As an Northern Irish Prod, Catholics are generally good people who believe in what they believe. Bating Barnsley is unfair as this has been caused by a few rotten apples who have drawn in a few bishops.

Blind religion? Not for me to say, each to his and her own, the issue lies more in respect and tolerance, but tolerance should never extend to paedophiles.

That was a quick response Woppit.

Have we been waiting hands atrembling, all fired up with adrenalin by the keyboard for the last couple of hours ?

Mr Woppit – Member

You pastronise those who comment against you

pastry?

It made me smile but it also proved my point

kaesae – at the risk of taking another seeing-to, what did you want to ask?

I think he probably wanted to ask you something in connection with his STELLAR REALIGNMENT theory Mitch.

💡

If only… 🙄

My only question is 'What will it take to stop people being a Catholic/Protestant/Jew/Muslim/Zoroastrian/singlespeeder?'

If the Catholic Church as an institution is implicated in this, why do people still go, why still believe?

ernie_lynch – Member

That was a quick response Woppit.

Have we been waiting hands atrembling, all fired up with adrenalin by the keyboard for the last couple of hours ?

No.

Junkyard – Member

Mr Woppit – Member

You pastronise those who comment against you

pastry?

It made me smile but it also proved my point

Which was?

If the Catholic Church as an institution is implicated in this, why do people still go, why still believe?

Conditioning.

If the Catholic Church as an institution is implicated in this, why do people still go, why still believe?

it's 2 different things – people believe in god and Jesus – the church is just the worldly administration of the sect, and its corruption doesn't really impinge on belief any more than corruption in our government makes us less British.

I'm no fan of the Catholic church to put it mildly, but the some of comments made against barnsleymith are f*cking disgraceful IMO and it is to his credit that he has dealt with them with dignity, and (I suspect) revealed more about his personal life that he may have truely wished.

This is a great forum, but the incessant "my brain is bigger than your brain, unless you can defend your position with absolute unadulterated fact you are clearly inferior to me" mentality really f*cks me off and saddens me.

it's 2 different things – people believe in god and Jesus – the church is just the worldly administration of the sect, and its corruption doesn't really impinge on belief any more than corruption in our government makes us less British.

That's a very poor metaphor, but I kind of get the idea.

It still amazes me though, that the Church is implicated in this, yet no-one stops going… What does it take?

That's a very poor metaphor

agreed 🙂

Woppit… well, first you said..

Religion propagates itself by the brainwashing and indoctrination of children, placed into it's programme by the child's parents.

Yes or no? If no – why?

then I said…

As to Woppit's assertion that the perpetuation of religion can be attributed soley to the indoctrination of children – my response is "nonsense" and I speak as a professional youth worker who has spend 20-odd years working in a church setting. If you ask the question, can I point to examples where education of young people has been distorted and become indoctrination – yes absolutely, but to suggest they represent an accurate overview of the church's work with young people is laughable nonsense.

then you said…

More misrepresentation. At no point did I suggest that this was the "sole" atttribute, so to suggest that this is what I said, is simply a lie. The indoctrination of children at the acquiesence of the parent(s) is, however, arguably one of the strongest tools of subjugation possessed by the cult.

If you read your initial question, which you reiterated on several occasions and insisted that barnsleymitch answered, you did in fact present childhood indoctrination as the reason for the propagation of religion. I've refuted your assertion based on my professional opinion, which in turn is based on both personal experience and knowledge of a wide range of research. You might have the good grace to admit that your initial line of argument, which you pushed in an aggressive manner, was flawed. No lies here, only incoherence between your starting point and subsequent modification of your position.

ditch jockey, I feel that the main reason behind woppits posts was this – "Nothing better to do. Need something to keep the old grey matter ticking over, and anyway, it's fun. Up to a point."
So that's why you made me feel like a worthless piece of s**t most of the day? You really are an objectionable c**t woppit.

Religion propagates itself by the brainwashing and indoctrination of children, placed into it's programme by the child's parents.

Don't notice the word "sole" in there anywhere… and the grammar of the statement doesn't imply there are no other methods.

o that's why you made me feel like a worthless piece of s**t most of the day?

Not my fault. Don't be so oversensitive. Anyway, I thought you wanted me to leave you the **** alone?

Edit: Did I touch a raw nerve there, somewhere? Probably best to just leave it, then…

Oh, and –

You really are an objectionable c**t woppit.

I don't want to harp on about it, but haven't I been accused of being aggressive, elsewhere? One rule for me and another for evrybody else, I suppose.

Calm down.

I put up with inflammatory and frankly insulting posts from you for most of the day, without rising to your bait or insulting you back. I tried my damndest to make a point without criticising your views. You left me feeling absolutely useless and wrung out, and then I spotted your reply to kaesae's post outlining your reasons (nothing better to do, etc). Calm down? **** off woppit.

If you are reduced to "feeling absolutely useless and wrung out," by a muscular exchange of views on an internet forum, I suggest you probably need to keep away from exchanges that affect you so badly when you see them coming. I haven't sworn at you, insulted you personally or done anything else to spark such an extreme reaction as far as I can see. Do you get like this all the time, or is it just about your religion? Not trying to inflame you, just asking.

Edit: and just to remind you -you asked me to leave you the **** alone", and I did.

“A new heresy has been discovered,we must stamp out this burst of hell-fire before it spreads over the surface of the earth…. Freedom of conscience is a doctrine of the devil…. Better to have a tyrant, however cruel, than permit everyone to do what he pleases.”—John Calvin.

my brain is bigger than your brain, unless you can defend your position with absolute unadulterated fact you are clearly inferior to me" mentality

Sounds a bit silly to me, too.

.. and on a related point, that you are unable to distinguish between the Church, Roman Catholicism and the Confessing church, and seem to refer to the three people I mentioned as following a "cherry picked version of catholicism" illustrates my point about a lack of understanding of the things you're arguing against more profoundly than ever could.

Perhaps more importantly, it also serves to illustrate part of the reason why people like yourself are unlikely to be taken as seriously as you might wish, because you remind us of the failings of which we are painfully aware, while refusing to acknowledge those parts of our history which inspire us with acts of love and compassion towards our fellow human beings.

In any event, you've indicated that a very negative experience of Catholicism in your own childhood lies at the heart of your worldview, and I doubt that anything i can say in a context like this is going to bring about some epiphany. I don't suggest that such an experience invalidates any of your arguments per se; they deserve to be critiqued on their merits and rejected or accepted on that basis alone. I don't find them convincing, mainly because I don't recognise your portrayal of Christianity as being complete or nuanced enough to conform to my own understanding. To suggest that the wrongs of the church are the sum and substance of it is untenable in my view, but they are nonetheless wrongs that need to be eradicated from the present practice of the church; to return to the original discussion, one single child abused in any part of the worldwide church is one too many, and for church leaders to ignore or cover up any abuse is totally and completely unacceptable. I find it hard to view Ratzinger with any degree of credibility, but then that's easy for me to say, as I'm not a Roman Catholic and belong to a reformed tradition that has a less hierarchical system of church government.

So that's why you made me feel like a worthless piece of s**t most of the day?

No, I don't reckon that's the reason.

In my experience, people who go completely over the top denouncing other people, are insecure about themselves. People who go out of their way to constantly criticise others, feel bad about themselves. To point an accusing finger and labour a point over, and over again, until the person feels like shit, makes them feel better about themselves.

But hey, that's not my area of expertise – you should know more about that sort of thing than me…..

I can't believe you chaps have managed 6 pages of argument over "my gang is better than your gang" Very well done, now kiss and make up. (and i don't mean have a snog and cross-dress) 🙂

Barnsley how the F do you believe my posts are defamatory?

tankslapper – when did I say that?

Actually Woppit, your sentence, and the context of your repeated questions to barnsleymitch, quite clearly implies that you are presenting it as the reason. If that's not what you intended to say, that's fine and I accept that you recognise it's not the case.

In any event, you've indicated that a very negative experience of Catholicism in your own childhood

I never said I had any experience of catholicism in my childhood. In that regard however, I'm rather fond of Jimmy Carr's joke – "When I was a child, I had an imaginary friend who went everywhere with me. Then, when I grew up, I stopped going to church".

refusing to acknowledge those parts of our history which inspire us with acts of love and compassion towards our fellow human beings.

Oh, I am always an admirer of those who risk persecution by an open expression of their views, or worse by putting themselves at risk. I have argued, in another thread, that not all Germans were supine during the Nazi rule – I think I referenced the "White Rose Transmission" students. I just didn't pursue that particular "nuance" in that particular paragraph as my focus was mainly on the evils committed by the catholic church heirarchy.

is going to bring about some epiphany

D'you mean like the fit of temporal lobe epilepsy that Paul had on the road to Damascus?

To suggest that the wrongs of the church are the sum and substance of it is untenable in my view

Of course not – they are the result of belief in fairies and a big sky fairy to whom responsibility for one's actions can be referred.

But I'm sure you think you're right.

and i don't mean have a snog and cross-dress

Oh, poo. Now I AM upset. I was looking forward to the long dress and silly pointed hat… 😈

ernie_lynch – Member

So that's why you made me feel like a worthless piece of s**t most of the day?

No, I don't reckon that's the reason.

In my experience, people who go completely over the top denouncing other people, are insecure about themselves. People who go out of their way to constantly criticise others, feel bad about themselves. To point an accusing finger and labour a point over, and over again, until the person feels like shit, makes them feel better about themselves.

But hey, that's not my area of expertise – you should know more about that sort of thing than me…..

Ooh.

Actually Woppit, your sentence, and the context of your repeated questions to barnsleymitch, quite clearly implies that you are presenting it as the reason

Actually, ditchy, that's just the way you read it.

Hope you feel better in the morning, barnsleymitch.

'night all.

.. and on a related point, that you are unable to distinguish between the Church, Roman Catholicism and the Confessing church, and seem to refer to the three people I mentioned as following a "cherry picked version of catholicism" illustrates my point about a lack of understanding of the things you're arguing against more profoundly than ever could.

What is there not to understand in

"Oi! The ironic thing is, I dont even think of myself as being that religious – I do lots of stuff that Ratzinger would dissaprove of, as do many supposedly religious people. I just wanted to point out that not all catholics blindly accept what the vatican tells them to, and then it all went a bit fundamentalist – It doesnt take much on here, does it?"

Pretty much the same as me then.

So "I like the insurance of faith in case there is an afterlife so will call myself a Catholic but all the stuff that I might have to put myself out for I can't be arsed with."

Maybe not 'Cherry picked' I think nominally Catholic or token Catholic is a better description.

Perhaps more importantly, it also serves to illustrate part of the reason why people like yourself are unlikely to be taken as seriously as you might wish, because you remind us of the failings of which we are painfully aware, while refusing to acknowledge those parts of our history which inspire us with acts of love and compassion towards our fellow human beings.

A common theme on this thread has been the lambasting of people for 'not understanding' so care to expand the above?

So let me get this right lifer – you initially criticise me for being a catholic, and now you're criticising me for not being a devout catholic. Which one is it, or are you just arguing (or is that debating) for the sake of it?

barnsleymitch – Member
So let me get this right lifer – you initially criticise me for being a catholic, and now you're criticising me for not being a devout catholic. Which one is it, or are you just arguing (or is that debating) for the sake of it?

I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Do you not have to receive the sacraments in order to have a chance of 'salvation'?

Or is arguing on a forum that 'Even though I don't go to church it's unfair of you to tell me that I can and should do something about these scandals by registering my disgust with my congregation/priest/bishop/cardinal' enough to get you to paradise these days?

it's 2 different things – people believe in god and Jesus – the church is just the worldly administration of the sect, and its corruption doesn't really impinge on belief any more than corruption in our government makes us less British.

I actually think this is an important point.

As for people saying that hardly any Catholics are speaking out against child abuse and are therefore somehow condoning it, I think thats boolocks really.

I'm not a Catholic but do go to mass every few weeks with my wife who is. Usually there is a playgroup/sunday school that some of the kids can go to during the mass if they want to; however this time the priest instructed all the children to go there as he would be talking about things that little ears did not need to hear. His sermon then reflected on the Popes recent letter where he analysed every line and gave his take on it. For the next 30 minutes or so he expressed his extreme anger over the behaviour of some Catholic priests and how they should be removed from the Catholic church and be dealt with harshly.

His basic message was that it is up to all Catholics to stand up for what they belive in and stand against the 'monsters' that have infiltrated the church.

I'm sure this was not an isolated sermon in one Catholic church.

Catholic church and child abuse

Not mutually exclusive?

For the next 30 minutes or so he expressed his extreme anger over the behaviour of some Catholic priests and how they should be removed from the Catholic church and be dealt with harshly.

But did he mention his anger about the supposedly infallible Pope, who has been shown to be complicit in covering up child abuse? That's the but I imagine some people will really struggle with.

It's all very well blaming a few 'rogue' priests and Bishops who helped cover it up, but the problem clearly goes right to the very heart of the institution – which from the very highest level put it's own reputation above the safety and well being of children.