 sj |
||
|
||
BS: An Easter Question
|
|
|
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. -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. |
