|
Post by Harris on Oct 30, 2008 16:26:34 GMT
Hi Guillaume,
Thank you for having the honesty for admitting that these two posters did not post in an inappropriate manner.
Please note the rules referred to by hazelireland as follows:
"You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law. This is not only humorous, but legal actions can be taken against you. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also inappropriate to this forum.
Note that it is impossible for us to confirm the validity of posts on this forum. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the posted messages and are not responsible for their content. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information presented. The messages express the views of the author, not necessarily the views of this forum. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator of this forum immediately. We have the rights to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy goes for member profile information as well.
You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless this forum, and any related websites to this forum. We at this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any information we have about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any information posted by you.
You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another member, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another member's account to post messages or browse this forum.
After you register and log into this forum, you can fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clean and accurate information. Any information we deem inaccurate or vulgar will be removed.
Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.
You are solely responsible for any and all attachments that you post to this forum. You may not post files to this forum which contain copyrighted material that you do not have permission from the author to post.
You also agree to the entire ProBoards.com Terms of Service."
Also, I quote from the homepage of Irish Catholics Forum:
"Welcome to the Irish Catholics' Forum. This forum is primarily a Catholic one, but you must register to post. Common standards of courtesy apply to all members. Please do not be abusive, obscene or aggressive. This rule will be enforced strictly. One offence, and you will get a warning; do it again and you're barred."
Neither ex-member was given such a warning nor were they aggressive or obscene.
Also many of us who regularly use the internet are familiar with forums and it’s taken for granted what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Ad hominem attacks are not usually accepted on most forums for instance. Things like this hardly need to be written down as rules. It’s just common sense.
If one of the rules of this site is "Only Catholics allowed. No Atheists, Agnostics or members of others faiths please," well then this should be stated as a tenant of the site.
However, in my opinion, such a message degrades us all here.
god bless........
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Oct 30, 2008 18:08:26 GMT
Guillaume, Harris, et al; I'm only new here, and although I'm probably not informed of the extent of the "problems" which Inedifix and Hemingway may or may not have caused (nor can I find evidence of it, as their posts have been deleted), I can say this:
Atheists are more often than not thinking people, who are prepared to enter into intellectual arguments to back up their position. As fundamentally flawed as we might think their opinions are - and ever being aware of Aquinas' maxim that "to err has no rights", please be aware that a Catholic's mission on Earth is to bring the truth to the eyes and hears of those who will hear and see it, and in the case of those who won't: conversion.
I have heard it said many times before that is far easier to convert an atheistic Marxist to Catholicism than it is to convert a non-thinking sasquatch who sits in front of re-runs of Coronation Street. The reasoning behind this is that a Marxist - as much as he is in error - is a thinking person, making an initial attempt to address real problems affecting real people.
Conversion is achieved through an intellectual exchange, so you are never going to complete the central mission before every Catholic - i.e. the salvation of souls - unless you challenge an atheist through robust and informed debate.
The very fact that Inedifix and Hemingway were prepared to debate with Catholics here suggests to me that their consciences, or perhaps even Providence, was directing them off the path of error. If an atheist is sure of his atheism, he would never frequent a site like this.
So by banning them and deleting their entire archive of posts, CPM has possibly driven Inedifix and Hemingway further away from Catholicism than they were already. He has now made their conversion a more difficult task, because of pure intellectual dishonesty - one of the most egregious forms of falsehood for which a pocket of Hell is reserved.
What's more, he has dumbed down the established posters on this website by denying them the right to renounce whatever arguments they have made, and as a result, appears to belittle their ability to do so.
I would even go so far as saying that this is reminiscent of the "cultural" policy of the Soviet Union, whereby historic texts and histories which were thought to undermine the new order were removed, in case they would endanger position of the régime.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 30, 2008 20:57:45 GMT
What a beautiful sentiment. This is a post I can truly respect even though the basis of it is fundamentally different from my own. From reading it I can see a mutual reaching across the isle, to use the term that is so popular in the American elections at present.
The entire thing IS an intellectual discourse. At its fundamental core it is the intellectual discourse between people who have decided to look for evidence from the ground up and reach a conclusion... and people who have decided what is true in advance and have found the circumstantial evidence to support their views in retrospect.
Clearly however discourse IS possible despite this fundamental difference. You have displayed it here. Where I have asserted twice so far that people like SaintStephen / Redmond are something the catholic faith should be profoundly embarrassed about, people like the writers of this post are the opposite pole and I commend you as much as I hope your peers do. You and the people of the faith should be proud that such voices exist within their ranks.
I recently read a transcript of Obamas 2006 speech that was posted on atheist.ie and I think his words are fitting in reply to yours. I will repeat some of them here slightly edited to fit our context. You can of course read the original to see what little I edited lest I be accused of dishonest quoting.
„given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. If I seek to pass a law I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain it in a way accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
This level of discourse simply MUST be possible. We claim to be civilised.
Your god is a reasonable god right? Therefore the laws of its will must be also amenable to reasons. Why tell people “This is gods will!” therefore? It must be possible to find the reason behind his words and translate it into discourse amenable to all. If his words are perfect then surely the arguments for them must be also. If this cannot be done then surely this god does not exist, or it simply is not a reasonable god to begin with.
If the former then those of faith really are living their life by the teachings and morality of bronze ages peasants for whom a wheelbarrow was emergent technology. If that possibility does not chill a person to their bone I am not sure what can.
|
|
|
Post by ezigboututu on Oct 30, 2008 21:30:48 GMT
I have heard it said many times before that is far easier to convert an atheistic Marxist to Catholicism than it is to convert a non-thinking sasquatch who sits in front of re-runs of Coronation Street. The reasoning behind this is that a Marxist - as much as he is in error - is a thinking person, making an initial attempt to address real problems affecting real people. No the reasoning behind that is that the a non-thinking Sasquatch who sits in front of re-runs of Coronation Street is probably already a Catholic. Believing something you were indoctrinated into as a child does not require any thinking. ...a non-thinking Sasquatch who sits in front of re-runs of Coronation Street.Conversion is achieved through an intellectual exchange, so you are never going to complete the central mission before every Catholic - i.e. the salvation of souls - unless you challenge an atheist through robust and informed debate. So of course you will accept an invitation to visit atheist.ie and start a thread after you introduce yourself. You have no fear of being banned but you might be in danger of losing some long held delusions. www.atheist.ie/phpBB2/index.php The very fact that Inedifix and Hemingway were prepared to debate with Catholics here suggests to me that their consciences, or perhaps even Providence, was directing them off the path of error. If an atheist is sure of his atheism, he would never frequent a site like this. Atheists were invited to this site by the moderator. When their arguments could not be overcome without reverting to illogical fallacies, name calling and completely irrational non sequitrs they were banned. Imaging they were directed here by "divine" anything is just childish naivety on your part. So by banning them and deleting their entire archive of posts, CPM has possibly driven Inedifix and Hemingway further away from Catholicism than they were already. Or they were banned because by simple logical arguments they were showing how full of holes your "faith" really is. The thing which is driving people away from Catholicism is Catholicism itself. [/quote]What's more, he has dumbed down the established posters on this website by denying them the right to renounce whatever arguments they have made, and as a result, appears to belittle their ability to do so.[/quote] The established posters in the case of Redmond and SS don't need any dumbing down. If they were dumbed down any more they'd pop out of a rice paddy in China. I would even go so far as saying that this is reminiscent of the "cultural" policy of the Soviet Union, whereby historic texts and histories which were thought to undermine the new order were removed, in case they would endanger position of the régime. Stalin's methods were well established by the time he got them. They originated in the Vatican with the invention of the Index of Forbidden Books long before anyone else thought of censorship.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Oct 30, 2008 23:02:13 GMT
No the reasoning behind that is that the a non-thinking Sasquatch who sits in front of re-runs of Coronation Street is probably already a Catholic. Believing something you were indoctrinated into as a child does not require any thinking. Please; I was raised on piecemeal Novus Ordo Catholicism without having any religious encouragement from my elders. I stopped believing completely in my teens, but have seen the wisdom of Catholic tradition in adulthood. This is nothing to do with being indoctrinated as a child. Your first argument falls flat immediately. What would I gain from this? You are here to tell me why I'm being naive. Heaven forbid that when I shack up in a forum full of people who believe in nothing that I might fall a victim to Asch's Theory of Conformity. True, name calling doesn't help. But when you talk about illogical people, go no further than atheists. Agnostics at the very least acknowledge that they don't know if God exists or not. But atheists claim that they know beyond all reasonable doubt that there isn't a God. This is completely against logic when you consider the intricacies of Creation. That an atheist would argue that there is no God whatsoever is as illogical as saying that a jumper knitted itself. God works in mysterious ways. See my argument re. a jumper knitter above; it is illogical to talk down people's faith in intelligent design behind Creation because your fraternity (Richard Dawkins et al) have not come up with a satisfactory alternative explanation (even by scientific standards) as to how the world was created. To respond to that I will ask you how traditional Catholicism and Islam - two of the world's most conservative religions - are growing so rapidly. I cannot say anything to this as I'm not here long enough. Obviously with plenty of justification; when atheistic governments sprung up over the world in the 20th Century, all they did was systematically persecute and kill Christians. I notice the Obama quotation above; given the circles he and his predecessors move in, and have moved in, it's clear that there's a lot of money to be made in a world without moral order. A widespread collapse in religious belief hasn't led to the Utopia you and John Lennon dreamed about, but the consumer/machine society, with all of its side effects - pornography, abortion, marital breakdown et cetera. The divinity of humanity denied, you return man to the status of being a mere animal. And if he is led to believe that he is a dumb animal, he will act like one.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Oct 30, 2008 23:23:06 GMT
Your god is a reasonable god right? Therefore the laws of its will must be also amenable to reasons. Why tell people “This is gods will!” therefore? People often declare "this is God's will" loosely and erroneously. You are using a generalisation to attack the Catholic Faith, without addressing specifics. For instance, Catholics agree that homosexuality is an abomination, because Catholic doctrine teaches that it is against Nature. How do you propose otherwise? This is a non sequitur. You are using a failure in human understanding (on both sides, at times) to rule that there is no God. Secondly, despite your atheism, you say that there is a possibility that if God does exist, then He is unreasonable. Does He exist? If He does, are you His equal? Make up your mind! Do not mock traditions when living in a world where society is taking a chaotic roll into an early grave. The greatness of Europe was shaped on the anvil of the Catholic Faith: its prestige, its culture, architectural beauty and civilisation. Without it, it is dying: demographically, culturally, morally, and in terms of its influence in the world.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 31, 2008 0:40:40 GMT
'I have asserted twice so far that people like SaintStephen / Redmond are something the catholic faith should be profoundly embarrassed about' says hazelireland. How can the Catholic faith be embarrassed mam? Any chance that you could be a bit more specific?
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Oct 31, 2008 2:26:58 GMT
Dear Harris, It is perfectly coherent and reasonable to accumulate evidence of any one person's maliciousness. Sometime those attitudes are not immediately identifiable in script yet taken bit by bit amount to maliciousness and the consequential need to rectify harmony in any given situation. A website is not public property although posting on a website can be viewed publicly. In light of public viewing, administrators of any forum can and should delete any script that is objectionable for public viewing including members who through experience demonstrate that further membership will encourage objectionable script, even without warning. The rules for internet web pages are governed by a Communications branch of state government depending on the country visited and those Communications regulations allow any website operator to delete objectionable material and website members based on the administrative judgment of content. Your attempt to discredit the moderator cpm and his judgment especially publicly is obviously a ploy to represent the members who were deleted and bears no authority as you assume, especially as applies to Communications regulations. If you have a beef with cpm, you should respectfully dialog with him on another personal message email. I consider your public display of disrespect for cpm is attitudinally out of order and without consideration for Communications censorship rules. What a bizarre way for a Catholic to talk to somebody.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 31, 2008 8:37:31 GMT
Sceilg,
I do not want to push this thread into one about homosexuality. It is off topic. However if it is the Catholic Church making the assertion then the onus is on them to back up the assertion. Their reasons must be, as I said before, amenable to reason. Simply saying it is because of gods will does not cut it. What are the reasons and evidence which suggests there is anything wrong with it at all? You make the claim, you back it up. That is simple rational discourse.
Also I think you fail to see the difference between mocking traditions, as you put it, and suggesting that those traditions should be held true in our world today. What bronze aged peasants believed in their time is one thing and I cannot mock that. It did, clearly as you say, help shape the society we have today. To suggest that their ethics, knowledge, and morality should dictate unchecked our society today however I will mock until the cows come home.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 31, 2008 8:39:26 GMT
'I have asserted twice so far that people like SaintStephen / Redmond are something the catholic faith should be profoundly embarrassed about' says hazelireland. How can the Catholic faith be embarrassed mam? Any chance that you could be a bit more specific? Thanks for the question, I would have thought it was pretty clear that by "the faith" I mean all the people who profess to be part of it. I have used "the faith" like this in other conversations to which you replied and you had no trouble with it then. Not sure why it is suddenly proving to be difficult now, but I hope my clarification helps somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Oct 31, 2008 9:01:47 GMT
Dear members,
Please note that Inedifix has requested that this second statement be posted on this thread to clarify his position on this issue.
Statement from From Inedifix:
"I would like to remind Irish Catholic posters that I was not just "an atheist", I was part of your online community. With 162 posts made, I have just as much right as any of you to call myself a member.
I would also like to add, that I was invited to Irish Catholics by a regular poster. And did nothing to justify being expunged at any stage.
A central tenet of free society is embodied in the saying: "I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it."
By unilaterally eradicating my presence from this site you have betrayed your pretense to Christian charity, civility and decency, and you have trampled all over the very concept at the heart of freedom itself.
Of course, the foolish among you now have free rein to misrepresent me, my motives, and atheism itself to your heart's content. This may make you feel more comfortable in the short run. But you will not increase in knowledge, understanding, or humility, as a result.
Good luck. "
Inedifix
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Oct 31, 2008 9:13:22 GMT
Saint Stephen Wrote:
Saint stephen,
With respect I must say to you that I disagree whole heartedly with almost every sentiment you have expressed above.
No "maliciousness" was shown by either member as you dishonestly state.
Neither member posted "objectionable material" as you once again dishonestly state.
You stated "If you have a beef with cpm, you should respectfully dialog with him on another personal message email". I have done this and received no reply from the moderator.
You have tried to set up a false scenario in your post above and apply it to the two deleted members. This sir is what is called a "Logical Fallacy" and does you no service whatsoever. Seeing as these people cannot defend themselves I feel compelled as a believer in justice to speak up for them.
Your statements above convey a wish for stifling of free debate, betrays an undercurrent of extreme paranoia on your behalf and practically encourages people who have been wronged or unfairly treated not to stand up for what they believe is right in a vocal manner.
Sir, I must tell you, that what you have posted above reveals a lot about your character, and although you may appear to be a good catholic in your everyday life and actions, your previously stated sentiments reveal something deeper in your make up; a profound lack of tolerance for those who differ from you.
I only hope that through god you find it in your heart to be tolerant to others even when they disagree with what you say, think and believe.
god bless......
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Oct 31, 2008 9:20:30 GMT
Guillaume, Harris, et al; I'm only new here, and although I'm probably not informed of the extent of the "problems" which Inedifix and Hemingway may or may not have caused (nor can I find evidence of it, as their posts have been deleted), I can say this: Atheists are more often than not thinking people, who are prepared to enter into intellectual arguments to back up their position. As fundamentally flawed as we might think their opinions are - and ever being aware of Aquinas' maxim that "to err has no rights", please be aware that a Catholic's mission on Earth is to bring the truth to the eyes and hears of those who will hear and see it, and in the case of those who won't: conversion. I have heard it said many times before that is far easier to convert an atheistic Marxist to Catholicism than it is to convert a non-thinking sasquatch who sits in front of re-runs of Coronation Street. The reasoning behind this is that a Marxist - as much as he is in error - is a thinking person, making an initial attempt to address real problems affecting real people. Conversion is achieved through an intellectual exchange, so you are never going to complete the central mission before every Catholic - i.e. the salvation of souls - unless you challenge an atheist through robust and informed debate. The very fact that Inedifix and Hemingway were prepared to debate with Catholics here suggests to me that their consciences, or perhaps even Providence, was directing them off the path of error. If an atheist is sure of his atheism, he would never frequent a site like this. So by banning them and deleting their entire archive of posts, CPM has possibly driven Inedifix and Hemingway further away from Catholicism than they were already. He has now made their conversion a more difficult task, because of pure intellectual dishonesty - one of the most egregious forms of falsehood for which a pocket of Hell is reserved. What's more, he has dumbed down the established posters on this website by denying them the right to renounce whatever arguments they have made, and as a result, appears to belittle their ability to do so. I would even go so far as saying that this is reminiscent of the "cultural" policy of the Soviet Union, whereby historic texts and histories which were thought to undermine the new order were removed, in case they would endanger position of the régime. Sceilg, Although some of your remarks would no doubt be challenged by atheists (that is the whole point to meaningful civilized debate) the sentiment you convey is that of a true, tolerant Christian. I am impressed with your honesty and willingness to support members who have been unjustly treated, regardless of their religion, ethnicity or background. Your sentiments do you credit Sir. god bless......
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 31, 2008 10:46:01 GMT
Now answer the other part of the question hazelireland: How does THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS, which I now hold 'embarrass' modern Catholics. On second thoughts, I think I know, but I would still like to see it in words.
Surely the blog would educate others on the site. After all, it not only atheists that have to be saved.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Oct 31, 2008 11:25:08 GMT
Hey everyone,
Just to let you all know the moderator has contacted me today via PM and we have had a very amenable discussion regarding this topic.
I will update you if there are any further developments.
I also encourage everyone (I include myself in that) to try and keep this issue from descending into something nasty as it is a very emotive issue with strong feelings on both sides of the argument.
god bless....
|
|