kimmy Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Not countless. 11,000 abuses by 5,000 priests since 1950. The public schools system in the US has had 290,000 from 1991-2000, 10 years! There's an awful lot more teachers than priests. Nonetheless, that's 5000 examples to disprove the claim that being a devout Catholic makes you a good person. I'm only 33 so you can imagine my kids age range. 15, 14, 12, 10, 9, and 7? I'm careful to not let them play with too many public school kids yet so they don't get confused and hear something immoral like open drug abuse or see homosexuals kissing and think it's blessed by God.It's my job as a parent to set the boundaries and teach them ethics and morals and to respect others. Not run the streets wild and run me. I'm the parent they're the child I'm sure you're raising your children as best you can. What bugs me, though, is earlier on you were saying... I find it most sad for your children, if you have any, as I'm sure you've been poisoning them with this nonsense all their life. Why not show them both sides and let them decide for themselves? What are you afraid of? So on the one hand you're challenging *other* people who are also raising *their* kids as best they can, to provide equal air-time for Jeeeeezus. While at the same time you drive around and show your kids the dregs of society and say "this is what'll happen to you if you don't believe in Jesus!" Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like complaining that atheist parents aren't giving Jeeeezus a fair shot with their kids, while portraying life on skid row as what's waiting for atheists? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like complaining that atheist parents aren't giving Jeeeezus a fair shot with their kids, while portraying life on skid row as what's waiting for atheists? -k It's the easiest example I can provide atm. As they get older they'll see and hear them, if an atheist comes to speak someplace and read books by them. By then I'll be a very good Catholic apologist and be able to answer their questions well. For now seeing people in need is the easiest way to witness people who live their lives without Christ and the demon that has taken over their body and ravaged it, rendering them useless. I always point out that God will always forgive them and through the power of Jesus Christ they can begin to lead good, useful lives instead of being a burden to society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 It's the easiest example I can provide atm. I always point out that God will always forgive them and through the power of Jesus Christ they can begin to lead good, useful lives instead of being a burden to society. Would you characterize Thomas Edison as "a burden to society"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Would you characterize Thomas Edison as "a burden to society"? I would characterize any one who doesn't contribute to society yet takes from it a burden on society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 The people they see are without Christ, it's obvious. They're very young still so I don't tell them everything yet. Just the basics. I want them to be exposed under a controlled environment so I can explain to them why these people are living in sin and how they can change that. I'm only 33 so you can imagine my kids age range. And sadly, the odds are that your children will grow up and assume your religion and most of your limited outlook on life and narrow-minded philosophy since most people do not want to give big philosophical issues much thought -- they would rather leave it to a priest or a minister to do their thinking for them, and concentrate on the issues they consider important: what's going on at work, paying the mortgage, hockey, winning a lottery, getting laid etc. If they start thinking about why we are here and is there an afterlife, they'll just take a priest's word for it! And that's the really sad part of religion, and why some atheists such as Richard Dawkins, have raised an uproar by declaring that teaching children to be narrow-minded and shutting down their curious instincts as early in life as possible, is really child abuse! It may not be the kind that can be prosecuted by a court, but it does limit the potential of children as they grow into adulthood and become mindless, unthinking drones to be used as pawns by the religious and political establishments. I, myself, don't know of any similar atheist households, but I haven't discussed parenting with that many nonbelievers either, so who knows! Both my eldest brother and myself, came from a hyper-religious family with an obsessively religious and neurotic father, who you seem to remind me of when you voice your opinions (although he was never a Catholic). We rejected each of the religions that he dragged us through in his search for the "true" church of Christ, but we have not tried to pressure our children to share our atheistic worldviews, largely because almost every atheist has different beliefs so -- we instead chose to teach our children how to think, rather than what to think. My wife is a Catholic, but our children have been free to decide for themselves whether to follow that religion or even how much religion to incorporate into their views, since even my wife is an independent thinking Catholic, and could never fall into the sort of blind obedience to the Church that you have. I'm careful to not let them play with too many public school kids yet so they don't get confused and hear something immoral like open drug abuse or see homosexuals kissing and think it's blessed by God. Unless you have built your own fundamentalist compound, they will find out about the outside world, and you may wish that you had taught them critical thinking skills instead of blind obedience to authority if they should fall under the sway of someone who is able to become a source of influence on them! It's my job as a parent to set the boundaries and teach them ethics and morals and to respect others. Not run the streets wild and run me. I'm the parent they're the child Let us know in ten years how that works out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I would characterize any one who doesn't contribute to society yet takes from it a burden on society. Why not flick on a light in your house and show your kids that you don't need Jesus to accomplish great things? Why hide the truth from them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 And sadly, the odds are that your children will grow up and assume your religion and most of your limited outlook on life and narrow-minded philosophy since most people do not want to give big philosophical issues much thought -- they would rather leave it to a priest or a minister to do their thinking for them, and concentrate on the issues they consider important: what's going on at work, paying the mortgage, hockey, winning a lottery, getting laid etc. If they start thinking about why we are here and is there an afterlife, they'll just take a priest's word for it! And that's the really sad part of religion, and why some atheists such as Richard Dawkins, have raised an uproar by declaring that teaching children to be narrow-minded and shutting down their curious instincts as early in life as possible, is really child abuse! It may not be the kind that can be prosecuted by a court, but it does limit the potential of children as they grow into adulthood and become mindless, unthinking drones to be used as pawns by the religious and political establishments. Why is it that because I'm Christian I cannot think for myself? Explain how the RCC is thinking for me. That is an absurd position. I held the same views before I ever converted to Catholicism. Catholicism just fit into my life as I could now say what I disagreed with and say I'm Catholic and get a free pass. Unless you have built your own fundamentalist compound, they will find out about the outside world, and you may wish that you had taught them critical thinking skills instead of blind obedience to authority if they should fall under the sway of someone who is able to become a source of influence on them!Let us know in ten years how that works out. Any of my kids leave the RCC and I'll disown them like in Fiddler on the Roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted January 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Any of my kids leave the RCC and I'll disown them like in Fiddler on the Roof. How incredibly sad. You are willing to turn your back on your own children if they don't conform to your beliefs. You don't want them to think critically, examine what they believe and decide if it is meaningful to them. Instead, you insist that they follow like lemmings, or be pushed out of your life. Maybe that isn't sad at all.... maybe it is the best thing that could happen to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted January 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Truth by definition is universal. You're playing loose and fast with the definitions if you consider it to be in the eye of the beholder. Cybercoma, I've been wanting to get back to this, but I was thinking it through. The problem with "truth" is that, even if there is some absolute truth out there, we have no way of knowing what it is. That's why I said in this context, "truth" is in the eye of the beholder - there is nothing objective to go by. In the absence of objectivity, everyone defines their own subjective truths, and bases their lives on what they hold to be true. We each see the world through our own lens, which shapes the world to fit our preconceptions. Here's a poem that sums it up far better than I can: Reality is what we take to be true.What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based on our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends upon what we think. What we think depends upon what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality. fromZukav & Finkelstein (1979) The Dancing Wu Li Masters, An Overview of the New Physics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Before this turned into yet another thread about what an ignoramus Mr Canada is, there was an interesting topic at hand. I think the church probably doesn't lose that many members to other religions, but probably loses a lot of members to loss of faith. For example, all of my grandparents were very religious people, yet both of my parents are fierce atheists.I don't think all that many Christians turn into Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs, but a lot of Christians turn into atheists. Yet still, that doesn't justify the intolerance. It doesn't justify it, and you know, it doesn't even really explain it. A lot of us watched President Obama's inaugural address last week. Some of us thought it was a great speech... others, not so much. Nonetheless, one of the things that stood out for me (and for many others) is that Obama for the first time actually specifically mentioned non-believers as a part of America's make-up. "Our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers," he said. Personally, I thought that was lovely. It's something that everybody knows is true, yet seldom acknowledged. Imagine my surprise to find out that adding "and non-believers" didn't sit well with some people. Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.’" Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'"Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."’ -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Obama would be unelectable in Canada. He quotes scripture in many of his speeches and has ministers speak with him on stage several times. Can you imagine how crazy the left would go if Harper did this or any Canadian leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 To me it's a threat because children who are living in a secularist society...are prone to be effected and take up the idea that there is no higher power - no higher morality than what is presented by the state. Seeing the state can be corrupt - corruption and moral neutrality will continue in persist and increase. What amazes me are the atheists that eagerly propogate there philosophy...much like religious zealots as if the world would be a better place if they ran it...I knew a hard core atheist who was also a semi-pro astonomer...He looked out at the night sky and would say "what a mess - I could have designed it better." - He also with a few drinks in him during dinner would literally leap across the table and grab you by the throat if you so much as mentioned GOD. This freak who was not gay but thought that woman had great power - decided as a married man with two small children to take hormones and grow tits and dress as a woman...Later - his poor young wife who admired his supposed superiour intellect...."Joe is the greatest man that this century has produced." - She was so taken back by the sex trasphere and the God playing - she went out to the pick up truck and put a gun in her mouth...so much for atheists and their superiour minds...They are dispicable...and all believe in GOD - some just hate the idea of cosmic authority and would rather have it the endless universe does not have a consciousness ----which is silly - how could we on this speck of dust with our jello brains understand eternity - yet deny God - it does not make sense. Atheism is a blief system and can lead to fanatic behavour...just like religious nuts - but possibly more dangerous... Keep your beliefs to yourself or your non-beliefs to yourself - religion and atheism are supposed to be private affairs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) You're a ******** *******. -k edited for ... oh, let's say clarity. Edited January 29, 2009 by kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterDC Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 To me it's a threat because children who are living in a secularist society...are prone to be effected and take up the idea that there is no higher power - no higher morality than what is presented by the state. Seeing the state can be corrupt - corruption and moral neutrality will continue in persist and increase. In a secular universe, the state would not have the highest power. Human beings would have the highest authority on Earth - the state is supposed to work in the favour of the citizens, not the other way around. It is our responsibility to keep those politicians in check. Keep your beliefs to yourself or your non-beliefs to yourself - religion and atheism are supposed to be private affairs... Then it shouldn't be a threat to you... They are private affairs, let people believe whatever they want to believe.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterDC Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Obama would be unelectable in Canada. He quotes scripture in many of his speeches and has ministers speak with him on stage several times. Can you imagine how crazy the left would go if Harper did this or any Canadian leader. His charisma would drown out any opposition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 His charisma would drown out any opposition And, on top of that, he's still a politician. There would be no bible reading were he the leader of a Canadian political party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Why is it that because I'm Christian I cannot think for myself? Explain how the RCC is thinking for me. Let's put it this way: if you discover you have a viewpoint or an opinion that is seriously at odds with the messages coming from the Magisterium, what do you do? Do you keep your own independent opinons, or do you abandon your heresy to fall back in line. I know many Catholics who are at least close to being freethinking, but I don't think you are one of them, since thinking for yourself can put your immortal life in paradise in doubt.....ignorance is bliss. That is an absurd position. I held the same views before I ever converted to Catholicism. Catholicism just fit into my life as I could now say what I disagreed with and say I'm Catholic and get a free pass.Any of my kids leave the RCC and I'll disown them like in Fiddler on the Roof. Passing on the religion virus that infects your brain is apparently more important than the happiness and wellbeing of your children! And the disowning can cut both ways too! I left home at 17 because of a similar ultimatum from my father, over a different religion though...and I had very little contact with him afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) Let's put it this way: if you discover you have a viewpoint or an opinion that is seriously at odds with the messages coming from the Magisterium, what do you do? Do you keep your own independent opinons, or do you abandon your heresy to fall back in line. I know many Catholics who are at least close to being freethinking, but I don't think you are one of them, since thinking for yourself can put your immortal life in paradise in doubt.....ignorance is bliss. Passing on the religion virus that infects your brain is apparently more important than the happiness and wellbeing of your children! And the disowning can cut both ways too! I left home at 17 because of a similar ultimatum from my father, over a different religion though...and I had very little contact with him afterwards. I've held these views long before I was ever Catholic. I always disliked the idea homosexuals and was always against abortion. So I don't understand how I'm not thinking for myself. I looked at the RCC as in line with my ideals I didn't change afterward. The only difference is now I get to say I'm Catholic and can disagree easier. If I wasn't Catholic, I'd be labeled as a redneck I'm sure, so I chose the lesser of the two labels. I always believed in Jesus Christ but he was more of a background figure Would I really disown my children? Obviously not nor would I kill them as a Muslim might and call it an honor killing. I merely said that to be shocking. I had to pick a side, Jew, Christian or Muslim, for the upcoming battle and since I have the most contact with Christians I chose that side. Muslims are trying to gain influence in our society and I won't allow them to. I'll fight them all the way if need be. I don't support Sharia Law,I don't support the legal beating and raping of women, I don't support the killing of all homosexuals, I don't support honor killings and I don't support polygamy. They are destroying the UK and Holland and I won't allow that poison to destroy Canadian society, no bloody way. Edited January 29, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAl Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 You're a ******** *******. -k edited for ... oh, let's say clarity. For clarity. You are rapidly becoming my favourite person on this board Kimmy. I've said it before and it becomes more and more true. I am consistently floored by Mr. Canada's archaic and potentially harmful opinions -- let us "pray" that someone like him doesn't manage to gain anything resembling real political power in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) Kimmy... interesting. I see very little transfer to other organized, structured religions, but a great deal of shift to very subjective 'maybe it carries a label, and maybe it doesn't' forms of spirituality. Lots play with Buddhism, read up on the philosophy behind martial arts, take up Tarot or buying prisms--- have their aura read, listen to whale song..... take their vacations in search of power vortices, search for ghosts and spirits, begin describing themselves as animist, or pagan, or Wiccan, or .... etc. etc. etc. I'm beginning to believe that a spiritual sense must be some interesting Darwinian side-effect- hard-wired- because it does seem to be universal or nearly so. After all, who among us has never felt a sense of reverence? The lack of it is sociopathic. The rejection of organized religion appears to me to be a (sane) rejection of the actual organization/authouritarian part. (Along with some dismissal of the mythology upon which they are3 based as.... myth.) Edited January 29, 2009 by Molly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAl Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Kimmy... interesting. I see very little transfer to other organized, structured religions, but a great deal of shift to very subjective 'maybe it carries a label, and maybe it doesn't' forms of spirituality. Lots play with Buddhism, read up on the philosophy behind martial arts, take up Tarot or buying prisms--- have their aura read, listen to whale song..... take their vacations in search of power vortices, search for ghosts and spirits, begin describing themselves as animist, or pagan, or Wiccan, or .... etc. etc. etc. I'm beginning to believe that a spiritual sense must be some interesting Darwinian side-effect- hard-wired- because it does seem to be universal or nearly so. After all, who among us has never felt a sense of reverence? The lack of it is sociopathic. The rejection of organized religion appears to me to be a (sane) rejection of the actual organization/authouritarian part. (Along with some dismissal of the mythology upon which they are3 based as.... myth.) Interesting points Molly. On some level I agree with you that the proclivity towards "reverence" as you put it seems to be hardwired into our psyches, but I wonder whether that is a nature-vs-nurture question -- are we inclined to be drawn to the notion that we are part of something greater because it's inherent to humanity, or because there's a ten thousand year tradition based in ancient superstition and lack of understanding of the scientific universe that supports it? On the same token, I believe there is certain empirical analysis that can be useful in understanding some of the lesser-known facets of human makeup (particularly as it involved bioenergy etc.) so I'm sort of sitting on a fence anyway. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 I'd say nature with some certainty, just because of the universality. Seriously, has any archaeologist ever found any occult/reverence-free society, anywhere, in any age, even wildly beyond a mere 10,000 years of 'tradition'? Not to my knowledge. I could see it as an offshoot of socialization, by which the fate of an individual is very dependent on the 'pack' - it's strength, and his place within it. The instinct to show dominance to that which is weaker, and exhibit acknowledgement to that which is stronger is necessary in a social group. That which is essential but beyond ones ability to fully anticipate, or to control is clearly 'stronger', and therefore deference is instinctive.... I also see a possible connection to basic self-awareness/ imagination/ the concept of future. We are somewhat driven to control our surroundings -- but some things are well beyond control . Attributing personality to those things - deifying them- is a tool by which we can convince ourselves that they can be influenced (through bribery, persuasion, empathy-seeking...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 I always disliked the idea homosexuals and was always against abortion. So I don't understand how I'm not thinking for myself. I'm not going to go through your entire post, but it's lines like these that should really make you question yourself. That you have ALWAYS disliked homosexuals and abortion is exactly why you do not think for yourself. It was not a decision you had come to. Instead, it was an idea you had in your mind that you sought to reinforce by ignoring any evidence against it. Understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 I've held these views long before I was ever Catholic. I always disliked the idea homosexuals and was always against abortion. So I don't understand how I'm not thinking for myself. How charming! YOu looked for an organization that hated the same things you do; congratulations. Would I really disown my children? Obviously not nor would I kill them as a Muslim might and call it an honor killing. I merely said that to be shocking. So, not only are you full of crap, you don't understand your own Church's theology.....if leaving the Apostolic Church leads to the death of their souls, then it seems the Christian thing to do would be to kill them now before they have a chance to commit the mortal sin of apostasy......will I be reading about you in tomorrow's papers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 I'm not going to go through your entire post, but it's lines like these that should really make you question yourself.That you have ALWAYS disliked homosexuals and abortion is exactly why you do not think for yourself. It was not a decision you had come to. Instead, it was an idea you had in your mind that you sought to reinforce by ignoring any evidence against it. Understand? In your small comment on MrCanada, you manage to misquote him twice. What does that say about you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.