Does any religion matter at all today?

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:35 am

I will be interested to read peoples thoughts on this question. Does any Religion matter at all today?

I cannot see that any religious church's or anything religious even matters today at all. The only true religion I have ever come across is, Money, Political Power, Land, and greed. all the things we are told they are against, this goes for all religions too in my view.

in fact all the faiths I have come across use all of the tools of money, political power, Land and greed to re-force there religious views on there followers. i have never come across any religion that does not use at least one of this tools to enforce there religious views on the people they are said to be looking after.

I have read over the years all the religious books i can find, and have yet too be moved by any of them. some have very good stories that have something in them for every reader. but their it ends for me. maybe someone can explain why any of this is so important today? as i cannot find anything within the books that states this is very important today or in the past. I myself have come to believe that religion has more to do with the thought of death or dying and the human need to believe that life goes on after death.

However, when we was all born we did not feel pain or come into being with some religious thought in our heads or a book in our hands did we? in fact we had know idea about religion at all? so only find out what religion we are when someone tells us that this is our religion? yet you would think we would all know this already if there was a god? So we only find out what our religion is after birth? or do you believe you know what you religion was before birth? (i did not) if someone told me i was a follower of Islam, I would of said OK at five years old. in fact they could of given me any religion and i would of said fine.

So religion seems to me, religion only matters a get deal more the older you get? so I am told, well if so its failing on me badly. so anyway, it matter more as you get closer to death then? so is this more to do with our human need for life to go on somehow? as we find it hard to believe that life comes to an end and we go into darkness of no mans land? just like before we was born?

I was told at about 6 years old by my mother that this was my faith. but in total truth my mother could of said any faith was my religion and i would of gone along with what she said. To me that was it, Its that simple then. i did not then think about anything religious till i was in the Army in standing in a street in the middle of green line in a war zone in the Lebanon. with both Christains killing, Muslims Killing, Catholic Maronite's Killing, Druze faith Killing, Jewish killing. at first wondering why they was all doing this? not for religion or faith but power and using religion to justify there actions. I remember thinking. just suppose these people had been given a different religion by there mothers. they would instead of killing as a Maronite gunman they would of been killing Maronite's as a Druze gunman?

So your religion is picked for you in my view and some even change it too. yet you would think if you know your god at your death. you should know who you god is before birth? but we do not. So does any of this really matter any more?

well i well be interrested to read your thought on this. its not about any one religion but all of them.

by ROB Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:06 am

I’ve little personal interest in religion per se (this is a recent realization), because religion can get in the way of seeking and knowing God. If you’ve an interest in hearing more about that, let me know.

Addressing your question from a less personal perspective, in 1985, a massive earthquake shook Mexico City like (literally) a crazed madman shaking Jell-O in a bowl. The next day, I watched on CNN as a huge cargo aircraft landed on the runway at Mexico City’s airport and began disgorging food, water, clothing, medical supplies, and other necessities, while disembarking doctors, nurses, other medical personnel, and relief workers to ensure that the relief items were distributed to those in need.

The name inscribed on the aircraft’s tail (vertical stabilizer)? Catholic Charities.

The next day, Catholic Charities on scene, with the stuff that was needed and the people that knew what to do with the stuff.

by Shirina Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:28 am

The name inscribed on the aircraft’s tail (vertical stabilizer)? Catholic Charities.

I'm really not impressed. While I am grateful that the Mexican people were helped by them, I still feel no particular "warm and fuzzy" feeling toward Catholic charities of any kind.

I remember about a year ago, the mayor of Washington DC said he was going to recognize same-sex marriages within the borders of the District of Columbia. In retaliation, the Catholic Church said it was going to close down every single charity in the Washington DC area. I find it highly immoral and ethically reprehensible that the Church would use the poor and needy people of Washington DC as political hostages to prevent gay marriage. Did "Catholic Charities" ask the mayor of Mexico City if he recognized same-sex marriages, and would that plane full of aid had even been there if the mayor had admitted he did? When charity becomes conditional upon the political decisions of mayors, governors, senators, and presidents, I lose any and all respect for said charity organization. The poor people these organizations try to help should not be used as pawns and weapons in some political football match. It makes me want to puke.

More on the religious question later.

by ROB Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:58 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
The name inscribed on the aircraft’s tail (vertical stabilizer)? Catholic Charities.

Shirina wrote:
I'm really not impressed.

I am.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:41 am

Whether Religion matters or not, it certainly fills a lot of pages on discussion forums.

by Shirina Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:54 pm

I find it highly moral and ethically exemplary for the Roman Catholic diocese to abide by the Word of God in doing all that they can do to promulgate the fact that God’s Word teaches that marriage is a union between a woman and a man.

Jesus H. Christ and General Jackson, Rock ... sometimes you have a penchant for trying to defend the indefensible. This country needs to get over the gay marriage issue and realize that helping the poor is more important. If you want to defend the Church's threat; if you think that keeping gays from marrying is more important than giving food, clothing, and shelter to the poor, then I'm done with this discussion. I'll end up getting extremely pissed off at you (for real), and I'd rather not have that happen. I truly am quite sick of this shit, and it embarrasses me to even call myself an American.

by astra Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:47 pm

By definition, marriage is a union between a woman, an adult female, and a man, an adult male.

Yes that goes for MOST of the religions of this sad planet!

Now can we list the ones who put the word "CONSENTING ADULTS" somewhere in Rocks qouote? Please?

by ROB Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:18 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
I find it highly moral and ethically exemplary for the Roman Catholic diocese to abide by the Word of God in doing all that they can do to promulgate the fact that God’s Word teaches that marriage is a union between a woman and a man.

Shirina wrote:
Jesus H. Christ and General Jackson, Rock ... sometimes you have a penchant for trying to defend the indefensible.

I’m not trying to defend anything.

by **Ivan** Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:43 pm

Marriage is a union between a woman and a man independent of any religion.

In countries (and states) where same-sex marriage is lawful, a marriage is a legal contract between any two people and concerns such matters as property ownership, inheritance and pensions. The significant word in all of that is 'legal'. For example, a wedding ceremony can be held in a church, but until the couple sign the register, the marriage has no validity in law.

There have been cases in the UK of Moslem men 'marrying' second, third or fourth wives in mosques, but although the religion recognises those marriages, the law doesn't, and so the men aren't prosecuted for polygamy.

If the law of the land allows same-sex marriages, then those marriages are by definition legal whether anyone else likes it or not.

by Penderyn Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:45 pm

It seems to me that there is a great difference between 'religion' as organised, sort-of-political force and 'belief' which leads people to do things beneficial, often together, for those who need them done - where Quakers and Buddhists and such would be on the right and Lenin and such on the Left. I think you could probably trace that back to the early days of most 'religions'. Most people - it seems to me anyway - are in some sort of negative-religious state, and should move on, as did Lenin and Trotsky.

by astra Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:31 pm

Please note that my primary focus is upon the good that Roman Catholics do through Catholic Charities.
.
RockOnBrother
Moderator

Posts: 696
Join date: 2011-10-07

Yes noble no doubt Rock, BUT (has to be a but doesn't there?)

Why is the Vatican one of the richest and most goldbound countries in the world, if not THE MOST goldbound?

Seems to me that one HELL of a lot of good could be done by just a fraction of this wealth, but what do they do in the Vatican, plead poverty and ask/demand more tythes from thir already poor followers! Show me a RICH / WEALTHY /advanced Catholic Country (apart from Brazil which is on the rise despite all it's disadvantages! Mind, millions of pounds of handouts from the UK Gubmint go a long way to helping them) It annoys me that some of this (MY TAXES) will see it's way back to Rome!

by Shirina Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:42 pm

except to affirmatively state that there no such thing as “gay marriage”, as marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Marriage is whatever we say it is. There is no immutable physical law that affirms what you just said.

I’m not trying to defend anything.

Then you have failed abysmally. This is you defending the Catholic Church and their so-called "morality" and "ethics" in holding the poor and needy hostage to a political decision by a SECULAR government:

I find it highly moral and ethically exemplary for the Roman Catholic diocese to abide by the Word of God in doing all that they can do to promulgate the fact that God’s Word teaches that marriage is a union between a woman and a man.

Please don't even try to claim you weren't defending the Church. You were. And above is the proof. Not only are you defending the Church, you are praising the Church for their actions.

When mayors issue decrees intentionally contrary to God’s Word, I lose respect for mayors’ political decisions.

Contrary to "God's Word," eh, Rock? I had you pegged for a non-religious believer in God. You yourself have criticized religion on many occasions. Yet just where does the "Word of God" come from? Why, religion, of course. You always appear to be spiritually enlightened until this subject comes up. Then you revert to "right-wing hellfire and brimstone evangelist mode" by reinforcing a belief that originates from a handful of lines from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It has always baffled me why these Old Testament verses carry so much weight when there are thousands of other Old Testament verses that we steadfastly ignore. Could it be that the Bible, in this case, simply reinforces a prejudice and a bigotry against gays that exists independent of religion? Oh, I think so. Because certain people are uncomfortable with homosexuality - or simply find it gross - the Bible is an oh so convenient excuse to justify plain old rotten behavior.

But more to the point, this prejudice and bigotry has clouded your judgment; prejudice and bigotry are well known for doing that. I suppose the ultimate test is to revert to the age-old question of: What would Jesus do? Rock, do you think Jesus would stop providing charity to the sick, the poor, and the hungry if the "mayor" of Bethlehem allowed same-sex partners to marry? Using all that you know about the New Testament, do you honestly think Jesus would have done the same thing as the Catholic Church? It's time to bring all of that scholarship to bear on this question. Do you know why? It's because you have said many times that most Christians are not really Christians because they don't follow Christ's teachings. Well? Are you being a Christian by defending the Catholic Church? Defend yourself, please.

By the way, the mayor of Washington DC is under no obligation to adhere to "God's Word."

by Shirina Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:48 pm

I myself have come to believe that religion has more to do with the thought of death or dying and the human need to believe that life goes on after death.

You hold the same views as another well-known poster (by many of us here) named "Tosh."

However, I don't think that theory goes quite far enough. I believe you're right in that religion is promulgated by the fear of death, but there is one more part to that equation: The need for control. Allow me to elaborate.

Regardless if any believer will admit to this or not, religion is a means to take control of an uncontrollable situation. Most humans detest randomness and purposelessness. Our brains are very adept at creating order from chaos, which is why a phenomenon known as pareidolia ( read more here) exists. Pareidolia is what causes our brains to perceive the image of Jesus within the random texture of a piece of toast or to see the shape of an angel in a cloud formation. If you stare at any random pattern long enough, your brain will begin to assemble the randomness into something familiar. Just recently I stared at a random rock for about 5 minutes (I was tired and trance-like at the time) and before I was done, I saw the distinct image of a lamb's head. All the features were there. But were they ... really? No.

In that same way, the human brain does not like to think that random events happen for no reason or purpose. We like to believe that all things, good and bad, have a purpose - that nothing really happens simply by chance. Therefore, whenever confronted with a particular situation (especially extreme circumstances) our brains desperately try to make sense of an otherwise senseless situation - in the same way my brain found a lamb's head in a random rock face.

This is where religion comes into play. The invention of religion is the ultimate expression of wrenching order from chaos. This can be shown with our earliest ancestors, and many primitive religions are a result of trying to make sense out of the weather, the seasons, and other natural phenomenon - most of which are pretty chaotic (even today's weatherman on the news can't get it right often enough). The brain can't accept that weather events are random and unpredictable, so a god was invented to explain why these events occur. Inventing a god was our way of seeing a "face" in a cloud, and it could very well be that faces WERE seen in clouds resulting in so many "sky god" beliefs or why the myth of "angels on clouds" developed.

Now that we have a god, we now have a modicum of control ... and here is where the control aspect begins. Once our ancestors ascribed an intelligence behind the randomness, there is now someone or something to PRAY to. Prayer, both then and now, is a control mechanism. Even assuming a god of any type exists, in our human hubris, we believe that prayer might actually influence the actions of this powerful entity, and if we believe that, then we don't feel quite as powerless anymore in the face of random, senseless events. Now we have someone to bargain with, someone to plead to, someone to yell at. Perhaps whispering a quick prayer will avert a drought or keep the wife alive during childbirth. When the prayer is finished, we feel a little bit better because now our wants are "known" by an intelligent god that has the power to control what humans cannot. Thus, by proxy, we think we can control or influence things we cannot control or influence directly such as the weather, death, or disease.

But what if we pray and the bad events are not averted? What if the drought comes anyway or a storm ravages the fishing fleet? Well, in that case, the god must be ANGRY! Rawr! But why? Why is the god angry? Now it begins. This is where we start inventing reasons; those who are disenfranchised from mainstream society, those who adhere to strange beliefs, those who are reclusive, those who rebel against prevailing wisdom - they end up being blamed. From the fearful minds of primitive humans grasping for a purpose, the concept of "sin" was invented. During the Black Death in the 1300's, Jews were blamed for the plague. Then women. Then the clergy. Even cats were blamed because cats were the familiars of witches. Someone must be responsible - because a plague does not happen by random chance. Our belief in a god mandates that we are being punished, and god's anger will not be sated until we root out the wrongdoers from our society! In modern America, evangelists still do this, which is why events like hurricane Katrina and 9/11 have been blamed on gays, liberals, feminists, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Once again, we see the disenfranchised and the fringe-dwellers being blamed.

Even on the grandest of scales, religion is a control and power mechanism. Religion and prayer is a means of controlling our ultimate fate. Live by these rules (invented to appease an angry god) and go to a wonderful paradise ever after. Fail to conform and you spend eternity being tortured. We think we can influence the conditions of our afterlife when, in fact, it is probably as random as anything else in the universe. Our pride in our own purpose tells us that there is a god - there MUST be or else we as humans have no purpose! And the brain just can't handle that thought. So we stand over the bodies of our loved ones and pray for god to deliver the soul to paradise. Again, we have to intercede through an intermediary (god) to influence the fate of the dearly departed ... because we are hungry for control over the uncontrollable.

After tens of thousands of years of inventing and re-inventing religion, we have created a monster filled with thousands of rules that no one could possibly follow. Well, we have a ready solution for that little quandary: The idea of original sin! Now we don't have to worry about following them all. We just have to accept that we can't (because we're born into sin) and beg for forgiveness!

To my mind, it is all more than a little silly, a throwback to a time when we just couldn't explain the natural world. Yet humans being as they are, they still require meaning, purpose, and control. They still need to form recognizable shapes from the horrible uncertainty of random chance, thus religion still thrives.

by astra Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:54 pm

Much to be said for the Celts and the Druids!!

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:26 pm

"Seeing things" is a natural result of our having evolved from Hunters. The human eye is attracted by movement, but the pattern of a leaf needs to be distinguished from the movement of potential lunch, so the brain has a reflex function of trying to resolve the images presented to it, as either "recognised" or irrelevant.

It doesn't always get it right now we've had thousands of years growing food instead of chasing it.

by blueturando Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:47 am

Great posts Shirina....Of course Rock wont be able to answer you back so he will say your answers are 'Erroneous'..... Its his get out phrase

by ROB Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:05 am

Penderyn wrote:
It seems to me that there is a great difference between 'religion' as organised, sort-of-political force and 'belief' which leads people to do things beneficial, often together, for those who need them done - where Quakers and Buddhists and such would be on the right…

If I were to walk into a Quaker service, I might need to walk back out as quickly as possible to keep from disrespecting the worshippers by laughing uncontrollably out loud inside the meting hall.

Back when my motivation was a bit “skewed, my cousin (“Johnny”) and I accompanied a third cousin (“Roger”) to a Baptist Church afternoon “sing-a-thon” (my term) because, according to Roger, that’s where all the pretty young ladies were on Sunday afternoons.

So there we were, Roger, Johnny, and I, up in the balcony with a good view of al the happenings, listening to and watching all these folks singing gospel songs, when suddenly people started “getting happy”, whooping, shouting, falling out of their seats an into the aisles, and these ushers (all females) “helping” the happy folks back to their seats, fanning them off with funeral parlor cardboard fans (it was early summer in Texas), and so forth. Johnny and I were doing our best to keep our laughing as quiet as possible, and Roger was saying under his breath, “Y’all shut up!”

Suddenly, “Jethro Bodine” (remember “The Beverly Hillbillies”), a black version, six feet four, about two hundred thirty pounds of lean, strong muscle, started falling out. He jumped up, shouted “Oh Jesus! Oh Jesus!”, fell backward across about three rows of pews, kept shouting “Oh Jesus! Oh Jesus!”, and started shaking his arms and legs uncontrollably. Two or three female ushers came over to “help” him up off of he pews; he shouted “Oh Jesus! Oh Jesus!” with even more fervor and shook them off like rag dolls. One of the poor ladies got thrown off her feet into the aisle.

Roger couldn’t get Johnny and me out of there fast enough. We were laughing our fool heads off, repeating back and forth to ach other, “Did you see that big country fed dude knocking those poor women out?” as we tried to catch our breath between bouts of absolutely uncontrollable laughter, all the while with Roger repeating “I can’t take y’all anywhere!” over and over in embarrassment.

Most people don’t know why they’re called “Quakers.” I retell this story to illustrate a point. One need not appreciate the trappings of the religion to appreciate the acts of the religious. Quakers were conductors and depot operators on the Underground Railroad. Perhaps my existence today is due to a Quaker risking his life to free on of my ancestors. Somewhere near (or maybe in) the city of London, Ontario, a community of Black Canadians live today, a testimonial to the courage of Quakers who conducted slaves to freedom “over the Jordan” via the Underground Railroad..

by ROB Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:33 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Please note that my primary focus is upon the good that Roman Catholics do through Catholic Charities.

astra wrote:
Why is the Vatican one of the richest and most goldbound countries in the world, if not THE MOST goldbound?

I do not, never, and never will, defend the pope, the Vatican, or any trappings thereof.

astra wrote:
Seems to me that one HELL of a lot of good could be done by just a fraction of this wealth

Once again, I do not defend the pope or the Vatican.

astra wrote:
but what do they do in the Vatican, plead poverty and ask/demand more tythes from thir already poor followers!

If the pope and the Vatican behaved like Catholic Charities and Mother Teresa, the world would be a better place.

astra wrote:
Show me a RICH / WEALTHY /advanced Catholic Country (apart from Brazil which is on the rise despite all it's disadvantages!

Perhaps Argentina? I have no respect for that government, however, but they might be a bit wealthier than most Roman Catholic countries. But I agree with you.

astra wrote:
It annoys me that some of this (MY TAXES) will see it's way back to Rome!

That’s why I stopped giving to Catholic Charities during the last decade and a half. I was afraid that my money would be “diverted’ to pay off the victims of child rape and sexual assault.

by ROB Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:34 am

blueturando wrote:
Great posts Shirina....Of course Rock wont be able to answer you back so he will say your answers are 'Erroneous'..... Its his get out phrase

Blueturando,

Unlike you, Shirina possesses the courage and strength of character to address a person with whom she disagrees directly rather than attempting to engage others in “gossip” about a person with whom she disagrees.

At such time as you learn to address me directly, as Shirina does every time she disagrees with me, I’ll address you with the same respect with which I address Shirina, a lady with whom I often vehemently disagree but who I always profoundly respect.

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:03 am

Quite so. Respect has to be earned. That's why it isn't always easy to afford respect to a Poster whose idea of discussion is straightforward repetition of what has already been said.

by Penderyn Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:11 pm

astra wrote:Much to be said for the Celts and the Druids!!

There were probably druids, if you can bring yourself to believe Julius Caesar, but there were never any Celts in Britain until Lhuyd invented them at the beginning of the Eighteenth Century! There's religion if you like: depends on sheer faith, Celticism. It is like Anglo-Saxonism there.

by Penderyn Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:17 pm

[/quote]

If I were to walk into a Quaker service, I might need to walk back out as quickly as possible to keep from disrespecting the worshippers by laughing uncontrollably out loud inside the meting hall.....

Most people don’t know why they’re called “Quakers.” I retell this story to illustrate a point. One need not appreciate the trappings of the religion to appreciate the acts of the religious. Quakers were conductors and depot operators on the Underground Railroad. Perhaps my existence today is due to a Quaker risking his life to free on of my ancestors. Somewhere near (or maybe in) the city of London, Ontario, a community of Black Canadians live today, a testimonial to the courage of Quakers who conducted slaves to freedom “over the Jordan” via the Underground Railroad..
[/quote]

Certainly you'd get a bit worn out doing your forced hysteria for an hour. The Friends just sit still: it is quite restful. Quakers are so called because a magistrate in Derby, on being told to shake and tremble in fear of the Lord, or some such, said, 'Ah - Quakers are you?' and it caught on. They have done a great deal of good though, yes.

by astra Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:10 pm

but there were never any Celts in Britain

Not quite true. Go to Birnie in Scotland
See the Celtic standing stones in Scotland (Scotland is in Britain - UK?)

"The Romans listed the Celtic tribes of the north. These included the Caledonii, the Votadini, the Selgovae, the Damnoni, the Novantae, the Vacomagi and the Venicones"

http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/scotlandshistory/caledonianspictsromans/ironagecelts/index.asp

http://www.aboutscotland.com/history/trim.html
http://www.rampantscotland.com/celts.htm

by Shirina Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:50 pm

An orange is a citrus fruit, independent of any religion, law, or court decision decreeing that a potato is an orange; a marriage is a union between a woman and a man, independent of any religion, law, or court decision decreeing that a “same sex marriage” is a marriage.

There are immutable chemical properties that make an orange a citrus fruit. There are no immutable laws - chemical, physical, or electrical - that makes marriage between a man and a woman. In addition, the words "orange" and "potato" are merely the result of sounds we create when forcing air through the larynx and out our mouths. We can change it and modify it as we see fit. Oh, and if you actually look at the etymology of the word "marriage," there is no reference at all to "one man, one woman."

None of which changes the fact that the Catholic Church used the poor and needy as hostages for their little political game. Apparently to them, a few lines from Deuteronomy and Leviticus are more important than the core beliefs of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Incidentally, did you know that Catholics pray to 5 different saints more often than they pray to Jesus?

by Penderyn Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:33 pm

astra wrote:
but there were never any Celts in Britain

Not quite true. Go to Birnie in Scotland
See the Celtic standing stones in Scotland (Scotland is in Britain - UK?)

"The Romans listed the Celtic tribes of the north. These included the Caledonii, the Votadini, the Selgovae, the Damnoni, the Novantae, the Vacomagi and the Venicones"

http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/scotlandshistory/caledonianspictsromans/ironagecelts/index.asp

http://www.aboutscotland.com/history/trim.html
http://www.rampantscotland.com/celts.htm

No - that is all modern how's-your-father. Nobody described British people as 'Celts' before Lhuyd, honest. It is one of the signs of early racism, a load of bollux.

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:10 pm

The Spaniards of Galicia describe themselves as Celts, the fishermen of Brittany think that they are Celts, the Irish certainly answer to the name of Celt, as do all Scots with a view of the Atlantic.

It seems to have something to do with sailing to get where you're going at a time when roads were a bad joke.

by ROB Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:37 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Quite so. Respect has to be earned. That's why it isn't always easy to afford respect to a Poster whose idea of discussion is straightforward repetition of what has already been said.

I'm so glad that you don't respect me.

by astra Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:04 pm

Penderyn

Hmmmmmmm

The links provided are ALL - barring none, teaching aids used in schools not only in Scotland but in England. Are you saying that this teaching is wrong?

"Celtic Art and Culture from the University of North Carolina was created for use in their Art History course. The subject matter is general celtic, not just Scots, and includes maps and timelines."
http://www.unc.edu/celtic/index.html

The above link is the University of Carolina!! Seems Shirina can now be invited in here with her History thread, can't ALL be wrong.
Many places in Perthshire and Angus have CELTIC standing stones - been there for a while! and most can be picked up on Google Earth.

by ROB Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:10 am

From 1988-1990, about two hundred fifty illegal invaders who, though continuous law-breakers by their continued illegal presence in the United States, had violated no other laws during their often lengthy sojourns in the United States, and who had worked and paid taxes during their time here, were processed from illegal to legal status by a federally authorized amnesty program hosted in East Hollywood by a local Anglican congregation. This process required each person seeking amnesty to register forty clock hours of instruction in (a) spoken and written English, and (b) civics, US history, and US government.

Though forty hours were required, most participants registered one hundred fifty plus hours. The host Anglican congregation allowed unlimited use of their facility, including water, lights, and gas, for the entire two year period.

That Anglican congregation mattered to a certain two hundred fifty finally legal residents, many of whom went on to become US citizens. Since the host congregation didn’t restrict the participants’ access in any way, and they were thus able to continue attending the civics/history/government course until the knew the answers to he one hundred citizen sip test questions cold, most who became citizens passed the test with scores of 100%

by Shirina Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:06 pm

“Think not that I have come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets; I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is fulfilled”, (Matthew 5:17-18, a teaching of Y’shua Moshiach, Jesus the Christ).

Oh, I see. So, then ...

Seeing as how you support capital punishment and live in a state that practices it, I can only assume that adultery, rebelling against your parents, premarital sex, violating the Sabbath, witchcraft, being a non-Christian, being a false prophet, and ejaculating anywhere except inside of a woman ("spilling your seed upon the ground") should be included in the list of capital crimes. In addition, we should think about abolishing the Constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishments since stoning to death is the required method of execution according to "the smallest letter or stroke" of the Law that you are now conveniently defending. It's a good thing you live in a big state like Texas, Rock, because you'll need all of that space to house the billions of people in the world who should be sitting on death row for committing at least one of those "crimes."

By the way, how many oxen have YOU sacrificed lately? None? Then you had best snap to it ... God is mighty fond of those pleasing odors from burnt offerings.

You should know that your position on this is untenable, Rock ... and I think you DO know that it is. You can't selectively apply Biblical laws to one group of people (homosexuals) just because you don't like what they do. Your argument says directly that the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy only apply to gays ... and no one else. Where does it say THAT in the Bible?

I saw Americans held hostage by Iranians in Tehran in 1979. I’ve seen no poor and needy held hostage by the Roman Catholic diocese (not “Church”) in Washington D.C. in 2912. I saw (both chronically and newly) poor and needy people rescued from death and deprivation by Catholic Charities in Mexico City in 1985.

Your position is not made any less untenable by resorting to semantics, Rock.

I didn’t know there were five saints; I actually thought it was a few more. I also know that Roman Catholics are taught by Roman Catholic hierarchy to pray to Mary.

I didn't say there were only five saints. I said that there are five saints who receive more prayers from Catholics than Jesus.

by bobby Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:35 pm

Does any Religion matter at all today?

To those that choose to believe, Yes. To those who Dissbelieve, No.

by Penderyn Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:39 pm

astra wrote:Penderyn

Hmmmmmmm

The links provided are ALL - barring none, teaching aids used in schools not only in Scotland but in England. Are you saying that this teaching is wrong?

"Celtic Art and Culture from the University of North Carolina was created for use in their Art History course. The subject matter is general celtic, not just Scots, and includes maps and timelines."
http://www.unc.edu/celtic/index.html

The above link is the University of Carolina!! Seems Shirina can now be invited in here with her History thread, can't ALL be wrong.
Many places in Perthshire and Angus have CELTIC standing stones - been there for a while! and most can be picked up on Google Earth.

I have no doubt that racists use the term 'Celtic' to avoid admitting that the majority everywhere in the Archipelago (Britain and Ireland) is descended from people who came up as the ice moved north. What I said was that the word 'Celtic' was not used about any of these people until the early Eighteenth Century, which is true.

by LWS Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:17 pm

Hi I'm new here, so I will respond to the debate theme first.

Yes to me religion is an important aspect of life, being a regular at our local Methodist church. Participants do get a sense of belonging and it does develop for me a sense or feeling of certainty and well being. There is a collective sense of identity, social support and positivity in effect.

No there are those who will disagree, but equally there are those who concur with this view. Its a personal thing!

by Stox 16 Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:41 am

LWS wrote:Hi I'm new here, so I will respond to the debate theme first.

Yes to me religion is an important aspect of life, being a regular at our local Methodist church. Participants do get a sense of belonging and it does develop for me a sense or feeling of certainty and well being. There is a collective sense of identity, social support and positivity in effect.

No there are those who will disagree, but equally there are those who concur with this view. Its a personal thing!

Hi LWS.
Great to see you on here and a warm welcome. Well I can understand just what you are saying in your post. as my brother is a weekly church goer and loves it for all the reasons that you have stated. so your right in what you are saying it is a personal thing. in fact we debate this subject just about every time we meet. I respect his view on this very much. he does mine. I think it was my time in the Lebanon that made me the way I am. Also my visit to Ann Franks home and hide out in Holland. but its an interesting subject anyway I feel

by astra Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:26 pm

What I said was that the word 'Celtic' was not used about any of these people until the early Eighteenth Century, which is true.

OK, I've had a look at your chappie.

First mention of the Celts was made by the Greeks authors between 540 and 424BC. But the most valuable insights are provided by Roman authors - as the Roman world was expanding, they came in direct contact with the Celts on their northern borders.
http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/1939/

Also please remember my reference was "Much to be said for the Celts and the Druids!!" Nowhere did I mention "Celtic" (as pronounced Keltic)

by Penderyn Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:32 pm

astra wrote:
What I said was that the word 'Celtic' was not used about any of these people until the early Eighteenth Century, which is true.

OK, I've had a look at your chappie.

First mention of the Celts was made by the Greeks authors between 540 and 424BC. But the most valuable insights are provided by Roman authors - as the Roman world was expanding, they came in direct contact with the Celts on their northern borders.
http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/1939/

Also please remember my reference was "Much to be said for the Celts and the Druids!!" Nowhere did I mention "Celtic" (as pronounced Keltic)

Nothing to do with it: you are just collecting references to Celts form anywhere and anytime. The British were never regarded as Celts until the Eighteenth Century.

by LWS Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:33 pm

Interesting, I always associated the Celts with Ireland and the western most areas of the British mainland where they obviously relate to the British Isles. I'm Cornish and our native language is regarded as one of the Brythonic Celtic languages that is descended from that which was commonly spoken in Britain generally prior to the Anglo Saxon invasions. I can't speak Cornish mores the pity. These celtic languages tended to be supressed until comparatively recent times though.

I think the Celtic traditions in the UK were popularisd in the 18th Century, but could be wrong.

by astra Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:33 pm

The British were never regarded as Celts until the Eighteenth Century.

The British/English have NEVER taken anything to do with Scottish/Welsh/Irish tradition and have ever proscribed it's identity since the C18.

Wishing the line I gave was Picts and Druids (or would you pick a scab out of that as well.

by keenobserver1 Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:06 pm

astra wrote:
The British were never regarded as Celts until the Eighteenth Century.

The British/English have NEVER taken anything to do with Scottish/Welsh/Irish tradition and have ever proscribed it's identity since the C18.

Wishing the line I gave was Picts and Druids (or would you pick a scab out of that as well.

Well we know the Picts gave the Holy Roman Empire a better run for their money than anyone else in Britain.

by witchfinder Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:48 am

The best way forward is to be a Humanist, which basicly involves treating other humans as you would like to be treated yourself, but if someone happens to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu, then accept that it is of their own free will and choice to believe in what they wish, and respect their choice.

To adherents of any faith, I would say that I respect your faith just as long as you do not attempt to force your beliefs upon me, or upon society.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/home

by Sponsored content