This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
Lombax
Well we have had a priest at our school just sitting in the school cáfe, I confronted him once why he was there, he was a real $%^&*! started talking @#$% telling me that I would have been jealous at his grades...
And at the fact about religious education I am on your side ,but my school haven't had anything else then christians (Right word?) and is clearly pointed towards that way of religion.
Which is sad because I believe that the Swedish school law say something along the lines of: Children in communal school should not be afected in their choices of religion by the school.Note I believe it's how it saying, if not correct me.
And what is even worse it has come people giving out bibles on our school, which is completly wrong if I am right about the law.
Well I have actually asked the principal about getting some one Islamic, a Buddhist or a Atheist to come to my school, He just gruntedd back but that is how he handles these things, but if it is going to ever happen I guess I have to take it in my hands.
And many of my class mates does not even understand that they are effected, well well they are not the smartest people, and they hate me any way for being so straight forward and provocative.
Post by
Monday
Well we have had a priest at our school just sitting in the school cáfe, I confronted him once why he was there, he was a real $%^&*! started talking @#$% telling me that I would have been jealous at his grades...
So you confronted him and he talked back? Why didn't you just leave him alone?
and they hate me any way for being so straight forward and provocative.
I dislike provocative people too.
Post by
Lombax
Not confronted him more like asked him why he was there, and I'm actually not provocative they just missunderstand me as such.
I really did sound like a idiot in that post, didn't I?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Absolutely not.
I'm all for religious education - it's absolutely vital that people understand where all teh different religions are coming from, and the level of ignorance regarding different religions is what has got us into the current @#$%storm of hatred and misunderstanding.
However, I find the idea of specific religious groups being given access to groups of children to indoctrinate them absolutely abhorrent.
People should - in my view at least - be taught about all religions, but considered non-religious until they are, say, 14. At that point they can choose to join a church.
People complain that this system excludes children from early rites of passage, but my arguement is that by forcing children to undergo these they are being forced to go through a religious ceremony they do not fully understand or have a choice in, and that strikes me as a complete violation. Either religion is a serious undertaking, or it's not. If it's a serious undertaking then inducting children who cannot understand it is seriously out of kilter with any idea of respecting the human.
So you think a misrepresented 3rd party interpretation of a religion is better for children than a presentation by someone who actually can represent the religion?
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The 'facts' of a religion are easy to understand and communicate.
Actually they are not. You know why I made this thread? Because 9/10 things said in this forum about Catholicism were flat out wrong.
For starters, look at the number of people who are brought up in a religion and then leave it.
What does that have to do with anything?
Post by
Lombax
So you think a misrepresented 3rd party interpretation of a religion is better for children than a presentation by someone who actually can represent the religion?
It all depends, someone who knows a lot about religion (like a teacher in the subject or just someone knows a lot in general) might not even believe in it, and some one who is a strong believer (going to church, etc, etc) might know less, is not that the way things are?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It all depends, someone who knows a lot about religion (like a teacher in the subject or just someone knows a lot in general) might not even believe in it, and some one who is a strong believer (going to church, etc, etc) might know less, is not that the way things are?
You can describe someone else's beliefs in a biased way, but it's impossible to describe your own beliefs in a biased way, because they're your own beliefs.
Religion is more than just a list of facts.
Take black history month here in the States, where they bring in African-Americans to talk to kids in school. They bring them in because it's not just a series of events that they're trying to convey, but an experience.
Post by
Lombax
You can describe someone else's beliefs in a biased way, but it's impossible to describe your own beliefs in a biased way, because they're your own beliefs.
Religion is more than just a list of facts.
Take black history month here in the States, where they bring in African-Americans to talk to kids in school. They bring them in because it's not just a series of events that they're trying to convey, but an experience.
Though I do see your point wouldn't someone who is involved in a religion be biased and therefore be trying promote it?
At least that is my experience with this sort of things.
Post by
Pwntiff
One the one hand, you can say it's impossible to have an unbiased view about your own beliefs, but I think that also means you can say that you can't have a biased view because you can only have the one point of view. I think.
You can promote something without bias though. Most people don't, however.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Your beliefs are already by necessity subjective and biased. It's your conveying of them that is not biased.
Post by
Squishalot
Actually they are not. You know why I made this thread? Because 9/10 things said in this forum about Catholicism were flat out wrong.
9/10 things said about Catholicism by non-Catholic Christians are wrong, generally speaking.
Mind you, I think I've said it before, about a protestant friend of mine who made the comment, "Agnostics... aren't they the ones who believe in aliens?"
Post by
Lombax
Mind you, I think I've said it before, about a protestant friend of mine who made the comment, "Agnostics... aren't they the ones who believe in aliens?"
One thing we all can be sure of is that there will always be people with less knowledge about the world.
It's true that most things said about Christians by non-Christians are wrong, but that's because the people didn't do their research before they throw things out, may so be over the internet or in real life.
I'm a Atheist but I wouldn't argue about something I don't know, if I do I would make sure to add something along the lines of ''I think this or that'' or ''I believe this'' and would not be making some stupid irrelevant point. Though in my experience it's actually the people I have a discussion about religion with that usually starts making irrelevant points, a example is ''The more you know the more can you believe'', and I only asked why he did believe in a God that I see as non existant, in a non &*!@#$%ish way of course.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I just finished reading Jean-Luc Marion's book
The Idol and Distance
. I can highly recommend it to anyone interested in contemporary Catholic philosophical trends of thinking. It is first and foremost a philosophical work, though it is about God. He's a phenomenologist, following in the footsteps of both Husserl and Levinas, though with his own unique understanding. The first couple pages in particular are somewhat relevant to the "can we have knowledge of God" argument a week or so ago.
Post by
Monday
Do you give up meat every Friday? Or just during Lent(?)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Me personally, or Catholics in general?
American Catholics are only required to abstain from meat on Lenten Fridays (as well as Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent). And I only abstain on Fridays on Lent, though there are a good number of Catholics who do it all year.
Post by
Squishalot
It's worth noting - that practice is based in tradition only, isn't it? There isn't really explicit support for giving up meat on Lent'ed Fridays, is there?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What do you mean support?
It's part of Cannon Law, thus required to be followed, but it's not a moral matter strictly (only indirectly in that if you break it you're disobeying the Church, and thus comitting a sin in that regard). It's just like any other part of Cannon Law that deals with non-moral requirements, like receiving Communion at least once a year during Easter.
Post by
Monday
I meant Catholics in general. Ty.
Post by
Squishalot
It's part of Cannon Law
Don't shoot the messenger!
It's just like any other part of Cannon Law that deals with non-moral requirements, like receiving Communion at least once a year during Easter.
It's not explicitly stated in the Bible, as compared to, say, men not sleeping with other men. It's not a rule imposed by the Bible, but a rule imposed by the Church. It's arguable that receiving Communion is a rule instructed by Jesus, as evidenced in the Bible. But the principle of fasting for 40 days is linked to the time that Jesus spends in the desert; it's not an instruction in the Bible from his disciples, it seems to be something that was originally a tradition, and subsequently imposed as Canon Law.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.