Religon is not peaceful as they state

[talloola]

I feel I am in the sensible middle, yet I replied to his opening post, and agreed with his
views, as he seemed like he was ranting because of an overflow of incidents, and he had to
vent. This is the place to do it.

I was agreeing with the overflow that happens, the pressures that are put on many others in
the world to live their lives in a certain way by 'religious' leaders.

On a normal day, I agree that everyone has the right to believe or not believe, and it is sad
that we can't all do that without interference from the fringes. But then again, it is always
the fringes who speak out isn't it, the middle are quite content and open minded, and most times
not really interested in rocking the boat.

 

[karrie]

The litmus test for me talloola, is who you discuss when you discuss faith and choice in religion. I discuss myself. There's no need to discuss anyone else when I discuss why I believe what I do. If you need to discuss others in order to discuss your own beliefs surrounding religion, then there's an issue, there's judgement, there's a stewing resentment bubbling to the surface. A lot of people on both sides of the argument CAN NOT discuss it only in the context of themselves.

 

[Avro]

You're discussing it now.

 

[gerryh]

You're discussing it now.

yup......right in there with critter. We'll add comprehension problems to your list of disabilities also.

 

[Avro]

yup......right in there with critter. We'll add comprehension problems to your list of disabilities also.

Okay

 

[karrie]

You're discussing it now.

No, I'm not discussing my faith at all as a matter of fact. I am merely commenting on the debate surrounding the issue.

 

[talloola]

The litmus test for me talloola, is who you discuss when you discuss faith and choice in religion. I discuss myself. There's no need to discuss anyone else when I discuss why I believe what I do. If you need to discuss others in order to discuss your own beliefs surrounding religion, then there's an issue, there's judgement, there's a stewing resentment bubbling to the surface. A lot of people on both sides of the argument CAN NOT discuss it only in the context of themselves.

yeah, but that is probably impossible, but in discussing others for me, it is the 'leaders' of religions
who demand so much from their people, not sure if that is totally picking on others or not.
the leadership of politics also, for me are the ones who have far too much power, same for religion.
People are left as obedient followers, that is sad in my opinion.

I'm not sure how I can just talk about myself, as all I can say then, is that I don't believe in any
god, that is it, story over, then there is nothing else to say I guess. Atheism is not a religion, so
there is nothing to discuss re: their doctrine or beliefs, there aren't any, some say atheism is also
a religion, not true, it isn't anything but the opposite of religious beliefs.

Anyone on either side who lashes out at individuals and tries to sway them or put them down for their
beliefs are just rigid and can't accept anything other what they think, which is the same on many
topics here, if you don't think the same as me you are 'stupid, a moron, etc etc.

 

[Avro]

No, I'm not discussing my faith at all as a matter of fact. I am merely commenting on the debate surrounding the issue.

:lol:

That's saying I'm not talking about cars, I'm talking about roads.:roll:

 

[DaSleeper]

While I agree with most of what you said.......

I would have to add that I also have a problem with the new religion that says that you are an idiot, weak minded and, at the very least uninformed if you beleive in a God........It's called "atheism"...in my book they are just as bad as jehova witnesses or people who preach whatever religion they beleive in. in forums............

It's true.

It's the type of thing children would believe in.

You'd have to ignore basic....and I mean really basic scientific facts.

We'll just lump you right in there with critter. You also have a disability as an excuse for your ignorance?

Thanks Gerryh.... You said it all....for me to add anything besides calling him a pinhead would be superfluous

 

[Avro]

Thanks Gerryh.... You said it all....for me to add anything besides calling him a pinhead would be superfluous

Of course you would agree...it's in your nature.

 

[Bcool]

So do I (and I think he's missed something important), and no, not really, I think we can do it here. I've recently come around to thinking Hitchens is wrong, or at least not entirely right, to say that religion poisons everything. It's not religion as such that's poison, it's politicized religion that tries to intrude into the secular world that's poison, hence the need to keep church and state separate. People can believe whatever they want, as long as they recognize that they can't legitimately force their views on those who disagree with them. But give them secular authority and that's what they'll try to do, so they can't have it. I think Hitchens is right that power corrupts religion uniquely, because it believes itself to be absolutely right in some sense and thus has both a right and a duty to interfere in the lives of those who don't buy it, and I also think he's right that any sect elevated to a position of power over others would soon start to behave like the mediaeval Catholic Church. So religion can't be given any secular authority, it poisons both the faith itself and the secular world.

Well, shoot! You haven't left me much to debate with you about, except regarding politicized religion. Very disturbing and unsettling, as I state below. I admit to still being a little wishy washy yet as to whether this blends with Hitchins' religion poisons everything approach, or whether that is what he's actually advocating in summary. Also, after hearing him tell in a very recent interview of the unbelievably vicious hate filled emails and snail mails he's been getting from those who claim to be the faithful, its a lot easier to go with the religion poisons everything position. The gloating glee in the hopes of the 'faithful' that he will suffer unbearable agonies for a long time while enduring fighting the esophogeal cancer, that when he does die a long and painful death then G*d/J***s et al will punish him in hell with eternal agony for not believing in: pick a religion. Positively putrid stuff, makes the Twelver Shi'a sect look almost benevolent! And he shrugged it off saying how ironic of them to prove so many of the points he's made about the poison of religion.

You're no doubt aware of it but anyhoo: The present Pope, Benedict XVI, caused a ruccus a couple of years or more ago (my archives are all on a pile of CD's & to find the exact date would take forever), by issuing a Papal Bull to Canadian politicians (also buried in my archives %$@!!) based on a 2002 "Doctrinal Note on The Participation of Catholics In Political Life" which basically said vote the Catholic doctrine or else! I quote from the Note:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH​

DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life​

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, having received the opinion of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, has decided that it would be appropriate to publish the present Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life. This Note is directed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church and, in a particular way, to Catholic politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the political life of democratic societies.​

It rattles on for pages, teeny part: " . . On the level of concrete political action, there can generally be a plurality of political parties in which Catholics may exercise – especially through legislative assemblies – their right and duty to contribute to the public life of their country.This arises because of the contingent nature of certain choices regarding the ordering of society, the variety of strategies available for accomplishing or guaranteeing the same fundamental value, the possibility of different interpretations of the basic principles of political theory, and the technical complexity of many political problems. It should not be confused, however, with an ambiguous pluralism in the choice of moral principles or essential values. The legitimate plurality of temporal options is at the origin of the commitment of Catholics to politics and relates directly to Christian moral and social teaching. It is in the light of this teaching that lay Catholics must assess their participation in political life so as to be sure that it is marked by a coherent responsibility for temporal reality. . . " Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life

So much for separation of church and state in Canada as far as the Pope's concerned!

I think I was so indignant I wrote to the wretched man and told him to butt out. lol

So your statement: "So religion can't be given any secular authority, it poisons both the faith itself and the secular world." has already been scuppered by just one church that I know of. :roll: And folks are running around screaming "The sky is falling!" 'cos of the Muslim religion! What about paying more attention to the way our Catholic politicians are being ordered to vote by an equally fanatical religious bunch issuing edicts from one of the most secretive, non-democratic countries in the world.

Hence my reluctance to accept the argument that religion does not poison everything. Just in this one instance there is proof that it possibly does and how many more instances exist?

 

[gerryh]

Well, shoot! You haven't left me much to debate with you about, except regarding politicized religion. Very disturbing and unsettling, as I state below. I admit to still being a little wishy washy yet as to whether this blends with Hitchins' religion poisons everything approach, or whether that is what he's actually advocating in summary. Also, after hearing him tell in a very recent interview of the unbelievably vicious hate filled emails and snail mails he's been getting from those who claim to be the faithful, its a lot easier to go with the religion poisons everything position. The gloating glee in the hopes of the 'faithful' that he will suffer unbearable agonies for a long time while enduring fighting the esophogeal cancer, that when he does die a long and painful death then G*d/J***s et al will punish him in hell with eternal agony for not believing in: pick a religion. Positively putrid stuff, makes the Twelver Shi'a sect look almost benevolent! And he shrugged it off saying how ironic of them to prove so many of the points he's made about the poison of religion.

My goodness, extreme nut cases that call themselves Christian threatening Hitchins? What a surprise......NOT.

Hitchins figuring that it proves his points about religions, only proves that the great and mighty Hitchins has a very narrow, shallow, and simplistic view of things.

.
You're no doubt aware of it but anyhoo: The present Pope, Benedict XVI, caused a ruccus a couple of years or more ago (my archives are all on a pile of CD's & to find the exact date would take forever), by issuing a Papal Bull to Canadian politicians (also buried in my archives %$@!!) based on a 2002 "Doctrinal Note on The Participation of Catholics In Political Life" which basically said vote the Catholic doctrine or else! I quote from the Note:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH​

DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life​

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, having received the opinion of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, has decided that it would be appropriate to publish the present Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life. This Note is directed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church and, in a particular way, to Catholic politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the political life of democratic societies.​

It rattles on for pages, teeny part: " . . On the level of concrete political action, there can generally be a plurality of political parties in which Catholics may exercise – especially through legislative assemblies – their right and duty to contribute to the public life of their country.This arises because of the contingent nature of certain choices regarding the ordering of society, the variety of strategies available for accomplishing or guaranteeing the same fundamental value, the possibility of different interpretations of the basic principles of political theory, and the technical complexity of many political problems. It should not be confused, however, with an ambiguous pluralism in the choice of moral principles or essential values. The legitimate plurality of temporal options is at the origin of the commitment of Catholics to politics and relates directly to Christian moral and social teaching. It is in the light of this teaching that lay Catholics must assess their participation in political life so as to be sure that it is marked by a coherent responsibility for temporal reality. . . " Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life

So much for separation of church and state in Canada as far as the Pope's concerned!

I think I was so indignant I wrote to the wretched man and told him to butt out. lol

So your statement: "So religion can't be given any secular authority, it poisons both the faith itself and the secular world." has already been scuppered by just one church that I know of. :roll: And folks are running around screaming "The sky is falling!" 'cos of the Muslim religion! What about paying more attention to the way our Catholic politicians are being ordered to vote by an equally fanatical religious bunch issuing edicts from one of the most secretive, non-democratic countries in the world.

Hence my reluctance to accept the argument that religion does not poison everything. Just in this one instance there is proof that it possibly does and how many more instances exist?

ROFLMAO, this is just too easy. Do you expect that the Holy Roman Catholic Church and his Holiness the Pope would tell those that decided to be politicians that they could ignore that which would go against Church doctrine?

Also, here in Canada, the majority of PM's have been Catholic. As a matter of fact, Trudeau (the man who's government brought us to our present abortion laws) was Catholic. Chretien, the man who's government brought us our present SSM laws, was Catholic. Both these men and their fellow MP's were threatened with excommunication by the Catholic Church if they voted against Church doctrine. Needless to say that the majority of MP's voted for what they felt was right rather than "toeing" the line.


So, really, if you're gonna bash Christians/Catholics, Christianity/Catholicism, try a different angle.

 

[taxslave]

more mindless drivel from an obvious bigot with no knowledge.

That is generally what we get from religious fanatics.

 

[gerryh]

That is generally what we get from religious fanatics.

Mindless drivel pours from any fanatic, not just religious.

 

[Dingus]

I have a belief, a faith that is not based on so called "facts" (or else it would not be a his "faith") but rather a "gut feeling" of what is right. It is my view that what this world needs is faith, not religion. Religion is what man does to mistakenly dress up his faith. The tall candles the guys with their shirt collars on back to front, the huge churches dripping in gold ec. This is "religion" not faith. Religion leads to more misery in the world than almost anything else. Lets get rid of "religion" and instead lead our live according to our "faith".
No doubt I will be attacked for this view, but what the hey, I have broad shoulders.

 

[Bcool]

My goodness, extreme nut cases that call themselves Christian threatening Hitchins? What a surprise......NOT.

How can someone be "threatened" with something non-existent? You are being deliberately obtuse. My point obviously was the vitriolic glee in the suffering and possible death of another human being by those who felt completely justified in enjoying and taunting his suffering because of religious beliefs. IOW, what we were discussing: the poisoning effects of religious beliefs.

Probably the same types who roasted marshmallows in the heat generated by the fires burning "heretics" or "catholics" or "protestants" or... Well, whatever belief or non-belief was unfashionable at the time.

Hitchins figuring that it proves his points about religions, only proves that the great and mighty Hitchins has a very narrow, shallow, and simplistic view of things.

Your personal POV, which I as does Hitchins and millions of others feel you have a right to hold of course. You don't have a right to demand by the use of personal attacks or any other means that others not have their own particular POV, disagree with yours, nor to be free to discuss and debate them.

ROFLMAO, this is just too easy. Do you expect that the Holy Roman Catholic Church and his Holiness the Pope would tell those that decided to be politicians that they could ignore that which would go against Church doctrine?

Yes. He has no political legitimacy or authority to interfere in and manipulate the legal governing of Canada. He's merely a foreign leader of a totally separate country. Give him a say in our government then you have to let them all in. Any politician who votes according to their own particular religious beliefs or non beliefs is betraying his oath of office which states s/he will represent equally the constituents s/he represents.

Also, here in Canada, the majority of PM's have been Catholic. As a matter of fact, Trudeau (the man who's government brought us to our present abortion laws) was Catholic. Chretien, the man who's government brought us our present SSM laws, was Catholic. Both these men and their fellow MP's were threatened with excommunication by the Catholic Church if they voted against Church doctrine. Needless to say that the majority of MP's voted for what they felt was right rather than "toeing" the line.

Please give the citations, URLs and any other accredited proofs from non-biased sources for your anecdotal statements. [Why? See below.]

If they hadn't, they would have been commiting political suicide for voting their personal religious belief and because of a specific religious threat emanating from a specific and identifiable source, they knew that. Interesting though that you make this point: they put their political careers, or to be fair possibly also their belief in equality and justice, before their faith. Also you yourself state that the Vatican, in essense the pope, used threats in an attempt to coerce and influence a democratic process in a country where he has no legitimacy except in the minds & non tax paying institutions of his adherents. Some see that as powermongering, some as blatant blackmail.

So, really, if you're gonna bash Christians/Catholics, Christianity/Catholicism, try a different angle.

You mean as in:

Quoting gerryh:
more mindless drivel from an obvious bigot with no knowledge.

gerryh: bullsh*t

etc., etc., & so forth...

I don't "bash", I debate and discuss and use citations from the source when possible to demonstrate I am not using anecdotal hyperbole to "bash" someone else's POV. I asked you to give the citations and the sources of what you said above. Before you have another tantrum, consider calmly the opportunities presented in doing so to let those here who are not familiar with our history and our constitution to learn a little more, they may well be interested.

The source is irrefutable as is the message:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH​

DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life​

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, having received the opinion of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, has decided that it would be appropriate to publish the present Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life. This Note is directed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church and, in a particular way, to Catholic politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the political life of democratic societies.

Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life

​

Pretty, isn't it? If he pawned it, wonder how many starving babies he could feed in impoverished countries where he won't permit contraception? ("Bashing" or food for thought? A somewhat distasteful pun, but there it is.)

_________________________________________________________________________________

​

 

[DaSleeper]

I have a belief, a faith that is not based on so called "facts" (or else it would not be a his "faith") but rather a "gut feeling" of what is right. It is my view that what this world needs is faith, not religion. Religion is what man does to mistakenly dress up his faith. The tall candles the guys with their shirt collars on back to front, the huge churches dripping in gold ec. This is "religion" not faith. Religion leads to more misery in the world than almost anything else. Lets get rid of "religion" and instead lead our live according to our "faith".
No doubt I will be attacked for this view, but what the hey, I have broad shoulders.

That is probably the sanest thing that has been said in this thread....there are those that wear their religion like they would wear fancy clothes....for show...my mother had a term for that years ago "mangeux de balustre"...that may well apply to every religion including atheism...people trying to force down the throat of others their own particular brand of religion or even non religion is the problem.
I have camped, on and of, for the past ten summers with a couple, and I only found out this summer by accident that they were Jehovah witnesses because our interest in common was music and we never ever discussed religion.

 

[Bcool]

I have a belief, a faith that is not based on so called "facts" (or else it would not be a his "faith") but rather a "gut feeling" of what is right. It is my view that what this world needs is faith, not religion. Religion is what man does to mistakenly dress up his faith. The tall candles the guys with their shirt collars on back to front, the huge churches dripping in gold ec. This is "religion" not faith. Religion leads to more misery in the world than almost anything else. Lets get rid of "religion" and instead lead our live according to our "faith".
No doubt I will be attacked for this view, but what the hey, I have broad shoulders.

Well said! Heck, those who attack you for your POV are kind of pitiful IMO. Let 'em slide off those broad shoulders of yours, if they can reach them. :lol:

 

[Cliffy]

Religion is a belief system, not faith. Faith is a trusting in life, accepting and learning from it as it unfolds.
"Belief is holding to a rock, faith is learning to swim in the stream of life." - Allan Watts (Master degree in Theology and Doctorate of Divinity)

 

[gerryh]

Pretty, isn't it? If he pawned it, wonder how many starving babies he could feed in impoverished countries where he won't permit contraception? ("Bashing" or food for thought? A somewhat distasteful pun, but there it is.)

_________________________________________________________________________________

​

The contraception that the Catholic Church permits is called abstinence. It is far more effective against STD's and pregnancy's than any other form of contraception.

Also note, the the Catholic Church also condemns premarital sex, and sex between people that are not married to each other. This doesn't seem to stop those Africans you are referring to. Yet they use the excuse of the Catholic Church to not use condoms. So, you tell me, who's fault is it really. The Catholic Church, or the individuals that choose to only follow and listen to PART of the Catholic Church doctrine?