Just wondering...

[johnhughthom]

Well, to be honest, given views you've expressed in the past, it does come off as pretty snarky. But that's not really what my post was about. I don't imagine you're out there skulking in an alley-way someplace in Glasgow, ready to glass the next Celtic fan that crosses your path stumbling out of a bar.

But these people DO exist... In the USA, in Scotland, in Canada, in Australia....and it's not limited to anti-Irish bias, it's an anti-Catholic sentiment. I'm wondering aloud to it's causes and whether it'll ever subside. I suspect probably not, as the progenitor of it, English nationalism, has already made it's peace and moved on. The rest of the English speaking world though seems mired in it.

If that was the intent of the op I apologise for my dismissive reply, it came across as the typical Irish American view with no real idea of the situation in Northern Ireland bemoaning the fate of the poor Catholics in Northern Ireland. Though you have to admit the use of the words Tiocfaidh ár lá and Orange made that an easy assumption to make. And I'm not saying it has been a bed of roses for the Irish Catholics over the last 800 years either, unfortunately it does look to the Protestant community at times that the forgive and forget part of peace is very one sided.

[Furunculus]

Okay, I get that Protestant Christians, at least those from the British Isles, don't consider Roman Catholics to be Christian, or even human for that matter. Your virulent animosity has been clear for centuries. I don't understand it, I don't like it, but you've made your points loud and clear.

But why do you keep going on with taunts and nationalistic chants, in an era where we're all supposed to be moving past all of that?

Or is this the Orange anti-version of Tiocfaidh ár lá? May the day Catholics are treated like normal people never come?

Just wondering...

you do realise that church of england is one of the meekest creeds ever created, they're so limp wristed they'd probably faint if they thought they might offend someone, they are so cringingly PC it makes my teeth grate!

in short, what you describe is the very definition of local sectarian trouble, possibly allied to local sectarian protestants, but in no way accurately swept up in broad generalisations of non-catholic anti-catholic hatred.

[Shibumi]

Ridiculing is a collapse of reason and communication. You will never convince/convert anyone by the act of attempting to ridicule them.

If it is not your intention to convince anyone, then you are trolling. The bottom line is that you are up to no good.

First of all, Viking, I have not ridiculed anyone. Sure, I do find some aspects of certain religions laughable. Others I find grotesque. But bear in mind that I have the deepest respect for some religious practitioners. Not because they are religious however, rather even though they are religious.

As to ridiculing being the collapse of reason and communication - I disagree. Ridiculing can be quite healthy, I remember this guy from school who was rather loony. You know the type, hardcore christian. He was heavily ridiculed and what do you know? One day he picked up a(nother) book and soon thereafter dropped the whole religious thing.

Religion is by and large brainwashing, so a healthy dose of ridiculing from society at large can have a rather good impact. Not to mention a very strong impact.

You are right though, it is rather hard to convince/convert someone by ridiculing them. However, ridiculing might give them an incentive to convince/convert themselves.

As to me being up to no good? Depends on what you mean. I would say I am "up to" debating religion. My perspective is that I am very much against it. As to that being good or not I do not know.

[Shibumi]

you do realise that church of england is one of the meekest creeds ever created, they're so limp wristed they'd probably faint if they thought they might offend someone, they are so cringingly PC it makes my teeth grate!

in short, what you describe is the very definition of local sectarian trouble, possibly allied to local sectarian protestants, but in no way accurately swept up in broad generalisations of non-catholic anti-catholic hatred.

You obviously are not read up on the Swedish church. They have pretty much given up on religion completely. Last I checked, you didnt even have to believe in god to become a priest over here. And no, I am not joking.

The last ad-campaign from the Swedish church was against racism, religion was not even mentioned. It linked to a facebook page. Even I as an atheist think they have taken things a step to far. Being anti-religion in Sweden is like beating up a corpse.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't imagine you're out there skulking in an alley-way someplace in Glasgow, ready to glass the next Celtic fan that crosses your path stumbling out of a bar.

You don't know everything about me.

Anyway, if you read any of my post at least take on board that point that even in Scotland, sectarian trouble has pretty specific roots in the myre of ethnic/social/political/religious issues in Northern Ireland.

In any case, I still have more respect for Catholicism, than say, atheism. It is just based on brainwashing and ignorance. I mean, I knew a kid at school that was an atheist, but then one day he picked up a book, and next thing you know he's telling everyone about Jesus.

[Pannonian]

First of all, Viking, I have not ridiculed anyone. Sure, I do find some aspects of certain religions laughable. Others I find grotesque. But bear in mind that I have the deepest respect for some religious practitioners. Not because they are religious however, rather even though they are religious.

As to ridiculing being the collapse of reason and communication - I disagree. Ridiculing can be quite healthy, I remember this guy from school who was rather loony. You know the type, hardcore christian. He was heavily ridiculed and what do you know? One day he picked up a(nother) book and soon thereafter dropped the whole religious thing.

Religion is by and large brainwashing, so a healthy dose of ridiculing from society at large can have a rather good impact. Not to mention a very strong impact.

You are right though, it is rather hard to convince/convert someone by ridiculing them. However, ridiculing might give them an incentive to convince/convert themselves.

As to me being up to no good? Depends on what you mean. I would say I am "up to" debating religion. My perspective is that I am very much against it. As to that being good or not I do not know.

Nearly all my knowledge of the Catholic Church comes from a TV programme ridiculing every aspect of it, specifically the Irish branch. I highly recommend that programme to everyone.

[Shibumi]

You don't know everything about me.

Anyway, if you read any of my post at least take on board that point that even in Scotland, sectarian trouble has pretty specific roots in the myre of ethnic/social/political/religious issues in Northern Ireland.

In any case, I still have more respect for Catholicism, than say, atheism. It is just based on brainwashing and ignorance. I mean, I knew a kid at school that was an atheist, but then one day he picked up a book, and next thing you know he's telling everyone about Jesus.

I do not see atheism as brainwashing, on the contrary. If you let someone grow up without religion, odds are he will be atheist.

A quick look at religion at large strengthens my point, why else would so many italians be catholic, so many indians hindu, so many arabs islamic? You think they all individually "saw the light"? Hardly, I would say. So some form of brainwashing must take place. No?

Atheism on the other hand is wide spread across any national border.

You are a clever guy, I am sure you see the difference.

[gaelic cowboy]

I have a nice healthy hate for my English anscetry, why the Irish dispora still clings to erie I can't explain

Well to be fair Stike there are still lots of first generation immigrants in South Boston so there is your connection, also you don't have to worry too much about US money funding terrorism the majority of the money came from robbing banks in the Rep. of Ireland.

[drone]

I don't imagine you're out there skulking in an alley-way someplace in Glasgow, ready to glass the next Celtic fan that crosses your path stumbling out of a bar..

The No True Scotsman fallacy, Protestant corollary?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not see atheism as brainwashing, on the contrary. If you let someone grow up without religion, odds are he will be atheist.

A quick look at religion at large strengthens my point, why else would so many italians be catholic, so many indians hindu, so many arabs islamic? You think they all individually "saw the light"? Hardly, I would say. So some form of brainwashing must take place. No?

Atheism on the other hand is wide spread across any national border.

You are a clever guy, I am sure you see the difference.

Religions are varient belief systems, and in that sense Atheism is no different than Islam and Christianity. Richard Dawkins' arguments and patterns of thought are recognisable to anyone who has faced fundamentalist Christianity, the sole difference is the belief itself - the thought patterns verge on being identicle. Those who think like this and raise their children like this indocrinate like any fundamentalist, and the result is that a fairly large portion of people "raised atheist" latch onto a religion as soon as they leave home. Personally, I think this is why simple, evangelical Christian sects do so well in universities.

To address Don's original point:

Underlying your post seem to be a lot misconceptions: that there is a monolithic Protestant/Roman Catholic divide, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is in some was equivilent to the Pope, and that England deliberately exported a form of Catholic-hating Christianity. None of that is true. There are a multiplicity of "protestant" denominations, some of whom are Catholic, some reformed; the Archbishop is merely the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England; abd we kicked the nutters out because we didn't want them stirring up sectarian hatreds.

[Shibumi]

Religions are varient belief systems, and in that sense Atheism is no different than Islam and Christianity. Richard Dawkins' arguments and patterns of thought are recognisable to anyone who has faced fundamentalist Christianity, the sole difference is the belief itself - the thought patterns verge on being identicle. Those who think like this and raise their children like this indocrinate like any fundamentalist, and the result is that a fairly large portion of people "raised atheist" latch onto a religion as soon as they leave home. Personally, I think this is why simple, evangelical Christian sects do so well in universities.

Source? I do find that hard to believe. Very hard to believe even.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I do not see atheism as brainwashing, on the contrary. If you let someone grow up without religion, odds are he will be atheist.

A quick look at religion at large strengthens my point, why else would so many italians be catholic, so many indians hindu, so many arabs islamic?

Or so many Swedes atheist?

I do not see atheism as brainwashing, on the contrary. If you let someone grow up without religion, odds are he will be atheist.

A quick look at religion at large strengthens my point, why else would so many italians be catholic, so many indians hindu, so many arabs islamic? You think they all individually "saw the light"? Hardly, I would say. So some form of brainwashing must take place. No?

Atheism on the other hand is wide spread across any national border.

You are a clever guy, I am sure you see the difference.

Well, I'm going to go along with what Richard Dawkins said on the matter, and say the roots of religion are twofold. First of all, he argues that through natural selection a belief in a higher power is perhaps something that has become innate to mankind. I would agree that people do by nature seem inclined to believe in a higher power, though obviously I would disagree with Dawkins on how this came about.

And secondly, he points out the more structural side of things, ie how religion grew as a political force, how it became tied with society etc. And that is what is responsible for the big diversity of religious practices in the world today that seem to be defined along national or geographic borders. In this sense differing religious practices are not much different from differing cultural practices - that certain population groups follow their own customs does not mean they have been brainwashed.

So, you could say... why then Rhyfelwyr do you think that your particularly crazy version of Protestantism is the right one (my sig is a bit of a joke, btw)? Well, the answer is that I accept the first point above - that belief in God is something that is self-evident and innate to humanity. But I think the second point - the institutional aspects of religion - is all corrupt and idolatrous, and in denying all the ritualistic elements of religion my own beliefs are obviously unique from all the other ones. A Catholic has more in common with a Hindu or a Muslim than he does with me, despite me being a Christian.

[Viking]

First of all, Viking, I have not ridiculed anyone. Sure, I do find some aspects of certain religions laughable. Others I find grotesque. But bear in mind that I have the deepest respect for some religious practitioners. Not because they are religious however, rather even though they are religious.

When you try to ridicule an ideology, you do naturally attempt to ridicule its believers/followers as well. Humans are not really capable of making sharp distinctions between persons and ideology.

As to ridiculing being the collapse of reason and communication - I disagree. Ridiculing can be quite healthy, I remember this guy from school who was rather loony. You know the type, hardcore christian. He was heavily ridiculed and what do you know? One day he picked up a(nother) book and soon thereafter dropped the whole religious thing.

Religion is by and large brainwashing, so a healthy dose of ridiculing from society at large can have a rather good impact. Not to mention a very strong impact.

You are right though, it is rather hard to convince/convert someone by ridiculing them. However, ridiculing might give them an incentive to convince/convert themselves.

It is the break down of reason and communication because it makes no attempt to justify itself, but rather takes itself for granted. A bigot may ridicule another bigot and make him think like himself, but they'll still both be bigots. See, all kind of people may ridicule each other - all without justifying their views. It is not healthy, it detoriates logical debate and puts a lid on alle the interesting questions and the debates that would follow them. A sane world begins with a sane debate.

You talk about "brainwashing", but not much reflection lies behind that statement. "Brainwashing" is the way humans grow up - they follow the norms and culture of the society they are born in, to a large extent. What some anti-religious people de facto do, is to give religion a really special place - that it may easily be separated from from the rest of the human mind. That is really a delusional view that may accidentially support the notion that humans have an objective rationality. Religion is in reality just one piece of a large spectrum when it comes to human ideas.

As to me being up to no good? Depends on what you mean. I would say I am "up to" debating religion. My perspective is that I am very much against it. As to that being good or not I do not know.

We have someting in common then, when it comes to religion. The bad part is that you think religious debate, any debate at all, is exempt from logical reasoning and other general rules of debate.

[Shibumi]

Rhyfelwyr, Viking, I am out of time, and you both deserve a more thought out response. I will come back later, thanks for your time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Source? I do find that hard to believe. Very hard to believe even.

My life? At least 30% of my 100 or so school friends went Christian either after starting college, or starting university. That's a pretty poor retention rate in my book.

[Sigurd]

I did suspect that those proddies (as the Scots call them) who barks anti-Catholicistic sentiments, was just confused to what being a protestant is all about. That is, the great bulk of them. You do have those fringe nutters like Chick and whatshisname Phelps, but most of them are just bullies jumping on a bandwagon with no understanding of the basics.

The root issue interest me though... if we go beyond the existence of God, and into the Christian history. Catholicism vs. Protestantism. Who has the right of origin?
If there was a church organisation at 33 AD, who can rightfully claim to be most aligned with it? Did Catholicism stray? Do Protestantism return to the original?
If there was a theological battle between the two - what would be the arguments on both sides. Are there other options?

[Rhyfelwyr]

The root issue interest me though... if we go beyond the existence of God, and into the Christian history. Catholicism vs. Protestantism. Who has the right of origin?
If there was a church organisation at 33 AD, who can rightfully claim to be most aligned with it? Did Catholicism stray? Do Protestantism return to the original?
If there was a theological battle between the two - what would be the arguments on both sides. Are there other options?

Why 33AD? The scripture says Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Didn't the Old Testament saints look to him for salvation? People have been called to look to Christ for salvation ever since God made his first covenant with men when he made the Adamic covenant, so that is when Christianity was created and that is when you need to go back to if you want to claim Christian heritage.

[Sigurd]

Why 33AD? The scripture says Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Didn't the Old Testament saints look to him for salvation? People have been called to look to Christ for salvation ever since God made his first covenant with men when he made the Adamic covenant, so that is when Christianity was created and that is when you need to go back to if you want to claim Christian heritage.

I know what you get at.

However, with the culmination of the atoning sacrifice - a new order was established, led not by the priests of the pharisees or the Sadducee, but by the disciples. A group that would be known as Christians. You could say that this was the reorganized pre-Moses church - if you consider the whole christian history (Adam -> Christ). But for simplicity - let's focus on the organization established by Christ in the flesh. Hence 33AD. The one that every 'Christian' looks to for origin. To go beyond this point is not really necessary as every Christian would agree that the church and its 12 apostles is a point in time where true Christianity existed. And it is the time following this event that is to be discussed.

[Shibumi]

I know what you get at.

However, with the culmination of the atoning sacrifice - a new order was established, led not by the priests of the pharisees or the Sadducee, but by the disciples. A group that would be known as Christians. You could say that this was the reorganized pre-Moses church - if you consider the whole christian history (Adam -> Christ). But for simplicity - let's focus on the organization established by Christ in the flesh. Hence 33AD. The one that every 'Christian' looks to for origin. To go beyond this point is not really necessary as every Christian would agree that the church and its 12 apostles is a point in time where true Christianity existed. And it is the time following this event that is to be discussed.

Find something every christian agree on and you will win the internet.

Will elaborate earlier points asap.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know what you get at.

However, with the culmination of the atoning sacrifice - a new order was established, led not by the priests of the pharisees or the Sadducee, but by the disciples. A group that would be known as Christians. You could say that this was the reorganized pre-Moses church - if you consider the whole christian history (Adam -> Christ). But for simplicity - let's focus on the organization established by Christ in the flesh. Hence 33AD. The one that every 'Christian' looks to for origin. To go beyond this point is not really necessary as every Christian would agree that the church and its 12 apostles is a point in time where true Christianity existed. And it is the time following this event that is to be discussed.

It is absolutely necessary for people to go back beyond that point, because only then will they realise that Christianity is not an arbitrary set of rules on a piece of paper, but rather it is the natural, self-evident religion for all mankind, and is written on mens' hearts as Paul himself says.

You talk about the "organization established by Christ", but what organisation is that? He never set up an earthly religious system, although he abolished an existing one. But the law of Moses was always separate from the law of Christ. It was a shadow of it, not a predecessor that was replaced in 33AD.

There is no new faith or religious system, just the same one that's been around since the time of Adam.

[Sigurd]

It is absolutely necessary for people to go back beyond that point, because only then will they realise that Christianity is not an arbitrary set of rules on a piece of paper, but rather it is the natural, self-evident religion for all mankind, and is written on mens' hearts as Paul himself says.

You talk about the "organization established by Christ", but what organisation is that? He never set up an earthly religious system, although he abolished an existing one. But the law of Moses was always separate from the law of Christ. It was a shadow of it, not a predecessor that was replaced in 33AD.

There is no new faith or religious system, just the same one that's been around since the time of Adam.

A very Mormon view you have there...

It can't be denied that an organisation was established in the meridian of time. It has been a long tradition that the christian church started at the day of Pentecost. But as it is an appeal to tradition - I can't really use it can I?
Since you are ignoring the obvious with your comment: "He never set up an earthly religious system", I have to wonder what you perceive as an religious organisation/system.
The New Testament refers 114 times to a church. The Gospels, Acts and letters refers to several instances of people being given offices (apostles, prophets, teachers, elders, pastors, evangelists, bishops, priests and deacons). If this is not talking about an organized religious system, I am curious of what your thoughts are.

Talking about the church of Adam is pointless as there is nothing documenting this. That is, within the canon. As anything outside it would be irrelevant right?
If you would consider extra-canonical literature - I would be happy to show you a few more.

[Sigurd]

Find something every christian agree on and you will win the internet.

Will elaborate earlier points asap.

That Jesus is the Christ?
the internet, is that a cookie?

[CountArach]

But you see it in Ulster, in Scotland, in Canada and in Australia too.

You... you do?

[HoreTore]

Oh please CA, you're the biggest sectarian bigot ever.