Catholic Outrage

[The Last Autobot]

Religion seems quite popular there. I guess there's not much else to do.

boredom leads to religion? good grief! at last things start to add up!!

When real life is interesting enough there's no need to go making stuff up all the time.

Or posting 24 hours a day in an internet forum?

[sprunkner]

Who gives a **** what the Catholics say? Honestly?

I dare you to shout that in downtown Belfast.

I've lived most of my life under the shadow of threat from a Catholic terrorist organisation. Still don't care. **** 'em.

Takes a while to get used to the idea of no trash cans in train stations.

[Legion]

I dare you to shout that in downtown Belfast.

I've lived most of my life under the shadow of threat from a Catholic terrorist organisation. Still don't care. **** 'em.

Takes a while to get used to the idea of no trash cans in train stations.

it creates jobs!

[Best First]

We in Hungary had the Turks here in power for 150 years, but they were mostly tolerant... mostly means that after the regular pillaging and mass murdering, they allowed the survivors to keep their catholic/protestant faiths, as long as they paid tax. Of course, those converting to islam got tax immunity, but only few did that (and they regretted it after the Turks were driven out...)

not much different to Christian rule through much of history is it?

[Metal Vendetta]

boredom leads to religion? good grief! at last things start to add up!!

When real life is interesting enough there's no need to go making stuff up all the time.

Or posting 24 hours a day in an internet forum?

My point exactly. It's like us demanding that Robot Chicken be taken off the air because it makes fun of Optimus Prime. Too much spare time can do strange things to people's priorities.

[BB Shockwave]

We in Hungary had the Turks here in power for 150 years, but they were mostly tolerant... mostly means that after the regular pillaging and mass murdering, they allowed the survivors to keep their catholic/protestant faiths, as long as they paid tax. Of course, those converting to islam got tax immunity, but only few did that (and they regretted it after the Turks were driven out...)

not much different to Christian rule through much of history is it?

Well, I said Turks, not Muslims. Really, without religion what do you think the various empires would have been like? The same, in green.

[Metal Vendetta]

Reading the TNT yesterday, it said that the viewing figures for this episode in New Zealand were 6 times higher than for any other episode this series. Evidently everyone wanted to see what they were supposed to be so outraged about.

[Obfleur]

Awesome

[Best First]

We in Hungary had the Turks here in power for 150 years, but they were mostly tolerant... mostly means that after the regular pillaging and mass murdering, they allowed the survivors to keep their catholic/protestant faiths, as long as they paid tax. Of course, those converting to islam got tax immunity, but only few did that (and they regretted it after the Turks were driven out...)

not much different to Christian rule through much of history is it?

Well, I said Turks, not Muslims. Really, without religion what do you think the various empires would have been like? The same, in green.

you talk explcitly about how faiths were treated and how converting provided certain advantages, to then go on and say religion has no bearing on the situation and an absence of it would not change anything is contradictory at best.

[The Last Autobot]

Reading the TNT yesterday, it said that the viewing figures for this episode in New Zealand were 6 times higher than for any other episode this series. Evidently everyone wanted to see what they were supposed to be so outraged about.

Well to criticize something you must experience -or know- about it.

Well, I said Turks, not Muslims. Really, without religion what do you think the various empires would have been like? The same, in green

Religion as a lot of other human things /manifestations is usually used as a scapegoat/excuse to hate others with a social support.

Fanatism of any kind is the real evil.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

chicken and the egg tho that really.

Religon is inherintly designed to controll the masses and evil, fantisism stems from religon because its based on myths and fairy tales.

[Bouncelot]

chicken and the egg tho that really.

Religon is inherintly designed to controll the masses and evil, fantisism stems from religon because its based on myths and fairy tales.

Nope. some forms of religion are designed to control the masses, other forms aren't. I'm currently in the middle of a book which is all about grace - one of the most central concepts of Christianity. It's written by an author who grew up in the Deep South in the 1960s where fundamentalism was used to justify race hatred and petty legalism. But the author escaped that culture by discovering the heart of Christianity - God's forgiveness for us when we don't deserve it. Discovering grace - which is essentially a religious thing - has freed him from the controlling version of religion he grew up with.

And there are plenty of non-religious forms of fanaticism out there, so the problem's hardly unique to religion.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Nope - its to controll masses, always has been, always will be.
Pretty much every historian on earth will tell you that.
you would have to come up with somthing of epic bible standard proportions to disprove that.
and unless you are god, you cant.

Fantaisism obviously exists in other walks of life, but none so greatly then religon, thats just simple logic by numbers.
Not sure I care to much about that tho.

[Metal Vendetta]

Eh, I'm reading A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Highly recommended (it says here) for believer and atheist alike. She traces a history of how God has changed over the years from Abraham to the present day, and examines what that means for religion now.

I'm about a third through, it's very interesting. Bit of a change from all the Batman, Superman and Spiderman I've been reading lately.

[Professor Smooth]

I'll give that a look when I finish The Ancestor's Tale. You might also be interested in reading "The Early History of God." I believe it was written by Mark Smith. The book is incredibly dry, but presents enough evidence to properly debate 2,000 years of religious beliefs.

[Best First]

Discovering grace - which is essentially a religious thing - has freed him from the controlling version of religion he grew up with.

hr could have also tried reason...

I'm quite intersted in pastor Jummy whatsit's book.

but i have to finish 'A Good life' firss - guide to ethical living, strangely a prerequiete isn't signing up to superstition...

[Impactor returns 2.0]

yeah this guy who 'discovers' grace and is saved from racism?

What exactly did religon do, did it come down and stop ppl from being jerks, it did nothing at all but offer the person comfort, somthing anyone can do.

It makes no logical sense because everything that took place could have taken place regardless.

[Best First]

i think you might be in danger of contradicting yourself there mate.

you can't say religion is bad but then say that religion can't make anything happen.

my issue is with the nonsense notion that there are no other way's out - religion mahy have helped a guy in some senses but that doesn't establish it as being neccessary or somehow unique in its 'powers'.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

yes sorry you put it more clearly then myself.

I didnt mean that religon 'did nothing ' in this instance, its more that what it did do was smear the truth. going to church and hagning out with other ppl probably in advertibly took the person away from the problem, plus natural strength in numbers.

its this blind faith that confuses perception

[BB Shockwave]

you talk explcitly about how faiths were treated and how converting provided certain advantages, to then go on and say religion has no bearing on the situation and an absence of it would not change anything is contradictory at best.

I see your point - but I said, the Turks didn't forcibly convert people - if they did, those people would'nt have to pay tax and they'd lose income! Pure financial reasons.

I agree that many wars (crusades) and conquests (like america's) were started 'to enlighten the unbelievers' but really, that was just a way to get their territory or money.

[Best First]

you talk explcitly about how faiths were treated and how converting provided certain advantages, to then go on and say religion has no bearing on the situation and an absence of it would not change anything is contradictory at best.

I see your point - but I said, the Turks didn't forcibly convert people - if they did, those people would'nt have to pay tax and they'd lose income! Pure financial reasons.

I agree that many wars (crusades) and conquests (like america's) were started 'to enlighten the unbelievers' but really, that was just a way to get their territory or money.

yes, but in order to justify that you have to find ways to dehumanise your fellow man - in such situation the notion that they are notgod's people is a particularly useful one.

In addition the suggestion taht religion is not the real reason and there are alwaus alterior motives suggests a rather shallow brand of faith across the ages, but this is evidently not the case given the persistence of so many religions.

[Bouncelot]

yeah this guy who 'discovers' grace and is saved from racism?

What exactly did religon do, did it come down and stop ppl from being jerks, it did nothing at all but offer the person comfort, somthing anyone can do.

It changed him personally. The book contains lots of stories of the impact discovering grace has on people, and the negative effect ungrace has on people. Basically, his experience is that the Bible Belt Fundamentalism which he grew up with prevents people from experiencing God and is pretty negative in its effects, whereas Christianity with grace transforms people, sets them free, and motivates them to do good to others, rather than being the tool to control people that you seem to think it is.

It makes no logical sense because everything that took place could have taken place regardless.

So you think that, for example, the Civil Rights protests in the 1960s could have taken place exactly the same without Martin Luther King's religion-inspired nonviolence strategy? It's theoretically possible, but highly improbable. When religion motivates someone like Mother Theresa to give up everything to help people less fortunate than themselves, would things be likely to happen just the same without that motivation?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

It controlls the un-educated masses - history repeats itself.

As societys move forward, religon dies out because the more educated are free.

thats a trend studied the world over and proven across history.

as for motivation. - Charity. thousands of non religous based Charitys do good work everyday. and they dont need god.

And when you think about it, as there are loads of different religons, and many different religous ppl have done lots of good in thier time, whats to say your one was right eh?

It thats kind of attitude thats annoys me. I do more good then any twit in a church.

[Best First]

i love it when the religous try and lay claim to concepts such as 'stopping being an asshole'.

ooooh, that's god that is. he dazzles. he excites.

its interesting but i know a lot of people who have, you know, figured out that being an asshole is bad, all by themselves - if you can imagine such a thing.

grace. you might as well call it plik plok monkey dog arousal.

"Well, what you have to understand is that it was through his experience of plik plok monkey dog arousal that he came to appreciate god and be good"

Also loving the notion of some guy wrote a book ergo it is true. beat that suckas.

as for civil rights - Rosa Parks didn't take that seat because of religion, she took it because it was mudder fugging obvious that what she was being subjected to was bullsh**. And its all very well touting the non violence approach but, oops, Black Panthers.

Loveiung that 'non-violence' is now also a religous concept.

man made. all of it.

[Bouncelot]

It controlls the un-educated masses - history repeats itself.

As societys move forward, religon dies out because the more educated are free.

Interesting point of view. I guess you consider the collapse of Communism in the Eastern Bloc to be a backwards move for society - after all, it led to a massive resurgence in religion.

thats a trend studied the world over and proven across history.

You got any actual evidence for that claim? Because the only societies that are becoming less religious are western ones, and the only other examples of countries that have had any significant trends towards non-religious beliefs are communist dictatorships.

as for motivation. - Charity. thousands of non religous based Charitys do good work everyday. and they dont need god.

Not relevant to your claim that religion exists only to control the masses. I can quote hundreds of examples of people whose faith has motivated them to help others. Sure, there are other motivations for doing that, but to deny that Religion motivates people to good works is just plain lying.

And when you think about it, as there are loads of different religons, and many different religous ppl have done lots of good in thier time, whats to say your one was right eh?

Which wasn't what we were discussing in this thread so far, was it? I wasn't saying that Christianity was the only religion that motivated people to do good, only using a specifically Christian example from something I happened to be reading when the issue came up.

It thats kind of attitude thats annoys me. I do more good then any twit in a church.

Stop press. Impy proclaims himself morally superior to two billion people, almost all of whom he has never met and knows nothing about.

More seriously, do you really think that your life has had more of a positive impact on the worlld than the actions of people like Mother Theresa (I'm only using her as an example because she's a well known example of someone whose religious faith has motivated them to devote their whole life to caring for others)

Also loving the notion of some guy wrote a book ergo it is true. beat that suckas.

Make that "some guy writes a book which draws heavily on his own experience of what it's writing about, therefore it's as true as any first-hand account can be".

as for civil rights - Rosa Parks didn't take that seat because of religion, she took it because it was mudder fugging obvious that what she was being subjected to was bullsh**. And its all very well touting the non violence approach but, oops, Black Panthers.

Sorry, are you saying that MLK's nonviolence stand (which was motivated by his religious faith) was irrelevant to the course the civil rights movement took (which is what I was actually saying), or are you trying to refute a point I didn't make?

Loveiung that 'non-violence' is now also a religous concept.

Hey, its most notable proponents all seem to have been deeply religious people, so maybe there's a correlation there? I'm not claiming that it's only a religious idea, but that many people who use nonviolent methods of protest are motivated to do so by their religious beliefs.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Interesting point of view. I guess you consider the collapse of Communism in the Eastern Bloc to be a backwards move for society - after all, it led to a massive resurgence in religion.

Politics and religon.

You got any actual evidence for that claim? Because the only societies that are becoming less religious are western ones, and the only other examples of countries that have had any significant trends towards non-religious beliefs are communist dictatorships.

Which is pretty muc what I said. western education leads ppl away from Religon as education allows ppl to think for themselves.
You even agree with that.

Not relevant to your claim that religion exists only to control the masses. I can quote hundreds of examples of people whose faith has motivated them to help others. Sure, there are other motivations for doing that, but to deny that Religion motivates people to good works is just plain lying.

And it motivates thousands towards death.
Where as I can just do good regardless.
Pointless.

Which wasn't what we were discussing in this thread so far, was it? I wasn't saying that Christianity was the only religion that motivated people to do good, only using a specifically Christian example from something I happened to be reading when the issue came up.

Point is, motivation via religon is control by cult, if you cant be good without religon, your not thinking for yourself.
Personaly I think if there was a god he probaly despairs of all religons.
They motivate and controll in a way thats counter productive.

Stop press. Impy proclaims himself morally superior to two billion people, almost all of whom he has never met and knows nothing about.

yes because they are religous.

More seriously, do you really think that your life has had more of a positive impact on the worlld than the actions of people like Mother Theresa (I'm only using her as an example because she's a well known example of someone whose religious faith has motivated them to devote their whole life to caring for others)

Your idea is flawed.
Mother T saved ppl not religon.

Are you trying to suggest, and this is funnier, that she wouldnt have saved anyone without religon?
When I save millions via design of a product one day it will be because I wanted to, not because of religon.

I can think perfectly well for myself.

Make that "some guy writes a book which draws heavily on his own experience of what it's writing about, therefore it's as true as any first-hand account can be".

That makes you gullable beyond belife.

Ill write a book "I am god" - do u belive me to?

Hey, its most notable proponents all seem to have been deeply religious people, so maybe there's a correlation there? I'm not claiming that it's only a religious idea, but that many people who use nonviolent methods of protest are motivated to do so by their religious beliefs.

ppl can do good without religon, they can be motivated without religon.

THINK FOR YOURSELF!

do me a lil experiment, drop religon for 2 mins, can u not do any good without it? are you incapable, is there somthing wrong with your brain that u cant think of right and wrong yourself?
Do you become evil and start killing, can u not help someone in pain, is all of this impposible without religon?

I dont need god, I help ppl everyday, and i dont confuse it with religion, I just know whats right and wrong.

Religion only controlls you, and you dont need it, your so confused you cant see that you can live your life, pure and free, helping others without the need of a book. you are living your life by a book, I can do it without.
I feel sorry that you cant think for yourself.
I bet god does too.
he didnt write the bible, he has never spoken to anyone but a few ppl, and he never once told them to live life by a ******* book - thats a human invention, and its a method of controll.

And that is how History will always record it. it was greater then any King, beyond reason and brought masses together - religons have always been like this. from small tribal types, to christianity to Islam to bizzare blood cults. eather way its a human trait.

get over it.

think for yourself.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

Like all religons in history, the 'young religons' are generally violent.

Take christians and the crusades, belive in god or die, offend god, burn etc...

so Buddhism is the oldest of all? Let things happen, and pass the pie

[Best First]

Stop press. Impy proclaims himself morally superior to two billion people, almost all of whom he has never met and knows nothing about.

seeing as you regularly state or imply that Christaisn are better people i think you should probably shy clear of being sarcastic on that front...

Also loving the notion of some guy wrote a book ergo it is true. beat that suckas.

Make that "some guy writes a book which draws heavily on his own experience of what it's writing about, therefore it's as true as any first-hand account can be".

if you could type something with actual intellectual content that would be great. If i write all my perceptions down it doesn't make them any more or less true - ergo, refer to original comment.

as for civil rights - Rosa Parks didn't take that seat because of religion, she took it because it was mudder fugging obvious that what she was being subjected to was bullsh**. And its all very well touting the non violence approach but, oops, Black Panthers.

Sorry, are you saying that MLK's nonviolence stand (which was motivated by his religious faith) was irrelevant to the course the civil rights movement took (which is what I was actually saying),or are you trying to refute a point I didn't make?[/quote]

i'm saying that the non violence strategy that you are desperatly trying to attribute soley to religion wasn't actually pioneered by him and that the circumstances in which it originally arose were an application of someone standing up for themselves becasue of theri situation ot because of their faith.

Loveiung that 'non-violence' is now also a religous concept.

Hey, its most notable proponents all seem to have been deeply religious people,

ooh, well argued.

so maybe there's a correlation there? I'm not claiming that it's only a religious idea, but that many people who use nonviolent methods of protest are motivated to do so by their religious beliefs.

and again.

there is no such thing as a 'religous idea' on this front - there are only concepts that are adpted and then you get the later claims of excklusivity in a scrabbling atempt to suggest that values that people are perfectly capable of adopting anyway are derived from faith. Not clubbing someone overthe head becuase you know how being clubbed over the head feels predates religion.

Of course i've always had more time for people who do what's right because they come to that conclusion themselves rather than being told it by an invisible entity. Ironically its a thought process you can put more faith in.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Ok, now ive had some time to reflect.

If say for example you are a religous person. and we have someone who isnt.

Both ppl are capable of being good ppl, there is no science to sugest one can be a '''better''' good person then the other. its kinda pointless to debate that part.

Person A: good because of religon
Person B: good.

Why do I need religon?

[Metal Vendetta]

so Buddhism is the oldest of all? Let things happen, and pass the pie

Siddhārtha Gautama (the Buddha) lived about 500 years before Jesus, so, yes it is very old. Ironically early Christianity adopted a lot of Buddhist ideals, along with a great deal of Platonic thought via Philo's views of a Platonic Judaism.

[edit]

Both ppl are capable of being good ppl, there is no science to sugest one can be a '''better''' good person then the other. its kinda pointless to debate that part.

Person A: good because of religon
Person B: good.

Why do I need religon?

Most people who follow religion don't actually follow most of its teachings anyway. They'll show up for church every week (which somehow makes them "good") but generally they won't bother with their fellow man unless of course their fellow man is a member of the same sect. It's this attitude that "I believe in Jesus and I go to church therefore I must be a good person" that really pisses me off. Good people don't need a person in the sky watching them. Good people don't need the fear of God to make them good. Good people are good anyway.

[edit][edit] To bring this back on topic a bit, try this great new game I found:
http://lordmanley.com/b3ta/papist-or-rapist/