|
Post by falconer on Jul 21, 2008 20:31:50 GMT
Falconer You wrote: "Do you really think the Vatican would allow the teaching of all the history of the papacy? Can you see a class on Cum nimis absurdum, the Donation of Constantine , the Reign of the Harlots or whatshisname diggin up the other guy and excommunicating him?" Debate is sometimes helpful. I have asked you before to explain in some detail what you are getting at. Would you please tell us more about the reign of the harlots? I can but I'm assuming Catholics are familiar with Catholic history. Do I presume too much? Why don't you tell me first what, if anything, you know about 1. One Pope digging up another. 2. The Donation of Constantine 4. The Reign of the Harlots 3. The Bull Cum nimis absurdum (not sure about the spelling me memory is not the best) Do you know nothing or a little bit or everything about any of the aforementioned? (I have a theory that most Catholics are Catholic by Ignorance so to speak, given that the Vatican is running most of the schools in Ireland)
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jul 21, 2008 20:52:49 GMT
Falconer
Thank you for your reply. However you have not answered my question.
You wrote: "I'm assuming Catholics are familiar with Catholic history" and "most Catholics are Catholic by Ignorance so to speak".
Is there not a contradiction here?
Are you trying to imply that most Irish Catholics are unaware that not all popes were saints. I do not think it is a major discovery on your part that in the Church there are some people who have had faults.
However it is no great revelation to show that we are all sinners and that in the holy church there are unholy people. All of us have some good and bad qualities and need God's forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jul 22, 2008 8:03:43 GMT
Irishknight,
thank you for supplying me with a link concerning the reign of the harlots.
Royal has replied to you.
Your reference makes it possible to discuss the issue.
I think it is important to supply references, so that one can make judgements and have a reasonable discussion.
|
|
|
Post by falconer on Jul 22, 2008 11:36:06 GMT
Thank you for your reply. However you have not answered my question. I can but I'm assuming Catholics are familiar with Catholic history. Do I presume too much? Why don't you tell me first what, if anything, you know about 1. One Pope digging up another. 2. The Donation of Constantine 4. The Reign of the Harlots 3. The Bull Cum nimis absurdum (not sure about the spelling me memory is not the best) Do you know nothing or a little bit or everything about any of the aforementioned? If you avoid it this time that will be twice in a row. You wrote: "I'm assuming Catholics are familiar with Catholic history" and "most Catholics are Catholic by Ignorance so to speak". Is there not a contradiction here? Well yes so I should clarify. By Catholics I'm referring to people who've gone through the trouble to log on here and post. By most Catholics I'm talking about the general population. Are you trying to imply that most Irish Catholics are unaware that not all popes were saints. I do not think it is a major discovery on your part that in the Church there are some people who have had faults. Most Irish Catholics know little or nothing about the history of the Catholic Church and in many cases not even the basics. New opinion poll shows alarming drop in levels of religious knowledge
Press Release – 9th April, 2007
A new poll conducted by Lansdowne Market Research on behalf of The Iona Institute and the Evangelical Alliance Ireland reveals, for the first time ever, levels of religious knowledge among the general population and finds an alarming drop-off. www.ionainstitute.ie/press_releases.php Mr. Quinn I'm told got his knuckles rapped later and was told not to carry out such surveys because he was shooting the cause in the foot. Try asking the average Catholic about, for example, the "immaculate" conception? I had someone tell me proudly "there's nothing you can tell me about my religion". She then went on, rosary beads in hand, to get it completely wrong. However it is no great revelation to show that we are all sinners and that in the holy church there are unholy people. All of us have some good and bad qualities and need God's forgiveness. Thats just cop out apologetics. It's also self contradictory since "all of us" would have to include popes and by implication make their opinion no more qualified than anyone else's. Thereby go the foundations of Roman Catholicism. As for sin: Sin is an invented religious mind crime that does not exist anywhere except in the minds of those that believe in it. Sin is no more valid than Limbo is....oh sorry was! It's a sad thing to propagate that humans need to meet the approval of some invisible unquantifiable unprovable something or other in a location unknown.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 22, 2008 13:25:46 GMT
Royal, dear brother in Christ, why you still arguing with this son of Satan. Falconer made his choices. Since here, he is acting as a Troll. He came to a Catholic forum to destroy and despise our faith. This guy won't win. You maybe aware of the message sent by our Moderartor. Well, i do think and believe and hope that those guys like falconer and colin should be out of this forum and put at the index. Yes, sorry, this the catholic way. If not, they will have to face me, on a not-very-charitable-way-but-efficient. Yes Falconer, i said it : PUT A THE INDEX ! not a bother to me. You won't be the first one i have to fight in a catholic forum or chat room. And know that, mister -i-don't-believe-in-nothing-because-i-am-so-pride-so-i-hate-the-church, i always win a the end.
"At the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph" - Our Lady at Fatima. And Her Immaculate Heart WILL triumph !
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by irishmauddib on Jul 22, 2008 13:32:31 GMT
Furthermore, why would a purported atheist(meaning you)wish to promote the teaching of religion unless he believed in the God who is worshipped by those religions? Actually there is no contradiction here. Many well known philosophers who are not followers of religion have suggested this very thing and there is many reasons why atheists would wish to proceed down this path. 1st change your question to something like "Why would a purported democratic wish to promote the teaching of Stalinism unless he believed in the political thought that is worshipped by that policy". I think if you think of your question this way it will throw some light on the thinking of the aforementioned philosophers before I even proceed. It is clear why we learn about history, good and bad, to inform our decisions in our futures. An ignorance of other political thought systems would be unacceptable to us. The same should be true of religions. Similarly if being a Catholic is the one true church then surely learning about all the other religions will help inform decisions on catholic doctrine in the future, and to avoid the error of our past and build on the strengths we see there also. We all know that, one true church or not, the catholic religion has several cancers in it which get trotted out again and again from financial to sexual to political to social issues. A true church would want to weed these things out and learning about other religions is one of many ways to ensure good choices in the future. A second powerful reason from the philosophers however about why we should teach all religions is to counter the way that religion permeates our society. It is next to undeniable that most religion procreates via childhood indoctrination. Sure there are many exceptions to this rule with people finding god late in life or moving between religions** but essentially having a religion in the first place is based, more often than not, on childhood indoctrination. Comparative religious teaching where all religions are taught and none of them given any special treatment or labelled the one "true" religion is thought to be a powerful way of developing an ant virulent for religion. Proponents of this theory like Daniel Dennett and Sue Blackmore suggest that childhood indoctrination would be highly reduced by teaching children in this way instead of directly teaching religion is just false. A famous example of this is Richard Dawkins who himself admits that it was not evolutionary biology that really led him to atheism, but it started in fact with him learning more about other religions and realising no religion is true but its just a combination of an accident of geographical birth and childhood indoctrination that leads you to believe your religion is the "ONE". It is highly likely that if royalosiodhachain was born in Morocco for example he would be calling Islam the one true faith with just as much conviction as he is here. Of course its possible he would still have read about Catholicism and realised Islam was wrong… but the figures show this to be an unlikely outcome. Finally another reason would lie in the areas for which religion is so intolerable to atheists. Faith itself is not the problem atheists have, it’s what that faith is used for. If intolerance and the hate and violence it leads to is one of the main areas that atheists have a problem with, then it should be clear that teaching comparative religion would be of interest if there is even a small chance it will increase mutual understanding and tolerance. After all it’s not Christianity or Islam that will destroy the human race; it’s the level of intolerance where the two meet. If religion cannot be removed then mutual understanding and education is the only other option open to us if we want to avoid war and death. **A recent Gallup pole in the US showed that over 65% of Americans change their religion at least once in their life. Essentially Americans have more loyalty to their mobile phone provider than they do to their gods.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 22, 2008 13:58:56 GMT
Thank you for your reply. However you have not answered my question. I can but I'm assuming Catholics are familiar with Catholic history. Do I presume too much? Why don't you tell me first what, if anything, you know about 1. One Pope digging up another. 2. The Donation of Constantine 4. The Reign of the Harlots 3. The Bull Cum nimis absurdum (not sure about the spelling me memory is not the best) Do you know nothing or a little bit or everything about any of the aforementioned? If you avoid it this time that will be twice in a row. You wrote: "I'm assuming Catholics are familiar with Catholic history" and "most Catholics are Catholic by Ignorance so to speak". Well yes so I should clarify. By Catholics I'm referring to people who've gone through the trouble to log on here and post. By most Catholics I'm talking about the general population. Most Irish Catholics know little or nothing about the history of the Catholic Church and in many cases not even the basics. New opinion poll shows alarming drop in levels of religious knowledge
Press Release – 9th April, 2007
A new poll conducted by Lansdowne Market Research on behalf of The Iona Institute and the Evangelical Alliance Ireland reveals, for the first time ever, levels of religious knowledge among the general population and finds an alarming drop-off. www.ionainstitute.ie/press_releases.php Mr. Quinn I'm told got his knuckles rapped later and was told not to carry out such surveys because he was shooting the cause in the foot. Try asking the average Catholic about, for example, the "immaculate" conception? I had someone tell me proudly "there's nothing you can tell me about my religion". She then went on, rosary beads in hand, to get it completely wrong. However it is no great revelation to show that we are all sinners and that in the holy church there are unholy people. All of us have some good and bad qualities and need God's forgiveness. Thats just cop out apologetics. It's also self contradictory since "all of us" would have to include popes and by implication make their opinion no more qualified than anyone else's. Thereby go the foundations of Roman Catholicism. As for sin: angelqueen.org/forum/images/smiles/icon_exclaim.gifIt's a sad thing to propagate that humans need to meet the approval of some invisible unquantifiable unprovable something or other in a location unknown. The "average" catholic, as you seem to know soooooo well, as you frequent Mass everyday sunday..... how come you know about them ? Sin is no invention, as you WISH it would be ! Your "conscience" - if you have any - is telling you that sin - the grave fault against God - is invented. Bullshit- bulll s h i t (yes, i use a bad word). Sin is real - unfortunately as soon as it offends God and His Will. The Will of God is happiness and felicity within and for His Creatures. Sin is anything and everything against the Will of God. so it is everything against Love - as a Christian of course. Being a sinner myself i know what i am talking about. Of course, because of your Pride , you won't recognize yourself as a sinner. Even if you are indeed. Just recognize you are a mere creature among 6 billions and more of other humans creatures. Just realize you are nothing in compare to God who created the earth and the whole universe. Your "references" in a precedent post - as well known atheists like Voltaire and son on - means nothing to me but likely souls burning in hell. Got it ? Got that : People having success in this world means nothing to God. God is closed to the poor, to the abandoned. Your Voltaire and Rousseau and "Joyce" (i put some "" as i am not sure if he was an atheist as you wish he was) might be a reference to you, but to God, it is an abomination. Do not forget that God has the last word buddy : Death. Good luck
|
|
|
Post by irishmauddib on Jul 22, 2008 14:14:57 GMT
Sin is no invention, as you WISH it would be ! Your "conscience" - if you have any - is telling you that sin - the grave fault against God - is invented. A little off topic this isnt it? But you must realise that you are talking to someone who A) doesnt beleive in god and B) you havent provided a shred of evidence for the existance of god to. Waxing lyrical about sin and what it is and what i means might seem like a wise course of action to you and I take it for granted you mean well by doing it. But what use is it if you talk to someone who doesnt beleive the first premise, in a god, that you build the second premise upon, sin? If you are going to go off topic on a thread and go on about something, at least have the decency to provide the evidence for your first premise before you lead it to further premises. That being said... what is sin? To me I would say sin is like holes. Its a concept. Holes do not exist, they are just a lack of something surrounded by a real something. But the concept of holes is useful to us linguistically and conceptually. Sin doesnt exist. It is just a word we use for going against the common social moral norms. Always remember what is sin to you is not to someone else. Take polygamy between Islam and Christianity. Each considered the actions of the other to be "sin". I dont think it helps to assign a bias to your opponent saying that they dont beleive in sin because they "wish" it to be so. This kind of tactic of assinging positions to someone that they never espoused can only demean your own argument, not theirs.
|
|
|
Post by irishmauddib on Jul 22, 2008 17:29:10 GMT
Irishmauddib, The fact that you believe in polls, which sample minimally 1 in 100 or most likely 1 in 1000 with questions that are created to capture minimal information proves that your logic is entirely flawed and so is your professed atheism flawed as you present yourself as not believing in God, yet you give Him and His followers immense credibility. The word credibility can be substituted with the word "belief". Therefore, you do believe in God, you simply have dedicated your life's efforts to despising Him. This doesnt seem to be a good reply to me. I made a whole series of points and comments none of which were based on poles. I made a small reference to a poll that I found interesting but relegated it to a footnote to keep it clear that it was not relevant or useful to my points. If my points are so strong that all you can do is target your reply at an irrelevant footnote instead of addressing the points I have made.... then I clearly have you bested. Youd do better to say nothing at all then to come out with this. All this I say without defending the poll which is, as I said, unnecceasy, however I must point out that this is a Gallup poll and gallup go a little further than poll 100 people as you falsely claim. So even if your reply had been relevant to anything I said, it would still be a false reply. I still find it comical that you persist with this claim that I "despise" god. The ridiculous claim that I could despise anything that I dont beleive even exists is, at its very foundation, ludicrous. I dont despise god any more than an evil character in any book I have ever read. For example I HIGHLY dislike the character Silas Marner in the book of the same name and I dissent from the commonly held view that the actions of the character can be "forgiven". At no point in this opinion do I beleive the character has ever exists nor do I HATE him in any fashion. Nor do I need to beleive in him or hate him to hold the opinion that I do. I think it would be safe to make the assumption that anyone who reads often has come accross an author who has made a character seem real enough to us to elicit emotions in us akin to the emotions we would feel for reasl people. It is an experience common to all readers I would imagine. Yet at no point do such readers come to beleive the character is in fact real. You are assigning thoughts, emotions and opinions to me that I dont have AND have never espoused simply as a cover tactic for the fact you are unwilling, or unable, to address the points I actually HAVE made. If you cant see how this tactic can ONLY demean yourself then I honestly see no hope for discourse with you. I would instead be honestly interested to see if you are capable of addressing the things I actually have written. You seem articulate and hence I can assume you might have some enlightening things to say about the comments I have made. The tactic you have chosen to use instead can only serve to disappoint anyone reading the thread, including myself. As for me giving god "Credibility" you will have to follow this up with quotes, citations and references to the things I have written as I am baffled to the point that I can only assume you took this one out of the air.
|
|
|
Post by falconer on Jul 22, 2008 18:23:26 GMT
Royal, dear brother in Christ, why you still arguing with this son of Satan. Falconer made his choices. Since here, he is acting as a Troll. He came to a Catholic forum to destroy and despise our faith. This guy won't win. You have no evidence of anyone called Satan therefore it's not possible to be an offspring of an imaginary being. You maybe aware of the message sent by our Moderartor. Well, i do think and believe and hope that those guys like falconer and colin should be out of this forum and put at the index. Yes, sorry, this the catholic way. Yes it is the "Catholic way" in terms of the Vaticaners. Censorship is a white flag of defeat. Robert Mugabe, a Catholic in good standing, is using it to silence the opposition in Zimbabwe at the moment. However it would answer you better not to blacken millions of ordinary Catholics who do not believe in censorship. If not, they will have to face me, on a not-very-charitable-way-but-efficient. Yes Falconer, i said it : PUT A THE INDEX ! not a bother to me. You won't be the first one i have to fight in a catholic forum or chat room. And know that, mister -i-don't-believe-in-nothing-because-i-am-so-pride-so-i-hate-the-church, i always win a the end. As regards censorship I think what you mean is: put on the Index. Also Willy you should say: I always win in the end. Tantrums aside since you may be at a disadvantage because you're not an Irish Catholic and English is not your first language: ¿Tú preferirías español? Or Preferirebbe italiano? Oder würdest du Deutsch vorziehen? Ou est-ce que tu préférerais français? I'm only starting on Arabic so I can't really offer you that language. Allah Akbar, Ma Salaama, as they say in dustier climes!
|
|
|
Post by falconer on Jul 22, 2008 19:03:29 GMT
Most Irish Catholics know little or nothing about the history of the Catholic Church and in many cases not even the basics. The "average" catholic, as you seem to know soooooo well, as you frequent Mass everyday sunday..... how come you know about them ? I said Irish Catholics about whom evidently and as I've demonstrated I know vastly more about than you do. As for Mass if everyone from Bishops to newspaper columnists and the innumerable Irish people I've socialised with, employed, worked with and conversed with are anything to go by then Mass is the last place you will find them on a regular basis. Sin is no invention, as you WISH it would be ! Your "conscience" - if you have any - is telling you that sin - the grave fault against God - is invented. Bullnuts- bulll s h i t (yes, i use a bad word). Sin is real - unfortunately as soon as it offends God and His Will. The Will of God is happiness and felicity within and for His Creatures. Sin is anything and everything against the Will of God. so it is everything against Love - as a Christian of course. Being a sinner myself i know what i am talking about. Of course, because of your Pride , you won't recognize yourself as a sinner. Even if you are indeed. Just recognize you are a mere creature among 6 billions and more of other humans creatures. Just realize you are nothing in compare to God who created the earth and the whole universe. Your "references" in a precedent post - as well known atheists like Voltaire and son on - means nothing to me but likely souls burning in hell. Got it ? Got that : People having success in this world means nothing to God. God is closed to the poor, to the abandoned. Your Voltaire and Rousseau and "Joyce" (i put some "" as i am not sure if he was an atheist as you wish he was) might be a reference to you, but to God, it is an abomination. Do not forget that God has the last word buddy : Death. James Joyce, Irish author (1882-1941). Joyce rejected Catholicism and indeed all religion when he was a young man (as portrayed in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man). He considered Catholicism to be "black magic", and deplored its anti-individuality. "For me there is ony one alternative to scholasticism, scepticism." He also rejected the church's moralizing, etc. etc. www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htmNow you can be sure...... 1. God who? If you have any evidence there is a thread you can post on. 2. If you have any evidence how are you qualified to speak for the god thing. 3. If you're not going to answer the entire post you don't need to quote the entire post. Beyond that the rest of your post is just ranting and raving. Tu parais perdre ta tête! Veuille-toi comme moi pour appeler les hommes dans les manteaux blancs?;D
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jul 23, 2008 15:52:06 GMT
Falconer,
I have suspected for some time that you are a Catholic.
You confirmed it when you wrote:
"By Catholics I'm referring to people who've gone through the trouble to log on here and post.
I am pleased that this thread has elicited so many repies. However we have wandered from the point about MI.
There is very little religion in so-called Catholic schools. When one of my sons was in sixth year in school I went to a teachers' meeting and asked to talk to ther religion teacher. One could not be found, eventually some unfortunate was dug up who claimed he taught the final year about world religions. He showed me some notes he had about "Budda". As he could not spell Buddha he did not inspire confidence.
PS please excuse all my typos.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 23, 2008 18:37:03 GMT
Censorship is a white flag of defeat. Robert Mugabe, a Catholic in good standing, is using it to silence the opposition in Zimbabwe at the moment.Falconer, What you fail to create in your awareness of where you are is that Michael G. has created and established this forum probably from somewhere in his home in some city in Ireland. This is his forum and if you looked when you logged in he refers to us rightly so as GUESTS. If you can imagine yourself as a guest in Michael G.'s home you may become aware that if you act decently you will be welcomed and if you act obnoxiously, Michael G. will ask you to leave politely. If you persist in making a nuisance of yourself, Michael G. may have to take some other form of action to remove you from his home. This is not a forum which has no limits, if you want that kind of atmosphere then go to a gay bar. The white flag is a symbol of surrender to God not to Falconer. You Falconer are not worthy of surrender to as you have nothing to offer to any of us, in fact, I have not seen one person so far who has even agreed with your bunk. So, Falconer, don't be a punk. Act like a respectful man who has graciously been made a guest of Michael G. and I will do the same, however, I want you to know that if Michael G. calls me to arms, I am a former soldier of war and trained in combat and acheived decorations so numerous that I can't fit them all on my military uniform, I have to carry a briefcase for the rest of the medals. One word from my gracious host Michael G. and I am at his command to invoke whatever power I need to make his will reality. You presume that I cannot see your red flag coded with the hand and sickle or what is that I see? a swastika?. Cannot be said better ! Your arguments Falconer, now as you use Mugabe, as a "reference" for us and example of good catholicism show, once again, your total ignorance of our Beautiful religion. This is so pathetic, it is almost funny. Poor soul.
|
|
|
Post by falconer on Jul 24, 2008 9:48:45 GMT
Falconer, I have suspected for some time that you are a Catholic. You confirmed it when you wrote: "By Catholics I'm referring to people who've gone through the trouble to log on here and post. You need to be careful when making jokes there Noel. The lunatic fringe will get the wrong end of the stick. I am pleased that this thread has elicited so many repies. However we have wandered from the point about MI. There is very little religion in so-called Catholic schools. When one of my sons was in sixth year in school I went to a teachers' meeting and asked to talk to ther religion teacher. One could not be found, eventually some unfortunate was dug up who claimed he taught the final year about world religions. He showed me some notes he had about "Budda". As he could not spell Buddha he did not inspire confidence. PS please excuse all my typos. I think in junior school they have the same teacher for everything rather than separate teachers for each subject. Parents generally seem to have become ambivalent to some degree: they still get their children baptised but not for religious reasons. They want their children to go to the local catholic school but don't want them taught exclusively as catholics.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jul 24, 2008 20:41:06 GMT
PS please excuse all my typos. Noel (and other members), there is a spell check button below the window where you compose your post. You can use it before you hit the "Post Reply" button. Apart from the disadvantage that is in American English (sorry Roy etc.), it works fairly well.
|
|