I hate environmentalists

"Peter Irwin" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:

Who said it was a real proposal? It was just to illustrate the reality
that religions protect themselves by very early brainwashing (sorry,
"instruction") of children.

Calling it brainwashing (at least in normal cases) is an abuse
of language.

And the frontline soldiers in this are
their own parents. Tell a kid he can go to hell and burn forever when
he's 5 years old and you don't even need to promise him heaven.

This is pretty rare in my experience. What people normally do with
five year olds is tell them a few bible stories and have them learn
a few songs and perhaps give them a colouring book or two.

Peter.
--



Stories like the one where Jesus cast demons from the inflicted into a herd
of swine which then commits hogacide?

Or, the one where Cain killed his brother and was marked for life?

Or, the one where God killed EVERYTHING, except Noah and his family, because
they were the only good people left?

Or, the one where he levelled Sodom and Gomorrah because gays lived there?
(Forgetting the part about the rapists and murderers?)

Or, the one where David slew Goliath because God was on his side?

Or, the one about Jesus coming back with his angelic troops to cast anyone
who doesn't believe into a Lake of Fire?

And, let's not forget all those Bible songs the kids learn, like the one
that goes:

Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho.
Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the walls came a tumbling down...

A cheerful little ditty that says so much about God's love. Would you not
agree?

Yeah, they don't have much impact on the young, at all...

Take Care,
Dudley

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
.. .
DRS added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

"I agree with those who say the Bible is a collection of stories
(bordering on fables), but my point is that the organized church
usually won't admit that. Higher up religious mucky mucks
continually portray the scriptures as being "divinely inspired,"
that they were written by God through the hand of man."

If I look at this with a cynical eye, I could say that organized
churches of ALL types are basically in the same business as labor
unions and political parties - increasing membership and revenues.

Less cynically, if one actually investigates what any given
denomination thinks about the Bible, scriptures in the more general
case, the Old and New Testaments, modern day diversity, and the
relationship of faith to science to the veracity of handed down
stories, I think you'll find that most of them are not only humble
and accurate but often have Biblical and religious scholors in
their midst who have spent lifetimes doing research and writing
books.

But, what it all comes down to no matter if the church is
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or any of 100 others,
there ARE things that members take more or less on faith that can
neither be proved nor disproved by the most sophisticated of modern
scientific tools.

For example, who is to really say what happened during the 6 days
God supposedly took to create the Heavens and the Earth? Exactly
how long in hours was a "day" as depicted in Genesis? This exact
issue came out in the 1925 Scopes Money trial by prosecutor William
Jennings Bryan who supposedly had been called as a defense witness
by Henry Darrow.

You clearly referred to what might be summarised as the "divine
dictation" school of divine inspiration, and claimed that the
"provable inaccuracies go a long way to debunk this kind of
dark-aged fear mongering". The problem is the "divine
dictation" school is not orthodox. The mainstream historical
position has always understood "inspiration" in the more usual
sense of influencing rather than dictating. The contradictions
in the Bible therefore cannot be used per se to "disprove"
divine inspiration. The irony is that what you refer to as
"dark-aged fear mongering [sic]" is in fact a fairly
contemporary phenomenon; the more subtle orthodox understanding
is much, much older.

It also puts paid to your absurd conflation of my view, that the
Bible contains contradictions, with Jerry's. How you could
confuse anything I've written with his puerile backyard theology
defeats me.

If you think you can factually refute my statenes, bring it on.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government is best which governs least" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

Proof that the Christian God cannot exist:

The Christians state that their God is "All powerful," "all knowing," and
"able to be everywhere at the same time."

Well, God cannot be "all powerful," because he cannot create an object so
large or heavy that He cannot move it...

Take Care,
Dudley

Chris H wrote:

Then you very clearly have very little education. The Bible has very
many inaccuracies and errors. I was researching in to King Solomon's
temple and apparently the two pillars were made from brass, bronze or
copper depending on which version of the Bible I read.

Of course after First Council of Nicaea and the 6 further councils they
change the content of the bible and changes other things including the
dates of festivals such as Easter for political reasons



The deletion of the four books of the Maccabee Bible from the standard
text is of particular interest.

"HEMI-Powered" wrote:

For example, who is to really say what happened during the 6 days
God supposedly took to create the Heavens and the Earth? Exactly
how long in hours was a "day" as depicted in Genesis?


You are making a massive assumption that any of this happened at all.

It is more likely to be an early fiction that has gained a spurious
credibility over the centuries of religious indoctrination that have
been based on it, and other works of fiction.

In message , Peter Irwin
writes
Alan Browne wrote:

Who said it was a real proposal? It was just to illustrate the reality
that religions protect themselves by very early brainwashing (sorry,
"instruction") of children.

Calling it brainwashing (at least in normal cases) is an abuse
of language.

Not really. It is exactly that.

And the frontline soldiers in this are
their own parents. Tell a kid he can go to hell and burn forever when
he's 5 years old and you don't even need to promise him heaven.

This is pretty rare in my experience. What people normally do with
five year olds is tell them a few bible stories and have them learn
a few songs and perhaps give them a colouring book or two.

It depends where you are. Some areas are worse than others (for all
religions)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message 49e772d7$0$29878$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Chris H" wrote in message

In message 49e769f8$0$29896$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Chris H" wrote in message


[...]

First you will have to understand that God is Pro Choice
..does not like the pedophiles and child
abusers called Priests.

The rate of child abuse by clergy is no higher than the rate in the
general population.

Not as far as I can see. Ask anyone who has been to a Catholic school,
Children's home or Magdalene "Laundry"

It is wrong whoever does it but please don't mindlessly
perpetuate the myth that priests are somehow more prone to abusing
children because the evidence simply isn't there.

CRAP the evidence is not only there but there is a LOT of evidence of
orchestrated cover-ups by the RC church to shield offenders.

The Roman Church's poor handling of complaints about child abuse by clergy
is irrelevant to the rate of abuse.

Not at all. I think that legally it is called conspiracy. They may not
have actually committed the crime but they are supporting it's
perpetrators


The numbers involved as a percentage of the Catholic Clergy are I
would suggest far higher than the percentage found in the general
population.

You should not confuse media hysteria with evidence. See, for example,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm.

Thanks for that.
It says that in the population it is 1-2% but with priests it is 2-6% .
It discounts many cases because the Children were 16-17. However most of
these cases were homosexual assaults.

It is still a gross misuse of power.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:52:04 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message 49e769f8$0$29896$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Chris H" wrote in message


[...]

First you will have to understand that God is Pro Choice
..does not like the pedophiles and child
abusers called Priests.

The rate of child abuse by clergy is no higher than the rate in the general
population.

Not as far as I can see. Ask anyone who has been to a Catholic school,
Children's home or Magdalene "Laundry"

The abuse in the Magdalene Laundries was an entirely different kind of
abuse than referenced above. The abusers were Nuns, not priests, and
the abuse was not sexual.

Why do you put quotes around "Laundry"? They were laundries.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Dudley Hanks wrote:
"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:Y5qFl.23573$PH1.6574@edtnps82
"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:PspFl.23571$PH1.13628@edtnps82
"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:7AeFl.22145$Db2.7000@edtnps83

[...]

Do not the Anglicans, Catholics and Lutherans all adhere to the
doctrine that the scriptures are divinely inspired?

Of course. That has nothing to do with the Bible's
contradictions (my vicar cheerfully reckons anyone who denies
the Bible has contradictions is a fool).

Careful, DRS, you're sounding a lot like Jerry. Are you wearing
his socks?
You obviously don't understand the doctrine of divine inspiration.
But, that's not surprising since you let your vicar think for you.

Oh dear, you do make me laugh. I do understand the doctrine of
divine inspiration. Apparently you don't.

Well, explain it to me. How is it different from what I said?

You said,

"I agree with those who say the Bible is a collection of stories
(bordering on fables), but my point is that the organized church
usually won't admit that. Higher up religious mucky mucks
continually portray the scriptures as being "divinely inspired,"
that they were written by God through the hand of man."

You clearly referred to what might be summarised as the "divine
dictation" school of divine inspiration, and claimed that the
"provable inaccuracies go a long way to debunk this kind of
dark-aged fear mongering". The problem is the "divine dictation"
school is not orthodox. The mainstream historical position has
always understood "inspiration" in the more usual sense of
influencing rather than dictating. The contradictions in the Bible
therefore cannot be used per se to "disprove" divine inspiration.
The irony is that what you refer to as "dark-aged fear mongering
[sic]" is in fact a fairly contemporary phenomenon; the more subtle
orthodox understanding is much, much older. It also puts paid to your
absurd conflation of my view, that the
Bible contains contradictions, with Jerry's. How you could confuse
anything I've written with his puerile backyard theology defeats me.



Certainly, the Catholic Church in particular has tried to distance
itself from this problem by saying the Bible is "the Word of God,"
and not "the Words of God." But, they go in a circle by contending
that:
Jesus is indeed God, [the Catholic Church argues] that his Biblical
promise to establish a church that will never perish cannot be empty,
and that promise, they believe, implies an infallible teaching
authority vested in the church. They conclude that this authoritative
Church teaches that the Bible's own doctrine of inspiration is in
fact the correct one.


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica..._Catholic_view

Uh, why would one want to see a wikipedia article? If you are going to
argue that the Roman Catholic Church holds a particular view you need to go
to the source, not someone quoting the opinion of someone else who is not
himself an official spokesman for the Church.

So, the Church says with a smile, "Of course there are
contradictions, but don't worry about them because Christ is God.
Therefore, His promise has authority, and we tell you everything you
need to know about His promise (and His other teachings). And, of
course, God's promise and teachings are infallible, so our Church is
likewise infallible. Don't you see?"

No, Karl Keating says that with a smile. When someone appoints him Pope
_then_ perhaps the Church will also say that.

That's not exactly a heartfelt admission that the Bible is mainly
wishful thinking...

BTW, DRS, I am not referring to any unorthodox Divine Dictation
theory, not that the end result differs from the infusing Spirit
school of thought by much.

Of course it does. Or do you think that the movie "Cleopatra" starring
Elizabeth Taylor, inspired by the life of the last Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt,
was in fact an inerrant portrayal of that life?

As I've said in the past, the doctrine of
divine inspiration asserts that the Spirit of God enabled the authors
to jot down the "Word of God" (not the Words of God), and that THE
ORIGINAL AUTHORS WORDS are the basis of the infallability of Church
teachings. Hence, what the Church says goes, because it has the
divine authority of God backing it up...

Find an official statement of the Catholic Church to support that argument.
I think you'll find that there isn't one.

The Church's syntactically slippery argument just doesn't hold much
water with me.

If you are going to talk about a "syntactically slippery argument" at least
find out what that argument is instead of just assuming that wikipedia is
authoritative.

As for your identity, I'm sorry I referred to you as a puppet of
Jerry's, if you are not indeed one. But, while you are a bit more
civilized in your posts, thus far, the core of both your arguments
appear remarkably similar. And, let's not forget, you are just as
adept as Jerry at putting your slant on my words, either assuming I
say something I am not (because of a rather Radically Right
intellectual filter), or misunderstanding everything because of a
similar problem with reading comprehension.
Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks wrote:
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
.. .
DRS added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

"I agree with those who say the Bible is a collection of stories
(bordering on fables), but my point is that the organized church
usually won't admit that. Higher up religious mucky mucks
continually portray the scriptures as being "divinely inspired,"
that they were written by God through the hand of man."

If I look at this with a cynical eye, I could say that organized
churches of ALL types are basically in the same business as labor
unions and political parties - increasing membership and revenues.

Less cynically, if one actually investigates what any given
denomination thinks about the Bible, scriptures in the more general
case, the Old and New Testaments, modern day diversity, and the
relationship of faith to science to the veracity of handed down
stories, I think you'll find that most of them are not only humble
and accurate but often have Biblical and religious scholors in
their midst who have spent lifetimes doing research and writing
books.

But, what it all comes down to no matter if the church is
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or any of 100 others,
there ARE things that members take more or less on faith that can
neither be proved nor disproved by the most sophisticated of modern
scientific tools.

For example, who is to really say what happened during the 6 days
God supposedly took to create the Heavens and the Earth? Exactly
how long in hours was a "day" as depicted in Genesis? This exact
issue came out in the 1925 Scopes Money trial by prosecutor William
Jennings Bryan who supposedly had been called as a defense witness
by Henry Darrow.

You clearly referred to what might be summarised as the "divine
dictation" school of divine inspiration, and claimed that the
"provable inaccuracies go a long way to debunk this kind of
dark-aged fear mongering". The problem is the "divine
dictation" school is not orthodox. The mainstream historical
position has always understood "inspiration" in the more usual
sense of influencing rather than dictating. The contradictions
in the Bible therefore cannot be used per se to "disprove"
divine inspiration. The irony is that what you refer to as
"dark-aged fear mongering [sic]" is in fact a fairly
contemporary phenomenon; the more subtle orthodox understanding
is much, much older.

It also puts paid to your absurd conflation of my view, that the
Bible contains contradictions, with Jerry's. How you could
confuse anything I've written with his puerile backyard theology
defeats me.

If you think you can factually refute my statenes, bring it on.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government is best which governs least" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

Proof that the Christian God cannot exist:

The Christians state that their God is "All powerful," "all knowing,"
and "able to be everywhere at the same time."

Well, God cannot be "all powerful," because he cannot create an
object so large or heavy that He cannot move it...

You're actually arguing the definition of "all powerful", not the powers of
God.

On 4/16/09 12:55 PM, in article
, "DRS"
wrote:

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message


[...]

only for yourself, but your family. I will Thank the God you do not
believe in if all your children died.

Some lines should not be crossed.

PLONK!



Yeah. That was a pretty sick MoFo statement that gives the Right a bad name.

Such threats lead to stupid morons like Napolitano's ridiculous statement
yesterday. The Obama Regime is simply out of control. This woman does not
have the mental capacity to run Homeland Security.

Hemi is over the top. I, as a Conservative, do not want to be associated
with his ilk: A true P.O.S. that is lower than whale**** who revels in
others' misery. A person who hints at others' bad luck. That is NOT the word
of Jesus, only a distorted disturbed weirdo. Much like Islamofacists. Sick.

And this doesn't belong in photography groups.

What else is new?

I'm outta here...