Catholic Church: A cult that makes you ‘pray, pay, obey’

TChong says:

06:20am | 03/05/11

SuperD - yur a regular here, and you havent come across myriad articles condemning islam?
Any and every article - be it burquas, schooling, multiculturalism, refugees etc tend to be exercises and excuses to do so.
Some of the more extreme haters will be dissapointed that their bigottry has failed to reach you.

Gratuitous Adviser says:

07:05am | 03/05/11

Go Super D Go,
What about the televangilists, Benny Hinn, Hillsong and the Robertsons and the list goes on.  Pay, Pay, Pay, Pay.

Jay Santos says:

08:02am | 03/05/11

Personally I’m looking forward to the Punch teams next installment in this series on the Church of Scientology.

iansand says:

08:26am | 03/05/11

Jay Santos - They did Scientology a while back.

VY says:

09:31am | 03/05/11

Super D
Cowards walk away from the challenge of making change.    The onus is on the individual to try and influence change.      We may not like a particular government and it is up to the individual to exercise their rights to effect change and the instrument in this case is the ballot box.

Gladys says:

09:58am | 03/05/11

I thought islam extremists were more into convincing 12 year old boys to blow themselves up.

stephen says:

10:20am | 03/05/11

You have to pick your religions, fellas, just like you’d pick you apples.

Jay Santos says:

10:46am | 03/05/11

“...They did Scientology a while back…”

Wrong.

There is no article in the archive written by the Punch Team on Scientology. None.

And of those articles that mention Scientology none refer to it as a cult as is done here.

iansand says:

11:39am | 03/05/11

Jay - This is the one I was thinking of http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/time-is-running-out-for-the-church-of-scientology/

Jay Santos says:

12:23pm | 03/05/11

iansand,
Thanks for proving my point.

The premise of the article you linked to is diametrically opposite to this one which is nothing more than a gratuitous plug for an Aunty show.

Shane says:

12:45pm | 03/05/11

@Jay Santos.

The Punch will not run an article proclaiming Scientology a cult because they fear the lawyers. The Catholic Church (older, nominally wealhier, and vastly larger than scientology) is an easy target by comparison… Catholics are too busy running hospitals, schools, medical research institutions and respite homes to bother with litigation against a website… How evil of them…

Economist says:

01:38pm | 03/05/11

@Jay Santos,don’t make claims about Punch articles without doing your research. Heres a hint. There’s a search box in the top right. Enter Scientology and click on Submit.  I know, I know, it;s too hard. Eleven references will be returned to you.Three of the article directly reference Scientology, mainly in relation to their tax free status. One by Tory http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/scientology-scandal-shows-we-should-tax-all-religions/  is highly critical. One is counter punch by the COS http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/counterpunch-church-of-scientology-on-xenophon/ .  The other references are either in relation the mental health, religion in general or a thow away line.  In addition ther may well be comments published calling it a cult.

So here’s an idea. Write the comment you want to make and if it’s not defamatory or overally abusive I bet the Punch will publish it.

Robert S McCormick says:

01:57pm | 03/05/11

It just goes to show how little you (deliberately?) know about Islam. Yes, just like the Micks they do expect you to pray & obey & help with expenses. It does not,nor ever has,ordered anyone to go out & indiscriminately blow stuff up.
Just as in all Faiths, including those paths where there is no supernatural, other-world being such a Buddhism, people are allowed to fight to protect their religion & to protect those who belong to it. This is where all Fundamentalists go so horribly wrong. They deliberately twist the teachings of their religions to suit themselves. Whether you believe in the concept of Martyrs, Saints etc. is immaterial. If a Muslim goes out, as so many of the current would-be Martyrs do, & simply blows her/himself up in a Mosque, Market or any place crowded with 100s or 1000s of other Muslims & murders most of them she/he does not get the title of Martyr. They certainly don’t get into Paradise.
I am neither Christain, Jew nor Muslim but let’s face it all three have an appaling record when it comes to “The Slaughter of the Innocents”

John A Neve says:

03:02pm | 03/05/11

Super D,
Why the debate?
You only have to look at the suffering in the world to know there is no God.
Religion is, as I have stated many time before, the opiat of the masses. It has killed more than it has ever saved.
Government and the church have gone hand in hand since the dawn of time. It’s called control of the masses and it works.
Kill in the name of God, King and country, you poor sad bastards.

Dark Horse says:

05:35pm | 03/05/11

Interestingly, to avoid the problem of litigation by scientology, as referred to by several commentors here, a site was set up for a religion called Tarvuism, which is of course scientology. You can criticise Tarvuism without getting sued. See http://www.tarvu.com if you want a laugh ... it really refers to the stupidity of all religion.

Bruce says:

08:28pm | 03/05/11

Like many religions that came the ‘desert sands’ they refuse to find their way into these 21st century. Do not question them, unless you already no the answer and the punishment first !

James says:

10:27pm | 03/05/11

John A Neve, I’ve been interested in such arguments for some time, but I think to say that religion (and its links with government) has resulted in millions of deaths is false. Religion is too often the excuse for the depravity but not the cause.

In fact, in numerous modern nation states that went out of their way to reject religion, the number of deaths related to ideology, power maintenance or the ‘greater good’, accelerated to a huge extent past anything previously seen in history.

Personally, I think people generally - Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Anti-theists, Hindus etc… - are prone to carry out some pretty messed up $%& .
Blaming religion and acting like getting rid of it will save us all is just a cop-out for any real thought, solution, responsibility (‘it’s not me sir, it’s them!’).

acotrel says:

02:34am | 04/05/11

The only things I don’t like about the catholic church, are that it is not a democratic institution, and it’s too worried about its own appearance. People like Father Bob are too good for it.

Ramses and Crisis says:

12:54pm | 04/05/11

well.. it is easier to pick on catholicism as a sect of Christianity and Christians in general, because they wiil not try to track you down and blow you up or behead you.
Dawkins for instance condems all the religions but in particular monotheism and in particular Christianity.

John A Neve says:

03:31pm | 04/05/11

James,

I have failed, if you read into my post that I hold religion solely responsible for those that have died in wars over the years. What I tried to convey, was that churchs in collusion with governments were responsible.
I’d add that churchs seem to thrive on the poor, suppressed and ignorant.

James says:

05:44pm | 04/05/11

John A Neve, I caught that although the particular example of accelerations in deaths I was referring to, occurred in atheist/anti-theist communist regimes where there was certainly no collusion between any religion and the government. A previously unheard of number of deaths occurred in such contexts.

I’m not saying that any group of Hindus, Christians, Atheists, Muslims, etc… are necessarily more violent than another. I’m just saying that religion does not seem to be a constant in human violence. Although it may be used as an excuse for it, its clearly evident that even in the absence of religion - or its collusion with the state - the violence people do to each other continues unabated.

Re your final point, it’s also interesting and possibly ironic that modern anti-theist movements have also thrived on the poor, suppressed and ignorant. I think that those in positions of power always have a tendency towards dominating the weak - again, irrespective of religious affiliations.

Stevejme says:

09:45am | 03/05/11

I thought women would be smart enough to keep away from this BS

Chris L says:

10:46am | 03/05/11

Being indoctrinated as children and never allowed to think outside the box counts as people being made to pray and pay.

SimpleSimon says:

11:26am | 03/05/11

You don’t think the Church excommunicating a Bishop for suggesting that some fundamental problems need to be discussed counts as forcing someone to obey?

chris clowne says:

11:59am | 03/05/11

I believe you are forced to obey in that if you don’t accept Jesus as the saviour, then you ‘won’t go to heaven’. Same goes for following the ten commandments. At least, that’s what I was taught as a child.

I agree you aren’t ‘forced’ to pay, in the strictest sense.. but my parents sure have pumped plenty of dollars into the coffers, via their weekly donations in the plates that get passed around.

‘Forced’ doesn’t have to mean the physical act of forcing.

Ripa: If the church allowed the things you mention, I doubt it would make much of a difference to the following to be honest.

Syl says:

01:45pm | 03/05/11

Growing up in a Catholic School I was certainly forced to pray and obey.  They indoctrinate you young then smother you with doctrine and rubbish in the hope that over-exposure will somehow make it seem feasible.

Fortunately when some of us grow up we look at the wider world and realise we’ve been had.

teresita1897 says:

04:24pm | 04/05/11

Well said, Ripa, thank you.

Fr Peter Kennedy feels that he was not given an opportunity to convey his true beliefs or defend himself against the alleged “charges”. Well, he certainly took the opportunity here, and if he’d given these answers to any sort of tribunal, he wouldn’t be any better off.

He has a problem with Catholic teaching, and in fact it sounds like he’s lost whatever faith he has, so it surprises me that he has a congregation at all - I can’t imagine he’d be very inspiring. 

In any case - Fr Kennedy, if you don’t like the teachings of the Catholic church, no-one is forcing you to stay. You don’t have a right to pervert those teachings just because you don’t agree with them.

Regarding the “make you pay” comment in the article title - if the writers were interested in the truth at all, they would have investigated and realised that the Catholic Church is one of the few churches (I can’t speak for non-Christian religions as I do not know the case there) who does not expect a tithe or donation of 10% of your income. You just put in what you can afford. If you can’t, you don’t. In fact, I remember my parish priest saying once that if you need money, take it out of the collection tray as it passes you.

I agree with whoever said that the Catholic Church was an easy target. Shame on those who jump on it for that reason. Learn the truth before you attack it and go do something useful with your time.

Mahhrat says:

07:55am | 03/05/11

That’s the best thing about inconsistency though, Erick.

Like I’ve always said mate, I’ve never had a problem with God, it’s his fan club I have a problem with.

As it happens, I’m going to my first ever Buddhist ceremony this weekend - my sister in law has invited me to a Buddhist Bathing ceremony.  I’ve got no idea what’s involved but I’m told it’s an important and spiritual part of the Buddhist system, and I’ve often though Buddhism, of all “religions”, seems to make the most sense.

Liz says:

08:14am | 03/05/11

Erick you have hit the on the money. Why always attack the Catholic Church when Pope John Paull II was beatified in Rome and the next day a dissenting bishop is jumping up and down like a naughty kid in the schoolyard. Being a Catholic is totally voluntary, yes I said, totally voluntary. I should know I have my free will and I choose to exercise it to practice the faith I have chosen.

If you look at what is really happening in the Catholic diocese of Toowoomba, there are no vocations to the priesthood and during WYD they could hardly raise more then 15 people to attend the visit of the WYD cross at the the Cathedral of St Patricks. So Bishop Morris thinks Women priests will solve the problem.

Hasn’t he bothered to study the number of vocations to the priesthood of single young men in the dioceses of Wagga, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, Lismore and the like.

Perhaps it is time to be fair and do a story on the great things that are happening in the Catholic Church where we freely choose our own free will to attend the church and pray.

Tubesteak says:

08:54am | 03/05/11

If you don’t believe in their sky fairy there are plenty of others out there preaching about other sky fairies

Barry says:

09:15am | 03/05/11

I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be most to this than just I said women and married priests might be a good idea.  Similar, to Peter Kennedy, who I also have a feeling, there may be a lot more to his story.  For example, you’d think reading this article he’s no longer religious, but I’m not sure that’s completely true.  Looking at the books recommended on the his church’s site, I can see several reasons why the catholic church would have had concerns about his leadership of a congregation, if he had been peddling similar beliefs at the time.

Mr Miyagi says:

09:28am | 03/05/11

“an agnostic with Buddhist leanings”

Erick = Conservative In Name Only

Sad Sad Reality says:

09:45am | 03/05/11

Because as much as they bluster, Erick, the team know to openly attack Islam is to sign your own death warrant. They’re here for a paycheck and a chuckle, not to actually be journalists.

Kevin says:

10:30am | 03/05/11

“Yet The Punch frequently publishes articles defending an even more reactionary religion, Islam.”
Frequently?  Name the last few with dates.  Punch arranges its archived articles by category so it shouldn’t be too hard for you to back up your statement with some facts.

JT says:

10:56am | 03/05/11

Interesting timing as well, the day after Islams biggest most influential terrorist is killed, we have an article condeming…the Catholic Church.

Economist says:

11:04am | 03/05/11

Why do people insist on equal representation? i.e. if you criticise Catholics, you should equally criticise Islam, Atheists etc?

The fact is Catholicism is far more influential in Australia, than Islam,  and deserves closer scrutiny. They have their fingers in education, healthcare, politics, social services. Their own belief system has a significant influence in how they deliver these services, both good and bad. Its a problem when governments relies on this sector to deliver services which they should be delivering them without the philosophical judgemental influence. It’s a problem when Canberra Times puts on its front page that the Catholic Church threatens to sue the ACT government for monopoly control of hospital services in the North i.e. no new hospitals for the extra 50-80000 residents. It’s a problem when Opus Dei controls the policies and purse strings. It’s a problem when they don’t pay taxes on their real estate/ share and bond holdings.

@Eric, as for your Buddhist leaning, I’m assuming that it’s purely theoretical and superficial i.e. you like the idea of Karma. Buddhists, while not judging you to your face, would find your views not particularly enlightening.

Chris L says:

11:09am | 03/05/11

““Islam’s the same. They maintain God has revealed to them the truth. It’s a total nonsense. Religion is divisive because it’s manmade and dualistic and it will continue to divide, separate, cause wars.”

From the above article. I also remember you putting your two cents worth in an article about banning the burqa, Erick. Of course people don’t tend to remember criticism of others, only criticism of themselves (makes them feel all victimy) or those they speak on behalf of (such as white, male, local Christians).

Andrew says:

11:21am | 03/05/11

@Erick:  It’s easy to say that people can simply walk away from the cathollic (or any other) church, but very difficult in practice, especially in some parts of the world.  The consequences for doing so will be, in many instances, the loss of friends, social networks, and even family.  It’s far easier for somebody to just go along with things, and so the whole cycle continues.  It will only be when the world becomes more educated, and sees religion for what it really is - an easy way to control and extort money from people that can least afford it - that we will be free of such stupidity and ignorance.

Kika says:

11:46am | 03/05/11

Erick, are you kidding? To hardcore Micks being excommunicated means the same as being condemned to hell. All well and good to say ‘go find another one’ but if you love your church and believe in it, and faithfully and legitmately wish to help reform it, it’s not nice to receive a papal fatwa.

Steve M says:

11:55am | 03/05/11

Oh Tubesteak, you’ve wheeled out the old tired “sky fairies” line again. What a remarkable intellect you bring to the debate. Well done.

Markus says:

01:08pm | 03/05/11

@Kevin, find them yourself, they are all tagged it’s not that hard.
If you are struggling that much, check out one of the latest ICB articles for starters.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/icb-does-islam-sanction-beheadings/

John says:

01:09pm | 03/05/11

It’s because i think the PUNCH is part of the International Marxist Media. In the west it’s primary objective is an intellectual attack christianity, by empowering other religions it helps their assault against the Christians. Once the Christians are defeated, they turn to the Muslims. It’s divide, back stab and conqueror. The name of the website the PUNCH, seems to be the Marxist fist salute.

Tubesteak says:

01:20pm | 03/05/11

Economist
Rational arguments don’t belong in a debate about organised religion just like facts don’t belong in organised religions (apologies to The Simpsons). Good points, though.

Steve M
About as much intellect as a debate about religion deserves!

Kevin says:

01:44pm | 03/05/11

@Markus
Thank you, that’s one.  Still a long way short of “frequently”.  Any more?

Economist says:

01:51pm | 03/05/11

Oh @John that’s genius, I particulalrly like the last line “The name of the website the PUNCH, seems to be the Marxist fist salute”. The fist also represents black power which explains why many Punch writers are supportive of multiculturalism. Now stick with me I know its a long bow to draw, but a punch is used by your fist, now if you relax your fingers you’ve got a limp wrist, so this expalins their support for homosexuality.  I could go on but I’m too busy blogging that Osama is still alive and he actually has Obama’s birth certificate as they’re step brothers determined to create a new socialist islamic world order.

@Tubesteak, yes context, rationality and research are rare.

Rosie says:

02:10pm | 03/05/11

Once again I am with you on this one.

I gave up my Catholic boyfriend because I knew I could never marry him unless I agreed to become a catholic.

He is happily married to once a very staunch methodist, who was willing to convert for him.

As you say it is a choice!

Seano says:

02:48pm | 03/05/11

Ther are articles posted on the punch supporting Islam and there are those attacking it. The same could be said about Christianity. Could we please get over this childish pretence that there’s some sort of double standard every time you see an article you don’t like.

Also the majority of muslims are moderates. Continually pushing to islotate those moderates and lump them in with the radicals is hardly going to create less radicals is it?

Regarding the church, personally I have no problem with them as long as they pay thier fair share of taxes and stop protecting kiddie fiddlers. Well supposedly of those things has happened.

Tubesteak says:

04:53pm | 03/05/11

I appreciate and respect your efforts, Economist.

Anthony says:

07:31am | 03/05/11

Except the footy team don’t rape little kids and then hide it on penalty of never seeing another game of footy in your life and is you say anything you’re gonna burn for eternity!

Mahhrat says:

07:57am | 03/05/11

@Samuel, I like the analogy, but the Coach doesn’t suggest you’re going to hell if you leave.

Or that you should abstain from sex - although given the analogy, that might not be a bad thing

A different Rosie says:

08:06am | 03/05/11

You’re quite right Samuel, football is as silly and as power-driven as the catholic church.

MarK says:

08:13am | 03/05/11

”  Anthony says:

  07:31am | 03/05/11

  Except the footy team don’t rape little kids and then hide it on penalty of never seeing another game of footy in your life and is you say anything you’re gonna burn for eternity!”

Oh - you mean like the Labor party that hides pedos in the ranks until the hiding becomes too much and if you dare “rat” on the party they will hound you with slurs to your death.

Yep good analogy actually.

iansand says:

08:30am | 03/05/11

Samuel - A better analogy would be footy commentators rabbitting on about what they think are problems with the rules (as they do) and being banned for attending games forevermore.

Not a change to the fundamental nature of the game (as your example was), but small changes that may improve it.

michael j says:

09:55am | 03/05/11

@Samuel-mate im used to people jumping on me -But you really should read your’e comment again ,while your’e straight,,
and Don’t av a COW mate—Hindu’s rule,,,,,,

Samuel says:

09:55am | 03/05/11

iansand, the only thing is that a guy like Peter Kennedy is a player, not just an observer (like a commentator). Not only is he responsible for the ceremonies of the church in his parish, but he’s responsible for parish property as well. It’s not just a matter of expressing an opinion, it’s that he’s effectively a manager in a corporation (mixing my analogies here, sorry).

Also, the Church doesn’t say you’re going to hell if you leave. That’s just not true at all.

TheRealDave says:

10:39am | 03/05/11

Unlike the Catholic Church even footy codes change their rules with the times but still keep the spirit of the original game.

And far be it for me to mention that at least Footy, of all persuasions, at least is based in reality as well

Flutz says:

10:57am | 03/05/11

You’re not comparing apples with apples Samuel. These clergy have not advocated Catholics converting to Islam or Buddism or another religion - which would be more in line with your analogy of a RL player wanting to play cricket instead.  A better anology would be that of RL players (or players in other sports) advocating changes to some of the rules and the - or at least asking for a discussion of some of the rules of the game.  Which has happened copious times in the 100s of years of sports - the players are allowed to have a say and generate discussion on their game and the direction in which it is heading.

Kika says:

11:10am | 03/05/11

Anthony - bad example of using league and covering up rapes!

St. Michael says:

11:23am | 03/05/11

@ Samuel:

“Let’s say you’re a professional rugby league player and you roll into training one day in whites with a cricket bat. The coach will tell you, mate, you’ve got to go get your footy gear on. But you say, no, I think rugby league is a brutal game, you do stupid things like have uncompetitive scrums, and I think we need to get with the times. But the coach says, this is a footy team not a cricket team. And you go, you are just obsessed with “right beliefs” and orthodoxy - all we do is just obey - I’ve had enough. And the coach goes, if you want to play cricket, that’s fine, but you can’t do it as part of a team playing rugby league. And you walk off in a huff and tell everyone who will listen that rugby league is ruled by power hungry fascists who refuse to listen to the people.”

Let me try you with a slightly different analogy.

You’re a professional cricket player, back in the days before they had helmets, but rather just plain old hats.  You’ve been an ardent and loyal member of the club for the better part of your life, and you’ve risen to the ranks to be basically the second in charge of the team.

You notice, after several matches and what seems to be happening in the youth leagues, that cricket balls are getting thrown a lot faster these days and that correspondingly there seem to be a lot more head injuries and mouth injuries.  Some kids have died as a result of them.  As a result, a lot of mums and dads are withdrawing their kids from playing cricket because they think it’s not safe or appropriate for their kids to practice there.

You’ve had a look at other codes like baseball to see how they handle the problem.  You notice that they seem to use hard helmets with physical mouthguards.  This doubles the number of people playing the game, because it reduces head injuries.

Thinking this is a relatively pragmatic idea, but knowing you need a case to convince the team captain of its merit, you write a letter to your fellow teammates saying “Hey, maybe we should be looking at hard helmets like baseball does to reduce the number of head injuries?”

One of your teammates, being the sort of person who believes Don Bradman was only forced off the crease by bodyline tactics because he didn’t tense up enough before the ball hit him, responds to this by writing to the team captain and accusing you of wanting to turn cricket into baseball, and that you also want to destroy the game.

The team captain summarily agrees with said team member without reference to the remainder of the team and demands your resignation.
“But this is about basic safety of our people and our kids!”
“Fuck off.  You’re a reformer.  You want to talk about change.”

That’s probably a closer analogy to what’s happened here.

Samuel says:

12:16pm | 03/05/11

@St Michael.

The problem with that analogy is twofold, firstly, with Peter Kennedy, we’re not just talking about his words but the way he carried out his duties as well. It’s not that he brought issues up, it’s that he went ahead and tinkered with the ceremonies as he saw fit, regardless of what alternative opinions were out there. In other words, he went out and changed the rules anyway.

Secondly, if you (not necessarily you personally, but anyone) buy into the idea that the Catholic church has no interest or takes no time to listen to the concerns and ideas of priests and ordinary people, it’s evidence that you don’t have any idea how the Church actually works. Plenty of people raise issues with Church authorities every day and the Church listens to them and occasionally changes. It’s just that that doesn’t make an interesting news story.

What does make an interesting news story is the one guy who decides that he wants to do whatever he wants (and still use the name of the Catholic Church and Catholic property) and throws a tantrum because he doesn’t get his way.

Note that Peter Kennedy was left to operate his parish for a long time before anything happened, and he was given plenty of opportunities to come in and talk to Church authorities. And, again, I raise the point that he and the sacked Bishop are making an awful lot of noise for people who have supposedly been silenced by the Church.

dancan says:

01:42pm | 03/05/11

“Except the footy team don’t rape little kids and then hide it on penalty of never seeing another game of footy in your life and is you say anything you’re gonna burn for eternity! “

You’re right Anthony, the footy team raise the bar a little higher to those 14-16 year olds instead

Liz says:

08:20am | 03/05/11

And the Catholic Church is responsible for all Africian with aids, nobody held a gun to their heads and said go spread this life threatening disease, perhaps the first lesson in life is free will. These Africians & Phillipinos exercise their free will and give their own consent to sleep with others and spread the disease.

Abstinence is better then a condom, it won’t break and the let the disease spread. Abstinence is the only way to guarantee to be disease free from a sexually transmitted disease.

So Joe how is the Catholic Church responsible for man’s misery he contracted via his own free consent to sex with an infected person?

P. Darvio says:

08:22am | 03/05/11

JP2 also worked as a Salesman and a chemist for the German Company that made the Zyklon B gas that the Christian Adolf Hitler used during the Holocaust (I wonder how many Christians know that?) and Christians are making this man a “saint”,  a man who also protected paedophiles. Disgusting, Evil and Barbaric are the words that come to mind.

True Believer says:

10:02am | 03/05/11

@P Darvio

Don’t look now but your ignorance is showing. The Roman Catholic denomination is “making” John Paul a “saint” - not “Christians” as you declare. 

The Bible tells us all true believers are saints - only Jesus knows who they really are. 

You look again at the actions of man and make judgements about the Living God - pitiful.

Joe says:

10:26am | 03/05/11

While it is true Liz that JPII or the Catholic Church did not force people to have sex or contract aids,  their opposition to the use of condoms certainly has helped spread the disease and cost people their lives, particularly in countries that have a large catholic population. It simply is a fact that many people are deeply religious and would rather follow spiritual or religious advice,  such as your own views on sex and abstinence, instead of listening to the advice of a doctor or a health professional.  An obvious example of this is Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions, even in an emergency and at the cost of their lives.  Finally if a hospital refused to let doctors sterilize their instruments, which resulted in just one person developing aids, there would be an outcry and the hospital would be blamed, but if a religion teaches people to have unsafe sex, you blame the poor person who developed aids…  What a fine Christian attitude to have.

P. Darvio says:

10:42am | 03/05/11

Quote: The Roman Catholic denomination is “making” John Paul a “saint” - not “Christians” as you declare. 

M’mmm - and how many other “Christian” denominations were present on the weekend at his “Martyrs” ceremony? Would you like a list?

Quote: The Bible tells us all true believers are saints - only Jesus knows who they really are.
So the fictitious Jesus Person (FJP) has insight into the “True Believers” within the ALP?.....is there a light on the hill? FJP also believed in and reaffirmed Old Testament BIBLE LAW and in Dinosaur Ark Theory, killed some poor farmers pigs (2000 of them) – depriving the pig farmer of a living, cursed out of season fig trees for not bearing fruit, and told Jewish Parents to kill their misbehaving children.

T S Sebastien says:

11:07am | 03/05/11

Wow P Darvio.
Somehow you managed to attach JP II not just to the Holocaust but also to Hitler. I myself am always a fan of “guilt by association” because it’s fun and allows me to attach people to causes that would otherwise have no link. It’s a bit like everyone being connected to “Kevin Bacon” in that pretty much everyone on the planet has some connection to something unsavoury or evil. I for instance once drove along the street where Hugh Grant received his unsavoury blowjob. My next door neighbour is a mechanic at a Mitsubishi dealership which would you believe manufactured kamikazi aircraft to kill Australians during WW2 (I always keep a close eye on him on ANZAC day). 
Unfortunately just like the “Kevin Bacon” game it doesn’t actually prove anything about a particular person only that there are some evil bastards around and the world is a pretty small place. If you had some evidence that the Pope had actually executed anyone during WW2 (he didn’t) or perhaps was responsible for the production, development or selling of Zyklon B (he wasn’t) I would be more interested….

True Believers says:

11:25am | 03/05/11

P Darvio

As I said your ignorance is showing and every post you display more.

I am not interested in what denominations attended any religious service as I am not interested in religion and denominations can be and are fallible being made up of human beings.

Your ingorance is only compounded when you make false statements about Jesus - He is alive, He can be known by anyone who truly acknowledges they are a sinner, repents and honest heart who truly seeks Him.  You throw up a few verses from the Bible to try to justify your ignorance and you overlook the one where Jesus said, “Do not give what is holy to dogs and do not throw your pearls before swine lest they trample them under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces.” He used the animals as referring of course to human mockers and scoffers.

TheRealDave says:

11:33am | 03/05/11

I’ve always thought the whole Catholics versus Condoms thing was pretty bloody stupid.

IF someone was sooo religious they wouldn’t wear a condom because the Church said so…then why would they be OK having pre-marital/homosexual/high risk/sex with prostitutes etc as all those practises are also against he churches teachings ?!?

Selective rule breaking??

In for a penny, in for a pound I say.

Tedd says:

12:40pm | 03/05/11

theRealDave,

The “condoms are bad” message became universal - outside the Catholic church - particularly in regions around the world with low education, and thus areas disadvantaged socio-economically.

P. Darvio says:

02:37pm | 03/05/11

Quote: from True Believers: “..... I am not interested in religion .....”

EXCELLENT NEWS - you are an Atheist. Congratulations.

Quote: from T S Sebastien:  “I myself am always a fan of “guilt by association” because it’s fun and allows me to attach people to causes that would otherwise have no link”

What a degusting post – to rank/compare the Holocaust and very real Christian association with it (Hitler being a Christian and justifying killing Jews on Christian Religious grounds, The Christian Vatican’s complicit role in the rise of Hitler with its Concordant deal in 1933, and the previous Pope’s real association with the NAZI’s use of gas to slaughter 6 million+ Jews and other innocent people) to some stupid moronic game with Kevin Beacon is just sickening.

True Believer says:

03:28pm | 03/05/11

,@P Darvio

In your dreams my friend.  I have known the emptiness of atheism and its cynicsm, to my shame. Praise the Name of Jesus He rescued me from that illusion. 

“Religion” as it is bandied around in these posts by people, who half the time have no idea what they are talking about, for me represents that which is man-made.

I have a living relationship with the Living God and His Son Jesus and His Holy Spirit - that is God made, not man-made.

Because I also shared the illusion you cling to, (atheism) I understand you do not understand the difference. Only the Lord can open your eyes to the Truth, but you have to be willing. Your God-given choice. I am so glad I left atheism behind me with all its man-made garbage.

T S Sebastien says:

09:41pm | 03/05/11

Sorry Davio I just assumed that you did not actually believe the crap you were sprouting.  As to being “disgusted” I note that’s a lot of indignation considering you conveniently ignore (and disrespect) the millions of Christians who also died in Nazi concentration camps. Does the death of Christians not bother you or is it something you just could not be bothered to find out about?
As for your other arguments I wasn’t really going to engage in this one but considering the amount of falsehoods you are peddling I though some history might be in order:
1. “Hitler was a Christian” - Well he was certainly raised a Catholic however once he left home there is no evidence that he ever attended Mass or received Catholic communion. Considering he is on record as saying that Christianity was a “religion for slaves”  and that “We do not want any other God and Germany itself” it’s fair to say that his beliefs changed over the years. Also considering that a key strategy of the Nazi party was the ultimate destruction of the Christian faith I doubt you could say he was following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
2. “Hitler justified killing Jews on Christian religious grounds” - There is nothing on record (zilch) of Hitler ever justifying the “killing of Jews” using “Christian arguments” so this is a complete falsehood. Indeed although Hitler demonised Jews and encouraged hatred he never ever acknowledged the Holocaust in public. He did use the historic antisemitism that was prevalent within the historic Catholic church (and wider European society) as some justification however in 1937 the Catholic Church issued “Mit Brennender Sorge” which rejected the racism of the Nazi party and warned that the growing Nazi ideology was incompatible with Catholic Christianity.
3. “The complicit role of the catholic church with the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust” - The concordant which was signed with Germany in 1933 sets out the framework of how the Catholic faith operates in Germany including the freedom of Catholics to practice their faith as well as the prohibition of priests joining or acting for political parties (I though you would have appreciated the separation of Church and State). There is nothing sinister about it and the agreement is still in force with the Federal Republic of Germany so I am not sure how this was complicit in the rise of Hitler. 
4. “The association of the previous Pope with the Nazis use of Gas” - By all means please produce the evidence of Pope John Paul II producing or selling Zyklon B. You won’t because you will soon discover that this is a classic anti-Catholic conspiracy theory on par with the antisemitic “Protocols of Zion”.
Sorry for your indignation but get your facts straight before you start peddling your sectarian, anti-Catholic propaganda….

Colin says:

04:48pm | 13/05/11

Joe you continue the long anti-Catholic tradition of not knowing what you’re talking about:

Firstly the covering up child abuse happened in every institution that dealt with children, whether those institutions be Catholic or secular or something else. That’s no excuse for the Catholic problem but statistics indicate the problem was no worse in Catholic institutions than in others that regularly dealt with children. Also the cover up didn’t happen in the Vatican but in local dioceses who rarely informed the Vatican of the problem.

Secondly, given that only 15% of the African population are Catholic how do you conclude the spread of HIV in Africa was caused by Catholic teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country#Africa

Are you seriously suggestly the 85% of the African population who aren’t Catholic care what the Catholic Church says.

And of course the Catholic teaching on HIV prevention isn’t that people shouldn’t use condoms, but that people should not have sex before marriage, and married people should be sexually faithful to their spouse.

Why do you have such a problem with that teaching?

Pete says:

08:00am | 03/05/11

I dont think you can have a belief system where the majority of members dont believe what that system is teaching. what you say defies logic, but then so does religion.
The church may not be a political party with the traits you speak of, but it certainly preys on those very traits to achieve it’s own ends, so which is worse, a political party that through it’s weaknesses is open to undue influence or a religion exploiting the weaknesses of a political party to further it’s own ends?

What has been confirmed is that religion is man made and that the heirarchy of any religion do very nicely preying on peoples fears of the unknown, thank you very much.

Dutch says:

11:25am | 03/05/11

“It’s very simple - if you don’t agree with Catholic Church teachings, then leave the church - issue resolved.”

Yes, I believe that was Jesus’s main theme: “if you don’t like it get lost”.

HappyCynic says:

11:33am | 03/05/11

@Blazes

Individuals and their churches should be free to interpret their religion in any way they choose, without having to leave the religion.  This consolidation of power all the way up to the Pope is contrary to how the other monotheistic religions are run where the community decides what laws to follow, how it interprets its holy texts and what traditions to accept and which ones should be summarily scrapped.  And it isn’t just Catholicism, outside of a handful of the new-age evangelists most Christian organisations have central core powerbase that decides who worships what and when. 

I feel sorry for Christians who have to put up with that kind of crap, as far as my understanding of Christ’s teachings (which are fairly limited admittedly) this is exactly the opposite of what he wanted.  The man preached that anyone could reach G-d if they wanted to, they just had to talk to Him.

Catholicism is outdated because it refuses to relinquish power to its congregations and because it thinks it has the right to dictate to people what’s right and wrong rather than allowing people to decide for themselves.

SimpleSimon says:

11:45am | 03/05/11

With the exception of the Virgin birth, the ex-Bishop’s discussion points weren’t questions of faith, they were questions of policy. Women priests, married priests etc..

The Catholic Church has changed it’s policies on numerous matters over the centuries (all services being in Lattin, eating meat on a Friday, for example), so raising policy issues for potential discussion can’t be anything new.

The Vatican essentially covering it’s ears and going “na-na-na-na-na! I can’t hear you!!!” will be it’s ultimate undoing. Good thing they have plenty of real estate investments to keep them financially alive for a little while after the donations dry up.

liz says:

08:22am | 03/05/11

And all pedophiles and child abusers are Catholic?

The Original Oz says:

10:24am | 03/05/11

Liz - that is not what Von said, But the Catholic Priesthood (& christian brothers, etc) are highly visible in those that are identified.

Danelle says:

10:50am | 03/05/11

@ Liz… What planet or drugs are you on girl!
You stated - “And all pedophiles and child abusers are Catholic?”
Von was not talking about the culture in main society but in the the religious sector. Stop trying to protect them depraved sick criminals that pry on young children and use the same tactics as the church does to scare their followers.

Religion = criminals and they have a lot to answer for.
I’m glad I stopped my sister from having her young kids saying grace before eating meals, I just told her not to neglect their rights and to let them choose later when they are older and of understanding if they want religion in their lives, don’t pass that virus onto to them.
kids need guidance, love and understanding, not to grow up with confusedness and guilt.

Harquebus says:

11:10am | 03/05/11

Brainwashing or sticking it in?

Tedd says:

08:27am | 03/05/11

Not even science, or logic, or rational

Erin says:

08:42am | 03/05/11

It’s not a club, it’s a religion. Catholics are taught if they don’t have a relationship with the church, they don’t have a proper relationship with God and won’t go to heaven. Eternity in hell for you.

Samuel says:

09:50am | 03/05/11

Actually, Erin, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that at all. But, you know, you can think whatever you like.

grumpy old man says:

09:59am | 03/05/11

its both rational and apt. If the Catholic Church does not represent what you seek, then seek out a faith that does provide what you need. The Catholic Church is not going to change, if it did, then it would not be the catholic church!.
One of the tenets of the Christian faith is that God gave man fee will, so it seems a reasonable assumption that he would want people to use this freedom. failure to use this free will in the pursuit of a faith that fits with your own personal values and beliefs would seem to be an abuse of this freedom.
And no, I’m not a catholic or a christian

Tedd says:

11:50am | 03/05/11

grumpy.
we all have choice independent of purported acts of God.

altarboy says:

11:52am | 03/05/11

Oh, that is nonsense old man.  I was born a Catholic and christened before I had any say in it.  I went to Catholic schools (no choice) and all my family and most of my friends are Catholic.  It’s not a frickin Social Club!  You walk away from the church in such circumstances and you turn your back on the better part of most of your life.  And you gives you the right to tell me what the Rules are or should be?  Who has that right?  Nobody, except God himself.

Danielle says:

09:55pm | 04/05/11

@ tb.. I’m not arguing with you, mad made again, there your words.
If I was to debate with you on the subject at hand, you have nothing to put up in defence but that old book called the bible,.
I would suggest you read the book The Three Pigs, very educational and for credibility about the same as the bible, so you would love it

True Believer says:

02:14pm | 03/05/11

@Pete

Religion does not cause wars, man does. “Religion” used the way it is on these pages is man-made. Jesus offers Life and Truth - no rules - just repent and believe, then receive.

True Believer says:

02:14pm | 03/05/11

@Pete

Religion does not cause wars, man does. “Religion” used the way it is on these pages is man-made. Jesus offers Life and Truth - no rules - just repent and believe, then receive.

kate says:

04:14pm | 03/05/11

If there are ‘no rules’ what exactly are we supposed to ‘repent’ for?

True Believer says:

04:46pm | 03/05/11

@Kate

I meant man-made rules.  “All fall short of the glory of God” - not one of us is without sin.  Sin is foreign to the nature of God.  Our conscience tells us whether we are sinning or not, but we can ignore it. Rebellion against and denial of the Living God is sin.  Sin is what brings confusion, destruction, disease and the many anguishes of humankind.  Satan loves to ply us with his cheap rubbish and tell us ‘it is not sin’ (so seductive is his voice so many fall for it)  -  trust him or trust Jesus. I know Who I would rather trust to tell me the Truth.

If you do not believe Satan exists then you are well and truly deceived, although I understand your plight for I too was an unbeliever once also. By God’s Grace I was set free from sin and spiritual death - not by any ‘goodness’ or ‘righteousness’ in me, only by Jesus’ death for me, and for you. Your choice.  I found there is so much more and I am so glad He enabled me to.

Chris L says:

06:07pm | 03/05/11

@TB so, if you don’t stray from your spiritual path does that mean you’re immune to disease now?

Likes Joining Dots says:

08:17pm | 03/05/11

@TB

“Our conscience tells us whether we are sinning or not, but we can ignore it”

Does your appeal to the conscience (for what is sinful) also apply to people who have never heard of or experienced Christianity? In essence, is the conscience and sin independent of the teachings of Christ?

Danielle says:

02:20am | 04/05/11

@ True Believer… Let me start with the rules you stated - I’m over people who say it’s man made rules and not gods rules, load of rubbish, religion or god is the catalyst of it all.
“not one of us is without sin” you might not be but I know I am, I was told long long ago that I was born into sin, what stupidity! I was not born a loser or a follower but a winner and a leader.
NOW this is a silly statement you posted.. “in is what brings confusion, destruction, disease and the many anguishes of humankind” all you stated is what god or religion has caused, e.g. religion = confusion, religion = destruction, good way for disease to find a host is lack of using a condom and the rest is history.
“trust him or trust Jesus. I know Who I would rather trust to tell me the Truth.” Try trusting yourself and being more responsibly. good place to start.
The only true sinners I know of are people like you who keep needing to repent and you need it badly.
“By God’s Grace I was set free from sin and spiritual death” lol you are so funny, holy chit you’re a comedian.
If you’re in your spaceship lost out there, I say keep going far far away from this planet, we have enough losers and followers here who are not needed.
And please! Stop using the term its man made, you now know what it is really made from. It isn’t man.

True Believer says:

02:40pm | 04/05/11

@Chris L

“so, if you don’t stray from your spiritual path does that mean you’re immune to disease now?”

No, I still live in a fallen world where Satan rules for the time being.

@Likes Joining Dots

I believe our Creator gave us all a conscience.

@Danielle

I think there is little point trying to argue with one who claims to be sinless.  Shows lack of insight. Your other comments are not sensible enough to warrant a response.

sir ronald bradnam says:

11:40am | 03/05/11

yep sure write it down so you dont lose it and dont tell anyone as it is secret, D.A V.I.N.C.I

fairsfair says:

01:16pm | 03/05/11

173047 “punch tipping”

Was just in there confirming I am still at #1 (I am btw), figured posting the code was the least I could do

ZSRenn says:

02:44pm | 03/05/11

Thanks fairsfair

Likes Joining Dots says:

07:34pm | 03/05/11

@Fairsfair. Isn’t pride one of the seven deadly sins?

Repent now, keep your codes ... but share the winning tips with ZSRenn & others - purely for your own sake.

PS This weekend I intend to learn how to add the winking emote.

Kika says:

11:37am | 03/05/11

What do you define as ‘younger’? Younger than 60?

Pot Stirrer says:

12:32pm | 03/05/11

Younger than 30. As seen especially in events like World Youth Day and Theology on Tap

TCB 24 X 7 says:

09:13am | 03/05/11

Exactly Brah,
AS if other organizations, commie countries, etc etc do no wrong.
At least the Catholic Church does more good than bad.

Ben C says:

12:16pm | 03/05/11

@ Brah

Could you please provide some examples of “degenerate behaviour”, and explain why the Church deems it to be so?

Brah says:

01:04pm | 03/05/11

Ben C,

Since you asked - anything to do with homosexuality, LGBT,  state sanctioned killing (e.g euthanasia) are the main ones. Basically anything the Greens are for.

Chris L says:

01:44pm | 03/05/11

You didn’t include the “why” portion of the answer Brah. Why is homosexuality degenerate? Why is euthenasia degenerate? Is it because some god said so or is there actually a logical reason?

PS. before you trot out the “homosexuals don’t produce children” reason please note many married heterosexual couples cannot have children. Just giving you a heads up before you include them in your definition of “degenerate”.

kate says:

03:47pm | 03/05/11

“At least the Catholic Church does more good than bad.”

You reckon? 

On one side of the ledger:  thousands of kids phyically, psychologically and sexually abused; whole generations taught that they are born evil, that questioning authority is a sin, that women are inferior, that homosexuality is immoral, that priests can do no wrong, that masturbation will result in eternal torture, that sex is dirty, and that contraception is wrong; billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains and tax exemptions; untold numbers of people suffering self-hatred and lifelong guilt.

On the other: some (taxpayer funded) schools and hospitals, some (false) hope of eternal life and a shoulder to cry on (usually with strings attached); and some good works which could be done just as well without the added proselytising.

I don’t think the sums add up the way you think they do.

Versus

Brah says:

04:39pm | 03/05/11

Kate - you need to look at the role of the church in the world. What is does. Yes good, yes bad.  I am very sorry for your loss.

Chris L says:

10:21pm | 03/05/11

Still no “why” Brah? perhaps you never bothered to think about why. Perhaps you just follow the rules you’re given without wondering why.

Brah says:

11:10pm | 03/05/11

Chris L - if you need me to tell you why homosexuality is disgusting you really do need help.  Re Euthanasia - I dont believe in killing people, under any circumstances. Most of the world (outside of paddington and Fitzroy) agree with that.  Thats why euthanasia is not legal in almost all countries.  Are they all wrong?? Does Fitzroy know best? The State is supposed to protect us. Not to create laws that allow people to kill ourselves. I think it is disgusting to advocate for laws which essentially allow people to put their hands up and say lets finish me off.  I would be happy to provide my views on gay adoption but I dont think they will surprise you. I am not given any rules, I form my views not as part of the chattering classes in miserable cafes but in my views on society. Women can terminate pregnancies now. Thousands of babies are not born. Some people say that is great. I dont think it is. The groupthink that is imposed upon people is ridiculous.

kate says:

08:39am | 04/05/11

@Brah, huh?  If you read my post you’ll see I have done exactly that, and reached the conclusion that the ‘role of the church in the world’ is overwhelmingly negative, for the several reasons I’ve listed, and many more.  Where’s your evidence of this so-called good? (based on your answer to Chris I presume it consists of “just because”)

Don’t know what loss you’re talking about, I’m doing just fine thanks.

Chris L says:

12:29pm | 04/05/11

@Brah - “The groupthink that is imposed upon people is ridiculous.”

You just summed up my greatest criticism against religion.

Brah says:

12:46pm | 04/05/11

CHris you are assuming that everyone in a group thinks the same. Do you really think all Catholics (about 5 million in OZ) agree with me? They are not all that inspired.  I suppose homosexuals all think the same though.

Chris L says:

05:31pm | 04/05/11

They were your words Brah. If you have a problem with them, maybe you’ll see why others do too.

St. Michael says:

12:08pm | 03/05/11

...how long has it been since a nun or priest actually taught in a Catholic Church, Joy?

Slight fail on that, mate.

sir ronald bradnam says:

09:23am | 03/05/11

Sorry forgot to bring up the fact that before the ex commandant died they drew of two vials of blood that have now been declared relics/icons of a saint and will be used in future ceremonies….......wacko wacko wacko and anyone who believes this shit should be institutionalised.

sheldon says:

12:23pm | 03/05/11

a balanced and articulate response, with an insightful conclusion.

sir ronald bradnam says:

02:18pm | 03/05/11

TY Sheldon I do try and bring a balance to all debate.

Samuel says:

10:05am | 03/05/11

Well said. This situation needs to be looked at as an employee/ex-employee situation. The Catholic Church can’t and doesn’t control what people think in private. Peter Kennedy is free to say what he wants (note that for all his accusations of ‘silencing’ he’s got himself a lengthy piece in The Punch and the fired Bishop got a letter out to all the parishoners in his diocese - there’s an awful lot of noise coming from people who are meant to have been ‘silenced’).

But if you call yourself a catholic priest, say your conducting a catholic ceremony, operate in catholic buildings on catholic property, you’ve got a responsibility to make some effort to do what they say.

True believer says:

11:29am | 03/05/11

@thomas Anderson
Well said.

Brah says:

01:23pm | 03/05/11

True Thomas, Us Catholics dont want to be associated with those Hilsongers.

It really is disturbing how much the homosexual lobby runs the punch.  We have degenerates being offered babies, being told they should have marriage rights. Who wants this? We also have euthanasia being pushed down our throats? Also a homosexual issue.

Thomas Anderson says:

02:40pm | 03/05/11

“euthanasia is a homosexual issue”

:0 I feel so wrong to be laughing at that. Or do I..?

Kate says:

03:18pm | 03/05/11

At Brah,

I didn’t realise that only unnatural faggots died of pain causing cancer.

Yobbo!!

Brah says:

04:20pm | 03/05/11

Re it being a homosexual issue, of course it is.  The greens support euthanasia - they are all homosexuals.  They feel that society has given them a bad deal and that they must attack the institutions that have served Australia well.  They think that all rich people should lose their wealth and everyone should just weave baskets .  This goes down well in Punchland/Q & A (Miserable whingers anonymous) The homosexuals and the greens (not that I need to say both) are anti anything or anyone that lives life happily.  They are anti the Catholic Church because it disapproves of their disgusting existence. Just because its compulsory to be a homosexual in parts of Sydney, it does not mean we have to make it compulsory. Euthanasia has been raised in many countries over the last 20 years. Where is it legal??? Not many places. What about gay marriage? Not many places. Funny that.  As we often get told, back door merchants have been around a long time.  Thousands of years. Yet for all that time, their relationships were not recognised. Was everyone stupid??? No.

Chris L says:

06:11pm | 03/05/11

Wow! Brah, are you a troll or just one of the worst endorsements for Catholicism alive?

Brah says:

09:47pm | 03/05/11

Chris L - I am sorry if my views cause you concern.  Its not my views that should be concerning as they are just accurate observations of the reality. It is my well considered view that the Q and A audience are losers. They whinge so much. If they had a decent job, or a family that loved them (all straight of course), they wouldnt be like that.

We hear a lot about the supposed irrelevance of the Catholic Church. Two issues that come up often re this is homosexuals and euthanasia. We just had easter (do homosexuals propose going to work on public holidays?) aka the death of jesus christ (first catholic) - do we have 4 days off for the first homosexual?, euthanasia is illegal (church policy, homosexuals cant marry (church policy), more people say they are catholic than any other faith in Aus - sounds really irrelevant to me.

Chris L says:

10:37pm | 03/05/11

@Brah - you responded in a civilised manner so I hope to respond in kind. It seems you are sincere that you feel (and I’m sure you’re not alone) that homosexuality and euthenasia are wrong. That is fair enough, if you have a legitimate reason to say so.

I worked over Easter, holy days (even Pagan ones) mean little to me as an atheist although I’m glad to take another day off in lieu

My disagreement with you is because I don’t understand where your point comes from. If homosexuals are degenerate I would like to know why you think so. I’m also interested in your stance against euthenasia (I am supportive of this idea myself) and would like to know why you think this is a bad idea. Without knowing why you feel the way you do, we (or, at least, I) cannot take your argument on board and consider your stance.

Thomas Anderson says:

02:58am | 04/05/11

1. Easter is the day Christ ressurected.
2. Jesus most certainly was not Catholic, as no such thing existed back then. He was Jewish.

Kika says:

11:42am | 03/05/11

Well it’s just the Roman Empire manifest in religious form!  However, you must pay credit where credit is due. Without them it’s unlikely that as many protestant churches would have started up all around Europe and the world.

Brah says:

04:42pm | 03/05/11

As long as they are not Lesos I think female priests is an interesting one.

Super D says:

10:46am | 03/05/11

These days indulgences are known as carbon offsets

Kika says:

11:11am | 03/05/11

Well my Nana had a full requiem and they made everyone pay - the plates came around to raise money even during a funeral.

TheRealDave says:

11:27am | 03/05/11

The fact its lasted so long because of brutal repression, holy wars, the crushing of independent thought and free will, repressing sciences etc had nothing to do with it?

Bit like booting out members who just want to discuss new ideas in a society just a tad changed from the one that Constantine was part of when he invented Christianity? Our ideas of government, freedom, laws, customs, morals, education, health, technology etc have all changed since then….why not religion?

Chris L says:

12:23pm | 03/05/11

Much of those 2000 years involved the death penalty for atheism or even being protestant. This wasn’t an empty threat or an unenforced law, they really made good on these threats, upstanding Christians standing around watching protestants, jews and atheists burn alive. Not such a great acheivement when you take such brutality into account.

Kika says:

12:29pm | 03/05/11

Real Dave - Constantine didn’t invent Christianity. He just capitalised on a very popular underground movement for political mileage and because his Mum was into it.

TheRealDave says:

02:39pm | 03/05/11

@Kika Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Religion ... sounds kinda familiar….. Christianity may have been a cult emerging onto the world stage, such as it was at the time, but at the direction of Constantine it became what it is today. All the ‘legends’ were ratified, voted on and created/stolen at this time

True Believer says:

03:09pm | 03/05/11

@Anne

I agree the “catholic” church, that is the Church of true believers has existed for 2000 years, but I do not accept that the Church of true believers, that is, the body of Christ is represented by any one denomination. I believe there are true believers in many denominations including the Roman Catholic denomination. There are also pretenders in all, ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ as Jesus called them. 

Only Jesus knows who belongs to the one True Church - which may be people in all denominations and many outside any.

God bless.

Chris L says:

06:14pm | 03/05/11

Oh, my bad for talking about Christians as opposed to Protestants. I should have said “Catholics and Protestants alternatingly burning each other” or something along those lines

Mr Miyagi says:

12:42pm | 03/05/11

“If they weren’t so stubborn and embraced change”

Luce, explain this change you see happening, is it the 50% divorce rate, the fatherless households, the drugs, the crime - should the church start celebrating these things, or should it, instead, remain the light of the world? Seems to me that traditional values lead to prosperity and a good family life, but progressive morals destroy lives absolutley.

Chris L says:

01:50pm | 03/05/11

You mean traditional values like slavery? Stoning unruly children and people who work on the sabbath to death? Burning people alive because they don’t worship the same way you do?

Lucky there was no such thing as crime in those days. Makes you wonder why anyone felt the need for laws.

Luce says:

02:33pm | 03/05/11

The change I see happening is that as people in first world countries become better educated and lead a better quality of life, they don’t need god to be happy or feel safe because society is able to provide that for them. God is becoming irrelevant, and hence the catholic church is becoming irrelevant.

For example: some of the least religious countries on earth are also the most prosperous and safest, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. That’s not to say atheistic beliefs are the sole cause, but it illustrates that GOD IS NOT NECESSARY for society to function properly.

Social disorder, such as what you’re describing, does stem from a breakdown of values, but to suggest this is because people strayed from the “light of the world” (which, by the way, used to put heretics to DEATH, launched crusades against, and persecuted Muslims, pagan Slavs, Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars and Hussites, harbored and protected child molesters, was complicit with Nazism, claimed condoms were a greater evil then AIDS, currently suppresses women’s reproductive rights, suppresses homosexual rights, and all the while not paying taxes while receiving a massive income from its supporters, because apparently its not a business) is incorrect.

We do need a return to good morals (not necessarily traditional, and I wouldn’t say family life is always necessary), what we DON’T need is the catholic church taking us there.

MikeH says:

04:05pm | 03/05/11

@Luce: Sorry, but this has got to be one of the silliest things I’ve ever read. I’m sure God doesn’t actually care whether He is “necessary” for society to function properly. God is not a security blanket or a policeman. If He exists, He is the creator of the universe and He cannot become “irrelevant”. He’s not going to slip into non-existence because you don’t need Him.

It’s simple, if He exists, He’s the most relevant thing in the universe, since our eternity is in His hands. If He doesn’t exist, He’s completely irrelevant. But We can never make Him irrelevant.

Luce says:

05:10pm | 03/05/11

Mike, you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective. A security blanket and policeman is EXACTLY what god is.

The idea of god developed because a) in the absence of science, people were searching for a way to explain and understand the world around them (weather patterns, random cataclysmic events etc), and b) they were terrified of their own mortality and wanted a way to exert some control over their fate and find comfort that when they finally did die, they wouldn’t simply turn into maggot food.

Religion developed and stuck around because a) it provided a handy way for people to access this god and practice their faith, b) it provided some sort of societal structure and a way for people to bond and feel solidarity, and c) because it is an effective way for the authorities to control people (“here are the rules, follow them or you shall meet the wrath of god”, pretty effective if you ask me).

However with advancing science and technology we can explain more and more of what god(s) used to explain, and solve many of the problems that used to threaten our existence. With better education we have greater intellectual independence, diminishing the need to rely on the church for answers, and giving people the courage to challenge much of the standard orthodoxy. Modern governments organise our societies and keep them functioning effectively. And as a result of all that many people are happy to live without the over bearing influence of god and the church.

So yes, it is possible to make him irrelevant, and many people have done exactly that. Atheism is on the rise for a reason.

True Believer says:

05:44pm | 03/05/11

@Luce

If your comments so sadly wrong and your delusion of science and atheism being the answer, you really would be funny.  I cannot laugh because you obviously really believe what you say.

How then, if science is as infallible as you seem to think it is, do scientists disagree on many things - eg. climate change, evolution, ESP,  near death experiences???? Horror of horrors, quite a number of scientists are also believers in Jesus Christ and the Living God. 

Now how pray tell with this mish mash of beliefs do you decide which are infallible????? How do you know you are right. How do you prove one scientific “fact” against the opposing one???  Could it be you are in error????

Science has done wonderful things, it has also made some awful blunders - how do you base your beliefs and your brave new world on something that unsteady I wonder. I await your reply.

Chris L says:

06:26pm | 03/05/11

“Now how pray tell with this mish mash of beliefs do you decide which are infallible?????” - none TB. Any scientific hypothesis must be rigorously tested and reproduced by independant agencies before being upgraded to a theory, and even then a single discovery can disprove it and cause the process to start again. Nothing is taken for granted, nothing and no-one is considered infallible. Science is simply not that arrogant.

“how do you base your beliefs and your brave new world on something that unsteady I wonder” - I can’t speak for Luce but I imagine the bulk of atheists don’t feel a driving need to have an answer for everything. When pondering one of those questions that science is yet to answer with any degree of certainty the default answer is “I don’t know” and that’s not so bad. I consider it better than accepting an answer that has no proof at all and no logical reasoning for why such an answer was ever arrived at. I guess the only thing we can base our “brave new world” on would be logic, experience and an attitude that when we make mistakes we will learn from them.

Luce says:

07:29pm | 03/05/11

Chris pretty much gave the response I would have.

It’s very simple: science is not infallible, and no scientist claims it is, which is the whole point. You come up with a hypothesis based on observations, test it, and if the evidence supports it, your hypothesis has credibility, if not, it’s thrown out. At any time new evidence to the contrary can discredit a hypothesis. Religion, on the other hand, makes massive claims of “truth” based on nothing more then suspicion and these claims are held in perpetuity despite massive amounts of evidence against them (and doing this is considered virtuous??? Which is just insane)

The thing that scientists realise is that it’s dangerous to make absolute claims and hold them as fact, because that leads to innumerable problems. Nothing is infallible, ever. Scientists know this, religious people do not. Scientists are solving our problems. Religious people are not.

There is no way to escape risk in life, but I can damn well tell you who is managing to do it the best.

True Believer says:

07:42pm | 03/05/11

Chris L

Thank you for your thoughtful reply I really appreciate that. Let us ponder some more if you will bear with me.

If atheists accept they do not know the answers to all questions how then can they dogmatically insist that God does not exist?

What about areas of reality which are beyond human scientific scrutiny - which science may never be able to prove empirically?  Can you be absolutely, without any shadow of a doubt, be sure they do not exist?  How do you then prove they don’t? Or is it you can but surmise based on a pre-existing prejudice?

Perhaps science, wonderful as it can be when it does get it right has a rather narrow definition of reality?  Could that be the case, if no - why?

True Believer says:

08:11pm | 03/05/11

@Luce

I have sent my answer and some further queries in answer to Chris L - yet to be published as I write.

I must ask you why you keep running to the safety of religion to criticize what you do not understand. I have already said I am not interested in “religion” as it is referred to on these pages is man-made.

I speak of what I know, you speak of what you suppose from an extremely tenuous position. Remember I have been an unbeliever, I know only too well how tenuous that can be and how blind to the belief that there is no God is.  There is so much more. :0)

Luce says:

09:46pm | 03/05/11

For the sake of the argument I’m not distinguishing between religion and your personal belief purely because both make the statement as truth that “god is real, and I/we have a relationship with him.”

You can feel safe in making this claim because you know no one can prove you wrong because it is an untestable assertion. It is untestable because your evidence (and indeed the only evidence there has ever been) for god comes from personal subjective experience, which cannot be recorded in any concrete reliable way and cannot be reliably reproduced, i.e. won’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.  This doesn’t make you right or lend you any credibility, in fact it does the opposite: claiming as TRUTH something which can never even be tested, let alone proven either way goes against all rational thought.

You believe my position is tenuous because, well, you “know” god is real, based on nothing more then a feeling. I believe your position is tenuous because it holds no logic or rationality and makes no sense. You claim something is there, when theres no actual sign of it  being there, aside from your personal feeling. I claim it’s not because, despite the fact i can’t 100% prove you otherwise, logic, reason and everything I observe in the world around me would strongly suggest you are wrong. I honestly can’t understand why anyone with an ounce of rationality would say your position holds any credibility at all. 

Chris L says:

10:50pm | 03/05/11

“Thank you for your thoughtful reply I really appreciate that. Let us ponder some more if you will bear with me.” - I am delighted to debate with you TB and I will bear with any insight you care to share (I have missed our jousting).

” Can you be absolutely, without any shadow of a doubt, be sure they do not exist?” - the honest answer is no. I don’t know if there are any entities that would qualify as gods. Those atheists that say they are certain that there are no gods do not speak for me, but I do understand why they say such.

“Perhaps science, wonderful as it can be when it does get it right has a rather narrow definition of reality?  Could that be the case, if no - why?” -  Scientific theories are often proven wrong and the parametres are often lengthened to accept new information. This brings me great comfort in that we can always learn more.

I guess my answer is no. If our definition of reality becomes so narrow that new information is rejected rather than taken on board, then we are no longer following the scientific method.

Nice to meet with you again TB

Mikeh says:

09:12am | 04/05/11

@Luce: Harking way, way back to my previous comment, I was responding to your assertion that the development of society and science had made God “irrelevant”. Since then you’ve changed that pretty significantly, in effect saying God is irrelevant because He doesn’t exist. You’ll find I actually agree with you on this. IF God doesn’t exist, of course He is irrelevant. At the end of your post, you say “So yes, it is possible to make him irrelevant…” which, I’m sorry, is just silliness again. Maybe you really mean to say that science has proven God doesn’t exist?

“However with advancing science and technology we can explain more and more of what god(s) used to explain…” Yet science still can’t explain the fundamental question “How did we come to be?” Both of us are taking a faith postion here. I look at the miracle of the universe and of life and I see that it is entirely consistent with a Creator God. I don’t have any “proof”, but I have evidence (for example, science and experience tell me that things - e.g. universes -  don’t pop into being of their own volition, science and experience tell me that things that appear to be designed, usually have a designer). So I have objective evidence, but no absolute proof and therefore there is “faith” involved in my position. On the other hand, it seems you look at the same things and then would have to say “We don’t know how these things came to be, but since I can’t bring myself to believe in a creator, I’ll just need to have faith that science will one day answer these questions.”

To pick up something from your response to TB: “...logic, reason and everything I observe in the world around me would strongly suggest you are wrong.” It’s interesting, isn’t it, that I’ve applied “logic, reason and everything I observe in the world…” and come to an entirely different position than you.

We have both taken a faith position. If I’m wrong then God is indeed “irrelevant”, since He doesn’t exist. If you are wrong, God can never be “irreleveant”, and the consequences of getting it wrong are pretty significant.

Chris L says:

10:47am | 04/05/11

@Mikeh, I think I understand what Luce what saying so I’ll share my supposition with you.

For argument’s sake, let’s say (hypothetically) that there are no gods. That would mean we invented the concept in order to explain natural phenomena and to comfort us during times of loss and hardship. In this situation the more we learn about the world the less we need gods to explain it. The more enlightened we become the less we need gods for comfort. Thus we make gods irrelevant.

Not all of us need all of the answers. In the absence of an easy explanation for life, the universe and everything (ie. god did it) we turn to science. If science does not yet have that answer most of us shrug our shoulders and go back to business. Most of us (atheists & agnostics) are more comfortable just saying “I don’t know yet” rather than accepting an explanation that has no proof and no logical foundation.

The reason I say “logical foundation” is that science has shown (through what we have observed of the creation of the universe and evolution) that pretty much everything that came into being started from a simple, primitive form and gradually developed into more complex forms. This implies that the idea of our complex universe being created by an even more complex (omnipotent & omniscient) being does not fit with what we know of the universe. Thus, while not disproven, the idea of gods seems illogical.

True Believer says:

12:57pm | 04/05/11

@ChrisL

Thanks for your reply, good to catch up with you also.

The problem comes down to “logic.”  I would suggest that why for some areas of human endeavour logic serves us well, but it has necessary limitations.  It encourages discounting anything that cannot be understood by the human mind.

Now there are many aspects of humanity that it would be difficult to examine by logic alone. 

Science can describe mechanics of the brain, but it cannot show us a mind. Granted it can show us what parts of the brain light up in some individuals on particular subjects or prompts, but it cannot explain why if the mechanics of the brain are all there is to the mind and the makeup of the brain in healthy human beings is the same why do people think differently from one another. If mechanics and chemicals was all there was to our minds then surely we should all think the same thoughts?  So you will run to genes - mmmmmmmmmmmmm but can those really explain imagination, thoughts of love, thoughts of hate,thoughts of wonder, thoughts of sadness, thoughts of happiness??  How can we prove hope, dignity, love, hate etc?  We can demonstrate the results of these things, but to prove them scientifically is not possible surely? 

I have problems too with the “big bang” -  now any explosion I have ever seen on tv or read about has resulted in things being destroyed, not formed in a manner which points to design.  Where is the logic in the “big bang” theory. It is not proven, it is merely a theory and a pretty illogical one at that.

So many things we human’s take for granted cannot be subject to empirical scrutiny by science. If there is much we do not understand with all our scientific knowledge about just the human being - surely there may be more reality beyond our understanding?

A god who can be weighed, put under a microscope, poked and prodden by mankind would surely not be the real God??

If mankind is the epitomy of all knowledge and master of all there is how come he/she is making such a mess of the planet?  Much of the damage is surely coming from great scientific endeavours, the internal combustion engine being but one example.

Why if man is so wonderful and needs to answer to no Creator does he kill, abuse, torture, starve, waste resources and have often no real sense of direction??  Some of this behaviour is beyond that which even animals indulge in and yet we are supposed to have evolved beyond them if one subscribes to Darwin’s theories.

As I keep reiterating on these pages, I cannot prove my God.  I knew what it was like not to know Him, not to have my spirit awakened as I lived that life for many years, missing an essential dimension to my humanity. 

Then without denominational doctrines, reading the Bible, being “taught by men,” threatened etc etc which seems to be the sad lot of so many who deny God - I met Him.  I stepped out of darkness, spiritually, into spiritual light the like of which I had never known before.

Then I read His book and it made sense. I tried before with my carnal mind, but its treasures were hidden to me.  Jesus has given me life and life abundantly (not the material abundance of the human world), forgiveness,  hope, joy, Love beyond measure, and taken away all fear. 

That is what being a true believer has brought to me and much more as well.  This without human intervention apart from the prayers of believers for my salvation for which I am eternally grateful.

I am not forced to go to any denomination or to accept any teaching which does not line up with His Word and His guidance - I am not forced to contribute money, if I do it is up to me, no one tells me to, in fact no one need know.  I have the gift of prayer - knowing my prayers are heard and answered, not always in the way I want, but inevitably in the best way. 

I think many who contribute to these pages have had bad experiences with denominations - that is why I differentiate knowing Jesus as Lord and Saviour from “religion” as it is used here.  Religion does not interest me in the main.  I can worship my God anywhere, it is great to share my worship with fellow believers but that does not have to be in any one denomination or their building.  These things are man-made “add-ons” I would suggest and being human made not God made are fallible.

I look forward to receiving your comments.  Cheers,

Chris L says:

03:29pm | 04/05/11

“If mankind is the epitomy of all knowledge and master of all there is how come he/she is making such a mess of the planet?” - probably because we’re not the epitome of all knowledge and master of all there is. I never said we were.

“Where is the logic in the “big bang” theory. It is not proven, it is merely a theory and a pretty illogical one at that.” - The big bang theory is, so far, the best explanation for the movement of stellar objects (outward from a central point) and the consistency of these objects (primitive hydrogen atoms in the oldest to far more complex atoms and molecules in the newest). Matter can be changed into energy by an explosion but mostly it will radiate outward from the point of origin. Think of shrapnel from a mine.

“why do people think differently from one another” - the odds of two people having identical brains with the identical composition of chemicals are mind-bogglingly remote. That said, I have trouble understanding how our brains lead to thoughts and personalities. It’s one of those questions where I respond with “I don’t know” and hope that medical science will some day explain. If it turns out we have souls I’ll be quite happy, but I won’t assume that to be the case just because I want it to be.

Saying that a deity will only reveal itself to those that believe is a bit like saying I can turn invisible but only when no-one is looking.

True Believer says:

04:06pm | 04/05/11

Chris L

Nice try, but leave many more gaps than believing what the Lord said He did, does and evermore will do. 

The “big bang” might cause atoms etc to explode away, but it does not tell me how it then produced life - in all its diversity and beauty.  Do you really believe an explosion can produce beautiful, intricately designed life forms?  I think that would take a bigger leap of faith than trusting the Lord.

I notice you carefully avoided some questions - too difficult - cannot fit them into science and logic?? Of course you can’t and that is the amazing wonder of observing creation in harmony with the Creator.

I can assure you have a soul. No doubt about that at all.  No amount of science will prove it or disprove it though, thankfully there are many things above human knowledge.

You say life developed from a “primitive life form” - I guess you mean the emergence from the swamp - but why?  Why should a big bang happen and then life happen also. I think you would have to do logistical cartwheels to come up with an answer to that and you would probably still be wrong.  But a “T” for trying - at least you discuss not just mindlessly insult and mock and I appreciate that.  Take care, God bless. :0)

Chris L says:

05:41pm | 04/05/11

@TB The big bang is a theory on how the universe was formed. If you’re looking for explanations for the origin of life you should look up abiogenesis. A relevant section from wikipedia follows:

“Most amino acids, often called “the building blocks of life”, can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory”

I didn’t intend to dodge any questions, just keeping my own post brief. Are there any in particular that you want me to respond to?

True Believer says:

06:27pm | 04/05/11

@Chris L

Thanks again. Back when I too was an unbeliever and trying to understand big questions with my carnal mind I may have taken up your suggestion to seek answers in science, but now I am no longer seeking there is no need.

I have examined the human answers and found them wanting.  In my Lord I find the answers to all my big questions. Some I am content to wait and find out when I eventually am with Him.

It was not the “how” of life I was asking if you considered it was the “why.”  Why should all these chemicals, atoms and bits and pieces come together into such an intricate design?  It is illogical surely to consider these things randomly arrived at such an intricate being spiritually and intellectually and physically isn’t it?  Does not make sense.

On the other hand when one considers these things with God consciousness then it makes sense.

I wish you well.

Chris L says:

10:52pm | 04/05/11

@TB I would have liked to leave you with the last word, but you are challenging me to respond to the question of why, so I’ll add this last comment.

The human design is not perfect. As Robin Williams pointed out we have a waste disposal unit next to a pleasure centre. Another comedian (I think maybe Bill Maher) pointed out that it takes about twenty minutes for a woman to orgasm but a man can get there in two. Simply put, mutation, evolution and natural selection make more sense to me, given the results, than the idea that we were designed. As George Carlin said, “Results like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being, this is the kind of work you’d expect from an office temp with a bad attitude.”

MikeH says:

09:18am | 05/05/11

@Chris L: Sorry, you guys clearly have much more time available than me, but I’d like to respond to your previous post to me. Thanks for your explanation. I also understood what Luce was getting at; however, since it boils down to “I don’t believe in God”, it might be simpler for him just to say that. The initial assumption in both your own and his argument is “God doesn’t exist”, therefore we don’t need to go through all the hoops you’ve suggested to come to the conclusion He’s irrelevant. Once you assume God was invented by man, that’s really all you need to say. God is completely irrelevant under that assumption.

On the other hand, if God MIGHT exist, then whether or not He actually does is probably the most relevant and important question we can ask ourselves. I’m not talking about a primitive thunder god here “Oooh, the clouds are rumbling, Thor must be angry!” I’m talking about an almighty Creator God that put together the entire universe and all of the constants and laws of science that allow us to form some understanding of it.

“...pretty much everything that came into being started from a simple, primitive form and gradually developed into more complex forms. This implies that the idea of our complex universe being created by an even more complex (omnipotent & omniscient) being does not fit with what we know of the universe. Thus, while not disproven, the idea of gods seems illogical.” So, are you suggesting some sort of infinite regression back to more and more primitive forms as the origin of both the universe and life? I hope not; it had to start somewhere and I think we both agree that the universe, at least, started with the Big Bang.

To take your theory a little further though, since we probably have no other real-life examples to go on, I wonder what a visiting alien would make of the “Terminator” world, where the Series 1 robot gave way to the more advanced Series 2, which gave way to the yet more advanced Series 3 etc. Would he assume that they can all be traced back to more and more primitive forms of machine (maybe an old Hoover vaccum cleaner)? He might, though I doubt it. In any case, if he did, he’d be wrong. In fact, the original machine was created by a more advanced being - man.

The question is what caused the initial creation? I would disagree strongly that the early universe was “primitive” there were and are a host of parameters and constants (including the force of the Big Bang itself), that if even very slightly different would make the development of life impossible. The universe shows the hallmarks of design. Everything that I know of that has come into being that has been designed, was created by an agent. Why is it unreasonable for me to assume a designer of life and the universe? It seems the most reasonable explanantion to me. Yet to yourself and others it ranges from the least likely through to absolutely untenable. I find that a little difficult to understand.

In any case, we have no scientific explanation for the beginnings of the universe (what caused the Big bang?) and no scientific explanation for the beginnings of life. The Miller–Urey experiment, in the 1950’s produced some amino acids, under very strictly controlled laboratory conditions. It did not produce any of the proteins or nucleotides necessary for the production of life and the amino acids that were formed, were floating in a soup of other chemicals that would have been toxic to any proteins even if they started to form. No experiment in the ensuing 55+ years has produced any better result.

Not only do we have no scientific explanation of these things, what we currently know of science seems to indicate they are impossible by naturalistic processes.  So, we’re left with “one day science will have an explanation” (the science of the gaps). I say we have a perfectly reasonable explanation right now - these things were caused by an outside agent.

With respect to your response to TB about “faults” in our design (flippant though I appreciate they were), it’s a matter of perspective, I think, and we don’t have God’s perspective. But for my part, I’d rather have my “pleasure centre” where it is than, for example, in the middle of my forehead. The current design actually seems a pretty efficient to me and has never given me any problems. As to the orgasm time differential, it seems to me exactly what a God of Love might do to make Man, who is inherently task oriented, spend some time actually being intimate with his wife.

True Believer says:

10:27am | 05/05/11

Chris L

I don’t think you understand the question, or perhaps I put it clumsily.

If we are the result of an explosion that somehow resulted in some small creature deciding (why comes in here) to move from the swamp to land and then somehow overtime these creatures decided to aim towards being some higher species (why) - this creature to be attained amazingly was to have the attributes of finer feelings, a conscience, a soul, the ability to examine their surroundings intelligently - surely this is more of a fairy story than believing in a Creator - who designed and then created - with all the levels of creatures?

It defies logic. Evolution tries to demonstrate the “how” (not very satifsfactory I might add), but it does not address the “why” - what is the meaning behind all this supposed activity to evolve. Why not remain happily in the slime.  Then there are the flora and fauna - in all their wondrous diversity - can you in all seriousness believe that is the result of some “accident?”.  It just does not hold water you know.  Why if we evolved from apes are there still apes??  So many questions man is incapable of answering - I wonder if it more about human pride than science that makes some humans deny their Creator??  People, scientists included, make huge assumptions to cover their inadequacies.  What are they afraid of?  Finding out they have a Creator - what is so threatening about that?

Goodness me, we will I guess keep talking past one another, but give me my Loving God who tells me I am “wonderfully and fearfully made” and that “He knit me together in my mother’s womb”  -  I would not go back to the ignorance of atheism I wallowed in for years for anything. 

Thanks for your posts. Have a great day. :0)

St. Michael says:

12:26pm | 03/05/11

To be honest, Kika, I distrust Hillsong even more than I distrust the men in the funny hats in the Vatican.

Hillsong’s no more open about its financial affairs than the Catholic Church.  To me, that tags it with the same label as the rest of the institutional churches; secular companies have to keep proper accounts and can be pulled down in a hearbeat if ASIC decides they’ve been telling porkies to the market, but the supposedly un-secular churches can’t.

It might also be the cynicism of all my 30+ years on Earth, but Hillsong also pulls in a predominantly young crowd mostly because young people go to rock concerts, listen to music played on decks, axes, and drums, and respond to triggers for hysteria.  It’s a potent mix to throw at a personality that isn’t fully formed.  Religion in a Hillsong church is portrayed as an emotional high, not a way of conscience or ethics per se.  They’re into the marketing of emotion.  The same approach gets used mostly by charlatans like Robert Kiyosaki and Tony Robbins, but for some reason people have some difficulty recognising the same techniques applied to organised religion.  I’m reminded very strongly of the Bakkers and other “charismatic” churches when I look at Hillsong.

This is not to necessarily say the Catholic Church doesn’t need to change.  It does.  But I don’t think that copying Hillsong is going to necessarily fix it, either.  Hillsong’s “cool”, “hip”, “happening”—in other words, a fad, and like most fads that get copied, it’d look as fake as a six-dollar note if the Catholic Church tried to apply it.

Cynic says:

01:02pm | 03/05/11

Hillsong is nothing more than a business that avoids paying taxes. It has made it’s founder rich while the sheep are encouraged to give, give, give. On that note, the Mormons are no better. The sheep give 10% of their income to the church. Having had a bit of experience with this lot, I can say that they are up there with the biggest hypocrites as far as religions go. People should give out of charity, not because they are forced, or guilted into it.

P. Darvio says:

12:49pm | 03/05/11

....because GOD is very selective like he has been in Australia - 2 alleged Miracles in 200+ years and cancer cures I think (Maybe a Christian can confirm this). Roughly 40,000 people die each year in Australia of cancer, so extrapolated out over 200 years and allowing for Population increases over that period, real science and cancer cures etc etc it works out at something like a 0.00005% success rate for GOD - and that’s just cancer patients.

Just like the alleged Lourdes Miracles – all 64 of them – more people have actually died driving there in car accidents than the number of alleged Miracle cures. If people just stayed away from Lourdes more would be saved than the alledged miracle cures.

Either GOD is very lazy or a bloody bad doctor or maybe GOD just doesn’t exist?. He should be reported to the AMA in any case and investigated along with the people who promote this witchdoctory.

stephen says:

02:15pm | 03/05/11

...cause he couldn’t remember the Punch-line.

Luke says:

03:36pm | 03/05/11

Another unintellectual analysis of religion vs science…
If you ever bother to READ catholic religious texts… you know… like… READ…
you’ll find a huge amount of writing on faith and reason… stating both science/reason and religion/faith is a part of catholicism and both always should be considered in ones logic… science didnt win… catholics just did what they always do by saying “we are all on the same team”
Pity small minded non-readers have spread the propaganda you are clearly a victim of…

spangles says:

04:05pm | 03/05/11

True Believer.

Yes, Science won.
you wanna know why?

It works.

Chris T says:

09:22pm | 03/05/11

I agree, Luke, clearly Drew is not a philosopher.  If he were a theologian he would know that God does not “live in the sky” or indeed anywhere in the universe, since God is the infinite ground of reality. 

One thing you can say for the present pope is that he emphasises the role of reason.  I am not a catholic and I don’t agree with the vatican’s position on sexual ethics, among other things, but at least the church propounds a philosophical ethics which is there for all to see—or disagree with.

John says:

10:28pm | 03/05/11

Christianity about a super natural being? It’s about morality and the truth. When politicians lie and when war destroys life it means a society without morality and truth. You think Jesus would support of the mass slaughter of 6 million Afghans, Iraqis and Libyans by Satanic Communist Atheist Western Troops

Cate P says:

11:38pm | 03/05/11

Hey, what’s wrong with people who wear dresses?

Cate P says:

12:34am | 04/05/11

Jiminy crickets!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOZzNOkcEgM

True Believer says:

11:03am | 04/05/11

Spaghetti Godess
Thank you for your reply. I can understand your disenchantment with the denomination which apparently portrayed a very different Lord from the one I know.  I was fortunate to come to know Him without all that human intervention and I read the Bible after I came to know Him.  So I always say I met the Author and then I read His Book.  I could not have understood it without Him opening His Word to me.

It seems denominations have much to answer for in turning people away from knowing Jesus.  If that is the way you were taught that is very sad. I do hope at some time to come to know Jesus without all that negative man-made stuff. He loves you and will welcome you. I wish you very very well.

Colin says:

05:04pm | 13/05/11

Richard you’re joking right? As the Anglican convert to Catholicism once remarked, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

This video might help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N44R4rgrR58&feature=related

Even if you can’t handle the truth you should enjoy the music.

kate says:

10:16am | 06/05/11

In case anyone was wondering, this is a different Kate - and I call Godwin!

Kate says:

07:05pm | 06/05/11

really James???  The Catholic Church has killed more people than the atheists in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Communist regime??  where did you learn history?  On another planet?

James says:

12:03pm | 09/05/11

So that is your benchmark is it Kate, we are better than Hitler and Stalin.  Btw just think how many million Africans have died an agonising death because the Catholics are against condom use, talk about genocide.

The Crusades
The Inquisition
The centuries of misery under the fudal system a system the Catholics were complicit in

The 30 years war
Massacres of the Hugonauts
Persecution of the Jews
The Annihilation of South American Indians in the name of the Church
Colaboration with the NAZIs
Denying condoms to Africa in the midst of an Aids epidemic
The centuries of widespread pedastry
and on and on

The Crimes of the Catholic church are legion and the worst one is hiding their vileness behind brainwashed saps who are actually decent people.

James says:

10:34am | 11/05/11

Kate you are another deluded religious person the Catholic church is responsible for more murder, torture and general human suffering that Hitler (who modelled the SS on the Jesuits) and Stalin combine, you seem to think the litany of crimes Catholics have committed in the name of the church is some sort of anomaly of the Church I’ve got news for you, it is the Church.  If you want to attach yourself to one of the most ungodly cults ever inflicted on human kind you will have to come to terms with these crimes against humanity:

The misery and death Catholics have inflicted in Africa and most other parts of the world with their pig ignorant stance on condom use.

Religious stupidity on right-to-die has condemed millions of people to a painful and humiliating death.  Not to mention denying millions of dying people hope though stem cell research.

Pedastry so endemic in the Catholic church most people in the church at least personally know of someone who was abused.

Everytime you see an impressive church from medieval times just imagine how many pesants staved to death to pay for it.

Look up the history of the conquistadors (fanatical Catholics) and their genocidal rampage through South America.

How would Jesus look on the burning alive (and other torture) of thousands of heretics over the years.

The many and various massacres in the Middle East carried out by crusaders.

The 30 years war against other Christians.

etc etc etc

The Catholic church, despite the BS, is only after one thing, earthly power it has taught the Mafia everything it knows.