Faith and Religion

[Duff Man]

Again, I'm not saying it's the only reason, and I'm also not saying it's a silver bullet.

[Pureblood]

Again, I'm not saying it's the only reason, and I'm also not saying it's a silver bullet.

Fair enough, I'm not saying you are. By all means give it a whirl. It's a big ask though as I believe it's a long running tradition and was originally imposed so that wives would not inherit wealth from the Church, so it opens up a whole other can of worms.

[Duff Man]

Cool, I'll let you know how I get on.

[Strontium]

Hehe, nice try Stronts.

 

You frequently talk about suppressing religion (the ones you don't like) and your avatar used to read "Imagine No Religion - It's Easy If You Try".

 

That's why I only needed to search this thread to find you talking about banning the Bible.  It's easy cos I tried. 

 

So much dishonesty in such a short post.

 

I never talk about suppressing religion. That is an utter lie.

 

"The ones you don't like"? What on earth is that supposed to mean. For the avoidance of doubt, there are no religions I like, and it is false to imply otherwise.

 

My avatar said "Imagine no religion" only, over a picture of the twin towers, so you have misremembered that. I freely and openly talk about wanting a world without religion, so goodness knows what your point is.

 

Not once have I ever advocated banning the Bible, and the full post from which you took a very selective quote makes it perfectly clear that I wasn't doing it there.

[Strontium]

As with all the things you attribute to yourself, mate; saying it doesn't make it true! But look, I've pretty much given up trying to convince you to be more balanced when the word religion comes up, so I'll bow out.

 

What does "more balanced" mean in this context?

 

Religious belief is demonstrably false. What balance is there to be found when dealing with those spreading untruths?

[lifetime fan]

Fucking hell!

 

I never expected to find me defending Stronts and Rico in the same thread.

 

What I can't understand is the arguments given against them.

 

The Catholic church either deliberately or through negligence/incompetence allowed decades of abuse to continue in their name.

 

Either way they are disgraced organisation that prolonged the abuse of innocent, vulnerable people.

[Pureblood]

I never talk about suppressing religion. That is an utter lie.

 

In that case you would never say something like this, would you?

 

There can only be religious extremists if there are religious people. Religion needs to be wiped out.

 

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/index.php?/topic/108252-stop-killing-people/?p=4205057

 

Now is the part where you tell me that wiping something out isn't the same as suppressing it.

[Bjornebye]

In that case you would never say something like this, would you?

 

There can only be religious extremists if there are religious people. Religion needs to be wiped out.

 

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/index.php?/topic/108252-stop-killing-people/?p=4205057

 

Now is the part where you tell me that wiping something out isn't the same as suppressing it.

 

 

[KopOut]

There's no difference at all.

 

Religion is nothing more than a collection of rituals.

 

If you have personal faith, over time you will develop a collection of rituals yourself, to keep your faith alive.

[Strontium]

In that case you would never say something like this, would you?

 

There can only be religious extremists if there are religious people. Religion needs to be wiped out.

 

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/index.php?/topic/108252-stop-killing-people/?p=4205057

 

Now is the part where you tell me that wiping something out isn't the same as suppressing it.

 

Could you be more dishonest?

 

No, I would never say anything like that, except in the exact same post you're replying to

 

I freely and openly talk about wanting a world without religion

 

I make absolutely no secret of hoping to see religion consigned to history, and have said so on dozens of occasions. This is fundamentally NOT the same thing as suppressing something.

 

Suppression, in the context you are using it (the context of, for instance, banning religious texts, which you falsely claim I want to do) is synonymous with oppression or repression. Wanting to repress or oppress certain beliefs would be fundamentally illiberal, and the sort of thing I would expect from someone who had - oh, I don't know - spent the last few years opposing liberalism.

 

Will there be any more spiteful twisting of my words, or is that another question you're going to avoid answering?

[Pureblood]

 

Could you be more dishonest?

 

No, I would never say anything like that, except in the exact same post you're replying to

 

 

 

I make absolutely no secret of hoping to see religion consigned to history, and have said so on dozens of occasions. This is fundamentally NOT the same thing as suppressing something.

 

Suppression, in the context you are using it (the context of, for instance, banning religious texts, which you falsely claim I want to do) is synonymous with oppression or repression. Wanting to repress or oppress certain beliefs would be fundamentally illiberal, and the sort of thing I would expect from someone who - oh, I don't know - had spent the last few years opposing liberalism.

 

Will there be any more spiteful twisting of my words, or is that another question you're going to avoid answering?

 

:lol:

[Bjornebye]

[Jose Jones]

Bjornebye, on 23 Aug 2017 - 12:16 AM, said:

 

I'm a catholic. I don't touch kids.

Next best thing though.

You consider yourself part of an organisation that organised, promoted and encouraged paedophilia, then persecuted the victims to cover up their crimes, many to suicide. This was done in many countries, with thousands of kids and was known at the highest levels of the church.

You should be ashamed to consider yourself a catholic.

[cloggypop]

He admitted it 1500 times to 30 different people who because of the rules of their club didn't tell the police.

 

Oh, and forgave him each time, then heard him say he'd done it again.

Yeah, it's institutionally fucked up. Paedophiles covering up for paedophiles. I was brought up Catholic so had a lucky escape really. I do remember being in confession once (I only ever did it a couple of times, weird as fuck) and Canon Dana (?) asking me if I touched myself and I just got up and walked out. Fuck that. Nonce cunt.

[cloggypop]

Does seem a little bit short sighted preventing people from having sex. And then surrounding them with kids.

 

And when I say short sighted, I mean utterly fucking retarded.

You will attract a certain subset to keep the faith.

[Hades]

Who would you rather leave your child alone with; a sex starved man who's suffering mental health problems, or a chap who's in a loving relationship and getting laid three times a week?

 

Every time I think I've seen terrible opinions on here, I come across something worse. The notion that someone that suffers mental health problems is automatically an abuser when the stats show you are more likely to be abused if you suffer from disability, especially mental health, is risible. The idea that all celibate people become sex-starved when the very purpose of religion is to aspire to something beyond the 'baser' urges. You're taking a tiny sliver of disgusting people and misapplying their qualities onto an entire group of people. The very definition of bigotry. 

[Hades]

You should be ashamed to consider yourself a catholic.

 

I'm ashamed to consider myself a human with what we do to vulnerable people and to animals. I don't care for this line of reasoning. 

[Jose Jones]

Hades, on 23 Aug 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

 

I'm ashamed to consider myself a human with what we do to vulnerable people and to animals. I don't care for this line of reasoning.

Why not? You control what you can control of your own decisions right?

 

Deciding to still be a Catholic when you know what the organisation has done, is codoning paedophilia and all the church's actions around that. It's an easy decision to make, and if you don't make it then fucking shame on you I say.

 

Being ashamed of the actions of your country in persecuting refugees, then voting for a political party that promotes that policy is condoning that persecution. Shame on you I say. Deciding to work to change opinions, and support vulnerable people is a choice to make, probably a little harder than simply not being a catholic, but fairly doable.

 

Being ashamed of the whole of humanity's treatment of animals is fine. Deciding to be a vegetarian, or supporting PETA, or sustainable farming methods is something that is fairly easily done. You won't change things overnight, but you won't be as much of a collaborator to behaviour you don't agree with.

 

Someone balances what they feel morally with what they are able to achieve in living their life.

[Anubis]

I'm also sure a lawyer can't defend someone he knows to be guilty.

It depends on how you define 'defend.' If a client has instructed you that he's guilty then you cannot advance an active defence at trial (so you wouldn't call him to give evidence). However, you can still put the prosecution to proof by testing their evidence without advancing an active defence.

[skend04]

Why not? You control what you can control of your own decisions right?

 

Deciding to still be a Catholic when you know what the organisation has done, is codoning paedophilia and all the church's actions around that. It's an easy decision to make, and if you don't make it then fucking shame on you I say.

 

Being ashamed of the actions of your country in persecuting refugees, then voting for a political party that promotes that policy is condoning that persecution. Shame on you I say. Deciding to work to change opinions, and support vulnerable people is a choice to make, probably a little harder than simply not being a catholic, but fairly doable.

 

Being ashamed of the whole of humanity's treatment of animals is fine. Deciding to be a vegetarian, or supporting PETA, or sustainable farming methods is something that is fairly easily done. You won't change things overnight, but you won't be as much of a collaborator to behaviour you don't agree with.

 

Someone balances what they feel morally with what they are able to achieve in living their life.

I bet you're a right hoot at parties.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Deciding to still be a Catholic when you know what the organisation has done, is codoning paedophilia

Ooh, I’ve got a new argument for people paying their TV licence.

[Bjornebye]

Next best thing though.

You consider yourself part of an organisation that organised, promoted and encouraged paedophilia, then persecuted the victims to cover up their crimes, many to suicide. This was done in many countries, with thousands of kids and was known at the highest levels of the church.

You should be ashamed to consider yourself a catholic.

 

Who has hacked your TLW account? An utter fucking bellwhiff or have you just decided to be one? One of the most ridciculous posts i've read on this forum in a long time. Get a grip. 

[Hades]

Why not? You control what you can control of your own decisions right?

 

Deciding to still be a Catholic when you know what the organisation has done, is codoning paedophilia and all the church's actions around that. It's an easy decision to make, and if you don't make it then fucking shame on you I say.

 

Being ashamed of the actions of your country in persecuting refugees, then voting for a political party that promotes that policy is condoning that persecution. Shame on you I say. Deciding to work to change opinions, and support vulnerable people is a choice to make, probably a little harder than simply not being a catholic, but fairly doable.

 

Being ashamed of the whole of humanity's treatment of animals is fine. Deciding to be a vegetarian, or supporting PETA, or sustainable farming methods is something that is fairly easily done. You won't change things overnight, but you won't be as much of a collaborator to behaviour you don't agree with.

 

Someone balances what they feel morally with what they are able to achieve in living their life.

 

I agree with you in theory. If everyone took responsibility for the sins of history and worked together to create a better world, that would be great. Unfortunately, traditional religions, despite their foundation in fantasy, have a monopoly on providing spiritual and existential healing to suffering souls. Can't take that away fully. Capitalism needs to be addressed first. 

[VladimirIlyich]

Well,this thread took a while to get going. It seems the answer is to ban religion and then there'd be no paedophilia or similar crimes on the planet. Why didn't I simply think of that!

[Bjornebye]

I call myself a human therefore I condone dropping nuclear bombs, the holocaust and mass racism. I'm also a chelsea fan