It may seem like something not so important, but, seriously, it is. Being extremely rude can prevent you from forming the most meaningful of relationships, whether they be friendships to something more, those types of relationships are compromised because they may see that you in your rudeness is something that can't be accounted for, whether by excuse or seeing why. It's still inexcusable.
But why?
It's all really simple to understand, really!
1) your rudeness in all its forms look not just bad on you, but also on your friends as well, and this is a stain that your friends really don't want to be scared with.
2) your rudeness may provide a barrier between you and others.
3) people will feel that your rudeness will extend to them, being rude has been shown or known to produce people who will swear at people over the simplest thing, which will put people of you even more.
This is what I hope will provide you with some ideas on how how not to treat people in everyday life.
Do not argue that someone annoyed you, that's beside the point, seriously. This is about how you react to every day stimuli, seriously it is!
The point of maturity hits when you can specifically react in a pleasant manner with people no matter how you may feel at that time or moment.
Saturday, 11 November 2017
Thursday, 7 September 2017
So Autumn has hit once again
So, autumn has arrived to the chorus of boo's and cheers. And it is time again to cover up with your favourite fleece, a book, a cup of hot chocolate, a wood burner alight with a cosy fire, and all the while listening to the days news on the radio. It's a time for the lengthening of the night and short days. Time to get your wellies out too, with a steady supply of thick socks for sure. High winds and rainy days sure give a sign of the times that autumn has arrived.
Autumn is a time for slowing down, resting, and possibly catching up with work or reading that summer so decadently took you from.
If your Catholic like I am then your sure to be preparing for the coming winter services at church, buying in the last if the gifts for Christmas day.
If you like me enjoy the Christmas period, then you would more than likely want it to come as soon as possible, but for good measure, maybe just resting in front of the wood burner, or, your trusty coal fire, or if your one of the more modern tech folk, you may be resting to the heat of an up to date electric or gas fire.
If you are one of those who are pagan, you would be a likely person who will be casting spells to create a bit of warmth because it's, like, totally cold out!
But if your Catholic like me then you will be more than likely just happy to just let the temperature outside to just be. Also you'll probably be dreaming of a white Christmas, with the watching of oh so typical Christmas films, egg Nog drinking and typically unwrapping presents that were previously wrapped and placed under the tree.
Like most people, you may wish to have the glory on the cold days, and nights, of autumn to just chill in the house with your book and fleece.
Autumn is a time for slowing down, resting, and possibly catching up with work or reading that summer so decadently took you from.
If your Catholic like I am then your sure to be preparing for the coming winter services at church, buying in the last if the gifts for Christmas day.
If you like me enjoy the Christmas period, then you would more than likely want it to come as soon as possible, but for good measure, maybe just resting in front of the wood burner, or, your trusty coal fire, or if your one of the more modern tech folk, you may be resting to the heat of an up to date electric or gas fire.
If you are one of those who are pagan, you would be a likely person who will be casting spells to create a bit of warmth because it's, like, totally cold out!
But if your Catholic like me then you will be more than likely just happy to just let the temperature outside to just be. Also you'll probably be dreaming of a white Christmas, with the watching of oh so typical Christmas films, egg Nog drinking and typically unwrapping presents that were previously wrapped and placed under the tree.
Like most people, you may wish to have the glory on the cold days, and nights, of autumn to just chill in the house with your book and fleece.
Tuesday, 30 May 2017
The myth surrounding jesus being a rip off of other gods
Is Jesus a knock off?
What if I told you something?
Would you believe me if I said that Jesus has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, in common with god's such as Horus, let alone, Adonis.
Firstly, let's look at the details surrounding Horus first.
Horus
Horus is a significant deity within the Egyptian pantheon, who was worshipped from around the time of pre-historic Egypt and lost slight favour around the time of the Ptolemaic kingdom/Roman rule.
Over the years there have been many variations of Horus, which corresponds roughly with how the Egyptians viewed reality in a multi-faceted way.
If you look up pictures of Horus, you are most likely to come across pictures of a half-man half-bird mash.
Unlike Jesus, who was always painted as a full man with a man's head, human neck, etc, etc.
Most critics of Christianity will often assert, often incorrectly that Horus was born of a virgin. (Enter classical studies, let's get that back into schools).
Virgin birth
Sorry to burst your misguided bubble here, but, Horus DID NOT HAVE a virgin birth. The mother of Horus, Isis, retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her husband Osiris, but she could not retrieve the phallus of her husband, so had to have a gold phallus made, she then placed it onto her husband and then she conceived Horus, from the golden phallus. Isis then went to hiding the very moment she found out she was pregnant, in which to hide from set, who originally killed Osiris in the first place, in which to protect Horus.
The difference between Jesus and Horus
1) Horus did not have 12 followers.
2) Horus did not have 12 disciples that were fisher men, tax collectors, etc.
3) Horus was not tempted in the forty days of fasting by satan with the wealth of the world.
4) Horus did not walk on water.
5) Horus never taught his followers the beatitudes in a sermon on the mount.
6) Osiris and Isis did not have to travel to Bethlehem to register.
7) there was no slaughter of infant males by a king Herod style figure in the Egyptian mythology.
8) Egyptian did not fast in any time of thier religious calendar.
1) Jesus had twelve followers.
2) the disciples of Jesus were fisher men, tax collectors, etc.
3) Jesus was tempted in his forty days of fasting by satan with the wealth of the world.
4) Jesus walked on water, Jesus also had one of his disciples walk on water.
5) Jesus gave a sermon on the mount, where he delivered the beatitudes to his massive throng of followers.
6) Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to register with the local Roman rulers, Mary gave birth in a stable, visited by wise men.
7) Joseph warned to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus to escape the tyrannical mass killing of infants under two years of age, in a dream.
8) Jews, Muslims, Catholics fast during certain calendar dates in their religious calendar.
The same logic also applies to god's such as Adonis, and Mithras, although the claims are that those gods had virgin mother is purely fictitious in its nature.
The mother of adonis, myrrha, was by no means a virgin, she had intercourse with her own father, committing incest. She was transformed into a myrrh tree, possibly as punishment for having an incestous relationship with her father, she gave birth to Adonis as a tree.
Mithras has no actual mother, he was "born" in what can be deemed the longest night of the year, which in the northern hemisphere is December 21st/22nd. He was born after he beat the darkness. Mithraism is a Persian religion that is one of many that centers on a unique god but are not polytheistic in anyway.
A word on the zeitgeist movie
The Zeitgeist movie is where you will find the incorrect information concerning all of the above Gods/Godheads.
People are beginning now to question the validity of the zeitgeist movie, in which the creator (Peter Joseph) claimed that a critic of his production was mentally ill, simply just for disagreeing with the movie.
What is the zeitgeist about? Well the movie comes complete in three different sections. The first one being "the greatest story ever told" which covers religion.
The second part is "all the world is a stage" in which it is claimed that the government had known in advance what was going to happen on that fateful day on September the 11. It even goes onto say that it was all an inside job, if you had realised by now, the zeitgeist caters to the tin hat people. Part three of the movie is titled "don't mind the men behind the curtain" which looks at the world (through tin hat goggles) at how bankers and world leaders are trying to take over the world.
It is ironic when people would gladly place tin hats over thier noggings, and watch a movie called the zeitgeist, aptly, and treat it as absolute truth, but, then go onto preach to others that they shouldn't believe everything they read on the internet. The irony is astounding, even though the zeitgeist movie, is solely based on the realms of the internet, go on, look it up on youtube, it's there alright.
What if I told you something?
Would you believe me if I said that Jesus has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, in common with god's such as Horus, let alone, Adonis.
Firstly, let's look at the details surrounding Horus first.
Horus
Horus is a significant deity within the Egyptian pantheon, who was worshipped from around the time of pre-historic Egypt and lost slight favour around the time of the Ptolemaic kingdom/Roman rule.
Over the years there have been many variations of Horus, which corresponds roughly with how the Egyptians viewed reality in a multi-faceted way.
If you look up pictures of Horus, you are most likely to come across pictures of a half-man half-bird mash.
Unlike Jesus, who was always painted as a full man with a man's head, human neck, etc, etc.
Most critics of Christianity will often assert, often incorrectly that Horus was born of a virgin. (Enter classical studies, let's get that back into schools).
Virgin birth
Sorry to burst your misguided bubble here, but, Horus DID NOT HAVE a virgin birth. The mother of Horus, Isis, retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her husband Osiris, but she could not retrieve the phallus of her husband, so had to have a gold phallus made, she then placed it onto her husband and then she conceived Horus, from the golden phallus. Isis then went to hiding the very moment she found out she was pregnant, in which to hide from set, who originally killed Osiris in the first place, in which to protect Horus.
The difference between Jesus and Horus
1) Horus did not have 12 followers.
2) Horus did not have 12 disciples that were fisher men, tax collectors, etc.
3) Horus was not tempted in the forty days of fasting by satan with the wealth of the world.
4) Horus did not walk on water.
5) Horus never taught his followers the beatitudes in a sermon on the mount.
6) Osiris and Isis did not have to travel to Bethlehem to register.
7) there was no slaughter of infant males by a king Herod style figure in the Egyptian mythology.
8) Egyptian did not fast in any time of thier religious calendar.
1) Jesus had twelve followers.
2) the disciples of Jesus were fisher men, tax collectors, etc.
3) Jesus was tempted in his forty days of fasting by satan with the wealth of the world.
4) Jesus walked on water, Jesus also had one of his disciples walk on water.
5) Jesus gave a sermon on the mount, where he delivered the beatitudes to his massive throng of followers.
6) Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to register with the local Roman rulers, Mary gave birth in a stable, visited by wise men.
7) Joseph warned to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus to escape the tyrannical mass killing of infants under two years of age, in a dream.
8) Jews, Muslims, Catholics fast during certain calendar dates in their religious calendar.
The same logic also applies to god's such as Adonis, and Mithras, although the claims are that those gods had virgin mother is purely fictitious in its nature.
The mother of adonis, myrrha, was by no means a virgin, she had intercourse with her own father, committing incest. She was transformed into a myrrh tree, possibly as punishment for having an incestous relationship with her father, she gave birth to Adonis as a tree.
Mithras has no actual mother, he was "born" in what can be deemed the longest night of the year, which in the northern hemisphere is December 21st/22nd. He was born after he beat the darkness. Mithraism is a Persian religion that is one of many that centers on a unique god but are not polytheistic in anyway.
A word on the zeitgeist movie
The Zeitgeist movie is where you will find the incorrect information concerning all of the above Gods/Godheads.
People are beginning now to question the validity of the zeitgeist movie, in which the creator (Peter Joseph) claimed that a critic of his production was mentally ill, simply just for disagreeing with the movie.
What is the zeitgeist about? Well the movie comes complete in three different sections. The first one being "the greatest story ever told" which covers religion.
The second part is "all the world is a stage" in which it is claimed that the government had known in advance what was going to happen on that fateful day on September the 11. It even goes onto say that it was all an inside job, if you had realised by now, the zeitgeist caters to the tin hat people. Part three of the movie is titled "don't mind the men behind the curtain" which looks at the world (through tin hat goggles) at how bankers and world leaders are trying to take over the world.
It is ironic when people would gladly place tin hats over thier noggings, and watch a movie called the zeitgeist, aptly, and treat it as absolute truth, but, then go onto preach to others that they shouldn't believe everything they read on the internet. The irony is astounding, even though the zeitgeist movie, is solely based on the realms of the internet, go on, look it up on youtube, it's there alright.
Wednesday, 3 May 2017
Catholicism - a brief overview.
For the first 1,500 years of Christianity there was no "Catholicism" as it is known it today, simply because there were no other forms of Christianity to distinguish it. There was only the "one, holy, catholic church" ("catholic" means "universal"), which was the body of Christian believers all over the western world, united by common traditions, beliefs, church structure and worship. Before the Reformation (in the 1500s), if you were a Christian, you belonged to the Catholic Church. Any other form of Christianity was considered a heresy, not a Christian denomination.
Today, there are many popular forms of Christianity besides Roman Catholicism. Although the Catholic Church continues to teach that it alone has carried on the true tradition of the apostolic church, the Second Vatican Council declared all baptized Christians to be "in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." [1] So to be a Catholic today means to be a certain kind of Christian: one with beliefs, practices and traditions that differ from those of Protestantism, Anglicanism, Greek Orthodox, and other branches of modern Christianity.
Roman Catholicism is by far the largest Christian group. With more than one billion adherents, Catholics constitute about half of the world's Christians. [2] Catholicism is the majority religion of Italy, Spain, and nearly all Latin American countries. In 2001, about 24 percent of Americans identified themselves as Catholic, making Catholicism the largest Christian denomination in America (if the Protestant denominations are counted individually). The next largest denomination, Baptists, was claimed by 16 percent of Americans. Yet if Protestants are considered as one group, Catholics remain a minority among America's Christians.
Distinctive Roman Catholic beliefs include the special authority of the pope, the ability of saints to intercede on behalf of believers, the concept of purgatory as a place of afterlife purification before entering heaven, and the doctrine of transubstantiation - that is, that the bread used in the Eucharist becomes the true body of Christ when blessed by a priest.
Generally, Catholic worship tends to be more formal and ritualized than its Protestant counterparts. Services follow a prescribed liturgy and priests wear more elaborate vestments than most Protestant ministers. Catholics usually celebrate the Eucharist (which they call Mass) more often than do Protestants, usually weekly.
Catholics observe seven sacraments: religious rituals believed to be commanded by God and effective in conferring grace on the believer. Other distinctive Catholic practices include veneration of saints, use of the crucifix, and the use of rosary beads in prayer.
Unlike their counterparts in both Protestant and Orthodox churches, Catholic priests take vows of celibacy. This practice is rooted in the papacy's early connections with monasticism. There are several Catholic monastic orders, the most well known being the Jesuits, Dominicans, Fransciscans, and Augustinians. Catholic monks and nuns take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and devote themselves to a simple life focused on worshipping God.
Roman Catholicism traces its history to the apostles, especially the Apostle Peter. St. Peter is considered the first pope, and every pope since him is regarded as his spiritual successor. This gives the leader of the church spiritual authority and provides a means for resolving disputes that could divide the church. Through trials like persecution, heresy, and the Reformation, the notion that the church leadership represents the continuation of an unbroken line from the apostles and their teachings ("apostolic succession") has contributed to the survival of Christianity.
However, it was not until several centuries after Christ that the church began to develop into the "Roman Catholic Church" as we think of it today, with its particular doctrines, practices, and hierarchical system of authority. From the Catholic perspective, the early church is faithfully continued in the developments of later centuries, while non-Catholics tend to regard the church as having corrupted the original message of Christianity.
The Roman bishop Leo I (440-461) is considered the first pope by historians, as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom. In his writings one can find all the traditional arguments for papal authority, most notably that which asserts Christ had designated Peter and his successors the "rock" on which the church would be built.
Roman Catholic beliefs do not differ drastically from those of the other major branches of Christianity, Greek Orthodoxy and Protestantism. All three main branches hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, and so on.
But on other doctrinal points, there are clear Catholic distinctives in belief. Distinctive Roman Catholic beliefs include the special authority of the pope, the ability of saints to intercede on behalf of believers, the concept of purgatory, and the doctrine of transubstantiation - that is, that the bread used in the Eucharist becomes the true body of Christ when blessed by a priest.
Apocrypha in Catholicism
The early Christians, most of whom spoke Greek, used the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha continued in common use among Christians until the Reformation, when the Hebrew canon was chosen as the Protestant Old Testament. This means Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha.
Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to use the Septuagint. The Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha canonical at both the Council of Trent (1546) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70).
The main theological significance of the Apocrypha is the Books of the Maccabees' support for prayer for the dead, a practice which Protestants reject.
Evolution in Catholicism
Although the theory of evolution was first articulated in the 1850's, the Roman Catholic Church didn't address the issue formally until the 1950's.
When the Catholic Church eventually spoke on the issue, specifically Pope Pius XII in 1950, he stated that there was no conflict between evolution and Christian faith.
The official catechisms of the Catholic Church (revised 1997) state:
159 Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1)
160 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and
161 wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....
The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....
Pope John Paul II said in a 1996 address:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) said in 2008:
“The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.”
Reaction
The Catholic Church's position on creation and evolution pleased some and upset others. Some of the devout, who desired that the Church align itself with current scientific consensus, welcomed the position, seeing it as progressive and modern. Other believers expressed disappointment because they thought the Church was falling away from a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially in regards to the book of Genesis.
Today, there are many popular forms of Christianity besides Roman Catholicism. Although the Catholic Church continues to teach that it alone has carried on the true tradition of the apostolic church, the Second Vatican Council declared all baptized Christians to be "in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." [1] So to be a Catholic today means to be a certain kind of Christian: one with beliefs, practices and traditions that differ from those of Protestantism, Anglicanism, Greek Orthodox, and other branches of modern Christianity.
Roman Catholicism is by far the largest Christian group. With more than one billion adherents, Catholics constitute about half of the world's Christians. [2] Catholicism is the majority religion of Italy, Spain, and nearly all Latin American countries. In 2001, about 24 percent of Americans identified themselves as Catholic, making Catholicism the largest Christian denomination in America (if the Protestant denominations are counted individually). The next largest denomination, Baptists, was claimed by 16 percent of Americans. Yet if Protestants are considered as one group, Catholics remain a minority among America's Christians.
Distinctive Roman Catholic beliefs include the special authority of the pope, the ability of saints to intercede on behalf of believers, the concept of purgatory as a place of afterlife purification before entering heaven, and the doctrine of transubstantiation - that is, that the bread used in the Eucharist becomes the true body of Christ when blessed by a priest.
Generally, Catholic worship tends to be more formal and ritualized than its Protestant counterparts. Services follow a prescribed liturgy and priests wear more elaborate vestments than most Protestant ministers. Catholics usually celebrate the Eucharist (which they call Mass) more often than do Protestants, usually weekly.
Catholics observe seven sacraments: religious rituals believed to be commanded by God and effective in conferring grace on the believer. Other distinctive Catholic practices include veneration of saints, use of the crucifix, and the use of rosary beads in prayer.
Unlike their counterparts in both Protestant and Orthodox churches, Catholic priests take vows of celibacy. This practice is rooted in the papacy's early connections with monasticism. There are several Catholic monastic orders, the most well known being the Jesuits, Dominicans, Fransciscans, and Augustinians. Catholic monks and nuns take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and devote themselves to a simple life focused on worshipping God.
Roman Catholicism traces its history to the apostles, especially the Apostle Peter. St. Peter is considered the first pope, and every pope since him is regarded as his spiritual successor. This gives the leader of the church spiritual authority and provides a means for resolving disputes that could divide the church. Through trials like persecution, heresy, and the Reformation, the notion that the church leadership represents the continuation of an unbroken line from the apostles and their teachings ("apostolic succession") has contributed to the survival of Christianity.
However, it was not until several centuries after Christ that the church began to develop into the "Roman Catholic Church" as we think of it today, with its particular doctrines, practices, and hierarchical system of authority. From the Catholic perspective, the early church is faithfully continued in the developments of later centuries, while non-Catholics tend to regard the church as having corrupted the original message of Christianity.
The Roman bishop Leo I (440-461) is considered the first pope by historians, as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom. In his writings one can find all the traditional arguments for papal authority, most notably that which asserts Christ had designated Peter and his successors the "rock" on which the church would be built.
Roman Catholic beliefs do not differ drastically from those of the other major branches of Christianity, Greek Orthodoxy and Protestantism. All three main branches hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, and so on.
But on other doctrinal points, there are clear Catholic distinctives in belief. Distinctive Roman Catholic beliefs include the special authority of the pope, the ability of saints to intercede on behalf of believers, the concept of purgatory, and the doctrine of transubstantiation - that is, that the bread used in the Eucharist becomes the true body of Christ when blessed by a priest.
Apocrypha in Catholicism
The early Christians, most of whom spoke Greek, used the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha continued in common use among Christians until the Reformation, when the Hebrew canon was chosen as the Protestant Old Testament. This means Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha.
Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to use the Septuagint. The Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha canonical at both the Council of Trent (1546) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70).
The main theological significance of the Apocrypha is the Books of the Maccabees' support for prayer for the dead, a practice which Protestants reject.
Evolution in Catholicism
Although the theory of evolution was first articulated in the 1850's, the Roman Catholic Church didn't address the issue formally until the 1950's.
When the Catholic Church eventually spoke on the issue, specifically Pope Pius XII in 1950, he stated that there was no conflict between evolution and Christian faith.
The official catechisms of the Catholic Church (revised 1997) state:
159 Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1)
160 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and
161 wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....
The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....
Pope John Paul II said in a 1996 address:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) said in 2008:
“The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.”
Reaction
The Catholic Church's position on creation and evolution pleased some and upset others. Some of the devout, who desired that the Church align itself with current scientific consensus, welcomed the position, seeing it as progressive and modern. Other believers expressed disappointment because they thought the Church was falling away from a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially in regards to the book of Genesis.
Wednesday, 19 April 2017
Is there really such a thing as this?
Is there really such a thing, such as Atheistic persecution?
well according to the website wikipedia, it is written as:
"Discrimination against atheists, both at present and historically, includes the persecution of those identifying themselves or labeled by others as atheists, as well as the discrimination against them. Discrimination against atheists may also refer to and comprise the negative attitudes towards, prejudice, hostility, hatred, fear, and/or intolerance towards atheists and/or atheism. As atheism can be defined in various ways, those discriminated against or persecuted on the grounds of being atheists might not have been considered as such in a different time or place. As of 2015, 19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 13 of those countries it is punishable by death. In some Islamic countries, atheists face persecution and severe penalties such as the withdrawal of legal status or, in the case of apostasy, capital punishment."
hardly?does this seem like places like the greater parts of Europe or even Britain, do they suffer such in America?
Taking another look, under the article 18 we see how everyone is allowed to have freedom to follow whatever path is deemed appropriate to each individual, as long it is not deemed to be harmful to others within the community.
Article 18 is as follows:
"Human rights
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is designed to protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views. Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are persecuted in many parts of the world."
Stigma does not equal persecution.
There are 13/23 countries today where being an atheist is illegal. They are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Pakistan. The punishment for atheism in most of these countries is death.
A you will notice, most notably all of those countries are Muslim. this means that the state religion of those 13 countries is Islamic.
https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/boycotting-sam-harriss-ads-atheist-freedom-of-speech-vs-religious-censorship,8377
Is mocking atheism hate speech or free speech?
Phil Robertson Hypothesizes About Atheist Family Getting Raped And Killed
So probably there is a line, somewhere out there, between mockery and "hate speech".
There's no need to discuss, of course, what it is that the law says about expressing atheist beliefs in a certain number of countries, even today.
well according to the website wikipedia, it is written as:
"Discrimination against atheists, both at present and historically, includes the persecution of those identifying themselves or labeled by others as atheists, as well as the discrimination against them. Discrimination against atheists may also refer to and comprise the negative attitudes towards, prejudice, hostility, hatred, fear, and/or intolerance towards atheists and/or atheism. As atheism can be defined in various ways, those discriminated against or persecuted on the grounds of being atheists might not have been considered as such in a different time or place. As of 2015, 19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 13 of those countries it is punishable by death. In some Islamic countries, atheists face persecution and severe penalties such as the withdrawal of legal status or, in the case of apostasy, capital punishment."
hardly?does this seem like places like the greater parts of Europe or even Britain, do they suffer such in America?
Taking another look, under the article 18 we see how everyone is allowed to have freedom to follow whatever path is deemed appropriate to each individual, as long it is not deemed to be harmful to others within the community.
Article 18 is as follows:
"Human rights
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is designed to protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views. Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are persecuted in many parts of the world."
Stigma does not equal persecution.
There are 13/23 countries today where being an atheist is illegal. They are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Pakistan. The punishment for atheism in most of these countries is death.
A you will notice, most notably all of those countries are Muslim. this means that the state religion of those 13 countries is Islamic.
https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/boycotting-sam-harriss-ads-atheist-freedom-of-speech-vs-religious-censorship,8377
Is mocking atheism hate speech or free speech?
Hate speech targets people, not ideas.
If you intimidate, or call for discrimination or violence against atheists, then that's hate speech. Same is true if you target that speech against Christians, or recent immigrants, or any other group of people.
But you can certainly criticize, or even mock, atheism, Christian doctrine, immigration policy, or any other set of ideas, and be on safe free speech ground.
If you intimidate, or call for discrimination or violence against atheists, then that's hate speech. Same is true if you target that speech against Christians, or recent immigrants, or any other group of people.
But you can certainly criticize, or even mock, atheism, Christian doctrine, immigration policy, or any other set of ideas, and be on safe free speech ground.
Mocking atheism is protected speech. Atheism is just an idea.
Now, here's an example which maybe goes a little bit over the line, I would say. I suppose it could be called satire. But it is definitely not satire in the sense of Juvenal. If the speaker were not just a publicity whore, I might even be tempted to call what he said "hate speech".
But he still has the right to say it in the US. It's protected speech.
As it is, I'ld call it a transparent attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, in order to make a quick buck. I don't even take what the man says as seriously as I take anything that Anne Coulter has said.
Now, here's an example which maybe goes a little bit over the line, I would say. I suppose it could be called satire. But it is definitely not satire in the sense of Juvenal. If the speaker were not just a publicity whore, I might even be tempted to call what he said "hate speech".
But he still has the right to say it in the US. It's protected speech.
As it is, I'ld call it a transparent attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, in order to make a quick buck. I don't even take what the man says as seriously as I take anything that Anne Coulter has said.
Phil Robertson Hypothesizes About Atheist Family Getting Raped And Killed
“I’ll make a bet with you,” Robertson said. “Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’”
Robertson kept going: “Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.’”
“If it happened to them,” Robertson continued, “they probably would say, ‘something about this just ain’t right.”
So probably there is a line, somewhere out there, between mockery and "hate speech".
There's no need to discuss, of course, what it is that the law says about expressing atheist beliefs in a certain number of countries, even today.
Mocking atheism is usually just ignorant speech. In my experience, it usually takes the form of unintentionally or intentionally misunderstanding evolution to make atheists look stupid. Here's an actual example of a theist mocking evolution in a comment to me: "And periodically the software spontaneously upgraded, over and over until we have a man".
I called him out on this, that he knew better than that, and he copped to misrepresenting the theory intentionally.
This is called a straw man argument, and seems to me to fall under bearing false witnessone's neighbor, which is supposed to be a no-no.
I called him out on this, that he knew better than that, and he copped to misrepresenting the theory intentionally.
This is called a straw man argument, and seems to me to fall under bearing false witnessone's neighbor, which is supposed to be a no-no.
It's free speech. It doesn't matter if it applies to atheism, or Islam or Christianity either. Actually so is "hate speech". It's also free speech. I don't really care for that as a term (hate speech) because it implies that some things should be protected from some types of speech. Nothing should be. They're just words; just ideas. If it's directly inciting immediate violence then I get it, but aside from that, it's just people's thoughts.
People should be allowed to think hateful things. I wouldn't want to control anything people think or say. Once you begin doing that you set yourself on a slippery slope. Then we get to the point where people are afraid to be creative and push boundaries because they're afraid of the backlash. Protected ideas will continue to creep, pushed by their constituents, and free speech will diminish, if you force it back even an inch.
That doesn't mean you should be allowed to keep your job, for example. In the media anything approaching so called hate speech towards pretty much any demographic will get you canned. Which is unfortunate, as it means that people won't speak their minds as often, but it comes with the territory. As long as they're not being locked up for doing so, I'm happy. People can decide how much their speech is worth to them, and I'm fine with that, as long as it can't get them in legal trouble.
People should be allowed to think hateful things. I wouldn't want to control anything people think or say. Once you begin doing that you set yourself on a slippery slope. Then we get to the point where people are afraid to be creative and push boundaries because they're afraid of the backlash. Protected ideas will continue to creep, pushed by their constituents, and free speech will diminish, if you force it back even an inch.
That doesn't mean you should be allowed to keep your job, for example. In the media anything approaching so called hate speech towards pretty much any demographic will get you canned. Which is unfortunate, as it means that people won't speak their minds as often, but it comes with the territory. As long as they're not being locked up for doing so, I'm happy. People can decide how much their speech is worth to them, and I'm fine with that, as long as it can't get them in legal trouble.
There's no dichotomy between so-called "hate speech" and free speech. It's all free speech.
Mocking ideas isn't hate in any case.
Expect more speech in reply if your speech is taken as offensive by someone else.
Mocking ideas isn't hate in any case.
Expect more speech in reply if your speech is taken as offensive by someone else.
It's protected speech.
Actually, as an atheist, I'd love to hear some of the jokes theists tell about us. I'm imagining something like:
"Did you hear about the atheist who walked into church and got turned into a pillar of salt? Cause, you know, that could happen."
"One time this atheist was like, 'I don't believe in God because there is no objective evidence to suggest his existence.' What an idiot!"
"A Christian and an Atheist walk into a bar together. The Christian is like, 'did you know it says in the Bible that atheists are fools?' The atheist didn't care. Cause... you know, they think the Bible is just a book."
Actually, as an atheist, I'd love to hear some of the jokes theists tell about us. I'm imagining something like:
"Did you hear about the atheist who walked into church and got turned into a pillar of salt? Cause, you know, that could happen."
"One time this atheist was like, 'I don't believe in God because there is no objective evidence to suggest his existence.' What an idiot!"
"A Christian and an Atheist walk into a bar together. The Christian is like, 'did you know it says in the Bible that atheists are fools?' The atheist didn't care. Cause... you know, they think the Bible is just a book."
Yes it is. I don't see why my feelings should be hurt just because the majority of people on this planet (who disagree with each other sometimes violently) disagree with me. I think it should be a hate crime to call someone a fool for not believing in God. I think it should be a hate crime to call someone who rejects his former religion "a dog returning to its vomit." I want to be able to go around all day not thinking about God without constantly encountering questions about how I can't believe in right and wrong unless I believe in God (who endorses slavery and sentences people to death for gathering firewood on the wrong day of the week).
Offending me should be a hate crime!
Wait... if I'm right, then I don't get to critique religion fair and square?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Of course it's not a hate crime. Am I the only one who read the original question as a joke?
Offending me should be a hate crime!
Wait... if I'm right, then I don't get to critique religion fair and square?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Of course it's not a hate crime. Am I the only one who read the original question as a joke?
No, mocking is not hate speech.
Fortunately, we are rarely object of humorous mocking, since one of the main characteristics (conditio sine qua non) of Fundamentalists and belligerent religious zealots is absolute absence of humor sense, sarcasm and irony wit.
However, they can (unintentionally) make us cry easily.
Fortunately, we are rarely object of humorous mocking, since one of the main characteristics (conditio sine qua non) of Fundamentalists and belligerent religious zealots is absolute absence of humor sense, sarcasm and irony wit.
However, they can (unintentionally) make us cry easily.
I don't see it as a binary distinction, but as a continuum. Making fun of a (non)religious position is everyone's right. Advocating that someone who holds that position be treated with violence or abuse is hate speech.
But I do think there are "grey areas," where the level of nastiness and insults against a (non)religious viewpoint is so intense and pointed that it clearly spills over to demonizing its practitioners. It's difficult, of course, to define where this line can be drawn in practice.
But I do think there are "grey areas," where the level of nastiness and insults against a (non)religious viewpoint is so intense and pointed that it clearly spills over to demonizing its practitioners. It's difficult, of course, to define where this line can be drawn in practice.
The majority of atheists around the world are statists/socialists(including China,
Russia etc). So one smart atheist joke especially from the religious
right:
Russia etc). So one smart atheist joke especially from the religious
right:
“Ok, you say I trust in one God (the one I was brought up to believe in) and
distrust in all the others in the world. But you trust in one
government (the one you were brought up to believe in) and distrust
all the others in the world. So where's your logical consistency
now!”
distrust in all the others in the world. But you trust in one
government (the one you were brought up to believe in) and distrust
all the others in the world. So where's your logical consistency
now!”
That bit of mockery would be free speech. Might get you killed by some governments
though.
though.
Free speach. How could it be hate speech when people are making fool of themselves ? Truth can withold any amount of mockings or criticisms. That's why most religions won't accept them as it is well known.
Of course religious people have that tendency after giving atheists a good laugh with ridiculous arguments to use violence. But then the trouble is not with hate speech but with hate acts.
Of course religious people have that tendency after giving atheists a good laugh with ridiculous arguments to use violence. But then the trouble is not with hate speech but with hate acts.
If you mean the standard meaning of the term mock and don't mean more than to verbally ridicule in a facetious to humorous way, then free in public and in private, yet not in the employment area of business.
The reason mocking is not permitted in employment business on the criteria of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, or military status is that the civil rights act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace.
The reason for the law is that it has been determined that there is a power disparity in the employment relationship and that it requires law to attempt to mitigate overt discrimination.
Mocking in a business environment confers a legal liability to those responsible for following the law. To do so exposes responsible parties to legal liabilities they strongly do not want. Cases go to civil court, criminal court, or both.
You chose atheism in your example as something that could possibly be mocked. Mocking atheists would be free speech in public and private and not in an employment environment.
Could mocking be hate speech? Hate speech has the same criteria as the civil rights act does for protected statuses. The difference is that hate does not look like sarcasm and humorous disrespect.
Hate does harm, and is a poor example to set for others. Inciting acts against and suggesting violence are examples that meet hate criteria. It is also harm to consistently promote an abusive description to stigmatize a person or group. Another difference between mocking and hate speech is that it is illegal to practice hate speech against all people of every status criteria, protected or not, and in every environment.
At this point the elephant in the room is the ridiculous that does deserve ridicule.
The reason mocking is not permitted in employment business on the criteria of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, or military status is that the civil rights act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace.
The reason for the law is that it has been determined that there is a power disparity in the employment relationship and that it requires law to attempt to mitigate overt discrimination.
Mocking in a business environment confers a legal liability to those responsible for following the law. To do so exposes responsible parties to legal liabilities they strongly do not want. Cases go to civil court, criminal court, or both.
You chose atheism in your example as something that could possibly be mocked. Mocking atheists would be free speech in public and private and not in an employment environment.
Could mocking be hate speech? Hate speech has the same criteria as the civil rights act does for protected statuses. The difference is that hate does not look like sarcasm and humorous disrespect.
Hate does harm, and is a poor example to set for others. Inciting acts against and suggesting violence are examples that meet hate criteria. It is also harm to consistently promote an abusive description to stigmatize a person or group. Another difference between mocking and hate speech is that it is illegal to practice hate speech against all people of every status criteria, protected or not, and in every environment.
At this point the elephant in the room is the ridiculous that does deserve ridicule.
Criticism or mockery of any religious position is free speech. Speech does not become "hate speech" until it incites/advocates violence against a protected group (like any religious position, gays, etc) or in some cases incites systemic discrimination against said group.
Friday, 7 April 2017
Anti-this, Anti-that attitudes.
Anti-this, Anti-that attitudes
Being a person who is theistic, or more bluntly, Catholic, I have had a good chance to see the disdain people have towards people of different faiths or non faith backgrounds. Often the disdain comes from those who are of non-belief backgrounds, but, that does not in any way excuse the disdain that some, but not all, theists may show towards those who do not believe. Likewise, Antireligion, or anti-religion, is a form of irreligion that is characterized by opposition, at times leading to hostility, to all religions, generally those founded on sacred texts. This includes, but is not limited to, monotheism, nontheism, and polytheism, whether organized or not. As much as antireligionism rejects significance of all forms of religion, it also opposes them. In this way, antireligionism goes beyond the spectrum of atheism and even anti-theism, both of which contend with the existence of a deity. Antireligionism also rejects and opposes nontheistic religions, such as nontheistic Buddhism and Confucianism. Its opposition to religion also goes beyond the misotheistic spectrum.
Antireligionism may find its beginning in the Enlightenment through outspoken atheist Baron d'Holbach. In his book Christianity Unveiled published in 1761, d'Holbach attacked not only Christianity but religion in general as an impediment to the moral advancement of humanity. Antitheist Christopher Hitchens may be one of the leading antireligionists of the 20th century for maintaining opposition not just to the Abrahamic religions, but to some other religions such as Buddhism.
Antireligionism became increasingly violent with the rise of Communism, where hostility to all religions as political enemies of the state was realized at the national level.
But why has Antireligionism become increasingly violent with the rise of communism? well, communism as you have read, sees all religion as "enemies of the state". Albeit, While antireligionism may be attributed to Baron d'Holbach, his tirade against religion in general is miniscule compared to his argument against theism.
If we look to the Soviet Union as well as Albania, being a communistic state, for any form of learning about communism and being Anti religion, we learn that:
The Soviet Union directed antireligious campaigns at all faiths,[1] including Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, and Shamanist religions. In the 1930s, during the Stalinist period, the government destroyed church buildings or put them into secular use (as museums of religion and atheism, clubs or storage facilities), executed clergy, prohibited the publication of most religious material and persecuted some members of religious groups. Less violent attempts to reduce or eliminate the influence of religion in society were also carried out at other times in Soviet history. For instance, it was usually necessary to be an atheist in order to acquire any important political position or any prestigious scientific job; thus many people became atheists in order to advance their careers.
The People's Republic of Albania had an objective for the eventual elimination of all religion in Albania with the goal of creating an atheist nation, which it declared it had achieved in 1967. In 1976, Albania implemented a constitutional ban on religious activity and propaganda. The government nationalised most property of religious institutions and used it for non-religious purposes, such as cultural centers for young people. Religious literature was banned. Many clergy and theists were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic clergy were expelled in 1946. Albania was the only country that ever officially banned religion.
The Khmer Rouge attempted to eliminate Cambodia's cultural heritage, including its religions, particularly Theravada Buddhism. In the process, its acolytes killed about 1.7 million people. A mere three thousand Buddhist monks survived the Khmer Rouge horror. There had been sixty thousand monks previously.
To learn more click on those links below:
See also[edit]
- Anti-Catholicism
- Anti-Christian sentiment
- Anti-clericalism
- Anti-Islamism, as distinct from Islamophobia
- Anti-Judaism
- Anti-Mormonism
- Anti-Protestantism
- Anti-Buddhism
- Antitheism
- Conflict thesis
- Criticism of Islam
- Discrimination against atheists
- Evidentialism
- Faith and rationality
- Freethought
- New Atheism
- Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
- Persecution of Christians
- Relationship between religion and science
- Religious discrimination against Neopagans
- Religious intolerance
- Religious persecution
- Religious segregation
- State atheism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)