and had to wear a veil (rather High Church). I didn't feel anything special when the bishop put his hand on my head, but I was only ten years old.

Sigh. I honestly just don't know about all of this. I keep thinking about that brilliant film 'The Life Of Brian'. As I'm pretty old now, no doubt I shall find out the truth in the not too far distant future! I sometimes tease my husband about his 57 virgins that Muslims are supposed to get when they arrive in Paradise. I can watch him cavorting with them up there while I munch my crumpets and drink my Old Speckled Hen ale, chatting with some nice angels.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 04:23 PM

Senoufou, That, for some bizarre reason, is a very endearing picture.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 04:30 PM

"He healed quite a large number of folk during his ministry. What I can't get my head round (and bombard God with in my prayers) is why he seems to let people the world over go on suffering appallingly, doing absolutely zilch in the way of eradicating their distress & agony."

The simplest explanation, nay, the most obvious, is that he did neither.


"OK, there are some successes at Lourdes"


In the immortal words of my dad, the day I hear of a one-legged man coming back from Lourdes with two legs is the day i start to believe in miracles.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 05:18 PM

My poor eyes can't cope with capital I and lower-case i on this soddin' iPad. Order me a hearse, somebody.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 08:55 PM

Steve, I was just joining the debate.

You stated, "Jesus had an audience of suckers who wanted to believe. "

Did that "fail your much-vaunted historicity test on several counts:?"
Well, Steve, it's good to know that even you can suspend disbelief...

I pointed out that he did not seek and often did not have an audience.

In reply to PFR stating, "Seriously, so if there was no audience.. that can also be taken to mean there were no witnesses... ??? You replied "YEP!"

Did that "fail your much-vaunted historicity test on several counts:?"
Well, Steve, it's good to know that even you can suspend disbelief...

The case being made by you and others being that if he performed for an audience it means He was a fake, and if he performed without an audience it means He was a fake.

According to the NT, He was tempted to use the power of miracles to make everyone believe in Him, but He chose not to.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 09:42 PM

not exactly... if he performed for an audience he may or may not have been a fake.
If he performed without an audience there is only the word of a select few acolytes that he ever even performed at all..

These accounts are gathered from a redacted book which may or may not have been inspired by a true story...???

Cue Hollywood disclaimers..

"This movie may or may not be based on a true story, and characters may or may not be fictitious
depending on how heavily lawyered up they are and ready and prepared to sue our pants off..." 😜

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 10:04 PM

Far out! We've never, ever had an argument about religion here before. (meh)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 16 - 11:57 PM

I don't know of many Christian denominations that believe that God is gonna come down and fix stuff. I suppose that some do.

Most Christian denominations believe that the grace of God is supposed to inspire individuals to break through the status quo and fix stuff - but it's up to individuals to respond to that grace. I think most most denominations believe that grace is available to all, no matter what they do or don't believe.

So, if there's evil in the world, it's up to good people to fix it. Why blame God?

As for Jesus and his miracles, I don't know. I tend to believe in them, but I've read that there were many faith healers at the time who did things that appeared to be miracles.

Whatever the case, I think it's most important for human beings to take responsibility for the evil that exists in this world, and it's our responsibility to do our best to fix it - no matter what we do or don't believe.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 02:44 AM

Interesting Joe. I don't think people expect God to come down and fix stuff, but rather, they wonder why he doesn't. After all, he's supposed to be able to do anything isn't he? And as for the idea that it's up to the good people to overcome the evil in the world, that's not always possible is it? At least, not at our present level of technology and medical advancement. Scientists have been struggling with malaria for centuries, but although it's said we're on the brink of a vaccine, it's not available yet. Ditto with cancer, HIV, and a myriad other dangerous and ghastly diseases. I have seen some sights and had some experiences in Africa which would make anyone weep. And who 'created' these diseases? Allegedly, a 'father-like' and benevolent deity, who seems not to weep at all.

I also consider terrible drought, famine, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and other major disasters. No human being is responsible for those, and there's very little we can do about them. How can God watch the suffering they cause without feeling immense pity and sorrow? Jesus said in the Bible God can move mountains, demolish and rebuild temples etc. Then why doesn't he intervene and protect us?

My Muslim husband is far more submissive and accepting of God. He just says everything is 'the will of Allah' and we mustn't question it. He's always saying 'insh Allah' even when I merely say "We'll go up the city tomorrow'. ie it's entirely up to God what does or doesn't happen, and everything he decides is good. When his young brother died in agony of cerebral malaria after three days of suffering, the family comforted themselves by saying it was 'the will of God'. It's a bit like the typical British mantra "Mustn't grumble." I just can't think like that. I always want to know WHY? WHY?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:07 AM

Well, Senofou, if life were a happy-ending script written by a God who made all things happen as planned, then where would there be room for creativity and independence? I think it is the Will of God that humankind create their own solutions.

And I also think compassion is the Will of God.

The mystic Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) wrote:

"Christ has no body now but yours. No hands, no feet on earth but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses all the world. Yours are the hands, yours are the feet, yours are the eyes, you are his body. Christ has no body now on earth but yours."

I see God as an essence that is within us all and beyond us all. All compassion, all creativity, all solutions to the evil of the world - all flow from that essence. I see compassion and love and mercy and creativity, and I call that God. Others don't, and that doesn't matter. What does matter, is that we believe in compasssion, love, mercy, and creativity - and in our obligation to be that for the world.

Your results may vary.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:11 AM

"So, if there's evil in the world, it's up to good people to fix it. Why blame God?"
Because that's what we were taught by our teachers - a omnipotent god that could do anything if we worshipped him and led a "good" life
The modern stance that all this bad stuff is "nuffin' to do wiv 'Im lads" has only come into the equation since the existence of god has been seriously challenged by science and logic - pretty much like "he created the world in seven days", which doesn't mean seven days, or any partticular time anymore.
If the ills of the world are due to "evil", then diseases and illnesses that wipe out millions, or natural disaster that decimate countries.... and all those things that are totally beyond the control of humanity, are god's doing...... making him a real sadistically dangerous piece of work - who we are supposed to worship without question.
Supporters of this myth are constantly moving the goalposts and telling us that what they were saying twenty, fifty or a hundred years ago is no longer relevant; despite the fact that the word of god is "timeless": if the believers here had written some of the things they have on this thread they would have been guilty of severe, punishable blasphemy.   
The 'miracles' were no different to the showman's tricks of the shamen, and the fakirs and the sleight-of-hand con-mens all trying to sell something - patent medicine or holy relics.... or just trying to get a living without having to work for it - and they occurred within all religions and outside them - Christianity is a fairly late-comer on the scene.
Many of the Christian myths, such as virgin birth, were part of ancient Egyptian mythology and were taken over at a later date.
These different religions were/are little different from commercial companies competing for our business with the slickest advertising and the showiest wrapping - and at one time Christianity was as vociferous as any other in telling us that if we worshipped the "wrong god" we would be spend eternity being tortured and persecuted.
Until we visited Egypt, I always believed that the poor state of many of those beautiful artifacts - the temples and statues - was due to the passage of time, exposure to the weather, wars... but in fact the bulk of the damage was carried out by the Coptic Christians who didn't liked being looked over by "false gods", and so, deliberately defaced them.      
Christians claim that we atheists don't have the answers to "life the universe and everything" any more than they do, putting us on an equal footing with believers - not true.
Science is based on long-term research which has provided us with actual facts, certainties and strong probabilities, whereas religion has remained, as it always has been, totally dependent on the suspension of logic and the blind acceptance of the supernatural - blind faith - at one time under the threat of earthly punishment, including horrendously painful death - and to top it all, eternal damnation - another goalpost that has been moved out of necessity and progress.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:37 AM

The modern stance that all this bad stuff is "nuffin' to do wiv 'Im lads" has only come into the equation since the existence of god has been seriously challenged by science and logic

Not true.
The question of why there is suffering has always been an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:39 AM

Darn, Jim. My guide in Luxor and Aswan gave me the understanding that each new pharaoh defaced the images of his predecessors, usually by destroying the nose of the image. If there were pairs of images, only one had to be defaced. I haven't seen any evidence that the Coptic Christians had a practice of defacing statues, but I'm open to proof if you can provide it.

I have seen images of Isis, Osiris, and Horus that very much resemble Coptic images of the Holy Family, and I have seen Coptic Christian altars carved into the walls of ancient Egyptian temples. Historic preservation wasn't really a priority until recent times, which is too bad. So, they opted for "adaptive re-use."

I'll ignore the rest of your remarks. I got my Theology degree from the Catholic Church in 1970, and Catholic Theology and teaching haven't changed radically since then. The teachings you speak of are not within my experience, although I'll readily admit that there have been some strange ideas in religion through the years. But what you're expressing is a caricature of religion. I don't believe it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:15 AM

"My guide in Luxor and Aswan gave me the understanding that each new pharaoh defaced the images of his predecessors, usually by destroying the nose of the image"
So did one of mine - but the archaeologist who guided our trip for the emtire two weeks told me different and reading I have done since being inspired by that wonderful experience seems to confirm the latter.
The Pharaohes were gods and often ran in families and you didn't muck aout with the feller who came before you if you didn't want to be gobbled up by beetles and jackals.
"I'll ignore the rest of your remarks"
Pity - I would like to have had them seriously challenged by somene who I have a fair mount of respect for - but then again, I do have history and logic on my side.
"The question of why there is suffering has always been an issue."
he ongoing thread throughout the history of religion is that you may squabble among yourselves as much as you like, but yu never question the motives of god - he's in charge!
Religion has produced nothing new that resembles evidence - it never really did - it is entirely based on unquestioned faith and the suspense of logic.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:33 AM

It is not possible, Keith, to have a sensible discussion with someone who doesn't recognise sarcasm when he sees it, instead taking everything literally. When I say "Jesus had an audience..." it does not imply that I know for sure that he existed. It means I am taking on believers on their own ground. It's a ploy, Keith. Try to keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 06:32 AM

Akhenaton was the first recorded theist, who's god was the disc of the sun who's rays protected and promoted all life.

His theories still hold good if we disregard the damage done to our atmosphere by humanity.
To treat the rays of the sun as "god" was to lead to the protection of the environment and the planet....no need for wars, all between earth and heaven was to be ours.....but we know what happened to him....and Jesus.......they killed them.....unforgiven.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 06:56 AM

1. Is there any actual evidence of how Akhenaton died, I know there is evidence of his existence.

2. Is there actual evidence of Jesus's existence or, if he did exist, his death.

The broad statement "they killed them" doesn't appear to hold water.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:02 AM

"To treat the rays of the sun as "god" was to lead to the protection of the environment and the planet."
Far from it - to place natural phenomena in the hands of gods is to absolve ourselves from any responsibility - "nuffin' to do with me guv - go and tell god (whosever), about it."
I can still recall the battle we had with our insurance company when they told us that the tile which blew off our roof and smashed on to the roof of our car came under "an act of god" and refused to pay up.
We won in the end of course - there is no such thing.
Until proved otherwise all gods and their acts are pure invention
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:22 AM

We destroyed our environment, not "god".
God told us not to pick the fruit from the "tree of life/truth."

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:34 AM

Which god? As far as I'm aware there loads of them. Hinduism alone is said to have more than 32,000,000 of them

This is typical of god botherers, they expect the rest of us the cower before their particular god.

I would suggest that for each god botherer there is a god of their own making so there's a possibility for billions of gods.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:35 AM

Rag,
Is there actual evidence of Jesus's existence

No. At least none that I know of.
Steve said recently that there is plenty of evidence for religion, but he did not specify Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:43 AM

"God told us not to pick the fruit from the "tree of life/truth.""
No he didn't - how do you know he did?
"We destroyed our environment, not "god".
Quite so - what have supernatural beings got to do with it?
Thee is certainly evidence that religion exists - tere is none whatever to sugest that what it propounds exists - we have to take someone's uncorroborated word for that one - wouldn't stand up in any court I know.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:38 AM

It must be terrible to go through life in a literalist vacuum, how can people who purport to appreciate music and poetry, shut their minds to spirituality.

I suppose a song/ tune, is just a collection of notes and words?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:55 AM

Being a bit condescending there...

my mind is constantly alive to the realms of imagination, wonderment, mystery, surrealist absurdity, lovingness, lust, and electric guitars...

but no needing to wrap it all up in the restrictive dictates of man made fibre religions.... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 09:04 AM

"It must be terrible to go through life in a literalist vacuum"
It's not literalist to ask for proof of something that is beyond all reason, especially something that has had such a profoundly damaging effect on all our lives.
The ability to question, reason and make use of what we learn stands us out from all other species - it's why chimpanzees don't drive buses.
If you are not prepared to defend your belief in the supernatural, at least tell us why we should believe you.
I've said before, if those professing to be Christians (or believers in any religion) lived up to the philosophy proclaimed by their religion, the world would possibly be a better place - all to often, they don't, which is why people are slaughtering each other today in the name of their particular deity - The Middle East, former Yugoslavia.... you name it.
God was an attempt by primitive people to explain what they saw around them - it was formalised and marketed as a product and became one of the great threats to the existence of mankind.
ow that's what I call"terrible".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 09:22 AM

Well one doesn't need to belong to an organised religion to open ones mind to spirituality.
Once the petals have opened, the possibilities are endless...a whole new perspective appears....even the benefits of organisation can be examined.
You lot are so constricted....conservatism in social issues is beneficial to society, but not so the mind it should always be exploring pastures new. Hmmm mental conservatives....oh the shame!!! :0)

PFR I don't see you as a fettered mind......but you can have too much of a good thing!! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 10:48 AM

"Well one doesn't need to belong to an organised religion to open ones mind to spirituality."
And you don't have to wrap yourself in superstition to appreciate the finer, non material things in life - spirituality has nothing whatever to do with supreme beings or life-after death - a belief in god - any god, is totally immaterial to the appreciation of natural beauty or art or music.
Humanity is humanity no matter what you believe or don't believe.
You have stated one of the great myths of your and allreligion - that if you don't believe in a god you can't appreciate art or music... or any of the non-material things of life that is utter nonsense, and typical of the arrogance of all religions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 11:18 AM

If you are not prepared to defend your belief in the supernatural, at least tell us why we should believe you.

You don't have to believe anything, and no-one here is trying to make you.
Atheists always start these things and we just respond to your statements and answer your questions as best we can.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:15 PM

Atheists always start these things and we just respond to your statements and answer your questions as best we can.

Eliza started this thread and has already stated she is a committed Christian. Exactly what is it that atheists always start? Crusades? Inquisitions? Terror attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:29 PM

"You don't have to believe anything, and no-one here is trying to make you."
Religion has been forced onto us all atone time or the the other, mainly at a time when we were least able to deal with it in a rational manner.
Now that this situation is changing, it is essential that we are able to debate it whenever we have the opportunity.
Discussions like this are such an opportunity for both sides to state their case - if you don't feel that you wish to, fair enough - please don't stand in the way of those who do.
A Dave has just pointed out, this thread was started by a believer; what are we expected to do, stay silent, as we always have?
Those days are long gone, I'm pleased to say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:49 PM

I suppose any thread about religious ideas/beliefs is going to become a bit heated along the way. I think discussion and debate are an excellent way to expand ones thinking, or at least to start to understand the opposite viewpoint. I hope no-one here thinks I'm trying to 'sell' Christianity (or to deride it either!) I was just trying to explore some of the details of the resurrection, and to get other folks' ideas about them.

I mentioned earlier the film 'Life of Brian', (I've watched it many times) It does of course poke fun at some of the doctrine, and has offended many of the devout. But it does encourage one to plonk large amounts of salt on some of the more bizarre and rather dubious practices which have evolved from some ancient texts. I've always trusted humour as a way of seeing things in a more sensible light. I hope God can have a laugh too, or I'm truly in the soup.

Some of my husband's Muslim tenets are in my view a bit weird, but we have lovely discussions and never get nasty or offended. And my dearest friend is a complete atheist; we too have some interesting chats about belief, or lack of. It's never become a problem for us. I'm a nosy old thing, and just like to see inside people's heads and understand their mindsets. We're all here on this planet together, and it's best we try to be kind, if possible.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 01:55 PM

Hear, hear, Eliza. I certainly was not having a go at you for starting the thread. It has been very interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 02:39 PM

"I certainly was not having a go at you for starting the thread. "
Same here - it's more than a little refreshing to be able to discuss a topic like religion without falling out.
Life of Brian remains one of my favourite films - it was banned in Ireland up to 2003, 24 years after its release, rather astoundingly, 3 years later than The Marx Brothers film, Monkey Business (1931), which remained on the 'banned list for sixty-one years in all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:13 PM

Raggy asks: 2. Is there actual evidence of Jesus's existence or, if he did exist, his death.

Well, yes, there are four Gospels, although three seem to come from a common source. There are also numerous non-canonical gospels, along with canonical and non-canonical epistles. None of these documents conform with modern standards for historical accuracy. But then, no documents of the time conform with modern standards.

You also have the fact that a significant number of people claimed to have known this Jesus, and they passed on their experiences to numerous others who considered them to be credible.

If it's true that Jesus never existed, then the body of literature that has built up around him would be the most humongous conspiracy ever known.

Either that, or the denial of the existence of Jesus must be a conspiracy theory.

I choose the latter, although I readily agree that there is actually very little that we know or can document about Jesus, other than that which is written in the Gospels.

---

Joe tells Jim Carroll: "I'll ignore the rest of your remarks"

Jim replies: Pity - I would like to have had them seriously challenged by somene who I have a fair mount of respect for - but then again, I do have history and logic on my side.

Here's why, Jim. You and Steve Shaw and others have created a caricature of religion, and I can't argue with a caricature. It's like trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with Donald Trump.

I readily admit that religion is rife with corruption, stupidity, and evil. I am willing to discuss specific instances of corruption, stupidity, and evil in religion - and you will most likely find that I will agree with you in most instances. However, logic and my own experience tell me that no human endeavor can be so uniformly corrupt, evil, and stupid as what you describe. I have studied many different religions and the history of unbelief over my lifetime, and I have found both good and bad in all. The one thing I have not found, is uniformity.

Therefore, it is impossible for me to argue against your blanket condemnations, because you cannot apply any single accusation to all people in all religions. And most religious groups are diverse within themselves, so it is also usually impossible to apply any blanket statement to any particular religious group.

So, rather than attempting to apply generalizations to groups, it is far better to discuss issues and incidents - with the realization that within any given group, there will be a wide variety of opinions, actions, and responses.

So, if you speak of the Catholic Church, are you speaking of it as Pope Francis would like it to be, or as John Paul II would want; or maybe are you looking at it through the eyes of Pius IX, lamenting his loss of political power? Or shall we go back to Alexander VI Borgia, the most notorious of all Popes? Or is it better to stay away from Popes and view from the perspective of the people of the Catholic Church? Which people?

See what I mean, Jim? It's impossible to take your broad statements and make any sense of them. And even when discussing issues, I have to give an answer from a number of perspectives to give any semblance of accuracy.

I don't defend the Catholic Church and I cannot defend the Catholic Church - because there is so much wrong within it that I simply cannot defend. But there are many, many Catholics who love their church and openly acknowledge and oppose its faults. I'm one of them.

---

Jim says: The ongoing thread throughout the history of religion is that you may squabble among yourselves as much as you like, but yu never question the motives of god - he's in charge!
Religion has produced nothing new that resembles evidence - it never really did - it is entirely based on unquestioned faith and the suspense of logic.

Again, Jim, your generalizations are too broad to discuss. You say that God is in charge, and I say that God (no humanizing pronoun) acts through humans and other creatures that have varying amounts of free will and that are also governed by the laws of nature and coincidence and natural/logical consequence. Your description of God is far too anthropomorphic and monarchic. I define God as essence and spirit, and come to vague but very different conclusions.

And while you say that religion is entirely based on unquestioned faith and the suspension of logic, that's not my experience at all. The people I respect for their genuine faith, are those who constantly question their own faith and challenge it with brutal logic. The others are robots.

-Joe-

P.S. And I would really like to more deeply explore the mystery of the missing noses on Egyptian statues.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:33 PM

The difficulty I have with god (little g - I do not believe it is a proper noun) is that it can only be accepted from a position of faith. Not logic or science but faith. I cannot say it does not exist, nor can I say it does. No-one can. Yet this mythical entity has, perhaps, been the cause of more suffering that anything else on this Earth.

I think I am a good person in general. My children have all grown up to be fine people themselves. My grandsons are heading that way. I do not steal. I have not killed anyone (yet!). I do not lie. I give everyone the respect they deserve. This comes from within, not from the rules laid down by the church or from some spirit in the sky.

I am heartily tired of these arguments yet I keep being told that it is me (an atheist) that is causing them. I am not. Honest! I was told, in my youth, that the likes of me will be damned to eternal damnation. Now I am told that was nonsense. People out there, influential people of all faiths, are still saying that their imaginary friend is better than everyone elses and all others are wrong. They are still killing and dying for an idea that is only a position of faith. And people wonder why religion gets a bad name. Sheesh.

If everyone got together and told the Mullahs and Pastors and Shamans who are perpetrating the hate and violence that the message is wrong then maybe this world would be a better place. Worth a try surely?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:49 PM

Dave the Gnome says: If everyone got together and told the Mullahs and Pastors and Shamans who are perpetrating the hate and violence that the message is wrong then maybe this world would be a better place. Worth a try surely?

We've tried, Dave, we've tried. But telling hateful people they're wrong, just doesn't work. They think that they're the only ones not damned to hell, so why should they listen to the rest of us?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:08 PM

"Again, Jim, your generalizations are too broad to discuss. "
And again Joe, that is the religion we were taught at school.
I would be happy to learn that, now religion is in retreat and open to examination things may be different, but that is what formed the christian mind right up to my generation.
It's a little like capital punishment - now largely accepted as an evil of the past but somewhat too late to undo the damage already done.
"Here's why, Jim. You and Steve Shaw and others have created a caricature of religion,"
It really isn't a caricature - that is the religion that formed world though right up to the present day.
Can't speak for the others but my understanding of religion didn't come as an outsider looking in, but as someone brought in the midst of it.
I couldn't begin to claim to know what happen in America, but I do know first hand of how it ws in largely Catholic Liverpool and still is in Holy Ireland, where the word of the priest was the law, never mind god, though things are rapidly changing here.
By the very terms used, God reigned supreme and Mary was, and still is the Queen of Heaven and you questioned that in peril of your eternal soul.
You can still see this in the older, more conservative clergy who once ruled supreme.
Your type of liberal Christianity was once stamped on nearly as firmly as my atheism.
"And I would really like to more deeply explore the mystery of the missing noses on Egyptian statues."
More deeply than what Joe? - we were told what we were told and I've read what I've read - perhaps you might like to suggest some specific reading material.
Thank you for the comparison to Donald Trump, accepted in the spirit is was offered, I'm sure (thought we were under orders to stop name-calling - ah well!!)
I really have put my cas as clearly as I can without abuse and can only hope that to be reciprocated.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:29 PM

"Here's why, Jim. You and Steve Shaw and others have created a caricature of religion, and I can't argue with a caricature. It's like trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with Donald Trump."

Well, this is not only untrue but it is also an attempt at an insult that I'm sure Jim will laugh off just as much as I do. Joe, you really don't need to diminish yourself by adopting such a bitter, defensive attitude. Just try taking on the substantive argument for a change. You should be able to manage that quite cheerfully, given the Catholic education you never tire of telling us about.

I can't caricature "religion" because religion is far too diverse a phenomenon, what with all the different creeds, different gods and different rules. If I make a point about your particular religion, for example by pointing out that all its doctrine is predicated on the existence of a deity that almost certainly doesn't exist, that's a serious challenge to you, not a caricature. If I say that the gospels are full of inconsistencies, and that some guy in the third century decreed that a large number of other gospels were persona non grata and should be destroyed, that is not a caricature either, it's a challenge, and, given your eight years in a seminary, one that I'd have thought you should be equal to. If I say to you that miracles should be the subject not of scepticism, but of outright dismissal, I am resorting to the laws of nature, not making a caricature out of your accommodation with miracles. It seems to me that your nerve all too often fails under these challenges, so you resort to insult and bitter and belittling accusations. I think you can do better than that when confronted by a rather casual atheist like me who spends most of his time....not really being much of an atheist, frankly, but living a life.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:31 PM

Jim says: By the very terms used, God reigned supreme and Mary was, and still is the Queen of Heaven and you questioned that in peril of your eternal soul.

But Jim, if one doesn't believe in God, where's the peril?

Yes, I knew conservative clergy who were dictatorial and often filled with anger. I also knew conservative clergy (and nuns) who were patient and tolerant and compassionate and joyful - even though their theology might have been a bit stodgy. And the same goes for liberals.

But I knew many priests in the 1970s who were fresh from Ireland. Sacramento imported most of its priests from Ireland back then, more than almost any other U.S. diocese. Some were like the oppressive people you speak of, but most were not.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:36 PM

And yes, Steve, many of those questions are worth discussion - one at a time. And the answers to each are complex and diverse.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:51 PM

'Steve said recently that there is plenty of evidence for religion, but he did not specify Christianity."

Yes Keith, this one keeps on popping up, doesn't it? Well let's look at a few examples of the evidence for religion:

Every town and village hereabouts has a church, a chapel or both.

In less rural areas than mine, and I know many, I see duomos, basilicas, parish churches, synagogues, mosques, cemeteries full of crosses, shrines and wayside pulpits.

When I turn on the radio or telly, I get Thought For The Day, Choral Evensong, The Morning Service, the Pope's Easter blessing, festivals of carols and Songs Of Praise.

When I read the papers, I read about all those clerics in the Lords and I read articles by Giles Fraser and all the rest.

Once a month I get a visit from my dear friend the local Jehovah's Witness (he knows he'll get nowhere with me but we always have a really good chat and I always read Watchtower and Awake!)

Now I think we have something there, Keith. Let's call it "religion." Of course, as I'm a scientist, I don't expect you to accept all this evidence that religion occurs without challenge. On this occasion, however, I respectfully request that you take your challenge elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 06:00 PM

Very dismissive, Joe. That does not help you much. The answers are actually much simpler than you pretend. Wrapping up the simple misconceptions of religion in cod complexities is a time-honoured strategy, and you're very good at it, but, well it's time-worn as well, unfortunately. Tactics prolong arguments, but the truth will always win out. And the truth here is that your dogma is predicated on very shaky tenets. That doesn't meant that it can't be true, of course. I'll always allow you that much, but don't go thinking that that amounts to the usual conception of fence-sitting.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:45 PM

Steve Shaw says: If I say that the gospels are full of inconsistencies, and that some guy in the third century decreed that a large number of other gospels were persona non grata and should be destroyed...

If you were to say that, I would agree that the Gospels are full of fascinating inconsistencies to explore and ponder. They were written by four different groups of people in a time with very limited communication, in the period from 55-105 AD, by second-hand witnesses who wanted to write down what the eyewitnesses who were dying off had said.

I would also say that these four Gospels, all from the first century, gradually became recognized as part of the "canon" of the New Testament. The official canon was not decreed until the fourth century, but most of the books chosen had risen to prominence by 150 AD and were read at liturgical celebrations. There were many other gospels and epistles, mostly written in the second century, many reflecting more of the thinking of the gnostics, which were more closely tied to the mystery religions of the time. There were also many writings of the Church Fathers, the second and third generations of church leaders, which were not included in the New Testament and were not used in liturgy. Many of these writings are still in print to this day, and some are still being discovered. I don't know of any being suppressed, but I suppose that happened to some along the way. There really was no unified church authority capable of such suppression until the church took on a more hierarchical structure in the fourth century.

Some of the gnostic gospels are very interesting, and some are really kinda weird. All have value, and are worthy of discussion. Some have some really good stories in them, some have folkloric value, and some are nice complements to the four Gospels.

Next question?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:15 PM

No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive. They must have told you in your theology classes that those four were promoted only by decree, in a rather arbitrary manner, and that others were either suppressed or destroyed. And that no scholars believe that the earliest, Mark, was written anything like as early as 55, as you claim. Add at least twenty or more years to that, and by then your eye-witnesses were getting very thin on the ground indeed. Apply the standard for historical veracity suggested by the likes of Keith and Teribus and I'm afraid you're well into the realms of hearsay and folk tales. All I ask you to do is acknowledge that. I could never say that the gospels are, in part at least, true. But, as historical documents, they have no validity. They were penned by men with a mission, they relied far too much for comfort on word of mouth rather than written sources, and they were conceived far too long after the alleged death of their hero. All that sits rather uncomfortably with the fact that your whole religion, with all its dogma and edicts and threats, is predicated entirely on them. A house built on sand, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:17 PM

I could never say that they're NOT true. Sorry, not enough negatives.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:25 PM

Anyone who wants to know why the four gospels we have were chosen, and what happened to the "unsuitable" ones, should google St Irenaeus. He was barking mad but, my word, so crucial in developing the version of Christianity we endure today.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:43 AM

We've tried, Dave, we've tried. But telling hateful people they're wrong, just doesn't work.

We have indeed, Joe, but we must never give up. Eventually even the most hateful and stupid person in the world will get the message.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:57 AM

"We destroyed our environment, not "god"."

But... the bible says this:

"Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."


This idea we are separate from the earth and everything that is on it is there for us to exploit is one of the most damaging, idiotic statements ever committed to paper. It denies your true place as part of nature, another link in a complex and wonderful web of energy flow that we are destroying with abandon.

God is a crap environmentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:34 AM

"But Jim, if one doesn't believe in God, where's the peril?"
It isn't to a non-believer - you claim that our "Donald Trumpish" arguments were anthromorphic, I pointed out how the religion we were taught was just that - kings and queens ruling over us all.
I find your both contemptuous and patronising attitude a little hard to take here Joe - on the one hand, we are too like your present star fascist politician to ague with, on the other we appear to be oversimplifying something that is beyond our understanding because we haven't had a seminary education.
The dictatorial, anger-filled clergy were the ones we knew - they ruled the roost here, and to a great extent, still do - it was their teachings that created today's Catholics and it is they who are desperately clinging on to the right to educate over 90% of our youngest children, despite the revelations of what happened throughout the 20th century.
I have said over and over - I don't believe your myths, but if people come to them voluntarily and accept them as a part of their lives and live up to the philosophies they aspire to, fine - they have made their choice at an age at which they were able to do so.
But the time for teaching them as facts is over unless you are prepared to enter into open debate to defend them.
When John Thomas Scopes attempted to teach Darwinism he was put on trial for doing so because that was the way the world was in those days.
It's your turn now - because that's how the world is now.
We are not, as you claim, impossible to argue with - we say it as we understand it and, certainly in my case, have experienced it - it is you and Ake and Keith who are refusing to put your case and it is all of you who are distorting our arguments and our position.
Whatever way the church is now it has become so, not out of enlightenment or fresh information, but out of simple pragmatism - it can no longer get away with what it has in the past because that past has caught up with it and is biting its bum something rotten.
Incidentally, re the Egyptian defacement of idols.
On your suggestion, I looked it up and it transpires that the case is very much disputed.
Some archaeologists argue as you do, that some following rulers did deface monuments, not as a matter of tradition but because they saw their forbears as rivals to their own rule, for instance, Akhenaton was regarded an heretic, Hatchepsute was considered a despotic monster.
Other archaeologists blame the Coptics (as ours did) for not wishing to be looked down on by rival gods.
The question of who is right is very much an open one in the opinions of the experts and the debate is a lively one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:37 AM

No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive.

Who does Steve?

When you said there was plenty of evidence for religion, you meant in support of it. It would be absurd to ask for evidence that religion exists and you make yourself absurd pretending that.

It is always atheists who start these debates for and against religion. Never believers.
Eliza's OP was about a specific miracle, but once again the atheists turned it into yet another for and against religion bash.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:51 AM

"Eliza's OP was about a specific miracle"

Since when has Jesus being clothed been classed as a miracle. Can't remember that from my indoctrination .......... or perhaps someone is rewriting the gospels as well.

Sheeesh!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:52 AM

"It is always atheists who start these debates for and against religion. Never believers."

Now there's a puzzle.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:59 AM

Since when has Jesus being clothed been classed as a miracle.

He was entombed in grave clothes, but not washed because of the Sabbath.
That is why the women went back to the tomb.
The grave clothes were folded but Jesus was alive and clothed.
It is part of the Resurrection which if true is miraculous.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 04:20 AM

The OP stated:

"We are told Jesus' body was left in the tomb overnight wrapped in a shroud. When the open tomb was discovered on Easter Sunday, this gravecloth was found neatly folded, but Jesus had disappeared.
Soon afterwards he was seen by various folk, walking about quite the thing. Now what was he wearing? And where had he obtained the clothes"

Now you Professor are stating unequivocally that this was a miracle.

I am asking when did it become a miracle as I have never heard of such and clearly Eliza hasn't either.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:03 AM

I think it's very refreshing that now we can have proper discussions without all the rancour and bullshit, what a difference, the air smells fresh and clean, Spring is just around the corner.

It would be good if we could all think before posting anything personal.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:12 AM

"It is always atheists who start these debates for and against religion. "
This one was started by a believer Keith - or was she telling lies.
THese arguments invariably start when believers state their beliefs as incontrovertible facts and get challenged
Believers threads have been known to run for months and months.
In the end, it doesn't matter who started them, those who dislike being contradicted should really steer clear of them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:14 AM

"When you said there was plenty of evidence for religion, you meant in support of it. It would be absurd to ask for evidence that religion exists and you make yourself absurd pretending that."

Well, as you know, Keith, "Humility" is my middle name. Notwithstanding, I boldly claim to be able to express myself in terms that should leave you in no doubt as to what I actually mean, taking into account nuance and the use of literary devices such as sarcasm, parody and metaphor. So, Keith, do not think of trying to tell ME what I mean. I will always be kind enough to tell YOU what I mean. I think I generally manage that feat quite well. This is the second time this week I've caught you trying to impose a narrowly literal meaning on things I've said. I know two otherwise very nice people who do that routinely, and they both need a fair bit of looking after.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:16 AM

Just wish some of the old US and Canadian catters would come back, I loved to read their views on current affairs...much less cynical than ours.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:26 AM

Mr. Shaw sez: No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive. They must have told you in your theology classes that those four were promoted only by decree, in a rather arbitrary manner, and that others were either suppressed or destroyed

Well, no, Steve, they didn't tell me in the seminary that the four Gospels were "promoted only by decree." As I said, I was taught that they came to the forefront by about 150 AD, and were decreed to be part of the canon in the 4th century. I know of no other first-century gospels, and I know of no decree earlier than the 4th century.

And if I say the Gospels were written between 55-105 AD, am I incorrect? Yes, some scholars say that all three Synoptics were written after about 75 AD, five years after the fall of Jerusalem. And some say Mark or an Aramaic Matthew came as early as 55. But my point was that the four Gospels were written in the first century, mostly from second-hand witnesses; and other known gospels came from the second century. Do you have documentation of other first-century gospels, or of orders for their destruction? And what other gospels would you consider to be definitive, and why? Have you read any of them? I've read several non-canonical gospels myself, and I found them interesting.

Ah, yes, And Irenaeus, your patron saint. In his quest against gnosticism, he almost single-handedly invented the pernicious art of argumentum ad absurdum that appears so often in your posts. He redefined gnosticism to the point where it was ridiculous, and then he proceeded to refute what he had redefined. Sound familiar, Steve?

And Jim Carroll, you still have nothing specific I can reply to. I visited a good number of convents and churches on my two visits to Ireland. Some were oppressive and severe, as you describe; and some were open, generous, aand friendly. The latter had people who enjoyed intellectual conversation. I had an especially good time at the original convent of the Sisters of Mercy on Baggot Street in Dublin. I had dinner there with the heads of the Sisters of Mercy in the US and the UK. Both were delightful, interesting, intelligent people. I went to Pentecost Sunday Mass at the cathedral in Galway, and it was sad and severe. So, I saw both.

And Dave the Gnome still thinks I haven't been scolding bad Christians enough. I haven't found scolding to be particularly effective in dealing with self-righteous nasty people, Dave. Why don't you do it? Or are you saying that those people are my responsibility, since both they and I call ourselves Christian? But Dave, I don't have any more in common with them, than you do. So, you go ahead and tell those nasty people to be good, and see if they listen to you.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:37 AM

"you still have nothing specific I can reply to"
I really can't see why Joe
I have given my reasons for saying why religion should not be taught to immature children.
I have said that I believe it should be a matter of voluntary acceptance and not enforced brainwashing.
I have outlined the behaviour of the church over and over again.
I have told you how religious education has worked here
I have explained the present situation of the church on this side of the pond and how it stands to deteriorate (from your point of view).
If there is nothing specific to reply to in all that, then you appear to have no defence (or you agree with me totally, of course)
I have no religious qualifications other that those received by me and my family at the chalkface.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:40 AM

"No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive."

"Who does Steve?"

Well what else is there for the poor old ordinary Christian to go on? It takes a fair bit of scholarship to dig out those many non-approved gospels (and they are most decidedly non-approved, which hardly helps when it comes to trying to include them as part of the big picture). Then there are the ones, possibly many, which were deliberately destroyed as they were seen to be rather inconvenient, failing to follow the line that St Irenaeus dictated when he nominated the famous four as the canonical gospels. It's a fair bet that most Christians are ignorant of this early, very murky history of selective inclusion and destruction of writings. It's quite entertaining to read of the wrangling that went on. What we have left is the sanitised stuff that was supposed to make a good shot at being the basis for Christian theology. Forgive some of us for being extremely sceptical not only of the content of what we're left with but also of the motives of those early church fathers. Begrudging kudos to them, I suppose, for managing to convince so many people down the centuries of their contrived nonsense. Best not to take their success as an indication of veracity, however, to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:52 AM

"Ah, yes, And Irenaeus, your patron saint. In his quest against gnosticism, he almost single-handedly invented the pernicious art of argumentum ad absurdum that appears so often in your posts. He redefined gnosticism to the point where it was ridiculous, and then he proceeded to refute what he had redefined. Sound familiar, Steve?"

Cross posted.

Yes, St Irenaeus was a very single-minded fellow. You owe him a great deal, Joe. Without his advocacy on the one hand and demonisation on the other, you certainly wouldn't have the cosy version of Christianity you have today. His war against the Gnostics was the kind of campaign that would have lost him all credibility had he waged it today. He probably have gone the way that Trump is destined to go.

Again, Joe, your modus operandi is to attack your attacker. I don't do what you allege, as I work in the world of stating facts about your religion. Excuse me if, as an atheist, I don't manage to do it in a gushingly complimentary way. Eight years in a seminary, Joe? You should hardly feel that you're on the ropes against a casual infidel such as me. Why, I haven't even got a belief system to fight you back with. Perhaps that's your problem.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 07:16 AM

So Steve Shaw thinks that users of this forum need evidence that their is such a thing as religion!
Tosh!
You meant evidence supporting religion and then regretted saying it making yourself, as I said, absurd.

"No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive."

"Who does Steve?"

From your answer, no-one here then.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 07:52 AM

"So Steve Shaw thinks that users of this forum need evidence that their is such a thing as religion!"
If these discussions are not about the existence of religion , what are they about?
"Tosh!"
Unless that was your answer, of course, in which case, I would guess many people agree with you.
The world now needs evidence of the existence of religion now that so many atrocities are being committed in the name of one god or another - including the Christian one.
Why is it "tosh" to ask for evidence of a god, if he (or she) doesn't exist, what's all this killing about?
Nobody disputes the existence of religion - we've had it shoved down our throats for long enough?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 08:45 AM

I've been re-reading all the posts to this thread, and to me Llanfair has made some good points. I couldn't reply to him/her as Guests were suddenly banned and I had to wait to get one of those Cookie things.

Llanfair:-
"I also believe that the scriptures have been tweaked over time to be a form of social control."
and:-
"Translated by the powerful literate to keep the great unwashed in their place."

I like his/her appreciation of 'Mother Nature' too.

There are many, as I see it, ridiculous and dodgy interpretations of religions.
For instance, my poor husband, in the searing heat of Africa, carrying huge sacks of cement on his back, was expected during the month of Ramadan to eat nothing from dawn until dusk, but what is worse, to drink nothing either. He says people regularly collapsed, and at the end of Ramadan, folk were weak and ill, which is probably due to dehydration and kidney damage.

On a lighter note, the little old lady who washes the church linen was ill, and I volunteered to do it. It included the 'purificator', a small white cloth used for wiping the chalice between customers. I was told to wash it by hand in a little bowl, then to tip the dirty water onto bare earth. I was puzzled and asked why I couldn't just bung it in the washing machine. No, the cloth had been in contact with The Consecrated Wine and therefore the washing water couldn't go down the drain. I'm afraid I burst out laughing. I'd never heard anything so daft in all my born days.

In my confirmation classes, (I was ten) we were told never to eat for 3 hours before Communion. I asked why. The vicar said that the bread couldn't be in the stomach along with other food, so you had to give your last meal time to go down a bit. My father (not a believer) laughed like a drain when I told him that.

My husband should never touch a dog and should only eat halal meat.

I'm sorry to say, he loves bacon and adores our neighbour's huge dog, who licks him all over, to his delight. He doesn't 'do' Ramadan any more, and I don't think I'll tell the Rector I did bung the purificator in the washing machine. God hasn't yet struck us both dead with a lightning bolt.
My point is, we are both confident enough to use common sense when following our respective beliefs. We neither of us feel that God is a nasty vindictive chap watching our every move and neither of us want to thrust our religions down other people's throats.
All these man-made rules are indeed a form of control, which is a bit sinister.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:00 AM

"All these man-made rules are indeed a form of control,"
Yes - yes - yes, personal beliefs are fine; it's when they are used to control that they become a problem to us all
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:16 AM

Hand up those who thought Steve meant that there was plenty evidence for the existence of religion when what he said was he said there was plenty evidence for religion...

Me, Steve, Jim, Greg and many others I suspect but I cannot see as far as I used to.

Now hands up those who thought Steve meant that the there was plenty of evidence to support religion when he did indeed say no such thing...

Keith, errrr, Keith, errr, no, sorry Keith it doesn't count when you hold all your arms and legs up. It is still just one vote.

Dunno about the UK and US being separated by a common language. I think Hertford may be separated from the rest of the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:32 AM

"In my confirmation classes, (I was ten) we were told never to eat for 3 hours before Communion."

Well, when I were a little lad it was from the previous midnight. I seem to remember that it had gone down to an hour before I ceased to partake. Of course, when I point out that Limbo has suddenly gone, that on certain days only I was able to spring people of my choice out of Purgatory by going into a church and saying three Hail Marys, that all of a sudden it became all right to eat meat on Fridays, that grown men in the Vatican (who have spent even longer in seminaries than Joe) sit around agonising as to whether people telling packs of lies about virginal apparitions should be officially believed, that no one-legged man has ever returned from Lourdes with two legs, that official cheating took place in order to get Mother Teresa her two miracles, that a second-century polemicist suppressed and even burned some gospels that didn't fit his vision for future Christianity, that we were told at school that heaven had only Catholics in it, that not a single scrap of evidence for the existence of God has ever come to light, how the Romans, oddly, never recorded anything of significance about Jesus, that Moses was a murderous thug, that it IS my business when the schools I pay my taxes to fund are allowed to tell children a pack of lies and make them bow their heads, I'm told by Joe that I'm indulging in a pernicious logical fallacy. The fact is, I'm actually stating facts. Shamelessly selected facts, naturally (only taking a leaf out of religion's books in that regard, folks), but my, how they stack up, and there are plenty more where they came from!


"I'm sorry to say, he loves bacon"

Yikes, two phrases that clearly don't belong in the same sentence!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:35 AM

Careful, Dave. My in-laws live in Hertford. It's very nice there, actually! Thanks for that. Saves me having to ridicule Keith, which I'd never dream of doing, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:37 AM

"Hand up those who thought Steve meant that there was plenty evidence for the existence of religion"

Both hands waving; the statement in it's context was entirely clear to me.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:38 AM

Or were they clauses. It's been a long time... :-(

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 11:01 AM

Thanks Dave, I'm glad it's not just me.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 12:38 PM

Well, it seems that there are enough "facts" hanging around in two millennia of Christianity, to concoct any theory one might want to concoct. Yes, Jim, there were far too many incidences of cruelty, anger, bad theology, and misinformation in the history of the church.

I work with Irish-born nuns, and I've asked several about their experiences growing up Irish Catholic. They claim the bad stuff was there, but that it was the exception to the rule. Of course, they're in their eighties and still nuns, so their experience must have been good. Jim and Steve haven't been Catholic for a long, long time, so their experience must have been bad. I suppose both the nuns and the detractors have built stories to support their perceptions. We humans do that.
My experience has been mixed - mostly good, but also some serious bad experiences. I blame the bad people for the bad experiences.

The idea of fasting was a spiritual practice to focus one's attention on God - mindfulness might be a more modern word for it. The suggestion became a rule, and with the rule came sanctions for disobedience of the rule. And along with that came some weird reasoning about food in the belly making the body somehow unworthy to receive communion. I don't think you'll find that last thing in any official teaching - but it was a common misconception.

And I'm still wondering about all those Catholics who went to hell for eating meat on Friday....
I never believed they did.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:22 PM

Jim,
Why is it "tosh" to ask for evidence of a god,

Steve said he was not talking about the existence of God.

I had said there was no evidence for God, and Steve pretends to believe I meant evidence for religion, like churches and things even though he knows I attend them.

Tosh right?
And all because he sneeringly replied that there was plenty of evidence for religion and now regrets it and is trying to wriggle off the hook.
Absurd behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:34 PM

Dave, if you read Jim's post 7.52AM today, you will see he did not assume Steve meant what he now claims.

These were my statements that he was responding to,

"Why do so many of you keep pointing out that there is no evidence for religion?
We all knew that, especially us with faith.
No-one is claiming evidence for religion! OK?"

"Musket, I am surprised you do not believe in science.
You should. It can answer most of the questions about life, the universe and everything.
I believe in the Big Bang. Don't you?
I believe in evolution. Don't you? You should. The evidence is very compelling."

Steve's reply,
"There is plenty of evidence for religion, Keith. And scientists don't believe in science. Your penchant for inexactitudes of this sort gets you into trouble. Remember the Wheatcroft fiasco? "

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:34 PM

And I'm still wondering about all those Catholics who went to hell for eating meat on Friday....I never believed they did. -Joe-

OK, but what happened to all those pagan babies when they disappeared Limbo?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:36 PM

"Steve pretends to believe I meant evidence for religion, like churches and things "
He obviously meant no such thing.
Nice to see you believe there is no evidence for god though - perhaps we might start a campaign together to stop people from teaching it as if there was - about time, doncha think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:41 PM

ok, about heaven..

when married folks cherish the belief of meeting up and being together again for all eternity...

what arrangements does heaven make for people who were happily married to 2 or 3 or more spouses...???

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:56 PM

There is plenty of evidence for religion, Keith.

No way, even in the widest dreams of a lifelong acid freak after a night out on mescal, can that be interpreted as there is plenty of evidence to support religion.

Sorry Steve. The language they speak in Hertford is not only different to the rest of the UK, it is not of this world. How do you cope with your in-laws? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 02:35 PM

Punkfolkrocker, as I understand it, when one dies, one doesn't whizz up to heaven and start living a life of Riley. Apparently, one stays asleep, in an intermediate state. Only when Christ comes again will all the dead rise up and start to live. Loads of folk aren't aware of this doctrine, and imagine one is reunited immediately with loved ones etc. So all those sad little bunches of flowers and cards saying 'She is now an angel in heaven' or 'Reunited with Fred' and so on are, theologically speaking, far off the mark. I'll have a long wait for my endless supplies of crumpets and ale, and my husband won't get his hands on the 57 virgins quite as fast as he thinks!

I do hope God/Jesus will know what to do with all the small heaps of cremated ashes scattered about numerous Gardens of Remembrance. I shan't want to be resurrected as a rather fetching pile of dust...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 02:41 PM

I don't think that is most folks understanding, Eliza. In the bible stories themselves both Jesus and his mother ascended into heaven without a second coming. If Jesus came to earth as god's son to be like a human then surely what applies to him must apply to the rest of us.

Having been brought up in the Russian orthodox and then Catholic faiths I am pretty sure that the reunited and looking down on us myths were and still are very much perpetuated by the established churches.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 02:42 PM

Maybe our resident theological expert, Joe, can enlighten us as to what is currently taught?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:50 PM

Strange the way religion moves the goal posts at regular intervals.

When I married I made a commitment for life as far as I was concerned, a product of my upbringing some would say. I was taught that when my spouse died we would be reunited in heaven.

Now here I have a problem. If I shuffle off this mortal coil before my good lady and she were to remarry after my demise then, in the every after, would she then reside with her new husband or with me.

Presuming she remarried for love it would be reasonable for her to expect to be with her second husband when they popped their clogs leaving me, her first husband, out in the cold.

Puzzled, that's me.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 04:29 PM

Raggytash, I seem to recall that in the Bible, Jesus was asked that very question. It was put to him that if a woman had a series of marriages, each leaving her a widow, what should she do on arriving in heaven and having several men claiming her? He replied along the lines that in heaven there's no such thing as men or women, and no marriage. I take this to mean it's a different dimension altogether, and human parameters don't apply.

Regarding our own resurrection, I have an idea we have to wait for the Second Coming (unspecified time) whereupon we'll be given new bodies and join God in heaven. Meanwhile we're in an intermediary holding position, until he arrives once more.

I just don't know what to think about all this. My atheist friend says, "Look mate, when yer dead yer dead!" In fact, as my father used to say, nobody knows, nobody can say, so you just have to get on with your life as best you can.

I've had many delightful cats over the years, that I loved very much. I do hope they can be resurrected too. Maybe at the Second Coming, they'll materialise in front of me. Trouble is, most of them had bad habits. I reckon the angels wouldn't relish a pack of Siamese cats weeing on their harps.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:07 PM

"He replied along the lines that in heaven there's no such thing as men or women"

Oi, bugger that then! And I'll bet that punkfolkrocker's with me there!

"I've had many delightful cats over the years, that I loved very much."

Me too. There's a little place in our garden where five of our cats lie under the sod (we've lived here for nearly thirty years now). There's a slate slab just behind on which I always put some pots planted up with flowers, along with a little statue of Tom Kitten. If and when we ever leave this house (never, I hope), I'll cut a piece of turf from their patch to transplant into our new garden. Even atheists can be sentimental old fools! :-(

Actually, I know a place where pets can be buried in an official pets' cemetery. That's fine. Except for the crucifixes on their graves. Aargh!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 06:46 PM

What.. an eternity without women... ?????!!!!!!!!!!

.. though being a realist.. if I've been up there for a few millennia
it might be nice to have the occasional century of peace and quiet,
not getting nagged for leaving boxes of music gear and cables out on the heavenly clouds...

My old mum has the ashes of two cats and my sister under a little coffee table in the kitchen.
It's a mini shrine decorated with photos and cheap plastic trinkets.
One of the cats has a better quality, more expensive urn than my sister...

I wouldn't be too comfortable under that table with them....

At least my parents, even though mum was an undereducated menial worker,
and dad a factory machine operator wage slave after his demob from national service,
were young post war political progressives,
refusing to have their kids christened on principle.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 07:04 PM

Current Catholic teaching is that some go straight to heaven. Some with unresolved issues are in a state of "preparation and purification" called purgatory. The Catechism says that some think of purgatory as flames and punishment, but that there is no reason to insist that it's flames and punishment.

My view is that purgatory is kind of like Mitch Alkbom's The Five People You Meet in Heaven - you meet people or relive experiences to resolve the unresolved issues in your life.

I've read very credible Catholic authors who think that there will be very few people in hell.

In the past, Catholics were strongly influenced by Dante's Inferno and Purgatorio. Current teaching is much more vague that it once was. I think that's a sign of growth.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 02:58 AM

It's comforting to know that others have dearly loved their cats too. I've wept absolute buckets on losing a cat. I must have had about thirty of the little blighters over a long life. (I generally have three or four at a time) The Bible doesn't say anything about animals going to heaven. I shan't stay there long if they aren't welcome. I'd miss all the wildlife as well. Hope the fallow deer, pheasants and foxes I've befriended will be there too. My husband has lost numerous relatives to terrible diseases and suffering in Africa. He often speaks hopefully about seeing them again. But I suppose I'm trying to recreate Earth in heaven, and it isn't feasible. My atheist pal is elderly too, and she just grins and says, "Well, sunshine, see yer there eh? But I don't hold out much hope!"

That's interesting Joe. I used to have a cup of tea quite often with some RC nuns. (IBVM) Really nice women and very happy to elucidate doctrine for me. They explained Purgatory, and that only 'saints' went directly to heaven. But not their bodies, just their souls. I met them (the nuns, not the saints) while Prison Visiting, as they did cooking with the inmates. They always invited me to pop round to their little house which served as a convent. I also made retreats with the All Hallows (C of E) nuns (CAH) at Ditchingham in Norfolk. I actually really like nuns (most of them) as they 'walk the talk' so to speak.

If I rabbit on any more, this 'Easter' thread will end up edging into Christmas!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 03:21 AM

Dave,
When I said there is no evidence for religion, only an utter fool would assume I meant evidence that religion exists.
As a church member I am such evidence myself.
No-one needs evidence that religion exists. We have all seen churches!

You are just pretending to believe that to save Steve's face.

Religions are founded on belief in supernatural entities, for which there is no hard evidence, was my obvious meaning.
You are just playing silly games and spoiling a serious discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:17 AM

"You are just playing silly games and spoiling a serious discussion".

I believe in reincarnation,1.e. vis a vis Dave, Steve and Raggytash.

.....but who were they in their previous form? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:24 AM

I would have thought you had a ready answer to that Akhenaton


We were all obviously Satan.


That is, of course, if you believe in Satan. Yet another fairy tale to me though.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:43 AM

"I believe in reincarnation,1.e. vis a vis Dave, Steve and Raggytash."
It seems some people's interest in this thread is beginning to flag.
Give it a rest lads - you know what will happen if you don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:45 AM

What are you on about, ake. I have never been anyone else. Never will be.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 05:20 AM

"As a church member I am such evidence myself."

Not necessarily. It isn't evidence just because you say it is. For all we know, you could be a rabid atheist who sits in the Sunday pew conjuring up the plot of your next novel. Rather, by thy fruits shall we know thee. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 08:01 AM

I've always found the concepts of afterlife and reincarnation very intriguing, even though I ultimately dismiss both ideas out of hand. Just think of the hundreds-of-trillions-to-one chance of your existing at all. Your father produced hundreds of millions of sperms every day - every day - and your mother had tens of thousands of eggs at the ready. If that wasn't enough, multiply that by their parents, then by their parents....go right back to the dawn of life. Yet you're here. You made it. The chance of you being you was vanishingly infinitesimal. Yet here you are. You're a winner. And if you're reading this on an expensive computer in a wealthy western country, and you have reasonable health and a good life with family or friends, there's plenty of icing on your cake, even though not everything will be perfect.

So what do we do? Why, that isn't enough. We want more! We want another life after this one! We can't believe that we've already had more than our share of good fortune. Not only that, we want the next life to be infinitely better! Floating up there with angels in God's divine presence!

Well I have a better way of thinking about it. I thank my lucky stars that I'm here at all, I'm happy to be here and I want to make the best of it. Lusting after even more stops me from doing that. Instead of enjoying life and searching for what's really true, I find I have to conform to lots of rules invented in order to control me by weird men in Rome or elsewhere (it always seems to be men) and I have to worry that, unless I do the right things, I won't get the afterlife I want. Living like that is not making the best of it. It's a pretty dismal prospect, in fact.

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Now where did I read that...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 10:04 AM

ditto - wot steve said...

plus - and on top of all that...

what are the chances of anyone ever meeting that other one individual in millions who you can bond with happily for the rest of your life...????

.. gotta be grateful me and the mrs seem to tolerate each other so well for as long as we have...

.. and, if that's not enough, she's also best mates with my mum...

Putting all these infinite collisions of possibilities into perspective, can't really complain about my lack of financial success or purpose in life..

.. not even my irritable bowels.... 😜

It wouldn't even have occurred to me to worry about qualifying for a premium afterlife
if not for the early childhood brainwashing at C of E infant & primary school,
and all the diffuse indoctrination in wider early 60s provincial small town British society...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 10:26 AM

Glad to see that this thread has gone a lot more positive again:-) It's spring. We have daffodils growing, lambs in the field across the road and our one legged duck from last year has started visiting again. So, we have plenty of new life and at least one old timer like me has survived another winter. Most of us on here have plenty to be happy about so let's celebrate that :-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 10:40 AM

So, Dave, we know that the Pope's a Catholic, that bears shit in the woods (I saw it on an Attenborough).... so now all it needs is for you, seeing as how you have the wherewithal, to answer the final question:

...Do one-legged ducks swim in circles? I can give you a few minutes to blow your paddling pool up if you like...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 01:37 PM

Quite agree - lots to be happy about. We have a regular large pheasant called Mr Magnificent, and he came into our garden today in all his beautiful Spring plumage. He absolutely shone, golden and glorious. And our enormous village swans did their usual annoying trick of standing right in the middle of the road like twits, while we all tried to usher them to the side. Once there, they always waddle back and do it again, the horrors.

It's so true, we have tons to rejoice about, and in many ways, life here is heaven enough. I've even got a bit of a tan from sitting on our garden bench in the sun. I might even buy a bikini....er.... no, not such a good idea...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 02:51 PM

Steve - :-D

I will test it out one day. For now I will relate that I was outvoted in naming him. He is known as 'Hobbles' by the family, which I think is rather cruel. I wanted to call him 'Awky'. 10 bob to who can tell me why :-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 05:58 PM

We could ask Jim... I believe it was a cruel epithet used for kids with a limp or something, especially oop north. And Jimmy Miller could be involved...

I claim my ten bob and I'll have it in four half dollars please.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 03:46 AM

"We could ask Jim.."
Well- since you ask.....!!
My grandparents lived in Stoke on Trent and when I was a child one of the bastard pottery firms took to dumping surplus glazing paint in the canal, which caused the many swans to try and scratch their back, the result being that they swam in circles.
Never heard the saying used about lame kids - we weren't cruel like that in Liverpool; we just beat them up and threw away their crutches.
Ducks quacks do echo though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 10:48 AM

How do you know whether that's the echo of a duck quack, or the sound of another duck quacking back ?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 10:56 AM

What if a duck feeds back at high echo settings...???

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 12:35 PM

"or the sound of another duck quacking back ?"
Damn - never thought of that - back to the carving block.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 01:02 PM

Could ask this feller
Jim CARROLL

The Wee Duck
I had a wee duck when I lived in Drummuck,
And I ne'er had good luck since I parted the land,
For some hungry thief took a longing for beef,
And to steal my wee duck he invented a plan.
At the head of my bed, where my swaddy she fed,
And one morning in May, and it long before day,
When I looked where she lay, alas she was stole!

Chorus
Och, och! and a naddy, my darling big swaddy!
Och, och! and a naddy, anuck and anee!

My duck was true blood as she waddled through mud
She was fat as a crud and her wings she did shake;
She was blue in the neck, ay, and broad in the back
And double related to Flaherty's drake.
Her eggs they were blue, most charming to view,
Some night she laid two! Oh, and relate it with grief,
May the curse of the dumb and orphan that's blind
Be together combined and light down on the thief!

Chorus
Och, och! and a naddy, my darling big swaddy!
Och, och! and a naddy, anuck and anee!

I curse him again (I cannot refrain)
nd you'll all say "Amen" when I finish my prayer ¯
May the bee and the wasp and the ape and the asp
Be his daily companion through the market and the fair!
May the weasel and the rat build their nests in his hat!
May the eel ever bite him, and everything fright him,
The monster that murdered my beautiful duck.

Chorus
Och, och! and a naddy, my darling big swaddy!
Och, och! and a naddy, anuck and anee!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 01:16 PM

Nah, no one got it. Part of the playground repertoire was walking with a limp singing "Awky duck, Awky duck. I've broke my leg and I can't get up."

The tune is well known. Can't really describe it. Laurel and Hardy piece maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 03:17 PM

Er, Dave, I was pretty warm. Ten bob please or I'll go thinking you're a bloody tyke.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 03:47 PM

OK, Steve. Send me your bank details and I will credit your account 10 bob;-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:11 PM

Careful Dave, he wants it in 4 half dollars, that will cost you £2.41.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:14 PM

Bloody hell !!

See what living in Yorkshire has done to me ...............

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 05:16 PM

Well, on londoncoins.co.uk at the moment is a ten shilling note for £160

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 05:51 PM

Raggy says: Strange the way religion moves the goal posts at regular intervals.

And I'm rather glad it does move the goal posts. Other thinking changes with the times - why not religious thinking? Churches are beginning to realize that arcane theological disagreements really don't make any difference, so many don't bother about them very much. They're more interested in what's the basic purpose of every religion: appreciation of the earth and earth's creatures, which most religions deem to be a gift from the Source of Being, a gift to be treasured and protected.

Yes, there are religious people who deem the earth to be something to be exploited, and people other than themselves as enemies to be defeated. I don't think that's the intent of most church people, however. But yes, there are exceptions - lots of them.

And many people of faith are beginning to see their faith as a tradition, rather than as a "religion." They just are beginning to see that their traditions and rituals are built on sacred, treasured myths that may not necessarily be factual - but may be sacred treasure nonetheless.

The religious people I know are most interested in raising their children, caring for their aging parents, and building a safe and peaceful community. As they always have, they do these things within the context of a religious tradition, but I think that can be a wonderful thing - especially if members of a community have a wide diversity of traditions to share and celebrate.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 06:14 PM

But yes, there are exceptions - lots of them.

There may be more exceptions than you think, Joe, considering the 57 anti-abortion laws passed by the several states in 2015, and the close to 300 abortion restictions thay're passed since 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 06:15 PM

Well, apart from forcing the point yet again about your sacred and treasured things, you could've been talking about the values of every atheist I know. There is absolutely nothing special about religious traditions, and there's plenty wrong with every one of them. Religion has no monopoly on virtue. In many ways, the opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 06:26 PM

I'd go further, Joe: the whole concept of goalpost is misleading. You can see how the history might have played out. You start from the golden rule of loving God and your neighbour,(whether in Christianity or not). Then someone with a binary sort of mind asks how you know you are giving God enough attention. Equally black and white clergy then start inventing rules saying no meat on Friday (taking the example above). Next someone asks what happens if I break the rule? So the legalistically minded start setting punishments and rewards and the whole thing develops into a whole mess of rules and regulations for no real reason except to transform the golden rule - which is necessarily entirely dependant on the exact circumstance of that particular person in that precise situation - into a set of rules and regulations that are completely rigid and don't take the situation into account at all.

So to my mind if 'moving the goalposts' is getting rid of some of this well meant but ultimately obstructive legal dross to get back to the central commandments, it can only be a good thing. Sorry to everyone, in or out of the church, who likes nice clear rules, but we are talking about life, and life isn't like that.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 06:52 PM

Religious people aren't as certain as they used to be about what happens after death. But I think many would say that they believe that somehow, it will all be OK after death. They see something beyond, but they don't know what it is.

And Steve Shaw, still trying to defend his right to attack, says:

Well, apart from forcing the point yet again about your sacred and treasured things, you could've been talking about the values of every atheist I know. There is absolutely nothing special about religious traditions, and there's plenty wrong with every one of them. Religion has no monopoly on virtue. In many ways, the opposite.

Dearest Steve, we're all enlightened people here. I don't think anyone here has argued that religious people are special or that they have a monopoly on virtue. Neither are atheists. But all deserve to be respected and tolerated, and not derided or redefined. All have something to contribute to the diversity of this world.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 06:59 PM

Well, I think that the Church has to move goalposts constantly in order to try to retain some semblance of credibility. Rules about eating meat, doing your Easter duties, getting kids baptised as quickly as possible for fear of eternal Limbo, and the rules on contraception, etc., have to be slackened, not through any enlightenment on the Church's part (there's not much of that in a setup that makes saints out of evil buggers like John-Paul II and Mother Teresa) but because the rules lose the Church more and more credibility as the rest of the world progresses. It started with Galileo, or even earlier, carried on with Darwin and keeps on going, as pews empty, to this day. The Catholic Church is infamous for lagging behind, what with its men of marble at the helm. We will have gay marriage, we will have women priests, we will have married priests, we will have free contraception, we will have women's right to choose, oral sex and masturbation will be virtuous and none of anybody else's business. Especially the business of unmarried men in frocks. You embrace these modern things, the right things, or you lose your Church. Make your minds up and do it quickly and with good grace.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 07:17 PM

"Dearest Steve"

Patronise me at your peril, Holy Joe. I don't take kindly. OK?

"we're all enlightened people here"

Enlightened people don't believe in God, I'm afraid.

" I don't think anyone here has argued that religious people are special or that they have a monopoly on virtue. "

No but you don't half go on about your sacred treasures, etc., and get cross when we demur. That means you think you have something special. Take it from me, you don't.

"But all deserve to be respected and tolerated,"

I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe. I believe in a good deal of nonsense myself, as it happens. But I don't foist Liverpool FC on you. You foist your nonsense on other people - and tell them that it contains deeper truths. That's just wicked. And that does not only not deserve respect, it deserves the strongest possible condemnation.

"All have something to contribute to the diversity of this world."

Your faith militates against the understanding of the beauty and diversity of this world by imposing a terrible and useless explanation on it. The best thing you could ever do to contribute to that understanding would be to consign your improbable God to the sidelines and, for a change, start searching for what's really true.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 07:51 PM

.. so just how long ago was the Age of Reason and Enlightenment....????

"God is dead"

"If God does not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."


etc.. etc.. etc...

It's well over 3 decades ago since I was getting a good education attending seminars, and writing essays on all that stuff
in Moral Philosophy modules of my Degree....

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 09:01 PM

Steviebaby sez: Well, I think that the Church has to move goalposts constantly in order to try to retain some semblance of credibility.

That's right, Steve. Changing our thinking with the times is something we all have to do, isn't it? If our thinking gets stale, we die.

...and go round and round in the circle game.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 09:23 PM

Sad to know I let my mind stagnate through lack of stimulation - the overwhelming distracting problems of life at the arse end of the economic scale...

.. so I'm finding this thread an excellent refresher course...

cheers mudcat mates....

Just set the timer to record a Discovery / History channel docudrama about Judas.. The bit I saw earlier looked very good.

I really do think the betrayal and execution story is excellent drama.
Whether entirely fictional, or inspired by fragments of a true story,
it's powerful and tragic..

Like I said before, I enjoy the tradition of watching a Jesus movie at easter time.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 09:25 PM

And, dearest Steve, in case you didn't get the hint, insulting my religious tradition is something that I consider to be seriously rude and offensive. Despite your protestations that in Great Britain, such insults are considered to be friendly banter, I don't think most Britons would agree.
In the U.S. and in most countries, insulting another person's religious tradition is considered to be in bad manners and bad taste, comparable to insulting the person directly. If you don't understand that, perhaps you'd better learn. I'm quite sure the same holds true in Great Britain. If you want to ask me specific and non-insulting about my religious tradition, that's one thing. If you want to insult what you think to be my religious tradition, that's offensive.
Whether you like it or not, there are a huge number of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other religious traditions in the world. Some of those people may actually possess more wisdom than you have. In the interest of world peace and harmony, it behooves you not to insult them, even though [surprise, surprise!] you may not think the same way they do .
Thank you very much.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 10:19 PM

"And, dearest Steve, in case you didn't get the hint,"

What hint?

"insulting my religious tradition is something that I consider to be seriously rude and offensive".

Bad luck. As you know, I consider that religion deserves all the ridicule and offence it gets, which is never enough. And you have no right not to be offended.

" Despite your protestations that in Great Britain, such insults are considered to be friendly banter, I don't think most Britons would agree."

I have never made any such protestation. Stay accurate and keep cool, Joe, is my advice.

"In the U.S. and in most countries, insulting another person's religious tradition is considered to be in bad manners and bad taste, comparable to insulting the person directly. If you don't understand that, perhaps you'd better learn."

Well too bad. Thank goodness we no longer burn people at the stake or cut off their heads for heresy, eh? Cor, that would solve a problem or two!

"I'm quite sure the same holds true in Great Britain. If you want to ask me specific and non-insulting about my religious tradition, that's one thing."

I don't need to ask you. As you may glean, I'm reasonably knowledgeable about Catholicism already.

"If you want to insult what you think to be my religious tradition, that's offensive."

I'm sure you're man enough to handle it. Eight years in a seminary should have provided you with all the answers to cope with an ignorant heathen such as myself. :-)

Keep calm and carry on proselytising!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 12:52 AM

That's too bad, Steve. If you feel you must talk about religious faith in a combative manner, then I can't talk with you. When I was growing up, I heard all sorts of stuff about defending my faith and dying for my faith, and I didn't quite buy it.

Nowadays, there are neoconservative "apologists" who are experts in doing battle in religious discussions, and they disgust me because their view of faith is shallow, legalistic, and combative - just like yours. When people like you try to box me into a corner to force me to do combat, that turns my stomach.

I have no desire to defend my faith. I only want to live it. It's the tradition I grew up in, and I like it. It's part of me.

You and Musket and Dave the Gnome and a few others are here for only one purpose: to wage war.

You make me sick, all of you.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 04:27 AM

Why bring me into your argument with Steve, Joe? I do not think I have done anything untoward on this thread have I? Why bring Musket into it? He has not even posted here. Seems rather like you have no real answers so you launch a personal attack. Just who is it waging this war? I guess the next action will be to have the last word and then close thread...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 04:56 AM

There have been so many such threads.
Those Joe mentioned have certainly taken the same belligerent, intolerant position as Steve many, many times before.

(Or will you distance yourself from it now Dave?)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:02 AM

" I have no desire to defend my faith. I only want to live it. It's the tradition I grew up in, and I like it. It's part of me"

A problem some people on this site have is that most, if not all, religions seeks to set parameters to how even non believers have to live their lives. They seek the opportunity to indoctrinate children into their way of thinking, they seek to control who we can have sex with and the way in which that sex is conducted. They seek to control our lives. Full stop. They tell us fairy tales which they cannot justify and when the stupidity of those are exposed they move the goalposts and say we didn't actually mean that bit ........... here's a new bit.

You can do as you please Joe and good luck to you, but please don't try to pass on your belief to other people it is superfluous in an enlightened age.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:36 AM

"enlightened age" (surely some mistake? Ed).

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:39 AM

There have been so many such threads.

I thought we were discussing an Easter question. There have not been many such threads about that. Are you saying it is acceptable to bring a persons previous posting history into play instead of addressing the actual points involved?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:44 AM

Sorry Akenaton I should have remembered that there are people here who are not, and never will be, enlightened.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:52 AM

Raggytash :0)......but I was actually referring to the current attitudes on abortion and same sex relationships which you alluded to and which are far from "enlightened"

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 06:02 AM

This is very disappointing. As ever, I tend aim my fire at Catholicism in general, mostly confining criticism of individuals to "if the cap fits." Joe comes back after a weekend mini-break (perhaps he missed seeing some of the light-hearted banter that went on while he was away) and before you know it his guns are ablaze, calling me patronising names (gosh, I was a bit weak there with my Holy Joe riposte...) and misrepresenting me (actually, if anything, worse than that: ascribing remarks to me that I've never made). Now he drags Dave in to boot, and he goes for Musket, who hasn't posted for over a week to the thread, and even then hardly in the warlike manner Joe indicates. Keith then wades in and tries to up the ante by confusing belligerence and forthrightness. You have it in a nutshell, Raggytash. And it's significant that the breach of the peace comes from the religious "side." They sure seem to be missing those heresy laws. Bad form, chaps. You can't discuss the pros and cons of religion with believers in one corner and dissidents in the other without being forthright. But you can retain your dignity and cool. That's what we're supposed to be doing in the brave new world, no?

I'll say it again for your benefit, Joe Offer: you don't have to defend your faith in front of me. I've lost count of the number of times I've defended your right to believe what you like, including in this very thread. It's entirely your business. When you decide to propagate it as faith to other people, it might become ours. If you choose to discuss your beliefs in the open, you can expect comeback. Your extensive training should enable you to handle that with a cool head. That's the only place I'm coming from.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 06:50 AM

Oh dear. I had an idea that starting this thread (albeit lightheartedly) would end in acrimony and unpleasantness.

I agree that one can discuss and put forward a viewpoint about someone's religion or atheism in a robust way. Airing views is interesting.

I don't agree that one can be insulting (yes there are insults on this thread) unkind, vituperative or scathing.

I was really enjoying the posts on here, thinking how lovely that we can all entertain each other for over 200 posts and talk about subjects very dear to our hearts without becoming nasty. It was looking as if the whole thread could dance along in the spirit of friendliness, as the topics in the Music Section above usually proceed.

But no. Same as usual. I feel very sad and a bit ashamed that I started all this!

I'm sorry Joe that you feel your religious beliefs have been rudely disparaged. I have every respect for all religions (including my husband's Islam) and I also quite see how atheists come to their conclusions about a non-provable belief system. I don't think anyone has been patronising on here, but maybe I have been rather flippant about some of the stories in the Bible. If so,I'm truly sorry.

I'm a bit naive to have thought that the new rule about being a member would make this section more gentle and friendly, without detracting from the high level of discussion I've always enjoyed.

Ah well, "Dew yew keep on a-troshing tergether..."

(Norfolk for 'onwards and upwards')

Senoufou

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 07:03 AM

Senoufou, you have every reason to be flippant about stories in the bible. They are just that, stories. I used to like Hansel and Gretel but I wouldn't base my life on it.

The story I like most from the bible is about Moses and his motorbike.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 07:37 AM

Well I did think that "dearest Steve" (twice, once after my protestations) and "Steviebaby" were patronising and hardly designed with keeping the peace in mind.   If it's about setting a tone, that isn't the way to do it. I've attacked ideas on this thread, not individuals. And I've said what my ideas are, and you're free to attack them back. That is the way it should be. Instead, Joe, you accuse us of caricaturing religion and say it's like having a conversation with Donald Trump. You referred to "my protestations that in Great Britain, such insults are considered to be friendly banter, I don't think most Britons would agree" when I never said any such thing, or anything like it. You don't like religion threads, that's clear. But try not to have us thinking that you're out to shut them down just because you feel got at. The only thing that's sacred to me is the truth, and the only path to truth I see is via evidence and reason. I don't have a naturally thick skin but I find that helps.

And Dave, where's me bloody ten bob!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 07:52 AM

:-D Did you not get it? A very nice man in Nigeria said that if I sent him my bank details he would get it to you! Can't trust anyone nowadays.

Talking of which, isn't there something in the bible stories about bearing false witness? Or is it wearing false fishnets? I can't remember.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 07:57 AM

And, Eliza. Don't worry. It happens all the time. I have opened threads on the most innocuous subjects only to watch them turn into bar room brawls. At least yours is still open! Keep yer pecker up. Or maybe that can be controversial too..? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 07:58 AM

Steve, you have joined the other "usual suspects" for years in ridiculing those of us who have a faith, in fact you have often been the instigator of such ridicule.

Personally I find myself unable to accept large portions of religion like the rising from the dead or an afterlife. I do see the value of a moral code while we are alive.

However I do not see the need to ridicule those who do chose to have a religious faith and if I were to write on issues that I am opposed to as you and your friends do on religion,you people would be the very first to complain and start name calling.
"men in frocks", "your invisible friend", "religious child abuser" may seem funny to you, but to people of faith, they are extremely insulting.   As you have no way of proving any of the charges you make against believers, I suggest you leave them to believe what makes them better people.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 08:07 AM

"men in frocks" = Men wearing vestments that can be described as frocks.

"your invisible friend" = Has anyone seen god? Is it visible?

"religious child abuser" = There are plenty about.

As you have no way of proving any of the charges you make against believers,

Errr, I think I just did.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 08:09 AM

Tell you what Akenaton, I'll stop when religion ceases to have an input on my life in any way, shape or form. Until then I retain to right to slag it off as I see fit.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 08:34 AM

What do you mean, those of us who have a faith? I thought you were an atheist!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 09:04 AM

By "us" I mean members of this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 09:14 AM

My brother in law is a full time pro evangelical minister with his own church and congregation.
I'd guess I'd probably have not his first choice for seducing his sister away from the flock

[..errrr....but she did seem very keen and an enthusiastic learner...]

I meet him every now and then for family gatherings I can't get out of,
and I've seen him preaching and speachifying...

He's a decent sharply intelligent bloke with a very funny sarcastic sense of humour.

I'm aware of some of his fixed church views on certain keycontentious issues.

But away from his job, at family meals or restaurants we get on ok, as we never have discussed religion.

On the other hand one of the other ministers who proceeded over the wedding of my wife's nephew,
was a very nasty hostile piece of work.. instantly dislikable in his intolerance.
His sermon at the wedding even had believers cringing and wincing...
He definitely made it clear how much he he despised 'feminists' when outlining the wifely virtues...

I wish I had a recording of that vile shite's sermon for evidence, because it still leaves a bad taste when I think of it...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 09:18 AM

Raggytash, what particular aspects of religion have an impact on your life?....Religion has no impact on my life.
I can choose which parts to accept and which to reject.
If I choose to reject it all I am at liberty to do so.
I do not feel the need to ridicule those who think differently.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 09:24 AM

PFR Misogyny is not confined to members of the clergy. I myself have been accused of being a misogynist by a very intelligent member of this forum, because I did not believe Mrs Clinton was "Presidential material"

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 09:30 AM

Religion has no impact on my life. I can choose which parts to accept and which to reject.

How do you reject Sunday trading laws? Or the 26 unelected Bishops that sit in house of Lords and decide our fates? Or the fact that some of our national holidays are of religious significance?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 09:40 AM

Or the numerous radio and TV programmes every day or Cameron spouting on about a Christian country we all live in (which incidentally is nonsense, how many "Christians" actually attend a church)or swearing the bible in a court of law. I could go on, at length but it's all been said before.

Religion is deeply engrained in our daily life whether you accept it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 09:41 AM

"proceeded"... ????

of course I meant to type "presided"....

I need a strong mug of black tea.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 09:48 AM

I remember the euphoria of Tony Blair becoming prime minister... until he publicly declared he was a christian...

Cameron's recent televised tripe about us being a christian country had me shouting at the telly like a lefty Alf Garnett... 😠

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:13 AM

Dave,

I thought we were discussing an Easter question.

Not for some time. The thread was made into another anti religion bash.

Are you saying it is acceptable to bring a persons previous posting history into play instead of addressing the actual points involved?

Previous posting history on the current issue, yes of course.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:20 AM

"The thread was made into another anti religion bash"

Perhaps then you can start to understand how those of us who do not subscribe to any given religion feel about the constant, incessant, unrelenting religious battering we get on a daily basis.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:23 AM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:23 AM

Sorry Keith. I forgot that you kept a set of secret rules just for these purposes. Using the phraseology from another thread, my bad.

Tell me something though. Does it not get a bit boring playing a game that only you know the rules for?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 10:38 AM

Raggytash, the things you mention don't impact on my life at all.
They may make some people slightly annoyed, but "impact", isn't that a bit strong?
What sort of life is damaged by such an impact?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 11:04 AM

A very serious impact of religion on millions of people's lives is what is unashamedly my biggest beef with religion. Tiny babies are signed up into religions the world over. No choice there. Typically, they will spend the next decade and a half, or more, being force-fed the dogma of their parents' particular faith. This will be reinforced strongly by religious miseducation in schools and by clerics performing religious rituals in religious buildings in which the children will be told that mythology is the unalloyed truth and will be made to chant prayers or sing hymns which are full of certainties. No choice there either. Now many of us who went through all this (and my personal experience was relatively benign compared to many) managed to shake it off as adults. Many do not. Any choice they may have in the matter is swept under the carpet. Next time you speak to a Muslim, ask them what the penalty is for apostasy, then still tell me if you think they have free choice.

Organised religions depend on this early-life recruitment. Of all the disagreeable aspects of religion, that must be by far the worst (at least since they stopped burning people at the stake for heresy or imprisoning scientists). We are confronted by obscene terminology such as Muslim children, Catholic children and Protestant children. But without it there would be no organised religion to speak of. Very few adults in their right minds who had been properly educated, as opposed to brainwashed, would willingly sign up. Otherwise intelligent and caring parents see nothing wrong with their children being taught that the faith they themselves happened, by sheer accident of birth, to be born into is the only true one.   

In the above I have not parodied or caricatured religion. There is no ridicule and there is no personal attack. I have not said that it's wrong to have belief. When I say these things, as so often I do, the usual response from believers is shifty denial. Seldom is any convincing justification put forward for these scurrilous practices. My view is that they know that there isn't any justification, but it doesn't seem to matter to them because their religious practices with their children, no matter how morally shaky, are generally wrapped up inside a warm and fuzzy community ethos. Well to me that isn't right. In fact, it's abusive. Free choice, which religion fears, would consist of neutral and comprehensive education about world religions, which I'd heartily support, and a no-pressure invitation to sign up as adults only. The right thing, but zero chance of it ever happening.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 11:05 AM

Hell, Dave, the Professor doesn't know the rules of his OWN game!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 11:35 AM

Well in my world, I know of no one who is forced to practice religion, or to think Christianity is the only or true religion.

Where I live and I suppose the rest of the UK one can choose religion or reject it, personally I think there is good and bad in religion, but the good certainly outweighs the bad.
I know a few atheist/agnostic families where one or more of the children have turned to a faith based life and some devout families who's children have rejected religion.

I think perhaps you have got the whole issue completely out of proportion, obsessiveness can eventually become a serious problem when there is nothing to reinforce it.
It is surely all a matter of personal choice, after all, "faith" is not about to make anyone ill?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 11:58 AM

Faith is not about to make anyone ill? It can make you very ill if you happen to be a member of the wrong faith in the wrong place!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 12:28 PM

It's perfectly clear that my post went right over your head, akenaton. Try listening, but failing that don't bother to respond.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 12:34 PM

I walked into towwn for a pint. I passed one defunct catholic church, I could see aan abbey and protestant I church saw three union flags on this bit. I crossed the bridge aand could see another catholic church and another two protestant churches. Two English flags and a Scottish soltaire. I then passed aa methodist church and a c of e chapel. In the pub they are selling abbey ale and when I sneezed three people said bless you

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 01:55 PM

As you say, Steve, you make that argument frequently and consistently. And we disagree. And we both know where that leads.

So for a change of perspective, don't you think we also indoctrinate children with other beliefs - consumerism, patriotism, free markets and the like, which can also have huge impact? Are they also abusive? I don't see anything as many posts about those.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 02:02 PM

Firstly apologies for the typing on the previous post. My android is contrary to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 02:04 PM

Maybe we need reports and evidence from mental health researchers
as to which of these institutionalised forms of societal indoctrination
are significant factors in most prevalent diagnosed mental health problems... ???

I might risk betting that religion screws up more individuals...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 02:05 PM

Keith, I am not in the least surprised by your post of 10.23. In fact it was everything I expected of you.









Isn't religion a wonderful, all embracing thing. A delight to behold in all it's golden glory.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 02:21 PM

don't you think we also indoctrinate children with other beliefs - consumerism, patriotism, free markets and the like, which can also have huge impact? Are they also abusive?

Yes.

But that doesn't mitigate the role of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 02:31 PM

That's nice and clear, Greg.i agree it doesn't mitigate the role of religion. But we have discussed that to death. What's your explanation of why we ignore all the other things you consider child abuse?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 03:25 PM

"As you say, Steve, you make that argument frequently and consistently. And we disagree."

There are lots of arguments embedded, not just the one. It's typical of the defensive Christian to lump them together dismissively. Unfortunately, that is exactly what your post does. "Frequently and consistently." Gosh, you sound almost bored. And why NOT frequently and consistently? One day I may just get an honest response that doesn't waffle about deeper truths and things held sacred and that what Christians do to the children who are future of this planet is none of my business. But you absolutely don't owe it to me. Just like I don't owe it to you to stop making what I consider to be a fair case against the terrible harm that religion does to people.

"And we both know where that leads"

That is just negative. I'm happy to keep making the case. You're free to ignore. Look what's happened on this probably-doomed thread. Who's set the tone for the crash to come? It does not have to happen. Everyone here is free to rise above the crap. You, me and Joe, right? "We both know where that leads" almost sounds like a threat.

"So for a change of perspective, don't you think we also indoctrinate children with other beliefs - consumerism, patriotism, free markets and the like, which can also have huge impact? Are they also abusive? I don't see anything as many posts about those."

I absolutely couldn't agree more. Pity you're not here to hear me burbling on incessantly to Mrs Steve about exactly all those things. Unfortunately, I don't usually start threads. I suppose that makes it my fault that we don't discuss 'em enough. My wrist is considering itself slapped.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 03:49 PM

Of the 3 you mention,cousin McGnome, I would only class patriotism as coming close to indoctrination and to that to any child is wrong. The other 2 are economic constructs which, as a child, I had neither clue nor interest in. When I began to study economics and politics at around 16 we were taught consumerism, free markets, socialism, communism and everything in between. If religion was taught in such a comparitive way I would have no issue. I am told it is now like that now but, like Steve, I was brought up in 1950s Catholicism and, prior to that, Russian Orthodoxy. I would like to say it did me no harm but some would agree to differ ;-) I wouldn't like to risk it happening to my own children and grandchildren so, I hope, I gave them the wherwithall to make up their own minds. Seems to have worked out OK.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 05:20 PM

I wasn't being dismissive, or lumping arguments together, and I was certainly not being threatening, Steve. The "we know where that leads" comment was simply observing past history. You yourself said "when I make these points, as I frequently do" and i was just agreeing with you. I also acknowledged your consistency.. (Consistently is not the same as constantly, obviously). As for boredom, I admit to that, because I don't think I have read anything especially new on this topic on mudcat for some years.

Which is why I made the point that actually we indoctrinate children all the time in lots of different ways, so it is interesting why we only ever seem to address one form.

I think I'd take up punkfolkrocker's bet, because you can't just look at individuals. You have to think of things like smog in cities because of overuse of cars (because, after all, we've got the money so why shouldn't we have a car?.) Maybe ISIS will prove me wrong by grabbing nuclear weapons somehow, but I would think out-of-control consumerism is more likely to damage us as a species than religion.


Dave of the Gnomish qualities: I did not mean we are formally teaching consumerism in
Economics lessons in schools: I meant how every advert, many children's programmes and, of course, adult example teaches children to be avid consumers. Schools, if anything, are one of the few forces trying to hold this back by encouraging children to "think green" but it is them against the rest of society.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 06:01 PM

Aye, there is that. One of my proudest moments was when my second eldest was about 14 and he refused to wear a branded tracksuit:-) Surely it is not beyond the wit of other parents to instill the same ethos?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 06:06 PM

" As for boredom, I admit to that, because I don't think I have read anything especially new on this topic on mudcat for some years."

You're supposed to wade in, not just read. Never admit to boredom. You have the choice to avoid threads that bore you. Yet here you are, commenting on issues that you say bore you. You love it really! Read what people say. It isn't all the same. There's nuance, There's different angles. There's always a lot to learn.

Start threads on those other issues. I'll be right with you. But this thread is about religion and I didn't start it!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 06:20 PM

just some idle thoughts.. again back to my student days in the early 80s....

In literature, plays, movies, etc... frequently encountered characters were "lapsed catholics":
driving the drama though angst, bitterness, confusion, guilt, etc, they were suffering...

What ever the situation, scenario of the dramatic story, they certainly didn't seem to be very happy people...

Maybe a lot of writers of fiction were catholics...???

Irrespective of denomination..
I recall religious guilt as being very problematic for characters dealing with adolescent confused sexuality..

"Oranges are not the only Fruit" being a notable example..

In a 1960s - 80s culture where I grew through various forms of brainwashing,
religion seemed to me to be the most overt form of attempted control..
thankfully offset to some extent by popular media presenting stories and characters fighting back against it....

If I was 35 years younger I'd be able to knock off a 2000 word essay on this between now and tomorrow breakfast,
get on my bike, and hand it in to the lecturer 2 mins before deadline... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Apr 16 - 06:43 PM

What's your explanation of why we ignore all the other things you consider child abuse?

'Cause nobody starts a thread on 'em? Be my guest.   ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 02:24 AM


You're supposed to wade in, not just read. Never admit to boredom. You have the choice to avoid threads that bore you. Yet here you are, commenting on issues that you say bore you.

The boredom comes from the predictability of the responses, and counter-responses, and counter-counter-responses.   There are other ways of avoiding boredom, such as raising an aspect that we haven't discussed before, such as, for example, why one form of indoctrination is discussed all the time and others are completely ignored.

It's a bit too easy to say I could raise threads on these other aspects, or that this thread is about religion. Of course I could do so. But that does not address the issue why there is such a disparity in the behaviours. A thread could be on any topic and if some people see a legitimate reason to reference what they see as religious child abuse they will do so. I am not objecting to that. If it is legitimate, bring it in. But they (almost) never throw in that they think the US is indoctrinating children with its daily pledge of allegiance, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 06:21 AM

Well way back in the dim and distant past I DID rail against that as a matter of fact.

The reason we home in on Catholicism or Christianity is because that happens to be the background of most people here. I can read about Islam, for example, but I haven't had that lifelong learn-as-you-go immersion in it that would enable me to comment on it as fruitfully as I can on the faith that was foisted on me from birth. I'm guessing that that applies to most people here. I'm not scared of talking about Islam, but I wonder how many people here would feel comfortable as rank outsiders in extensively criticising its practices on this forum. I doubt that the mods would love us for doing that either. We talk more about Christianity because, to some degree, most of us are insiders.

Incidentally, one of the absurdities of religion is the routine enforced chanting of prayers. At school we did the morning offering, grace before meals and one or two others that escape me now. At my secondary school one Salesian brother even had us doing the Angelus if we happened to be in his lesson at noon. I can say with considerable confidence that absolutely none of it ever stuck with any of us. It was no more than inane jumping through hoops. I see the US pledge in the same way. These things shouldn't happen but they're hardly going to deprave or corrupt their victims. Religion, so adept at loading guilt on to people and making escape difficult, has far more insidious ways of exerting control.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 06:22 AM

Grrr.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 08:03 AM

An interesting article here.

Article

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 08:04 AM

I was born at the very end of the 1950s - a child of the swinging/hippy 60s..
a teenager of the glamrock / punk rock 70s...

I at least benefited from growing up in an era of progressive counter culture and radical politics..
Those extramural influences of lurid exciting popular culture which made it easier to see a different approach to life
than the authoritarian conformist brainwashing at school and in mainstream society & culture....

We thankfully no longer suffered National Service to make us get our hair cut and form us into compliant obedient militarised model citizens,
but we did have to endure the pernicious attempts of prominent organised right wing christian pressure groups
forcing their restrictive beliefs upon us
by their constant lobbying of government, press and media.

The likes of reactionary figure heads like Mary Whitehouse, may have been laughing stocks to us punk rock teenagers,
but she did wield real power over what we could or couldn't try to do in personal relationships and artistic expression....

Yes we can laugh now at christian parent groups picketing Sex Pistols Concerts,
but we had our own local petty version in our small town who did her best to close down our events and venues
and quell any positive 'insurrectional' freedom of expression..

we were just teenagers with electric guitars.. not anarchist bomb plotters fer f@cks sake !!!???..

Yes I was lucky my parents refused to have me christened and send me to church every Sunday.

But the religious right status quo still got to me at school with relentless subtle and not so subtle brainwashing.
So I still had my unfair share of worries and confusion about afterlife and eternal damnation to contend with until into my early 20s..

The Degree I chose to study concentrated on Ideology - theories and concepts of influence and control..
So up until my mid 30s I was something of an 'expert' on the topics churning up in this thread...

But i gradually caved in to the pressures of life and self numbed my intellect as a coping mechanism...

That's why [as I said a day or 2 ago] I find this thread a very useful and healthy refresher course....


btw.. sorry for this long freeform ramble, but I'm bored waiting in for an amazon logistics delivery..

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 08:56 AM

There are certainly a lot of "the religious right" but we need to be careful in our assumptions: I am definitely on "the religious left" being a Labour party member and currently mulling over whether I can afford the dent in my leave allowance to attend conference this year..

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 10:28 AM

sorry.. for the tendency to overlook christian socialists..
mostly because my awareness of religious folk tends to be the vociferous right wing christian establishment who believe they still run society....

[oh.. what.. they do !!!]

Out of interest, do some traditionalist monarchists genuinely believe the queen rules by divine right
and that royalty are a direct bloodline back to god !!!???

.. and.. If I was a young bloke now.. who'd might find a life in the military quite fulfilling..

what about all that swearing allegiance to crown and god..!!!???

Would I be refused entry if I said no thanks... ???

Could my dad have got off national srevice if he'd insisted he was an atheist ???

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 02:45 PM

Out of interest, do some traditionalist monarchists genuinely believe the queen rules by divine right
and that royalty are a direct bloodline back to god !!!???

No.

.. and.. If I was a young bloke now.. who'd might find a life in the military quite fulfilling.

Many do. All volunteers.

what about all that swearing allegiance to crown and god..!!!???

Would I be refused entry if I said no thanks... ???

Of course. You have to volunteer.

Could my dad have got off national srevice if he'd insisted he was an atheist ???

No.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 03:18 PM

Sez Joe 03 Apr 16 - 05:51 PM : But yes, there are exceptions - lots of them.

Jeez, Joe - looks like those exceptions are increasing exponentially!

-----

Weeks after moving to name a high-powered rifle as the official gun of Tennessee, lawmakers in the state are keeping alive their prolific tradition of declaring official state designations by passing a bill that would make the Bible the state's official book.


>Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 03:35 PM

..just to clarify - now I'm older and more experienced.. I'm not actually anti military..

Some aspects of army life appeal..

The question I was aiming at is would a healthy young keen committed volunteer
be rejected if he/she requested to abstain from any religious oath of allegiance to the monarch ???


Plus, I reckon my dad would have paid lip service to any old bollocks oath
because he was that excited about joining the RAF
and having a chance to play with all the toys...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 03:45 PM

Interesting question. According the Wikipedia:

All persons enlisting in the British Army and the Royal Marines are required by the Army Act 1955 to attest to the following oath or equivalent affirmation:

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 04:01 PM

Yet the good Lord is alleged to have said to let your speech be yea and nay nay.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 04:02 PM

Not enough yeas there.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 04:14 PM

The Queen loves you, yea, yea, yea...??? 👑

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 16 - 08:25 PM

I'm relieved you used a capital Q there. 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 01:01 AM

...errrrm.. well I had second thoughts about the first instant draft version of that daft gag...

..jesus loves you, yea, yea, yea....



not that he was ever as popular as the beatles of course.. 😇


[that one is for John Lennon fans]

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 02:58 AM

Jesus loves me,
That I know.
Good old Jesus!
Jolly good show!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 06:04 AM

We used that Cockney ending to songs (you know, diddle iddle dah dah - BOM! BOM!) for the end of the Lord's Prayer. "Life everlasting - Amen!"
But our Brown Owl overheard us once and was Very Cross. No dancing round the toadstool for us that night.

I also remember several very irreverent Christmas Carols, which are no doubt on the music database here. One was very Norfolk as it had Anglia Square (a shopping centre in Norwich) in the verse:-

'We three kings of Anglia Square
Selling ladies' underwear.
They're fantastic, no elastic,
Seventy pence a pair...'

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 08:50 AM

1955 was a long time ago.
The oath required in court was like that then.

The forces now recruit people from all religions and none so that oath would no longer be acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 08:53 AM

BBC,

"The Royal Navy is the oldest of the three services, and it was established by the sovereign's prerogative. For that reason, recruits have never been required to swear allegiance, but they do sign an attestation or engagement form on entry. The same applies to the Royal Marines.

For the rest of the armed forces, including the British Army and the Royal Air Force, the oath includes swearing to God "that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty".


The Army and Air Force swear an oath, but Royal Navy recruits do not
Those with no religious belief can "solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm."

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 09:42 AM

The Wikipedia said the law requires that oath I quoted "or equivalent". Clearly.in time substitution of Charles for Elizabeth qill be equivalent and not need a revision to the law. I am sure other faiths and none are considered "equivalent" these days. But a committed republican dedicated to the support of parliament who couldn't bring himself to mention the Queen would, I think, be unable to join

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 16 - 09:22 PM

Steve Shaw says: Incidentally, one of the absurdities of religion is the routine enforced chanting of prayers. At school we did the morning offering, grace before meals and one or two others that escape me now. At my secondary school one Salesian brother even had us doing the Angelus if we happened to be in his lesson at noon. I can say with considerable confidence that absolutely none of it ever stuck with any of us. It was no more than inane jumping through hoops. I see the US pledge in the same way. These things shouldn't happen but they're hardly going to deprave or corrupt their victims. Religion, so adept at loading guilt on to people and making escape difficult, has far more insidious ways of exerting control.

Of course, there are alternate views, based partly on whether one sees such things as forced indoctrination, or colorful and beloved tradition. Especially in farming communities, the Angelus (The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary / That she would conceive by the Holy Spirit) is recited or chanted daily at 6 AM, noon, and 6 PM, to commemorate the annunciation to Mary of the coming birth of Jesus. In the Easter season, it is replaced by the Regina Coeli (Queen of Heaven rejoice / For he whom you deserved to bear / Has risen as he said.).

My wife and I visited a Trappist monastery in Northern California today, and heard the monks chant their noon prayers - a Psalm, a hymn, a scripture reading and opening and closing prayers. The abbey bell rang about ten minutes before prayers, and again as prayers were to begin. We counted 21 monks, interesting in their ordinariness. Some were in work clothes, in from working in the vineyards; and others were in habit. One was disabled, and rode in on a motorized scooter. They sang simply but beautifully. The service took ten to fifteen minutes, and then they all left to go back to what they were doing.

Just as it is with the 5-times-daily prayers of the Muslims, the idea behind such practices is mindfulness - taking time out of the day for a moment of peace to think about more than one's work and oneself. I suppose if one sees this as some sort of unwanted control, it might be repulsive. But others see it as a spiritual discipline meant to broaden one's life. I think both views have validity, but I prefer the latter. The monks seemed to like what they were doing, and I understand they make very good wine and beer when they're not praying.

I kinda liked the Angelus. When I was an altar boy, I sometimes got to pull the rope at noon and ring the big Angelus bell. When I was in the seminary, we prayed portions of the Liturgy of the Hours that monks pray at various times of the day. At the end of the day, we'd gather in the chapel for Compline, the ending prayers of the daily cycle. We'd gather outside the chapel and have a cigarette before prayers, and then we'd have another cigarette afterwards. I gave up smoking over 20 years ago (except for scrounging an occasional smoke from Dani, Jeri, Mick, or Janie at the Getaway). But when I heard the bell for prayers at the abbey today, I got a craving for a cigarette. Guess I could never be a monk. I'd start smoking again and die of lung cancer.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 02:24 AM

I've made many retreats with nuns in a C of E convent and the peace and reflection were very restorative. There were guests there who actually had no faith whatsoever, but came to experience the tranquillity, and think about any problems in their lives that the hurly-burly of everyday existence pushed aside.

Often, we were given a small natural object such as a shell or a feather, and asked to examine it alone out in the gardens, while 'being still' inside. I suppose the Buddhists have a similar meditation practice. (My niece is a Buddhist) The nuns were content for us to attend all their prayers in chapel (Matins, None, Terce, Sext, Compline etc) but it was voluntary. Meals were eaten in total silence. The whole retreat was in silence (only a brief address each morning by the Mother) and this too was bliss. I yack for Britain normally, and it made me relax and rest.

At no time did one ever feel constrained or forced to pray, or under the stern eye of a strict God. It was more like a spiritual jacuzzi.

My husband does his prayers at regular intervals daily. They only take a few minutes, but he finds it calming and centring.

Of course, an atheist could meditate in a similar way, without being in the presence of a God they have no belief in.

Each to his own.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:02 AM

As you say, Eliza, there need not be a god to become mindful. One piece of advice I did get from a Buddhist monk though was to be mindful of others as well as yourself. As you begin to meditate think why you are doing it, It is in most of our natures to perform better if we are doing it for someone else than if it is for purely selfish reasons. Nothing to do with divinity, just the simple wish to help others and the basic good in human nature. I hope :-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 07:35 AM

Ah yes, mindfulness. A whole new industry is popping up around this latest buzzword which has very little to do with Buddhism. Its moneymaking potential is summed up nicely in the word "McMindfulness." Beware.

Colourful and beloved traditions to take your mind off your troubles that involve chanting nonsense to non-existent deities or their mothers, especially when enforced in a formal or ceremonial setting, can't be justified. There are plenty of sensible alternatives. Do something different. Go for a walk on the beach or in the woods or just up a leafy street. Find a quiet spot, grab a cup of tea and read some poetry or listen to some Mozart, or just to the birds singing or the wind rustling the leaves. There is no need to invest any of these things with meanings other than what they simply are, because they're already wonderful enough in just being ordinary and familiar. Let your mind wander. It's perfectly possible to do that happily without thinking that your brain has to be filled with something, religious claptrap for example. In fact, it's a damn sight better. I don't care whether you call it meditation or not. It's a word I tend to avoid myself. I'm of this world, it's a wonderful world and I don't feel any compulsion to shut myself off from it. I can do that plenty enough in bed.

The Lark Ascending is playing on Radio 3 as I type this. Ineffably beautiful music, listened to with the April sunshine streaming into the room. Composed by an atheist too! I've had to interrupt the typing two or three times in order to listen a bit closer.   Beat that with your beloved religious chanting or silent prayer. I think not!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 07:45 AM

Aye, sorry Steve, mindfulness probably belongs in the 'Office jargon' thread. I must admit that I have no problem letting my mind wander. Quite the opposite - the bugger won't stay put! The bit of meditation I do tends to be to try and focus, usually on something as mundane as breathing. Always feel more relaxed after it anyway so I guess the rule is, do whatever is good for you :-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 09:18 AM

Well I can do that too, but I suppose one man's meditation is another man's navel contemplation. I often suspect that people who claim that they "meditate" a lot or who claim to be "spiritual" are often really saying that they think they have qualities or powers that mundane saddos like me lack, that they can somehow elevate themselves to some kind of higher plane (they're probably bloody vegans to boot). As I said, the world around us is wonderful enough as it is without my needing to levitate myself away from it into some inner depths of my cerebral cortex. There is a place for real mindfulness, I freely admit, but you won't find it on the personal pages of magazines and newspapers. It's rapidly becoming a word usurped.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 09:38 AM

"Arsefulness"

At least 15 minutes of quiet contemplative solitude in a small chamber of harmonious isolation.

Repeat as many times a day as required....

More so if if on a high fibre vegetarian diet..... 💩

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 10:15 AM

Heheh.

Last time I went to the dentist for a filling I told her I didn't want the anaesthetic. I wanted to transcend dental medication. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 02:07 PM

Steve Shaw says: There are plenty of sensible alternatives. Do something different. Go for a walk on the beach or in the woods or just up a leafy street. Find a quiet spot, grab a cup of tea and read some poetry or listen to some Mozart, or just to the birds singing or the wind rustling the leaves. There is no need to invest any of these things with meanings other than what they simply are, because they're already wonderful enough in just being ordinary and familiar. Let your mind wander. It's perfectly possible to do that happily without thinking that your brain has to be filled with something, religious claptrap for example.

All good suggestions. I do most of these things myself. Or, if one comes from a religious tradition, one can enjoy the religious practices of one's choice. Nothing wrong with that, either.

What I don't understand, is why it is so important for some people to find fault with what other people find worthwhile. I suppose it's some sort of "practice of cynicism" that makes one feel superior to lesser sorts. My children did that constantly when they were teenagers. Expounding on how stupid / inferior / ugly /whatnot other people were, somehow gave them self-esteem, I guess. I fail to see how such a practice is conducive to harmony among peoples.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 02:33 PM

I really don't know how many times people have to repeat this Joe.

People do not care what individuals believe themselves, that is your choice.

What we do care about is that you inflict your beliefs on others, mainly young people, and do not allow them the choice to decide for themselves.

The indoctrination of the various religions, not just Christianity, cannot be avoided. That is all we object to.

You, my friend, can believe whatever you wish but please do not try and coerce other people to believe the same.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 02:57 PM

Steve, hahahaha! I 'transcend dental medication' because I have intravenous sedation and come round remembering nothing. I'm terrified of dentists.
I recently had a series of MRI scans, where I was posted in to a very claustrophobic tunnel and had to lie perfectly still for 45 mins at a time, while weird noises of the SciFi variety assaulted my ears. I'd prepared beforehand how I would cope with this, and, partly to pass the time and partly to use it profitably, I prayed a series of prayers for all my friends and family members in turn. I also prayed for a bit of courage, as I was to be honest very scared, not least about what they might find in my brain. ('Not a lot, sunshine!' grinned my best friend.)
I felt very comforted and much stronger for this. The radiographer posted me out again, and asked if I was all right. I replied that I'd had a jolly good pray. He gave me that look that younger people always give to dotty old ladies.
My point is that while anyone might use meditation or 'mindfulness', I found a lot of peace in my prayers. As I said at the end of my last post - each to his own.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:09 PM

No, Raggy, you do not deride the beliefs of others, and I appreciate that. However, I have to disagree with your suggestion that children should not be raised in their parents' religious tradition.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:25 PM

Joe, if your faith is as good as you suggest it is surely people would be flocking to it. If it was the case, and it was that good, you might even find me and Steve knocking on the door.

Sadly that is not the case, is it.

Even someone as committed as yourself struggle to justify many of it's teachings.

If that is the case, as I perceive it to be, why does your faith (and most others) seek to indoctrinate young people before they have the opportunity to choose for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:39 PM

Because, Raggy, many people view faith as a tradition, a way of living - not as a list of doctrines to be imposed. Families can't raise their children in a vacuum, concealing their traditions lest those traditions offend outsiders. You're looking at faith as ideology. I'm saying that may not be an accurate perception of what faith is. Faith is a context within which people live their lives, explore the wonders and mysteries of life, and mark the joys and tragedies of life.

If I live a life of faith that is meaningful and not just a shallow ideology, how can I shelter my children from it? And why?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:51 PM

"You're looking at faith as ideology."......that is exactly the point Joe, these people are driven by ideology, and your crime in their eyes is that YOUR ideology contradicts theirs in a few instances.

No matter how much you try to placate them, or reassure them that you share their social and political views, it will mean nothing.
Your faith runs contrary to their social views and you are therefore guilty by association.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:53 PM

Sadly Joe, only yesterday I watched a serious discussion on Female Genital Mutilation, where a highly articulate and educated young American woman
used almost exactly the same line of argument to rationalise her own experience of being ceremonially 'cut' on family holiday in Africa;
and her enthusiasm for actively promoting the same cultural 'tradition' for future generations of young girls....

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 04:12 PM

Akenaton ............ Utter tosh, not only have you got the wrong end of the stick, you seem to have found it in a different forest.

Perhaps when you have something constructive to say you will share it with us.

Please note I am being polite.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 04:32 PM

Hi, PFR -

You make a good point there. Genital mutilation is a very hard question. I'd readily prohibit female genital mutilation, but what about male circumcision? I'm not ready to Ban the Bris, although I can see good reasoning to prohibiting all genital mutilation.

But genital mutilation is kind of on the extreme end of religious traditions. What about church bells that annoy some neighbors and are pleasing to others? Outdoor processions? Muezzin calling people to prayer? Grace before meals? Religious architecture?

And to take it out of the context of religion, what about other family and ethnic traditions that annoy others for one reason or another? Traditional dress, whether religious or not? The smells of foreign cooking?

It seems to me that most traditions add diversity and richness to society, even though some may consider them unenlightened. And when we attack traditions, we attack the people who treasure them.

But I don't have an answer on the question of genital mutilation.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 04:58 PM

"But genital mutilation is kind of on the extreme end of religious tradition"

Not at all Joe. Blowing other people up- maybe yourself included- to prove a religious point is far more extreme. And setting fire (or getting other people to set fire) to people who disagree with your religious interpretation is also more extreme.

I'd add that denying contraception to women, and also denying them abortion of unwanted pregnancies, is pretty extreme- at least as extreme as FGM.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 05:02 PM

Raggy says: Joe, if your faith is as good as you suggest it is surely people would be flocking to it.

I'm not so sure about that. I think it's a very healthy thing that society no longer requires people to practice a religion. It's far better if it's practiced only by those who value it.

And I'm not so sure popularity is a good indicator of the quality of something. In the U.S., people are joining evangelical megachurches in droves, deserting the so-called "mainline" religious traditions. Does that mean the evangelicals are better?

Catholics and most of the other "mainline" religious traditions no longer proselytize. They let people join on their own. Nonetheless, our congregation had 30 people become Catholic this Easter.

-Joe-

P.S. I'd tend to agree about abortion and contraception, Paul. And yes, of course explosives and burning are extreme. But there's a difference between outright condemnation and discussion of specific issues.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 05:14 PM

There are doubtless many appallingly cruel and inhumane practices performed in the name of religion, and I don't think anyone here could possibly defend them. My husband's sisters and cousins were all cut in a large group one day by a horrible old woman with a rusty razor blade. He says he'll never ever forget their terrible screams of pain. I've clarified the reason for their mutilation and it seems it was for Islam (ie not a 'cultural' thing, but a 'religious' one) It's illegal now in Ivory Coast, but in the remote villages it still happens.
And there have been mass suicides by members of a cult under the spell of their religious leader. Not to mention the self-torture by 'holy men' in India. There are endless examples.
I can't speak for others, but I have a very firm idea of what I will and won't do in the name of my particular faith. (See the 'purificator' fiasco I mentioned earlier) However, many adherents are vulnerable and gullible. What mother of a young girl would agree to having the child agonisingly mutilated unless she had been completely brainwashed by the members of her religious group? Or what parents would administer deadly poison to their infants en masse unless hypnotised to the point where all normality has gone?
It is this kind of abuse which shows that religion can be a very dangerous phenomenon.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 05:42 PM

There is nothing at all wrong with bringing children up in any tradition, Joe, as long as they are not taught that the tradition is the one true way and all others are wrong. My children were taught in Catholic schools but I made damn sure that they knew what the alternatives were and that what they were taught about god in school was not the absolute truth that some seem to think. I suspect both you and I, along with numerous others, have given our children the tools with which to think for themselves. A lot are not so lucky and that is what we must fight against at every opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 06:02 PM

"But there's a difference between outright condemnation and discussion of specific issues"

Indeed there is. The Catholic church can always escape outright condemnation because it can always cite specific issues. And of course because it's very rich in money and lawyers.

A hypothetical Really Nasty Islamic Bearded Darkskinned Foreign Religion, which has no possible comparison to Us, kills people for disagreeing with them unjustly, whereas the Catholic Church (which I was taught does not change, unlike the secular world) kiiled* people it did not like totally justly- indeed even for their own good.

* Actually the Catholic Church never executed anybody. Good Lord no. It was just that certain of the Churchmen, being totally filled with compassion for the errors of some dissident, recommended to the secular powers that they should be tied to a post and set on fire for their own good.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 06:27 PM

Found it on youtube...

BBC HARDtalk Female Genital Mutilation Discussion

The young advocate for FGM is all to attractively reasonable and persuasive - quite problematic to say the least...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 06:27 PM

Ah yes, those MRI machines. I've been through that endurance test three times. The first time, they played a CD I'd taken in through headphones. The sound quality was so terrible that it made the whole experience ten times worse. I managed without that facility on the other two occasions. I closed my eyes and semi-dozed both times. I was NOT going to open my eyes and stare at a ceiling three inches from my nose! I knew that I wasn't going to actually die and that was good enough for me. My barium enema and two lots of bowel endoscopy make for far more entertaining reading but that can wait!

Faith is a context within which people live their lives, explore the wonders and mysteries of life, and mark the joys and tragedies of life.

If I live a life of faith that is meaningful and not just a shallow ideology, how can I shelter my children from it? And why?

Faith is a very poor context for exploring the mysteries and wonders of life. Looming in the background of those explorations is a whole host of falsehoods which are there to prevent you from looking for what is really true, the most outrageous of which is the claim that a God exists who created everything and who can explain everything. This is such a terrible lie to be telling children. Your life of faith is no more meaningful than any life lived without faith, and is most likely far less meaningful because you are constantly perverting your search for truth. Your beliefs are indeed an ideology, otherwise you would fight the existence of religion in schools tooth and nail and insist that children were never told that what is actually mythology is the truth. But you don't, which strongly implies that your strong regard for your Catholic community and ethos are allowed to trump the truth. That's exactly what ideology is all about. Your efforts to put cosy and fluffy wrapping paper around it cut no ice.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 06:32 PM

I meant to say religious instruction in schools. I'm heartily in favour of teaching children about world religions, as I've said before.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 07:41 PM

And don't bother telling me that I used a plural where there should have been a singular. I know. I tried to tell Mrs Steve that not drinking on Thursdays was a bad idea.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 09:10 PM

right.. I just found this by pure chance.. don't shoot the messenger...

Back on topic of the Easter Story... sort of.. in an alterative cartoon universe..

WARNING: NOT CHILD OR PRUDE OR SENSITIVE CHRISTIAN FRIENDLY !!!


JUDAS & JESUS

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 16 - 09:20 PM

Paul Burke says: whereas the Catholic Church (which I was taught does not change, unlike the secular world)

Well, let's talk about that tomorrow. Pope Francis is supposed to release a document tomorrow, and I'm expecting significant changes.

And, interestingly, I was taught in a Catholic seminary that the Catholic Church is constantly changing.

Here's a link to a Univision poll of Catholics in five continents. I think you'll find that Catholics aren't as mindlessly obedient to church teaching as one might think.

http://www.univision.com/noticias/la-huella-digital/la-voz-del-pueblo/matrix

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 16 - 11:34 AM

Well you must be feeling very disappointed, Joe. Next to nothing, as expected, just some soft words. Let's face it, like other Popes he's a puppet on a string. No changes to doctrine, same old on gay marriage, even a bit of a negative or two on safe sex. As if he'd know.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Apr 16 - 12:03 PM

Catholics aren't as mindlessly obedient to church teaching as one might think.

Checked the website, Joe - & the question arises, if folks don't agree with and/or follow the teachings & tenets of the church to which they claim to belong --

Are they indeed Roman Catholics?

As opposed to, say, Unitarians or Pastafarians?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Apr 16 - 05:50 PM

Oy vey Joe, I was from an entirely Catholic milieu, but I didn't go to a seminary, so I only got to OTII. The Teachings of the Church may change in emphasis, but not in substance. There may be a completely different Catholic Church for the cognoscenti that I never learned anything about, but I wonder how many people know about that in the Favelas.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 16 - 06:03 PM

Good point, Paul. Not every Catholic lives In a cosy, middle-class American suburb. Not every Catholic has the advantage of a lengthy seminary education. I should think that the Pope's subtle nuances would be lost on quite a few Catholics in quite a few less prosperous nations.


Joe...?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Apr 16 - 06:31 PM


Well you must be feeling very disappointed, Joe. Next to nothing, as expected, just some soft words

This Guardian article finds more in it than that. True, it hasn't reversed the stance on some of the things we would both wish it had, but for example there are 'comments welcomed by some LGBT organisations' (but not others, of course). It also pushes a lot of decision making down to a local level, a decentralisation I approve of.

And I found these two paragraphs of the article interesting:

======
Peter Doyle, the chair of the bishops' committee for marriage and family life, said the document was "very exciting, embracing everyone whatever their situation. Some people will be disappointed that it is not full of black and white solutions, but as Pope Francis says every situation is different and needs to be approached with love, mercy and openness of heart."

Matthew McCusker, of the conservative organisation Voice of the Family, said there were "grave problems" with the document, which failed "to give a clear and faithful exposition of Catholic doctrine".

=====

Both sides speaking there about a topic we raise time and again and was implicitly in Greg F's recent post: the church rarely gives black and white rules, and it doesn't here. It is Catholic's responsibility to think through how the teachings apply to whatever situation they are in. Black and white absolutism is simply mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 16 - 06:44 PM

" It is Catholic's responsibility to think through how the teachings apply to whatever situation they are in."

Really? And exactly what proportion of the alleged billion Catholics on this planet know that?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Apr 16 - 06:55 PM

Or DO that.

And I don't mean to pick on Catholics - plenty of examples in other religions.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Apr 16 - 09:58 PM

I think the Pope was true to form in his statement that was published today. He emphasizes the primacy of conscience, and stays away from shallow legalism. If one views life in legalistic terms, this does become very complicated, because there are no black-and-white answers in difficult situations. There once was a system of moral theology called casuistry that tried to come up with black-and-white answers for every possible moral question. It was ridiculously complicated, and sometimes came up with ludicrously impossible answers. I'm glad they stopped teaching casuistry before I got into the seminary.

For most people, however, making moral decisions is fairly simple: stop and consider the situation, and then look into your heart and decide what you truly believe is the right thing to do - and then do that thing.

That's what the Pope is saying. I suppose there are "subtle nuances" involved in this method of decision making, but most human beings are capable of subtle nuances - unless they are bogged down in legalism and absolutism.

Warning: this line of thinking will not work for those who can only see black and white.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 02:21 AM


"It is Catholic's responsibility to think through how the teachings apply to whatever situation they are in."

Really? And exactly what proportion of the alleged billion Catholics on this planet know that?

[Then Greg]

Or DO that.

And I don't mean to pick on Catholics - plenty of examples in other religions.


Less than should, agreed. But you are right that it not just Catholics: all humans, of every belief and none, are liable to react to things based on preconceptions rather than the situation in front of them.

And how many know Catholics know that it their responsibility to do this? Well, it is stressed in this document for a start.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 03:12 AM

I think a huge and increasing number of people DO need guidance in their lives, if only to combat the "guidance" supplied by the media and the political system.

I don't agree Joe, that it can all be left to "conscience" or people doing the "right" thing, the playing field is far off the level for that especially where legislation is concerned.
The media for the most part now control how people think, few make up their own minds through "conscience" or any other reason.

It seems to me that "moral guidance" is more relevant today than at any other time in history.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 03:22 AM

Ah, but Joe, 'making moral decisions' is a minefield. Looking into one's heart and doing what one feels is right relies solely upon the mindset of one's 'moral compass'. Many have done what they considered 'the right thing to do' with utterly disastrous consequences. If it were all as simple as that, society would need no rules at all. The prisons would be empty and we'd be living in Utopia. My husband's poor female relatives were brutally mutilated because the head of the family (grandfather) thought 'it was the right thing to do'.

As part of my three-year MA degree, I spent a fabulous year studying Moral Philosophy as a module. One of the many topics we were asked to discuss was the need for rules, and whether there is such a thing as self-evident truth and the Absolute Good. The fact is, these ideas are nebulous and open to myriad interpretations. Religion, society and even family life needs structure, boundaries and controls, or everyone would be practising a sort of personal anarchy. The problem lies with which rules are applied. Every religion has its own list ('Do not put the purificator into the washing machine...') I tend to agree with Pope Francis in that I try to use my own common sense and ideas of what is right in my actions and decisions, but I can see only too well the pitfalls in this approach. I bet Hitler thought he was the saviour of Germany...

In our church (as in many) there's a huge pair of wooden boards up on the wall with the Ten Commandments writ large. As a basis for leading one's life they aren't all that bad, however it's the small things that need clarifying, but how?

When I pray I ask for 1) wisdom and 2) kindness. It sounds great, but whose wisdom? And what constitutes being kind? Giving a tenner to a begging drug-addict (so he can buy his next fix?) Not sending a violent man to prison 'because he's had a difficult childhood'. (Giving him the idea that his actions aren't terribly wrong?)
Whether one is an atheist or an ardent believer in some form of God, the ethics of daily life are almost impossible to navigate. And the older I get, the more I can see the problem!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 03:23 AM

Moral guidance is certainly necessary, Ake. That's one of the things I've done as a religious educator for children and adults for almost 50 years. But it's far better to teach and discuss moral principles and how to apply those moral principles, than it is to impose rules and expect people to obey them mindlessly.
People need to understand what they're doing and the implications of what they do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 03:53 AM

Let me go a little further. I think that true morality is based on logic, not on arbitrary rules. It is an attempt to explore the consequences of what we do - consequences to ourselves, to the people close to us, and to the wider community and the world and our environment. When I teach morality, I try to take people beyond rules and into doing something constructive and creative and positive.

Most people catch on, and the discussion can be lively and fruitful.

Morality can be fun.

Oh, and it applies to everyone, no matter what they believe.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 06:13 AM

I find it rather difficult to accept that those whose morality is predicated on their religious upbringing can safely be put the position of moral educators. Not the Pope, that's for sure, who endorses his own organisation's immoral teachings on birth control, contraception, sexual practices and abortion, and who rubber stamps lies about miracles and apparitions. I don't want any moral guidance from someone who peddles all that, thank you. Moral guidance emanating from religious belief has caused a huge amount of misery in this world. Religion and people of religion need to be severely kept out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 11:28 AM

Re keeping foreskins, I was told they were planted and nurtured till full grown and they then took their place in the house of commons

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 11:42 AM

Moral Philosophy was one of my favourite modules of my degree.
Probably the study which had most lasting impact on my personal outlook and understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 12:01 PM

then took their place in the house of commons

Not the Lords?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 12:19 PM

Now as a modern liberal minded progressive thinking kind of bloke,
I'd still be very reluctant to touch another man's penis for any reason..

[ok.. I had to once when working as an untrained hospital orderly, dumped in at the deep end..
A patient with both arms amputated needed to be taken for a piss..
.. of course we weren't issued disposable gloves - it was the early 80s..]

So it's 'interesting' how obsessed they were in once upon a time long ago Bible Land
with collecting bulk quantity foreskins from fallen enemy warriors...???

.. and that'd be manhandling the privates of dead soldiers who's knobs hadn't been anywhere near soap and water for who knows how long..
.. and in that desert heat...!!!

.. and you only have to think just how bad one modern day teenage boys bedroom can stink..

That certainly takes collecting as a hobby to obsessive extremes....????? 😬

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 16 - 03:53 PM

Don't think I'd want David living in MY neighborhood, PFR.

King or not, the guy had some real issues. And what would happen if he were to see my wife sunbathing?

-Joe-