Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
|
Jonnyboy
|
John Paul IIQuite an interesting, and heated debate on Five live this morning.
World reaction to the death of pope John Paul II has been universal and respectful, even by other faiths and those of no faith.
However, there were quite a few people who felt that as a 'protestant' country we should be largely ignoring this. The decison by Tony Blair to delay calling an election was seen by some as a cheap political stunt rather than a sensitive act that allowed mourning to take place. However, many catholics view the death of JPII in the same way as they would a beloved family member.
Tony Blair is also attending the service although there is no constitutional reason for him to do so. It is widely known that he will convert to catholicism upon leaving office.
Is it a good thing that we can mourn this man, purely because he was responsible for many good works (and a lot of bad ones to be honest) or is it simply another example of the 'Diana' effect, an unnecessary outpouring of grief for no good reason other than it's cathartic influence on us.
Regardless of your outlook on religion would you consider his life of sacrifice and service a good example to us? Rampant capitalism was seen by him as one of the biggest evils in the modern world.
In a secular society what can we learn from men such as him?
|
jocorless
|
I am not Catholic, nor even Christian but I certainly I don't agree with the opinion we should just ignore his death - He was a major player on the world stage and a major influence in many many peoples lives.
He was flawed - his opinion on Women Priests, abortion and contraception were horrendously old fashioned and in the case of contraception dangerous especially as RC is the fastest growing religion in Africa where Aids is so so prevalent - but he kept the issues of poverty on the world stage and seemed a genuinely pious man.
The idea of politicians squabbling over the general election does seem very much in bad taste
Joanne
|
tahir
|
Difficult one, obviously we should be aware of his passing but if you ask me whether I'm emotionally affected by his death I'd have to say no.
|
jema
|
I am more than a little sickened by the heaps of praise for a man who was responsible for countless deaths through AIDs in Africa. But I will have to shutup before I offend people.
|
Bugs
|
I find it difficult because I come from a background where pictures of the pope and turning up the news when he is mentioned, are commonplace. So naturally I'm interested, even though as you've no doubt realised I'm not exactly a good Catholic  (or a good anything!).
For that reason I find it hard to say how other people should react. I think overall I agree with Jo, be interested in the changes as it's an influential position and respect the feelings of many who feel affected by it. But beyond that, as Tahir says, how many people are truly affected?
I feel particularly strongly that those hundreds of thousands making their way to Italy have misplaced priorities. A much more appropriate way to mark his passing if you feel strongly about it, would be to spend that time and money on working within their own communities. Looking at the news pictures there were many, many people there who were clearly not grieving.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| jema wrote: | | I am more than a little sickened by the heaps of praise for a man who was responsible for countless deaths through AIDs in Africa. But I will have to shutup before I offend people. |
Was he personally responsible? As far as I understand it catholic dogma demands celibacy before marriage and then monogamy. Both of which would severely reduce the spread of aids. It's simplification in the extreme to blame the spread of aids in africa on the lack of condoms.
Condom usage and teenage pregnancy in ireland is little different from the rest of Europe, many catholics simply ignore the papal teachings which are too hard for them to adhere to.
|
jema
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | jema wrote: | | I am more than a little sickened by the heaps of praise for a man who was responsible for countless deaths through AIDs in Africa. But I will have to shutup before I offend people. |
Was he personally responsible? As far as I understand it catholic dogma demands celibacy before marriage and then monogamy. Both of which would severely reduce the spread of aids. It's simplification in the extreme to blame the spread of aids in africa on the lack of condoms.
Condom usage and teenage pregnancy in ireland is little different from the rest of Europe, many catholics simply ignore the papal teachings which are too hard for them to adhere to. |
I know its a bit of a simplification, and religeous dogma is always hard to argue with. But the catholic set up is that the Pope is infallible and hence one can say that more than the usual share of resposibility falls upward.
|
Jonnyboy
|
Again, it's a bit confusing. the Pope is only considered infallible when he teaches ex cathedra, for this to take place certain conditions have to be met.
But you are right, the responsibility lies with him, as it should.
|
cab
|
Yes, we can trace a lot of the Catholic churches failure to come to terms with HIV to John Paul the Second. We can also trace the rise of Solidarity, and ultimately the fall of the Soviet Block, in no small part to him too.
If judge him we must, we must judge him as a pope and as a man. We see a flawed man doing his best to match his world views to how the world really is. And he didn't do badly. At worst, we can say that he did his best.
Some of his opinions I disagree with wholeheartedly. But what else am I going to expect from a pope?
|
Jonnyboy
|
| cab wrote: |
If judge him we must, we must judge him as a pope and as a man. We see a flawed man doing his best to match his world views to how the world really is. And he didn't do badly. At worst, we can say that he did his best.
|
Are you suggesting that a changing, secular world view is correct and the church should evolve to reflect it? that appears to be the tail wagging the dog.
Actually, if you do then that isn't the point, the point is that the church sees it's role differently, so the disconnect with a secular environment will always be obvious.
|
judyofthewoods
|
If he was using his position to make a point on birth controll, then he has to take a share of the responsibility. Apart from the AIDS problem, the catholic attitude on birth controll (reaffirmed by the late Pope) also has a devestating affect on the lives of many poor in south and central America, and the added pressure of population growth. And yes, I think its a personality cult, as it was with Diana, big deal, people die every day in the world. He did speak out about some evals, and he may have been in the belief of making a moral point on the birth controll issue, and the personal blame I would attribute to him would just be of being misguided, but as the effects of such guidance are so devestating, I do not moarn the passing of the Pope, pity about the man, but no more so than with the passing of any one. I sincerely hope any new pope will be more forward thinking, and bring the church into the context of its time. I am speaking as an (ex) Catholic.
|
cab
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
Are you suggesting that a changing, secular world view is correct and the church should evolve to reflect it? that appears to be the tail wagging the dog. |
No, I'm suggesting that the non-secular world of Catholicism has moved on and left the Church heirarchy lagging behind it. Catholics all over the world use contraceptives, and the Church still denies that they work as a barrier to stop sperm and pathogens. The priesthood as a whole is in a state of crisis across much of the developed and developing world. As an institution is has lost it's way, as can be seen from the terrible botched cover ups of child abuse scandals in the United States and elsewhere.
Catholicism is not, nor has it ever been, a static thing; that's why there's a Pope, to allow the church to adapt to the times and, as importantly, guide people through a changing world. That this means the Catholic church should adapt isn't heresy, nor is it missing the point, because that's what the Church has always done.
| Quote: |
Actually, if you do then that isn't the point, the point is that the church sees it's role differently, so the disconnect with a secular environment will always be obvious. |
I don't believe that the Church does see it differently.
|
Jonnyboy
|
Cab wrote:
| Quote: | | No, I'm suggesting that the non-secular world of Catholicism has moved on and left the Church heirarchy lagging behind it. |
Not necessarily, there is a growing trend towards more conservative catholicism than liberal with the more conservative catholic countries showing better attendances than liberal ones, many argue that by continuing to implement vatican II, the pope has further eroded the Churches magisterium and tradition.
| Quote: | | Catholics all over the world use contraceptives, and the Church still denies that they work as a barrier to stop sperm and pathogens. |
A fair point, looking at condom use as a protection against desease rather than contraception has been touted as a possible compromise.
| Quote: | | The priesthood as a whole is in a state of crisis across much of the developed and developing world. |
Developed yes, developing no
| Quote: | | As an institution is has lost it's way, as can be seen from the terrible botched cover ups of child abuse scandals in the United States and elsewhere. |
Their actions during that awful period would seem to be indefensible.
|
judyofthewoods
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
A fair point, looking at condom use as a protection against desease rather than contraception has been touted as a possible compromise. |
Over population is one of the greates deseases on this planet.
|
cab
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
Not necessarily, there is a growing trend towards more conservative catholicism than liberal with the more conservative catholic countries showing better attendances than liberal ones, many argue that by continuing to implement vatican II, the pope has further eroded the Churches magisterium and tradition.
|
The Church, by saying that those who have married can't use contraception, and by not thus empowering women in developed countries to take firmer control of their lives, has left more women in a poverty trap during JPII's reign than at any time before. It can witter on about magisterium and tradition all it likes, but by coming out with a doctrine that isn't all that well supported by the bible it has contributed to a rise in poverty in the developed world and eroded its own applicability in the developed world. This isn't about liberalism or conservatism, it's about real lives and how the main message (hope, joy and faith) is being eroded through an inattention to those details.
| Quote: |
A fair point, looking at condom use as a protection against desease rather than contraception has been touted as a possible compromise.
|
Why is there a compromise here? Why need there be one?
The way I see it, procreation is a Catholic duty, but keeping ones children provided is also a duty. You can't have it both ways without either abstaining from sex (which isn't happening, has never happened, will never happen) or using contraception.
| Quote: |
Developed yes, developing no
|
Catholicism has lost ground to Islam and charismatic Christian sects across the globe; the priesthood in Africa, by trying to preach the message that contraception isn't allowed, has contributed to the HIV epidemic. What further evidence of crisis in the priesthood do you want?
| Quote: |
Their actions during that awful period would seem to be indefensible. |
Completely. It's been argued that initiative in senior Catholic circles has been eroded during JPII's 'top down' management. Catholicism, if it is ever to be about the relationship between man or woman and God, must be managed from the bottom up. It is the members in which the power resides, not the clergy. And the clergy need to wake up and realise that.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Quote: | | The Church, by saying that those who have married can't use contraception, and by not thus empowering women in developed countries to take firmer control of their lives, has left more women in a poverty trap during JPII's reign than at any time before. It can witter on about magisterium and tradition all it likes, but by coming out with a doctrine that isn't all that well supported by the bible it has contributed to a rise in poverty in the developed world and eroded its own applicability in the developed world. This isn't about liberalism or conservatism, it's about real lives and how the main message (hope, joy and faith) is being eroded through an inattention to those details. |
That's not the point we were discussing, I was simply showing that there are many catholics who hanker for a return to more traditional teaching, rather than a uniform mass of catholics who have moved on from the hierarchy and are in tune with a more liberal society. There are many facets to this.
| Quote: | Why is there a compromise here? Why need there be one?
The way I see it, procreation is a Catholic duty, but keeping ones children provided is also a duty. You can't have it both ways without either abstaining from sex (which isn't happening, has never happened, will never happen) or using contraception. |
Ask a catholic archbishop, I assume it allows the use of protection without invalidating the catholic dogma. They may easily skirt the issue of infallibility that way
| Quote: | | Catholicism has lost ground to Islam and charismatic Christian sects across the globe; the priesthood in Africa, by trying to preach the message that contraception isn't allowed, has contributed to the HIV epidemic. What further evidence of crisis in the priesthood do you want? |
Yes it has, but it's growing rapidly in Africa and South America. You can't blame catholicism for Aids and then have it potrayed as marginalised by other religions. You also have to agree that if the catholic teachings of abstinence and monogamy were adhered to then that would greatly assist in reducing transmission.
| Quote: | | Completely. It's been argued that initiative in senior Catholic circles has been eroded during JPII's 'top down' management. Catholicism, if it is ever to be about the relationship between man or woman and God, must be managed from the bottom up. It is the members in which the power resides, not the clergy. And the clergy need to wake up and realise that. |
It's been top down since the time of Peter, I can't ever see that changing.
Apologies to anyone catholics on here if I'm making a fist of explaining RC teaching on these matters
|
Joey
|
RC teaching!
Don't want Hughs disciples on here!
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Joey wrote: | RC teaching!
Don't want Hughs disciples on here! |
|
cab
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
That's not the point we were discussing, I was simply showing that there are many catholics who hanker for a return to more traditional teaching, rather than a uniform mass of catholics who have moved on from the hierarchy and are in tune with a more liberal society. There are many facets to this.
|
But my point is that the 'traditional' aspect here is an illusion; Catholicism is a dynamic thing, and to forget that and shun the liberal aspects of modern life ignores the fact that Catholicism has ALWAYS changed. It seems to lag 50 years or so behind, but it's still a changing institution. That's the purpose of having a pope.
| Quote: |
Ask a catholic archbishop, I assume it allows the use of protection without invalidating the catholic dogma. They may easily skirt the issue of infallibility that way
|
I'd rather look to the Bible, to be honest. Responsibility for ones children is a recurring message in the bible. There's also a whole book in there where one of the big message is on enjoying physical love. The bible was written in a time of high birth and death rates, pre-urbansation in an undeveloped world, and it's the role of the Pope to reinterpret the bible and the word of God in light of how the world changes, and for him to ignore such changes (or even brand such observances as 'liberal' or non traditional) is the very antithesis of what the papacy is all about.
| Quote: |
Yes it has, but it's growing rapidly in Africa and South America. |
By out-breeding everyone else, yes. It's growing, but not at the expense of poverty and overpopulation.
| Quote: | | You can't blame catholicism for Aids and then have it potrayed as marginalised by other religions. |
I don't blame catholicism for aids, but I hold it against catholicism that as a religion, as a force potentially for a whole load of good, it has failed to grasp the nettle on this one.
| Quote: | You also have to agree that if the catholic teachings of abstinence and monogamy were adhered to then that would greatly assist in reducing transmission.
|
Catholics (and other Christians) are no more monogamous or abstaining than anyone else; Jesus knew that, the Pope knows that. We're imperfect beings in the eyes of God, that's why he's chosen to forgive. A church therefore cannot responsibly wash its hands of a pandemic STD claiming that people ougtn't be having so much sex.
| Quote: |
It's been top down since the time of Peter, I can't ever see that changing.
Apologies to anyone catholics on here if I'm making a fist of explaining RC teaching on these matters |
Has it really always been top down in the same way, though? JPII has been a major influence in catholicism, having a very long papacy and controlling the Catholic church quite absolutely. Very few Cardinals, fewer active ones, pre-date him. Has the church really been top down in that sense all the way along? Ever?
I'm not a Catholic. I'm not a Christian. And I believe that religions are fair game for criticism in the same way as any other institution is. Sorry if this criticism of catholicism seems ill-timed, though.
|
jema
|
Isn't even the doctrine of infallability less than 200 years old? Hence things actually getting more top down quite recently.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| jema wrote: | | Isn't even the doctrine of infallability less than 200 years old? Hence things actually getting more top down quite recently. |
Defined in the first vatican council, 1869.
| Quote: |
"We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: That the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra - that is, when, in the discharge of his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church - is, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that the Church should be endowed" |
Although the pope has always been the supreme authority (on earth )
|
chrissy
|
The issues are complicated. However I cannot but respect a leader who stood for good and peace. Please try for a minute not to think of him as the main Catholic man.
P.S. I'm not a Catholic.
|
jema
|
Its funny isn't, to a lot of people including myself, when someone or other claims "divine inspiration" it is a scary danger signal. I think a lot of us discussed this very point when talking about the Findhorn community.
|
chrissy
|
I didn't see that jema.
However I just have so much time for anyone who tries to make peace between all the warring factions. He was a good man.
|
jema
|
I must confess to not knowing the good points there way have been about him  All the time I hear about Catholicism it is on issues like AIDS, Abortion, Child abuse e.g. the stuff that probably does give a one sided view of things.
|
chrissy
|
It's the nature of things nowadays. You only hear about the down side of things. I know there are dreadful things alleged about the church (all churches actually) but for heaven's sake we MUST try and see the goodness in as much as we can.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| jema wrote: | | I must confess to not knowing the good points there way have been about him All the time I hear about Catholicism it is on issues like AIDS, Abortion, Child abuse e.g. the stuff that probably does give a one sided view of things. |
That's because bad press makes headlines and the church is often an easy target. His teaching on preventing rampant capitalism and helping erase third world debt is almost totally overlooked.
Likewise his strengthening of the ties with other faiths, especially Jews and Muslims was inspirational.
|
Bugs
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | Likewise his strengthening of the ties with other faiths, especially Jews and Muslims was inspirational. |
Listening to the radio this morning, they were talking to a rabbi and an imam (both in Rome I think) about the visits and contact; I had never heard much of this aspect before and it's a great pity.
Vaguely related, I keep meaning to go and customise Google news, to get a feed of stories I want; but you're still reliant on the media's idea of what is interesting.
|
Jonnyboy
|
Cab wrote. | Quote: | | But my point is that the 'traditional' aspect here is an illusion; Catholicism is a dynamic thing, and to forget that and shun the liberal aspects of modern life ignores the fact that Catholicism has ALWAYS changed. It seems to lag 50 years or so behind, but it's still a changing institution. |
No, There is more to the changes in Catholicism, and christianity than just vox populi, vox Dei
A traditionalist would argue that the attempts to liberalise catholicism such as vatican II, go beyond the remit allowed and interfere with sacred tradition, which in itself isn't really 'wittering on', but the unwritten teachings of the apostles, passed down through the teaching of the church. So for catholics. sacred tradition is vitally important and changes to that are to be very, very carefully considered
| Quote: | | I'd rather look to the Bible, to be honest. Responsibility for ones children is a recurring message in the bible. |
Don't forget that Jesus founded the church, and the church gave us the bible - sacred tradition and sacred scripture going hand in hand.
| Quote: | | There's also a whole book in there where one of the big message is on enjoying physical love |
Song of Solomon. To labour a point it's about enjoying physical and spiritual love within the union of marriage. Although I'm afraid that some scholars, consider it a poetic take on the relationship between the jewish people and Israel. I like to think it's about rumpy pumpy.
| Quote: | | The bible was written in a time of high birth and death rates, pre-urbansation in an undeveloped world, and it's the role of the Pope to reinterpret the bible and the word of God in light of how the world changes, and for him to ignore such changes (or even brand such observances as 'liberal' or non traditional) is the very antithesis of what the papacy is all about. |
What makes you think that? There are some truths that are immutable. The role of the pope is surely to provide spiritual guidance and security in an uncertain world. Reinterpreting the word of God to meet the wishes of man is surely an antithesis of the papacy, not vice versa.
| Quote: | | I don't blame catholicism for aids, but I hold it against catholicism that as a religion, as a force potentially for a whole load of good, it has failed to grasp the nettle on this one. |
I think John Paul II grasped the nettle alright, he just didn't give the answer most of us wish for.
| Quote: | | Catholics (and other Christians) are no more monogamous or abstaining than anyone else; Jesus knew that, the Pope knows that. We're imperfect beings in the eyes of God, that's why he's chosen to forgive. A church therefore cannot responsibly wash its hands of a pandemic STD claiming that people ougtn't be having so much sex. |
I'm not sure that it's washing it's hands (especially given the historical reference) any decision wouldn't have in all conscience been taken lightly. From the popes perspective, contraception removes the focus of sex from procreation to pure enjoyment. that goes against sacred tradition.
| Quote: | | I'm not a Catholic. I'm not a Christian. And I believe that religions are fair game for criticism in the same way as any other institution is. Sorry if this criticism of catholicism seems ill-timed, though |
That's always difficult, without having the mind of God it's difficult to answer for him.
Again, apologies to any catholics if I'm misinterpreting things. this is pushing the boundaries of my knowledge on theology and doctrine.
|
cab
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
No, There is more to the changes in Catholicism, and christianity than just vox populi, vox Dei
|
I'd never argue otherwise; changes in Catholicism happen when the world changes around them; to make sense of scripture, the opinion of Catholicism has to change. It can sometimes be a little slow (the literal interpretation that the world was flat, taken from the 'four corners' comment in Genesis, was only officially dropped in favour of a spherical world some time around 1970, for example). But it's always happened; now that peoples lives and our capability for living long lives is outstripping the carrying capacity of our planet, it is irresponsible for Catholicism not to change. Catholicism is and has always been about the relationship between man and Gods creation; to choose one dogma because its traditional and ignore other dogmas which are also traditional, to merely brush those under the carpet, is neither 'traditional' nor is it desperately catholic.
| Quote: |
A traditionalist would argue that the attempts to liberalise catholicism such as vatican II, go beyond the remit allowed and interfere with sacred tradition, |
I've alread posted my views on whether that's 'liberalisation'. The word is being misused.
| Quote: |
which in itself isn't really 'wittering on', but the unwritten teachings of the apostles, passed down through the teaching of the church. So for catholics. sacred tradition is vitally important and changes to that are to be very, very carefully considered
|
So catholicism should erode its belief that Gods creation is important in favour of overpopulation? Really, it's that simple.
| Quote: |
Don't forget that Jesus founded the church, and the church gave us the bible - sacred tradition and sacred scripture going hand in hand.
|
Of course that's true, but a Catholic can't (and shouldn't) ever forget that there's only one primary source document. Where a message from the Vatican contradicts one from the Bible that's something anyone with faith should question; JPII was one for questioning, long before he became pope.
In the current world we've got some plain old fashioned contradictions. The Catholic church maintains that marriage can and should produce children. The Catholic church maintains that parents should remain repsonsible for their childrens welfare. The Catholic church maintains that man has a responsibility to Gods creation. All of these things do not fit together in a world where birth rate exceeds death rate. Either Catholicism must accept that it is preaching a doctrine leading to an increase in death rate as the Earth cannot support the growing population, a doctrine that of necessity precludes a parent caring as well for a child as he or she might, and a doctrine which inevitably leads to destruction of much of Gods creation, or they wise up and realise that once again, it's time to readdress their teachings. The Church cannot have it both ways.
| Quote: |
Song of Solomon. To labour a point it's about enjoying physical and spiritual love within the union of marriage. Although I'm afraid that some scholars, consider it a poetic take on the relationship between the jewish people and Israel. I like to think it's about rumpy pumpy.
|
Either all the translations I've seen are dodgy or it's about hot steamy rumpy pumpy, sort of within the bounds of marraige (although it doesn't really labour that).
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | The bible was written in a time of high birth and death rates, pre-urbansation in an undeveloped world, and it's the role of the Pope to reinterpret the bible and the word of God in light of how the world changes, and for him to ignore such changes (or even brand such observances as 'liberal' or non traditional) is the very antithesis of what the papacy is all about. |
What makes you think that? There are some truths that are immutable. The role of the pope is surely to provide spiritual guidance and security in an uncertain world. Reinterpreting the word of God to meet the wishes of man is surely an antithesis of the papacy, not vice versa.
|
The Pope, and the Pope alone in Catholicism, can change Catholic doctrine. It has always been the role of the pope to do that. The Bible has always been a bit ambivalent, and it has always been the role of the pope to (and the clergy) to help people come to an understanding of what does and doesn't matter. To pick an almost silly example to show the point, I believe that it is in the book of Deuteronomy where we are told that should our home be infected with a spreading rot we must contact a Rabbi, who will come and burn our home down. No thanks, if I get some kind of rot I'll call in a builder or a pest control company and not a holy arsonist  All through the Bible are teachings that made perfect sense in their day (those of imperfect vision not being allowed to approach an Altar of God), but which aren't considered important now (how many priests are there with glasses?). It is and has always been the role of clergy, specifically in Catholicism the pope, to help people out with these problems.
| Quote: |
I think John Paul II grasped the nettle alright, he just didn't give the answer most of us wish for.
|
No, I don't think he did. For esample, he could have taken his cardinals who insisted that because sperm can pass through latex (the position of many Catholic cardinals, and an outright lie) HIV can also pass through because it's smaller (another lie, and a non sequiter), and given them a right holy slapping. He could have supported the use of contraceptives within marriage in regions such as Rwanda where the diagnosis of HIV lagged way behind the rapes that spread the condition, and in which many people subsequently caught HIV from their spouses. But he didn't.
| Quote: |
I'm not sure that it's washing it's hands (especially given the historical reference) any decision wouldn't have in all conscience been taken lightly. From the popes perspective, contraception removes the focus of sex from procreation to pure enjoyment. that goes against sacred tradition.
|
Does it really? I don't recall much mention of the joyousness of conception in the Song of Solomon. The focus on sex and sexual morality at the expense of other forms of morality seems rather a new obsession for the Catholic church. Wasn't all that long ago that you could be burned with papal consent for witchcraft but you could be forgiven for sleeping around. Catholicism changes.
| Quote: |
That's always difficult, without having the mind of God it's difficult to answer for him.
|
Oh, that would be an impossible task. At the end of the day, a Christian has one source document, and any criticism made of tradition based on that document is valid; but you can't live your life purely on that document. If someone tries to assault a Christian with a rational argument based on the bible then the Christian either has to bluff their way out of it or give up. But to make that argument ignores one of the most important biblical messages, which is that Christianity is more than the bible, it's about ones relationship with God, which in many ways transcends scripture. And there's the crux of the problem; Christian churches have to interpret the bible, and such institutional interpretation is often as flawed, and always more dogmatic, than the individual interpretation.
| Quote: |
Again, apologies to any catholics if I'm misinterpreting things. this is pushing the boundaries of my knowledge on theology and doctrine. |
For what it's worth, to this non Christian and non Catholic, I see no disrespect towards Catholicism in what you're saying.
|
Silas
|
[quote="Jonnyboy"]Cab wrote. | Quote: |
Don't forget that Jesus founded the church, and the church gave us the bible - sacred tradition and sacred scripture going hand in hand.
Again, apologies to any catholics if I'm misinterpreting things. this is pushing the boundaries of my knowledge on theology and doctrine. |
Jesus ( or at least his diciples) founded the church, the church gave us the bible (?) but the church also gave a shedload of unsupportable political dogma and that is the problem.
|
jema
|
I think all religions get them self stuck in the trap that they want to be preaching "eternal" truths/doctrines, and therefore whilst they have to change with the times, they are very keen not be be seen to be changing, as this would undermine the basis of the religion.
Hence they frequently get very hung up as the world does move on, in the 21st centrury only the totally barking for example could say the old testement should be taken literally, and so that has been pretty much glossed over by the modern churches.
|
cab
|
| Silas wrote: |
Jesus ( or at least his diciples) founded the church, the church gave us the bible (?) but the church also gave a shedload of unsupportable political dogma and that is the problem. |
Is it?
How can you have a holy text that contradicts itself, makes big deals out of thin prophesy, and has a whole load of physically impossible and totally implausable stories and then blame the dogma that the church came up with? The dogma that every Christian branch has is necessary to make sense of an ancient text. The alternative is to be a fundamentalist Christian who believes the literal word of the bible, but that's not a sensible position because you'd have to believe multiple contradictory things (or be into interpreting the bible yourself, in which case you've still got dogma).
I'm glad I'm not a Christian, I'd HATE to have to sort that one out.
|
Bec
|
If everyone abided by the teachings of their faiths then we wouldn't have so many problems. Unfortunately some religions (maybe all) allow you to 'sin' but be forgiven upon confessing and being genuinely sorry for doing it. Seems like a good bet all round that.
I'm not moved at all by the popes death he meant nothing to me and whilst he may have preached peace so do I, doubt that many would remember me on the day I die though!
Bec
|
cab
|
| Bec wrote: | If everyone abided by the teachings of their faiths then we wouldn't have so many problems. Unfortunately some religions (maybe all) allow you to 'sin' but be forgiven upon confessing and being genuinely sorry for doing it. Seems like a good bet all round that.
I'm not moved at all by the popes death he meant nothing to me and whilst he may have preached peace so do I, doubt that many would remember me on the day I die though!
Bec |
Depends on which teachings. You can find passages in many of the major religions that urge people to go and harm others. It all depends on what you consider most important, really.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Bec wrote: | If everyone abided by the teachings of their faiths then we wouldn't have so many problems. Unfortunately some religions (maybe all) allow you to 'sin' but be forgiven upon confessing and being genuinely sorry for doing it. Seems like a good bet all round that.
I'm not moved at all by the popes death he meant nothing to me and whilst he may have preached peace so do I, doubt that many would remember me on the day I die though!
Bec |
That's a popular misconception, It's not about 'allowing' you to sin but recognising that however hard we try, we will make a mess of things and generally be sinful and bad to each other. After all none of us are perfect.
Genuine repentance gives forgiveness, it's not a 'get out of jail free' card or a license to go back and do the same thing. Anyone who seeks forgiveness without a contrite heart is simply fooling themselves.
|
tahir
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | That's a popular misconception, It's not about 'allowing' you to sin but recognising that however hard we try, we will make a mess of things and generally be sinful and bad to each other. After all none of us are perfect.
Genuine repentance gives forgiveness, it's not a 'get out of jail free' card or a license to go back and do the same thing. Anyone who seeks forgiveness without a contrite heart is simply fooling themselves. |
It may well be a misconception, but it's one that pervades religious communities, I had a debate about this very topic with an Arab gentleman in Medinah once, his understanding was exactly the same as Bec's.
|
Jonnyboy
|
Tahir wrote:
| Quote: | | It may well be a misconception, but it's one that pervades religious communities, I had a debate about this very topic with an Arab gentleman in Medinah once, his understanding was exactly the same as Bec's. |
You may be right, although it would probably be a conception more likely to be held by those outside the particular religion. It's like the protestants over here thinking that Catholics worship statues of Mary as a God, when the reality is that they pray for her to intercede on their behalf to God. One's idolatry, one's not. But a lot of people are happy to stick with a view that reinforces their preconceptions.
|
jema
|
| Quote: |
When I was a boy I wanted a bike, so I prayed for one, but I never received an answer.
When I grew up I learnt that God did not work that way.
So I went out and stole a bike, and prayed for forgiveness.
|
|
Fee
|
Just reading this thread for the first time, I'd avoided it after reading the first post, but wanted to say thanks to you, Jonnyboy, for putting the same opinion as myself across so eliquently.
I am a Catholic (though not a 'practising' one I have to admit), and I see the death of The Pope as an expected but still sad occassion. A lot of people saw him as their Holy Father, a spiritual leader, and no matter what other peoples beliefs are, I'm sure they would not begrudge people mourning their Father, and paying their respects to his passing.
The media is what it is, and I think he deserved the attention he got, any highly public figure who meant as much to so many people (if another single person exists in our World today) would have the same media attention I'm sure. If the Queen were on her death bed, and died, would we not see similar media coverage?
Also, I'm Catholic and British and I don't see my country as a Protestant one I'm afraid, we live in a multi-cultural society, and the fact that non-Catholics (for example, Tony Blair and members of the Royal family) are respecting that an honourable thing to do.
|
Jonnyboy
|
Phew! Thanks Fee, I was a bit worried that I might be misrepresenting people even though I know a lot of practicing catholics, including clergy.
Out of interest what was it about my first post that stopped you from joining in? I started this off to stimulate debate, not prevent it so I'd welcome some constructive criticism. (I get enough plain old criticism from the rest of them! )
Feel free to reply by PM if you want.
|
Fee
|
It was more the entire first page I think, Jonnyboy, I try not to get into too much discussion about religion in general, as I think we all have our beliefs and it can be quite hurtful when people say not so nice things about your beliefs.
That's not to say I don't like a good discussion, and totally believe everyone has the right to say what they believe, so thought I'd stay out
Fee
|
cab
|
Fee, if the Queen were to die (rather, when the Queen eventiually dies) I'd like to see it covered in the news and then laid to rest until the funeral, at which time it's appropriate to have comment on her life. But to be honest, I'd be as fed up with the over the top media coverage that it's likely to receive as I have been with coverage of the Pope.
One day the headlines are 'Pope about to die'. The next day the headlines are 'Pope is dead'. Fair enough. What I find a little trying is that for the next five days the headline news is 'Pope still dead'. Fair do's, a lot of people care, but it's only 'news' when it's 'new'.
|
Jonnyboy
|
This is still an official period of mourning for catholics.
In hindsight and out of respect, I should have left this discussion until after the funeral, as it would always invite negative comments.
|
cab
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | This is still an official period of mourning for catholics.
In hindsight and out of respect, I should have left this discussion until after the funeral, as it would always invite negative comments. |
Hasn't been a great deal of negativity here. Besides, I'm sure that JPII wouldn't mind, he was never a man to shrug off criticism or to back away from confrontation or saying what he believed. Even when I REALLY disagreed with him, I was still left respecting him. And THAT'S statesmanship, not just religious leadership.
|
Jonnyboy
|
It's as much about respect for the sensitivity of those mourning him as the pope himself. I think I'll leave responding on your earlier posts until after the funeral.
The election of a new pontiff is bound to raise some debate anyway.
|
Jeff
|
I am married into a non practising RC family (South American) who have abviously taken great interest in these recent proceedings...
My wife remembers the massive occasion of the Pope visiting her city of Cali when she was a child etc...
If I'm honest, I don't think I would have taken the slightest bit of interest at all had I not been around them, why, because it does not affect me...
I have taken it upon myself to not be concerned with anything that doesn't directly change my life... Politics and voting for instance... I don't bother voting because no matter whether the Conservatives or Labour are in power I don't see the difference, it's all for them, not us...
I didn't care too much that Diana died because it won't change my life, just like I couldn't care if Charles marries one of the Corgies (Camilla) for the same reason...
I know that I am heading to be shot down in flames for my comments but I am simply demonstrating that I only wish to fill my life with things that affect me directly. I care and concern myself about my family, my newborn son, my work. I spend my time thinking about fishing and cooking and what colour to paint the bedroom... Politics is for the politicians, religion is for the religious... I am niether and therefore leave it to them... Simple life and all that.............
|
Gertie
|
Hi Jeff - how is your little 'un doing!
I can relate to where you are coming from - I don't hold strong views on politics (because I think they are all as bad as each other) or religion. Although I would like to say I do have faith, but do not feel the need to go to a special building to profess my faith - we have a lovely village church and I sometimes want to go and have a quiet thought or two - but the problem is the door is normally locked outside of a time set aside on Sundays or meetings during the week.
I am saddened by the death of the Pope - I saw him as a good man who tried to break down barriers between religious groups. There again I also think that here is an 84 year old man who has had a long and hopefully happy life - there are lots of children and young people who become ill and pass away before experiencing life to the full.
As far as Charles marrying Camilla - I don't really care one way or another.
|
Jeff
|
Morning Gertie,
Oliver and Mum are doing very well, he is just over 5 weeks now and is putting on about 7oz's a week which is perfect...
I like yourself am not ignorant to religion, I married in a church and took my vows seriously and will accept god and religion into my life when it is around me.
I just see those that avidly and devotedly follow a religion as perhaps a little reliant in that they need to fill their lives with something that they can believe in or follow to find fulfilment and purpose in life...?
Jeff
|
Jonnyboy
|
Many people turn to religion as a support in times of crisis, it's always interested me why so many people insist on church weddings, baptism for the kids and a church funeral and burial when they have never had any interest or support for the chosen religion.
Personally, I came to faith during a very good time in my life, and things have just got better because of it.
But it had followed years of exploration of my feelings towards faith, it's history, faults and triumphs. Plus no small amount of wilful ignorance towards what had been tugging at me.
|
cab
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | Many people turn to religion as a support in times of crisis, it's always interested me why so many people insist on church weddings, baptism for the kids and a church funeral and burial when they have never had any interest or support for the chosen religion.
|
Religion has a monopoly on the traditional ceremonies. If you want to do it traditionally, you have to do it religiously.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| cab wrote: |
Religion has a monopoly on the traditional ceremonies. If you want to do it traditionally, you have to do it religiously. |
The tradition is to do it religiously. There is nothing to stop people doing something different.
Why take marriage vows you don't agree with in front of a deity you don't believe in? Just because you get to be in pretty building?
What's 'traditional' about baptism? It's purely a religious ceremony.
|
Jeff
|
The thing is that even marrying in a registry office involves religion... Technically your marridge won't be recongised in this country unless it is swore in the eyes of god... (or something like that)
|
Silas
|
| Jeff wrote: | | The thing is that even marrying in a registry office involves religion... Technically your marridge won't be recongised in this country unless it is swore in the eyes of god... (or something like that) |
No, you could not be more wrong.
There is not allowed to be any religious content in a civil ceremony - not even the music!
It is the other way around, a cleric who conducts a marrige ceremony has to be licenced.
|
Jeff
|
I guessed that I would be wrong...DOH! 
|
cab
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
The tradition is to do it religiously. There is nothing to stop people doing something different. |
Except the desire to appease people by doing it traditionally (which isn't just religion; it's the setting, the music, and making a bunch of promises to some bloke in a dress), the will to conform, the indoctrination that this is the 'right' thing to do which makes some girls draw their weddings in school art classes from the age of 5, etc. Religion has had the monopoly so long that's how people see the way things should be done, even if they're not religious.
| Quote: |
Why take marriage vows you don't agree with in front of a deity you don't believe in? Just because you get to be in pretty building?
|
Yep. That's why we're not married; seems like a foolish tradition. We have a mortgage and wills, and are named as each others next of kin at our local hospitals and the like.
| Quote: |
What's 'traditional' about baptism? It's purely a religious ceremony. |
Of course it's traditional. A christening is the family comng around to see the new baby in a nice little outfit and have a gathering; 'naming ceremonies' outside of churches haven't caught peoples imaginations in the same way as the traditional ones.
I'd personally say that it's unacceptable to offer someone into a church who isn't making that choice for themselves, but that's another matter.
|
jema
|
I know athiests who have had their kids christened simply because it is well f knows what really  , conforming to family pressure?, a fun day? traditon?
I can't understand it 
|
Res
|
I got (married) blessed in the Harlow Town Park, cos I did not want the church.
The law is/has already changed from being a licenced "building" to a licenced "person" who can marry you anywhere they are willing carry out the service.
I had to do the registry office first, but that was own "denim" wedding. We ALL turned up jeans/jackets. They were not impressed about that and the fact we had invited Bishop Johnathon into her "patch" the day after for OUR wedding!
Brilliant day!
|
Jeff
|
Very true...
I remember my brother complaining that he had to go to church for 10 sunday services so to be able to marry in the church of he and his wifes choice... Have they been back since... NO
There is a lot of emphasis upon that it is right to marry in a church in a religious way... Since I married I have been to several churches because I find them beautiful and peaceful places in which to think about things that may trouble me...
I did in fact light a candle and say a little prayer to wish my new son safe passage into this world and that my wife came comfortably through the birth...
I am not an athiest as I do feel something when I visit a church... I just don't believe in absolute devotion and the absorbing of oneself into religion to a point that I think can be grossly un-natural...
|
Jonnyboy
|
| cab wrote: |
Except the desire to appease people by doing it traditionally (which isn't just religion; it's the setting, the music, and making a bunch of promises to some bloke in a dress), the will to conform, the indoctrination that this is the 'right' thing to do which makes some girls draw their weddings in school art classes from the age of 5, etc. Religion has had the monopoly so long that's how people see the way things should be done, even if they're not religious. |
It's wrong to blame religion as having a 'monopoly', we are increasingly secular. Religion plays a minority part in most people lives, to the majority it's an irrelevance. Marriage isn't the norm and for those that do, divorce is the more likely outcome. You can blame secular pressures but it's quite wrong to blame the church.
| Quote: | | Yep. That's why we're not married; seems like a foolish tradition. We have a mortgage and wills, and are named as each others next of kin at our local hospitals and the like. |
How do you cope with the pressure from your family, friends, work colleagues and local church to conform and be married in a religious ceremony? Probably because there was very little, if any.
| Quote: | | Of course it's traditional. A christening is the family comng around to see the new baby in a nice little outfit and have a gathering; 'naming ceremonies' outside of churches haven't caught peoples imaginations in the same way as the traditional ones. |
No, it was always religious first. People have rejected the religion but for whatever reason want to retain the trappings. You can't expect the church to throw their doors open to non-religious ceremonies.
| Quote: | | I'd personally say that it's unacceptable to offer someone into a church who isn't making that choice for themselves, but that's another matter. |
Some (myself included) think infant baptism isn't strictly necessary. Some think it as an outward sign of the covenant, but either way it doesn't bind them to christianity without their consent forever. A profession of faith with their own free will is still required
|
Res
|
Religeon causes so much trouble it untrue. Killing and mamming in the name of god, DOH!
|
Jeff
|
How many wars have been the cause of religious or ethnic indefferences...?
|
cab
|
| Jeff wrote: | | How many wars have been the cause of religious or ethnic indefferences...? |
Do you think that without religion we would have less wars? My gut feeling is that we'd have as much maiming and killing, it would just bne over different things.
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Jeff wrote: | Very true...
I remember my brother complaining that he had to go to church for 10 sunday services so to be able to marry in the church of he and his wifes choice... Have they been back since... NO |
Why go to 10 services in the first place, why was the desire to get married in that particular church so great. If people aren't religious it seems daft that they go throw all this just to get a church of their choice. The church could have declined to let them use the church at all, instead they seem to have found a way which allows them to teach people about the faith. After that it's up to them..
| Quote: |
There is a lot of emphasis upon that it is right to marry in a church in a religious way... Since I married I have been to several churches because I find them beautiful and peaceful places in which to think about things that may trouble me... |
Yes there is, I can't honestly say where it's coming but seeing as the church has so little influence on society then it must be us.
| Quote: | | I did in fact light a candle and say a little prayer to wish my new son safe passage into this world and that my wife came comfortably through the birth... |
I hope it worked
| Quote: |
I am not an athiest as I do feel something when I visit a church... I just don't believe in absolute devotion and the absorbing of oneself into religion to a point that I think can be grossly un-natural |
I can agree with that,
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Jeff wrote: | | How many wars have been the cause of religious or ethnic indefferences...? |
Lots, but a lot are caused by evil people distorting religion to justify what they want to achieve.
Wars would happen anyway, religion or no religion.
|
tahir
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | Wars would happen anyway, religion or no religion. |
Agree 100%
|
Jonnyboy
|
| tahir wrote: | | Jonnyboy wrote: | | Wars would happen anyway, religion or no religion. |
Agree 100% |
Have you been lurking again? chip in.
|
cab
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
It's wrong to blame religion as having a 'monopoly', we are increasingly secular. Religion plays a minority part in most people lives, to the majority it's an irrelevance. Marriage isn't the norm and for those that do, divorce is the more likely outcome. You can blame secular pressures but it's quite wrong to blame the church.
|
I'm not blaming religion, I'm merely stating what I see. But if you want to be married, you're going to have to do it a non-traditional way (less pretty, the pictures aren't as good, the aunts and uncles sneer a bit) or you do it with religious ceremony. That's not blaming anything, it's merely the case that for so long that's how these things have been done, that's the religion.
| Quote: |
How do you cope with the pressure from your family, friends, work colleagues and local church to conform and be married in a religious ceremony? Probably because there was very little, if any.
|
Ah, but how much more would we both feel the rpessure if we'd been brought up with any kind of impression or indoctrination that marriage is the right thing to do? I know a lot of married atheists.
| Quote: |
No, it was always religious first. People have rejected the religion but for whatever reason want to retain the trappings. You can't expect the church to throw their doors open to non-religious ceremonies.
|
I'm not asking the Church to do that. Where did you get that idea from?
Christenings have meaning outside of religion, and for that reason a lot of people want to christen their children. I'll be invited to one in a month or two myself, for my newest niece, by one of my brothers who is no more religious than I am. He's doing it because other people in both families want the ceremony, they want the christening, and you don't get people happily turning up for a 'naming ceremony'. That's the way the world is; if it isn't the traditional way, people don't acknowledge it.
| Quote: |
Some (myself included) think infant baptism isn't strictly necessary. Some think it as an outward sign of the covenant, but either way it doesn't bind them to christianity without their consent forever. A profession of faith with their own free will is still required |
I think that infant baptism is almost abhorrent; it's almost as bad as religious indoctrination of children.
|
Jeff
|
| cab wrote: | | Jeff wrote: | | How many wars have been the cause of religious or ethnic indefferences...? |
Do you think that without religion we would have less wars? My gut feeling is that we'd have as much maiming and killing, it would just bne over different things. |
Simply, I do...
|
Jeff
|
[quote="Jonnyboy"]
| Quote: | | I did in fact light a candle and say a little prayer to wish my new son safe passage into this world and that my wife came comfortably through the birth... |
I hope it worked
It did very much thank you!!!
|
Res
|
Yes wars will happen due to conflict, but not in the name of god or a-another.
You can see it for what it is.
|
Jeff
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | Jeff wrote: | | How many wars have been the cause of religious or ethnic indefferences...? |
Lots, but a lot are caused by evil people distorting religion to justify what they want to achieve.
Wars would happen anyway, religion or no religion. |
Sorry Jon but I have to disagree... Look through history, whether religion was merely used as an excuse or not a lot of wars, conflicts and oppression was done in the name of it...
|
alison
|
Cab, I think the Christening .Naming ceromony thing depends on how you handle it.
We are Christians and all our children had a dedication service.
Two in church, and one on the farm.
In each case we had all our families here. They knew that is how we wanted to do it and they all came.
The one on the farm was the best, as the non Christians did not feel so threatened, but it was also the most spiritual too.
|
Jeff
|
You say that religion has nothing to do with conflict and killing....
Remindl me again why Bin Laden and his gang or up to no good...?
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Jeff wrote: | | Jonnyboy wrote: | | Jeff wrote: | | How many wars have been the cause of religious or ethnic indefferences...? |
Lots, but a lot are caused by evil people distorting religion to justify what they want to achieve.
Wars would happen anyway, religion or no religion. |
Sorry Jon but I have to disagree... Look through history, whether religion was merely used as an excuse or not a lot of wars, conflicts and oppression was done in the name of it... |
That's pretty much what I said Jeff.
But I know of two world wars that weren't a direct result of religion.
|
tahir
|
Rwanda wasn't a religious war
|
Jeff
|
A lot of wars were in the name of religion though...
|
Res
|
Sorry Tahir, I can't comment on that cos I dont know. I tend to stay away from the news so dont know much about that one. If it was'nt as you say, then at least you know who the guilty parties are?
I get disheartened with all the stuff bombarded at you in the so called "news", that I dont go out my way to watch or read. Hav'nt bought a paper since last year. Even then, it was only the second one I bought in 2004.
|
Jeff
|
I see nobody said anything about my Bin Laden comment... What is his reason to hate western society and ideals.......
|
tahir
|
What did you want people to say about Bin Laden? There are extremists in every religion or other social grouping, Stalin for example...
People are people, we have among us paedophiles, murderers, drug addicts and so on what do we do? Who do we blame?
|
Jonnyboy
|
| Jeff wrote: | | A lot of wars were in the name of religion though... |
I don't think anyone disagreed with that did they?
As for Bin Laden, I don't honestly know. You could call it religious extremism, something that those looking to criticise muslims jump on, and something that real muslims lament as an affront to their faith.
His life is full of contradictions, I just think of him as a nutter with lots of money; that money gives him power. And he uses that power to dupe the easily led into dying for his own ideological nonsense.
|
jema
|
I think there are almost always non religious motives for a war by those who start them. But religion has proved very effective throughout history at oillng the wheels of war, or of justifying colonialism as needed to convert/save the heathans etc.
|
tahir
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: | | I just think of him as a nutter with lots of money; that money gives him power. And he uses that power to dupe the easily led into dying for his own ideological nonsense. |
I think that's quite a fair summary of the bloke
|
Bugs
|
| Jeff wrote: | | I see nobody said anything about my Bin Laden comment... What is his reason to hate western society and ideals....... |
I've been meaning to ask, but he's been awfully difficult to get hold of recently.
Sorry, couldn't resist it. How can anyone know? Of the Muslims I've personally known he doesn't represent their views, just like you can't say Stalin represents all socialists or George Bush represents all Christians - or all Americans, for that matter. Some people seem to have a desire to gain power or inflict unhappiness and their reasons can be pretty interchangeable.
|
Jeff
|
| tahir wrote: | What did you want people to say about Bin Laden? There are extremists in every religion or other social grouping, Stalin for example...
People are people, we have among us paedophiles, murderers, drug addicts and so on what do we do? Who do we blame? |
I wouldn't call the huge following he has a few extremists matey...
|
cab
|
| tahir wrote: | | Jonnyboy wrote: | | I just think of him as a nutter with lots of money; that money gives him power. And he uses that power to dupe the easily led into dying for his own ideological nonsense. |
I think that's quite a fair summary of the bloke |
I'm concerned that you're both happy to define his beliefs as 'ideological nonesense'.
I'm happy to do that, I have no religion from which to compare my world viws with his. I have no alternative unfalsifiable world view.
Can anyone with a religion validly do so? From a strictly rational viewpoint?
|
tahir
|
From my own families experience I'd say that religion is used to further political aims. My mother and father had to leave their homes as a result of a political movement, not because they had any problem with their hindu and sikh neighbours, they have only overwhelmingly positive memories of life in their mixed faith community.
|
tahir
|
| Jeff wrote: | | I wouldn't call the huge following he has a few extremists matey... |
How huge? And nowhere did I mention the word few. Neither Hitler nor Stalin had a few followers.
|
tahir
|
| Bugs wrote: | | Some people seem to have a desire to gain power or inflict unhappiness and their reasons can be pretty interchangeable. |
Very true
|
Jonnyboy
|
| cab wrote: |
I'm not blaming religion, I'm merely stating what I see. But if you want to be married, you're going to have to do it a non-traditional way (less pretty, the pictures aren't as good, the aunts and uncles sneer a bit) or you do it with religious ceremony. That's not blaming anything, it's merely the case that for so long that's how these things have been done, that's the religion. |
Phrasing it as a 'religious monopoly' certainly implied otherwise. The simple fact remains that people have a choice and they have free will. Going through a bunch of ceremonies they don't agree with and publically lying is just silly.
| Quote: | | Ah, but how much more would we both feel the pressure if we'd been brought up with any kind of impression or indoctrination that marriage is the right thing to do? I know a lot of married atheists. |
You would get that impression from people who believe it's the right thing to do. Indoctrination is a strong word for describing someone elses opinion. If this was the 1950's then I would agree with you about the pressure to conform, but it isn't, so the argument just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I think it's the right thing to do as a Christian, but if someone decides to get married just because I think it's right then thats daft.
There is no disconnect with atheists being married in a legal sense. If they are atheists who got married in church then that makes them hypocrites.
| Quote: | | I'm not asking the Church to do that. Where did you get that idea from? |
rhetorical question
| Quote: | | Christenings have meaning outside of religion, and for that reason a lot of people want to christen their children. I'll be invited to one in a month or two myself, for my newest niece, by one of my brothers who is no more religious than I am. He's doing it because other people in both families want the ceremony, they want the christening, and you don't get people happily turning up for a 'naming ceremony'. That's the way the world is; if it isn't the traditional way, people don't acknowledge it. |
What do you suggest they do during the religious affirmations, cross their fingers? How do you reconcile your attendance with your comment below?
| Quote: | | I think that infant baptism is almost abhorrent; it's almost as bad as religious indoctrination of children. |
|
Jonnyboy
|
| cab wrote: |
I'm concerned that you're both happy to define his beliefs as 'ideological nonesense'.
I'm happy to do that, I have no religion from which to compare my world viws with his. I have no alternative unfalsifiable world view.
Can anyone with a religion validly do so? From a strictly rational viewpoint? |
You mean that we are saying 'my version of religion is better than yours' which begs the response 'oh well prove it matey'
Having a 'strictly rational' argument usually descends to having to explain faith without using faith. Or explain something that transcends the worldly from a strictly worldly view, it's almost impossible to achieve.
My understanding of Bin Laden is that he has subverted the meaning of the Koran to suit his aims, I understand that most muslims would agree with that. As a non practising muslim I can't argue the case fully but it remains my considered opinion that he's an evil nutter who doesn't hold true to the muslim faith.
|
tahir
|
Interpretation is the key to everything, whether you're talking about religious or non religious laws and their implementation.
I'm sure that BL thinks he's a very good muslim just as white Christian KKK members that lynched blacks, or the Christians involved in the extermination of Jews in WWII thought they were good Christians.
I can't deny that religion has been involved in most wars but I can't accept the idea that religion of itself causes wars, human society needs "clubs" by which to organise itself whether they're religious, political or any other criteria that they choose to define themselves by.
Those clubs tend to disagree with each other, sometimes this ends up in violent conflict.
|
cab
|
| Jonnyboy wrote: |
Phrasing it as a 'religious monopoly' certainly implied otherwise. The simple fact remains that people have a choice and they have free will. Going through a bunch of ceremonies they don't agree with and publically lying is just silly.
|
A monopoly isn't necessarily something that you blame people for, sometimes it just happens. As for it being silly, well, yes, I think it is. Doesn't change the fact that people get married in church (for example) because that's how it's done, even if they're atheists.
| Quote: |
You would get that impression from people who believe it's the right thing to do. |
But poeple believe that independently of a belief in God. Religion has had the stranglehold on how these things are done for centuries, many people believe that's the right thing to do even if they don't believe in God.
| Quote: |
Indoctrination is a strong word for describing someone elses opinion. If this was the 1950's then I would agree with you about the pressure to conform, but it isn't, so the argument just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. |
Hence a lot of people don't get married at all, or get married in registry offices. Then there are those who aren't religious but like the trappings of church weddings and the like. I'd say that the last two church weddings I've been to were of that variety. Then there are those people who are railroaded by family into having a 'bigger' ceremony than they want. I've been to one or two of those too.
And 'indoctrination' isn't a belief structure, it's a process. I'm not describing someones beliefs as that, but I am describing selectively teaching those beliefs as fact to children as indoctrination.
| Quote: |
I think it's the right thing to do as a Christian, but if someone decides to get married just because I think it's right then thats daft.
|
I'm not the one who needs convincing here.
| Quote: |
There is no disconnect with atheists being married in a legal sense. If they are atheists who got married in church then that makes them hypocrites.
|
Why? I don't believe in God, but I'll nod my head in respect for others if I'm in a Church for whatever reason. Am I a hypocrite?
| Quote: |
What do you suggest they do during the religious affirmations, cross their fingers? | <
| |