This thread is now full, and replying is disabled.
Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
 |
| proccie |
on Fri 21 Oct 11, 11:25 AM to the Informed_Debate group.
Teflon Christianity, by which I mean that the shit does not stick:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
Not for the first time, your antagonism towards religion leads to you distorting the facts. It seems clear that children were taken from their birth parents and given to others. However, the PRIME motivation for this was political. It was Franco's doing initially Time Magazine: "[The practice] was not only approved by dictator Francisco Franco but also promoted by his government as a means of "improving" the Spanish "race," was politically inspired. In the years after Franco won Spain's civil war, he had tens of thousands of former Republicans and other dissidents arrested. The small children of imprisoned women dissidents were sent first to state-run centers or convents, and then reassigned to families whose values better coincided with the regime's. "The state considered these children in need of re-education," says University of Barcelona historian Ricard Vinyes, who has written a book on the subject. "It was actually proud of these efforts and would publish the results of how many children had been 'welcomed' annually."" (end of Time quotation) Note - both Left wing and Right wing extremists wish to subordinate the rights of the individual to the over-riding interests of the State. Contrary to that, Christianity affirms that every man and woman is made in God's image, and is precious in their own right. Later it seems to have become a Mafia-type racket, where doctors and nurses (some of whom were indeed nuns) stole children and sold them on. It is worth pondering the cleft stick some may have found themselves in. If, say, a child has been taken from its parents and a priest was told to find a home for it (with no knowledge of where the child originated), would you have preferred the child to be left in an orphanage*, or to go to a loving home? No solution is ideal, of course. But which is in the child's best interests, if there is no prospect of the child being returned to its parents? (* Of course, we know how successful orphanages in atheistic states can be - we are fortunate indeed to have such a wonderful example as that achieved in godless Romania when under atheistic Communist rule) This State determination of the fate of children is eugenics in another form - as beloved of so many atheists. For example, Dawkins approves of the writings of Peter Singer, saying "The philosopher Peter Singer, in Animal Liberation, is the most eloquent advocate of the view that we should move to a post-speciesist condition in which humane treatment is meted out to all species that have the brainpower to appreciate it". Hmmmm. How does Singer encapsulate that idea? "There are many beings who are sentient and capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, but are not rational and self-conscious and so not persons (my bold). Many non-human animals almost certainly fall into this category; so must new-born infants and some intellectually disabled humans (my bold) ......... ......"Hence we should reject the doctrine that places the lives of members of our species above the lives of members of other species. Some members of other species are persons; some members of our own species are not.... So it seems that killing, say a chimpanzee, is worse than the killing of a human being who, because of a congenital intellectual disability is not and never can be a person" He goes on to say that parents should have the right to kill their babies, EVEN AFTER THEY ARE BORN, if the child is disabled or ill. You see, it is THIS which is the natural progression of the atheistic lie that we are no more than animals, and creatures with only a physical existence and no more. It is this which underpins the fact that China, an atheistic regime, demands that only one child can be born per family - and thus some 25 MILLION abortions per year (either surgical or via drugs) happen there - and with the State's blessing, as another means of contraception. Nothing to do with the health of mother or child - just a way of disposing of an unwanted being. It is this atheistic approach which led the Nazis to practise such abominable things on infants and twins - all in the cause of eugenics. Remember too, that when any nun or priest in Spain DID get involved in the sale of a child (unless it was for the making the best of a bad job type of situation I outlined above), they were DENYING the tenets of the Christian faith. When atheistic or political idealogues do such things, or like Singer (and thus Dawkins) promote them, they are merely taking their creed to its logical conclusion. Rather than DENYING what they stand for (as a priest stealing a child or selling one is doing), they are AFFIRMING the true nature and consequences of what they believe. English
|
So to summarise: If a Christian does something wrong it cannot be because of their faith, if an Atheist does something wrong it's because they are an atheist.
I wont even start to take apart your defence of the Catholic Church and it's role in the abduction of 300,000 babies. 300,000, the fuckers.
But what is more demeaning, more sickening and more downright deceitful is your assertion that atheism implies eugenics and eugenics implies Nazism and by implication: All atheists are comparable with Nazis. No you did not actually say that but you implied it, else why mention the Nazis? (Godwin).
The lie that all atheists are in favour of abortion.
The lie that you assert that belief in evolution leads inexorably towards being in favour of eugenics.
It is your blind hatred of atheism that makes you distort facts.
And so to the question: Do you think, by the way you write, by the tone of your replies that you are a positive witness to the faith you profess?
| 22 Oct 11, 1:43 AM AnEnglishMaster UK(ME), 5 yrs |
Your response is once again a distortion. It is notoriously difficult on the Internet to discern “tone”. Your self-appointed interpretation of what I said is false. There is a key statement, even in what you say - “no, you did not actually say that”. Mark that please. Let's look at the facts. It is a fact that I did not state ANY of the things which you claim are my “lies”. You invent these, and attribute them to me. I would welcome an apology. It is a fact that, if a Christian does something contrary to the teachings of Christ, they are betraying their faith, not acting due to it. It is a fact that I do NOT believe that if an atheist does something wrong that that is because he or she is an atheist. It is a fact that on these boards, I have repeatedly, persistently, and frequently stated that many atheists are greatly moral people. It is a fact that I have gone further than that, in saying that many atheists put many believers to shame by their goodness. It is a fact that I did not, and do not, defend the Catholic Church. I disagree fundamentally with many of their teachings. I have also said on here that any cover up of child abuse was categorically wrong. I have also pointed out that, as with Scout leaders and teachers, SOME paedophiles enter the priesthood because it gives them opportunities to follow their vile intentions. They are paedophiles who choose to become priests for convenience, not priests who lapse into paedophilia. It is a fact that I acknowledged in what I wrote that any priests or nuns who were involved in the sale of children were WRONG. The only possible defence might be that they were presented with children already taken from their parents, and had to find homes for them, rather than abandon them or pass them to orphanages. It is a fact that the sale of children arose from secular political ideology. It was NOT generated by Christian belief. Your attempt to make a link – Worshipping God leads to selling children – is offensive. And ignores the truth. It is a fact that your assertion that I propose the lie that all atheists favour abortion is itself a gross lie. I believe nothing of the sort, have never said it, and never would. But don't let that stop you - it hasn't so far. It is a fact that the atheistic ideology of China has led to millions of abortions-as-contraception. It is a fact that the atheistic materialism of Mengele and his like led to their disregard for humanity and the atrocities they perpetrated. It is a fact that if you believe we are merely animals, and nothing more, taking that idea to its logical extension leads to the kind of thinking exemplified in Singer's comments - that some human beings are inferior to some wild creatures, and that parents should be free to kill their children after they are born. And it is a fact that the atheists' atheist, Richard Dawkins, approves of Singer. It is also – mercifully – a fact that most atheists do not take their beliefs to their logical conclusion. But it remains a logical extension of atheism and secularism and materialism that, if we are not more than animals, if we are here merely as an accident, if there is nothing more to us than a random collection of haphazard atoms, it is purely rational to treat people as merely objects or animals. It is a fact that some atheists do realise the full implications of their worldview. Singer is one. Peter Atkins, a sidekick of Dawkins, is another; it is why he can say that there is no distinction between the administering of a poison, and a poison naturally generated by the body. In other words, if you decide to poison someone – perhaps by euthanasia – there is no moral element to that. It is a fact that
It is a fact that I certainly did not “assert” any such thing. Again, you traduce me. It is a fact that
It is – once again – a fact that I did not (and do not) assert any such thing. You do not tell the truth. It is a fact that those who believe in eugenics, and the Nazis who counted human life as cheap, justify their position through secular and evolutionary atheism. Thankfully, atheism does NOT inexorably lead to those hideous actions. But atheists who follow their “logic” through to its end conclusions DO justify such actions on the basis of their atheism. In just the same way as political belief in the supremacy of the state does not inevitably lead to abuse, but those politicians who perpetrate abuse justify their willingness to injure or abuse other human beings on the basis of that belief. As for my approach to defending my faith. I make no apologies for seeking to offer a robust response to those who misrepresent the truth about Christian faith. Given that the vitriol and abuse encountered by many on here is almost always an attack by atheists on believers, it is bizarre that you feel my being rigorous in my reply is a problem. As I hope the above makes plain, I am interested in the facts. There are atheists on here who have no respect for them. I will always seek to counter that approach, and do so vigorously. If you find that offensive, I apologise. Fact. English "It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon | ||||
| 22 Oct 11, 3:04 AM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
In as similar way to the fact that Christianity did not lead to the inquisition or any number of misdemeanours in the name thereof? Just to be clear or on the equality basis, here. And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | ||||
| 22 Oct 11, 6:53 AM CookieMonster UK, 6 yrs |
If Christianity created a more moral creature they would of stood up to this not taken part in it. Maybe part of Francos "Better Values" was raising the child as a "Good Catholic", which would be reason enough for the church to steal babies. Called saving souls I beleive although I prefer calling it yet another human rights abuse. This used to happen in the UK as well where the Catholic church used to precure orphans for slave labour, have you watched "The leaving of liverpool?" Not that protestants are any better, for example, the abuse and cover ups in Protestant childrens homes in Ulster. Oh and who remembers the christian inspired "pin down" method of child developement?
| ||||
| 22 Oct 11, 11:14 AM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
Indeed Cookie. It would appear that people can be cunts, no matter whether they make claims about their own moral standing or not. I think the problem with religious morality, as with any other 'cause' is that it creates a fictitious shield of self righteousness, behind which one can hide, whilst doing the same sort of evil shit that people the world over get up to. Who cares if its the pope or the conservative party manifesto.
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! Edited 22 Oct 11, 11:22 AM by Attitude_Adjuster | ||||
| 22 Oct 11, 11:59 AM wonderer UK, 5 yrs |
Rhetoric and party allegiances aside (if I can), I do think there are important learning points for all of us arising from recent chilling revelations from Spain and from all manner of similar instances where seemingly normal people (including people with religious allegiances) have got involved in or turned a blind eye to activities which people outside the situation think of as grotesquely immoral. Hitler's death camps come to mind, and the wider culture of rounding up Jews, gays, communists, gypsies and other groups for dispatch. The 18th/19th century transatlantic slave trade. Ongoing racism in Southern USA states after the civil war. Predatory paedophilia in orphanages and care homes in this country. I'm sure you can think of other examples. Obviously the most horrifying aspect is what happened to the victims. But another chilling thought is how could "normal" people stoop to such levels. In some cases, most people seemed to conform, in a sort of cultural moral blindness. It's easy to set oneself up as judge, jury and executioner from a distant cultural, geographical and historical perspective, but I wonder. Might you or I have done so if we'd been in that situation? I think possibly part of the explanation is that our human brain and mind is incredibly plastic, constantly changing in response to environmental factors and shaped by the culture and values and ethical mores which surround us, and the company we keep. We're especially shaped by incentives; the daily work we do which puts bread on the table and gives us a sense of self worth. We're shaped more than we ever realise. Even our ethics and morals, which we like to think of as deeply intrinsic, can be changed and manipulated, sometimes an inch at a time without our realising it. We're amazingly good at self justification, and amazingly influenced by tribal mentality and conforming to crowd behaviour. Mostly we're creatures of our time and also of our environment. Very few have the vision, perspicacity and perseverance to imagine a radically different society and press ahead for it, especially when ridiculed by pragmatists and conformers. I'd hope that religion at its best, or political passion at its best, or humanism at its best, or aesthetic sensibilities or moral philosophy or other forms of independent discourse might enable people to be more visionary and prophetic; to challenge established norms (even at personal cost) and seek a better society. I also think it would be wise to try to access a perpetrator's account of such events, if only as a warning to ourselves. I wonder what commonly accepted practices in today's societies will be judged harshly by future generations? the industry and practice of warfare? Burning fossil fuels? Capitalism? Communism? Our treatment of older people or disabled people? The death penalty? Undemocratic forms of government? Loss of species? Who knows. We need visionaries.
"Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates) Edited 22 Oct 11, 12:15 PM by wonderer | ||||
| 22 Oct 11, 12:23 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
How can dogma challenge norms? In these kind of situations I'd think the founding elements are the ones who effect change, correct badness, and make 'progress', the subsequent religion inhibits it. Jesus Christ: Be nice to everyone. Pope Urban VIII: The earth does not go around the fucking sun, mkay?
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | ||||
| 22 Oct 11, 12:34 PM CookieMonster UK, 6 yrs |
I think if you surrender reason for fairy tales you are on a slippery slope, this goes double for the indoctrination of children. I would love to religous education in schools replaced by lessons in logic, critical thinking, metaphysics etc.
| ||||
| 22 Oct 11, 1:19 PM wonderer UK, 5 yrs |
I think if you surrender fairy tales for "reason" you're also on a slippery slope (assuming you mean cold logical reason). We need imagination and creativity and vision as much as we need to be able to calculate. I'd hate to see fiction and poetry culled from school libraries and curricula. P.S.Back to Proccie's point. For me shit doesn't stick to most religions nor to atheism (though it might stick to some political philosophies). Shit should stick to individuals and their actions. And most of us make mistakes and do bad things at times, and could probably benefit from occasional Teflon moments. "Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates) Edited 22 Oct 11, 2:50 PM by wonderer | ||||
| 22 Oct 11, 5:30 PM Empress_Martine UK(HA), 2 yrs £      |
How do you know they are fairy tales? And as for the other items(logic etc ),they are already taught as algabera,science,maths etc.Most religious schools has RA as their core stracture.Are you asking them not to practice?That would be unlawful. And how would apply your idea to schools that practice Zen or the kabbalah or budism? Get a grip! http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine Vampire, pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch.Ageplay mummy/aunty/AB,medical play,domestic,energy, outdoor specialist."Welcome to Downturn Abbey.You will not be staying long. James will show you to the servant' Edited 22 Oct 11, 5:32 PM by Empress_Martine | ||||
| 22 Oct 11, 5:44 PM CookieMonster UK, 6 yrs |
Yes and no doubt you have a couple of Unicorns to back you up on those points. If it defies the laws of physics then imo its mumbo jumbo. Sceince and algebra are abstract forms of reasoning and not the same as my suggestions, stick to the brothers Grimm. |
