The Forum > General Discussion > Oh God - am I the only one?
Oh God - am I the only one?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
-
- All
As an Atheist I take extreme umbrage at every level of government in this country performing a religious ceremony before commencing each session. It is always – exclusively – a Christian ceremony. Am I the only one who objects to this? If we are supposed to have a multicultural society why is Christianity presumed to be the religion of government? And whatever happened to the principle of separation of church and state? Am I to believe that all our politicians are devout Christians or must I presume they are being hypocritical by bowing their heads to something in which they have no belief? Isn’t it time we made a stand against this antiquated and outdated rite?
Posted by Rhys, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 5:44:50 PM
| |
I think you have a lot less to fear from a few formal prayers that have been aroung for a long time than you do from multi culturalism which has proved in the eyes of many to be a miserable failure.
I noticed after Sep 11 that even many of the Democrats in America were seen joining in on prayers and songs. I think your energies or taking a stand would be a lot better spent venting your spleen on those who want to undermine the great freedoms that we have in this once predominatly Christian nation. Posted by runner, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 5:58:13 PM
| |
"If we are supposed to have a multicultural society why is Christianity presumed to be the religion of government?"
Rhys... maybe it is because this country was FOUNDED on the basis of the following pre-amble to our constitution: "Humbly relying on the guidance/blessing of Almighty God" There is no question that this is referring to the Judao/Christian God. Most of our values emerged with this background and in those days pretty much most of those running the show would have had some kind of Christian orientation either Catholic or Protestant. The simple historical fact is, that we as a nation were born with this as our umbillical cord or our birth sack... What you should take closer note of, is how the various formalities are used. Do they force you to believe ? nope... Do they prevent you from 'not' believing? nope... Are Atheists a majority in Australia ? NO WAY .... Multi culturalism is a generous concession to foreign cultures to lessen the impact of life in a culture foreign to them. Who would have the insulting audacity among them to seek to then use that freedom to establish their own particular culture over the prevailing once which granted them the freedom to practice their own here ? The same goes for 'atheists'...suddenly you decide you "don't believe"..... ok.. fine. But please don't then say "And now..I want EVERY VESTIGE OF BELIEF for all other Australians removed from Government"... that is probably one of the most disrespectful, arrogant, selfish and even dare I say 'subversive' acts one could take. Your welcome to enjoy your disbelief...but by golly, don't come along and then try to re-shape all our inherited institutions with their historical formalities which are part of our cultural heritage in terms of YOUR disbelief. The sad thing about our democracy and freedom, is not that this actual possibility and freedom to do just that exists, but that people like yourself would be so uncaring for that which is precious to so many, and USE that freedom to try to redefine the country to suit your unbelief. Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 7 September 2006 6:14:07 AM
| |
Ah David – how sad. You have my deepest sympathy. You suffer from a hereditary mental disease known as ‘religion’. Your response is a typical Christian response full of intolerance, one-eyed opinions, racialism, bigotry – all symptoms of a deeply entrenched disease. It is your children, if you have any, for I have the most concern. However you can be cured. Read some books on modern science. Put the bible up out of hands way for a few years. I can recommend some good authors if you are interested. As for our Constitutional Fathers who wrote the Constitution, most of them suffered from the same disease as it was endemic at that time. Some of them probably believed the world was flat and the sun and planets circled the earth as did the people who wrote the bible.
Posted by Rhys, Thursday, 7 September 2006 1:42:44 PM
| |
Dear Rhysy
do you realize that about 99% of your post was a personal attack against me ? There is an 'issue' here u know. -Please point out 'racism' in my last post. -Please point out any personal attack against 'you' in my post. Bigotry is when you have no factual basis for your position, u just dig your heals in and stomp on contrary views... I do have a factual basis :) well researched and valid. Add to that a personal experience of instant healing in Christ and you have what I am. Its possible to argue about 'who wrote the Bible' but its most difficult for me to experience the same content, such as the blind man referring to Jesus when questioned by the Pharisees "As for who he is, I don't know, but one thing I do know, once I was blind, but now I can see". That reality is quite a challenge to debunk (I was not healed from blindness it was a fractured bone) So, I'll pass on therapy, science and the other stuff, and even avoid ripping into 'you'. I'm sure ur a nice person, but that niceness would be better served by addressing issues rather than calling people names. cheers Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 8 September 2006 5:57:51 AM
| |
Rhys, your second post was the typical 'new intolerance' approach to the argument presented by David. Perhaps aware that you had been boxed into a corner, you came out bleating with the racist and bigot cards. How about some cogent argument?
Posted by Lionel Mandrake, Friday, 8 September 2006 7:31:42 AM
| |
Rhys,
David is correct. This is our nation’s heritage and should be preserved. Certainly it has been eroded heavily by bigoted overzealous atheists. We no longer sing hymns each morning in our State Schools. I am unsure but we may not even have the option of regular Christian instruction in our State Schools. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is our heritage. Noone prevents you from choosing to be an atheist so please don’t let your fierce hatred of Christianity and bizarre ideas about it’s origin undermine our heritage. You use the words intolerance, one-eyed opinions, and bigotry to describe even David’s neutral comments and state that these are all symptoms of a deeply entrenched disease. Please consult a dictionary and then make an honest effort to see which post these words could really be best applied to. I hope this helps. Posted by mjpb, Friday, 8 September 2006 10:26:55 AM
| |
Okay – let’s talk facts shall we? I mean facts, not mythological antiquated dogma. The following facts are all sound reason for all levels of government to cease the ritual of reciting Christian prayers before each session. Either that ritual is stopped or other religions and faiths be given an opportunity to participate
Fact 1: There is no credible, scientific, or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods, or the supernatural. Quotations from the bible therefore have no credence in a discussion of governmental procedures. Fact 2: In the 2001 census the number of people claiming to have no religion constituted 33.33% of the total population. Take into account the number of people who ‘go along’ with parents or spouses to keep harmony in the household and the number lifts exponentially. Then there are the ‘other’ beliefs. The total number of people who claim to go to church regularly amounts to 12%. Then there are those who go to church twice a year because they consider it to be the right thing to do. Fact 3: Heritage? What does that mean? It used to be heritage to burn women at the stake for being witches. It used to be traditional for lords or lairds to be the first to sleep with virgins in their respective domains. Fact 4 When our worthy forefathers wrote the Constitution they were all –or most of them – raised on a tradition of religious dogma. But please note that the Constitution refers to Almighty God and not specifically the Christian Almighty God. There is little doubt the reference is to the Christian God but at that time it was the predominantly and indeed the only god they knew. The Constitution also make reference to every state except Western Australia and what is now Central Australia or Northern Territory. They were brought in at a later time thus making the Constitution flexible. TO BE CONTINUED Posted by Rhys, Friday, 8 September 2006 12:45:32 PM
| |
FACT 5 Since the Constitution was written science has blown most of the dogma associated with religion out of the water. Even the Roam Catholic Church and the current Pope have had to contend with the loss of faith in their community because of the overwhelming evidence refuting the biblical claims.
FACT 6: There are many in government who have no religion therefore it is hypocritical for them to bow their heads to a Christian prayer. Some examples are Bob Hawke, Bill Hayden, Paul Keating and many others. Then there are those who belong to other faiths and religions. That alone should be sufficient reason to abolish the ritual or to allow others to participate. David in one of his submissions asks if Atheists are in the majority. I would agree they are not but it is close to being the case. The Moslems are not in the majority either. Nor are the Roman Catholics. In fact no individual religion is in the majority. The collective Christian religions barely scrape over the 50% limit and look at the differing opinions they have on the subject. So – considering those facts let’s get back to the subject in hand by looking at the definition of ‘Democracy’. My Oxford dictionary states inter alia: ‘a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives’. Therefore is it not reasonable to expect that my representative is obliged to voice, or at least consider, my opinion along with those of others? In which case why does he or she pray exclusively to a Christian god in parliament? Why, when there is supposed to be a separation of church and state? Even a appeal on the Australian ‘fairness to all’ tradition – or should that be heritage? – it is only reasonable that we all be considered equally? Posted by Rhys, Friday, 8 September 2006 1:33:06 PM
| |
Good on you Rhys. There is absolutely no reason why it should be presumed that one person's religion/superstition/delusion should predominate over anyone else's. The Christian's assumption that they somehow have been indoctrinated correctly, and that others have not, is the height of arrogance.
All religions should be treated equally, which in practice means that each should keep their own private delusion to themselves. Instead, religious people think they can promote morality by forcing their own bigoted preconceptions on others. They don't care what harm, division and violence it leads to. What a crazy world! John http://www.secular.org.au Posted by John Perkins, Friday, 8 September 2006 4:17:15 PM
| |
Thank you John. It never ceases to amaze me how often that tired old 'heritage' argument crops up in debates such as this. Do you know that the Brits still say prayers despite the country being one of the most secular in the world? Oddly they turn their backs to the Speaker while the Lord’s Prayer is read. When questioned I was told it dates back to when they wore swords and could not place the swords behind them when standing. Just goes to show how ridiculous heritage can go. In the UK today 44% claim to have no religion. France records 48% while Canada 30%. Sweden has as many as 85% recorded as having no religion and that country does not seem to have fallen on criminal or un-humanitarian ways. When will our governments and councils begin to realise that religion is a dead issue in a modern world and supported only by the uninformed. Speak of science and you get a dumb look. Have you noticed that every time the bible is quoted it is always the ‘good’ bits they quote? Never the bad bits. In fact it is not possible to have a debate with a Christian without them quoting something from the bible.
Posted by Rhys, Friday, 8 September 2006 5:18:33 PM
| |
Rhys is correct in demanding an end to our representatives offering up supplications to a mythical superman in the sky. Not only is it silly, it’s dangerous. A study reported in the Journal of Religion and Society [a publication of Creighton University's Center for the Study of Religion] by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States.
Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality. He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy divorce, domestic abuse and sexually transmitted diseases. Secular Europe has the lowest degree of social dysfunction! Australia was declared secular by its ‘Christian’ founders in order to stop the vicious fighting between Catholics and Protestants. As for the social freedoms mentioned in a previous post, take a look at the facts and you will see that the major religions have fought tooth and nail against every social reform in this country’s history, from votes and equality for women through to Aboriginal and workers rights. And today, religious despots are the only people refusing equality for same-sex-oriented people. Secular humanists and atheists have been responsible for this country’s egalitarianism, and it is the present religiosity and kow-towing to religion that is seeing the removal of civil liberties, workers’ rights, freedom of thought and expression Posted by ybgirp, Friday, 8 September 2006 5:44:28 PM
| |
John Perkins and Rhys
Regarding your call to totally dispense with any hint of 'Christian' or other religious trappings in our government. On the surface I'm inclined to agree with you believe it or not. It sounds so egalitarian, fair, unbiased etc.... But there are a few problems with this. The other side of the 33% claim no religion or non Christian religion is that 67% DO claim such an adherence. I fail to see why 33% should dictate the shape and form of our government in regard to the Christian aspect of some of its ceremonies. More problems. Probably not realized by those calling for such a thing, is the direction this would lead us in. Once we disconnect ourselves at the 'Throne' level, from divine law, it soon becomes disconnected in the market place. What is a society based on 'tolerance and secularism' likely to look like ? Well, Netherlands is often mentioned in this regard. Lets look at it. They now have a political party which is campaigning for child sex to be legal, and for the age of consent ultimately to be done away with, and that any child can also be consentually involved in child porn. I note Netherlands also has 'marijuana cafes'.. and prostitution of a rather in your face nature. Is that the kind of society you want ? Can you be sure that adopting 'make_it_up_as_u_go' approach will NOT lead to such things ? If you are sure, why ? I know I sound like a bigoted bible basher most of the time, but there is a reason :) and not that I'm recently released from Larundel. With all my heart I believe we would soon drift into moral oblivion without our connection to our Christian heritage. Tony Kevin laments the state of decay in integrity in the public service and government, his terminology PERFECTLY fits the philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre and atheistic existentialism. This view regards the achievement of personal goals at any cost quite ok. (including trampling on and using others) Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 8 September 2006 8:51:49 PM
| |
Why would any government or individual want to ask for the guidance of a blood thirsty and murderous backwards dog which is the one subscribed to by christians and catholics... for some bizarre reason they consider themsleves different... to me a scumbag is a scumbag.
I do not want my elected representatives seeking guidance from a mythical character from a fictitious old novel, especially not one which, according to the bible is directly responsible for the deaths of 2,233,451 people. It is very sad that in 2006, people still need to believe in this barbaric form of superstition. Show some conscience, start believing in yourselves and the power and genius of humanity Posted by AJD, Friday, 8 September 2006 9:36:22 PM
| |
Of course the figure of 2,233,451 is only what the bible says.
The figure of how many people have died as a result of religion is so much higher. Funny how christians seem to forget that Hitler was guided by their belief system. He once said "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." If this is an example of christian values influencing government, then we all need to rise up against it. Posted by AJD, Friday, 8 September 2006 9:50:15 PM
| |
Boaz_David said,
‘I fail to see why 33% should dictate the shape and form of our government in regard to the Christian aspect of some of its ceremonies.’ The fact is that the third of Australians who claim no religion or are at least ambivalent constitute the largest ‘denomination’ of all. All Christians together constitute about half and are split into Catholics, Protestants, and Methodists, Baptists ad infinitum. This gives ‘non-believer’s the biggest say. To our dismay, despite our obvious superiority in numbers, the government still allocates massive amounts of our taxes, our money, to the indoctrination of children in religious private and independent schools and dictates mandatory scripture periods in public schools. Our money is used to fund a smorgasbord of whacky religious institutions and programs. The media also give spokesmen (almost always men) columns to spout their opinions and constant invitations to speak on radio and television. So, why don’t atheists have their own spokesmen you ask? Simply because they don’t have anything to sell. Religious institutions are businesses, preying on the desperate, the indoctrinated or simple to support them through donations, tithes and our taxes. They sell pie in the sky, the perfect product as you can’t claim a refund for false advertising until after you die! The disaster of it all is that while a massive chunk of mankind prays and hopes for this pie in the sky, they are neglecting, indeed trashing the very planet that gives us life. The superstitious are destroying our chance of creating heaven on earth by breeding like rabbits and hoping to god their superstition is real. Meanwhile the rest of us scratch our heads and wonder how anyone can be that dumb. Posted by accent, Friday, 8 September 2006 10:21:13 PM
| |
BOAZ_David wrote: The other side of the 33% claim no religion or non Christian religion is that 67% DO claim such an adherence.
Not quite right David. Let us not forget that said remainder constitute about a dozen of more Christians of various and contradictory opinions, Buddhists, Jews, Hebrews, Sikhs, Moslems – ah - the list is endless. Trying to get any two of those to agree in impossible. Why, even the Protestants and Catholics have different version of the Ten Commandments and both of them differ from the Jews. All told there are five different versions of the Commandments. Don’t believe me? Take a look at: http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm Posted by Rhys, Friday, 8 September 2006 11:00:13 PM
| |
It is unfortunate that Christians have hijacked morality, in the same way as they’ve hijacked marriage. Christianity has no more claim to knowledge [or practice] of good and bad, right and wrong than any cult, creed, or power-hungry gang throughout human history.
Modern Christianity has reluctantly borrowed ethical standards from Humanists. Or rather, some humanists have used the structures of religion to exercise humanist values This ‘humanist approach’ by religion is a relatively modern idea. The popes who, coveting the riches of wealthy men, accused them of heresy and burned them alive in the streets of Rome before appropriating their estates, did not believe in fairness, justice, equality, decency…… and neither did their cardinals and bishops - or they’d never have received promotion. Humanistic ideas were forced upon the Christian church by diminishing congregations. Human well-being depends on Reason, kindness, generosity, consideration, affection, honesty, hospitality, compassion, charity, humour, gentleness, equality, listening, egalitarianism, respect for the elderly, love of children, and diligent respect for the land, plants and animals. These virtues derive from natural necessity, not from some power-hungry monster in the sky! It's all part of a successful relationship between life and the planet – a relationship that, because of Christianity’s overweening arrogance in denying the value of all life that isn’t human, is on the point of collapse Posted by ybgirp, Saturday, 9 September 2006 12:20:30 PM
| |
Hello Rhys, how do you do?
I see that you are the party who initiated this thread. I can also see by your posts that you appear to be quite passionate about the matter. That's good, I like people being passionate about things. But, about religion and spirituality as I see it, it offers freedom of choice. One can embrace any brand of belief or as you've chosen, to abstain from it. No one forces anyone to follow any particular doctrine in Australia and you can choose what you want. I like that. Now, your main issue, if I've interpreted it correctly is the inclusion of religious ceremonies in the various houses of state. Furthermore, it would seem that you have interpreted these references to pertain to the Christian God in particular. So it is these matters I shall address. 1. The God referred to in Australian state institutions is not branded. The God is generic, thereby being applicable to any and all who hold a faith in spirituality. The God is not declared to be specifically Christian, so is universal. 2. Your presumption that 33% of non-believers puts you in a majority position, by dividing the believers into their separate groups and allocating to them minority status, is incorrect. The God people, 67% are in the majority. This is why you don't see a lot of action to bring about change to secularism as you would like. The majority don't want it. 3. Despite there being conflict between different brands of God, an investigation of history reveals that Jews, Christians and Muslims of all their brands, tribes and differences actually all have the same God. So when you add them all up together, they'll make a significant amount of that 67%. Whatever that percentage is, I don't know, but it is important to understand they're all talking about the same God. 3. Historians attribute 120 million deaths to the work of Marx in the 20th Century, so secularism is not innocent of mass crimes against humanity. Keep up the passion, but please be tolerant of others. Posted by Maximus, Saturday, 9 September 2006 1:43:18 PM
| |
Are many so-called representatives of the people being hypocritical by taking part in religious ceremonies before commencing business? I would say so, but what's new about hypocricy in government?
These ceremonies are part of tradition and, like many traditions, now mean much less to probably most people than they once did. But they are of so little significance to most of the public that a general outcry against them is most unlikely. And possibly some of us may like to think, at least for the genuine believers in parliament or council, that being part of a religious ceremony may encourage them to act in an honest manner. And pigs may fly! What I suggest is the main concern of the public in regard to religious activity in parliament or council is that the religious beliefs of various influential people guide the lawmaking which then affects all of us. Posted by Rex, Saturday, 9 September 2006 2:18:40 PM
| |
Maximus said:
'Historians attribute 120 million deaths to the work of Marx in the 20th Century, so secularism is not innocent of mass crimes against humanity.' I'm not sure how the various revolutions, counter revolutions and purges of communist regimes are relevant to a discussion of the relative merits of superstitious subservience in our society. Communism versus aristocracy or capitilism does not equate to secularism versus religion. While it may be true that some proponents of communism attacked the established religious institutions, often because they were an integral part of the state machinery of oppression, to equate communism with secularism draws a very long bow indeed. The god of the bible engages in genocide on a massive scale (the flood, firestorms against the Canaanites, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc etc). Christians have murdered Muslims, Jews, witches, heretics and each other as well as millions of Africans, South Americans, Indians and almost the entire populations of North America and Australia: so there can be no doubt on whose hands the most blood lies. And they have the gall to call this the god of love and hope! You are certainly correct that Christians, Muslims and Jews share the same god, thereby earning them the tag 'Axis of Superstition'. Unfortunately for everyone on the planet their age-old fratricide is now affecting everyone and threatening our very survival as a species. Posted by accent, Saturday, 9 September 2006 4:31:08 PM
| |
Considering less than 15% of Australasians attend a place or worship regularly, puts the argument for god further down the scales. Don't forget atheists and monotheists make up a small percentage of our population There are more people who have fully open minds and don't need a crutch to bash people with.
As with all things, evolution in the end rolls over them and so it will be with having god as the ceremonial figure head. Many of us would like to avoid the outcome of god's constant attempts to hold back the tide of evolution violently and have peaceful, graceful transitions. Interesting how they deny religious influence in our parliaments, yet fully support the deeply religious politicians running our country. Their a perfect example of a true monotheist, bleed the people, enslave them and feed their gluttony, all the time praying to their god. The zealots will say, their not true followers of god, its just me who understands. So we end up back where we started, backward parliamentary system run by backward followers of god, praying every day as they lie, cheat the people and destroy the planet. These people pray everyday, have party meetings, and determine policy on the basis of their absurd morals and beliefs Yep sure sounds like god to me. In July this year, several NSW liberal party members revealed on national television that their party was being taken over by extreme right wing Christian branch stackers. The revelations all point to the remarkable influence of one man: Liberal MLC and Opus Dei member David Clarke. Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 9 September 2006 6:09:16 PM
| |
Rhys
Fact 1: Your "fact" is prefaced with “no credible”. Credible to you presumably. Fact 2: The problems with using this to support your position in a democratic society have been covered. So why would people try to go along with religious relatives when atheists seem to be more intolerant? Fact 3: It means it is a valuable tradition that is part of who we are. When women (and men in 25% of cases) were burned as witches it rejected tradition. As early as the 5th Century it was clearly held by a Christian Synod that anyone accusing a person of being a witch is rejected by the Church until they recant. Participating Christian countries thus broke tradition until the issue was raised at an Inquisition and the governing body considered it a hoax and ordered people not to discuss witches. Friedrich Spee von Langenfield, a Jesuit priest, who wrote that the accused confessed only because they were the victims of sadistic tortures was instrumental in ending a later resurgence. I don’t know all about lord or lairds traditions but we weren’t taught about that one at high school. Fact 4 Doesn’t this support the heritage argument? FACT 5 The loss of faith in the Catholic Church had little to do with science. Since the 60s formation of priests and secularization of Church institutions has created most of the loss of faith. A good example is the very sudden loss that occurred due to the sexually offending priests and the Bishops who accepted them as cured on the advice of psychologists and allowed them to reoffend. This had nothing to do with an advance of science. FACT 6: While retaining this heritage won’t remove hypocrisy and appears hypocritical for some it might stop the problem from getting as out of hand as it would if they simply cut loose (like some of those Catholic priests). The atheists in government may simply not be bigoted and may respect and accept the heritage of their country. Bowing silently instead of disrupting is thus not necessarily hypocritical Posted by mjpb, Monday, 11 September 2006 12:58:20 PM
| |
MJPB,
You win. Posted by Rhys, Monday, 11 September 2006 2:12:11 PM
| |
I note that some support various points by claiming that atheists aren’t pushing a barrow but then other anti-Christians cite atheist activist internet sites.
Ybgirp Re: “evolutionary scientist” Paul study on religion. Point is what? Paul conveniently doesn’t determine the religion of the individuals responsible for the problems preferring to create an aura of Christian social problems. Also, secularism has the upper hand in the US society where it counts as indicated by US Supreme Court decisions. These types of criticisms are not just mine. In peer review Paul’s study attracted scathing comments: “This lack of measuring clarity and falsification not only causes Paul to violate the scientific principles of corrigibility and incrementalism but allows Paul to engage in theoretical though meaningless comparisons of nations based on simple scatter plots and outlying data.” Further, Paul was selective in his health indicators. America might not do well with abortions but are better for suicide. The same can be said for teen pregnancy compared to cirrhosis death rates or consumption of narcotics. As regards the social freedom issue it is incorrect to compare opposition of same sex oriented marriage to other social issues. The American imported WCTU considered to have an overwhelmingly Protestant character pushed for women's voting rights. Catholics are believed to have had less involvement partly for that reason but mainly as their predominantly working class existence made it harder. That is not to say that Catholic women didn’t get involved in the push. Notable examples are the Golding sisters. Christians have also been instrumental in advancing workers’rights, and at around the time of the "Aborigines on the census" issue Pope Paul VI’s comments during his Australian visit “We deeply respect your dignity and reiterate our deep affection for you.” demonstrate the Catholic position. Sure Christians have opposed the same sex movement but they generally promote social justice. Finally, your love of children being a natural necessity unrelated to religion comment was made after David’s Netherland example. As a courtesy I do no more than suggest it would be prudent to read the posts before you comment. Posted by mjpb, Monday, 11 September 2006 3:34:34 PM
| |
MJPB
I have realised that you more than likely did not appreciate the irony of my previous “You win” post so I must rectify that error. In refuting your illogical replies to my facts I could write a thirty or forty page treatise but in the interests of brevity I’ll try to make pertinent points only. Fact One. The dictionary has this to say about credible: 'able to be believed; convincing'. Now how can one possibly believe or be convinced that a man can walk on water, part the waters of an ocean, turn a fish and a lump of bread into a feast, or any of the other tricks of magic mentioned in the bible? Why does the bible not mention the Americas, Australia and Africa? Could it be that the Omnipotent God failed to tell the primitive writers of the bible these facts? Why didn’t he tell them about the millions of other suns in the universe? Why didn’t he tell them about the cures available for the horrendous maladies he invented to scourge mankind? Fact Two. Atheists intolerant? Where have you associated with an Atheist? Never obviously. As for relatives, well they prefer to take the easy path to avoid family arguments and agree for harmony’s sake. Fact Three – so you agree? Fact Four – NO. On the contrary. It shows that ‘heritage’ as well as ‘tradition’ both have a shelf life and can be changed at the whim of the majority. Fact Five. You missed my point again. The Roman Catholic mention was to make a point. The issue was the Constitution. The point I was making was that science has changed man’s thinking considerable in the last one hundred years. Many of the men who wrote the Constitution, if they were alive today, would be ashamed of what they wrote. Fact Six. Maybe we have a different interpretation of hypocrisy? Bowing one’s head to a mythological god while not believing in gods is hypocrisy which ever way you look at it. Posted by Rhys, Monday, 11 September 2006 4:24:00 PM
| |
Oh dear, mjpb, you are clutching at straws.
why is equality for same-sex-oriented people not a social issue? Are they not human, deserving of humane treatment? is their love not as good as other people's? Your ill-founded prejudices are tripping you up. As for that apocryphal tale from Boaz about a minor oddball political party in The Netherlands proposing child abuse... how many members has this party? who do they represent? have they a skerrik of hope of election? of course not. All it demonstrates is the political freedom heretofore enjoyed by the Dutch -- freedoms that are being undermined by fundamentalist religious immigrants - as is happening here. Of course Paul's study was rubbished by the people he criticised, that's the christian way. Chop off their heads! When I read scientific facts that throw new light on my opinions, I change my opinions. What do you do? Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 11 September 2006 5:21:20 PM
| |
Accent
Re: equating secular killers with secularism Indeed you have a point. However that cuts both ways. Giving examples of people purporting to be Christians behaving badly is attributing behaviours to the religion that in many cases conflict with the religion. Re: your judgement of the God of the Bible. If you even accept the Bible as truth as a hypothetical then God is an omnipotent being. If so then how can you determine that He did wrong in demolishing Sodom and Gomorrah? Wouldn’t it be pretty foolish to pit your human mind against His and determine what is right and what is wrong and to judge him as doing wrong? I am assuming of course that you don’t also consider yourself to be an omnipotent being and accept that you are human (presumably a safe assumption). If a small child has a large wolf charging at her and her father shoots it she may well touch the fallen beast, associate it with her teddy bear, and judge her father to be a horrible person. This is solely due to her lack of experience and cognitive ability. The Bible God is omnipotent and eternal. The hypothetical child would be in a better position to make the judgement of her parent than a human judging such an omnipotent being. Rhys Fact One. Haven’t you heard that truth is stranger than fiction? Fact Two. I actually had the “erode the heritage to remove all traces of the hated Christianity” thing in mind. Again, why would people always seek harmony with Christians but never rabid atheists? I have never heard a Christian tell an atheist that they should keep their views to themselves. Fact Three – If you think it is valuable. Fact Four – If tinkering with state numbers is that important. Fact Five. Sorry if I missed a point. I am focusing on religion not on general issues of science or speculating about what people might think Fact Six. It might not be a different view of hypocrisy but a different view of the behaviour. Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 11:11:37 AM
| |
Fact 2. You have never been an Atheist. Believe me when I tell you the Christians never tell you to shut up - they are always too busy trying to get you to convert with monotonous regularity.
Posted by Rhys, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 1:39:40 PM
| |
mjpb,
"Re: your judgement of the God of the Bible. If you even accept the Bible as truth as a hypothetical then God is an omnipotent being. If so then how can you determine that He did wrong in demolishing Sodom and Gomorrah? Wouldn’t it be pretty foolish to pit your human mind against His and determine what is right and what is wrong and to judge him as doing wrong? " What christains who say that we can't use our intellects to judge the christian god keep forgetting is that they do exactly the same for every other "god". I've noticed a distinct willingness by many christain to judge Allah and his actions as carried out through his prophet. If your argument is valid it should apply there as well. Likewise every other concept of a god that is greater than a human (not much of a god otherwise) should be beyond our ability to judge. Do you accept the claims of the various greek, roman, egyptian and older middle eastern gods. Does Baal get his due worship from you because his ways are beyond your understanding or do you rightly use the abilities you have do judge those claims and find them lacking? R0bert Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 2:12:05 PM
| |
Ybgirp
The last thing I would do is suggest that that is not an “other social issue” and of course they are human. As regards the merits or otherwise of homosexuality and what is or isn’t humane etc. you realize that many atheists debate such things also. You as an atheist might argue with someone from the paedophile party who used those types of arguments. I was simply taking issue with the way it was lumped with other social issues as if the religion stands for racial prejudice etc. Gentiles are accepted but homosexuality as a behaviour is rejected. You may consider rejection of homosexual behaviour negative and Christians must take responsibility for the belief. However comments that add misrepresentions of Christian belief slanders Christians. I consider science to be a process that throws new light but never proves. I consider that properly conducted research adds weight to a hypothesis. If not properly conducted it is worthless. Rhys Atheists seem to be trying an awful lot harder to convert people than Christians these days. Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 2:15:54 PM
| |
NJPB said:
Atheists seem to be trying an awful lot harder to convert people than Christians these days. Big grin. Not really, we couldn’t care less what you believe in. We do not try to convert – that’s near impossible. It simply means you are seeing so many people waking up to the futility of religion and are ditching the churches. There just happens to be more of us these days and you are beginning to realise the writing is on the wall Posted by Rhys, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 3:56:15 PM
| |
Mjpb, the bible's more than hypothetical, the old testament's plagiarised fiction derived from the Veda, Egyptian texts as well as other earlier parchments and documents. The only original text of the new testament is a copy of a many previous copies, written 300 years after the supposed events, consisting of hearsay and fiction. If you truly study theological history, you'll realise the fake it really is.
As Rhys says, the reason you think non believers are trying to convert you, is theres more of us now, your belief's a dying violent fallacy. The attitude of monotheism when it comes to the ways of the world, are disgusting, beyond barbaric, despotic and depraved. This is widely seen by the control religion has over our governments by stealth, these followers of god are involving us in a growing monotheistic factional worldwide war. The only outcome being, massive destruction and death. If you study the old testament, you'll see it's filled with a violent decadent god, who doesn't hesitate to destroying any who disagree. Which is no different to today The most common feature of the followers of Yahweh, is their obsession to constantly lie to themselves and others, in a futile attempt to get some form of veracity for their disgusting approach to life. There's intelligent people on the planet now mjpb, not easily fooled by glib snake oil god salesmen, spewing out discrimination and bigotry. So this time your ilk may almost wipe out the life forms of this planet, but the end result will be gods full unmasking as what he was originally known as by the followers of Abraham and others, Yahweh, god of war. Hopefully the sane people of this country will wake up before the religious lying morons controlling us, completely destroy our way of life. Luckily we're coming to a federal election, anyone voting for the lib/lab monotheistic parties, will be voting for enslavement to the religious elite and war. This is evidenced by their desperation to privatise and give control of our assets to themselves and their religious backers, before their agenda is fully revealed. Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 5:29:05 PM
| |
mjbp, I'm not sure that I follow your tortured logic.
Are you saying that, because the Judeo/Christian god is omnipotent that he has the sole discretion to kill whenever he thinks it's warranted? No wonder so many of his followers have the same 'might is right' attitude to deal with anyone who disagrees with them. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. This is the same god who declares, 'thou shall not kill', 'turn the other cheek' etc; the same god who gave his only son (well himself actually) that mankind might be saved; the same god whose followers declare to be the bearer of hope, peace and love; the saviour of the world. Was there a spelling error and you really meant dysfunctional, not omnipotent, or are you simply too blinkered to face reality on in its own terms? Re: atheists trying to convert anyone. I think you’ve misrepresented or misread the beginning of this topic. It is rather the superstitious in our society who force the rest of us to tug the forelock whenever there is a public forum. It is expected that god has his place in parliament, at funerals, in courts etc, ad infinitum. If that isn’t bad enough, a massive chunk of our taxes is directed to superstitious organisations, including those who brainwash our children. It is all such a sad waste of energy and resources, precious energy and resources we need to secure the future health of our beleaguered planet. You are free to follow your superstition, but, please do it behind closed doors and only involve consenting adults. Our children’s minds are too precious to be contaminated by your murderous gods. Posted by accent, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 6:34:48 PM
| |
mjbp, I'm not sure that I follow your tortured logic.
Are you saying that, because the Judeo/Christian god is omnipotent that he has the sole discretion to kill whenever he thinks it's warranted? No wonder so many of his followers have the same 'might is right' attitude to deal with anyone who disagrees with them. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. This is the same god who declares, 'thou shall not kill', 'turn the other cheek' etc; the same god who gave his only son (well himself actually) that mankind might be saved; the same god whose followers declare to be the bearer of hope, peace and love; the saviour of the world. Was there a spelling error and you really meant dysfunctional, not omnipotent, or are you simply too blinkered to face reality on its own terms? Re: atheists trying to convert anyone. I think you’ve misrepresented or misread the beginning of this topic. It is rather the superstitious in our society who force the rest of us to tug the forelock whenever there is a public forum. It is expected that god has his place in parliament, at funerals, in courts etc, ad infinitum. If that isn’t bad enough, a massive chunk of our taxes is directed to superstitious organisations, including those who brainwash our children. It is all such a sad waste of energy and resources, precious energy and resources we need to secure the future health of our beleaguered planet. You are free to follow your superstition, but, please do it behind closed doors and only involve consenting adults. Our children’s minds are too precious to be contaminated by your murderous gods. Posted by accent, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 6:37:35 PM
| |
mjpb uses the old christian lie of trying to equate homosexuality to pedophilia.
In some research I have been doing for a proposed documentary, I have recently discovered a strong link between christianity and pedophilia. Whilst it's true that not all christians are pedophiles, the fact is that, in Australia at least, ALL PEDOPHILES ARE CHRISTIAN! The same is true for rape, although there is some competition from islam in recent rape cases, however ALL RAPISTS ARE RELIGIOUS! This raises the questions of why the links exists and how we can cure religion? I'd say it has a lot to do with the religious oppression of human sexuality and freedoms of expression. If we truly wish to eliminate pedophilia, rape and other forms of sexual abuse, then we must tackle the problem at it's foundation, which is religion. Posted by AJD, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 10:31:06 PM
| |
No Rhys and Alchemist that is wishful thinking. I did not make the comment based on numbers. Atheists are still in the minority in Australia. I had in mind the enthusiasm of particular overzealous atheists who seem to go to any length to convert Christians and eradicate all traces of Christianity. All pressure (rumour, vilification or occasionally argument) is used by particular atheists to try to get Christians to convert. Christians in these forums only defend their faith and even then it is sporadic. What happened to David in this thread? There was a time when Christians did the converting.
Alchemist I like to believe that I am not intellectually challenged but I would feel pretty foolish if I said that I could out-think an omnipotent being. It is one thing for someone to say they don’t believe but it is another to consider oneself a better judge of the ethics of an omnipotent being than an omnipotent being. Even if someone overlooked that fact in abstract why wouldn’t they see that children make that mistake and see it doesn’t work? The approach does not seem to make any sense. Accent that is one way of putting it – if your comment is taken solely literally. Generally killing is wrong but if you accept someone as God why would you pit wits against them? Many wise minds have considered it just for a person to be judged by their peers or a learned expert not by small children or people with limitations on their understanding. Why is it just or even rational for a human to judge God? Believing or not believing is a choice but what we are discussing is something else entirely. AJD I don’t equate homosexuals to paedophiles. I was pointing out that certain types of arguments could be applied to each group. The idea was to dramatically show that those types of arguments aren’t conclusive. If you don’t like lies why repeat those ridiculous assertions about Christians. Surely you don’t take them seriously? Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 13 September 2006 10:21:49 AM
| |
Mjpb, AJD is right, more 95% of those in jail for sexual crimes follow Yahweh. My years in the church showed me where paedophiles and sexual predators reside, the clergy and pews are full of them. You fail to comprehend, only a small number of people are atheists or believers in your violent despotic god. Of course you couldn't out think your god, it doesn't exist, those seeing its fallacy, don't need a deity to think for us.
Your besotted by your illusions and have no understanding of what we're talking about. Your ignorance is trying to push your stupidity upon us, to bring us down to your barbaric, infantile level. Calling everyone an atheists who doesn't believe your stupidity, shows total lack of knowledge of the world and how people think. Monotheists are in the minority here, others don't need to be right, just ethical and caring. Something no one following Yahweh has any chance of understanding. We loathe the religious bigots running our country, whilst lying and saying they are secular. Now they're in control they admit their depth of religiosity, in words, policies and the debauchery they're inflicting upon the inhabitants of the world. We see by the outcomes of their works, how insane and out of touch with reality they are. Careing for nothing ither than implenting their religious control and war agenda, as seen in the changes to our laws moral delarations and freedom restrictions They give 3 times the amount of money to religious schools than to public schools. Their so stupid, they give more money to schools run by their factional enemies. More welfare and oppotunity to religious refugees. They'd rather support anyone following Yahweh, even though it always leads to war, than support those not following Yahweh. Explain the logic of that insane reasoning. We can't even get rid of them as they control both major parties, manipulating the voting system so there can be only token oppositon to their control, like the now corporate controlled (Religious) democrats and greens. Posted by The alchemist, Thursday, 14 September 2006 11:43:08 AM
| |
"Mjpb, AJD is right, more 95% of those in jail for sexual crimes follow Yahweh."
Where do you get that statistic from? "My years in the church showed me where paedophiles and sexual predators reside, the clergy and pews are full of them. You fail to comprehend, only a small number of people are atheists or believers in your violent despotic god." I am glad I don't go to your church. In most they are underrepresented in the clergy. That is a pretty good reason to leave a church but is there any other reason why you left the church? "Of course you couldn't out think your god, it doesn't exist, those seeing its fallacy, don't need a deity to think for us." If you take out the bit about fallacy and existing, which flows understandably from your opinion, that is the point I was trying to make to the others. Actually I don't believe that I am stupid or having illusions. I also believe that it is hard to have a solid ethical foundation without religion. That is about all I can say in response to the rest of your post. Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 14 September 2006 2:11:54 PM
| |
As I stated, I totally accept that not all christians are pedophiles, I would concur that a lot of them are just as opposed to pedophilia as us atheists, however, from the research I've done, including the Attorney Generals Dept, Megans Law, Mako and others, the fact remains that ALL PEDOPHILES ARE CHRISTIAN!
This statement may sound ever so generalised, but it is just so true. You know ehen I first made that comment to our team, we all laughed, but then we just looked at each other. We knew we had stumbled onto the truth. The decades (probably centuries) of cover ups, denial and persecution of the victms by the church, which are only now being discovered proves beyond doubt that pedophilia is at the core of christian doctrine and culture. Is this is part of the "solid ethical foundation" you claim religion gives to our society? Perhaps you believe the old line of the only crime anyone ever commits getting caught? Did Nazi Germany have the "solid ethical foundation"? After all it was that devout christian, Adoph Hitler who said “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word ethical, or perhaps it was a typo. Did you mean UN-ethical? My "solid ethical foundation" (and it's a damn side stronger than any bloody christian) comes from my conscience, my experience and my emotions. I know the difference between right and wrong. I do not need a religion with all its rules and constraints to guide me. I feel sorry for people who do. They have no belief or confidence in themselves. Posted by AJD, Thursday, 14 September 2006 4:56:09 PM
| |
Hear, Hear, Alchemist and AJD.
MJPB, you have a genetic deficiency -- it's been proven. Those who need to believe in supernatural creatures that rule their lives, are deficient in the gene that sifts out irrationality. It's not your fault that you can't see when something is nonsense, but you and your ilk should really stop bragging about your disabilities and trying to force them on others through laws. Posted by ybgirp, Thursday, 14 September 2006 5:53:17 PM
| |
AJD Thank you for noting the first bit. You and your team gave an understandable initial reaction. That certainly is hard to take seriously without further information. Can I ask which Attorney General’s Department has conducted the research so that I can find out more about it? I’d appreciate your assistance.
In relation to victims and the church I would think that pedophiles will manage to sneak in virtually anywhere but for obvious reasons they have never proliferated in the Catholic Clergy. Nevertheless there was a surge of homosexual molestation of teenage boys and seminarians largely confined to the 60s to 80s. There have been very few instances of abuse since the 90s thanks to the late John Paul II’s attempt to work on the crisis of priestly identity. This abuse was associated with similar factors to those you refer to. However it has clear historical associations that have nothing to do with Christian doctrine. I would think that this would parallel the pedophile issue in the church you had in mind. Which church were you thinking of? To avoid any misunderstanding I note that the sins of priests have nothing to do with the ethical foundation I referred to. As regards Adolf Hitler he was never even a priest let alone a spokesperson for the Christian religion. If you look into it more you will find that his beliefs are extremely dissimilar to Christian ideals. Ybgirp Do you mind telling me which gene it is and where it was reported? Thanks Posted by mjpb, Friday, 15 September 2006 12:18:04 PM
| |
A behavoural scientist on SBS's Insight.. made the assertion that there is a gene for believing in gods and other supernatural phenomena during the program on identical twins last week. I have also read about it in The New Scientist.
Regarding sexual predation and deviant behaviour, this is almost exclusively a christian/islamic problem for the simple reason that those religions have a perverted outlook on sex. They are obsessed with it. Instead of understanding that sexual activity is an esential and normal component of human behaviour, they have imbued it with an aura of sanctity -- proclaiming it sinful in almost all cases unless a child is the intended result.They proclaim that there is only one way to have sex and all the other natural variations of human sexuality are sinful. These religions are very bitter and twisted philosophies. The reality is that healthy, sane humans enjoy sex in the same way as they enjoy other activities, and because they have no hang-ups, guilt feelings or shame about it, are not prone to perversions. If you make someone feel guilty about their natural behaviour -- any natural behaviour not only sex, then you cause such internal stresses that they become either suicidal or insane to a greater or lesser extent. Posted by ybgirp, Friday, 15 September 2006 2:49:00 PM
| |
Some years ago, there was a discussion in the West Australian newspaper regarding the influence of religious beliefs on human sexuality. One of WA's most experienced psychologists and sexual counsellors wrote to the paper and stated that a significantly disproportional number of her past and present patients who suffered from various forms of sexual disfunction were Roman Catholics.
Of course there were a number of vitriolic letters from Catholics [none of them claiming any professional expertise] criticising her for daring to say this. I would suggest that the present Catholic leadership is as ignorant of some important aspects of human sexuality as the leadership in Galileo's time was ignorant of astronomy. But ignorance has never been a bar to pushing an opinion down everyone else's throat, has it? Or, more importantly, getting that ignorance enshrined in law. Posted by Rex, Friday, 15 September 2006 4:45:47 PM
| |
Reading this and other posts on this Forum only reinforces my long-held opinion that religion is a complete waste of time and energy.
While we bash each other with our personal belief systems the planet is going to the dogs, rapidly. It's like a family squabbling about which radio station to play in the car as they drive over a cliff. Christian, Muslim, Jew: the Axis of Superstition. Posted by accent, Friday, 15 September 2006 6:57:50 PM
| |
mjbp;
Answers and comments to your last post: 1). NSW, VIC, QLD, SA & Federal. 2). The majority of victims of pedophilia are girls and young women, yet somehow you equate this to homosexuality. Perhaps we need to explain something to you, homosexual men do not have sex with females. I do not overlook the sexual assaults on boys and young men, indeed we should be condemning them just as vehemently as we SHOULD be condemning the attacks on females. Yet for some reason, all churches (not just catholic) remain silent on it. I guess it's easier to blame homosexuals than admit to hetrosexual abuse. Irrespective, all churches have priests, pastors, vicars, reverends etc in their ranks who are guilty of pedophilia... churches have covered up the mess, paid for some silence and allowed these men to thumb their noses at their victims. WHAT A SOLID ETHICAL FOUNDATION! 3). The vatican endorsed Hitler and his regime. They also laundered the gold stolen from dead jews, including the fillings from their teeth. WHAT A SOLID ETHICAL FOUNDATION! My local pub, club, brothel or drug dealer would have a greater solid ethical foundation. Posted by AJD, Sunday, 17 September 2006 8:20:54 AM
| |
Dear AJD
"ALL PEDOPHILES ARE CHRISTIAN" ? Are you trying to incite 'hate' towards Christians ? Are you holding up to public ridicule 'Christians' by suggesting that many of us (if we believe Alchemist' the pews are FULL of them) Are you holding up to public contempt 'Christians' by suggesting they have a close connection 'being Christian' and being PAEDOPHILES ? Do you realize that in so doing you are in breach of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act in Victoria ? and can be sued ? (if ur Victorian) But hey... I'm doing my best to get RID of that Act so the likes of you and Alchemist have the freedom to stick ur foot as far into your mouths as you like. But you have clearly a very limited understanding of what it means to be 'Christian'...... Would you mind sharing with me your actual definition of one ? -Goes to church ? -Calls themselves Christian ? -Has an extra finger on each hand ? -Has an identifiable birthmark in the shape of the cross ? -Has been Baptized, confirmed ? Fill us in, so we know how to respond to you. For your reference, you may wish to consult the Bible about what being Christian is, and here is a good beginning if u care to read it. (Verse 20) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=2&version=31 Then, you may wish to explain how it was in reality 'Christ' who molested the children ? You might also like to respond to Jesus statement here... http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=9&version=31 see verse 42 and then re-consider your claim 'All Paedophiles are Christian' Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 17 September 2006 5:09:15 PM
| |
Dont be so stupid, Boaz. The true statement; all paedophiles are christian, does not in any way imply the statement; all christians are paedophiles.
Has the deficit of rationality that allows you to believe in a superman in the sky who looks after you, extended to your ability to use logic? Posted by ybgirp, Sunday, 17 September 2006 5:55:27 PM
| |
Boaz:
I'm glad you took the time to write, now perhaps you would like to take some time to actually read the posts you're responding to. Here is probably my most pertinent comment "I would concur that a lot of them (christians) are just as opposed to pedophilia as us atheists" Despite your offering of someone elses opinion or translation of an old fictitous novel, an opinion which agrees with yours, I really don't know what causes christianity, other than brainwashing. I only know that if I can offer another human being relief from this affliction, then I am only too willing to do so, human being to human being, it's an atheist thing. Irrespective of your protestations and threats, you offer no counter argument, so the conclusion is that the fact remains that "ALL PEDOPHILES ARE CHRISTIAN", and the decades (centuries) of cover ups by the church (and not just the catholics) only serve to make it worse. BTW I totally support the laws in Victoria, even though I am not a resident, and I have abided by them throughout all my comments. I have no problem with someone choosing the christian lifestyle, and remember that is all christianity is, "A LIFESTYLE CHOICE". People should not be vilified because of their decision, I just dont think we should be forced to celebrate it. Posted by AJD, Sunday, 17 September 2006 6:54:33 PM
| |
Why do Christians keep referring to an old book on mysticism and superstition when they know dammed well we don’t believe a word of it. I have often asked Christians what they expect when they die and I have yet to have an answer. The supposed soul is invisible, has no weight, and cannot be authenticated in any way but by sheer imagination. Therein lays the problem. How do these invisible souls communicate with each other? They have no brain, no vocal chords, no eyes or ears, no limbs, and no organs of any sort. Do they masticate, defecate, urinate, fornicate, fabricate? If they masticate who grows the food? Are there animals to keep them company? If a child dies in infancy how does it communicate with dead adults? Do they speak or think to each other? Do the elderly get any older or younger? Is there a mean age for all the spirits? Please BOAZ_David tell me what it is like in the afterlife. Please try to refrain from quoting the bible. You never know I may like to go there one day if you make it interesting. Or then again maybe I should adopt the Moslem faith. At least they get a heap of virgins to keep them company. I wonder if those virgins are recycled. As it is it sounds a very boring place to spend eternity.
Posted by Rhys, Sunday, 17 September 2006 7:46:32 PM
| |
Hey Christians all! You are fond of referring us to internet sites to read the truths contained in the bible so do us all a favour and allow me to reciprocate. Go to this site and see the light IF YOU DARE! http://www.evilbible.com/
Posted by Rhys, Sunday, 17 September 2006 8:01:22 PM
| |
Frankly, I don't think we will hear from BOAZ again. The kitchen is getting to hot for him. Besides he is off on other sites where the heat is less intense and he has a more gullible audience.
Posted by Rhys, Sunday, 17 September 2006 8:05:29 PM
| |
I’ve just had a little giggle to myself. When a Theist convinces an Atheist to read and believe the bible – that is conversion, When an Atheist convinces a Theist to understand science – that is education.
Posted by Rhys, Sunday, 17 September 2006 8:38:04 PM
| |
Thanks for your reply AJD. You have certainly looked into the issue with your Department and other departments. Who is the best person to speak to about statistics in these departments? Would it be better to talk to your actual team? Which team were you or are you in there?
I don't equate pedophilia with homosexuality. I was just drawing an analogy between the homosexual abuse in the Catholic Church and Christian Churches with rampant pedophilia as I assumed similar issues would be present. Using the Catholic Church as the example precluded the issue of molestation of girls as until very recently priests had no access to them. Catholic priests are celibate and don't have families and all young people they had access to were male. Thus silence was not an issue in that example. However some Bishops certainly failed in their duties in being silent about molestations of seminarians etc. I don't know if it would be worthwhile commenting on what you have heard about the vatican and laundering jewish teeth gold. I haven't heard that before. Do you know who investigated that one? Posted by mjpb, Monday, 18 September 2006 11:35:53 AM
| |
We are making a documentary, you can see all our data once it is completed. We will have a website dedicated to it as well.
As for the gold, just do a google search. BTW: It wasn't just Jews either. The gold came from all prisoners in the concentration camps (homosexuals, communists, gypsies, intellectuals etc). I found it ironic that the catholics elected a German pope on hitlers birthday. Posted by AJD, Monday, 18 September 2006 4:52:07 PM
| |
BTW: Women have been involved in the catholic church and other christian churches for a very long time, albeit treated as less than 2nd class citizens, so the access to girls and young women has always been there for the predator priests.
I guess you just want to continue with the cover up and silence, after all that is the christian/catholic (and muslim/jewish) interpretation of a "solid ethical foundation". Posted by AJD, Monday, 18 September 2006 5:00:25 PM
| |
"We are making a documentary, you can see all our data once it is completed. We will have a website dedicated to it as well."
That will be very interesting but which section of which state or Federal department/s are making the documentary? "As for the gold, just do a google search." I don't want to sound like a sceptic but I could do a google search that had a page saying virtually anything about anyone or any group that are well known. Do you recall any credible source of the information? The youngest that women would have been involved directly in the institutional church I would think would have been joining up to be nuns. They would presumably be of similar age certainly to the seminarians. However I would have thought that no priests would have been in the convents. Thus I still believe priests would have lacked opportunity. Thus I really don't think that there is much of a cover up in that regard. You are correct that most pedophile victims are pre-pubescent girls. Due to your employ you would also be aware that it is normally a family thing. Again having families and access to pre-pubescent girls are not characteristics associated with those types of priests. What Church though did you go to that had that problem? Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 8:42:24 AM
| |
Tell me, mjpb... who hears the confessions of convent girls?
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 11:11:47 AM
| |
Good on YB. BUT didn't you know Catholic girls don't commit sins! ROFLOL
Posted by Rhys, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 11:14:34 AM
| |
I know the door gets closed during confession but it would still be a pretty daring and ambitious time to do that. Isn't that stringing a rather long bow and didn't confession just about die out at the same time that the sexual molestation started up?
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 12:32:30 PM
| |
Our doco is an independant production.
Be patient, when we release it, you can buy a ticket. You have answered your own question. Priests gain the trust of families simply by being priests (hopefully people are starting to wake up to this), this gives them access to the entire family whenever they want. There have been several documentaries on the jewish (and others) gold scandal involving the catholic church, I have no desire to revisit this research. Take a bit of time and find out for yourself. But I forgot, you're a christian, you expect it to all be in one book for you. Start researching, it will open up many new viewpoints for you, you may even be able to cure your affliction of christianity through intellegence and reason. It's been done before. Posted by AJD, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 12:56:24 PM
| |
"Our doco is an independant production."
As the information that you are putting in the documentary namely your finding that all pedophiles are Christian is sourced solely from your work within the department have you got departmental approval for making money from an independant production? Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 20 September 2006 8:11:04 AM
| |
Its called FOI.
We do not live in a theocracy, despite what the christian right try to tell us, and their influence on both major parties, Australia is still a secular democracy. That is the main focus of the film BTW, the pedophile issue is a by-product of it, albeit an important one. You could obtain the same information quite readily, but that would require work and reading something contrary to the bible. My interpretation of documentary is for the makers to present the facts, perhaps some editorial comment, and allow the audience to decide for themselves. I know that's hard for you to comprehend as it is definately not the christian way! Posted by AJD, Wednesday, 20 September 2006 8:20:58 PM
| |
Thanks AJD.
So you are producing a documentary and your team has conducted FOI applications with most Attorney Generals Departments (NSW, VIC, QLD, SA & Federal)? The result of an application to each of those departments consistently responded that all pedophiles are Christian? Do you mind telling me what question you asked them that gave that response which surprised you? Also is there any chance that you might recall the cost of the application? If I was to do one I'd probably just do Qld. Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 21 September 2006 1:06:21 PM
| |
Watch it, AJD... the christians will issue a fatwah on you. But i love you and hope to view your doco.
Since the christians replaced humanists in government, we have seen the decline of social equity, anincrease of corporation rorting, an increase in misery, homelessness, poverty and a widening of the gap between rich and poor.... we're getting back to the good old days when injustice and misery were widespread -- a situation the christians love because then they can go out and do 'good deeds', pity the poor, pretend they care. have you noticed that despite the calls for fairer laws on immigrants, workers rights etc... they have had no influence at all? They meet the government behind closed doors and work out a deal that gives the government carte blanche in return for more money and tax favours. 18 billion dollars tax-free profit the catholics made last year, and the others are doing their best to catch up. Posted by ybgirp, Thursday, 21 September 2006 3:30:04 PM
| |
mjpb:
The info is freely available. There are many stats relating to all sorts of crimes, it is simply a matter of collating them. It's time consuming, but not difficult. ybgirp: Your comments ring so true. Christians have been nowhere to be seen in relation to "workchoices", which genuinely affects millions of Australians, but they are very vocal on issues like same-sex marriage or stem cell research. Posted by AJD, Friday, 22 September 2006 6:15:36 AM
| |
Rhys, good topic!
Sorry for coming in so late- I only just noticed it. I am an atheist as well and of course, pro secular state. The religious ceremony of the government doesn't really disturb me- there should be freedom of religion and they can believe what they like. It wouldn't disturb me if John Howard would do a rain dance with a bone through his nose in the middle of a drought-affected area, either. As long as their personal beliefs do not have an effect on the job they should be doing, I'll just shrug my shoulders over their ceremonies. I am more disturbed by the influence some cults or sects seem to have on our govt, like the Hillsong 'Church' and the Exclusive Brethren. I really think there should be a clear line between the mainstream religions and cults. We need to decide what roles churches should play in communities and what they should NOT be doing. I don't mind paying my tax money to support mainstream religions and denomintions so that there can be freedom of choice of religions, but to see that govt funds go into very wealthy sects and cults and their ridiculous schools is beyond believe. Are they merely business ventures dressed up as churches? Govt should support only 'real' churches, not fattening up leaders who started their own sick cults just so that they can claim all the benefits and get rich quick. This is pretty bad. Perhaps I should start a new thread on this topic rather than discussing this dirt on your thread? What do you think? Discuss this here or in a new thread? Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 1:21:15 PM
|