No let's not. I'm not a religious person but I don't feel it's a good use of my time to ridicule those people who find comfort in their beliefs. If that's what makes you happy fill your boots. I'd rather not antagonise people I have no argument with.

It is not ridicule nor is it antagonism, a threat is imposed upon people who oppose theocracy. If you wish to be a slave then stand by and look while others will spend their own lives trying to set you free. No matter to me if you wish to be a slave, a serf but do not do it in my name nor others who have no wish to be one. Go, be a slave, but if by your action or inaction you try to make ME one too, then you are my enemy. I have no desire to be a slave nor will I accept ownership of either myself or another human being.

No let's not. I'm not a religious person but I don't feel it's a good use of my time to ridicule those people who find comfort in their beliefs. If that's what makes you happy fill your boots. I'd rather not antagonise people I have no argument with.

It is not ridicule nor is it antagonism, a threat is imposed upon people who oppose theocracy. If you wish to be a slave then stand by and look while others will spend their own lives trying to set you free. No matter to me if you wish to be a slave, a serf but do not do it in my name nor others who have no wish to be one. Go, be a slave, but if by your action or inaction you try to make ME one too, then you are my enemy. I have no desire to be a slave nor will I accept ownership of either myself or another human being.

Does this mean, as it appears to, that you disclaim any responsibility for yourself, your actions, and your opinions? Then why should you expect anybody else to take any notice of you and what you say?

When I see posts with the Dancing Chicken and the thread relates to religion or atheism, I simply pass over the posts.

nor will I accept ownership of either myself or another human being.

Does this mean, as it appears to, that you disclaim any responsibility for yourself, your actions, and your opinions? Then why should you expect anybody else to take any notice of you and what you say?

I don't understand how refusing to be owned and refusing to be associated with ownership of a fellow human being implies that I would disclaim responsibility. Scapegoating AKA vicarious redemption is refusing to take personal responsibility.

When I see posts with the Dancing Chicken and the thread relates to religion or atheism, I simply pass over the posts.

And this my fellow member is the difference. I prefer to read everything however distasteful it may seem because I may, perhaps, learn something. Others, it has to be said, prefer to be mired in the sludge of blissful ignorance because they have no desire for betterment and knowledge but rather live in a world of self stupefaction. I'm not going to read that because I may be offended or it may not conform to what I want to believe.

When I see posts with the Dancing Chicken and the thread relates to religion or atheism, I simply pass over the posts.

And this my fellow member is the difference. I prefer to read everything however distasteful it may seem because I may, perhaps, learn something. Others, it has to be said, prefer to be mired in the sludge of blissful ignorance because they have no desire for betterment and knowledge but rather live in a world of self stupefaction. I'm not going to read that because I may be offended or it may not conform to what I want to believe.

But to "learn" something requires the ability to possibly move away from pre-existing positions. Your stridency hardly indicates the possession of such willingness/desire to change....Or perhaps it is all just "fire for effect", designed to wind up folk, rather than representing genuine beliefs and opinions.

When I see posts with the Dancing Chicken and the thread relates to religion or atheism, I simply pass over the posts.

And this my fellow member is the difference. I prefer to read everything however distasteful it may seem because I may, perhaps, learn something. Others, it has to be said, prefer to be mired in the sludge of blissful ignorance because they have no desire for betterment and knowledge but rather live in a world of self stupefaction. I'm not going to read that because I may be offended or it may not conform to what I want to believe.

You're not Richard Dawkins in disguise are you?

Notmyself, whom I shall have to call Noman (in tribute to Odysseus' taunting of the Cyclops), does not own himself, but accepts responsibility for himself. He reads things distasteful to him, but does not wish to learn. He is, in short, going round in ever-decreasing circles... and we know what happens to people who do that.

No, Sustento, he is not Richard Dawkins; he is not that clever. I admire many of Dawkins' books; it's only when he gets into anti-God mode that he becomes something of a joke.

Notmyself, whom I shall have to call Noman (in tribute to Odysseus' taunting of the Cyclops), does not own himself, but accepts responsibility for himself. He reads things distasteful to him, but does not wish to learn. He is, in short, going round in ever-decreasing circles... and we know what happens to people who do that.

Oh come come now my dear chap. Where did I say I did not own myself?

nor will I accept ownership of either myself or another human being.

Does this mean, as it appears to, that you disclaim any responsibility for yourself, your actions, and your opinions? Then why should you expect anybody else to take any notice of you and what you say?

I don't understand how refusing to be owned and refusing to be associated with ownership of a fellow human being implies that I would disclaim responsibility.

I do not accept the right for anyone to own another human being. Ergo I do not accept the right for another human being to own 'me'. If I did then I would be happy to be a slave and glad of my chains.

This is getting weirder by the day.

You ask me where you said you didn't own yourself, notmyself, and then go on to quote the place where you DID say that ("nor will I accept ownership of myself")..

Thank you for saving me the time to check it out.

This is getting weirder by the day.

You ask me where you said you didn't own yourself, notmyself, and then go on to quote the place where you DID say that ("nor will I accept ownership of myself")..

Thank you for saving me the time to check it out.

Always happy to help out a fellow member IB

To be perfectly frank my old mate, I'm not sure 'owning yourself' is even meaningful. We already have a word to describe the idea of what you are saying and that word is 'free'. If a slave is released they don't think yay, now I own myself... they think yay, I'm free or perhaps yay, I'm no longer owned.

nor will I accept ownership of myself = I will not accept being owned by somebody.

Now maybe we can get back to problems the Pope is actually being seen to take action on... or rather not take action on.

'Ownership of myself' does NOT equal 'Being owned by somebody'.

'Ownership of me' may fulfill the proposition, but 'me being owned' is nearer to your 'never be accepted' statement.

In reality - at the end of the 1970s I was working in Tabuk, with a small military port on the Red Sea being constructed/used by our project. Amongst my duties was a monthly entertainment of the local Customs chief. We supplied rice and a little boy-goat for the lunchtime entertainment, the Customs chief's Somali slave cooked the meal for us.

This Somali had stowed away on a ship bound for Saudi Arabia, looking for work. He had been caught by the crew and handed over to the Customs officer. The Customs officer explained to me that it was better that he kept the Somali as a slave than send him to jail, then back to his home country, where he could conceivably either starve or be killed for stowing away. The Customs officer could see nothing wrong with the arrangement and the slave seemed fit and healthy.

(You could tell each time that it was a little boy-goat because it was roasted and served entire, with all necessary parts still attached and considered delicacies. As I was the host it gave me great pleasure to offer special items to my guests) (And the bloody goat had been cooked far too long, so it was dry as the desert, which pleased my guests but meant I was chewing on a lump of meat for an hour or two).

'Ownership of myself' does NOT equal 'Being owned by somebody'.

'Ownership of me' may fulfill the proposition, but 'me being owned' is nearer to your 'never be accepted' statement.

The construct of the sentence requires 'myself' rather than 'me' therefore 'myself being owned'. The entire concept of self ownership is meaningless because it requires distinctiveness to be logically coherent. 'I am I' and 'I am me' fail for the same reason. 'ownership of myself' can only mean that 'ownership' comes from outside of the self.

Italy's bishops pass Vatican-backed rule that child molestation does not have to be reported

Italy's bishops have adopted a policy, with backing from the Vatican, that states they are not obliged to inform police officers if they suspect a child has been molested.

The Italian Bishops' Conference said the guidelines published on Friday reflected suggestions from the Vatican's office that handles sex abuse investigations.

Victims have denounced how bishops systematically covered up abuse by moving priests while keeping prosecutors in the dark.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italys-bishops-pass-vaticanbacked-rule-stating-they-do-not-have-to-report-if-a-priest-has-molested-a-child-9222501.html

The Pope should denounce this.

He has railed against the tyranny of global capitalism and the idolatry of money but even Pope Francis needs a little corporate coin sometimes as proven by the list of sponsors for Sundays canonizations.

An oil and gas giant, several banks and Switzerland-based food megacorp Nestle are among more than a dozen financial backers of the Rome event.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/new-saints/holy-moolah-john-paul-ii-canonization-sponsored-banks-oil-giant-n88811

Cracking down?

I think the UN (for what it is worth) is getting a bit miffed with the constant change from 'state' to 'religion' and are starting to pin it down.

One member after another of the committee against torture brushed aside the Holy See's argument that its obligation to enforce the UN convention against torture stopped at the boundaries of the world's smallest country, the Vatican City state. They demanded the pope's representative give answers to a long list of questions about the treatment of sex abuse claims against clergy throughout the world.

The Holy See, which long predates the city state, is a sovereign entity without territory.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/vatican-united-nations-committee-clerical-sex-abuse

Archbishop Tomasi said the Vatican could only apply the UN convention - which it signed in 2002 - inside Vatican City, which has a resident population of less than 1,000.

UN experts challenged that position, alleging it was an attempt to deflect criticism by using excessively legalistic arguments, the BBC's David Willey reports from Rome.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27282069

I'm not bothered which of the two the are forced into choosing.

Pope fires entire board of Vatican financial watchdog

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-fires-entire-board-vatican-financial-watchdog-152824303.html

Pope fires entire board of Vatican financial watchdog

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-fires-entire-board-vatican-financial-watchdog-152824303.html

Just for interest, I post a link to the Vatican's own account of what happened.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-appoints-new-board-for-vaticans-financial-watchdog/

Pope Francis (and Australian Cardinal Pell) have been gradually overhauling the Vatican's somewhat murky financial systems. This latest action replaces a wholly Italian Board with a board of international experts, headed (this is the Vatican!) by an Italian Bishop. In other words, it is a positive step, not the negative one which Yahoo's account suggests.

Pope fires entire board of Vatican financial watchdog

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-fires-entire-board-vatican-financial-watchdog-152824303.html

Just for interest, I post a link to the Vatican's own account of what happened.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-appoints-new-board-for-vaticans-financial-watchdog/

Pope Francis (and Australian Cardinal Pell) have been gradually overhauling the Vatican's somewhat murky financial systems. This latest action replaces a wholly Italian Board with a board of international experts, headed (this is the Vatican!) by an Italian Bishop. In other words, it is a positive step, not the negative one which Yahoo's account suggests.

I missed that suggestion. I read it to be a positive step as well.

Pope Insanity IX is indeed being rather active though I use the word 'active' in the same way I would use 'breathing' as a form of exercise.

Pope Francis holds rare prayer meeting for Israeli, Palestinian presidents

[...]

Francis told the two men, who signed the Oslo peace accords in 1993, that he hoped the summit would mark "a new journey" toward peace. He said too many children had been killed by war and violence, and that their memory should instill the strength and patience to work for dialogue and coexistence.

The supposed care and consideration brought about by religious belief is not the cure, it is the cause of the problem.

[edit] Oops, forgot link. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0608/Pope-Francis-holds-rare-prayer-meeting-for-Israeli-Palestinian-presidents

One has here the three great Abrahamic religions meeting together to discuss peace. It shows either the great faith the Pope must have in the power of the divine, or that he is soft in the head.

I sincerely hope that it is the former, but am inclined to go towards NotMyself's suggestion that the divisions between these religions, coupled with the politics of the situation, will far outweigh the hope of the Pope.

What a sad world we must live in.

Sad indeed.

We can send people to walk on the moon, eradicate disease, cure a multitude of illnesses yet billions of us believe in an invisible sky daddy for no reason. Three people that head bodies who are the cause of much of the lack of peace meet up to call for peace.

One has here the three great Abrahamic religions meeting together to discuss peace. It shows either the great faith the Pope must have in the power of the divine, or that he is soft in the head.

I sincerely hope that it is the former, but am inclined to go towards NotMyself's suggestion that the divisions between these religions, coupled with the politics of the situation, will far outweigh the hope of the Pope.

What a sad world we must live in.

Definitely the former. He is not soft in the head.

However, I think it is simplistic and inaccurate to blame religion for the conflict in Israel/Palestine. It can be seen as Jews vs Muslims, but is in fact invaders vs oppressed. Entirely political.

One has here the three great Abrahamic religions meeting together to discuss peace. It shows either the great faith the Pope must have in the power of the divine, or that he is soft in the head.

I sincerely hope that it is the former, but am inclined to go towards NotMyself's suggestion that the divisions between these religions, coupled with the politics of the situation, will far outweigh the hope of the Pope.

What a sad world we must live in.

Definitely the former. He is not soft in the head.

However, I think it is simplistic and inaccurate to blame religion for the conflict in Israel/Palestine. It can be seen as Jews vs Muslims, but is in fact invaders vs oppressed. Entirely political.

I think it's both religious and political. It took genius to locate a Jewish-dominated state in an otherwise entirely Moslem/Arab area.

I say Jewish-dominated because there are a lot of Arabs in Israel, and demographics show that in the foreseeable future there will be an Arab majority. For the Jews' sake, the political issues had better be settled by then.

Who but Pope Francis would have taken an Imam with him to Israel? Peace will not come from posturing by either side, but by meeting together and sorting out problems face to face.

To be honest, you have to be soft in the head to some degree in order to believe the Jesus narrative is anything other than fiction.

Hey IB. Been a while and hope you are keeping well.

Who but Pope Francis would have taken an Imam with him to Israel? Peace will not come from posturing by either side, but by meeting together and sorting out problems face to face.

To some degree, this is my point. The three Abrahamic faiths are mutually exclusive and therefor irreconcilable. Only someone soft of mind would consider attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole. The central tenet is to spread the word by force if necessary but the word is not the same. All have different propitiations required and if one does not follow them, they are doomed. The Imam 'knows' that because the Pope does not follow the teachings of Muhammad, a prophet of the Abrahamic god then they will not go to heaven. The Pope 'knows' that the only way to reach the Lord is through Jesus, the Son of God. There is not, and cannot be, any middle ground because they are non overlapping magisteria. Obviously both cannot be correct so one (or both) have an absolute 'knowledge' of something being correct when it cannot be or rather they 'know' something to be true when it is not true. What method should we use to discern which, if any, is correct?

It is exactly what this thread asks....

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/715155-is-unsubstantiated-belief-a-benefit-to-mankind/

To be honest, you have to be soft in the head to some degree in order to believe the Jesus narrative is anything other than fiction.

A large part of the Jesus narrative is probably true, and some parts of it are verifiably true.

As a staunch atheist, I can say that the problem with some atheists is that they are as blindly fanatical to their beliefs as Muslim, Jew, and Christian fanatics, and this makes them tune out and not listen to actual science, which is ironic, don't you think?

Hey IB. Been a while and hope you are keeping well.

Who but Pope Francis would have taken an Imam with him to Israel? Peace will not come from posturing by either side, but by meeting together and sorting out problems face to face.

To some degree, this is my point. The three Abrahamic faiths are mutually exclusive and therefor irreconcilable. Only someone soft of mind would consider attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole. The central tenet is to spread the word by force if necessary but the word is not the same. All have different propitiations required and if one does not follow them, they are doomed. The Imam 'knows' that because the Pope does not follow the teachings of Muhammad, a prophet of the Abrahamic god then they will not go to heaven. The Pope 'knows' that the only way to reach the Lord is through Jesus, the Son of God. There is not, and cannot be, any middle ground because they are non overlapping magisteria. Obviously both cannot be correct so one (or both) have an absolute 'knowledge' of something being correct when it cannot be or rather they 'know' something to be true when it is not true. What method should we use to discern which, if any, is correct?

It is exactly what this thread asks....

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/715155-is-unsubstantiated-belief-a-benefit-to-mankind/

submission.jpg

I don't think Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive, and I certainly don't think that either religion has a central or even minor tenet to "spread the word by force if necessary".

It's possible that your worldview may have been tainted by events and propaganda since 911.

A large part of the Jesus narrative is probably true, and some parts of it are verifiably true.

As a staunch atheist, I can say that the problem with some atheists is that they are as blindly fanatical to their beliefs as Muslim, Jew, and Christian fanatics, and this makes them tune out and not listen to actual science, which is ironic, don't you think?

I'm a Catholic and you're an atheist, Seastallion. Fine. We've both thought about things and come to a conclusion.

BUT, if we cease to be able to talk together meaningfully, I think we have both lost something. A fanatic is like a horse wearing blinkers.

I don't think Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive, and I certainly don't think that either religion has a central or even minor tenet to "spread the word by force if necessary".

It's possible that your worldview may have been tainted by events and propaganda since 911.

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.". Christianity on the whole has managed to twist it so it becomes a metaphor but this is sleight of hand, see Luke 22:35:38. It doesn't actually matter a jot if it is a physical sword or a metaphor in this instance because either way 'force' is being used. The CC has also apologised for the forced conversion of millions of indigenous people in south America. I presume you are joking about 'force' not being a central tenet of Islam. It is true that not many countries follow such things as death for apostates (Iran does for one) but that does not mean it is not a serious piece of dogma.

Just out of interest, how would these beliefs propagate if not by being foisted on people? I cannot be through reason because it is a faith based position.