I might consider becoming a Dr Who fan...
...now that David Tennant has been confirmed as the new Dr Who. Yay! David Tennant has been confirmed as the new Dr Who. (By confirmed of course I don't been a bishop has placed his hands on his head and said he can take communion. although that might have happened too. He might be Catholic. Wonder what he thinks of the new Pope? Anyway, I digress.)
So, as I was saying, the rather lovely, marvellous and generally wonderful David Tennant is going to be the new Dr Who. And while scouring the BBC website for anything I could find on this story (it's a lonely life, working in Elephant) I found this reply on the BBC's "Have Your Say" section. The topic was "Will David Tennant make a good Dr Who?"
Speaking as a Dalek, I just can't see what the fuss is about. However many times this shape shifting do-gooder reinvents himself, we will not be deterred: we will catch the Doctor and we will exterminate him. Though my wife pointed out the other day that if we do, we will of course be out of a job.
Mr A Dalek, Skaro
Whoever wrote that has far too much time on their hands.
Actually, if Ratzinger doesn't like being Pope, maybe he could consider becoming a Dr Who villain.
Excommunicate....Excommunicate...
So, as I was saying, the rather lovely, marvellous and generally wonderful David Tennant is going to be the new Dr Who. And while scouring the BBC website for anything I could find on this story (it's a lonely life, working in Elephant) I found this reply on the BBC's "Have Your Say" section. The topic was "Will David Tennant make a good Dr Who?"
Speaking as a Dalek, I just can't see what the fuss is about. However many times this shape shifting do-gooder reinvents himself, we will not be deterred: we will catch the Doctor and we will exterminate him. Though my wife pointed out the other day that if we do, we will of course be out of a job.
Mr A Dalek, Skaro
Whoever wrote that has far too much time on their hands.
Actually, if Ratzinger doesn't like being Pope, maybe he could consider becoming a Dr Who villain.
Excommunicate....Excommunicate...
posted by RLS at 3:59 pm
17 Comments:
BTW, further to my comments in the post below this one, do visit my blog: http://www.neo-cavalier.blogspot.com/ !
Take care and God bless,
The Cavalier
I have indeed visited your blog before.
Take care
Px
Polly, i have to take issue with your problems with Ratzinger, now I think that all your comments on him are fair, i've looked them up and found preety substantive evidence to back up most of the claims, but my problem lies with your description of him as a "bit of an arse"
When there are people like "The Cavalier" about, Ratzinger looks like a great guy - compared to the "arseness" of some of the Catholics out there!
fair enough. what do you think I should put instead?
Frankly, I think that Ratzinger sounds like an entire arse, or perhaps a complete arse, whereas The Cavalier might well be described as the epitome of arseness, although again I have my suspicions about which closet he's hiding in...
If you think about it, the Cotholic faith is all about poofing it up. No sex before it is absolutely necessary, and even then only in order to procreate. It seems to be formed out of people who know thy're bent, but don't want to let it show, so they have put rules in place so that the actual physical contact with members of the opposite sex is kept to a minimum, while lusts and urges are kept under control with the promise of hell and damnation and if absolutely necessary flagellation. It wouldn't suprise me if early Catholics were the prime propagators of anal sex. Imagine being a Catholic peasant in the dark ages, with eight kids and no way to feed them, you're damned if you shag a man, you're damned if you shag someone who isn't your wife, and your damned if you use a pigskin wrap (early condom) so you figure, well I'll put the pecker somewhere different tonight in the dark and under the covers, and if God's watching, then he's a dirty bastard anyway, so I'll probably be ok...(blimey, it's like history GCSE all over again...imagine being a peasant in the Russian revolution...)
So theoretically we could call him "Batty Ratty"
http://www.cafepress.com/ratzfanclub
I have four of the "I love Cardinal Ratzinger G-strings" on order and am eagerly watching www.divineinterventions.com for their Cardinal Ratzinger action toy...
Hi Polly!
I'm very well thank you! Exams start on the 16th of May and end on the 18th, so not too bad -- just have to get the studying in!
At home at the mo, so have lot's of time on me hands, hence this long post...
I can’t say I’m surprised by the response of some on your blog, given that talking to almost anyone who disagrees with you in a liberal (small ‘l’, culturally rather than necessarily politically, although the two tend to go together - this is my definition if anyone wants to know) way usually results in name-calling and abuse at some point.
What was it Chesterton said? “To talk with a paper of opposite politics nowadays invites only slanging or silence”... Something like that.
It might surprise you though, to know that I do read the Guardian - I always believe in reading things that challenge my perspective - “challenge youer preconceptions or they'll challenge you” is a favourite quote of mine.
Also, I often fancy a bit of a laugh! :)
I know your blog is tongue-in-cheek, but a lot of the things people say have a modicum of their actual views behind them, so I thought I'd do a spot of Apologetics anyway.
The only response you put I'll respond to - the rest being quite good and explanatory - is your statement that you don't understand homosexuality in the same way that I do - I'd be interested to read why...
If you like, you can blog on your views on the subject or write a letter or something and I'll respond in a dialogue - that's often the best way of having a discussion (no interruptions, you get all your points across, it helps formulate your own views in your mind, and it canl ead to good cross-pollination of ideas, or very occasionally just re-assure you why you were right in the first place...) and also the most edifying!
There's a particularly interesting biblical exegetical debate on this issue...
Anyway, have a lovely day, and I'll hopefully speak to you soon!
All my love and peace be with you! xxx
Rachel,
Yes, Polly is perfectly entitled to her views, I just disagree with them. Problem?
Plus: you think my views "beneath you" - wow, how open-minded of you... Perhaps you might consider logical debate, rather than arrogant dismissal of contrary opinions?
"Roundhead",
“Come pick on someone your own size! The Roundhead (for the purposes of this is he...)”
All right then! Here we go:
“Hi Peter, I’m not a liberal, but I am western. Just wanted to take a couple of pointers up with you. For this first point, all I’ve really got to say is here already http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA993.htm
And here
http://www.libchrist.com/std/vaticanlies.html
and here
http://www.tldm.org/News6/condom.htm
and in the last one of those I would just like to point out an incredible fallacy which just seemed to leap of the page and down my throat, making me gag with anger at the idiocy.
“The Holy Father has explained that when contraception is used, the marital act ceases to be an act of love.”
So if I have sex with my wife for the purposes of breeding, then that is an act of love, but if I have sex because I deeply care for my wife and wish to share physical intimacy with her, then that is not?
…ok then…”
Well, what the Holy Father meant was “when contraception is used, the marital act ceases to be act of complete giving, and thus therefore ceases to be an act of complete love”, so contraception, whilst it is a barrier to love, does not simply mean that love isn’t there (in the Catholic understanding)!
As for your articles, the first was pretty sensible, bur the second and third contradict one another don’t they? I mean, a “polyamorous” sexually libertine “Christian” site, and then a radically traditionalist Catholic site? No one could accuse you of not reading varied material…
“"2. He thinks all other Christian churches are 'invalid'"
…
Right, what he actually said was:
“`If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.”
- from the decree ``Dominus Iesus'' signed by Ratzinger and issued by his office, Aug. 6, 2000.
Now, the word objective is an adjective meaning ‘undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena” which means that “objectively speaking” all churches can be judged only on the number of followers. Now I’m willing to grant that looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_world_religions this page shows that Catholicism is still, just about, the biggest religion in the world in terms of adherents, although their numbers are dropping and the numbers of the closest religion (Sunnism) are climbing, and I’m sure that the Catholics have more money than any other religion, after all, they destroyed several ancient civilisations in their search for gold, and they haven’t left off money gathering.”
Eh? I’m sorry but your logic escapes me. Your argument seems to be:
P1) The word objective is an adjective meaning ‘undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena”.
C1) Therefore, all churches can be judged only on the number of followers.
This is utterly irrational as arguments go – it makes a leap from P1 to C1 without any justification.
I make two points in response to this particular thesis:
Firstly, it is clear from the article by Ratzinger that he was saying that whilst other religions can receive divine grace, they are looking at the situation from an objective view (that is, an un-emotional logical theological view) they simply do not possess the fullness of salvation, unlike the Catholic Church, which does. They are therefore, compared to Catholicism, “deficient”. An argument with which I agree.
So, your attempt to define what the word objective is, in isolation form the rest of the quotation, shall we say, somewhat odd.
Secondly, there is no reason to believe that Churches should, or can, in any way, be judged based on the number of followers they possess. In what way should they judged according to this standard? What does it say about them? It might say that they are popular, but that’s it. Simply being more popular doesn’t by definition make you better, or more right. I think Catholicism is right, and is the wholeness of the truth, but I don’t base that assertion on the argument that: “Oh we’re the best because we have the most members!” That’s ridiculous!
Now, you make two additional errors. Firstly, you say that whilst Catholicism is the biggest religion in the world (this is true: we count for the majority of Christians in the world, and we make Christianity the largest religion in the world), it is declining whilst Sunni Islam is rising.
Actually, whilst Sunni Islam is rising, Catholicism is not declining. On the contrary, Christianity in the Third World is booming, mostly due to the evangelisation of the Catholic Church. Catholicism, like most Christianity, is declining in the West, but that doesn’t mean we should extrapolate that decline internationally – the west itself is declining demographically, and in my opinion culturally, so I think it a wonderful irony that the Third World will one day be far more powerful than Europe and America, simply because it embraced the culture, religion and values that the West used to have, gave to the Third World through Imperialism, and is now too decadent and stupid to maintain itself!
I don’t believe that Catholics do have more money than anyone else, particularly because most of its adherents live in the Third World, and your comment that we “destroyed several ancient civilisations in [our] search for gold” (Really? Which would these be then?) and “still haven’t left off money gathering”? You what? What “money gathering”? Sounds like a one of those crazy fundamentalist Jack Chick tracts…
“That quote about camels passing through eyes of needles, and rich men and heaven, always made me wonder. Maybe it should have http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_10.asp something about rich religions?”
And, just to prove my point, he cites a crazy fundamentalist Jack Chick tract!
“"The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe. The pope, as the visible ruler of this immense amassment of wealth, is consequently the richest individual of the twentieth century. No one can realistically assess how much he is worth in terms of billions of dollars." From THE VATICAN BILLIONS by Avro Manhattan
Perhaps the word to describe other religions should have been “impoverished” unless by ‘the fullness of the means to salvation’ he means lots of money….”
Oh, please… I’ve not read the book you cite, but it's not as if most of that “wealth” he talks about is just gold bullion lying in a vault somewhere – most of it will be land, church buildings and other practical things of actually running, er, a Church maybe? Impoverishment in the quote obviously meant impoverishment regarding religious truth, but then, I’m sure you knew that…
“"3. He describes homosexuality as an 'intrinsic moral evil'"
Which it is, according to the Gospel, when you understand homosexuality as "active homosexual lifestyles" as opposed to "being Gay per se". Again, nothing wrong with stating something that theologically and morally orthodox Christians know to be the truth.
Ok, just so no one can accuse me of anti semanticism we’ll start with that. The word ‘intrinsic’ means: ‘Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing’ which means that according to Ratzinger, God made homosexuality an essential part of our moral natures.’
Now I’m not homosexual, and I don’t feel that homosexuality is an intrinsic part of me in any way, so I’m tempted to say that while he may feel that he is intrinsically drawn to the idea big butch vergers bending him over and shafting him over the alter, he’s wrong about it being intrinsic to ‘us’”
Again, why do you follow this tortured logic? When the Church says that a homosexual act (being a sexual act with a member of the same sex as yourself) is an intrinsic moral evil, it means that the act itself is intrinsically (that is, it is a part of the essential nature of such an act to be) morally evil. It clearly does not therefore follow that homosexual acts are intrinsic to our nature. You have thus grossly misunderstood the argument.
“He also brings back that word objective, when he says that homosexuality should be seen as an ‘objective disorder’ now not everyone thinks that homosexuality is wrong, so that means his opinions on homosexuality are just that, opinions, and are not objective in any way.”
What Ratzinger would (rightfully) say is that whilst it might be your opinion that he’s wrong, and he’s opinion that he’s right. His opinion is in fact the one that corresponds to the objective truth of reality. Thus, what he says is “objective” in that sense.
“Also, while you could describe homosexuality as an abnormality, because the ‘norm’ of society is to be heterosexual, it cannot be described as a disorder unless talking strictly in terms of reproduction.”
Well, it can be seen as psychological disorder which all the evidence I’ve seen seems to suggest, or a genetic disorder, though there’s no absolute hard evidence it’s genetic at all, as yet.
“I always thought that one of religions functions was to convince us that life on earth is not all about reproduction, and had a higher purpose, but it’s funny how the Catholics make such a big deal about f***ing for the sake of reproducing, and ignore the fact that people might want to f*** for fun, or for love…(now those two, they might be intrinsic moral evils!)”
The Catholic position is not that sex is only about reproduction that just one interpretation of the theology of St. Augustine. There Catholic position is that all sexual acts of love ought to be open potentially (in the cases where there is any potentiality to be open to) to procreation. That doesn’t rule out family planning, but it makes God the arbiter, and not man. Additionally, there are many other good reasons not to support contraception, like the fact that buying condoms supports an industry that profits implicitly from promiscuity, and from lifestyles that reduce sex to physical gratification alone…
“Ratzinger then goes on to say, ``It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs. ... The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in work, in action and in law.''
Now, I’m going out on a limb here, but calling someone “evil” sounds pretty violently malicious to me…”
That’s a typical liberal response – the problem with it is that neither Ratzinger or the Church is calling anyone evil – that’s judgemental. What it does do is call what people do evil – and there’s nothing wrong in doing that, so there’s no ‘maliciousness’ relevant to the Pope’s position (or mine). You can call burglary ‘evil’, that’s not the same as calling burglars evil.
“"4. He denounced rock music as being "the vehicle for anti-religion" (that's my vocation screwed, then)"
Actually, he said it was 'a' vehicle, not 'the' vehicle. There are plenty of other vehicles of anti-religion, and Ratzinger knew this. What he probably referred to was heavy rock, like Marilyn Manson or Slipknot. These groups are undeniably anti-Christian, at least.
In addition to this, much rock music communicates a nihilistic view of the world that can corrupt those who don't know better. Just like "Gangsta rap".
So what he said wasn't untrue, maybe over-exaggerated, and maybe too pointedly towards rock, but still ultimately true.
Ratzinger blasted rock music as a “vehicle of anti-religion”. He said rock and roll is a secular variant of an age-old ecstatic religion, in which man “lowers the barriers of individuality and personality” to “liberate himself from the burden of consciousness”. Rock is thus “the complete antithesis of Christian faith in the redemption”. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-00936”
All of which I agree with… It is anti-religion in that it tries to mimic the religious experience in a secularised way, in a way that simply allows one to slip into a state of experience-for-the-sake-of-experience, and many people use it is a religion-substitute.
“Now I’m with him when he describes pop music as “sheer banality” but he should be careful what he mouths off about. Creed for example and P.O.D are examples of Christian rock music that are very popular and are good music.”
True. Can’t say I disagree with you – though I don’t know that I’ve listened to P.O.D.
“I can’t speak for Polly’s taste in music :) but again, Ratzinger is shooting his mouth off without checking his facts. If what he meant was Marilyn Manson and Slipknot, then he should have qualified that fact by referring to “Industrial Metal” and “Goth Metal” into which categories fit nicely. If indeed, as I suspect, he was aiming it at rock music in general, (and showing his age when he called it rock and roll, unless he meant Chuck Berry and Huey Lewis) then again it is a matter of opinion, and unless he himself has experienced this ‘lowering of barriers of individuality and personality’ then he should probably make sure that rock fans themselves experience it, I for one, have never really done so.”
I know some who have, and it is a recognisable phenomenon, thought obviously not for everybody.
“The dirges sung in church however, now they break down the barriers of individuality and personality as they grind your spirit down, they get you saying the same things over and over… We believe and trust in him…” which to me…well …it sounds like brainwashing techniques…primitive ones to be sure, but effective ones. Check this out – incense in the air – cuts down the amount people breath in, therefore lowering oxygen intake, therefore lowering activity of the brain, therefore making them more suggestible. Quality brainwashing trick there…”
Now who’s generalising? The Mass I go to, we sing no songs, and have no incense, it’s a very simple, spiritual contemplative liturgy. The vernacular hymns sung in Church can be very boring, I’ll grant you, and I’ll also grant you that Ratzinger should have been more specific and less generalised, but then, he was probably only making a passing comment and not an in-depth analysis.
“…the Church no longer burns people. So move on.
Hmmm…matter of opinion. Maybe not literally. More a humorous point by Polly I feel.”
Ok…
“"7. He denounced fighting poverty through social action as it 'smacked of Marxism'"
Again, no. He denounced Liberation Theology as smacking of Marxism, which it did. It heavily borrowed themes from Marxist understandings of social conflict. Themes which, because they are ultimately classist and materialist are un-Christian. what was wrong with Ratzinger pointing this out?
Truly fighting poverty through real social action, as is done by CAFOD, for example, has never been attacked or slandered by Ratzinger at all. Probably because like most of us, he sees charity as a good thing.
Define ‘real social action.’ Surely fightin poverty by any means that doesn’t actively hurt people is a good thing?”
Not when it misappropriates socio-economic secular thinking and turns Christianity into a political revolutionism. Real Christianity is above classism and particular political situations – it is, and should be, politically inclusive, not simply 'Marxism with a Christian face'. I think you can fight poverty without the unnecessary marriage of theology and dodgy political theory.
“"8. He is not only against ordination of women (which I'll let him off on as it's understandable perhaps for someone in his position) but also against the use of female choristers and altar servers."
Again, prove this. If it is true, then he's entitled to his opinion, though it's not one I would agree with necessarily.
http://www.iol.ie/~duacon/l960301.htm”
I Read it, and disagree with him – he hardly mentions Ratzinger anyway, and his argument shows a profound theological ignorance of what Sacerdotalism is. He seems to think that a Priest is just a Pastor like any old house Church. Well, that isn’t the case. A Priest presides over Sacraments and represents Christ. ‘Equality’ isn’t relevant to the debate at all – what the Apostolic and Christian nature of a Priest is, is. When one understands that, one sees that Women cannot become Priests. See http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ116.HTM
“"9. All but 2 German bishops opposed his appointment, and German opinions polls have suggested more people oppose him than support him."
Irrelevant. NO Peter, not irrelevant, him being a german bishop, the other clergy with whom we will have had most contact will be the other german bishops. The catholics with whom he will have had most contact will the the german catholics.”
The polls said “German people”, not “German Catholics” and as I pointed out, it’s the Catholics that matter, not just any old German off the street (if that poll really does represent German opinion anyway…). Furthermore, I still don’t believe people could possibly know that only two German bishops support him – what Bishop in his right mind is going to say he opposes the Pope? Finally, he hasn’t been an Archbishop for more than twenty years – he’s been Presiding at the CDF! So, yes, still irrelevant.
“Frankly, I'm bored of this now. I can see only two explanations, you're an idiot, or a fascist.”
Wow, nice to see you can debate reasonably rather than resort to adolescent name-calling. That really convinces me of the logic of your positions…
“And for the record...blogs are often intended to be fun to read and fun to write. This one is, yours doesn't seem to be if you can't take something meant in jest to be funny, then you probably should refrain from using the net very much.”
So I see you’ve been appointed the arbiter of what I should and shouldn’t do on the Net! Who may I appeal this appointment to? The way that Polly’s blog is written does make it clear that it’s tongue in cheek, but also that it has a grounding in a certain view of reality – it was this that I thought I’d comment on. Some blogs are just funny (or try to be), some are just serious (or try to be), and some are just both. Mine is both.
“There are far more deserving candidates for your angry young Catholicism. You should be picking on the atheists amongst us rather than bullying those who could, if you treated them better, be your allies...”
I do pick on Atheists! Lots of the time! Does that mean I should only go for the Atheists, rather than those also who possess dodgy liberal-theological leanings? Loving someone means telling them when they’re wrong… Only the un-loving allow others to flounder in error.
Finally, you further imply that I'm a closet Gay person, and then call me an arse - indeed, I am, according to you, "the epitome of arseness"!
Well, frankly, I couldn't care less (and I've been called a lot worse, in high school, which tells you something about where that kind of nonsense truly belongs - in the playground), but I do wonder why people with liberal opinions on homosexuality, or, indeed, anything, often need to assume that their opponents are in some way suppressing homosexual urges... or name-call.
I blame Foucault, for his "D'ou parlez tu?" attitude of always second-guessing people's intentions rather than focussing on their arguments - its poisoned liberals and their discourse ever since.
Anyway, hope that satisfies your arguments - a lot of it was good discourse, so I might put it up on my blog just in case anyone's interested!
Peace be with you!
Take care and God bless,
The Cavalier.
:D
First off, Mr Cavalier, I do not take issue that you are entitled to your opinion. What I take issue is you marching over to this blog and laying into her post and her opinions - particularly since you seem to be critising her opinions and her religious point of view. Entirely unprovoked I might add.
The beneath you thing - this is not arrogance, this more than anything for me is a sigh of "whatever" - because I know that there is no arguing with people like you. How can I POSSIBLY argue with someone who's logic is based around a book written centuries ago by a bunch of cult followers, edited down for the purpose of creating organised religion, and is all based upon a mythical being who's very "existence" denies everything we know about science and evolution (which of course was planted by the evil scientists to confuse poor Christians).
I am an atheist. But I have no problem with people believing in God or having faith. It works for them, and usually it does some great things. I understand it. What I have a problem with is people like you who think your religion is so damn superior, that all others, no matter how complex or old or good, are inferior. That you must "pray" for people who don't think your way - you can never accept you might be wrong, completely unwilling to take another point of view as worthwhile. What's the point of arguing with someone like that? Polly obviously believes in something good and worthwhile, and for you to come here (and for you and others to bitch about it socially) and make her feel like she is less than you is pathetic and is what I hate about most organised religion. There is no point in arguing with your opinions about homosexuals and women and contraception, because there is no way we will EVER agree. We are both arguing from different sources. There wasn't a point - so I didn't. Now, leave Polly be and let her worship any damn way she chooses.
Well, Rachel, I can see there isn't much point in us dialoguing, as dialogue is based on respect, which you clearly don't have to anyone who disagrees with your outlook on life.
"How can I POSSIBLY argue with someone who's logic is based around a book written centuries ago by a bunch of cult followers, edited down for the purpose of creating organised religion, and is all based upon a mythical being who's very "existence" denies everything we know about science and evolution (which of course was planted by the evil scientists to confuse poor Christians)."
Oh, so at least your open-minded on the subject then? If you were really rational a person, you'd allow me and others to dialogue with you on that - especially given that what you just said is so AMAZINGLY contrary to any sensible historical view.
To dismiss Holy Scripture as "a book" [there's your first mistake - the Bible is not "a book" at all, in the sense of it being simply a unified text - it's a collection of texts] written centuries ago by a bunch of cult followers [again, this argument tells me nothing of why I shouldn't trust St. Paul or St. Peter or St. John, it just tells me that you are prejudiced towards them - probably because you don't know enough history to know any better] edited down for the purpose of creating organised religion [again, false, it was collated together as a mixture of very diverse texts until set down absolutely as a canon in the Synod of Rome in 382 A.D. - it isn't a catechism or theological text-book, which are the very things you'd need for 'organised religion'] is to demonstrate an amazing ignorance of history, textual criticism, and theology.
Might I suggest you research the topics further before coming down so heavily against them?
You seem to think that Christianity "...is all based upon a mythical being who's very "existence" denies everything we know about science and evolution (which of course was planted by the evil scientists to confuse poor Christians)."
Firstly, how can you possibly know for sure that God is a mythical being? Answer: you can't - that's an assertion you base entirely on faith.
Secondly you make the huge assumption that God contradict science - which he doesn't at all, which is why most of the greatest scientists, Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton (who believed his theological works more important than his scientific ones), Albert Einstein, all believed in God. What is anti-scientific about Theism? Nothing at all.
Secondly you make another huge assumption - that all Christians are Creationists who interpret Genesis literally.
Well, sorry to disappoint your boogey-man Fundamentalist image of me, but I don't. I'm a Theistic Evolutionist, because I recognise that Genesis 1 is ALLEGORY, and not literal history. So dismissing all Christians and their beliefs because of the interpretations of a wacky few, is just daft.
You refer to "people like [myself] who think your religion is so damn superior, that all others, no matter how complex or old or good, are inferior."
Actually, yes, I believe that my religion is the fullness of the truth, and that others, whilst possessing some of the truth, are lacking all of it, and are in a great deal of error. In that sense, Christianity is the "best".
But almost all the other religions believe the same thing! They believe I'M in error, and so what?
I respect their point of view I just disagree with it. I have Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist and other friends and family members, and I get on fine with them - I don't look down on them, I have great conversations with them and enjoy my life with them.
Simply believing that you're right and other people are wrong doesn't make you arrogant, as long as you respect others point of view, which I do. That's how I get along with a whole bunch of people who think I'm totally mistaken - the fact they think this about me doesn't bother in the slightest, and neither should it.
You also decry "That you must "pray" for people who don't think your way - you can never accept you might be wrong, completely unwilling to take another point of view as worthwhile."
Well like I said, I DO think other people's view-points are worthwhile, which is why I dialogue with them - otherwise what would be the point of the dialogue? QED!
I also am potentially perfectly open to the idea that I'm wrong - if someone can prove to me that the existence of God is impossible, then I'd have to change my mind, but they can't, so I do possess certainty that there is a God, particularly as I have, along with other believers, a relationship with Christ.
The reason I pray for people who are Atheists is because, having rejected God, they are consigning themselves to an eternity devoid of love. Now, let me ask you, which would be worse: me, knowing all of this, and doing NOTHING, or me, knowing all of this, and doing something to prevent this awful thing from happening? HMM?
What shows that I CARE is that I am willing to take time out of my life to show people why they are in error. That's LOVING. Part of loving someone means telling them when they're wrong. Especially when being so wrong effects your life in eternity!
"What's the point of arguing with someone like that?"
I agree, if the straw dog image of an evil fundamentalist that you have of me was true, then you would have no point in arguing with me. But it isn't true - it's just your way of justifying not having anyone challenge your irrational beliefs by making them into this evil boogey-man that you can easily despise.
"Polly obviously believes in something good and worthwhile, and for you to come here (and for you and others to bitch about it socially) and make her feel like she is less than you is pathetic and is what I hate about most organised religion."
You base your argument on the following false propositions:
A) That I have come here and tried to make Polly feel less then me.
What a lot of nonsense - Polly's a big girl, she can take a bit of criticism on her opinions. I didn't attack her personally at all - she and I get on fine because we're both NICE PEOPLE.
I didn't attack HER, I criticised WHAT SHE WROTE. Why can't you see the distinction?
Your own personal hang-ups with organised relgion have nothing to do with me, so you shouldn't just project your own prejudices on other people. Get to know a person first before you just dismiss them and their beliefs as worthless.
Finally, whilst you accuse me "and others" of bitching about Polly, I'm sorry you think that that's the case, but actually it isn't. I know no-one who "bitches" about Polly at all - some criticise what she thinks on some issues, yes, but I know no-one who would want to attack Polly personally, she's a lovely person. OK?
I truly believe that if you opened your mind and your heart on these issues you could have a much better and happier dialogue and relaitonship with the lots of other people out there who disagree with you. Please think about it, and please, if you think I'm so mistaken in my thinking, PROVE IT to me!
Show me where I'm going wrong, here.
Peace be with you,
The Cavalier
Firstly old bean, dialogue is not a verb, please refrain from using it as such, as it really doesn't help your case.
Secondly, the Bible is a book, in the sense of it being a collected set of texts, which are frquently published together in between two pieces of pasteboard or other rigid material.
Thirdly, God is a myth in the sense that there is a whole lot of talk about him that goes on, but no evidence that he actually exists.
Fourthly, there is nothing inherently anti-scientific about theism, although theism demands belief without proof, whereas science demands proof. But Catholicism is inherently anti-scientific, to the degree that Catholics burnt some of the greatest scientific minds of all time, and still oppose various research areas solely on Theistic grounds. In this sense Catholicism is very anti-scientific.
Fifthly, a question. Do you believe that transubstantiation actually happens, or is that also an allegory. I'm sure that this point divides Catholicism from other branches of Christianity, and that as a Catholic you are required to believe in transubstantiation actually happening.
Sixthly, I love my girlfriend, she loves me back. I feel that very deeply. An eternity devoid of love? I don't think so.
Seventhly (if there is such a word) you are right, in that almost all other religions believe that they are right and that you are wrong. What upsets us Atheists is that you seem to be unable to do what the better of us do, which is leave everyone else to their own devices.
Eighth, and final point, as far as proving that you are mistaken, there isn't time in the world. Nothing can be proven to be impossible, only extremely improbably, and a Catholic God's existence can be shown to be orders of magnitude more improbably than the claim that we are all bloodcells swimming round a giant Elvis. For starters, the fact that you upset Polly through your thoughtlessness would be proof that there are some major flaws in your thinking - in your social life if not in your religious choices.
:D have fun, but not too much or you'll be consigned to an eternity of damnation.
"I can see there isn't much point in us dialoguing"
Yet oddly you go on to do so...
"as dialogue is based on respect, which you clearly don't have to anyone who disagrees with your outlook on life"
Anyone? Since you don't know me at all, I'd ask you restrain from such generalisations. I have unlimited respect for all people. I will defend my beliefs thoroughly - by saying I didn't want to argue with you wasn't a lack of respect - it is something I have learned with experience. I cannot argue with a Catholic about their faith vs. mine. For the reasons I have already given.
"If you were really rational a person, you'd allow me and others to dialogue with you on that"
I have explained why I do not wish to partake in theological debate. I think it is a reasonable reason. Obviously you think not.
" - especially given that what you just said is so AMAZINGLY contrary to any sensible historical view."
Sensible from YOUR point of view you mean? What I posited there has been researched by historians - just obviously not Christian ones - here again we are into theological matters. Pointless.
"[there's your first mistake - the Bible is not "a book" "
I really couldn't care less if it's a book, a text, or a damn pamphlet - you knew what I was referring to, so why you feel the need to nit pick at my use of the word book is beyond me. I have a high regard for "books", as it happens, so it certainly wasn't dismissive.
"this argument tells me nothing of why I shouldn't trust St. Paul or St. Peter or St. John"
I'm not telling you you shouldn't. I am simply stating what I believe.
"it just tells me that you are prejudiced towards them - probably because you don't know enough history to know any better"
Prejudiced? Hardly. Indifferent. Yes. Did they exist? I didn't deny they did. I just don't believe they write the word of God. Again, somewhere we will permanently disagree. So what?
"Might I suggest you research the topics further before coming down so heavily against them?"
Lol. Could you BE any more patronising. We can bandy about who is the greater expert of the two of us on historical research (I am actually quite well researched) - but since neither of us knows eachother it would be kind of pointless.
"Firstly, how can you possibly know for sure that God is a mythical being? Answer: you can't - that's an assertion you base entirely on faith."
In response: Firstly, how can you possibly know for sure that God ISN'T a mythical being? Answer: You can't - that's an assertion you base entirely on faith. You see our problem here?
"I'm a Theistic Evolutionist, because I recognise that Genesis 1 is ALLEGORY, and not literal history"
I apologise - I was under the assumption (from the way you talk about other issues), that you were hard line Catholic - in that you took everything in the Bible as written. Obviously you're more selective. May I ask why some parts of the Bible are taken literally and others as an allegory? (I have nothing against this method, but it does leave me wondering why you allegorise the bible's standpoint on evolution, but not homosexuality)
"So dismissing all Christians and their beliefs because of the interpretations of a wacky few, is just daft"
I have done no such thing. I do not dismiss - I just know our opinions will ultimately differ. Hence not wanting to get into heafty and probably pointless dialogue like this.
"I believe that my religion is the fullness of the truth, and that others, whilst possessing some of the truth, are lacking all of it, and are in a great deal of error. In that sense, Christianity is the "best" "
Kinda just reiterates my point really.
"But almost all the other religions believe the same thing! They believe I'M in error, and so what?"
So nothing. As long as they don't try and ram their religion down your throat, I'm sure it's all great.
"I don't look down on them, I have great conversations with them and enjoy my life with them"
Wonderful.
"Simply believing that you're right and other people are wrong doesn't make you arrogant, as long as you respect others point of view, which I do"
Actually, I didn't call you arrogant. That's what you called me.
"I also am potentially perfectly open to the idea that I'm wrong - if someone can prove to me that the existence of God is impossible, then I'd have to change my mind"
How convenient no one ever can. Funnily enough, no one can prove to me he exists - you see once more, the predicament we're in
"The reason I pray for people who are Atheists is because, having rejected God, they are consigning themselves to an eternity devoid of love. Now, let me ask you, which would be worse: me, knowing all of this, and doing NOTHING, or me, knowing all of this, and doing something to prevent this awful thing from happening? HMM?"
I have no problem with praying. I don't know if you have intentionally misunderstood my point - I have a problem with praying in the patronising sense - this holier-than-though attitude that I have come across. Maybe you have it, maybe you don't. I don't know, I haven't met you.
"Part of loving someone means telling them when they're wrong."
And part of loving means standing by someone no matter what, even if you think they're wrong. Once more, a difference of opinion.
"the straw dog image of an evil fundamentalist that you have of me"
I do not think you are evil. Where did you get that impression?
"it's just your way of justifying not having anyone challenge your irrational beliefs by making them into this evil boogey-man that you can easily despise"
First off, I have no problem with challenging my beliefs (although you calling them irrational doesn't exactly warm me to your opinion). I am a baptised and confirmed Catholic, as is my mother. Up until about 16 I prayed nightly. Then I thought again. I know what it's like to believe, I know why people believe. I also know I cannot argue with them, cause no one could argue with me when I believed. I know what it's like to be that side of the fence. I don't say I won't argue because I'm frightened of another point of view. I already KNOW your point of view. All I did was tell you my beliefs so you would understand that such a debate would be pointless, exhausting, and ultimately boring.
"she and I get on fine because we're both NICE PEOPLE"
Do NICE PEOPLE try and imply others aren't? From a small amount of dialogue? I don't know if I qualify as a nice person - but I am Polly's friend, and if I feel she's being attacked I will rally up. That and I do get pissed off when people make homophobic comments. But that again, is something I can tell we will never agree on.
"Your own personal hang-ups with organised relgion have nothing to do with me, so you shouldn't just project your own prejudices on other people"
As I said, I was religious, I have no hang ups about it, I just decided it wasn't for me. I have not prejudged you on your Christian/Catholic status, purely on your own comments on this site. As said, my mother is Catholic, as are a number of my friends, and a number have many other religions. To be frank, I don't care. They can worship whatever they like, but if they make derogatory comments about other people, whether based on their sex, sexuality, or even religion, I will take them up on it.
"I know no-one who "bitches" about Polly at all - some criticise what she thinks on some issues, yes, but I know no-one who would want to attack Polly personally, she's a lovely person. OK?"
Um, yes, I'm quite aware she is. I apologise if I misconstrued. I got this impression from comments on another forum and also, I believe, a campaign to ban her from Mass. How Christian.
"I truly believe that if you opened your mind and your heart on these issues you could have a much better and happier dialogue and relaitonship with the lots of other people out there who disagree with you"
I am open to anything. Maybe there is a God, I don't say there never could be. I just disagree with Christianity and it's teachings. (Let's not get into that debate shall we? I think we would be retreading old ground). I'm open to reincarnation, to ghosts, and to the theory that we're a giant experiment put here by aliens (please PLEASE note sarcasm) - but I do not live my life according to these beliefs.
Oh and me and my fella disagree all the time - but we've managed a perfectly happy relationship so far. So thanks for the concern, but it's really not a problem for me
"Please think about it, and please, if you think I'm so mistaken in my thinking, PROVE IT to me"
I'd say prove it to me too, but I know that would be pointless. I'm sure you're an intelligent person. Therefore I'm sure you realise a Catholic debating with an Atheist is pointless - because NEITHER can prove what they're saying. You're right, it is down to faith. You're wasting my time, I'm wasting yours. I think we should leave it at that.
People be with you
La Raquelle
Hello all,
Gosh! I've never had a response as big as this on my blog. Have just returned from Sunny Bradford and as such have had a wohle 48 hours without checking this blog. Anyway, I'm going to set a few things straight:
1. I would call myself religious in the sense that I do believe in God and I do pray, and I would say that especially in regards to social awareness (even the job I do) my faith affects my life, and all my friends know this. I do find it ironic, though, that Rachel and Chees'm, who are both atheist, are actually more accepting of this than some of my other friends (and actually Peter I don't necessarily mean you here) who are also religious but criticise me for being religious in the WRONG WAY, i.e. not agreeing with them.
2. I am quite happy with the term "liberal" and you are right, Peter, to describe me as such, and also, of course, to disagree with me, in the same way as you are welcome to describe yourself as a conservative (in both senses of the word.)
3. There are only really two things I take offence at. The first is being told that my beliefs are "deficient". Firstly, of course, I don't believe they are any more deficient than anybody else's. Secondly, if we are gong to be theological about this, all our views are to an extent deficient as we can never really know God as He is beyond human understanding. (I am reading a pretty good book at the momenjt by Gerald Hughes called "God in all Things" that discusses this. Have you read it?) I also take offence at the way many "Christians" talk about homosexuals. I don't believe generally that homosexuals choose their homosexuality (why especially would a Catholic "choose" this, knowing the response they were likely to get?) and I dislike the insinuations (again, not made on this blog) that all gay people are promiscuous as this has certainly not been my experience. As regards general criticism, of course I don't mind debate! I just wasn't intending for it to be a result of a piss-take blog! I am also a little touchy not about criticism, but about what I might even term bullying, e.g. from Christians last year when the Union supported Civil Partnerships. That was hte result of a democratic vote and as the Welfare rep I was mandated to produce materials etc in its support. To receive threatening emails etc from certain Christian Union members telling me I had no right to call myself a Christian and was a bad VP for not representing their views (they could have come to the meeting, or reversed the action at the next one) was neihter helpful nor, I believe, Christian.
4. I probably find that I agree with many of your views (well, Peter, we know each other so know I do!) but the one thing I don't think we will agree on is the use of condoms in Africa.
5. I'm sure at some point we can have a discussion all about the Bible thing. A friend of mine got hugely criticised when writing on a forum thread called "The homosexual agenda" (And incidentally I've always been bemused by that term. Maybe we four could set up a Straight Agenda?) for saying that the Bible had to be interpreted: there is much evidence to suggest that the passages about homosexuality in the Bible all refer to specific situations, and in some cases not homosexuality as we might understand it, and yet Catholics seem to take these (interpretable) bits of the Bible as some sort of proof of how homosexuality is wrong (though in fairness they don't do this as much as some of the evangelical protestant traditions - and yes, Peter, I am relieved you are not Assemblies of God either Re: your blog!) yet argue about the meaning of others (e.g. I would definitely agree with you re: the allegorical nature of that bit of Genesis.)
6. Thanks for standing up for me, guys. Peter's right, I am a big girl (and have been eating chocolate all weekend so will only get bigger! :-) ) but as I said I wasn't quite expecting a serious debate on this blog (it's never happened before!) and I didn't know you knew my blog address!
7. Peter - you rightly state you cannot speak for my taste in music: ok, it is hardly Iron Maiden, but I should leave it at that! As my profile states, my taste is not very good.
8. I also genuinely believe that the Catholic Church should not restrict communion to Catholics only. I have more than once found myself in a situation where I, a baptised Catholic who attends Church regularly, am not permitted to take communion, yet someone else who hasn't been to Church for 20 years, doesn't hold Ctaholic beliefs, and on one occasion even had to ask me to remind her how Mass worked(!) was allowed to take communion on account of the fact that at age eight somebody stuck a white dress on her and put a rosary in her hand and told her to say "I renounce evil". To me, that doesn't make her any more worthy of communion than me. Or, I would argue, vice versa.
9. In general (emphasis on general) I do tend to find as I said earlier hard-line religious people are less tolerant of me than atheists/agnostics, and it does seem a bit daft as fundamentally we believe the same things. We just disagree on certain moral issues. I'd argue we agree on abortion, and Rachel "The Atheist" I think holds a similar view, but disagree on homosexuality (again, Rachel probably shares my view on that.) My faith is very important to me, as is yours, but most of my views are shaped from my experiences, with faith playing say a guiding role. For example, yes, I disagree with abortion, but I'm extremely touchy about the Magdalene laundries as I am adopted and also a young woman and I think they were wrong. And it does irritate me a bit that I have discussed this with a friend of mine who argues hugely in their favour. I am not being hard-line here and saying she isn't entitled to her view (how ironic that would be!) but I would argue that she dose not come from a standpoint where she can make that decision in the same way as I can. And for the record I think she's wrong.
Anyway, Peter, good luck again with exams etc.
Chees'm/Rach, meet up soon.
Px
lhxxl [url=http://www.beatsheadphonesuksale.co.uk]cheap beats by dre[/url] uovihcbp http://www.beatsheadphonesuksale.co.uk dgsqdzfrm suqufw [url=http://www.cheapbeatsukheadphonesale.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] ksqizqauhttp://www.cheapbeatsukheadphonesale.co.uk uoeyqqzbn wmslve [url=http://www.cheapbeatsbydreuksales.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] gbsftaop http://www.cheapbeatsbydreuksales.co.uk hwbvhkkfk imoika [url=http://www.cheapbeatsbydresaleuk.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] vzaflhrj http://www.cheapbeatsbydresaleuk.co.uk gpquqoevw uolnnf [url=http://www.cheap-beatsbydreuk.co.uk]cheap beats by dre[/url] qolhhcxj http://www.cheap-beatsbydreuk.co.uk hkoaeujjt nfnroi [url=http://www.beatsbydrdreukonsale.co.uk]cheap beats by dre[/url] kpfxsfsf http://www.beatsbydrdreukonsale.co.uk npfvkuofr c
Document totally go along with Your view. People Herbal legal smoking buds talked to believe the exact same; -).
---
[url=http://seksblog.wordpressy.pl/brak-kategorii/ja-i-moje-drugie-oblicze]seks analny polecam stronę[/url]]
Short statement reveals the indeniable details of nike shoes and in what way it may may affect your business.|Simple review teaches you the cogs and wheels of the nike shoes and consequently what you must do right away.}[url=http://www.nikejapan.asia/]nike air[/url] This is why no-one is writing about nike shoes and what you ought to perform immediately. [url=http://www.adidasjapan.biz/]adidas スニーカー[/url] Studies-- adidas shoes Can Have A Critical role In Virtually Any Site administration Update- gucci bags Will Play A Substantial role In Any Organization [url=http://www.guccijp.asia/]グッチ 財布[/url] New chloe bags Publication Unwraps Very Best Way To Rule The chloe Arena [url=http://www.chloejp.biz/]chloe 財布[/url] chanel Replicas - - A Super chanel purse hack Of which Fools 92% of the buyers [url=http://www.chaneljp.biz/]シャネル バッグ[/url] How to fully understand every aspect there is to find out about chanel bags in five basic steps.As to why everyone is dead wrong concerning nike shoes and as a consequence the reasons why you should certainly check this out insider report. [url=http://www.adidasjapan.asia/]adidas スニーカー[/url] All that all others actually does with regards to adidas shoes and exactly what youwant to do different. [url=http://www.nikejp.biz/]nike スニーカー[/url] The Ways To Grasp nike shoes And Ways In Which One Can Be part of The nike shoes Elite
Post a Comment
<< Home