- This topic has 93 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
again you might not agree with it, but again that is basic to where they’re coming from – ultimately by reference to a normative morality that the pope (and the 17 per cent* of the world’s population that follow him) have faith in.
you either share that faith or you don’t. you might have another faith. you might have no faith.
Everyone has the right to have whatever faith they wish, but every faith or non-faith should be questioned and examined which is what I am doing.
morality is something different. moral relativism – “everyone has their own morals” – means nobody has any morals. individuals have thoughts and feelings, but those alone do not add up to morals. “everyone has their own standards” means there is no standard.
Absolutely rediculous. And just shows what is wrong with religeon. The "we are better than you, because you have no standards", nonsense.
Didn’t Hitler make some similar statement when he justified treatment of the Jews? Dangerous stuff.
A question of morals:
Question: Does God forgive?If a person lived his whole life exactly how God would wish for. Everything he did, perfect in every way, helping others for no personal gain, yet did not believe in God. So you believe Wit, this man had "no morals"?
Another person raped, killed, did everything God would not wish for. Yet in his last few years of life genuinely repented.
Who is the one best suited to a life in heaven? Should it matter to God if someone does not believe in God?Which of the two people above had the better morals?
Value Is EverythingI don’t see anything wrong with the Pope’s visit to Britain. It brought great joy to the country’s Catholic population. Queen Elizabeth the second ( first of Scotland, I should add
) – and with whom the former Cardinal Ratzinger shares German ancestry with – , frequently travels abroad and is greeted well and indeed treated with the utmost respect by the locals.Both are also heads of their respective Church.
I suppose the main difference is that one was elected and the other was not, although in fairness to Lizzie, she doesn’t deprive randy Catholic Africans of much needed condoms.
On the other hand and to level things up, she in turn "pumps" the UK public coffers for all its worth.
Certainy don’t see any problem with him coming here.
Arguably, the Queen brings much more money in to the UK, in terms of both business and tourism, than she takes out. Some of the other Royal Family on the perifery is another matter.And at least we did not need the wisdom of President Blair, Brown or Thatcher.
Value Is EverythingIt was annoying that many journalists, TV pundits and bloggers (including some on the
Spectator
), assumed atheists were leftwingers! I’m an atheist but am certainly no leftwinger: heavens above.
Ginger
-the pope isn’t in the business of changing the catholic faith to make things easy for people or meet a quota. It’s a faith, not a GCSE or a popularity contest.
-“everyone knows within themselves what is right and wrong”. Do they really? Get past basics like murder /rape / theft, and what does “everyone” think is right and wrong regarding capital / corporal punishment ? euthanasia? breeding babies for spare parts? abortion/infanticide?
-“everyone knows within themselves what is right and wrong”. Do they? Even Hitler or an axe-murderer ?
– the word “morals” does not equal “whatever I happen to be thinking/feeling today”.
-“intolerance by liberal sceptics” might refer to suppressing anything from Nativity plays and references to Christmas, to faith schools, to pro-life and pro-family views.
-“liberal society looks at what is wrong..”…….maybe having caused it to go wrong in the first place. I think he’d say you wouldn’t get an Aids epidemic if people followed catholic teaching on sex and that there is such a thing as abstinence.
-“pedo priests” was nailed as “myth” by the Penn State (and non-Catholic) professor Philip Jenkins:
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/ … nk03p6.asp-the reference to the Human Rights Act would be to things like putting violent criminals on the street “because we can’t deport them” (described by the pope as an illegitimate transfer of rights from victims to criminals), and closing catholic charities whose faith precluded them countenancing gay adoption
-“why should anyone’s individual morals deny their responsibility to others?” – because in your model each individual can validly decide how tolerant of others s/he may be
-its by your definition that Hitler has his individual “standards” and by your definition that they are just as valid as the next man’s since "everyone decides for themself"
– catholic teaching is that God does forgive, but its not for you or anyone else to judge how God “should” regard a person – you just ain’t got the brains for it – a human mind is too small to understand or second-guess God’s purpose.
The business of faith is to obey and take on trust, not to understand it – because you can’t understand God. I think that’s the deal, take it or leave it.
as to whether you’re left wing or right wing – i think what he cares about is whether you create obstacles to his followers living their faith.
Ginger
-the pope isn’t in the business of changing the catholic faith to make things easy for people or meet a quota. It’s a faith, not a GCSE or a popularity contest.
The Pope should not change to make things easy or for popularity, agreed. But why not say abstinance or sex-within-marriage is best, but if you can’t stop yourself then BE SAFE.
-“everyone knows within themselves what is right and wrong”. Do they really? Get past basics like murder /rape / theft, and what does “everyone” think is right and wrong regarding capital / corporal punishment ? euthanasia? breeding babies for spare parts? abortion/infanticide?
Those issues are taken up by the laws of the land Wit. Everyone can have their own values on all of them, just keep within the law.
It is though a shame religeous groups oppose things like euthanasia. There are times we’d be prosecuted for keeping animals alive in such a state. Yet humans have to endure severe pain without the chance to end it all.-“everyone knows within themselves what is right and wrong”. Do they? Even Hitler or an axe-murderer ?
Ooooooohhhhhh, bad example there Wit. Hitler was a "christian" justified what he did to the Jews by what was written in the Bible. Let people decide for themselves without religeon and it would be much more difficult for people like Hitler and Bin Laden to get power. (Stalin, Communism is a religeon in all but name, Das Kapital it’s "Bible").
An axe-murderer will not be right in the head anyway, so won’t take any notice of a Pope, Bishop, Priest, Bible etc.
And there’s more…
Value Is EverythingGinger
– the word “morals” does not equal “whatever I happen to be thinking/feeling today”.
"Morals" are not just what someone is "thinking/feeling" on the day. Do you really think Athiests change their morals, to suit themselves? It’s something deep within a person’s identity, not to be changed on a whim, but only occasionally after a great deal of thought.
-“intolerance by liberal sceptics” might refer to suppressing anything from Nativity plays and references to Christmas, to faith schools, to pro-life and pro-family views.
There’s always a nutter in every walk of life, including liberals. Obviously the Nativity and Christmas should not be watered down or stopped in any way. All part of a civilised society’s "freedom". Although do believe some extreme Christian groups take it too far in the USA. Making children fear God (be physically frightened) by some "plays", that should have an 18 certificate.
Equally, we should not be stopped from questioning any part of the Bible / Nativity / Christmas.
I am against Faith schools myself. Every faith (well, the more well known ones anyway) should be part of every school’s curiculem. Every child should know about all faiths, and come to understand their neighbours. If all children mixed together they’d realise just because he’s a Muslim, Jew, Christian, Athiest, does not make him a bad person. Think what could be achieved in Israel, Gazza etc. I don’t think it is right for parents to brain wash their children in to carrying on their beliefs. Let them decide when they are old enough which path to take.
I myself have great difficulty with abortion. Don’t know how I’d react to a girl-freind / wife / daughter saying they wanted a termination. Unless a case of rape, I’d be against it. Does not mean everyone should not have the opportunity, if the rules of the land apply.
Do believe the "family" should be encouraged, without demonising one parent families. Do believe people are often too soon to give up on a marriage, but we should not demonise divorce. Divorce is sometimes the best way for all parties, children included.
And there’s more…
Value Is EverythingGinger
-“liberal society looks at what is wrong..”…….maybe having caused it to go wrong in the first place. I think he’d say you wouldn’t get an Aids epidemic if people followed catholic teaching on sex and that there is such a thing as abstinence.
And yet many of the countries where Aids is rife are Catholic countries. If the wife is faithful where the husband is not, does not protect the wife.
Liberal society looks at what is wrong… "maybe having caused it to go wrong in the first place". Well this "liberal society" has not been going long. Problems like The "oldest profession", the Catholic Church has had thousands of years to tackle that one, yet failed. Wars? Popes have actively started wars in the past. So just what is it that this "liberal society" has "caused".
-“pedo priests” was nailed as “myth” by the Penn State (and non-Catholic) professor Philip Jenkins:
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/ … nk03p6.aspThere are some pedo priests Wit, thats been proven by amongst others, the Pope’s own men. But as I said, the majority of priests are no doubt good blokes.
To expect a priest to be celebate without masturbation which is also "wrong" in the eyes of Catholic teaching; might be expected to cause problems for those weak minded Priests.And there’s more…
Value Is EverythingGinger
-the reference to the Human Rights Act would be to things like putting violent criminals on the street “because we can’t deport them” (described by the pope as an illegitimate transfer of rights from victims to criminals), and closing catholic charities whose faith precluded them countenancing gay adoption.
"Putting violent criminals on the street". Would want to know a bit more about the cases in question to form an absolute opinion. But agreed, does seem wrong.
However, is this not the same teaching as "he who is without sin cast the first stone". Does not Catholic teaching say we should "forgive"? Don’t see deporting people as the answer anyway, as it is only giving other countries the problem and not fixing the problem.Think everyone has sympathy with Catholic adoption charities Wit. It would be nice for those agencies to still exist, yet put any gay couples over to another agencey. Must admit I have some reservations on gay adoption myself.
There was also the question of Catholic B+B owners letting in gays in to their own homes /bedrooms. In this case anyone wanting to start a business must live within the laws of the land that maintain it’s business. To allow gays to be turned away reminds us of how blacks, coloureds and indeed Irish were in the past; would be wrong.-“why should anyone’s individual morals deny their responsibility to others?” – because in your model each individual can validly decide how tolerant of others s/he may be.
I know of a Christian Missionary who went to Calcutta, to save the poor from hunger. They were allowed in to eat, and then preached to. Tolerance in the hope of conversion. Deciding just how much "do unto others" should actually go.
You’ve only got to take a look at how Catholics despise Protestents (and vice versa) in Northern Ireland to see how far the "validity of tolerance" goes. If there were no Christianity in Northern Ireland, then the country would be in a far better position. We even had a cover up of a Priest being an IRA bomber, yet not even questioned. Just "moved" away from the troubles by his masters. I say moved, it was just over the border, hardly out of the way.
So yes, every individual has the "validity to decide how tolerant to others he/she may be", which is the same for Catholics too. Am sure, without religeon to persuade otherwise, tolerance is greater, as you see in any troubled spot in the World.And there’s more…
Value Is EverythingGinger
-its by your definition that Hitler has his individual “standards” and by your definition that they are just as valid as the next man’s since "everyone decides for themself".
Hitler had his own "standards", though in any right thinking man/woman’s mind, not good standards. As I said, he justified some of what he did by using the Bible (influenced by it). The trouble with any religeous book is it allows mad men to take a quote and justify themselves for their own gain (Hitler, Srtalin, Bin Ladden etc). Without being able to call on such "teachings" it would be difficult, if not impossible for any mad man to gain the "validity".
– catholic teaching is that God does forgive, but its not for you or anyone else to judge how God “should” regard a person – you just ain’t got the brains for it – a human mind is too small to understand or second-guess God’s purpose.
Is that meaning we should not question God? We should not look for proof? Who is it that says a human "has not got the brains for it"? Seems very convenient of God not to want us to question. I know Faith is faith, but surely we should not believe in something without questioning if it has any rightful place in reality.
The business of faith is to obey and take on trust, not to understand it – because you can’t understand God. I think that’s the deal, take it or leave it.
Obey what? A book written hundreds of years after the death of Christ, passed on by word of mouth. Ever played Chinese Wispers? Jesus’s life is probably exaggerated to an enormous degree. The Bible is a book written for the times in which it was written. Had they raised issues on "equal rights for women" etc. it would have been laughed at. In the same way those in Jesus’s time should not live by the morals of 2000 years earlier, we should not live by the morals of Jesus. In the same way we should not live by the morals of slavery, or even racism of the 1970’s, or classist stuff of the 1900’s where those in raised poor could not reach the top.
Just because there is no reason to believe in God, does not mean we should not believe? Is that what you are saying?
Why does God allow one person to find a life raft and another to drown?as to whether you’re left wing or right wing – i think what he cares about is whether you create obstacles to his followers living their faith.
I don’t want to create obstacles to stop people from believing, if that’s what they want to do. But any Faith / belief should be questioned, whether Catholic, Protestent, Jew, Muslim, Communist, Athiest, Creationist, Evolutionist, and so on. To look at probability of "truth".
Value Is EverythingGinger
An atheist by definition can have only an earth/human-centric perspective, since in the atheist belief system that’s all there is.
That may explain why you seem to expect the pope to be some kind of public health adviser (“why not say: abstinence or sex-within-marriage is best, but if you can’t stop yourself then BE SAFE ?”) or social reform czar (“…. the oldest profession – the church has had thousands of years to tackle that, yet failed”) or politician seeking to get in front of/ride a wave of popularity (“in the same way those in Jesus’ time should not live by the morals of 2000 years earlier, we should not live by the morals of Jesus”).
But the catholic church is not earth/human centric.
Ultimately it is not concerned with the body in this world but the soul in the next.
The pope is about safeguarding and promoting faith in God. He is about teaching and persuading people to find and follow the catholic faith.
For sure there are catholic missionaries working around the globe whose work includes alleviating human suffering.
However their main point is the missionary work and not the alleviation – the bodily deprivation and its alleviation is a powerful metaphor for the spiritual deprivation.
It sounds to me like you’ve got it the wrong way around with your Christian Missionary in Calcutta. In fact they didn’t go “to save the poor from hunger”, they went to teach Christianity and alleviating hunger was a means to that teaching ? Or,from your perspective: “allowed in to eat, and then preached to. Tolerance in the hope of conversion”.
Not to say some catholic clergy don’t have human failings (eg same pedo ratio inside as outside the church) or don’t “go native” and lose the plot (eg IRA priests or the “liberation theologists” of south america). But that doesn’t make those vagaries part of the catholic faith.
(Incidentally, on the subject of Hitler, Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism: Oxford University Press, 2010 – Derek Hastings)
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s … M5MDI0Nw==
says that while it was "eminently plausible that Hitler was a believing Catholic as late as his trial in 1924, there is little doubt that he was a staunch opponent of Christianity throughout the duration of the Third Reich.")
Catholicism is voluntary. It is not compulsory. It is not a state religion anywhere except the Vatican City. (Which African countries do you think are catholic states ?)
In terms of the pope’s visit to the UK, what the pope asked for in his speeches was for catholics to be allowed to live their faith free from “aggressive secularism”.
He and his UK representative perceive that the UK’s Human Rights Act has been nothing to do with real human rights, which existed long before New Labour.
Rather they have seen that Act used as a mechanism to force down people’s throats the political correctness of the likes of New Labour, recasting Islington socialist opinion into “human rights” and making it illegal to oppose.
The pope – who knows a thing or two about fascism – sees parallels between what was pushed onto him in his youth, and what the “liberal sceptic” state in the UK today pushes onto catholics (and other faiths).
You say everyone must keep within the law, yet law is man made. So from where do the views of the “liberal sceptics” derive their legitimacy to become law under the likes of the Human Rights Act ? (If you say “view of the majority”, I’ll ask why capital punishment has not been restored).
The end of your post gets to the inevitable: “why believe in God?”
The classic answer is: “how else do you explain this lot?”:
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
Question as much as you like – sharper intellects than you or I have done.
In the end there is no proof – you either take a leap of faith or you don’t.
“Why does God allow one person to find a life raft and another to drown?” Who knows – what did Job do wrong ?
In the end there is no proof – you either take a leap of faith or you don’t.
When faced with matters beyond human comprehension isn’t agnosticism the wisest, if least comfortable belief?
There probably is no God
There may be a God
What is God?Preferring discomfort, I find the fervent atheism of Dawkins etc as unsatisfactory and unhealthy as fervent theism
totally with you on Dawkins:
"What surprises me about Britain’s atheists is that they aren’t a bit nicer", said Hugo Rifkind in The Times. "Personally if I were keen to convince the world that faith wasn’t required to be a benevolent moral agent, I’d be at pains not to act like a nasty bilious oaf".
however, agnosticism doesn’t help you at all as far as Ayn Rand is concerned:
=====
the agnostic is the type who says, “I can’t prove these claims are true, but you can’t prove they are false, so the only proper conclusion is: I don’t know; no one knows; no one can know one way or the other.”
The agnostic viewpoint poses as fair, impartial, and balanced. See how many fallacies you can find in it.
Here are a few obvious ones:
First, the agnostic allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition. He treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate—and then he regretfully says, “I don’t know,” instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand.
Second, the onus-of-proof issue: the agnostic demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the positive. “It’s up to you,” he says, “to prove that the fourth moon of Jupiter did not cause your sex life and that it was not a result of your previous incarnation as the Pharaoh of Egypt.”
Third, the agnostic says, “Maybe these things will one day be proved.” In other words, he asserts possibilities or hypotheses with no jot of evidential basis.
The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody.
In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect.
He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported.
So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer.
The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack.
The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be.
===============I answered a few questions in one of the papers last week, and it resulted in me being ‘nihilistic’. I’ve googled it and haven’t got the faintest idea what it’s about. Going to do it again and, this time, shall answer yes to the first question which is ‘Do you believe in God?’ If you answer yes to that, you don’t have to do the rest..it just tells you to go to church. I don’t want to be an ‘istic’ if I can’t understand what it is.
however, agnosticism doesn’t help you at all as far as Ayn Rand is concerned
The familiar denigration of agnosticism by those who’ve taken the decision to adopt one of two extreme doctrines – theism or atheism – as a lazy, cowardly easy rationalization is both incorrect and wantonly dismissive in my opinion.
Ayn Rand, like many another blind and unreceptive to alternative thought, spoils her not uninteresting words with:
The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be
Promoting personal opinion to universal fact…oh dear
Unwavering belief that theory equates to truth viz there is/is not a God is the lazy rationalization of those seeking an answer to the always-perplexing ‘meaning of life’ and associated big, big questions. Fervent belief in extremes – definitely is/definitely isn’t – is soothing and ameliorating
The path trodden by the empiric agnostic is tortuous and hard:
What is this all about?
There must be more between heaven and earth?
I don’t know but I want to know and I’ll keep on searching…
…with an open mindHell’s teeth this earthly life would be much easier to bear if I did/didn’t believe in an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity above and beyond space-time, quantum mechanics and the other fragments of knowledge we’ve gleaned concerning the universe and everything.
In an attempt ot smooth and soothe my passage through life I’ve adopted Pantheism as my – wholly unfervent – answer to the much bigger picture. Really as a result of no more than the peace of mind, tranqulity and sense of wonder that washes over me and cuts to the bone when in the green ‘n’ blue great outdoors
Wouldn’t dream of a Papal/Dawkinian evangelising of it though. Far too unsure to have the temerity to try and indoctrinate others
I’m an agnostic…er I think? indeed H
ok, forget ayn rand.
"…agnosticism is impossible in actual practice, since a person can live only either as if God did not exist, or as if God did exist…
…each day in a person’s life is an unavoidable step towards death, and thus not to decide for or against God – viewed as the all-encompassing foundation, purpose, and meaning of life – is to decide in favour of atheism. "
http://www.answers.com/topic/agnosticism
does either dawkins or the pope faff around with "it all depends what you mean by God" ?
"Jesus was God and i will do what he says, not because of what he said, but because it was him that said it."
surely either you’re on that train, or you’re not ?
and if not, doesn’t make much odds whether you’re in the canteen or looking at the flowers in the garden ?
) – and with whom the former Cardinal Ratzinger shares German ancestry with 
– , frequently travels abroad and is greeted well and indeed treated with the utmost respect by the locals.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.