Religion Mary MacKillop

[Richo83]

Let them go Moo. If they get the intellectual superiority ego boost mocking Christians then it says more about them and their lives.

There hasnt been a decent religion discussion for years on this board. You know why.

Maybe I'm a little thick skinned compared to some, but if you come to an internet board, and a society, religion and politics board, why are you surprised that there's open debate about the merits of religion?

I'd say both sides are a little precious. Either way, I think most sides should be able to accept people ridiculing them given where they are - an internet forum with the topic being religion. If you can't handle someone saying: "religion is stupid" or "atheists are amoral" you're in the wrong place.

Fwiw, much of what evo said was on the money, yet linga complained nevertheless. Some people never learn.

 

[linga_is_no1]

The negative effect is that it's mass delusion. No-one is trying to put a stop to the canonisation, but people have the right to have a chuckle at the expense of those who actually believe that nonsense.

Even if you're a believer, why is the Vatican responsible for turning dead do-gooders into saints? Just because the Vatican made Alberico Crescitelli a saint, does that mean god was really willing to overlook the fact that he was a rapist?

How is it mass delusion?

I don't think you actually know what that means from a psychology perspective.

FYI Alberico Crescitelli was not a rapist. This was made up by the Chinese Government for propaganda purposes, this is well documented. You suggest that you are on this board for serious debate but yet you repeat false claims made by one of the worlds most oppressive governments?

If you don't want to debate seriously then rack off.

The point is, why not recognise her for those qualities instead of making stuff up about miracle cures?

Why do people feel they need to fool themselves over fundamental qualities of the universe just so they can posthumously honour a worthy person?

No.

The miracles are part of the process to becoming a saint. She is not a saint for producing miracles, she is a saint because of the amazing life she lived.

Do some research.

 

[linga_is_no1]

Fwiw, much of what evo said was on the money, yet linga complained nevertheless. Some people never learn.

The issue with evo was when he claimed 'the Church was the enemy of the poor'.

For someone like myself whose own family has been in a position of need and helped by the Church this seemed a tad incorrect.

Also seeming the Church is largest non-government aid giver in the world, it made evo's claim more incorrect.


Facts are more important in any debate than claims based on emotion. If someone says something that is plainly wrong, then I will point that out. I don't know how that qualifies as 'complaining'.

 

[The Punter]

If you were dismissing this story, you wouldn't be posting about it on an internet forum - you'd be paying it little mind.

Coming on here and attacking the Catholic Church is just that. As far as the process goes, or the media attention: fare game, although if you turn the TV off and don't read the papers, then it doesn't really affect you.

The stock standard stuff which gets carted out regarding the Catholic Church is also mostly fair criticism, but in this case, largely irrelevant.

 

[Richo83]

The issue with evo was when he claimed 'the Church was the enemy of the poor'.

a) I'd listen to evo 100 times before I listen to you.
b) he's got grounds to say what he's saying.
c) I don't care what you think.

Linga is exhibit a why atheists behave badly on this site at times. They aint made of stone.

 

[Sloth]

T

For someone like myself whose own family has been in a position of need and helped by the Church this seemed a tad incorrect.

Ah so that's why you became a christian...it's all starting to make sense now

 

[Caesar]

Maybe I'm a little thick skinned compared to some, but if you come to an internet board, and a society, religion and politics board, why are you surprised that there's open debate about the merits of religion?

The issue is that there is more to discuss about religion than whether it is reasonable to believe in it. Nonetheless, every single religious thread devolves into that argument fairly quickly. It would be nice to be able to have the odd discussion on here about aspects of religion that don't just wind up in believers and non-believers slagging each other off.

It's pretty reductive.

 

[Suspense]

The miracles are part of the process to becoming a saint. She is not a saint for producing miracles, she is a saint because of the amazing life she lived.

Do some research.

mr. hands lived a p amazing life too.

saintworthy?

 

[Sloth]

If you don't believe in miracles - why do you care if others do?

Because I have to live in a society with these people....Those that believe what is not real generally act like it is

 

[skipper kelly]

Maybe I'm a little thick skinned compared to some, but if you come to an internet board, and a society, religion and politics board, why are you surprised that there's open debate about the merits of religion?

I'd say both sides are a little precious. Either way, I think most sides should be able to accept people ridiculing them given where they are - an internet forum with the topic being religion. If you can't handle someone saying: "religion is stupid" or "atheists are amoral" you're in the wrong place.

Im not surprised in the slightest Richo83. My post was what I see as an explanation to Moo's statement.

Personally I don't believe there is a need for ridicule in an honest debate.

 

[The Punter]

Because I have to live in a society with these people....Those that believe what is not real generally act like it is

Do gross generalisations qualify as "honest debate"?

 

[Richo83]

Im not surprised in the slightest Richo83. My post was what I see as an explanation to Moo's statement.

Personally I don't believe there is a need for ridicule in an honest debate.

I wouldn't call ridicule the worst thing in the world. Evo's ridicule of linga was both funny and on the point. I've found some critique here sound, some not, but overall I don't think there's much to complain about from both sides really. If I think something I'll say it, I'm open to getting shot down in flames and that's the nature of this place.

 

[Richo83]

The issue is that there is more to discuss about religion than whether it is reasonable to believe in it. Nonetheless, every single religious thread devolves into that argument fairly quickly. It would be nice to be able to have the odd discussion on here about aspects of religion that don't just wind up in believers and non-believers slagging each other off.

It's pretty reductive.

I'd say the battlelines are drawn by the fact that people tend either to believe in miracles or not.

x: I believe in miracles
y: I don't
x: I do, they are a sign of god IMO and a sign of god's love and connection with the world
y: I think they're fanciful delusions in which people see what they want to see

Where do you think this argument is going to go? Saying "miracles are stupid" or "miracles are unbelievable" is going to offend some people. Seems when people clash on issues they'll offend.

It's like expecting the left and the right not to offend each other. How could they not? And shouldn't they? I'm not advocating being a douchebag but debates seem to fall into dualistic positions anyway.

 

[Suspense]

I'd say the battlelines are drawn by the fact that people tend either to believe in miracles or not.

x: I believe in miracles
y: I don't
x: I do, they are a sign of god IMO and a sign of god's love and connection with the world
y: I think they're fanciful delusions in which people see what they want to see

Where do you think this argument is going to go? Saying "miracles are stupid" or "miracles are unbelievable" is going to offend some people. Seems when people clash on issues they'll offend.

It's like expecting the left and the right not to offend each other. How could they not? And shouldn't they? I'm not advocating being a douchebag but debates seem to fall into dualistic positions anyway.

y is wrong.

[youtube]hCz51Wks20Q[/youtube]

 

[Sloth]

Do gross generalisations qualify as "honest debate"?

let us know if you find any

 

[The Punter]

See quote. I didn't know sloths were blind, I just thought they were slow.

 

[Caesar]

I'd say the battlelines are drawn by the fact that people tend either to believe in miracles or not.

x: I believe in miracles
y: I don't
x: I do, they are a sign of god IMO and a sign of god's love and connection with the world
y: I think they're fanciful delusions in which people see what they want to see

Where do you think this argument is going to go? Saying "miracles are stupid" or "miracles are unbelievable" is going to offend some people. Seems when people clash on issues they'll offend.

It's like expecting the left and the right not to offend each other. How could they not? And shouldn't they? I'm not advocating being a douchebag but debates seem to fall into dualistic positions anyway.

That's the whole point - it's possible to reduce any discussion regarding religion to a discussion of belief. My point is that it's not necessary, nor usually constructive.

This is a topical thread about Mary Mackillop. There is a heck of a lot to talk about there besides whether the idea of miracles is stupid. Given that there have been approximately a hundred thousand threads on the stupidity of religious belief and approximately zero about Mary Mackillop's actual legacy, which do you think would be a more informative and interesting discussion?

And it's not just that. Every thread related to the RCC, regardless of content, attracts people who want to sink the boot in about sex abuse or some other failing of the hierarchy. I'm not saying they're not valid things to discuss, but is it really necessary for that to be at the expense of anything and everything else?

I think it's more than a little telling about how vitriolic this board is about religion that I, an atheist, am recently constantly writing posts that come off like I'm a religious apologist. I'm not. I just find the subject of religion interesting and am perpetually frustrated when otherwise fertile discussions are hijacked by atheists out to prove that religious people are irrational and stupid and religion is corrupt and evil.

 

[the ranger]

The OP stated that the sainthood thing was embarrassing and lame. Atheists haven't hijacked the thread, it was started as a discussion of how ridiculous sainthood is. The hijackers are the people whose only contribution is to tell everyone that they shouldn't care and to stop talking about it.

 

[the ranger]

right, again it's their choice.

How does that affect you?

It both amuses and frightens me.

 

[Caesar]

The OP stated that the sainthood thing was embarrassing and lame.

Which is hardly very descriptive could be about a multitude of things - whether the media furore is justified, whether a religious event should receive attention from secular areas such as government, whether she was a worthy person to be regarded with such reverence, etc. At a certain point people chose to reduce it to being about whether miracles are stupid or not.

Anyway, my point is not really about this thread in particular and whether it has been hijacked, but a general observation about the tone of religious discussion on this board.

 

[the ranger]

FYI Alberico Crescitelli was not a rapist. This was made up by the Chinese Government for propaganda purposes, this is well documented. You suggest that you are on this board for serious debate but yet you repeat false claims made by one of the worlds most oppressive governments?

If you don't want to debate seriously then rack off.

I'd take the word of the Chinese government over that of the Catholic church (and that's saying something). The pope even apologised for the saint just in case he had committed crimes (saying "is there any man exempt from defects?") and claimed that he'd been made a saint because of his strong faith and not because of historical reasons (which may or may not have included raping Chinese women).

 

[cartwright]

It both amuses and frightens me.

there are many more frightening aspects of the catholic church, than whether they want to believe cancer is cured by prayer.

 

[Richo83]

there have been approximately a hundred thousand threads on the stupidity of religious belief and approximately zero about Mary Mackillop's actual legacy, which do you think would be a more informative and interesting discussion?

Miracles. If someone wants to find out info about Mary's good acts, wiki is a go. Fwiw, I'd suggest the fact that we're not debating whether Mary is a good person suggests most people are happy to accept she was, and that it's a fairly mundane topic that we'd probably all agree on.

Bigfooty has a habit of gravitating over the mundane points to the controversial ones, to the untrained eye, it seems we've forgotten the mundane points, instead, we've just realised the pointlessness of arguing whether Mary was good or not.

x: Mary was an awesome chick. Education and standing up to pedophilia!
y: uhhh.... yeah... sounds good to me.
x: so what, you're not going to argue with me?
y: ahh, I unno, guess not, makes sense to me.
x: oh...ummm, well in that case, Voss > Hird.

And it's not just that. Every thread related to the RCC, regardless of content, attracts people who want to sink the boot in about sex abuse or some other failing of the hierarchy. I'm not saying they're not valid things to discuss, but is it really necessary for that to be at the expense of anything and everything else?

Given this thread is about the RCC accepting her, and given she's partly seen as a good person for standing up against pedophilia in the RCC, it's hardly shocking these two themes have come up. Oh and the RCC have partly accepted her sainthood because of her miracles. It's a relevant subject whether miracles are bull and whether the RCC should care about them. The only relevant topic that hasn't come up is her status as a good person, but as I've said, that's fairly mundane (plus, do you really want a munch of atheists arguing that Mary was a bad person?)

an atheist, am recently constantly writing posts that come off like I'm a religious apologist. I'm not. I just find the subject of religion interesting and am perpetually frustrated when otherwise fertile discussions are hijacked by atheists out to prove that religious people are irrational and stupid and religion is corrupt and evil.

So do I. I enjoy engaging in debates with people like figjam and contra and you about it, and I respect others. As an atheist though, I do find some of their beliefs crazy. Miracles is one of them. Calling a good person a "saint" is another. Just call her a good person. I'm sorry if this offends anyone. I find the whole sainthood process quaint and odd. I'm sorry if this offends anyone.

Anyway, this seems weird that we're debating about the terms of debating. I like evo's line, as long as they're not trolling since when did people have the right to tell people what to discuss?

 

[Caesar]

Miracles. If someone wants to find out info about Mary's good acts, wiki is a go. Fwiw, I'd suggest the fact that we're not debating whether Mary is a good person suggests most people are happy to accept she was, and that it's a fairly mundane topic that we'd probably all agree on.

Are those two really the only options for discussion? When you stop to think about it, there's plenty of directions this thread could have evolve in. The merits and pitfalls of non-government schooling and their effect on the early history of Australia. The merits of nuns living in communities rather than convents, something MacKillop and the Sisters of St Joseph pioneered. The debate over the positions of Woods and MacKillop over how the order was run, the advantages and disadvantages of each, and how it effected the work of the order for good or for worse. And so on and so on.

Personally I find rehashing the same old argument under a different guise to be just as mundane as everyone sitting around and agreeing. And I think reaching for the same old argument just because it's the most common point of contention is kind of lazy and precludes discussions evolving into fresh and potentially interesting areas.

Anyway, this seems weird that we're debating about the terms of debating. I like evo's line, as long as they're not trolling since when did people have the right to tell people what to discuss?

It's more about trying to improve the signal to noise ratio than stifle discussion. I mean, if people want to talk about sex abuse in the RCC, by all means talk about it. Personally I'd just rather it mainly be kept to a thread on that topic, rather than infesting every related discussion. Same goes regarding the metaphysics of theism, or the incongruities of Christian belief.

It's the same as not wanting every thread on your team board to turn into an argument as to whether the coach is good or not. It might be the hot-button issue, but there's other stuff to talk about - and often it flourishes a lot better if it's not drowned out.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So ya don't like tangents, Caesar?