Catholic Bigotry?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You are pissing me off with your repetition of the same points without explaining yourself. If it weren't for the fact that you don't do it usually I'd have thought you were just trolling.

 

In terms of saying that someone is not thinking clearly, I am saying that with direct reference to you. And that is because your criticism of the fact that I have opinions on what is right or wrong just doesn’t make much sense. I presume you believe lots of things are right and wrong. In your defence, you haven’t really explained what you are talking about much other than repeating that I am not tolerant. All a bit woolly.

 

I think you are advocating some warped sense of moral relativism. Moral relativism being the idea that people have different morals and it is wrong to criticise those morals because we are not that person or people. I disagree with that view if it a blanket principle.

 

So that I can understand where you are coming from, please answer the following:

1. Are you saying that simply thinking I am right and someone is wrong about a view is tantamount to being intolerant?
   
2. What do you mean by intolerance?
   
3. If not, what is about my comments that you have a problem with and think is intolerant and hypocritical?
   

[Max Power]

The Catholic Church is a non entity in my opinion. By sheltering child abusers from the law they have foregone the right to dictate the morals of anyone and that is from the Pope down through their ranks.

I know that there are good men amongst the priesthood but down the centuries and recent years there have been some sadistic and perverted men who have got away with some terrible crimes against children. They have been protected by figure within the church right up to the current Pontiff!

They have been at the vanguard of the ill treatment of native peoples of so called conquered lands through history and I am unable to take them as serious religious figures.

 

As far as I am concerned the Pope has no hope!

[Evil Goblin]

some dreadful moral relativism. I don’t know where you have picked it up but it is very flawed. I mean, some cultures think that female circumcision is right. I think they are wrong. Are you saying that we should be sure that we are correct in our opinions on that matter? There are many other examples.

Given that all moral views are subjective why do you describe moral relativism as "dreadful"? You and I might consider female circumcision to be wrong but cultures which practice it obviously think it is right. It's really just our opinion against theirs with no effective means of an independent judgement.

 

As for the matter of rubbish. I am talking about rubbishing of the nonsense of catholic belief. Demonstrating why should people and ideas should not be heeded nor given credibility.

Believing Catholics believe that they are right and will regard your views as heretical. Can you PROVE they are wrong? Stating that you can see no evidence that they are right is not the same thing.

[Evil Goblin]

You do confuse me EG - at the start of this post you say "Of course I think that we currently have a better set of moral values than were general in the 17th Century".

 

But at the end you say "I deny that any meaningful progress ... is being achieved".

 

These two points seem in contradiction.

I think you have missed my point, China. You and I may think we currently have a better set of moral values than were general in the 17th Century but people of those times would probably disagree with us. How can we objectively prove that our values are "right" and theirs were "wrong"? They're just different sets of subjective values.

 

As for meaningful progress, it is certainly true that although our scientific knowledge base and technological abilities are vastly superior than ever before the human animal is just the same as it was thousands of years ago. Humans use their technological skills and knowledge for the same old purposes - waging religious wars, dominating others, gaining resources, etc. viz the Taliban Commander orchestrating an attack by mobile phone communication.

 

we have, I think, an objectively better understanding our lot than in the 17th century which has enabled our moral values to advance. There can be times when societies retrograde - when people can look to a time in the past and say the values were better in the past.

But advancement and regression are simply subjective opinions.

 

progress is being made at solving problems.

Too often at the cost of creating other problems just as intractable.

 

The result is a slow overall improvement.

Is it?

[Evil Goblin]

I think they are highly immoral and in some cases of Catholic belief they are evil.

Which teachings are immoral and just why are they so? And just what is "evil" (or perhaps more appropriately) what do you consider evil to be?

 

If someone thought they were visited by the ghost of Napoleon who told them that those gay folk are dirty bastards and should never be allowed to adopt children because it would make them gay. And that people thinks this Napoleon is a very good authority on such matters, then unless that person can demonstrate their claim they are FUCKING NUTS.

Of course, in biblical times people had no knowledge of the workings of the mind and brain and honestly believed that if they had a vivid dream of, say, meeting and conversing with the Risen Christ, that those things had really happened, albeit on a different level of existence. Were they "FUCKING NUTS" or just ignorant of what we now know?

 

Now anyone can say that my view is the biggest pile of shit they have heard. They can.

And often do!

[Evil Goblin]

Keep it behind closed doors, preach it in your churches but stay away from the mainstream media because such franktly extremist views are no longer wanted in our society.

Why should those views be kept away from the mainstream media just because you don't happen to like them? You appear to have autocratic/despotic views.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Given that all moral views are subjective why do you describe moral relativism as "dreadful"? You and I might consider female circumcision to be wrong but cultures which practice it obviously think it is right. It's really just our opinion against theirs with no effective means of an independent judgement.

Ah ok, I should have been more specific, by far. I was referring to a moral relativism in the specific respect of cultural criticism. There is a foolish and potentially dangerous current of thought today that what other cultures do cannot be criticised or even judged by people of other cultures. Manshimajin seemed to following this line of thinking when I comment on the beliefs of Catholicism are wrong (in my opinion). Manshimajin seems to think that stating such beliefs are being as wrong is a position that I cannot take.

 

 

Believing Catholics believe that they are right and will regard your views as heretical. Can you PROVE they are wrong? Stating that you can see no evidence that they are right is not the same thing.

Not my place to prove. That is for them to do. They have the burden of proof.

And yes, they might turn around and say the Bible is evidence. But I argue that this constitutes very poor evidence on the basis of how we (humans) use evidence other beliefs.

If you are leading onto the area that the religious could potentially use anything, such as their imagination alone, to come to believe something and think it is true then fair enough. But that's just in their own little head. And their professions of belief and judgement on matters in the shared world bear no recognition in a society's view of matters such as marriage.

Although, if we are talking about Catholicism it really isn't the case. Catholics will attest to the reasons for their belief as being the fact that they were brought up to assume such things as true; that the Bible is evidence; and then there are instances of personal revelations. But the last factor rests on either of the previous two.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Which teachings are immoral and just why are they so? And just what is "evil" (or perhaps more appropriately) what do you consider evil to be?

Original sin - an idea of guilt. Guilt that has been supposedly been acquired by the acts of antecedents.

And the role of the God. Creates Adam and Eve. Didn't allow them to have a moral understanding. They eat from the Tree of Knowledge (which gives them an idea of right and wrong) and then they are banished. And their children are tainted by original sin.

Then God creates a loophole to sacrificing himself to himself in a bloody, barbaric affair as a process of atonement.

And then there is the role of hell. A permanent place of torture for those who committed limited acts. Following from this is the immorality of punishing those who have had no contact with Christianity because this God was so poor at communicating his message.

I could go on.

 

Of course, in biblical times people had no knowledge of the workings of the mind and brain and honestly believed that if they had a vivid dream of, say, meeting and conversing with the Risen Christ, that those things had really happened, albeit on a different level of existence. Were they "FUCKING NUTS" or just ignorant of what we now know?

Their beliefs were nuts in many cases and ignnorant in others.

You do have a habit of generalising when it comes to discussions of theology. I am talking about Christianity here. Personal relevation does not form the basis and structure of Christian belief.

[Evil Goblin]

Manshimajin seems to think that stating such beliefs are being as wrong is a position that I cannot take.

I would agree that you are quite entitled to believe Catholic beliefs are wrong and to say so - but I didn't think Mans was saying anything to the contrary.

 

]Not my place to prove. That is for them to do. They have the burden of proof.

We are back to the same arguments as in the past - they see evidence where you don't.

[Evil Goblin]

Original sin - an idea of guilt. Guilt that has been supposedly been acquired by the acts of antecedents And the role of the God. Creates Adam and Eve. Didn't allow them to have a moral understanding. They eat from the Tree of Knowledge (which gives them an idea of right and wrong) and then they are banished. And their children are tainted by original sin.

Then God creates a loophole to sacrificing himself to himself in a bloody, barbaric affair as a process of atonement.

And then there is the role of hell. A permanent place of torture for those who committed limited acts. Following from this is the immorality of punishing those who have had no contact with Christianity because this God was so poor at communicating his message.

I could go on.

Yes, a lot of trouble arises from people reading the Bible (and especially the OT) literally, rather than understanding it as metaphor and allegory in an attempt to explain in concrete terms their ideas. Personally, I'm sure that those who wrote the OT didn't intend their words to be taken literally.

 

You do have a habit of generalising when it comes to discussions of theology. I am talking about Christianity here. Personal relevation does not form the basis and structure of Christian belief.

I disagree here, LDV - Christianity is based on Paul's teachings and they originate with the famed conversion on the road to Damascus. I believe much in the Bible is based on such personal revelation, arguably even some of the words and teachings of Jesus himself.

[befuddled]

Facts...

 

37.85% of Europeans (283.916.457 people) are Catholic.

17.18% of the Worlds population (1.181.368.942 people) are Catholic.

These people like it or not must be accounted for and paid attention to be they right or wrong in their opinions,creeds and or customs.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country

[manshimajin]

You are pissing me off with your repetition of the same points without explaining yourself. If it weren't for the fact that you don't do it usually I'd have thought you were just trolling.

I have fully explained why I think you are being hypocritical on this LDV. If you cannot understand the basic point I have made it may be because you are worked up on this issue. If you are pissed off then I am sorry but that is your problem not mine.

 

I have no sympathy for the Roman Catholic Church's bigotted attitude. However I equally have no sympathy for people who accuse others of bigotry and then express bigotted opinions against a particular religion.

 

Read your words LDV.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I would agree that you are quite entitled to believe Catholic beliefs are wrong and to say so - but I didn't think Mans was saying anything to the contrary

I think you should read through his posts again.

 

We are back to the same arguments as in the past - they see evidence where you don't.

Yes, and I think the evidence that is used is very poor. I just that from my own standards, but also from the standards that such people would require were they to believe in unicorns or believe that Napoleon was visiting them regularly.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yes, a lot of trouble arises from people reading the Bible (and especially the OT) literally, rather than understanding it as metaphor and allegory in an attempt to explain in concrete terms their ideas. Personally, I'm sure that those who wrote the OT didn't intend their words to be taken literally.

And were such writings to not be taken literally by the writers then Catholicism would not remain intact. In fact, almost all demoninations of Christianity would be so very different to be unrecognisable.

Even so, in respect of what is given as an example, what the is the message and point of putting such things in the Bible? Cleary they have an importance.

The story of Adam & Eve portrays an immoral God. If the story is not to be taken literally then what significance is it to take through metaphor?

 

I disagree here, LDV - Christianity is based on Paul's teachings and they originate with the famed conversion on the road to Damascus. I believe much in the Bible is based on such personal revelation, arguably even some of the words and teachings of Jesus himself.

That was the personal revelation of Paul, but not the followers.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I have fully explained why I think you are being hypocritical on this LDV. If you cannot understand the basic point I have made it may be because you are worked up on this issue. If you are pissed off then I am sorry but that is your problem not mine.

 

I have no sympathy for the Roman Catholic Church's bigotted attitude. However I equally have no sympathy for people who accuse others of bigotry and then express bigotted opinions against a particular religion.

 

Read your words LDV.

No, you really haven't fully explained in such a way that I can understand exactly where your issue lies. Like I have said, you throw around words like hypocrisy and tolerance but you haven't demonstrated how I am being intolerant. And now you are hopping onto the word 'bigotry' to see how that suits, without explaining where the bigotry is. I need to establish exactly where your problem with what I say lies so I don't waste time assuming you mean something else.

 

Reading back through your posts, you believe that Catholic people and clergy should be able to express their views. I haven't and nobody has disagreed with you on that matter. There is therefore no hypocrisy for allowing people to speak their mind. I am all for people speaking their mind, however silly their beliefs or views may be. And that is the where the issue of tolerance lies.

 

But I think from your replies that you have a problem with my framing of some beliefs as silly, ridiculous, evil, wrong etc.

 

It's a shame you have such a belief (if that's the case), as it is foolish one to have.You immediately open yourself up to crediting other beliefs with high standing or 'respect' without regard to their content.

 

And that's where I think the matter lies. I think you credit religions with a high opinion that makes you think that it is wrong to criticise them too strongly. (Although this has nothing to do with intolerance).

 

I think you completely miss the point that claims of what is true or not are there to be judged and evaluated by others where they relate to the world we live in and the people in it.

 

If some beliefs (such as Catholicism) lead people to become bigoted, immoral, or evil then they should be criticised. If they are simply false then they should be painted as being silly and ridiculous.

 

You don't like that. Maybe you should think about it some more.