The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

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

Oldest Goat gave a list of perfectly valid criticisms. You called him out on it. I'm guessing that means you disagree with him.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Oldest Goat gave a list of perfectly valid criticisms. You called him out on it. I'm guessing that means you disagree with him.

Well considering he called Iron Mike a - as we say in Britain - ''poof'' for basically being Catholic, I’d say I disagree with much of what Goaty has to say and I am rather glad that I do as his views are the sort of views we could do without in society to be quite frank.

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well considering he called Iron Mike a - as we say in Britain - ''poof'' for basically being Catholic, I’d say I disagree with much of what Goaty has to say and I am rather glad that I do as his views are the sort of views we could do without in society to be quite frank.

You'll see that I specifically noted that #13 was a silly thing to say.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Dazey

[soon]

All this and meanwhile my critique of Catholicism was clearly better anyways 

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

What have I said that you disagree with and what views of mine do you think we could do without in society?

You expect me to resume a conversation following,

11 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Because you're behaving like an immature pompous pseudo-intellectual-coward who fauns over history only when it suits him and because I made very valid points that you can't/won't accept because they don't fit into your little bubble. Which, after your wild claim, makes you a hypocrite.

Also, rather awkward and pathetic of you to call me a Kiwi derogatorily. I bet you wank over the class system lol.

I think you need to calm down with this whole ''bee in your bonnet'' you have about religion personally. 

PS

My uncle was a kiwi and the black caps are my second favourite test team. You'd have to be Australian for me to produce something derogative. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

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., 

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

The highlighting is my own.

There is NOTHING in that quote that is in contradiction with my description of Nazism, nor ANYTHING that supports a belief that the Nazi Party was an atheistic organization. Burleigh describes a secular organization that used religion only when it could be warped to their own use. The fact that the Nazists considered atheists to be more unruly and thus not fit for the SS, also supports the notion that it definitely wasn't an atheistic organization. It was secular, it didn't care for religion except when religion could be used to further the overall Nazi ideology, which was racial purity, lebensraum, etc. It accepted people from any denomination, including atheists, as long as they shared the Nazi ideology.

So again, why do you think the Nazi atrocities were caused by the Nazis being atheists -- which they (for most part) weren't -- and not them being überracists and Jew hating fascists -- which they definitely were?

 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

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

We are compassionate people who want the best for our brothers and sisters? Believing in supernatural creatures is a ridiculous folly in itself, but when this irrational belief comes with something as backwards and inhuman as catholicism, then I think it is only natural to react.

[soon]

One branch of my family had an Irish Catholic matriarch who on her death bed, took time to assure me that the monarchy would fall in my lifetime.  She was the best.

We'd spend many Christmas Eves at her place. Catholics hold midnight mass on Christmas eve/day.  She would have to leave her own party just after supper because she volunteered to answer the phone at her Church for the hundreds of calls from 'Holiday-only' and lapsed Catholics asking: "what time is midnight mass?"

They'd volunteer in shift as literally 100's of calls poured in every year in the hours before the Mass!  She thought it was a real hoot. 

 

[soon]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I hope she was right.

I hope so too, or at least that we get it outta our Countries.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

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

What is "illiberal" about criticizing Mike's beliefs? @Oldest Goat is not a dictating Mike, forcing him to abandon his beliefs. It is not an order. It is a criticism, a harsh one, yes, and highly personal, but criticisms are not only allowed in modern societies, they are crucial for progress. We have moved away from the time when religions were sacrosanct and holy institutions beyond critique. This is not the Dark Ages. Religions are simply organizations like anyone else, and just because they happen to have belief in supernatural creatures in the sky at their core doesn't provide them any automatic protection from critique, rather the opposite. So I will continue to criticize political parties who I dislike, football teams that are rubbish, ideologies that are flawed, and people's completely irrational beliefs in nonsense, especially when institutionalized, and I hope Oldest Goat will, too. Just like I accept and tolerate criticism of what I hold dear and believe in.

[soon]

The very core of Christianity is the belief in the presence of God.  Whether in the branch of thoughts of an omnipresent Creator God, the indwelling of the Spirit, or the relationship with Christ.  

[DieselDaisy]

46 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

There is NOTHING in that quote that is in contradiction with my description of Nazism, nor ANYTHING that supports a belief that the Nazi Party was an atheistic organization. Burleigh describes a secular organization that used religion only when it could be warped to their own use. The fact that the Nazists considered atheists to be more unruly and thus not fit for the SS, also supports the notion that it definitely wasn't an atheistic organization. It was secular, it didn't care for religion except when religion could be used to further the overall Nazi ideology, which was racial purity, lebensraum, etc. It accepted people from any denomination, including atheists, as long as they shared the Nazi ideology.

So again, why do you think the Nazi atrocities were caused by the Nazis being atheists -- which they (for most part) weren't -- and not them being überracists and Jew hating fascists -- which they definitely were?

 

You must have missed the concluding sentence,

Quote

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 

Again, my highlighting/italics.

[soon]

Theres a few Catholic mystics that have blessed my life.  Like Thomas Merton or Teresa of Avila.  Her work The Inner Castle in particular.  His work, as a Trappist Monk: mainly the beer!

Edited February 6, 2018 by soon

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You must have missed the concluding sentence,

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

Again, my highlighting/italics.

I interpreted it as them trying to make Nazi ideology more important than theism. That they wanted to replace theism as the most important thing for people, pushing Nazi ideology to the front. That doesn't mean they tried to eradicate theism, just make something else more important.

It is an awkward sentence, btw, Nazi ideology is supposed to both substitute 'futility of earthly existence' AND 'the majesty of god'? Isn't the point of theism to provide a meaning to earthly existence through the majesty of god?

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I interpreted it as them trying to make Nazi ideology more important than theism. That they wanted to replace theism as the most important thing for people, pushing Nazi ideology to the front. That doesn't mean they tried to eradicate theism, just make something else more important.

It is an awkward sentence, btw, Nazi ideology is supposed to both substitute 'futility of earthly existence' AND 'the majesty of god'? Isn't the point of theism to provide a meaning to earthly existence through the majesty of god?

It is a fairly clear statement, the (Nazi) aspiration being that National Socialist racial theory would replace Christianity. I do not see any ambiguity. 

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That doesn't mean they tried to eradicate theism, just make something else more important.

You must have reading comprehension issues,

Quote

 

Compassion, humility or love of one’s neighbour were dismissed as humanitarian weakness

...

the SS usurped Christian forms and values, stripping them down for anti-Christian ends

...

discredited the ‘immoral’ or ‘politicised’ clergy, a more diffuse religiosity still had its uses. 

 

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

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is a fairly clear statement, the (Nazi) aspiration being that National Socialist racial theory would replace Christianity. I do not see any ambiguity. 

Regardless, even if the Nazists wanted to replace Christianity with Nazi ideology (which they didn't, they wanted to tweak christianity to merge it with Nazi ideology), that doesn't make the Nazi party an atheistic organization. You, and Burleigh, are simply describing an organization that used religion to further its more central ideology. You still haven't been able to argue why you think it was atheistic (unless you just think that everything that is against christianity is atheistic )

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You must have reading comprehension issues,

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

You do understand the difference between 'theism' and 'christianity', right? Because being against aspects of christianity does not mean they didn't have a belief in gods, nor that their organization was based on this absence of theistic belief. It's like saying protestants are atheists because they were against aspects of the catholic theology. 

[soon]

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Regardless, even if the Nazists wanted to replace Christianity with Nazi ideology (which they didn't, they wanted to tweak christianity to merge it with Nazi ideology), that doesn't make the Nazi party an atheistic organization. You, and Burleigh, are simply describing an organization that used religion to further its more central ideology. You still haven't been able to argue why you think it was atheistic (unless you just think that everything that is against christianity is atheistic )

I have argued many times why I believe National Socialism was atheistic. It is just that everytime I cite it, whether by myself or through quotation, you choose to disregard it because it contradicts the argument you are (unsuccessfully) trying to sustain, whether it be because you are trying to save face or uphold the morality of your own beliefs (atheism).

I'll try again then, with a quote from a political opponent of Hitler executed in the wake of the July '44 bombplot (you can no doubt research Kleist-Schmenzin on Wikipedia?),

Quote

It is the attitude to religion which separates and must always separate Conservative thinking from National Socialism. The basis of Conservative politics is that obedience to God and faith in him must also determine the whole of public life. Hitler and National Socialism adopt a fundamentally different position...it is a fact that Hitler...only acknowledges race and its demands as the highest law governing state activity. That is a materialism irreconcilable with faith and Christianity. 

- Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin in Burleigh, M (2000) pp.674-5.

A materialistic belief based strictly around race/race-conflict is antithetical to a higher ''Christian' law. 

[DieselDaisy]

32 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You do understand the difference between 'theism' and 'christianity', right? Because being against aspects of christianity does not mean they didn't have a belief in gods, nor that their organization was based on this absence of theistic belief. It's like saying protestants are atheists because they were against aspects of the catholic theology. 

A bit academic really considering the country the NSDAP inherited overwhelmingly believed in two Christian denominations, Christianity being theistic!

The distinction would be worth making if atheism or polytheism was prevalent in 1930s Germany. 

PS

Or should I say, we would find ourselves demarcating monotheism if polytheism was prevalent. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[soon]

This was a cool listen.  Exploring Bob Dylan's "gospel years" on Rolling Stone Music Now podcast

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/panoply/rolling-stone-music-now/e/52133693

And a related article:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bob-dylan-plotting-gospel-years-bootleg-series-w444677

 

 

[Iron MikeyJ]

So upon reading the HATRED that was levied my way (yes, I'm sorry but @Oldest Goat levied hatred). All I can say is I forgive him. 

I understand MANY people do not understand Catholisim, and as a result try and attack it (some attacks I can understand, such as those levied by @soon, or if someone wants to focus on the priests failing. ALL good Catholics feel just as betrayed in regards to that one). But we spread a message of LOVE, not hate. That's what the Athiestic community, and our present day society as a whole doesn't understand. We don't hate gay people, we love them and want to help them. We didn't make the rules, God DID. It started in the Garden of Eden. Was it Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve? No, it was ADAM and EVE. So it's not like there isn't clear cut biblical evidence, because it's RIGHT there, Genesis chapter 1.

Beyond that, we HATE the sin, but LOVE the sinner. As I said earlier, we ARE ALL SINNERS. I'm not casting judgement towards someone else's sin, but I also can't  say "sure go a head and sin." 

There is the feeling of hurt that exists within the homosexual community, which we as Catholics are working really hard to try and help. Many homosexuals grew up feeling less than or broken, and carry around a HUGE sense of guilt (not all, but many). So as such, when they feel like they are getting attacked, they lash out, understandably so. But my question would be, WHO attacked them? I didn't, I never said "I hate gay people". I only stated that it is a sin,  but I also stated that I AM ALSO A SINNER. I'm not judging anyone there, only stating the truth. 

Which here is a broader truth that I have discovered, our liberal shifting society likes to pretend that they are "all inclusive" but that's a lie. They are only inclusive to those that agree with THEIR ideals. If you don't, YOU in turn get HATE levied at you. Which that's what I find ironic, I thought you were an understanding group? But no, the understanding has conditions, conditions that are based upon political ideals. Which ok, that's fine, but it's about time to call a spade a spade. The truth is, the liberal mentality ONLY supports those that share their beliefs. Those that don't are shown hate. So basically, liberalism DOES have a message of hate that it spreads, while trying to do the "right thing." Which I also find it ironic that (this issue of homosexuality or transgenderism) DEMAND to be accepted for their lifestyle, but they (and their supporters) don't accept the lifestyle of those that disagree with them. Doesn't anyone else see the irony in that? "You MUST accept MY life choices, but I don't accept yours because you are hateful." Which find me a SINGLE Catholic related piece of media hating or despising homosexuality, I challenge you. You will find some admitting it's a sin, but acknowledging something is a sin is NOT hate. 

Which on a side note, I know I having been coming down on liberalism in this and other threads lately, so please don't think I'm conservative either, because I am not. I am an independent, who USED to be liberal. My eyes have been opened to the HATE that is being spread in modern liberalism towards those that don't agree with them. That's how they lost me, the party of "acceptance" only accepts those that share their ideology. That's not free thinking. Don't get me started on conservatives though... they are NOT any better.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Iron MikeyJ]

Furthermore, let Me add that I personally don't have a SINGLE problem with homosexuality. People have the RIGHT to live however they want to live. That's fine, I accept that. I'm not trying to cure the world of homosexuality. I was merely stating it IS a sin, as is alcoholism, infidelity,  and many more. It doesn't make it lesser or greater, it just is what it is. Its just a polarizing issues that DEMANDS acceptance, yet doesn't accept those that don't "agree" with it.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Dazey]

23 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Furthermore, let Me add that I personally don't have a SINGLE problem with homosexuality. People have the RIGHT to live however they want to live. That's fine, I accept that. I'm not trying to cure the world of homosexuality. I was merely stating it IS a sin, as is alcoholism, infidelity,  and many more. It doesn't make it lesser or greater, it just is what it is. Its just a polarizing issues that DEMANDS acceptance, yet doesn't accept those that don't "agree" with it.

It’s only a sin if you believe in the bibble.