[Closed] Catholic Church and other religions!

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

Oh very clever and witty comic. Care to explain what it's about?

It's not though, is it?

It was at the schools I went to - none of which were 'religious' schools. Daily hymns and reciting of the Lord's Prayer in assembly, visits to church for religious festivals etc.

I agree DD, and don't know what the few people on STW are on about when they suggest that religion is 'thrust down their throats' constantly in this country.

Yes, England and Scotland both have 'national churches' with a nominal voice national affairs, and we might well wish to debate whether or not they still should (bearing in mind the fact that many of their own members don't think so, and haven't since at least 1833). And yes, there are religious schools, whose merits we might argue, but no one needs to send their kids to them.

But where is this religion that is being forced on people? The fact that Christianity is part of the historical landscape here means that of course we are going to be conscious of it, but does history need to be revised so that there are no reminders of it?

I don't get it.

And yes, there are religious schools, whose merits we might argue, but no one needs to send their kids to them.

See my post above.

There's also no justification for schools that discriminate on the grounds of religion being funded by the state. If you want to indoctrinate children and segregate them from other religions or the non-religious, I suppose that's up to you - but there's no way the state should be funding it.

Firstly, I don't beleive I've ever been rude directly to anyone one on this thread, and indirectly no more so than me being consigned to eternal damnation, so a neutral transaction IMHO.

You do of course know that the Catholic church has never condemened anyone to hell, and that it can't.

Of course that applies to joolsburgers very clever but terribly misinformed cartoon.

Then grum, I agree it should be removed from the schools.

Or at the most, taught in the context of a North American-style 'social studies' class, in which you learn about religion as just one aspect of the whole human picture, which includes culture, food, etc., etc.

But thrust down your throat? Really?

But thrust down your throat? Really?

Yes. Although.......

Back to the 'baby with the bath water thing' - I think a religious upbringing can help with teaching people about morality, community spirit, altruism, rejecting materialism, trying to be a better person etc etc.

I suppose I just feel like in the modern world we should be able to do these things because they are the right thing to do, not because if we don't then the magic man in the sky who's watching us all will get angry.

And without the officially sanctioned bigotry too.

As religion is unfortunately thrust down everyones necks in this country

Is this happening ? Really.

I saw a couple of churches today while I was driving, but other than that I don't get any sort of religion "thrusted" on me.
And I don't think I ever have either.

And considering I went to a Catholic Grammar School and Studied Theology, you would think I would have been a prime candidate.

But as I decided I did not want to be Catholic, I was left to do what I wanted to do.

Where are all these people Forcing Religion on you, because they have been ignoring me for decades ?

Secondly, I've made my point very clear several times, if you are a member of an organsiation and don't at least speak up agaisnt its clear and frequent excesses you then condone it, so to that extent, Yes you are tarred with the same brush.

Hmm. Still not convinced. Firstly, you are assuming that people are not speaking out. I think many are, but I do not listen in on services around the country. Secondly, many could consider the church as much greater than the current administration. So if you believe in the tenets of Catholicism but don't like the leaders, you haven't got a lot of choice I don't think. You may love your own priest and parish, so leaving the church could be a serious problem.

but you can hardly complain when by doing so the very obvious flaws in what you beleive are pointed out to you

For what feels like the five hundredth time, THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT! I am complaining about the nastiness associated with the arguments presented on here.

As religion is unfortunately thrust down everyone's necks in this country

Simply not true. No-one has ever mentioned it to me, not even the close friends who are religious, and not even when discussing their religious matters around me. Once, I was sat on a bench in town presumably looking dejected, and someone invited me to their church. I refused, but it was rather decent of him to give me an option should I need it.

Do kids still do the Lord's Prayer and sing hymns in school? For me that stopped when I was 10, over 25 years ago.

I wholeheartedly agree grum, in spite of being from the 'still believing in God' section of society (though not entirely with you on the whole forcing religion down your throat thing).

I wholeheartedly agree grum, in spite of being from the 'still believing in God' section of society.

Yay.... let's have a cuddle. 🙂

Secondly, many could consider the church as much greater than the current administration.

Isn't the pope meant to be God's representative on earth though?

You do of course know that the Catholic church has never condemened anyone to hell, and that it can't.

Of course that applies to joolsburgers very clever but terribly misinformed cartoon.

Seeing as you seem to be very well informed then, how do you explain this?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

I'm really interested in this forced down your throat and religious views imposed on you bit. Can those who have been victims of this please tell us what form this took?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).

That is the statement of the cathecism, it is different from the church condeming anyone, saying "you are going to hell"
I hope that resolves the issues.

In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often "preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell" (p. 183).

Yes, that really is a terrible shame isn't it. 😐

Another lovely quote from catholic.com:

"An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life" (To Demetrian 24 [A.D. 252]).

That is the statement of the cathecism, it is different from the church condeming anyone, saying "you are going to hell"
I hope that resolves the issues.

Not really no. Just seems like weasily semantics on your part TBH.

I'm not sure what your point is, grum. The Catholic church teaches of hell. It's not a very nice place.

Where are all these people Forcing Religion on you, because they have been ignoring me for decades ?

😯

I am forced to accept that whereas the law requires that animals have to be stunned before having their throats cut, UNLESS the religion card is played, whereby cruelty is OK (halal). Edit: By law, in many jobs, I would HAVE to accept this.

I am forced to accept that people can mutilate boys (but not girls) genitals in the name of their religion. The poor unfortunate boys are also forced to accept it, as will their future partners.

My point is that IMO it's deeply weird and unpleasant to be indoctrinating children with this kind of creepy archaic fear-mongering.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone but I find the idea of scaring children into behaving how you want them to with the threat of eternal torture pretty offensive.

Not really no. Just seems like weasily semantics on your part TBH.

That's nice.

It's not semantics. There is the difference between the churches description is of what it believes will happen to a soul. It does not compel that to happen.

Like i can say if you step off a ledge you will fall, it is not the same as me pushing you. It is a descriptionof what I believe the likely outcome will be.

The church has never sent anyone to hell or condemned them in that way.

Is that clearer and less weasley?

The church has never sent anyone to hell or condemned them in that way.

Depends what you man by the 'the church', but I'd say the church has certainly killed them, and/or condemned them to a life with mutilated genitals.

I am forced to accept that whereas the law requires that animals have to be stunned before having their throats cut, UNLESS the religion card is played, whereby cruelty is OK (halal).

I am forced to accept that people can mutilate boys (but not girls) genitals in the name of their religion. The poor unfortunate boys are also forced to accept it, as will their future partners.

Not really forced you directly though is it? And it is a practice rather some making you obey some religion

The church has never sent anyone to hell or condemned them in that way.

Isn't the following passage saying, 'if you're religious (though presumably strictly Catholic only) and do what the church says you'll be fine, and if not you will be damned to eternal hell'? Hard to interpret it any other way really:

"If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment" (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

Whether the church directly condemns anyone to hell isn't really relevant if they are saying 'you will go to hell unless you do exactly as we say.' That's what I mean by semantics. And yes, thank you that was a bit less weasily. 🙂

Depends what you man by the 'the church', but I'd say the church has certainly killed them, and/or condemned them to a life with mutilated genitals

I meant he Catholic church, as a body. Yup, the church has killed people I'm not sure that it has compelled the, to mutliated gentials and actually circumsed penii are quite attractive to some folks. So, not everyone sees it as mutilation..

Not really forced you directly though is it?

Well, if you want to use that argument, we can safety say 'the church' hasn't ever forced anyone to do anything.

And of course we could argue ad infinitum about the exact meaning of 'forced'. Perhaps they only coerced?

Of course realistically, that's borrox.

Whether the church directly condemns anyone to hell isn't really relevant if they are saying that you will go to hell unless you do exactly as we say.

Oh but it is completely different! And the church doesn't say that you go to hell if you do ot obey them. The church never says "you will go to hell"

circumsed penii are quite attractive to some folks. So, not everyone sees it as mutilation..

Ditto missing limbs.

Regardless of peoples perverse opinions, it's 'mutilation' by dictionary definition.

The church never says "you will go to hell"

😯 You haven't studied religions for long then?

Well, if you want to use that argument, we can safety say 'the church' hasn't ever forced anyone to do anything.

Dunno about that, it was pretty forcy during the Inquisition, but the church never come along to you and made you do something or even just gone on at you for anything. And the existence of halal or kosher slaughter is not really a catholic thing and even in terms of broader relgionits actually your government which is forcing you to live in a country which allows these things.

Oh but it is completely different!

How? 😕

And the church doesn't say that you go to hell if you do ot obey them. The church never says "you will go to hell"

So how do you interpret this as being any different to what you just said? 😕

"If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, [b]if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment[/b]" (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

The church never says "you will go to hell"
You haven't studied religions for long then?

The Catholic church, I mean. Unless of course you know otherwise.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’

So who is it that's in a state of mortal sin when they die? Pretty sure that would be non-believers, homosexuals, people who've had abortions (even if they were raped). Correct me if I'm wrong.

Whilst not thrust down our collective throats, we are subjected to quite a lot of religious output. It starts with Thought for the Day on the radio, many schools have collective worship at the start of the day, there are religious observances, days, celebrations, tv programmes, etc so it is far from passive?

If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment

This is much the same as the previous, not sure how else i can make the difference any clearer. i'll try again. This is a description of how they see things happening. Much like "if you sit down, you will be safe, however if you jump from that ledge you will fall to your death".

I'm not sending anyone to their death merely descring what i think will happen in terms of how i understand the world around me. Even in the circumstances above, the church has never told an individual that they will go to hell. They don't know.

Whilst not thrust down our collective throats

Oh good, i'm glad we agree.

So who is it that's in a state of mortal sin when they die? Pretty sure that would be non-believers, homosexuals, people who've had abortions (even if they were raped). Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm surprised that you can be sure about these groups, the catholic church certainly isn't.

Regardless of peoples perverse opinions, it's 'mutilation' by dictionary definition.

Perhaps, but sticking to a straight semantic definition makes it pointless (npi) you surely meant that mutilation is a bad thing. I daresay if you ask maneople who have been circumicised if they feel that they have been mutilated, most will tell you that they do not.

This talk of hell, and whether or not the Church can send anyone there is far off the mark.

The very notion of hell is that it is a self-imposed state of blindness to the Good. The Church does not presume to say who 'goes there'. Only that it is a spiritual reality.

So essentially CharlieMungus is right.

I am forced to accept that whereas the law requires that animals have to be stunned before having their throats cut, UNLESS the religion card is played.....

My apologies. When it was said that .....

...religion is unfortunately thrust down everyone's necks in this country

I presumed it meant that, erm.... "religion is thrust down everyone's necks"

Rather than the fact there are some religious practices that some people disagree with.

So essentially CharlieMungus is right.

Excellent! That must mean that someone else is wrong! Let's find them!!!

Home now 🙂

I agree DD, and don't know what the few people on STW are on about when they suggest that religion is 'thrust down their throats' constantly in this country.

I'll type slowly so you can understand.....

Point 1: Religion is a compulsory subject in UK Schools.
Point 2: The head of state carries the title defender of the faith
Point 3: The national anthem goes "god save etc etc"
Point 4: The clergy have automatic right to membership of the upper house of government

Seems pretty pervasive to me already, how much longer do you want me to go on for?

The Church does not presume to say who 'goes there'.

Yes it does!

if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment

Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell

😕

What is that if not saying who will go to hell?

I'm not sending anyone to their death merely descring what i think will happen in terms of how i understand the world around me. Even in the circumstances above, the church has never told an individual that they will go to hell. They don't know.

It's not directly sending them to hell, no, but it's still telling them they will go to hell unless they follow the church's teachings. Claiming this is completely different is ridiculous IMO.

Claiming this is completely different is ridiculous IMO.

Perhaps so, but it has become clear that there is not much i can do about your opinion.

Seems pretty pervasive to me already, how much longer do you want me to go on for?

Just until you tell a convincing story that this has actually affected your life in a significant way

Berm Bandit - Member

I'll type slowly so you can understand.....

Point 1: Religion is a compulsory subject in UK Schools.
Point 2: The head of state carries the title defender of the faith
Point 3: The national anthem goes "god save etc etc"
Point 4: The clergy have automatic right to membership of the upper house of government

Seems pretty pervasive to me already, how much longer do you want me to go on for?

Point 1: Religious [i]Education[/i] is a compulsory subject. That means that, at least in theory, you study religions in the same way that you study other aspects of human culture and history. If you didn't go to a Church school and someone forced [i]doctrine[/i] on you, then you might have cause to complain. Heck, even if you went to a Church school...

Point 2: That's an historic title that she hardly seems to wield much. I hardly think that that constitutes cramming religion down people's throats.

Point 3: So the country has a Christian history. Go biking and ignore it if you want. Again, I would hardly think that if I was living in Turkey I would be especially bothered by Islam just because the flag showed a crescent on it. I'm typing slowly. It's...history... Get...over...it.

Point 4: See point 2. And point 3. Though if it really bothers you, go work for the diestablishment of the Church of England. Many of its members would thank you.

grum - Member

It's not directly sending them to hell, no, but it's still telling them they will go to hell unless they follow the church's teachings. Claiming this is completely different is ridiculous IMO.

What the Church is saying is that by not living in pursuit of what is good and true, one will find oneself separated from what is transcendantly Good and True. That would be God. This is not a vengeful thing as you describe, but consequential thing.

And of course, people are free to accept it or not, but there is no condemnation in it.

While I'm at it, can I say that, while I haven't read every page of this thread, the last few pages have been fairly congenial? Pats on the back for everyone.

How would you make an informed choice about religion if you don't learn anything about the world's religions either at school or from your family?
I am religious (Orthodox Christian) but I certainly haven't forced it on my partner or children. I have taken them to church with me a few times, answered their questions about my beliefs, and accepted that they do not want to be church-goers. I feel that they have made an informed choice and I'm happy with that.

Well, I've just finished my tea, and I am full of the lamb (of tesco, not God), and I felt smashing, until I read all this talk of mutilated todgers. Can we stop it please, it's bringing one of my bilious turns on.

Point 1: Religious Education is a compulsory subject. That means that, at least in theory, you study religions in the same way that you study other aspects of human culture and history.

If you didn't go to a Church school and someone forced doctrine on you, then you might have cause to complain.

Heck, even if you went to a Church school...

Point 2: That's an historic title that she hardly seems to wield much. I hardly think that that constitutes cramming religion down people's throats.

Point 3: So the country has a Christian history. Go biking and ignore it if you want. Again, I would hardly think that if I was living in Turkey I would be especially bothered by Islam just because the flag showed a crescent on it. I'm typing slowly. It's...history... Get...over...it.

Point 4: See point 2. And point 3. Though if it really bothers you, go work for the diestablishment of the Church of England. Many of its members would thank you.

Except they[ human culture odr history] are not compulsory so you dont need to study them at all never mind in the same way. Who thinks that maths english and RE are the three skills a child must have to equip them for life?

You can say what you want but the head of our state is the head of our religion and the point was about pervassive

The point was baout having it imposed on you or shoved down your throat, the queen's position at the head of Church has little effect on you

Saying we can campaign to remove them from this[ house of lords] hardly negates the point that they have an automatic right to be in the legislative system and therefore undue influence and a pervasive influence.

When did this undue influence last sway legislation?

again can you negate this as an example of it being pervassive?

Yeah, i just don't sing it, barely hear the words when it is sung and don't let it govern or influence the way I live my life. In fact barely notice it.

You'd prefer one of the other songs people choose to sing on national occasions of unity?, say Jerusalem or Sweet Chariot?

Beyond patronising folk i am not sure what your point is

I think he was just reponding in kind

It's not semantics. There is the difference between the churches description is of what it believes will happen to a soul. It does not compel that to happen.

When did this undue influence last sway legislation?

Regarding the pervasive influence, I'm very pleased for you that you don't find the 4 quick things I listed to be influential, let alone forcing religion down my throat. That may be because you appear to be comfortable with the concept. Personally I find it highly offensive, buts that because I don't believe in fairies. It does however beg the question as to why it is necessary at all if its so meaningless and innocent.

How would you make an informed choice about religion if you [s]don't learn anything about the world's religions[/S] are brainwashed either at school or from your family?

Personally I find being told that I am condemned to hell because I'm not in their club and don't follow their rules is extremely insulting, mainly to my intelligence, but insulting non the less.

I was raised being educated as to the countless ways I might end up in hell. I kinda got over it once I realised it was all bollocks. In the "king for a day" scenario, I'd also have all religious influence taken out of schools in a heartbeat, starting with Northern Ireland. But seriously, being told you're going to hell upsets you that much?!? I could understand it if you believed the concept.

Personally I find being told that I am condemned to hell because I'm not in their club and don't follow their rules is extremely insulting

Why ?

You don't believe in Hell, and you don't believe that the "rules" that will supposedly send you there exist.

So how can you possibly find it insulting ?

Or is it just that you are so Anti-Religion that you are just looking for stuff to moan about.

So how can you possibly find it insulting ?

I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people, and that I am a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell. I don't see the relevance of whether I believe in hell or not.

It's not semantics. There is the difference between the churches description is of what it believes will happen to a soul. It does not compel that to happen.

I still don't see how there's any significant difference. Seems very tenuous to me.

And this doesn't really make sense either if that's the case.

In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often "preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell" (p. 183).

Personally I find being told that I am condemned to hell because I'm not in their club and don't follow their rules is extremely insulting, mainly to my intelligence, but insulting non the less.

Saxonrider explained this better than i could, on the previous page i think.

In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often "preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell" (p. 183).

Well, it seems to me he's saying that preachers etc.. . should let people know that hell is a threat. This is different from threatening them with hell. It's pretty much the same point which has been made a few times which you seem unable to see. I really don't know how else to phrase it. It seems clear,if not from my analogy of falling,then from SaxonRiders clarification.

Highly tenuous (polite way of putting it) semantics again.

I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people, and that I am a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell. I don't see the relevance I whether I believe in hell or not.

There are lots of other examples of folk out there using something or other to say that they're morally superior to you. Hell (oops), it happens on STW every day. Now if somebody is telling you that you're wicked, then yeah, knock yourself out and tell him that he's not very nice.

Highly tenuous (polite way of putting it) semantics again.

Well yes, semantics,there is a semantic difference between the two positions

I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people

Does this happen much?

I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people, and that I am a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell. I don't see the relevance of whether I believe in hell or not.

I feel superior to you because I have a glass case full of Air Guitars and a flying unicorn.
You will end up in Mordor when you die because you don't have enough Air Guitars
While I will will be living the high life at Hogwarts

Offended ??

grum - Member

I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people, and that I am a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell.

How do you know what they think ..... do you spend your time talking to them ?

Or do you have a clever gadget which reads people's mind ?

RE is not compulsory, attendance is not anyway. Same with the act of worship.
Provision is compulsory, attendance is not.

So we agree that they legally have to provide it for you in education - is this not pervassive enough for you then?

But you can opt out of it, so it's only pervasive if you want it to be. I'm guessing you'd be one of those who would prefer that it wasn't and so opted out.

Whilst I in no way think this is going to happen essentially they are saying to me that the way I live my life is so morally wrong that I will be punished for it when I die and in a quite unpleasant way.

So, has anyone actually said this to you?

But you can opt out of it,

Can't opt out of having your todger mutilated though can you?

Can't opt out of serving meat that been slaughtered inhumanely (according to UK law) though can you?

Can't opt out of having to wear a motorcycle helmet even though someone else gets away with a turban can you? (well, you can, but you may be imprisoned)

I am not worried but it is pretty insulting

Very occasionally those very nice West Indian ladies from Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my front door to inform me that if I don't repent I'll never get to heaven.

I always politely thank them for their kind concern, as I am [i]genuinely[/i] touched that they should care so much about saving my soul.

I certainly don't feel "insulted", ffs.

I find the Catholic sycophantic fervour surrounding the Pope rather ridiculous.

There was a clergyman gushing about the outgoing pontif, how he had been a good shepherd of his flock. Frankly, if I was a Roman Catholic living in a modem world, the inference that I am a dumb as a lost sheep would be rather offensive.

That's the trouble with religious figureheads, they are delusional about their place in the world.

Religion should be irrelevant in a modern well informed world, but we are stuck with the attitudes of these religious flocks of sheep out there. Lots of fear, lots of guilt - a pointless preoccupation!

Barmy!

Can't opt out of having your todger mutilated though can you?

Erm...yes?

Can't opt out of serving meat that been slaughtered inhumanely (according to UK law) though can you?

What?

Can't opt out of having to wear a motorcycle helmet even though someone else gets away with a turban can you? (well, you can, but you may be imprisoned)

Is this something you want to do?

So, has anyone actually said this to you?

Yep they certainly have. As has already been pointed out it is a fundamental aspect of a number of religions, and I certainly was led to believe it was factual as a child. Pretty sure that still goes on today, albeit I can't claim current experience for obvious reasons

So, who said it?

Junkyard, there may well be some religious people who think the way you have just described. But religion is not primarily concerned about the way people behave morally, and this is one of the things I find most frustrating about any of these threads.

Religion is often construed on here (probably largely due to the way it is communicated by adherents) as some sort of moral barometer and/or instructional club. Yet for all that, morals are no more a part of the interest of religion than they were for Plato, Aristotle, or Marcus Aurelius.

In other words, the moral life as conceived within a religious context, is part of that context - and it may even play a big part in manifesting the other dimensions of the context - but it is not the [i]substance[/i] of the context.

Morals are incidental to the system of belief, and although I'm sure there are as many religious folk who get things backward, this is no different to the disciples of the great Greek thinkers who also misappropriated or misunderstood their philosophical systems. And as in any field of human thought, I think it is fair to dismiss any sycophant that shoots their mouth off and condemns others for not 'understanding' things the way they do.

Can't opt out of having to wear a motorcycle helmet even though someone else gets away with a turban can you? (well, you can, but you may be imprisoned)

Your point is that we are being forced for religious reasons to wear turbans ?

it's only pervasive if you want it to be

So, has anyone actually said this to you

Could you epxlain why what i said is not insulting?

they are saying to me that the way I live my life is so morally wrong that I will be punished for it when I die and in a quite unpleasant way

Saxonrider not really geting your point - its late and i am tired
The teachings are clearly moral teachings that need to be followed to show you believe. I suppose you could have one without the other but then you would be a very bad example of the faith.
I dont think you can seperate them tbh.

Ernie I am not insulted that they want to save my soul which is why I never mentioned it.

Excellent - I'm glad to hear it JY. Do you make a point of thanking them ?

CharlieMungus - Member
So, who said it?

Read the thread, already covered elsewhere, and not just by my last post.

You don't believe in Hell, and you don't believe that the "rules" that will supposedly send you there exist.

So how can you possibly find it insulting ?

This deserves an answer: Pretty straightforward. Neither you nor I believe you are a ****, however I suspect both of us would feel pretty insulted if someone walked up to you and called you that. Same principle really.

I feel superior to you because I have a glass case full of Air Guitars and a flying unicorn.
You will end up in Mordor when you die because you don't have enough Air Guitars
While I will will be living the high life at Hogwarts

Offended ??

The thing is that's hardly comparable to what religion does - it's like comparing white racism to black racism - the first is worse in the west because it has/had power to back it up.

Religion is the same, it has power to back it's 'morality' up and plenty of psychotic followers that will listen to their puppet masters.

So, has anyone actually said this to you?

Yes, I've heard it in several sermons during my religious indoctrination as a child, and it's very prevalent in religious literature (some of which gets shoved through my door or handed to me by visiting Jehovah's Witnesses), as well as the shouty men with signs in the street in my local town centre.

It's not really a massive deal for me, but it's definitely unpleasant (and ridiculous).

I dont choose for it to be legally delivered in every school with a legal duty for a daily act of worship. Now you can argue this is not pervassive [ I have a feeling you may just reply ] if you wish but I really think you will struggle to say that is not pervassive.

Maybe its the word pervasi ve which is problematic. In the case of daily worship which we can chose to attend or not, there is no impact on our lives. So inmmy view that is not pervasive,but maybe by the fact that it is commonplace, that makes it pervasive by definition. Then pervasive is not really a problem.what actually matters is impact, how does it affect our daily lives. And surely if something is optional it oly affects your life if you want it.

The Catholic churchnhas an obligation to hold mass on Sunday, but you don't have to go. That's not a priblem is it?

Rarely ernie, like you, I specatacularily miss the point and rely on witty comebacks 😉

.

I feel superior to you because I have a glass case full of Air Guitars and a flying unicorn.
You will end up in Mordor when you die because you don't have enough Air Guitars
While I will will be living the high life at Hogwarts
Offended ??

If you actually believed it, and there were thousands of others who did too, and some of them wielded considerable power and influence, and it was being taught to children in state-funded schools, then I certainly wouldn't be too happy about it.

Yes, I've heard it in several sermons during my religious indoctrination as a child, and it's very prevalent in religious literature, as well as the shouty men with signs in the street in my local town centre.

Right so a priest or a miniter repated some doctrine when you were in church or simllar? So, it was unlikely to be a Catholic priest. It's not part of Catholic doctrine. If it was,then it was a priest operating under a misapprehension and not representative of the church.

But actually, if you chose to go to a place where folks hold these views, tehndon't be surprised if they are repeated to you. Not really shoving it down your throat though is it. You could walk out.

Ah the point JY. Yes, I often miss the point. The point behind this little beauty is a complete mystery to me

[i]"Can't opt out of having to wear a motorcycle helmet even though someone else gets away with a turban can you? (well, you can, but you may be imprisoned)"[/i]

So, who said it?
Read the thread, already covered elsewhere, and not just by my last post

I have read the thread, but i've not remembered everything that was said and who,it was said by and furthermore, I can't see how your previous post covered this.

Yep they certainly have. As has already been pointed out it is a fundamental aspect of a number of religions, and I certainly was led to believe it was factual as a child. Pretty sure that still goes on today, albeit I can't claim current experience for obvious reasons

I cant see where this answered the question of who. do please clarify, even if it does mean repeating yourself.