The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

It was Scientifically analyzed!!! You wanted scientific proof, so I provided you with it, so now you say "people are lying." So now it's just one HUGE conspiracy that the church asked NUETRAL scientists to lie on their behalf. Sounds like a credible thing for scientists to do...

It is not science until it has actually been made available for the review of scientific peers. If that doesn't happen then it is just some guys with some technical expertise who have had a look at it and thought it was a MIRACLE! 

If a real scientist was shown something that constituted a miracle, then that person would immediately make the phenomenon available to his peers, and he would allow others to study it and confirm his conclusions. Since this has not reached scientific papers, we know that this hasn't happened, for whatever reason. So in the end it is just some christians who believe in yet another silly thing.

[Iron MikeyJ]

MORE on Fatima:

CRITICAL EVALUTION…

In my long and ongoing debates with an atheist, he sent me an article from www.answers.com titled Miracle of the Sun. It was his attempt to show that science can explain away every single miracle—including what occurred at Fatima.Now, what happened there may be considered one of the most remarkable public miracles since the time of Christ. Given that three children predicted that it would occur, as they were allegedly told by the Mother of God herself, the stakes are high. Add to that the fact that atheists, socialists, the secular press and opponents of the Church were present, this would really seem to be the créme de la crémemiracle to debunk.

I read through the article and the “critical evaluation” of various “experts” and their explanations of how this miracle could have simply been a natural phenomenon and nothing more. Here are their comments followed by my responses:

 

C. (Critique)

Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, rightly notes that the “Sun Miracle” has also allegedly occurred at various Marian sites throughout the world. During one such instance in Conyers, Georgia in the mid-1990s, a telescope outfitted with a “vision-protecting Mylar solar filter” was pointed at the sun.

…more than two hundred people had viewed the sun through one of the solar filters and not a single person saw anything unusual. —Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 33.6 November / December 2009

R. (Response)

While one can assume that the observation in Conyers was only a test of the alleged “Sun Miracle” in that location, the question begs as to why use a telescope in the first place, given the reported nature of “the miracle of the sun”? At Fatima, eyewitnesses described the sun spinning, revolving “vertiginously on its axis”, and then zig-zagging toward the earth as if it had become unfixed from the heavens. Any amateur astronomer can tell you that this is impossible. While planets and moons move in an orbit, the sun itself is “fixed” in its place. It would be impossible for the sun to change positions. Therefore, the people in Portugal saw something else, something that is outside the boundaries of the law of physics and beyond the lens of a telescope. [As a sidenote, was the miracle of the sun a portent not so much of what may happen to the sun some day, but to the earth and its orbit?]

It is worth noting that at other Marian sites, the miracle of the sun, while reportedly witnessed by many, is usually never witnessed by all. This was also the case at Fatima.

…the prediction of an unspecified “miracle,” the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely. That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.. .Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun “dance.” Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all. No scientific accounts exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have “danced”, and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than 64 kilometres (40 mi) out from Cova da Iria. —www.answers.com

Why only some see this “miracle” is a mystery. Is it a “gift” for some for a particular reason in their lives? Some people I have spoken to, who have claimed to have seen the miracle of the sun in modern times, have tried to record with a camera what they were witnessing. However, the sun appeared normal on film or video tape. Eyewitness accounts are pretty much all we have to rely on, it seems. This usually presents a problem of subjectivity.

However, in the case of Fatima, the sheer number of witnesses bolsters the case that something extraordinary took place. The fact that not everyone in Portugal that day witnessed the event adds to the evidence in support of a miracle, since, a solar phenomenon passing over the country could and should have been witnessed by all present at the site.

The… solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere… there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon… Either all the observers in Fátima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention. —Fr. John De Marchi,Italian priest and researcher; The Immaculate Heart, 1952b:282

 

C.

Professor Auguste Meessen of the Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Leuven, has stated that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly Meessen states that the colour changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells. —Auguste Meessen ‘Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun’ International Forum in Porto “Science, Religion and Conscience” October 23–25, 2003 ISSN: 1645-6564

R.

It has long been established by ophthalmologists that to stare into the sun can cause permanent eye damage. It can take as little as seconds before temporary or permanent damage can begin to occur.

In the reports from eyewitnesses in Fatima, the miracle of the sun lasted not seconds, but minutes, and perhaps as long as “ten minutes.” Eyewitnesses stated that the clouds had broken and “the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor,” and so onlookers were staring directly at the sun. To stare at the bare sun at noon for even a minute—if that were even possible—would likely have been enough to cause permanent eye damage in at least a few people. But out of tens of thousands of people, there were no reports of a single person having incurred eye damage, let alone blindness. (On the other hand, this has occurred at some alleged Marian apparition sites where certain people have gone looking for a miracle).

Professor Meesen’s logic further falls apart by stating that the dancing effects of the sun were merely the result of retinal after-images. If that were the case, then the miracle of the sun witnessed at Fatima should be easily duplicated in your own backyard. In fact, to be certain, the thousands gathered that day would have looked up at the sun later that afternoon and in the days following to see if the miracle would repeat. If the “miracle” that October 13th was only the result of retinal images or “the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells,” the skeptics and secular newspapers who had earlier been ridiculing the three shepherd children would surely have pointed this out. The aftermath of excitement would have quickly dissipated as people began to readily duplicate “retinal after-images.” The opposite is true. Eyewitnesses described the sight as a “prodigy,” something “incapable of describing,” and a “remarkable spectacle.” What is remarkable about something that one could easily duplicate an hour later?

 

C.

Nickell also suggests that the dancing effects witnessed at Fatima may have been due to optical effects resulting from temporary retinal distortion caused by staring at such an intense light. —Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 33.6 November / December 2009

R.

In no cases do we read of any eyewitnesses reporting lingering optical effects. The prodigy seemed to simply end when the sun, after appearing to zig-zag to the earth, resumed its normal course; eyewitnesses reported that the phenomenon lasted only so long and then abruptly ended. However, if Nickell’s explanation were true, the retinal distortion should have continued as long as people continued to stare at the sun… an hour, three hours, all day long. This contradicts reports that indicate that the miracle had a definitive ending.

Furthermore, eyewitnesses specifically noted that the sun did not appear as an ‘intense light,’ but rather it appeared “pale and did not hurt my eyes” and “enveloped in… gauzy grey light” and began to emit “multicolored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect.” It is worth noting that during an eclipse of the sun, or when the sun is under thick cloud covering, it can be looked at without any perceived discomfort. However, in these cases the sun is blocked by another object, and in fact, can still cause serious and permanent harm.

 

C.

Steuart Campbell, writing for the 1989 edition of Journal of Meteorology, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear yellow, blue, and violet and to spin. In support of his hypothesis, Mr. Campbell reports that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983. —Fátima’s dusty veil”, New Humanist, Vol 104 No 2, August 1989 and “The Miracle of the Sun at Fátima”, Journal of Meteorology, UK, Vol 14, no. 142, October, 1989

R.

Once again, this hypothesis contradicts eyewitness reports. Not everyone present at Fatima that day witnessed a miracle in the sky. If this was a solar anomaly, a “cloud of stratospheric dust” that lasted several minutes, surely it would have been in plain view to everyone. Campbell’s assertion also falls short of explaining the third aspect of the spectacle that day: the sight of the sun zig-zagging and appearing to hurl toward to the earth. Lastly, such a stratospheric dust cloud would surely be an event that no one could predict months in advance in that time period, let alone three sheep-herding children.

Neither does a cloud of dust explain how everyone’s clothing, which had been drenched by a downpour of rain that only ended just minutes before, were now “suddenly and completely dry.” Something outside of the normal laws of physics and thermodynamics took place that day producing not only an optical, but physical “miracle.”

 

[DieselDaisy]

I haven't forgotten about Soul's Hitler argument, but just to say (and this is completely coincidental) that I am rather obsessed with early Christian ecumenical theology right now, e.g. Arianism v Homoousion.

[SoulMonster]

26 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@Dazey,

He has. Its just one of MANY examples.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Here are quotes from EYEWITNESS from secular newspapers.

Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws—the sun ‘danced’ according to the typical expression of the people. —Avelino de Almeida,writing for O Século(Portugal’s most widely circulatedand influential newspaper, which was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time. Almeida’s previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima).

 

From another secular newspaper:

The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly swift and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat. —Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem.

I can't keep up with this deluge of delusions yet I did glance over this post and saw you referred to Ordem as a secular newspaper 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I haven't forgotten about Soul's Hitler argument, but just to say (and this is completely coincidental) that I am rather obsessed with early Christian ecumenical theology right now, e.g. Arianism v Homoousion.

I don't have a Hitler argument, I am arguing against your claim that the Nazi Party was an atheist organization. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I don't have a Hitler argument, I am arguing against your claim that the Nazi Party was an atheist organization. 

We all have Hitler arguments Soul.

 

[soon]

@DieselDaisy do you profess a faith?  Are you affiliated with any denominations?  I'm just curious 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, soon said:

@DieselDaisy do you profess a faith?  Are you affiliated with any denominations?  I'm just curious 

I'm actually agnostic, although I was baptised Church of England. I am not exactly rabid in my agnosticism though as some are here with their atheism (or whatever it is they believe). I can appreciate different religions.

[soon]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm actually agnostic, although I was baptised Church of England. I am not exactly rabid in my agnosticism though as some are here with their atheism (or whatever it is they believe). I can appreciate different religions.

Cool, thanks. With you reading about early Christian trinitarian views I just thought to ask.  

As an aside, I utilize the Anglican (church of England in Canada) Lectionary as part of my scripture study.  I havent lately, but I often will stop by the local Anglican church for prayer, study, communion or even the odd mass.  My traditions dont have a focus on the liturgical calendar and dont embrace the idea of 'the worship environment' but I get a lot outta the Anglican sanctuary and liturgical cycle.

[soon]

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 hour ago, soon said:

Cool, thanks. With you reading about early Christian trinitarian views I just thought to ask.  

As an aside, I utilize the Anglican (church of England in Canada) Lectionary as part of my scripture study.  I havent lately, but I often will stop by the local Anglican church for prayer, study, communion or even the odd mass.  My traditions dont have a focus on the liturgical calendar and dont embrace the idea of 'the worship environment' but I get a lot outta the Anglican sanctuary and liturgical cycle.

Besides the historical problems with the Catholic church, what may I ask is preventing you from exploring Catholisim? As I'm sure you know, Anglicans are not that much different (beliefs wise). 

I attended an Anglican church as a youth from time to time, and my honest assessment was "it's kinda like being Catholic, just "missing" something. As an adult I'm aware of what they are missing, valid sacraments. But also realizing the ONLY real reason why that denomination even exists is because the King of England (at that time, I don't know which one) wanted a divorce. It just kinda speaks to the "justifications" I spoke of in an earlier post. 

[Dazey]

Brilliant!

 

[DieselDaisy]

Anglicanism is rather an odds n' sods denomination, rather something people can string beliefs onto than zealously follow. Its lack of conviction and orthodoxy is rather its strength I feel as few denominations have been so questioning and (dare I say?) liberal.

It is a very English series of (historic and theological) compromises. 

[soon]

2 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Besides the historical problems with the Catholic church, what may I ask is preventing you from exploring Catholisim? As I'm sure you know, Anglicans are not that much different (beliefs wise). 

I attended an Anglican church as a youth from time to time, and my honest assessment was "it's kinda like being Catholic, just "missing" something. As an adult I'm aware of what they are missing, valid sacraments. But also realizing the ONLY real reason why that denomination even exists is because the King of England (at that time, I don't know which one) wanted a divorce. It just kinda speaks to the "justifications" I spoke of in an earlier post. 

I do have exposure to catholicism.  I dont believe in it at all.  I dont know how to say it politely but: I read scripture, so Catholicism is a non-starter.  Some Catholics are really incredible though, like the many Ive celebrated in this thread, so please dont take that as a personal attack.  Its just my answer to the question.

But also, the "historical problems" with the catholic church include attempted genocide(s).  So thats not too tempting.  And as we've discussed, Rome wont even apologize!  And the atrocities arent all historical either.  I also believe in protecting children and holding people accountable. They also ran the most Residential Schools in Canada.  Oh, and they supported fascism

Theres the Catholic Workers.  Dorthy Day and all.  They have communal houses that produce newspapers and feed the poor.  Many great activists - especially anti war activists.  The Journalist Jeremy Scahill was raised in a catholic worker house.  I am intersted in the Catholic Workers and have met some great workers.  Anti-capitalists who prefigure alternatives are cool with me.

I once looked up to see if there were any catholic worker houses near me and was surprised to find a listing in a suburb.  So I knocked on the door.  A sweaty 11 year old boy slid to the door on his saggy socks.  I asked if it was a Catholic worker house.  He ran away and then back, telling me:  "my parents said they used to live with a bunch of other adults.  But they all moved to the country and now make their own crackers."  Which is one of my favourite experiences ever! .  Not least of which because I am currently making a batch of crackers.

As far as Anglicism: What Dies just said.  Its a place I can do my thing with God.  I reject its liberalism though and therefore stay with my tradition and church.

 

PS: Henry the 8th is the king you're thinking of

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by soon

[Iron MikeyJ]

8 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

As someone who was raised Catholic, but then fell away from the church (and within the last year returned), I might be able to help you understand these issues. 

It's not that the church "disagrees" with issues in regards to sex, it's that many of these issues fall into the category of SIN.  As such, the church can't say "sure go ahead and commit sin". I have found that MANY issues people have with the church are related to sin, not the churches position on political issues. 

Understanding sin is an important part of any religious journey, and it's something that man likes to fight against in order to justify his (or her) behavior. The good news is, we ARE ALL SINNERS. So if you have a sin that you struggle with, the WORST thing you can do is to turn against the church and God more specifically. Quite the opposite really, you NEED to take these struggles to GOD, through the sacrament of reconciliation (confession). Even if you are aware the possibility exists that you might struggle with say, premarital sex again in the future.  As long as you are genuinely sorry for your actions, your confession will be valid, and you WILL be awarded grace as a result. Which many Catholics DO indeed abuse the system, they feel they can sin freely then go to confession and all will be fine. Which makes Catholics look bad to nonCatholics.

Ever since the original sin committed in the Garden of Eden, God knows that man has a HUGE weakness in regards to sin. So God doesn't judge us too harshly, he understands our struggle. All he asks is for us to repent for those sins, because they are offensive to him. Every person on this earth struggles with some sort of SIN, some weakness that they will have a lifetime full of struggle with. For some it's greed, sex, pride, etc. It is not our place to judge others for the sin they struggle with, and if someone in your life is doing that to you, they themselves are committing a sin. 

The truth about sin is scary, tbh. Sins let demons infiltrate your soul. Once they get in there, they fill your mind with doubt, fear, anxiety, depression, anger, hatred, etc. God is LOVE, Jesus IS LOVE. Feelings and actions NOT done out of love, were caused by a demon infecting your thoughts and actions. Their WHOLE goal is to keep you away from God, and they are very good at what they do. That is why, for whatever sin you struggle with, YOU NEED to take it to God. He will put the demon in its place and give YOU strength to fight them. The church tends to Not put these issues in such black and white terms (they would rather focus on the positives, and not talk about evil, demons especially). Which I understand, it's not a pleasant thought or conversation, but it's also 100% true and an important part of the equation. Which the things I am telling you are absolutely in line with church teachings, but it's something I had to find out through my own spiritual journey. These are things you won't hear a lot about during Mass, or even at a Catholic school or during catechism. Having said that, it's one of the things I find absolutely beautiful about Catholism, we have it all figured out, every aspect. It really is the religion with the most TRUTHS. 

As for your specific struggles in regards to sexual related sin, let me try and hit that with a broad stroke. God wants his people to live their lives pleasing to him, and one of those aspects is realizing the importance of sex. It IS something to be taken very seriously, not something done just for fun (like our modern society is telling us). It is defined to ONLY be pleasing to God if it takes place with in a marriage (man and wife) that has the desire to produce a child. That is why premaritial sex, masturbation, sex with contraceptives (because then it's done only for pleasure, not to produce a child), and YES homosexuality are all sins. They do not meet the proper requirements for sex that is pleasing to God. Which again, ALL people struggle with certain sins, so if you are having premarital sex, that's NOT a reason to turn on the church. Its a reason to take your weakness (sin) to the Lord.

Which real quick, I'll hit on the homosexual aspect (because that's a HUGE sticky point for many). Homosexuality is a sin, but it's no better or worse than any other sin that I have already discussed. The church acknowledges that same sex attraction is a very real thing (I'm sure the priest failings are fully known around here). Its the ACTING out those attractions that is the sin, not the feelings themselves. So the problem most homosexuals have with the church is really their own justifications. They don't want to feel bad for being gay, and the church saying "it's a sin" makes them feel bad. So they turn away from the church, and God, in order to justify their behavior. But these are God's laws, not man's. The truth is one can struggle with the sin of homosexuality and STILL be Catholic. They just have to be willing to come to the realization that YES IT IS A SIN. Which this is the issue most homosexuals have in our modern society, they want approval. The church can not and WILL NOT give anyone justification for an action that is a sin. But they would also encourage them to take these sins before God, not turn their backs on him. I would compare homosexuality with alsholism (which is also a sin). An alcoholic might go to confession every week for their sin. Even though they will probably fail again, as long as they are genuinely remorseful at the time of their confession, it was a valid confession. Homosexuality is no different.

Which I say all of these things not out of judgment. I am a sinner as well, I have my struggles also. I just found a path towards the truth, and discovered many things. Once I did, I couldn't turn my back on them. Once God gives you some "enlightenment" "knowledge" "wisdom" whatever you want to call it, it is a mortal (grave) sin to turn your back on them. Its like learning how to read I suppose. Once you learn how, what kind of person would you be going around pretending you don't know how to read?

 

@Oldest Goat and @SoulMonster,

May I ask what about this post made you "sad"?

[Gibson87]

@Iron MikeyJ In response to your post from earlier...

My issues with the Catholic Church aren't purely limited to their views on sexuality. I'm not gay or bisexual, I just can't support a Church that looks at acting on homosexual urges as a sin and saying that person has demons in their soul. I'm only 20 years old, which means I still have a long way to go in regards to learning about myself and what's important to me, but I do know right now that I don't like being told how to live my life. I understand that the Church doesn't force anyone to follow the Catechism and that it's ultimately up to an individual if they want to practice the Catholic faith, but I won't be part of a religion that doesn't line up with my moral code and my values. I've taken a few values from growing up in the Church (be forgiving, help those in need, etc.) but I don't want to be told what my values are. Part of life is learning about what's truly important to you and what you're values are. You learn that through experiences. For example, one of my values is to not put stock in what others think of me. I used to put a lot of stock in what people thought of me but one day I was mentally drained and just quit caring about that and it was one of the most liberating things ever. I'm a much happier person now that I don't seek validation from strangers who probably don't give a shit about me. The point I'm trying to make is that I feel the Church teaches that the Catholic lifestyle is the only way of life and that it's wrong to believe differently from what they teach. 

PS- In no way do I have an issue with you or anyone else being Catholic, it's just not for me. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Gibson_Guy87

[Dazey]

7 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@Oldest Goat and @SoulMonster,

May I ask what about this post made you "sad"?

It didn’t make me sad. Just disappointed. 

[SoulMonster]

 

7 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@Oldest Goat and @SoulMonster,

May I ask what about this post made you "sad"?

Your return to catholicism.

[DieselDaisy]

Why somebody would be ''sad'', ''disappointed'', ''angry'' about someone on a forum who believes in something they don't is quite frankly beyond me!

(Unless it is someone who is an U2 fan.)

[Dazey]

34 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

The reasons I'm very sad, disappointed and angry:
1. You returned to the church.
2. Your church/the Vatican systematically protects their members who rape and abuse children. They have no right to go around judging gay people or people who have premarital sex as sinners committing sin. Frankly, they can shut their fucking mouths and if hell is real they will no doubt be going there.
3. You sound like you're literally brainwashed or you're trying desperately to convince yourself of what you're saying/what you've been told.
4. Confessionals are a foolish token gesture.
5. You're trying to guilt-trip my friend telling him he should feel sorry for having premarital sex and leaving the church/cult.
6. You think demons literally "infiltrate our souls" and are the reason for peoples negative feelings, thoughts and actions instead of striving for a balanced mind and valuing personal responsibility.
7. You teach all of this to your children which is extremely abusive and damaging to them.
8. You think Catholicism has it all figured out with the most truths.
9. You think premarital sex, masturbation, sex with contraceptives and homosexuality are all sinful/bad. No they're not.
10. You think there is "God's law" dictating to all of us when in reality that is not true. There is only man's law and your priests should answer to it.
11. You describe what your priests do i.e. raping and abusing kids, as merely "failings".
12. Your general disrespect and the fact you're spreading hatred.
13. This is just an armchair analysis but I think you're probably homosexual and in denial. So if that's the case that breaks my heart and I feel great compassion and sorrow for you.
14. You describe reason/critical thinking as evil.

OUCH!!!!

 

[DieselDaisy]

In answer to Soul’s query why I believe National Socialism was fundamentally atheist, I really can do no better than to recite the following historian whose ideas reflect my own. I believe he answers some of the contradictions raised by Soul , e.g. Nazism appropriating Christianity and the (perceived) repudiation of atheism, etc., 

Quote

Nazism represented a sustained assault on fundamental Christian values, regardless of any tactical obeisance to the purchase it had on most Germans. Compassion, humility or love of one’s neighbour were dismissed as humanitarian weakness by an organisation which regarded hardness, sacrifice and self-overcoming as positive virtues. The fact that this list included some secondary Christian virtues is no contradiction but merely indicative of how the SS usurped Christian forms and values, stripping them down for anti-Christian ends. For having discredited the ‘immoral’ or ‘politicised’ clergy, a more diffuse religiosity still had its uses. Himmler’s prohibition of atheism as a declared option for SS men left them with the alternative of Catholic, Protestant or ‘believer in God (Gottglaubig). This was deliberate. Atheism signified an egotistic belief that man was the measure of all things, and hence a refusal to acknowledge higher powers. In a word it constituted a potential source of indiscipline. A twofold process was at work here. Generalised recognition of transcendental forces counteracted the arrogant individualism stemming from membership of a racial elite. By contrast, consciousness of being a member of a racial elite was psychologically useful in making inadequate or insecure individuals act as a ‘master race’. The mission here and now, for utopian ends on earth, became a substitute for the futility of earthly existence and the majesty of god.

- Burleigh, M (2000) The Third Reich: A New History, pp.196-7, Macmillan 

The highlighting is my own.

[DieselDaisy]

17 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I literally posted a list of reasons, try reading them then maybe you'll understand.

I merely see a Kiwi of an illiberal disposition lecturing people on what they should and should not think. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

Then I feel sorry for you.

Because I'm liberal enough to accept pluralism of beliefs? 

 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Because I'm liberal enough to accept pluralism of beliefs? 

Yet you choose to not criticise the most illiberal of beliefs lest you be thought of as illiberal.  

29 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Just to clarify, I was actually being genuine when I said that, wasn't saying that to try and insult him.

I just think you were reaching a bit with #13. The rest of your points were pretty much spot on.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Yet you choose to not criticise the most illiberal of beliefs lest you be thought of as illiberal.  

How do you know what I've chosen and not chosen to criticise?