Log in:  

Register

Research on Belief in God

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, peloton, Alpe d'Huez, Eshnar, Red Rick, King Boonen, Tonton, Pricey_sky

Re: God and Religion

18 Mar 2016 11:56

The problem with this discussion is that it’s not a discussion. My contradictors have never intended to discuss the issue that I was raising – Brullnux, aside (have to say, the most decent poster of the pack, though he hates me) - , which is how the Left-wing paved the way for the capitalistic exploitation of the 19th century, via the ideas of the Enlightened philosophy, physiocracy and the French Revolution. They constantly dodged the debate. Maarten perfectly understood this (and I’m very grateful to him for his post, it was quite reassuring for me). Instead of proving me wrong on this issue, they would move to other topics such as first literacy/education while it’s absolutely disputable that the Church wished to keep the people uneducated quite on the contrary, then because I proved them wrong, they moved to science and the understanding of the world, while this still has nothing to do with liberalism/capitalism and it’s absolutely disputable if not completely wrong that the Church ever was “obscurantist” (indeed!) and then they moved to the conflict between Catholics & Protestants and now what are they bringing up, pedophilia! Still nothing to do with the topic.

Their goal has never been to prove me wrong on the economy because they cannot do it. They know that what I’m saying is right and they cannot accept it. That’s why their aim is simply to vilify me, to portray me as a villain, a bad guy, an obscurantist, a neo-fascist, etc, whatever. Thus someone who is not worthy of respect, not worthy of playing contradictory debate with. They believe that they are entitled to do that because they are on the “Good” side. They are so self-righteous, so proud, so sure of themselves.

I wouldn’t do that. If I did, their reaction would be even more disrespectful. I take the point they raised and bring up arguments. I’m too naïve, probably. That will be the end of me, perhaps. But I have the weakness to believe that a neutral honest reader of this “discussion” would have noticed their disgusting methods.

I don’t even encourage the reader to take all the points I’ve raised on face value. On the contrary, don’t do that. Rather check by yourself if there’s truth in what I’m saying. Documentate about the “Loi Le Chapelier”, about the French “Flour War”, about the “Tragedy of the Commons” (Grazing Lands vs Enclosure), about “Physiocracy”, about Turgot (not Sébastien, right? Lol), etc. This is mainly addressed at younger readers, who are not too much endoctrinated by the doxa (for the Charlies, I’m afraid it’s too late).

And re: pedophilia, I again have to boomerang the attack against the attackers. Documentate about the pedophilia apology trend in the 1970’s, among atheistic/liberal circles. It’s staggering. Edward Brongersma and the NVSH in the Netherlands, the “affaire du Coral” in France (1982), the North American Man/Boy Love Association, the Australian Paedophile Support Group. French Personalities such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Daniel Cohn-Bendit or Bernard Kouchner were apologists. I guess my contradictors have never heard about the Zandvoort Files nor of the Dutroux Affair, right? The Vatican II sect has sought to adapt what they considered the Church to the modern world, it’s said in the texts, I’m not making up anything. Pedophile “priests” achieved that. They rejected Christianity. Of course, there’s never been any pedophilia scandals around sedevacantist priests, which means real priests.

But now that I’ve again destroyed their attack, what else are they gonna find? Are they finally gonna address the first issue that I raised? I doubt that … They are too much of cowards for that …
Echoes
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,683
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

Re: God and Religion

18 Mar 2016 12:01

Echoes wrote:And re: pedophilia, I again have to boomerang the attack against the attackers. Documentate about the pedophilia apology trend in the 1970’s, among atheistic/liberal circles.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
Check 'em!
User avatar CheckMyPecs
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 14 Mar 2016 09:24
Location: SW Europe

18 Mar 2016 13:54

These Vatican II nuns from 1968 look fashionable and happy, and yet they are still nuns.

Image

Why should nuns not be fashionable and happy, if they can do so and still be nuns?
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

Re:

18 Mar 2016 13:57

Maxiton wrote:These Vatican II nuns from 1968 look fashionable and happy, and yet they are still nuns.

Image

Why should nuns not be fashionable and happy, if they can do so and still be nuns?

2 times. both. :)
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,679
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

18 Mar 2016 14:30

Glenn_Wilson wrote:
Maxiton wrote:These Vatican II nuns from 1968 look fashionable and happy, and yet they are still nuns.

Image

Why should nuns not be fashionable and happy, if they can do so and still be nuns?

2 times. both. :)


Kinda makes you excited about going to church, doesn't it? I mean seriously.

CheckMyPecs wrote:Two wrongs don't make a right.


But, clearly, two rights make a right. :)
Last edited by Maxiton on 18 Mar 2016 16:00, edited 1 time in total.
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

18 Mar 2016 15:56

Echoes, I respect your opinion and your learning and find your positions fascinating. I confess I have some sympathy for them, and have been working up to a post that will engage them at some length.

In the meantime, though, I had to look up the term "sedevacantist" - coming from an Anglo-American, protestant upbringing, and a secular, agnostic, liberal-democratic outlook since childhood, my knowledge of the church, its history and issues, is nil. Having looked up the term, however, it seems obvious on its face that sedevacantism is underlined and justified by circular reasoning: I cannot agree with the doctrine of the current church; because I cannot agree, the doctrine is ipso facto wrong; the church cannot be wrong, therefore the church is not the church (or, the variant, I cannot agree with the doctrine, therefore the doctrine is wrong; the pope cannot be wrong, therefore the pope is not the pope).
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

Re: God and Religion

18 Mar 2016 20:44

Echoes wrote:The problem with this discussion is that it’s not a discussion. My contradictors have never intended to discuss the issue that I was raising – Brullnux, aside (have to say, the most decent poster of the pack, though he hates me) - , which is how the Left-wing paved the way for the capitalistic exploitation of the 19th century, via the ideas of the Enlightened philosophy, physiocracy and the French Revolution. They constantly dodged the debate. Maarten perfectly understood this (and I’m very grateful to him for his post, it was quite reassuring for me). Instead of proving me wrong on this issue, they would move to other topics such as first literacy/education while it’s absolutely disputable that the Church wished to keep the people uneducated quite on the contrary, then because I proved them wrong, they moved to science and the understanding of the world, while this still has nothing to do with liberalism/capitalism and it’s absolutely disputable if not completely wrong that the Church ever was “obscurantist” (indeed!) and then they moved to the conflict between Catholics & Protestants and now what are they bringing up, pedophilia! Still nothing to do with the topic.

Their goal has never been to prove me wrong on the economy because they cannot do it. They know that what I’m saying is right and they cannot accept it. That’s why their aim is simply to vilify me, to portray me as a villain, a bad guy, an obscurantist, a neo-fascist, etc, whatever. Thus someone who is not worthy of respect, not worthy of playing contradictory debate with. They believe that they are entitled to do that because they are on the “Good” side. They are so self-righteous, so proud, so sure of themselves.

I wouldn’t do that. If I did, their reaction would be even more disrespectful. I take the point they raised and bring up arguments. I’m too naïve, probably. That will be the end of me, perhaps. But I have the weakness to believe that a neutral honest reader of this “discussion” would have noticed their disgusting methods.

I don’t even encourage the reader to take all the points I’ve raised on face value. On the contrary, don’t do that. Rather check by yourself if there’s truth in what I’m saying. Documentate about the “Loi Le Chapelier”, about the French “Flour War”, about the “Tragedy of the Commons” (Grazing Lands vs Enclosure), about “Physiocracy”, about Turgot (not Sébastien, right? Lol), etc. This is mainly addressed at younger readers, who are not too much endoctrinated by the doxa (for the Charlies, I’m afraid it’s too late).

And re: pedophilia, I again have to boomerang the attack against the attackers. Documentate about the pedophilia apology trend in the 1970’s, among atheistic/liberal circles. It’s staggering. Edward Brongersma and the NVSH in the Netherlands, the “affaire du Coral” in France (1982), the North American Man/Boy Love Association, the Australian Paedophile Support Group. French Personalities such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Daniel Cohn-Bendit or Bernard Kouchner were apologists. I guess my contradictors have never heard about the Zandvoort Files nor of the Dutroux Affair, right? The Vatican II sect has sought to adapt what they considered the Church to the modern world, it’s said in the texts, I’m not making up anything. Pedophile “priests” achieved that. They rejected Christianity. Of course, there’s never been any pedophilia scandals around sedevacantist priests, which means real priests.

But now that I’ve again destroyed their attack, what else are they gonna find? Are they finally gonna address the first issue that I raised? I doubt that … They are too much of cowards for that …


So now the excecutioner wants to play the victim.

It's not that the Church was against education, but wanted to establish the parameters within which it was correct (often to the extent of burning heretics) to be learned, or even hold positons contrary to the official doctrine. This in itself is a historical indictment against the religious institution.

The Church wasn't obsucrantist? How do you reconcile that with the Index librum prohibitorum, established in 1558 and suppressed only in 1966?! Naturally before then the Church didn't need to relly on such censorship. That's because the monks did their obliterating work in the monasteries. There was no circulation of books, no danger of literacy, no threat to the established order! With the invention of the printing press, the protestant reform and the new unorthodox philosphies and scientific inquiries that all changed: thus the Index. The Jesuit Cardinal Roberto Bellarime is a saint of the Church, but was the fulcrum behind the burning of the philosopher Giordano Bruno as a heretic in the Campo dei Fiori, Rome, in 1600.

I doubt you've heard of emphyteusis, a medieval system of rent without end of landed estates and urban mansions in Church hands, by which the ecclesiastics drew a permanent source of income from the nobility. This ensured a rigorous class system in which the laboring serfs remained wholly dependent upon their masters ad perpetuum. The guilds could be better controlled and monitored too.

The increased prosperity of the burghers enflamed that equilibrium, however, and its severe regimentation was destined to succumb to free enterprise. All the other issues raised, from this moment forward, are moot, moot underlined.

Now we can debate the virtues or evils of free enterprise, but we cannot falsify the past, I've thought, and we really shouldn't praise an ancien regime that kept the subordinate masses dependent and either totally ignorant or else brainwashed, with every independance of thought subject to the Inquisition. We should be grateful that the fascism of the clergy and the nobility eventually succumbed, in some cases caved into, the irresistable call to emancipation of independent thought, the only thing worth living for. The current injustices of global capitalism don't detract from that huge accomplishment. Nor does the fact that it came about in spurts, remains largely unsatisfactory and, still worse, risks collapsing into a new and more insidious feudalism.That is another matter, to be separated from the previousl circumstances that led to an intolerable status quo and the epochal change this inevitably brought about.

So the instances of pedophilia not inflicted by clergymen should make us rethink the scale and nature of the scandal caused by those that have been? Right. And let me add, the systematic abuse of children whose parents placed them into the care of priests didn't begin after Vatican II. To the contrary, but there wasn't even need for a cover-up. Before Catholic families could rely on the support of a public magistracy that wasn't submissive, or worse the long arm, of the ecclesiastical order, the shame and onus of the crime fell upon the abused child and his family. Silence was thus preferable to public ridicule and ostracization.

If Echoes doesn't like it and would prefer the old, religious-princes regime, then go live in Saudi Arabia. The masses are "provided for" there too. You can also, however, be beheaded for apostasy.
Last edited by rhubroma on 26 Mar 2016 20:13, edited 9 times in total.
User avatar rhubroma
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,361
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

Re: God and Religion

18 Mar 2016 22:09

Echoes wrote: Brullnux, aside (have to say, the most decent poster of the pack, though he hates me) - ,


Hate is a very strong word. I don't hate you, I disagree with your opinions, but I do respect you, very much. You strike me as a smart person and you write eloquently. However, I do disagree with your opinions.

Interesting about Sartre. I've always admired the play Huic Close.
Brullnux
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,799
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 14:41

19 Mar 2016 13:18

Didn't the church issue the Sacramentum Poenitentiae in the 18th century? Oh yeah, they did. What is it one might ask? Oh yeah, it's a papal decree talking about the problem of sexual abuse and pedophilia in 1741. 1741.

But..."Vatican II" and "Leftists". Couldn't just be a completely corrupt institution, or making men deny normal sexual urges for millennia. Nope.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,500
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

20 Mar 2016 06:41

When I vote it said General Error.So I have to reply something. I'm an atheist in that, while I can't assure there is no God.
DrewPowell
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 19 Mar 2016 10:20

Re:

20 Mar 2016 11:50

Maxiton wrote:Echoes, I respect your opinion and your learning and find your positions fascinating. I confess I have some sympathy for them, and have been working up to a post that will engage them at some length.

In the meantime, though, I had to look up the term "sedevacantist" - coming from an Anglo-American, protestant upbringing, and a secular, agnostic, liberal-democratic outlook since childhood, my knowledge of the church, its history and issues, is nil. Having looked up the term, however, it seems obvious on its face that sedevacantism is underlined and justified by circular reasoning: I cannot agree with the doctrine of the current church; because I cannot agree, the doctrine is ipso facto wrong; the church cannot be wrong, therefore the church is not the church (or, the variant, I cannot agree with the doctrine, therefore the doctrine is wrong; the pope cannot be wrong, therefore the pope is not the pope).


Sedevacantism is on the contrary the most coherent and logical stance for a Catholic. There’s no circularity, the fundamental sources are the Gospels and the different Councils through history (which do not contradict each other). When a so-called Catholic dogma contradicts a previous Catholic dogma and thereby contradicts the Gospels, it’s no longer Catholics and with the Pope conveys this new dogma, then he’s not the Pope because the Pope’s faith is infallible. If the Pope does not speak “ex Cathedra” and does not launch the “Papal Magister”, like he does in most of his encyclicals, letters, treaties, etc, then all he’s saying is perfectly fallible because what he says is not dogmatic and any Catholic is free to agree or disagree with him. However the Vatican II Council was meant to be dogmatic (if John XXIII really was the Pope) and since it contradicts the Catholic doctrine in dozens of points, it means that the post-Council so-called Church is actually not the Church. A set of value, a doctrine does not change with time, otherwise it’s called hypocrisy. The main contradiction to me between Vatican II and the Catholic Church is in “Gaudium et Spes 16” where it is said :
According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their centre and crown.


This is un-Catholic since for genuine Catholics, the centre and crown of all things on earth is God and not man. This is really the sacralization of the humanistic Renaissance kabbalist movement for which nature is made for man’s use and abuse. It’s atheistic and old-testamentary.

Hate is a very strong word. I don't hate you, I disagree with your opinions, but I do respect you, very much. You strike me as a smart person and you write eloquently. However, I do disagree with your opinions.
(quote by Brullnux)

Thanks. Unlike many things I have no problem with pluralism (much less than my contradictors actually). So you may disagree with me all you want. What annoys me is cowardice, though. It’s been weeks now since I first raised the issue of Enlightenment philosophy (the Left-wing) paving the way for liberalism and the individualization/atomization of society and proved it with the French Revolution, the 1791 “décret d’Allarde” and “Loi Le Chapelier”, which resp. suppressed all kinds of craftsmen guilds (which were labour association in order to defend their interest with funds to care for the sick, the oldies, women, etc.), confiscated/robbed all their goods and prohibited any kind of working coalition, id est de facto any trade unions, and prohibiting any strike.

My contradictors have NEVER addressed that issue, for damn sake. And there’s a good reason for this, it’s just too ugly to be admitted. You’ve got to silence such facts. The violence of the Loi Le Chapelier is unheard-of.

And if it were just that! The Church guaranteed annual leave for 25% of the year and halftime work for another 25%. That’s one of the reason why the Enlightenment tore into Her. The workers had too much holiday, too much free time, were partying too often in the villages …

In the countryside the negative impact of the Left is even bigger. The right of grazing lands traditionally enabled the smaller peasant to have their beasts feed on communal land AND on private land after the crop season. The “Enclosure” advocated by the Enlightenment established ownership in the rural areas, the little yokels had nowhere else to feed their beasts. Besides, after the Marshall Plan, it’s the Left-wing that imposed “land consolidation”, destroying the rural environment (kilometers of hedges, ditches, …), promoted fertilizers, all in the name of productivism. The peasants were encouraged to get into debt. So I’m laughing with the back of my face when Leftists teach me moral lessons on ecology.

ADDRESS THE ISSUE!

Emphyteusis was a ROMAN system! Christianity eventually put an end to it, like it put an end to serfdom by the 13th and 14th century, after the Communal Revolutions and the 100 Year War. There’s a gap of 300 to 400 years between the end of serfdom and the start of the capitalistic era. In the interval, Christianity backed up the emancipation of the labouring classes with the formation of craftsmen guilds, fixed price of bread, prohibition of usury, holiday guarantee and the gradual control by the workers over the means of production. Capitalism swept that all away.
Echoes
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,683
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

20 Mar 2016 17:24

Emphyteusis was not ended by the Church. It was perpetuated through the domuscultae. The domusculta capracorum of Formello makes this archaeological fact and not only in the Roman campagna, but throughout Europe. At any rate, keeping the prices on bread down wasn't a Christian invention, Diocletian's Edictum de pretis of 301 was as humane as anything the subsequent papacy or European princes could have contrived and he was a pagan. It extended to all products. The twelfth century communal revolutions were anti-papal, above all in Rome! The increased activity of Roman merchants and craftsman and the improved financial status of the burghers, though not comparable to the centers of Tuscany or Northern Italy at the time because of the clerical freno (brake), made them increasingly in sharp opposition to the power of the old aristocratic clans and the temporal rule of the popes. Gradually the situation generated considerable tension and ultimately a dramatic change: in 1143 the Roman burghers set up a commune (municipality) of their own, like the free ones in central Italy and revived the designation of "senate." The renovatio senatus as it was known reawakened Roman patriotism and nostalgia for the urbs past greatness during the empire, thinking which was to become so prominant in the later views of Petrarch and the Renaissance humanists that succeeded him.

Echoes litany is tiresome. Christianity and the Church very much maintained the status quo of late imperial civilization under much less fortuitous times however. Eventually that order broke down once the necessary pressure to bear was sufficient. Paradoxically the humanist philology so praised by the Church, became the unwitting catalyst of the scientific method that eventually destroyed its dogmatic system.

Speaking of which, I'm sure Catholic ultras like Echoes don't have much of a future. Their presumption is inversely proportional to their preparation. For example when he talks about dogma, things like transubstantiation and the virginity of Mary come to mind. When Christ said "do this in memory of me" the consumption of bread and wine is incompatable with "transubstantiation." Bread and wine as in "body" and "blood" was a recurrent metaphorical theme in those times, as the Mithraic tauroctony by which the solar deity gave life to the world testifies. The grapevine and grain played an integral part in this. Transubstantiation was a term chosen by the fifteenth-cuntury Council of Florence rendered through the Byzantine delagates' recovery of the Aristotelian μετουσίωσις (metousiosis), in Latin transsubstantiatio, which separated the substance per se from the accidental quality that described it. Baruch Spinoza though, somewhat sarcastically, already asked in the early seventeeth century where all those Jesuses in blood and bones in the form of wine and bread wound up? Was it necessary to preserve the faith only through such amazing things I've asked myself?

The religious faiths have always been impregnated with mysteries, beginning with the Eleusian Mysteries that a thousand years before Christ celebrated suggestive rites in the sanctuary of Demeter. On the other hand, if it weren't studded with "mysteries" what faith would it be? The necessity "to believe" only exists for the impossible or the absurd. The possible or the reasonable are known. They can either be demonstrated, or at least a demonstration can be tried, while naturally being exposed to refutation. By contrast dogma can neither be demonstrated, nor refuted, it just must be taken at face value. This is kind of like Echoes' curious historical revisions.
User avatar rhubroma
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,361
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

23 Mar 2016 21:13

Yeah I'm nowhere near educated enough yet to contribute to this.
Brullnux
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,799
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 14:41

Re: God and Religion

02 Apr 2016 01:44

Echoes wrote:
Jspear wrote:Oh please, it was a joke! FYI I only eat bacon/pork a couple times a year. Self control is easy. The religious aspect of eating or not eating pork could be discussed in the religion thread.


We both understood it was a joke, I think. ;)

However I don't see why I shouldn't bring the religious element here because in my opinion the Christian religion leads to an (at least) vegetarian diet if not vegan and besides you already did bring that element here:

Animals are not humans (most would disagree with me on this point :), But I would say it is because animals don't have souls. They are not made in the image of God.) Animals have been given to us to enjoy, to help us with work (in our modern society this reason is used far less), and to eat. There is nothing morally wrong with eating animals.



Where is it said that animals have been given us to enjoy and to eat? You are twisting the words of the Gospels to fit with your own habits and individual interests. It's atheism, darwinism and liberalism that promote meat eating. Some kind of a survival of the fittest. Christians mainly eat bread and believe that "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Likewise Vegans who trash the Christian religion are hypos, in my opinion.


But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:1-5)
Skyline Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjM6rZ4pN0
_____________________________________________________________________________
Canton Ave Climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90ZPlbEfmU
User avatar Jspear
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,756
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 03:50
Location: N. VA, USA

Re:

02 Apr 2016 05:50

DrewPowell wrote:When I vote it said General Error.So I have to reply something. I'm an atheist in that, while I can't assure there is no God.


I understand that he's been demoted to Colonel in light of this incident.
User avatar cellardoor
Member
 
Posts: 468
Joined: 05 Apr 2015 03:28
Location: Thailand



17 Apr 2016 20:34

"The truth is like poetry-- And most people **** hate poetry," - Overheard in a Washington D.C. bar by Michael Lewis, author of The Big Short
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KnPBg-tanE

If Satan is the Ego and Lucifer is (limited) human intelligence then things start to make more sense.
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,286
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

17 Apr 2016 20:45

Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,286
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

24 Apr 2016 18:46

Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,286
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests

Back to top