User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 127

  1. #81
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ99 View Post
    Actually I was raised a Roman Catholic with parents who met in church and I live in britian so when it comes to personal experience in this thread I reckon I am one of the most experienced.

    As to those two examples Nazism yes horrible, but communism I actually agree on in areas but seperate discussion.

    If the state wants to make something illegal and the people of the country agree then thy have the right too. If a non-religious institue complained they would be made to give logical reasons. But because its a church complaining suddenly the "buts its our traditions" reason is good enough. It wouldn't be for a non-religious institution. Thats double standards!
    Double standards? There's some double standards in operation in this post alright, RC practices, last time I checked, were for practicing RCs and no one is being compelled to observe and respect them other that RCs. Sorry but difference does it make to anyone else and if you dont like the rules then dont join the club.

    I'm not really interested in what your take on communism is but objectively both of those regimes are prime examples of Godless, secular and modern regimes, result? Massive loss of life, the institutionalisation of muderous practices and policies. The church is far from the villain of the piece that its often cast it but its an easy target for tired arguments.

    I dont believe the state has or should have the power to compell compliance or conformity with secular norms and mores or traditions anymore than I believe the opposite that a Church should, vie the state, be able to compell non-believers or followers into adopting their norms or mores or traditions.

    Just out of interest what isnt logical about tradition and what is unreasonable about traditionalism?

  2. #82
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Double standards? There's some double standards in operation in this post alright, RC practices, last time I checked, were for practicing RCs and no one is being compelled to observe and respect them other that RCs. Sorry but difference does it make to anyone else and if you dont like the rules then dont join the club.
    It's still encouraging whot is essentially illegal behavior; it's not legal to discriminate based on gender nor race in Britain, yet that is essentially whot the church is condoning and encouraging.

    As such, were we to change this to say... religiously encouraged pedophilia, which's ALSO illegal, yeu can't just say "But it's our tradition! Only our members are practicing it!"

    What's the harm in exorcisms? has a pretty good list of cases where people were KILLED via poorly done exorcisms done by otherwise perfectly legitimate religions. If yeu browse around there's also issues with several cases of untreated ailments due to religious beliefs or faith healing belief, and so on. Murder is not legal, yet in some of these cases the religious shroud has allowed such to occur without repercussion.

    Illegal is still illegal, based upon the country yeu are in, regardless of whot yeur traditional beliefs are. I'm not allowed to rip yeur heart out and sacrifice it any more than yeu're allowed to tell me it's alright to maintain sexist practices.

    Sorry, but practices of any kind, held within the boarders of a country, are enforced by the laws of that country, and everyone within that country is compelled to observe and respect those laws if they want to live there, regardless of their religion. If yeu have a problem with that, move to some third world country that doesn't have a police force to enforce their laws.





    "I'm not really interested in what your take on communism is but objectively both of those regimes are prime examples of Godless, secular and modern regimes, result? Massive loss of life, the institutionalisation of muderous practices and policies. The church is far from the villain of the piece that its often cast it but its an easy target for tired arguments. "
    Being Godless, secular and modern regimes means nothing; I could point to the taliban, to the crusades, to even nazi germany (note that hitlar was christian and the jews thing was done, in his own words...

    We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

    (This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshipped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.)
    Obviously, antiquated, spiritual, god-fearing regimes can still be bloody, and in fact, usually are far moreso, as yeu're given one more excuse to go to war: religion.


    I dont believe the state has or should have the power to compell compliance or conformity with secular norms and mores or traditions anymore than I believe the opposite that a Church should, vie the state, be able to compell non-believers or followers into adopting their norms or mores or traditions.

    Just out of interest what isnt logical about tradition and what is unreasonable about traditionalism?
    I do believe that the state has, and should have, the power to compel compliance and conformity to the laws that those who live within its' boarders must adhere to, regardless of tradition nor religion.

    As for tradition, it is by very nature illogical; it relies upon consistantly sticking to the same philosophy or action, regardless of outcome or validity, context nor current situation applied therein. A tradition that's been held onto for hundreds of years was started originally with a purpose, and generally, that purpose has either long been forgotten, or no longer applies.

    Whot's more amusing, is traditions, due to often being transferred orally from one generation to the next, or even adjusted in various ways to suit the needs of that era, can be warped and twisted in interesting ways, showing that they truly aren't as rigid and compelling as people often mistake them to be. Check the 'traditions' of two separate regions in Europe for example, say... opposite ends of France; even something so simple as a "traditional meal" can be completely different from the northern and southern regions of the same country, yet they both originated in the same locale originally, and both claim to be the same thing.

    Now is this unreasonable? Not really. Just because it's illogical, doesn't mean it's unreasonable.

    Tradition in and of itself just means yeu keep doing the same thing the same way repeatedly. If it WORKS then why not?

    The issue is that sometimes traditions do not match up with a dynamic system, such as say... LIFE.

    We are not static creatures; our environment we live in, the homes we build, the technology we create, none of this remains the same over time. We ourselves, even, are ever changing.

    The only purpose for the vast majority of traditions, is the fear of change and to claim that SOMETHING is permanent and unchanging, something yeu can remember since yeu were born always being there.

    I live in an area that's very old... right now I'm in Halifax, and they cling to tradition like it's the only thing they have going for them. Try building a new business, or building. Go on, try it. Good luck getting the permit, because yeu're not allowed to construct any "new" buildings anywheres remotely near anything that's a heritage building. Which means for entire blocks in deep downtown, there's a lack of skyscrapers despite the pressing need for their existence, because they 'look bad against the stone masonry heritage buildings'.

    Why do we sacrifice our present and future just to cling needlessly to the past? Obviously if we forget our past, we're just going to repeat it, but the past should be a tool used to mold our future for the better, not to be an iron grip from which we can never escape.

    Such is the fault of tradition; it provides a past, and is an aspect of ones' culture, however, once it's into the realm of tradition, it also generally is something that should've been abandoned long ago, and the only reason we're still clinging onto it is because it's a tradition.

    Far too often I see people do stupid or horribly bad things, simply out of the sake of tradition.

    Perhaps it's just the entp in me, but I just flat out can't stand people doing the same dumb mistake even today, despite that we knew it was a dumb idea 100 years ago, because we apparently just can't seem to learn from our mistakes. That's my frustration with tradition - it encourages people to never attempt to better themselves, nor learn from their mistakes. It instills a fear of change and promotes stagnation.

    While tradition in and of itself is not bad, it must be understood that whot yeu do is done regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, rather than assuming that yeu do it because it's a good idea.

    We each make our own little traditions over time, it's natural to do so. Sometimes it's amusing. Even in something modern and relatively short term, such as a game say... WoW, I may have a particular spot in a raid instance where one person always seemed to die. Even though they've since learned how to avoid dying in that one spot, they do it anyway because it's become a bit of a 'tradition'. I've even seen them actively suicide themselves to enforce it to occur because it would break tradition for them to survive that fight. They do this, however, with the knowledge that it is a dumb thing to do, and that because of such, it is amusing, and relatively harmless. This is perfectly fine, because they acknowledge it's a bad idea, and revel in the foolishness of doing so.

    The problem comes in when people don't realize that whot they're doing is still a stupid idea, same as it was so long ago. When yeu can not grasp the difference between cause and effect, perhaps yeu shouldn't be in charge of things, is all I'm saying. If yeu can't grasp the concept that it is a bad idea, but yeu do it anyway, rather than thinking that, because yeu do it, it must therefore be a good idea, then I really don't want yeu dictating policy for me.

    But that's just my own little grudge on tradition. It has nothing to do with the rest of the post but I saw it there and had to rant sorry ^^

  3. #83
    Is Willard in Footloose!! CJ99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Double standards? There's some double standards in operation in this post alright, RC practices, last time I checked, were for practicing RCs and no one is being compelled to observe and respect them other that RCs. Sorry but difference does it make to anyone else and if you dont like the rules then dont join the club.

    I'm not really interested in what your take on communism is but objectively both of those regimes are prime examples of Godless, secular and modern regimes, result? Massive loss of life, the institutionalisation of muderous practices and policies. The church is far from the villain of the piece that its often cast it but its an easy target for tired arguments.

    I dont believe the state has or should have the power to compell compliance or conformity with secular norms and mores or traditions anymore than I believe the opposite that a Church should, vie the state, be able to compell non-believers or followers into adopting their norms or mores or traditions.

    Just out of interest what isnt logical about tradition and what is unreasonable about traditionalism?
    You clearly don't understand what I mean when I say double standards. I mean how if a church complains about a law the they will often make an exception because its their "religion". However if anyone else makes a fuss about it they say then vote for someone different or tough luck.

    And actually if you look Hitler was catholic and encouraged/manipulated certain branches of christianity to forward his party and its view.

    The state has a right to compell compliance with laws. If religion breaks those laws, as it may in this case, then it comes under the same legal actions as any other institution or business would and shouldn't get exception because "its our[their] belief"
    Last edited by CJ99; 01-13-2010 at 04:34 AM.
    "I'd never die for my beliefs, I might be wrong"

    "Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairys at the bottom of it too"

    "Intelligence is being able to hold too opposing views in the mind at the one time without going crazy" - Now all I need to figure out is if I'm intelligent or crazy!

  4. #84
    Is Willard in Footloose!! CJ99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm not really interested in what your take on communism is but objectively both of those regimes are prime examples of Godless, secular and modern regimes, result? Massive loss of life, the institutionalisation of muderous practices and policies. The church is far from the villain of the piece that its often cast it but its an easy target for tired arguments.
    Yeah just like the catholic church used to be and some religions still are.

    Communisms reason. They thought everyone quality of life would be better if they all shared.

    Religions reason. Other people didn't believe in the same unproven, extremely unrealistic ideas as them.

    At least if communism killed so many people its reasons where far more justifiably than the greater number of people religion has killed.

    All murderous regimes come as a result of a powerful institue who's dogma it refuses to be questioned and then enforced with violence.

    And how does any of this relate to the thread? The fact remains religion has no right to break a states laws just because they disagree. They can complain, they can try change it, but they can't break it.
    "I'd never die for my beliefs, I might be wrong"

    "Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairys at the bottom of it too"

    "Intelligence is being able to hold too opposing views in the mind at the one time without going crazy" - Now all I need to figure out is if I'm intelligent or crazy!

  5. #85
    See Right Through Me Bubbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,037

    Default

    I'm sorry, but what's wrong with people in their own religions figuring out their own flaws? It's not like all Catholics are just lying down and saying, "Oh well, too bad, ladies." There are people fighting this, and those who aren't fighting from within the Church are just ordaining women themselves.

    And even if the government stands up and forces the Church to do this, that doesn't change the hearts of the people within it. I think it's vitally important that the Church officials themselves stand up and say this is wrong, due to their own belief, not due to a government's orders. Otherwise, I fail to see any change in the people's mindsets.

    To be honest, if my country reversed the rules of Catholicism this way, I wouldn't feel victorious at all. I'd feel like it was all fake and that no one really meant it, but were being bullied into it. Is this how you want the women being ordained to feel? Like they're unwanted by their own parishes?
    4w3, IEI, so/sx/sp, female, and Cancer sign.

    My thoughts on...
    Enneagram:
    Socionics:
    MBTI:

    DISCLAIMER: If I offend you, I'm 99.9% sure it's unintentional. So be sure to let me know, m'kay? (And yes, an INFP would stick this in their signature, lol.)

  6. #86
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ99 View Post
    And how does any of this relate to the thread? The fact remains religion has no right to break a states laws just because they disagree. They can complain, they can try change it, but they can't break it.
    So the state is the ultimate authority now is it?

  7. #87
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,531

    Default Silencio

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubbles View Post
    I'm sorry, but what's wrong with people in their own religions figuring out their own flaws? It's not like all Catholics are just lying down and saying, "Oh well, too bad, ladies." There are people fighting this, and those who aren't fighting from within the Church are just ordaining women themselves.
    The problem is that all debate on women's ordination has been silenced within the Church.

    Catholics have been ordered at the highest level not to debate women's ordination.

    Catholics have been silenced by the authority of the Church.

    This has interesting resonances as I can remember Pope John Paul shouting at liberation theologists in South America just one word, "Silencio".

    And when the official policy of the Church was the cover-up of child, sexual abuse rings, nuns, deacons, priests, monseigneurs, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the Pope himself, all remained silent while crimes were being committed against children.

    The Church is a highly disciplined hierarchy and when the Pope says, "Silencio", he means it.

    So there is no movement for the ordination of women within the Church. Silence reigns.

    Silencio.

  8. #88
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ99 View Post
    Yeah just like the catholic church used to be and some religions still are.

    Communisms reason. They thought everyone quality of life would be better if they all shared.

    Religions reason. Other people didn't believe in the same unproven, extremely unrealistic ideas as them.

    At least if communism killed so many people its reasons where far more justifiably than the greater number of people religion has killed.

    All murderous regimes come as a result of a powerful institue who's dogma it refuses to be questioned and then enforced with violence.

    And how does any of this relate to the thread? The fact remains religion has no right to break a states laws just because they disagree. They can complain, they can try change it, but they can't break it.
    If I'd posted either of the two posts that you've posted I'd be embarrassed, leave these up here sure and come back in 2012 or a bit there after and see what you think then will you?

    I'm not going to argue with ignorance when its as easy as what it is to get access to libraries or books.

  9. #89
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And when the official policy of the Church was the cover-up of child, sexual abuse rings, nuns, deacons, priests, monseigneurs, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the Pope himself, all remained silent while crimes were being committed against children.
    [youtube="oUEGlVUJ4bc"]Apology to "forgotten Australians" for abuse[/youtube]

    Of course Victor doesn't like addressing this story. Nah...he prefers to talk about Catholic priests. He wants to deny this happened, that these people enjoyed a "better life"; even though his own government officially acknowledges they were victimized. Victor wants to make sure the "forgotten Australians" remain forgotten.

  10. #90
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    The problem is that all debate on women's ordination has been silenced within the Church.

    Catholics have been ordered at the highest level not to debate women's ordination.

    Catholics have been silenced by the authority of the Church.

    This has interesting resonances as I can remember Pope John Paul shouting at liberation theologists in South America just one word, "Silencio".

    And when the official policy of the Church was the cover-up of child, sexual abuse rings, nuns, deacons, priests, monseigneurs, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the Pope himself, all remained silent while crimes were being committed against children.

    The Church is a highly disciplined hierarchy and when the Pope says, "Silencio", he means it.

    So there is no movement for the ordination of women within the Church. Silence reigns.

    Silencio.
    Dont make me laugh, there's a bunch of RCs participating in this thread and this thread is the same as the discussions that take place in real life.

    Seriously, you guys look silly when you pretend that the Vatican is anything like Beijing or Stalin's Kremlin or North Korea.

Similar Threads

  1. Florida Judge Overturns Ban On Gay Adoption
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-27-2009, 03:30 PM
  2. Ban on Short Selling
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 05:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO