Suffer the little children

[The Todal]

Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949

The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News. The children were all residents of a care home run by
Catholic nuns.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39192744

The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been discovered,
was "a chamber of horrors", the Irish PM has said. Taoiseach Enda Kenny
said the discovery did not only concern a mass grave but "a social and
cultural sepulchre". A state-appointed inquiry has found "significant
human remains" in underground chambers at the site of the former home in
County Galway.

It was one of 10 Irish institutions run by religious orders, to which
about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women are thought to have been sent.

A child died there nearly every two weeks between the mid-1920s and
1960s. The Bon Secours order of nuns, which ran the home, have yet to
respond to the development.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771725/I-want-apology-I-die-The-wayward-women-abused-nuns-Ireland-s-notorious-Magdalene-laundries-demanding-justice-two-decades-one-closed.html

Mary was born in 1931 to a single mother in a workhouse. She went on to
an orphanage, run by an order of nuns called the Sisters of Mercy where,
she says, the children were made to work and beaten if they refused.

'I was beaten with a thick leather belt. I was bleeding for two weeks
and to this day I have the scars on my hip.'

At 11, she was so hungry that she took apples from the convent orchard
and as punishment was sent to work in a Magdalene laundry at High Park
in Dublin run by another order, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.

'They told me that I would stay in the laundry until I learned to stop
stealing. Fourteen years they kept me there. You get less for murder
these days!'

[saracene]

Post by The Todal
Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.

& Corbyn's?

http://tinyurl.com/y8lrgypd

The left-wing New Statesman magazine reports that Mr Corbyn queued for Communion with his Mexican wife Laura Alvarez during the service at Sacred Heart Church in Kilburn, north London.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by saracene

Post by The Todal
Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.

& Corbyn's?
http://tinyurl.com/y8lrgypd
The left-wing New Statesman magazine reports that Mr Corbyn queued for Communion with his Mexican wife Laura Alvarez during the service at Sacred Heart Church in Kilburn, north London.

No! He's agnostic. I's another of those issues he can't make his mind up about.

[abelard]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by saracene

Post by The Todal
Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.

& Corbyn's?
http://tinyurl.com/y8lrgypd
The left-wing New Statesman magazine reports that Mr Corbyn queued for Communion with his Mexican wife Laura Alvarez during the service at Sacred Heart Church in Kilburn, north London.

No! He's agnostic. I's another of those issues he can't make his mind up about.

:-)

now we have to find one on which he can make up his alleged mind

[Yellow]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News. The children were all residents of a care home run by
Catholic nuns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39192744
The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been discovered,
was "a chamber of horrors", the Irish PM has said. Taoiseach Enda Kenny
said the discovery did not only concern a mass grave but "a social and
cultural sepulchre". A state-appointed inquiry has found "significant
human remains" in underground chambers at the site of the former home in
County Galway.
It was one of 10 Irish institutions run by religious orders, to which
about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women are thought to have been sent.
A child died there nearly every two weeks between the mid-1920s and
1960s. The Bon Secours order of nuns, which ran the home, have yet to
respond to the development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771725/I-want-apology-I-die-The-wayward-women-abused-nuns-Ireland-s-notorious-Magdalene-laundries-demanding-justice-two-decades-one-closed.html
Mary was born in 1931 to a single mother in a workhouse. She went on to
an orphanage, run by an order of nuns called the Sisters of Mercy where,
she says, the children were made to work and beaten if they refused.
'I was beaten with a thick leather belt. I was bleeding for two weeks
and to this day I have the scars on my hip.'
At 11, she was so hungry that she took apples from the convent orchard
and as punishment was sent to work in a Magdalene laundry at High Park
in Dublin run by another order, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.
'They told me that I would stay in the laundry until I learned to stop
stealing. Fourteen years they kept me there. You get less for murder
these days!'

To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News. The children were all residents of a care home run by
Catholic nuns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39192744
The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been discovered,
was "a chamber of horrors", the Irish PM has said. Taoiseach Enda Kenny
said the discovery did not only concern a mass grave but "a social and
cultural sepulchre". A state-appointed inquiry has found "significant
human remains" in underground chambers at the site of the former home in
County Galway.
It was one of 10 Irish institutions run by religious orders, to which
about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women are thought to have been sent.
A child died there nearly every two weeks between the mid-1920s and
1960s. The Bon Secours order of nuns, which ran the home, have yet to
respond to the development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771725/I-want-apology-I-die-The-wayward-women-abused-nuns-Ireland-s-notorious-Magdalene-laundries-demanding-justice-two-decades-one-closed.html
Mary was born in 1931 to a single mother in a workhouse. She went on to
an orphanage, run by an order of nuns called the Sisters of Mercy where,
she says, the children were made to work and beaten if they refused.
'I was beaten with a thick leather belt. I was bleeding for two weeks
and to this day I have the scars on my hip.'
At 11, she was so hungry that she took apples from the convent orchard
and as punishment was sent to work in a Magdalene laundry at High Park
in Dublin run by another order, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.
'They told me that I would stay in the laundry until I learned to stop
stealing. Fourteen years they kept me there. You get less for murder
these days!'

To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

what connection do you see between beliefs and children of
the poor dying in a rather poor and backward country?

do you really think that all catholics are as ill-civilised and
uneducated as bog irish priests and nuns?

how many children of the poor do you suppose died in late victorian
england?..do you suppose that was about 'religion'?

would you rather the children had been refused and sent home
to starve?

Post by Yellow
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe,

so it seems

Post by Yellow
and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

do you suppose you can legislate away poverty?

bliar and the clown tried that...venezuela is still beating that
dead horse...
both countries are still paying for the idiocies....and likely will
for another decade or more

you could always vote for the dishonest yob now 'leading' fascist
'new' labour...


Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard....mencken

[saracene]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News. The children were all residents of a care home run by
Catholic nuns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39192744
The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been discovered,
was "a chamber of horrors", the Irish PM has said. Taoiseach Enda Kenny
said the discovery did not only concern a mass grave but "a social and
cultural sepulchre". A state-appointed inquiry has found "significant
human remains" in underground chambers at the site of the former home in
County Galway.
It was one of 10 Irish institutions run by religious orders, to which
about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women are thought to have been sent.
A child died there nearly every two weeks between the mid-1920s and
1960s. The Bon Secours order of nuns, which ran the home, have yet to
respond to the development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771725/I-want-apology-I-die-The-wayward-women-abused-nuns-Ireland-s-notorious-Magdalene-laundries-demanding-justice-two-decades-one-closed.html
Mary was born in 1931 to a single mother in a workhouse. She went on to
an orphanage, run by an order of nuns called the Sisters of Mercy where,
she says, the children were made to work and beaten if they refused.
'I was beaten with a thick leather belt. I was bleeding for two weeks
and to this day I have the scars on my hip.'
At 11, she was so hungry that she took apples from the convent orchard
and as punishment was sent to work in a Magdalene laundry at High Park
in Dublin run by another order, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.
'They told me that I would stay in the laundry until I learned to stop
stealing. Fourteen years they kept me there. You get less for murder
these days!'

To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

what connection do you see between beliefs and children of
the poor dying in a rather poor and backward country?

In the case in question I would have thought the connection was quite clear.

Post by abelard
do you really think that all catholics are as ill-civilised and
uneducated as bog irish priests and nuns?
how many children of the poor do you suppose died in late victorian
england?

Died how?

Post by abelard
..do you suppose that was about 'religion'?

Presumably not in that case.

Post by abelard
would you rather the children had been refused and sent home
to starve?

they should have been brought up by their mothers as they mostly would have been in a less bigoted society.

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe,

so it seems

Post by Yellow
and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

do you suppose you can legislate away poverty?

No but you can the peculiar cruelty of the Catholic chruch in certain poor coutnries.

Post by abelard
bliar and the clown tried that...venezuela is still beating that
dead horse...
both countries are still paying for the idiocies....and likely will
for another decade or more
you could always vote for the dishonest yob now 'leading' fascist
'new' labour...
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard....mencken
--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 07:33:46 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News. The children were all residents of a care home run by
Catholic nuns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39192744
The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been discovered,
was "a chamber of horrors", the Irish PM has said. Taoiseach Enda Kenny
said the discovery did not only concern a mass grave but "a social and
cultural sepulchre". A state-appointed inquiry has found "significant
human remains" in underground chambers at the site of the former home in
County Galway.
It was one of 10 Irish institutions run by religious orders, to which
about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women are thought to have been sent.
A child died there nearly every two weeks between the mid-1920s and
1960s. The Bon Secours order of nuns, which ran the home, have yet to
respond to the development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771725/I-want-apology-I-die-The-wayward-women-abused-nuns-Ireland-s-notorious-Magdalene-laundries-demanding-justice-two-decades-one-closed.html
Mary was born in 1931 to a single mother in a workhouse. She went on to
an orphanage, run by an order of nuns called the Sisters of Mercy where,
she says, the children were made to work and beaten if they refused.
'I was beaten with a thick leather belt. I was bleeding for two weeks
and to this day I have the scars on my hip.'
At 11, she was so hungry that she took apples from the convent orchard
and as punishment was sent to work in a Magdalene laundry at High Park
in Dublin run by another order, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.
'They told me that I would stay in the laundry until I learned to stop
stealing. Fourteen years they kept me there. You get less for murder
these days!'

To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

what connection do you see between beliefs and children of
the poor dying in a rather poor and backward country?

In the case in question I would have thought the connection was quite clear.

then set it out

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
do you really think that all catholics are as ill-civilised and
uneducated as bog irish priests and nuns?
how many children of the poor do you suppose died in late victorian
england?

Died how?

poverty and the general ignorance of man

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
..do you suppose that was about 'religion'?

Presumably not in that case.

so why do you single out religion in ireland?

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
would you rather the children had been refused and sent home
to starve?

they should have been brought up by their mothers as they mostly would have been in a less bigoted society.

is that your religion? what is your view of all those that continue to
be kidnapped by the state in the uk?
and then there are those left with drug addled ignorant carers...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe,

so it seems

Post by Yellow
and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

do you suppose you can legislate away poverty?

No but you can the peculiar cruelty of the Catholic chruch in certain poor coutnries.

which 'particular cruelty'?...until very recently the received belief
was that you could beat education into children
it wasn't a catholic monopoly

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
bliar and the clown tried that...venezuela is still beating that
dead horse...
both countries are still paying for the idiocies....and likely will
for another decade or more
you could always vote for the dishonest yob now 'leading' fascist
'new' labour...
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard....mencken
--
www.abelard.org

[saracene]

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
what connection do you see between beliefs and children of
the poor dying in a rather poor and backward country?

In the case in question I would have thought the connection was quite clear.

then set it out

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
do you really think that all catholics are as ill-civilised and
uneducated as bog irish priests and nuns?
how many children of the poor do you suppose died in late victorian
england?

Died how?

poverty and the general ignorance of man

Overgenralisations. YOu don't die of poverty you can die of starvation or disease. Nor do you die of the ignorance of man.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
..do you suppose that was about 'religion'?

Presumably not in that case.

so why do you single out religion in ireland?

Because the children wre in the care of nuns with a cruel and bigoted outlook on life. Why are you apologising for them?

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
would you rather the children had been refused and sent home
to starve?

they should have been brought up by their mothers as they mostly would have been in a less bigoted society.

is that your religion? what is your view of all those that continue to
be kidnapped by the state in the uk?

There are some abuses.

Post by abelard
and then there are those left with drug addled ignorant carers...

balance them against those abuses. The systematic cruelty that went on in Ireland is of a different order.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe,

so it seems

Post by Yellow
and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

do you suppose you can legislate away poverty?

No but you can the peculiar cruelty of the Catholic chruch in certain poor coutnries.

which 'particular cruelty'?...until very recently the received belief
was that you could beat education into children
it wasn't a catholic monopoly

What went on in Catholic orphanages was of a diefferent order. There was focus on an imaginary "other world" and a deep belief in sin.

[abelard]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 08:09:14 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
what connection do you see between beliefs and children of
the poor dying in a rather poor and backward country?

In the case in question I would have thought the connection was quite clear.

then set it out

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
do you really think that all catholics are as ill-civilised and
uneducated as bog irish priests and nuns?
how many children of the poor do you suppose died in late victorian
england?

Died how?

poverty and the general ignorance of man

Overgenralisations. YOu don't die of poverty you can die of starvation or disease. Nor do you die of the ignorance of man.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
..do you suppose that was about 'religion'?

Presumably not in that case.

so why do you single out religion in ireland?

Because the children wre in the care of nuns with a cruel and bigoted outlook on life. Why are you apologising for them?

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
would you rather the children had been refused and sent home
to starve?

they should have been brought up by their mothers as they mostly would have been in a less bigoted society.

is that your religion? what is your view of all those that continue to
be kidnapped by the state in the uk?

There are some abuses.

Post by abelard
and then there are those left with drug addled ignorant carers...

balance them against those abuses. The systematic cruelty that went on in Ireland is of a different order.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe,

so it seems

Post by Yellow
and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

do you suppose you can legislate away poverty?

No but you can the peculiar cruelty of the Catholic chruch in certain poor coutnries.

which 'particular cruelty'?...until very recently the received belief
was that you could beat education into children
it wasn't a catholic monopoly

What went on in Catholic orphanages was of a diefferent order. There was focus on an imaginary "other world" and a deep belief in sin.

as usual...you make claims and then can't back them up

as usual you're full of adjectives and bereft of analysis

[saracene]

Post by abelard
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 08:09:14 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene
Overgenralisations. YOu don't die of poverty you can die of starvation or disease. Nor do you die of the ignorance of man.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
..do you suppose that was about 'religion'?

Presumably not in that case.

so why do you single out religion in ireland?

Because the children wre in the care of nuns with a cruel and bigoted outlook on life. Why are you apologising for them?

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
would you rather the children had been refused and sent home
to starve?

they should have been brought up by their mothers as they mostly would have been in a less bigoted society.

is that your religion? what is your view of all those that continue to
be kidnapped by the state in the uk?

There are some abuses.

Post by abelard
and then there are those left with drug addled ignorant carers...

balance them against those abuses. The systematic cruelty that went on in Ireland is of a different order.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe,

so it seems

Post by Yellow
and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

do you suppose you can legislate away poverty?

No but you can the peculiar cruelty of the Catholic church in certain poor coutnries.

which 'particular cruelty'?...until very recently the received belief
was that you could beat education into children
it wasn't a catholic monopoly

What went on in Catholic orphanages was of a diefferent order. There was focus on an imaginary "other world" and a deep belief in sin.

as usual...you make claims and then can't back them up
as usual you're full of adjectives and bereft of analysis

Superfically Ireland's backward piety may have had a sentimental charm. Look deeper and it was disgusting. Do you accept this evidence? What is astonishing is your disngenuousness in doubting it. Please read the whole article. I give you an excperpt.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/mass-grave-of-796-babies-found-in-septic-tank-at-catholic-orphanage-in-tuam-galway-30327483.html

County Galway death records showed that the children, mostly babies and toddlers, died often of sickness or disease in the orphanage during the 35 years it operated from 1926 to 1961. The building, which had previously been a workhouse for homeless adults, was torn down decades ago to make way for new houses.

A 1944 government inspection recorded evidence of malnutrition among some of the 271 children then living in the Tuam orphanage alongside 61 unwed mothers.

The death records cite sicknesses, diseases, deformities and premature births as causes. This would reflect an Ireland that, in the first half of the 20th century, had one of the worst infant mortality rates in Europe, with tuberculosis rife.

Update: Bon Secours nuns told to assist investigation
Elderly people recalled that the children attended a local school - but were segregated from other pupils - until they were adopted or placed, at around seven or eight, into church-run industrial schools that featured unpaid labour and abuse. In keeping with Catholic teaching, such out-of-wedlock children were denied baptism and, if they died at such facilities, Christian burial.

It is well documented that throughout Ireland in the first half of the 20th century, church-run orphanages and workhouses often buried their dead in unmarked graves and unconsecrated ground, reflecting how unmarried mothers - derided as "fallen women" in the culture of the day - were typically ostracised by society, even their own families.

Records indicate that the former Tuam workhouse's septic tank was converted specifically to serve as the body disposal site for the orphanage.

Tuam locals discovered the bone repository in 1975 as cement covering the buried tank was broken away.

Horrific details

The Republic's junior minister for education and skills, Ciaran Cannon, spoke of the "horrific details" emerging of the discovery.

Mr Cannon said an inquiry was needed to determine the facts surrounding the unmarked burial site.

He warned that any investigation would have to be conducted sensitively, as people who are still alive may have disturbing memories of their own or their family's connections with the institution which was run by the Bon Secours Sisters.

It emerged that the head of the Bon Secours Sisters in Ireland had sought a meeting with the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Michael Neary, to discuss how best to respond to the efforts to honour all those who died.

The site was previously known to be a graveyard, locally suspected to be one for unbaptised babies or Famine victims, but it was thought that a small number of children were interred there.

[abelard]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 08:27:22 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 08:09:14 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene
Overgenralisations. YOu don't die of poverty you can die of starvation or disease. Nor do you die of the ignorance of man.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
..do you suppose that was about 'religion'?

Presumably not in that case.

so why do you single out religion in ireland?

Because the children wre in the care of nuns with a cruel and bigoted outlook on life. Why are you apologising for them?

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
would you rather the children had been refused and sent home
to starve?

they should have been brought up by their mothers as they mostly would have been in a less bigoted society.

is that your religion? what is your view of all those that continue to
be kidnapped by the state in the uk?

There are some abuses.

Post by abelard
and then there are those left with drug addled ignorant carers...

balance them against those abuses. The systematic cruelty that went on in Ireland is of a different order.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe,

so it seems

Post by Yellow
and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

do you suppose you can legislate away poverty?

No but you can the peculiar cruelty of the Catholic church in certain poor coutnries.

which 'particular cruelty'?...until very recently the received belief
was that you could beat education into children
it wasn't a catholic monopoly

What went on in Catholic orphanages was of a diefferent order. There was focus on an imaginary "other world" and a deep belief in sin.

as usual...you make claims and then can't back them up
as usual you're full of adjectives and bereft of analysis

Superfically Ireland's backward piety may have had a sentimental charm. Look deeper and it was disgusting. Do you accept this evidence? What is astonishing is your disngenuousness in doubting it. Please read the whole article. I give you an excperpt.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/mass-grave-of-796-babies-found-in-septic-tank-at-catholic-orphanage-in-tuam-galway-30327483.html
County Galway death records showed that the children, mostly babies and toddlers, died often of sickness or disease in the orphanage during the 35 years it operated from 1926 to 1961. The building, which had previously been a workhouse for homeless adults, was torn down decades ago to make way for new houses.
A 1944 government inspection recorded evidence of malnutrition among some of the 271 children then living in the Tuam orphanage alongside 61 unwed mothers.
The death records cite sicknesses, diseases, deformities and premature births as causes. This would reflect an Ireland that, in the first half of the 20th century, had one of the worst infant mortality rates in Europe, with tuberculosis rife.

seems likely...such i poverty...that's what happens with spontaneous
abortions...down the bog...and in a place with septic tanks that's
where they'll end up

you've led a sheltered life my boy

Post by saracene
Update: Bon Secours nuns told to assist investigation
Elderly people recalled that the children attended a local school - but were segregated from other pupils - until they were adopted or placed, at around seven or eight, into church-run industrial schools that featured unpaid labour and abuse. In keeping with Catholic teaching, such out-of-wedlock children were denied baptism and, if they died at such facilities, Christian burial.

'never darken my doorway again'...is not a catholic
monopoly...the muslim imports are still at it...
before birth control it was common...what do you suppose
back street abortions with attendant deaths was about?

they're just running a few decades behind the uk

Post by saracene
It is well documented that throughout Ireland in the first half of the 20th century, church-run orphanages and workhouses often buried their dead in unmarked graves and unconsecrated ground, reflecting how unmarried mothers - derided as "fallen women" in the culture of the day - were typically ostracised by society, even their own families.

there was a case in england quite recently...you can't
bury the unbaptised or the suicide in consecrated ground...

where do you suppose all the missing girls east of suez go?

you should get out more

Post by saracene
Records indicate that the former Tuam workhouse's septic tank was converted specifically to serve as the body disposal site for the orphanage.

i was watching a program yesterday...dig up the grave yards
and put them in the ossuary to provide room for the next lot...

Post by saracene
Tuam locals discovered the bone repository in 1975 as cement covering the buried tank was broken away.
Horrific details

shock horror...for all your nietzschean posture you really are
just another snowflake at heart

Post by saracene
The Republic's junior minister for education and skills, Ciaran Cannon, spoke of the "horrific details" emerging of the discovery.

of course he did...he has a place to maintain

Post by saracene
Mr Cannon said an inquiry was needed to determine the facts surrounding the unmarked burial site.
He warned that any investigation would have to be conducted sensitively, as people who are still alive may have disturbing memories of their own or their family's connections with the institution which was run by the Bon Secours Sisters.
It emerged that the head of the Bon Secours Sisters in Ireland had sought a meeting with the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Michael Neary, to discuss how best to respond to the efforts to honour all those who died.

virtue signaling and empathy for the downtrodden...i should hops so

Post by saracene
The site was previously known to be a graveyard, locally suspected to be one for unbaptised babies or Famine victims, but it was thought that a small number of children were interred there.

and?

[saracene]

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
What went on in Catholic orphanages was of a diefferent order. There was focus on an imaginary "other world" and a deep belief in sin.

as usual...you make claims and then can't back them up
as usual you're full of adjectives and bereft of analysis

Superfically Ireland's backward piety may have had a sentimental charm. Look deeper and it was disgusting. Do you accept this evidence? What is astonishing is your disngenuousness in doubting it. Please read the whole article. I give you an excperpt.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/mass-grave-of-796-babies-found-in-septic-tank-at-catholic-orphanage-in-tuam-galway-30327483.html
County Galway death records showed that the children, mostly babies and toddlers, died often of sickness or disease in the orphanage during the 35 years it operated from 1926 to 1961. The building, which had previously been a workhouse for homeless adults, was torn down decades ago to make way for new houses.
A 1944 government inspection recorded evidence of malnutrition among some of the 271 children then living in the Tuam orphanage alongside 61 unwed mothers.
The death records cite sicknesses, diseases, deformities and premature births as causes. This would reflect an Ireland that, in the first half of the 20th century, had one of the worst infant mortality rates in Europe, with tuberculosis rife.

seems likely...such i poverty...

malnutrition in a place of refuge.

Post by abelard
that's what happens with spontaneous
abortions...down the bog...and in a place with septic tanks that's
where they'll end up
you've led a sheltered life my boy

Amaxing how you stick up for those frustrated superstitious monsters.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
Update: Bon Secours nuns told to assist investigation
Elderly people recalled that the children attended a local school - but were segregated from other pupils - until they were adopted or placed, at around seven or eight, into church-run industrial schools that featured unpaid labour and abuse. In keeping with Catholic teaching, such out-of-wedlock children were denied baptism and, if they died at such facilities, Christian burial.

'never darken my doorway again'...is not a catholic
monopoly...the muslim imports are still at it...

Some Muslims may be as bad as those Catholics.
If the children are denied baptism then they are supposed to go to hell. Doesn't that say a lot about the inhumanity of those nuns?

Post by abelard
before birth control it was common...what do you suppose
back street abortions with attendant deaths was about?
they're just running a few decades behind the uk

This is not about that sort of death.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
It is well documented that throughout Ireland in the first half of the 20th century, church-run orphanages and workhouses often buried their dead in unmarked graves and unconsecrated ground, reflecting how unmarried mothers - derided as "fallen women" in the culture of the day - were typically ostracised by society, even their own families.

there was a case in england quite recently...

One case? Anywway few English take that nonsense weriously, the paddies do. And they got into Scotland apparently.

Post by abelard
you can't
bury the unbaptised or the suicide in consecrated ground...
where do you suppose all the missing girls east of suez go?

Where there ain't no ten conmmandments?

Post by abelard
you should get out more

Wish I could.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
Records indicate that the former Tuam workhouse's septic tank was converted specifically to serve as the body disposal site for the orphanage.

i was watching a program yesterday...dig up the grave yards
and put them in the ossuary to provide room for the next lot...

Post by saracene
Tuam locals discovered the bone repository in 1975 as cement covering the buried tank was broken away.
Horrific details

shock horror...for all your nietzschean posture you really are
just another snowflake at heart

Becasue I am horrifed at the monstrous cruelties perpetuatied by your otherworldly Papism?

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
The Republic's junior minister for education and skills, Ciaran Cannon, spoke of the "horrific details" emerging of the discovery.

of course he did...he has a place to maintain

Post by saracene
Mr Cannon said an inquiry was needed to determine the facts surrounding the unmarked burial site.
He warned that any investigation would have to be conducted sensitively, as people who are still alive may have disturbing memories of their own or their family's connections with the institution which was run by the Bon Secours Sisters.
It emerged that the head of the Bon Secours Sisters in Ireland had sought a meeting with the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Michael Neary, to discuss how best to respond to the efforts to honour all those who died.

virtue signaling and empathy for the downtrodden...i should hops so

Post by saracene
The site was previously known to be a graveyard, locally suspected to be one for unbaptised babies or Famine victims, but it was thought that a small number of children were interred there.

and?

Read the whole piece. I gave you the link. Irish catholicism has been discreidted recently as has Gerry Adams.

[abelard]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 11:13:11 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
What went on in Catholic orphanages was of a diefferent order. There was focus on an imaginary "other world" and a deep belief in sin.

as usual...you make claims and then can't back them up
as usual you're full of adjectives and bereft of analysis

Superfically Ireland's backward piety may have had a sentimental charm. Look deeper and it was disgusting. Do you accept this evidence? What is astonishing is your disngenuousness in doubting it. Please read the whole article. I give you an excperpt.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/mass-grave-of-796-babies-found-in-septic-tank-at-catholic-orphanage-in-tuam-galway-30327483.html
County Galway death records showed that the children, mostly babies and toddlers, died often of sickness or disease in the orphanage during the 35 years it operated from 1926 to 1961. The building, which had previously been a workhouse for homeless adults, was torn down decades ago to make way for new houses.
A 1944 government inspection recorded evidence of malnutrition among some of the 271 children then living in the Tuam orphanage alongside 61 unwed mothers.
The death records cite sicknesses, diseases, deformities and premature births as causes. This would reflect an Ireland that, in the first half of the 20th century, had one of the worst infant mortality rates in Europe, with tuberculosis rife.

seems likely...such i poverty...

malnutrition in a place of refuge.

Post by abelard
that's what happens with spontaneous
abortions...down the bog...and in a place with septic tanks that's
where they'll end up
you've led a sheltered life my boy

Amaxing how you stick up for those frustrated superstitious monsters.

your virtue signaling is appreciated...

i 'stick up for' the real world....for facts

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
Update: Bon Secours nuns told to assist investigation
Elderly people recalled that the children attended a local school - but were segregated from other pupils - until they were adopted or placed, at around seven or eight, into church-run industrial schools that featured unpaid labour and abuse. In keeping with Catholic teaching, such out-of-wedlock children were denied baptism and, if they died at such facilities, Christian burial.

'never darken my doorway again'...is not a catholic
monopoly...the muslim imports are still at it...

Some Muslims may be as bad as those Catholics.
If the children are denied baptism then they are supposed to go to hell. Doesn't that say a lot about the inhumanity of those nuns?

Post by abelard
before birth control it was common...what do you suppose
back street abortions with attendant deaths was about?
they're just running a few decades behind the uk

This is not about that sort of death.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
It is well documented that throughout Ireland in the first half of the 20th century, church-run orphanages and workhouses often buried their dead in unmarked graves and unconsecrated ground, reflecting how unmarried mothers - derided as "fallen women" in the culture of the day - were typically ostracised by society, even their own families.

there was a case in england quite recently...

One case? Anywway few English take that nonsense weriously, the paddies do. And they got into Scotland apparently.

Post by abelard
you can't
bury the unbaptised or the suicide in consecrated ground...
where do you suppose all the missing girls east of suez go?

Where there ain't no ten conmmandments?

Post by abelard
you should get out more

Wish I could.

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
Records indicate that the former Tuam workhouse's septic tank was converted specifically to serve as the body disposal site for the orphanage.

i was watching a program yesterday...dig up the grave yards
and put them in the ossuary to provide room for the next lot...

Post by saracene
Tuam locals discovered the bone repository in 1975 as cement covering the buried tank was broken away.
Horrific details

shock horror...for all your nietzschean posture you really are
just another snowflake at heart

Becasue I am horrifed at the monstrous cruelties perpetuatied by your otherworldly Papism?

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
The Republic's junior minister for education and skills, Ciaran Cannon, spoke of the "horrific details" emerging of the discovery.

of course he did...he has a place to maintain

Post by saracene
Mr Cannon said an inquiry was needed to determine the facts surrounding the unmarked burial site.
He warned that any investigation would have to be conducted sensitively, as people who are still alive may have disturbing memories of their own or their family's connections with the institution which was run by the Bon Secours Sisters.
It emerged that the head of the Bon Secours Sisters in Ireland had sought a meeting with the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Michael Neary, to discuss how best to respond to the efforts to honour all those who died.

virtue signaling and empathy for the downtrodden...i should hops so

Post by saracene
The site was previously known to be a graveyard, locally suspected to be one for unbaptised babies or Famine victims, but it was thought that a small number of children were interred there.

and?

Read the whole piece. I gave you the link. Irish catholicism has been discreidted recently as has Gerry Adams.

[saracene]

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
Amaxing how you stick up for those frustrated superstitious monsters.

your virtue signaling is appreciated...

What a naughty boy you are!

Post by abelard
i 'stick up for' the real world....for facts

You are engaged in what I take to be a rhetorical exercise in defending the indefensible.

[saracene]

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
No but you can the peculiar cruelty of the Catholic chruch in certain poor coutnries.

which 'particular cruelty'?...until very recently the received belief
was that you could beat education into children
it wasn't a catholic monopoly

Corporal punishment in English public schools, as well as giving pleasure to the teachers, was designed to toughen boys up. For relgious fanatics, like John Wesley and the mediaeval Benedictines the stated purpose was to "break the spirit" of the child.
Taking their religion really literally, as stupid Irish nuns would normally do, they really believed there was an afterlife in Heaven which was more important than anything that happend on earth. This sets them miles apart from even the Victorian English who were likely to pelt them with unpleasant objects when they appeared in the London streets.

[abelard]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:01:38 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
No but you can the peculiar cruelty of the Catholic chruch in certain poor coutnries.

which 'particular cruelty'?...until very recently the received belief
was that you could beat education into children
it wasn't a catholic monopoly

Corporal punishment in English public schools, as well as giving pleasure to the teachers, was designed to toughen boys up. For relgious fanatics, like John Wesley and the mediaeval Benedictines the stated purpose was to "break the spirit" of the child.
Taking their religion really literally, as stupid Irish nuns would normally do, they really believed there was an afterlife in Heaven which was more important than anything that happend on earth. This sets them miles apart from even the Victorian English who were likely to pelt them with unpleasant objects when they appeared in the London streets.

i see your back to your mind reading...

trade it in for a few tea leaves

[saracene]

Post by abelard
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:01:38 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
No but you can the peculiar cruelty of the Catholic chruch in certain poor coutnries.

which 'particular cruelty'?...until very recently the received belief
was that you could beat education into children
it wasn't a catholic monopoly

Corporal punishment in English public schools, as well as giving pleasure to the teachers, was designed to toughen boys up. For relgious fanatics, like John Wesley and the mediaeval Benedictines the stated purpose was to "break the spirit" of the child.
Taking their religion really literally, as stupid Irish nuns would normally do, they really believed there was an afterlife in Heaven which was more important than anything that happend on earth. This sets them miles apart from even the Victorian English who were likely to pelt them with unpleasant objects when they appeared in the London streets.

i see your back to your mind reading...
trade it in for a few tea leaves
--

Better stop making your own judgements if you've no idea what's in anybody's mind. But in fact you are very opinionated and just dislike my own well informed conclusions. You don't deal in facts, just in your own sentimental fantasies.

[tim...]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News. The children were all residents of a care home run by
Catholic nuns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39192744
The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been discovered,
was "a chamber of horrors", the Irish PM has said. Taoiseach Enda Kenny
said the discovery did not only concern a mass grave but "a social and
cultural sepulchre". A state-appointed inquiry has found "significant
human remains" in underground chambers at the site of the former home in
County Galway.
It was one of 10 Irish institutions run by religious orders, to which
about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women are thought to have been sent.
A child died there nearly every two weeks between the mid-1920s and
1960s. The Bon Secours order of nuns, which ran the home, have yet to
respond to the development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771725/I-want-apology-I-die-The-wayward-women-abused-nuns-Ireland-s-notorious-Magdalene-laundries-demanding-justice-two-decades-one-closed.html
Mary was born in 1931 to a single mother in a workhouse. She went on to
an orphanage, run by an order of nuns called the Sisters of Mercy where,
she says, the children were made to work and beaten if they refused.
'I was beaten with a thick leather belt. I was bleeding for two weeks
and to this day I have the scars on my hip.'
At 11, she was so hungry that she took apples from the convent orchard
and as punishment was sent to work in a Magdalene laundry at High Park
in Dublin run by another order, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.
'They told me that I would stay in the laundry until I learned to stop
stealing. Fourteen years they kept me there. You get less for murder
these days!'

To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

what connection do you see between beliefs and children of
the poor dying in a rather poor and backward country?

I don't think she made any claim that there was (a connection)

these children suffer for a completely unconnected reason.

that doesn't make her post any less correct

tim

[abelard]

Post by tim...

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News. The children were all residents of a care home run by
Catholic nuns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39192744
The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been discovered,
was "a chamber of horrors", the Irish PM has said. Taoiseach Enda Kenny
said the discovery did not only concern a mass grave but "a social and
cultural sepulchre". A state-appointed inquiry has found "significant
human remains" in underground chambers at the site of the former home in
County Galway.
It was one of 10 Irish institutions run by religious orders, to which
about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women are thought to have been sent.
A child died there nearly every two weeks between the mid-1920s and
1960s. The Bon Secours order of nuns, which ran the home, have yet to
respond to the development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771725/I-want-apology-I-die-The-wayward-women-abused-nuns-Ireland-s-notorious-Magdalene-laundries-demanding-justice-two-decades-one-closed.html
Mary was born in 1931 to a single mother in a workhouse. She went on to
an orphanage, run by an order of nuns called the Sisters of Mercy where,
she says, the children were made to work and beaten if they refused.
'I was beaten with a thick leather belt. I was bleeding for two weeks
and to this day I have the scars on my hip.'
At 11, she was so hungry that she took apples from the convent orchard
and as punishment was sent to work in a Magdalene laundry at High Park
in Dublin run by another order, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.
'They told me that I would stay in the laundry until I learned to stop
stealing. Fourteen years they kept me there. You get less for murder
these days!'

To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

what connection do you see between beliefs and children of
the poor dying in a rather poor and backward country?

I don't think she made any claim that there was (a connection)
these children suffer for a completely unconnected reason.
that doesn't make her post any less correct

perhaps you should read her last para

[Yellow]

Post by tim...

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News. The children were all residents of a care home run by
Catholic nuns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39192744
The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been discovered,
was "a chamber of horrors", the Irish PM has said. Taoiseach Enda Kenny
said the discovery did not only concern a mass grave but "a social and
cultural sepulchre". A state-appointed inquiry has found "significant
human remains" in underground chambers at the site of the former home in
County Galway.
It was one of 10 Irish institutions run by religious orders, to which
about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women are thought to have been sent.
A child died there nearly every two weeks between the mid-1920s and
1960s. The Bon Secours order of nuns, which ran the home, have yet to
respond to the development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771725/I-want-apology-I-die-The-wayward-women-abused-nuns-Ireland-s-notorious-Magdalene-laundries-demanding-justice-two-decades-one-closed.html
Mary was born in 1931 to a single mother in a workhouse. She went on to
an orphanage, run by an order of nuns called the Sisters of Mercy where,
she says, the children were made to work and beaten if they refused.
'I was beaten with a thick leather belt. I was bleeding for two weeks
and to this day I have the scars on my hip.'
At 11, she was so hungry that she took apples from the convent orchard
and as punishment was sent to work in a Magdalene laundry at High Park
in Dublin run by another order, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.
'They told me that I would stay in the laundry until I learned to stop
stealing. Fourteen years they kept me there. You get less for murder
these days!'

To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

what connection do you see between beliefs and children of
the poor dying in a rather poor and backward country?

I don't think she made any claim that there was (a connection)

Which is why I have chosen not to reply to that post. It does not
discuss what I actual wrote in any shape or form and instead goes off on
some strange tangent that has nothing to do with what I said.

Post by tim...
these children suffer for a completely unconnected reason.
that doesn't make her post any less correct
tim

[Paul Pot]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the
Holy Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation by BBC News. The children were all residents of a
care home run by Catholic nuns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39192744
The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been
discovered, was "a chamber of horrors", the Irish PM has said.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny said the discovery did not only concern a mass
grave but "a social and cultural sepulchre". A state-appointed
inquiry has found "significant human remains" in underground
chambers at the site of the former home in County Galway.
It was one of 10 Irish institutions run by religious orders, to
which about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women are thought to have
been sent.
A child died there nearly every two weeks between the mid-1920s and
1960s. The Bon Secours order of nuns, which ran the home, have yet
to respond to the development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771725/I-want-apology-I-die-The-wayward-women-abused-nuns-Ireland-s-notorious-Magdalene-laundries-demanding-justice-two-decades-one-closed.html
Mary was born in 1931 to a single mother in a workhouse. She went on
to an orphanage, run by an order of nuns called the Sisters of
Mercy where, she says, the children were made to work and beaten if
they refused.
'I was beaten with a thick leather belt. I was bleeding for two
weeks and to this day I have the scars on my hip.'
At 11, she was so hungry that she took apples from the convent
orchard and as punishment was sent to work in a Magdalene laundry
at High Park in Dublin run by another order, the Sisters of Our
Lady of Charity.
'They told me that I would stay in the laundry until I learned to
stop stealing. Fourteen years they kept me there. You get less for
murder these days!'

To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the
mad things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of
thing, along with all the other consequences of religion including
terrorism are simply going to continue.
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe,
and it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not
mean it should have protection in law or or receive special
tolerance in society outside of their minds and their homes.

Let's start by getting C of E clergy out of the House of Lords.

[Yellow]

Post by Paul Pot

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the
Holy Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation by BBC News. The children were all residents of a
care home run by Catholic nuns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39192744
The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been
discovered, was "a chamber of horrors", the Irish PM has said.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny said the discovery did not only concern a mass
grave but "a social and cultural sepulchre". A state-appointed
inquiry has found "significant human remains" in underground
chambers at the site of the former home in County Galway.
It was one of 10 Irish institutions run by religious orders, to
which about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women are thought to have
been sent.
A child died there nearly every two weeks between the mid-1920s and
1960s. The Bon Secours order of nuns, which ran the home, have yet
to respond to the development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771725/I-want-apology-I-die-The-wayward-women-abused-nuns-Ireland-s-notorious-Magdalene-laundries-demanding-justice-two-decades-one-closed.html
Mary was born in 1931 to a single mother in a workhouse. She went on
to an orphanage, run by an order of nuns called the Sisters of
Mercy where, she says, the children were made to work and beaten if
they refused.
'I was beaten with a thick leather belt. I was bleeding for two
weeks and to this day I have the scars on my hip.'
At 11, she was so hungry that she took apples from the convent
orchard and as punishment was sent to work in a Magdalene laundry
at High Park in Dublin run by another order, the Sisters of Our
Lady of Charity.
'They told me that I would stay in the laundry until I learned to
stop stealing. Fourteen years they kept me there. You get less for
murder these days!'

To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the
mad things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of
thing, along with all the other consequences of religion including
terrorism are simply going to continue.
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe,
and it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not
mean it should have protection in law or or receive special
tolerance in society outside of their minds and their homes.

Let's start by getting C of E clergy out of the House of Lords.

Yes, agreed, that would get my vote.

[James Harris]

Post by Yellow
says...

...

Post by Yellow
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

There are many bad religions, for sure, but it would be a mistake to
lump them all together. Just as it's wrong to say that all women are bad
because one woman is bad, or that all Japanese are bad because of one,
etc, so the same applies to religions.

There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved. In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.

So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

[saracene]

Post by James Harris
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved. In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

This bit is not so uplifting:-

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

[James Harris]

Post by saracene

Post by James Harris
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved. In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

This bit is not so uplifting:-
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Where is that from? I'll check the context.

[saracene]

Post by James Harris

Post by saracene

Post by James Harris
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved. In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

This bit is not so uplifting:-
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Where is that from? I'll check the context.

Matthew 18 6

[James Harris]

Post by saracene

Post by James Harris

Post by saracene

Post by James Harris
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the
subject line of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so
very often - applied to children suffering. In fact, the line
was from the King James Bible and in the English of the time
"suffer" meant "put up with". As I remember it, Jesus told his
disciples to put up with the children (to suffer the presence
of the children) and not to turn them away. No suffering was
involved. In fact, in a society dominated by social rank the
disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was
too important to be bothered with such children who wanted to
see him. He told his disciples, instead, to welcome the
children and even to learn from some of the children's
qualities such as humility.
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being
expected to suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting
one.

This bit is not so uplifting:-
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in
me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Where is that from? I'll check the context.

Matthew 18 6

I don't know any "official" answer, if there is such a thing, but I can
make some comments. First, as
a bit of background, IIRC according to the Bible Jesus' disciples had a
long-term problem with their attitude to rank and position. I'm pretty
sure that on a number of occasions they argued over which one of them
was more important than the others. LOL! Perhaps it's understandable
given the world they lived in. They came from a society which was
dominated by religious leaders (Pharisees and others) who were haughty,
probably wealthy, who made it clear to everyone else that they were
rich, more righteous and superior to the hoi polloi. (E.g. they used to
wear very distinctive garb and large symbols of their devotion.) The
religious leaders of the Jews in Jesus day set themselves apart. They
looked down on everyone else. And they preached about how wonderful they
were. (Basically.)

In to that mix, when Jesus invited some of the lowly (like fishermen) to
follow him and form a group who would, he said, become part of his
kingdom it is, as I say, possibly only natural that they individually
wanted to be important in the group and receive important assignments.
Be that as it may the point is that the disciples repeatedly argued over
who was greatest and what position they would have in the kingdom Jesus
promised they would be part of.

I mention all that because the context of the passage you refer to,
Matthew 18 6, is about one of those arguments. Here it is in context
from a translation which I picked out because it is in simple modern
English:

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is greatest in
the kingdom of heaven?" 2He called a little child and had him stand
among them. 3Then he said to them, "I can guarantee this truth: Unless
you change and become like little children, you will never enter the
kingdom of heaven. 4Whoever becomes like this little child is the
greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoever welcomes a child like
this in my name welcomes me. 6"These little ones believe in me. It would
be best for the person who causes one of them to lose faith to be
drowned in the sea with a large stone hung around his neck.

Note this is one of those occasions on which they were asking about who
was greatest, and that Jesus didn't just give them an abstract answer
but applied it to them: "Unless /you/ change" etc. So he used the
question to point out to them their personal need to change - basically
to become as one of the lowest in society rather than to seek to be seen
as great. Of course, it's the very next chapter (19) which has the
"suffer the children" comment in it and continues the same theme because
they /still/ didn't get the idea that he had just taught then that
children were effectively as important as they were. As I say, it was a
repeated problem the disciples struggled to grasp.

Given that, perhaps when he used the millstone illustration he did so to
try to
drive home the point - i.e. "unless you learn to be as lowly as children
you might as well throw yourself in the ocean and forget being part of
the kingdom" (vs 1). Of perhaps it was simple hyperbole along
the same lines as the idea which I think he also mentioned somewhere of
getting a camel through the eye of a needle. Both extreme and impossible
examples to make a point. I should say I don't know. Am just offering
what seem to me like reasonable options based on the context.

[Ophelia]

Post by saracene

Post by James Harris
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved. In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

This bit is not so uplifting:-
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it
were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that
he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Where is that from? I'll check the context.


James Harris

==

Matthew 18:6

[JNugent]

Post by James Harris

Post by saracene

Post by James Harris
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved. In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

This bit is not so uplifting:-
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me,
it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Where is that from? I'll check the context.

You don't know where that is from without looking it up?

[Yellow]

In article <op3j6q$7nj$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

...

Post by Yellow
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

There are many bad religions, for sure, but it would be a mistake to
lump them all together. Just as it's wrong to say that all women are bad
because one woman is bad, or that all Japanese are bad because of one,
etc, so the same applies to religions.

You are entitled to your opinion but my opinion is that you are 100%
wrong.

All religion is nonsense therefore it is wrong to allow any to have
official standing or protection. It is as simple as that.

Post by James Harris
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved.

You write as if there really was a character called Jesus existed. You
write as if what is written in the Bible has any basis in historical
fact.

This is all just made up stuff and even if you did feel it had more
legitimacy than that, it was written after all the people in these
stories would have been long dead.

Post by James Harris
In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.

Whatever. It is just a story.

Post by James Harris
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

There are many novels that contain morality tales, and much better ones
than in the Bible which is as full of horror and prejudice as it of "the
meek shall inherit the earth" - so, so what?

What makes this book special? What makes this book anything than just
another book?

[James Harris]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

...

Post by Yellow
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

There are many bad religions, for sure, but it would be a mistake to
lump them all together. Just as it's wrong to say that all women are bad
because one woman is bad, or that all Japanese are bad because of one,
etc, so the same applies to religions.

You are entitled to your opinion but my opinion is that you are 100%
wrong.
All religion is nonsense therefore it is wrong to allow any to have
official standing or protection. It is as simple as that.

If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you are a
racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you were sexist.
As you say that all religions are bad there should be an -ist word for you!

Don't get me wrong. IMO religions in general are bad. Some are very bad.
Some are out-and-out evil. But to say that all are bad - even those you
know nothing about - is self-evidently based on prejudice.

In fact, if you, "Yellow", believe something without evidence then
aren't you putting yourself in the position of many of the religions you
dislike? From what I've seen, many adherents "believe" because it's
something they want to believe or because someone they respect told them
to believe it or because they have never looked at another point of
view. If you, "Yellow", similarly castigate all religions without
knowing about all religions aren't you also showing blind faith in a
belief that is, from your perspective, lacking foundation?

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved.

You write as if there really was a character called Jesus existed. You
write as if what is written in the Bible has any basis in historical
fact.
This is all just made up stuff and even if you did feel it had more
legitimacy than that, it was written after all the people in these
stories would have been long dead.

Not really. I was relating the story to debunk the misquote that is
often made of part of that story.

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.

Whatever. It is just a story.

You've made a definite assertion. What's your evidence (other than it's
what you /want/ to believe) that it's just a story?

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

There are many novels that contain morality tales, and much better ones
than in the Bible which is as full of horror and prejudice as it of "the
meek shall inherit the earth" - so, so what?
What makes this book special? What makes this book anything than just
another book?

I guess you'd have to put that question to someone who had studied it.

[tim...]

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

...

Post by Yellow
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

There are many bad religions, for sure, but it would be a mistake to
lump them all together. Just as it's wrong to say that all women are bad
because one woman is bad, or that all Japanese are bad because of one,
etc, so the same applies to religions.

You are entitled to your opinion but my opinion is that you are 100%
wrong.
All religion is nonsense therefore it is wrong to allow any to have
official standing or protection. It is as simple as that.

If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you are a
racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you were sexist.
As you say that all religions are bad there should be an -ist word for you!

people don't choose to be black

they don't choose to be female

they do choose to follow a religion

as yellow says, there is absolutely no reason why governments should
enshrine in law a special position for religious belief, none at all. It is
outdated thinking of no place in this 21st century.

tim

[James Harris]

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
...

Post by Yellow
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to
stop tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop
protecting the mad things people believe in the the name of
"faith" this sort of thing, along with all the other
consequences of religion including terrorism are simply going
to continue.

There are many bad religions, for sure, but it would be a
mistake to lump them all together. Just as it's wrong to say
that all women are bad because one woman is bad, or that all
Japanese are bad because of one, etc, so the same applies to
religions.

You are entitled to your opinion but my opinion is that you are
100% wrong.
All religion is nonsense therefore it is wrong to allow any to
have official standing or protection. It is as simple as that.

If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you
are a racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you
were sexist. As you say that all religions are bad there should be
an -ist word for you!

people don't choose to be black
they don't choose to be female
they do choose to follow a religion

Irrelevant. Yellow was talking about religions, not adherents.

Post by tim...
as yellow says, there is absolutely no reason why governments should
enshrine in law a special position for religious belief, none at
all.

Agreed.

Post by tim...
It is outdated thinking of no place in this 21st century.

I agree that having religion mixed up in politics - such as lords
spiritual in the HoL or bishops making political pronouncements - has no
place. I do not agree that all religions are necessarily outdated. I
don't know about them all - so obviously cannot make a blanket comment
that applies to them all.

[Yellow]

In article <op3qtc$8g9$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris
If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you
are a racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you
were sexist. As you say that all religions are bad there should be
an -ist word for you!

people don't choose to be black
they don't choose to be female
they do choose to follow a religion

Irrelevant. Yellow was talking about religions, not adherents.

No - I am quite clearly talking about religion.

Let me copy and past what I wrote again for you -

To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

[saracene]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris
If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you
are a racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you
were sexist. As you say that all religions are bad there should be
an -ist word for you!

people don't choose to be black
they don't choose to be female
they do choose to follow a religion

Irrelevant. Yellow was talking about religions, not adherents.

No - I am quite clearly talking about religion.
Let me copy and past what I wrote again for you -
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

Do you have secualr values you think ought to be protected promoted by the state? If so could you tell us what the main ones are and where they come from?

[Yellow]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris
If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you
are a racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you
were sexist. As you say that all religions are bad there should be
an -ist word for you!

people don't choose to be black
they don't choose to be female
they do choose to follow a religion

Irrelevant. Yellow was talking about religions, not adherents.

No - I am quite clearly talking about religion.

LOL! I misread that.

Yes, I am talking about the religion, not adherents.

So how are you managing to equate my views on religion, which is
abstract and comes from within the minds of people, with how some
individuals choose to rate a people due to them sharing particular
physical and/or birth characteristic?

That makes no sense.

Post by Yellow
Let me copy and past what I wrote again for you -
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

[James Harris]

Post by Yellow

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris
If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you
are a racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you
were sexist. As you say that all religions are bad there should be
an -ist word for you!

people don't choose to be black
they don't choose to be female
they do choose to follow a religion

Irrelevant. Yellow was talking about religions, not adherents.

No - I am quite clearly talking about religion.

LOL! I misread that.
Yes, I am talking about the religion, not adherents.
So how are you managing to equate my views on religion, which is
abstract and comes from within the minds of people, with how some
individuals choose to rate a people due to them sharing particular
physical and/or birth characteristic?
That makes no sense.

The specific subject doesn't matter in any way. This is about logic. To
make that clear, instead of religion or race etc let's call it X
instead. Contrast these statements:

Some X are nonsense therefore all X are nonsense.
Some X are nonsense.

Without further evidence to support it the first statement is invalid.
Someone who /believes/ that all X are nonsense because some X are, is
acting on blind faith rather than evidence.

By contrast, the second statement can be supported by evidence.

[Omega]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris
If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you
are a racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you
were sexist. As you say that all religions are bad there should be
an -ist word for you!

people don't choose to be black
they don't choose to be female
they do choose to follow a religion

Irrelevant. Yellow was talking about religions, not adherents.

No - I am quite clearly talking about religion.
Let me copy and past what I wrote again for you -
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

The endorsement of faith by any State is evil.

As a non-believer, I want complete freedom to condemn any faith, at
least, a mental aberration or worse, total breakdown of rationality.

ALL religions are evil, in that, they subjugate the minds of vulnerable
people, firstly to believe in a non existent deity then proceed to warp
the mind of these people with a set of pseudo, moral objects, to further
control them.

omega

[Yellow]

Post by Omega

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris
If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you
are a racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you
were sexist. As you say that all religions are bad there should be
an -ist word for you!

people don't choose to be black
they don't choose to be female
they do choose to follow a religion

Irrelevant. Yellow was talking about religions, not adherents.

No - I am quite clearly talking about religion.
Let me copy and past what I wrote again for you -
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

The endorsement of faith by any State is evil.
As a non-believer, I want complete freedom to condemn any faith, at
least, a mental aberration or worse, total breakdown of rationality.

And in this country we do and that right must be hung on to at all
costs.

Post by Omega
ALL religions are evil, in that, they subjugate the minds of vulnerable
people, firstly to believe in a non existent deity then proceed to warp
the mind of these people with a set of pseudo, moral objects, to further
control them.

It takes hold of people who are not vulnerable too, which I find bizarre
but it is a fact, and unfortunately that fact helps religion keep its
hold on those who are. Which of course is the same argument against
religion being supported by the state.

[The Todal]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris
If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you
are a racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you
were sexist. As you say that all religions are bad there should be
an -ist word for you!

people don't choose to be black
they don't choose to be female
they do choose to follow a religion

Irrelevant. Yellow was talking about religions, not adherents.

No - I am quite clearly talking about religion.
Let me copy and past what I wrote again for you -
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

I agree. I wouldn't vote for any political candidate who admitted to
having a strong religious faith.

[Yellow]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris
If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you
are a racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you
were sexist. As you say that all religions are bad there should be
an -ist word for you!

people don't choose to be black
they don't choose to be female
they do choose to follow a religion

Irrelevant. Yellow was talking about religions, not adherents.

No - I am quite clearly talking about religion.
Let me copy and past what I wrote again for you -
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.
People can of course believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, and
it is impossible to stop even if we wanted to, but that does not mean it
should have protection in law or or receive special tolerance in society
outside of their minds and their homes.

I agree. I wouldn't vote for any political candidate who admitted to
having a strong religious faith.

My MP stated "marriage is a religious institution" when the same sex
marriage bill was debated. That sat very badly with me, as did his
campaign for tax breaks for married couples only before that although at
that time I had not twigged he was religious and just thought he was a
Tory being a Tory.

And on the bright side, he was on the losing side on both issues.

I voted for him this time and last time because he is very very pro-
leave and sometimes you have to pick a priority on the day, but his
religious leanings are a major reason I might not have voted for him
otherwise, depending on what other choices there are on offer of course.

[abelard]

Post by tim...
as yellow says, there is absolutely no reason why governments should
enshrine in law a special position for religious belief, none at all. It is
outdated thinking of no place in this 21st century.

historically religions have filled the place that socialist government
now claim to be their monopoly...

this struggle has been increasingly underway for more than 200 years

[Yellow]

In article <op3nh5$acc$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

...

Post by Yellow
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

There are many bad religions, for sure, but it would be a mistake to
lump them all together. Just as it's wrong to say that all women are bad
because one woman is bad, or that all Japanese are bad because of one,
etc, so the same applies to religions.

You are entitled to your opinion but my opinion is that you are 100%
wrong.
All religion is nonsense therefore it is wrong to allow any to have
official standing or protection. It is as simple as that.

If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you are a
racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you were sexist.
As you say that all religions are bad there should be an -ist word for you!

I am a realist.

But your surely understand that there is no relationship between what
people are - their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality - with
what they believe in - fairies, thor, jehovah, thetans?

Post by James Harris
Don't get me wrong. IMO religions in general are bad. Some are very bad.
Some are out-and-out evil. But to say that all are bad - even those you
know nothing about - is self-evidently based on prejudice.

I did not use the word "bad", you chose to bring that word into the
conversation.

There is no good religion, there is no bad religion; there is just
religion. And my opinion is the same towards them all.

Post by James Harris
In fact, if you, "Yellow", believe something without evidence then
aren't you putting yourself in the position of many of the religions you
dislike?

Is this the point where you claim that not believing in a god is a faith
and that therefore atheism is a religion?

Yes, yes, heard it all before and it is a load of bollocks.

Next....

Post by James Harris
From what I've seen, many adherents "believe" because it's
something they want to believe or because someone they respect told them
to believe it or because they have never looked at another point of
view. If you, "Yellow", similarly castigate all religions without
knowing about all religions aren't you also showing blind faith in a
belief that is, from your perspective, lacking foundation?

"Ding"

And I win a peanut. :-)



[snip]

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.

Whatever. It is just a story.

You've made a definite assertion. What's your evidence (other than it's
what you /want/ to believe) that it's just a story?

You want me to produce evidence that Jesus did not exist and that the
stories written about him maybe hundreds of years later are not true?

Yes, of course you do.

Next....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

There are many novels that contain morality tales, and much better ones
than in the Bible which is as full of horror and prejudice as it of "the
meek shall inherit the earth" - so, so what?
What makes this book special? What makes this book anything than just
another book?

I guess you'd have to put that question to someone who had studied it.

If you believe this book is true then you must surely have a reason to
think that. Please feel free to share.

And "The Bible says it is the word of god therefore it is the word of
god" really is not going to wash.

[James Harris]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

...

Post by Yellow
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

There are many bad religions, for sure, but it would be a mistake to
lump them all together. Just as it's wrong to say that all women are bad
because one woman is bad, or that all Japanese are bad because of one,
etc, so the same applies to religions.

You are entitled to your opinion but my opinion is that you are 100%
wrong.
All religion is nonsense therefore it is wrong to allow any to have
official standing or protection. It is as simple as that.

If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you are a
racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you were sexist.
As you say that all religions are bad there should be an -ist word for you!

I am a realist.
But your surely understand that there is no relationship between what
people are - their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality - with
what they believe in - fairies, thor, jehovah, thetans?

Of course. But you made comments about the religions, not the adherents.
These are your words: "_All_ religion is nonsense therefore it is wrong
to allow _any_ to have...". (Emphasis added.) It is your assertion that
you know that all are nonsense which I don't believe you can support
with anything other than wishful thinking. How can you possibly say that
all of them are nonsense? Have you studied all of them?

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
Don't get me wrong. IMO religions in general are bad. Some are very

bad.

Post by James Harris
Some are out-and-out evil. But to say that all are bad - even those you
know nothing about - is self-evidently based on prejudice.

I did not use the word "bad", you chose to bring that word into the
conversation.

True. You said "nonsense".

Post by Yellow
There is no good religion, there is no bad religion; there is just
religion. And my opinion is the same towards them all.

Post by James Harris
In fact, if you, "Yellow", believe something without evidence then
aren't you putting yourself in the position of many of the religions you
dislike?

Is this the point where you claim that not believing in a god is a faith
and that therefore atheism is a religion?

No, it is me saying that believing in something we don't know about is
blind faith.

...

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
From what I've seen, many adherents "believe" because it's
something they want to believe or because someone they respect told them
to believe it or because they have never looked at another point of
view. If you, "Yellow", similarly castigate all religions without
knowing about all religions aren't you also showing blind faith in a
belief that is, from your perspective, lacking foundation?

"Ding"
And I win a peanut. :-)
[snip]

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.

Whatever. It is just a story.

You've made a definite assertion. What's your evidence (other than it's
what you /want/ to believe) that it's just a story?

You want me to produce evidence that Jesus did not exist and that the
stories written about him maybe hundreds of years later are not true?

No, but you assert that it is just a story. How do you /know/? Wouldn't
it be better to say that you don't /believe/ it? How can you be sure
that something of which you have no proof either way is true or false?

What I am trying, gently, to point out is that you personally believe
something to be false for some reason - possibly because you've seen
lots of ancient stories which are false. If so, my point is that saying
that all ancient stories are untrue because some are untrue is not logical.

Note that in my comments in this thread I have made no assertions as to
whether it is true or not. I related the details of the account, that's
all.

Post by Yellow
Yes, of course you do.
Next....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

There are many novels that contain morality tales, and much better ones
than in the Bible which is as full of horror and prejudice as it of "the
meek shall inherit the earth" - so, so what?
What makes this book special? What makes this book anything than just
another book?

I guess you'd have to put that question to someone who had studied it.

If you believe this book is true then you must surely have a reason to
think that. Please feel free to share.

I have made no assertions either way. ISTM it is people who profess a
religion who "know" something to be right or wrong without evidence. And
even atheists who say "it is all rubbish" are also making assertions
that cannot be supported. The belief "they are all wrong" is also a
matter of faith. They are all belief systems.

Surely it's better, if one wants to make an assertion, to have evidence
to support it. And I would suggest that knowing that one religion is
nonsense is not proof that all are nonsense.

Post by Yellow
And "The Bible says it is the word of god therefore it is the word of
god" really is not going to wash.

Agreed.

[Yellow]

In article <op5pnl$ipt$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
If you were to say that all black people were bad I would say you are a
racist. If you said that all women were bad I would say you were sexist.
As you say that all religions are bad there should be an -ist word for you!

I am a realist.
But your surely understand that there is no relationship between what
people are - their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality - with
what they believe in - fairies, thor, jehovah, thetans?

Of course. But you made comments about the religions, not the adherents.
These are your words: "_All_ religion is nonsense therefore it is wrong
to allow _any_ to have...". (Emphasis added.) It is your assertion that
you know that all are nonsense which I don't believe you can support
with anything other than wishful thinking. How can you possibly say that
all of them are nonsense? Have you studied all of them?

I have studied a fair number because it is a topic I am extremely
interested in. It is a hobby.

But to your core question. When the day comes that there is proof a god
exists we will all get to hear about it but until that time I assert
that my position, that all religion is nonsense, is quite a reasonable
one to hold.

Now, let me throw the same question back at you. Do you believe any
religion, other than that you follow, is true instead of your own?

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
Don't get me wrong. IMO religions in general are bad. Some are very

bad.

Post by James Harris
Some are out-and-out evil. But to say that all are bad - even those you
know nothing about - is self-evidently based on prejudice.

I did not use the word "bad", you chose to bring that word into the
conversation.

True. You said "nonsense".

I did. :-)

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
There is no good religion, there is no bad religion; there is just
religion. And my opinion is the same towards them all.

Post by James Harris
In fact, if you, "Yellow", believe something without evidence then
aren't you putting yourself in the position of many of the religions you
dislike?

Is this the point where you claim that not believing in a god is a faith
and that therefore atheism is a religion?

No, it is me saying that believing in something we don't know about is
blind faith.

No. Not believing in something we have no proof of is not an act of
faith, blind or otherwise. If it was, we would need blind faith to
disbelieve in an infinite number of non-existent things.

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.

Whatever. It is just a story.

You've made a definite assertion. What's your evidence (other than it's
what you /want/ to believe) that it's just a story?

You want me to produce evidence that Jesus did not exist and that the
stories written about him maybe hundreds of years later are not true?

No, but you assert that it is just a story. How do you /know/? Wouldn't
it be better to say that you don't /believe/ it? How can you be sure
that something of which you have no proof either way is true or false?

I assert the stories of Jesus are just stories because we have no proof
whatsoever that such a person ever existed and if they did, that any of
the events in The Bible ever occurred.

We have a lot of records from this period, but none that corroborate the
Jesus stories from The Bible.

If the day should come when proof presents itself to the contrary, then
I will obviously change by view.

Post by James Harris
What I am trying, gently, to point out is that you personally believe
something to be false for some reason - possibly because you've seen
lots of ancient stories which are false. If so, my point is that saying
that all ancient stories are untrue because some are untrue is not logical.

You have it backwards - I do not believe these stories to be true
because we have no evidence whatsoever, not a jot, that they are true.

I do not believe the stories of the Greek or Roman gods, or the Egyptian
or Norse gods are true either, for the same reason.

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by James Harris
I guess you'd have to put that question to someone who had studied it.

If you believe this book is true then you must surely have a reason to
think that. Please feel free to share.

I have made no assertions either way. ISTM it is people who profess a
religion who "know" something to be right or wrong without evidence. And
even atheists who say "it is all rubbish" are also making assertions
that cannot be supported. The belief "they are all wrong" is also a
matter of faith. They are all belief systems.

Atheism is not a belief system; it is the lack of belief in
extraordinary claims.

And religious folk are no different to atheists in that they disbelieve
in almost exactly the same number of religions - none of them plus 1.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow
I have studied a fair number because it is a topic I am extremely
interested in. It is a hobby.
But to your core question. When the day comes that there is proof a god
exists we will all get to hear about it but until that time I assert
that my position, that all religion is nonsense, is quite a reasonable
one to hold.

religions tend to teach 'thou shalt not kill'....is that 'nonsense'?

Post by Yellow
I assert the stories of Jesus are just stories because we have no proof
whatsoever that such a person ever existed and if they did, that any of
the events in The Bible ever occurred.
We have a lot of records from this period, but none that corroborate the
Jesus stories from The Bible.
If the day should come when proof presents itself to the contrary, then
I will obviously change by view.

how do you 'corroborate' a 'story'?

jesus is alleged to have taught in parables(so did aesop and others)
most of his stories seem instructive to me...
why do you care who told the stories?

looks to me like jesus was a very bright fellow...so was socrates...
do you believe in socrates?

[saracene]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
I have studied a fair number because it is a topic I am extremely
interested in. It is a hobby.
But to your core question. When the day comes that there is proof a god
exists we will all get to hear about it but until that time I assert
that my position, that all religion is nonsense, is quite a reasonable
one to hold.

religions tend to teach 'thou shalt not kill'....is that 'nonsense'?

Probably, there are so many exeptions. Do you think murderers tend to be atheists rather than bog ignorant Catholics? And militant Islam is a religion.

[abelard]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
I have studied a fair number because it is a topic I am extremely
interested in. It is a hobby.
But to your core question. When the day comes that there is proof a god
exists we will all get to hear about it but until that time I assert
that my position, that all religion is nonsense, is quite a reasonable
one to hold.

religions tend to teach 'thou shalt not kill'....is that 'nonsense'?

Probably, there are so many exeptions. Do you think murderers tend to be atheists rather than bog ignorant Catholics? And militant Islam is a religion.

thinking is in general for idiots

i can't read minds...

thus, it is very hard to know why some idiot kills people...
when a fellow before the bar tells you he killed and raped
because god told him to...
do you believe her? or do you suppose she just liked killing
people? or that she's hoping to get a lesser time in a cage?
how do you suppose you can know?


i'd still like to see yellow's response

[saracene]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
I have studied a fair number because it is a topic I am extremely
interested in. It is a hobby.
But to your core question. When the day comes that there is proof a god
exists we will all get to hear about it but until that time I assert
that my position, that all religion is nonsense, is quite a reasonable
one to hold.

religions tend to teach 'thou shalt not kill'....is that 'nonsense'?

Post by Yellow
I assert the stories of Jesus are just stories because we have no proof
whatsoever that such a person ever existed and if they did, that any of
the events in The Bible ever occurred.
We have a lot of records from this period, but none that corroborate the
Jesus stories from The Bible.
If the day should come when proof presents itself to the contrary, then
I will obviously change by view.

how do you 'corroborate' a 'story'?
jesus is alleged to have taught in parables(so did aesop and others)
most of his stories seem instructive to me...
why do you care who told the stories?
looks to me like jesus was a very bright fellow...

That jusdgment detracts from your own claim to brightness. Paul says that if he did not rise from the dead then "our fatih is vain". Is yours vain?

Post by abelard
so was socrates...
do you believe in socrates?

Plato makes a coherent character out of Socrates.

[abelard]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:11:10 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
I have studied a fair number because it is a topic I am extremely
interested in. It is a hobby.
But to your core question. When the day comes that there is proof a god
exists we will all get to hear about it but until that time I assert
that my position, that all religion is nonsense, is quite a reasonable
one to hold.

religions tend to teach 'thou shalt not kill'....is that 'nonsense'?

Post by Yellow
I assert the stories of Jesus are just stories because we have no proof
whatsoever that such a person ever existed and if they did, that any of
the events in The Bible ever occurred.
We have a lot of records from this period, but none that corroborate the
Jesus stories from The Bible.
If the day should come when proof presents itself to the contrary, then
I will obviously change by view.

how do you 'corroborate' a 'story'?
jesus is alleged to have taught in parables(so did aesop and others)
most of his stories seem instructive to me...
why do you care who told the stories?
looks to me like jesus was a very bright fellow...

That jusdgment detracts from your own claim to brightness. Paul says that if he did not rise from the dead then "our fatih is vain". Is yours vain?

what is paul to do with jesus?

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
so was socrates...
do you believe in socrates?

Plato makes a coherent character out of Socrates.

just as easy to argue that jesus is a coherent character

and just as bright as socrates

[saracene]

Post by abelard
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:11:10 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
I have studied a fair number because it is a topic I am extremely
interested in. It is a hobby.
But to your core question. When the day comes that there is proof a god
exists we will all get to hear about it but until that time I assert
that my position, that all religion is nonsense, is quite a reasonable
one to hold.

religions tend to teach 'thou shalt not kill'....is that 'nonsense'?

Post by Yellow
I assert the stories of Jesus are just stories because we have no proof
whatsoever that such a person ever existed and if they did, that any of
the events in The Bible ever occurred.
We have a lot of records from this period, but none that corroborate the
Jesus stories from The Bible.
If the day should come when proof presents itself to the contrary, then
I will obviously change by view.

how do you 'corroborate' a 'story'?
jesus is alleged to have taught in parables(so did aesop and others)
most of his stories seem instructive to me...
why do you care who told the stories?
looks to me like jesus was a very bright fellow...

That jusdgment detracts from your own claim to brightness. Paul says that if he did not rise from the dead then "our fatih is vain". Is yours vain?

what is paul to do with jesus?

Didn't he invent Christianity? What heretical thoughts are you entertaining?

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
so was socrates...
do you believe in socrates?

Plato makes a coherent character out of Socrates.

just as easy to argue that jesus is a coherent character

Try then. What was his meassage?

Post by abelard
and just as bright as socrates

How so?

Here's how I understand Socrates.

http://john-jsm.wikidot.com/socrates

How do you understand Jesus? What do you think his message was? You are a bit soft in the head when it comes down to it.

[abelard]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:37:20 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:11:10 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
I have studied a fair number because it is a topic I am extremely
interested in. It is a hobby.
But to your core question. When the day comes that there is proof a god
exists we will all get to hear about it but until that time I assert
that my position, that all religion is nonsense, is quite a reasonable
one to hold.

religions tend to teach 'thou shalt not kill'....is that 'nonsense'?

Post by Yellow
I assert the stories of Jesus are just stories because we have no proof
whatsoever that such a person ever existed and if they did, that any of
the events in The Bible ever occurred.
We have a lot of records from this period, but none that corroborate the
Jesus stories from The Bible.
If the day should come when proof presents itself to the contrary, then
I will obviously change by view.

how do you 'corroborate' a 'story'?
jesus is alleged to have taught in parables(so did aesop and others)
most of his stories seem instructive to me...
why do you care who told the stories?
looks to me like jesus was a very bright fellow...

That jusdgment detracts from your own claim to brightness. Paul says that if he did not rise from the dead then "our fatih is vain". Is yours vain?

what is paul to do with jesus?

Didn't he invent Christianity? What heretical thoughts are you entertaining?

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
so was socrates...
do you believe in socrates?

Plato makes a coherent character out of Socrates.

just as easy to argue that jesus is a coherent character

Try then. What was his meassage?

Post by abelard
and just as bright as socrates

How so?
Here's how I understand Socrates.
http://john-jsm.wikidot.com/socrates

after a very quick scan...

i hope you realise that a person can be extremely logical and
as mad as a box of frogs?

they can also be a mad as maybe and highly illogical...

most humans are mad...i am not...how do i manage in
a world of the mad?...causing as little harm as possible?
while seeking to improve the situation as much as i am capable?

Post by saracene
How do you understand Jesus? What do you think his message was? You are a bit soft in the head when it comes down to it.

so why would you want me to answer you?

'his message'...you sound like the daily mirror...

as near as i can go for a first approximation...see above

get yourself a red letter bible and just concentrate on what
are presented as the words of jesus...
forget the commentary.

quote his (alleged) words...not the fossil media's spin!

[saracene]

Post by abelard

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
Plato makes a coherent character out of Socrates.

just as easy to argue that jesus is a coherent character

Try then. What was his meassage?

Post by abelard
and just as bright as socrates

How so?
Here's how I understand Socrates.
http://john-jsm.wikidot.com/socrates

after a very quick scan...
i hope you realise that a person can be extremely logical and
as mad as a box of frogs?
they can also be a mad as maybe and highly illogical...
most humans are mad...i am not...how do i manage in
a world of the mad?...causing as little harm as possible?
while seeking to improve the situation as much as i am capable?

Post by saracene
How do you understand Jesus? What do you think his message was? You are a bit soft in the head when it comes down to it.

so why would you want me to answer you?

It is not without interest.

Post by abelard
'his message'...you sound like the daily mirror...

Seeing as you reject Paul's take on the character I imagined you might think this wandering oriental holy man had some distincitve message for mankind. Shaw thought it was socialism.

Post by abelard
as near as i can go for a first approximation...see above
get yourself a red letter bible and just concentrate on what
are presented as the words of jesus...
forget the commentary.
quote his (alleged) words...not the fossil media's spin!
--

I've read the gospels a few times. Yes there's some tradtional proverbial folk wisdom we can respect. In John there's some attractive antsmeitism. There's stuff that might be thought mad as a box of frogs if we take it out of its superstious context.

[abelard]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:47:54 -0700 (PDT), saracene
his nibs...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
How do you understand Jesus? What do you think his message was? You are a bit soft in the head when it comes down to it.

so why would you want me to answer you?

It is not without interest.

Post by abelard
'his message'...you sound like the daily mirror...

Seeing as you reject Paul's take on the character I imagined you might think this wandering oriental holy man had some distincitve message for mankind.

i don't reject...i don't believe in anything second hand

Post by saracene
Shaw thought it was socialism.

shaw was a monomaniac..or should that be triomaniac...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
as near as i can go for a first approximation...see above
get yourself a red letter bible and just concentrate on what
are presented as the words of jesus...
forget the commentary.
quote his (alleged) words...not the fossil media's spin!

I've read the gospels a few times. Yes there's some tradtional proverbial folk wisdom we can respect.

then name it...
i said just his reported words, not the spin

+2000 years of discussion/theology

Post by saracene
In John there's some attractive antsmeitism. There's stuff that might be thought mad as a box of frogs if we take it out of its superstious context.

paul...now john...fer jesus sakes concentrate!

[saracene]

Post by abelard
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:47:54 -0700 (PDT), saracene
his nibs...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
How do you understand Jesus? What do you think his message was? You are a bit soft in the head when it comes down to it.

so why would you want me to answer you?

It is not without interest.

Post by abelard
'his message'...you sound like the daily mirror...

Seeing as you reject Paul's take on the character I imagined you might think this wandering oriental holy man had some distincitve message for mankind.

i don't reject...i don't believe in anything second hand

Post by saracene
Shaw thought it was socialism.

shaw was a monomaniac..or should that be triomaniac...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
as near as i can go for a first approximation...see above
get yourself a red letter bible and just concentrate on what
are presented as the words of jesus...
forget the commentary.
quote his (alleged) words...not the fossil media's spin!

I've read the gospels a few times. Yes there's some tradtional proverbial folk wisdom we can respect.

then name it...
i said just his reported words, not the spin

Whos to say his reported words are not spin?

anyway

Man shall not live by bread alone,

Get thee behind me, Satan; get thee hence: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. ( I like him resiting tempation in the wilderness)

No prophet is accepted in his own country.

A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men
light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto
all that are in the house. L

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other:
or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.

¶Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they
are ravening wolves.

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is
hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: *else the bottles will be marred: the
new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new
wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged:

Can the blind lead the blind?

Some seed fell on stony ground where it had not much earth: and immediately it
sprang up, because it had not much deepness of earth: but when the sun was up,
because it had no depth of earth, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it
withered away.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Post by abelard
+2000 years of discussion/theology

Post by saracene
In John there's some attractive antsmeitism. There's stuff that might be thought mad as a box of frogs if we take it out of its superstious context.

paul...now john...fer jesus sakes concentrate!

I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God.
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the
abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of
the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth
forth evil things.>

Post by abelard
--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:11:04 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:47:54 -0700 (PDT), saracene
his nibs...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
How do you understand Jesus? What do you think his message was? You are a bit soft in the head when it comes down to it.

so why would you want me to answer you?

It is not without interest.

Post by abelard
'his message'...you sound like the daily mirror...

Seeing as you reject Paul's take on the character I imagined you might think this wandering oriental holy man had some distincitve message for mankind.

i don't reject...i don't believe in anything second hand

Post by saracene
Shaw thought it was socialism.

shaw was a monomaniac..or should that be triomaniac...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
as near as i can go for a first approximation...see above
get yourself a red letter bible and just concentrate on what
are presented as the words of jesus...
forget the commentary.
quote his (alleged) words...not the fossil media's spin!

I've read the gospels a few times. Yes there's some tradtional proverbial folk wisdom we can respect.

then name it...
i said just his reported words, not the spin

Whos to say his reported words are not spin?

who says yours ain't...so what if they are....

why bother with unanswerables...

Post by saracene
anyway
Man shall not live by bread alone,
Get thee behind me, Satan; get thee hence: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. ( I like him resiting tempation in the wilderness)
No prophet is accepted in his own country.
A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men
light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto
all that are in the house. L
or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.
¶Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they
are ravening wolves.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is
hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: *else the bottles will be marred: the
new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new
wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
Can the blind lead the blind?
Some seed fell on stony ground where it had not much earth: and immediately it
sprang up, because it had not much deepness of earth: but when the sun was up,
because it had no depth of earth, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it
withered away.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Post by abelard
+2000 years of discussion/theology

Post by saracene
In John there's some attractive antsmeitism. There's stuff that might be thought mad as a box of frogs if we take it out of its superstious context.

paul...now john...fer jesus sakes concentrate!

I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God.
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the
abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of
the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth
forth evil things.>

so what?

[saracene]

Post by abelard
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:11:04 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:47:54 -0700 (PDT), saracene
his nibs...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
How do you understand Jesus? What do you think his message was? You are a bit soft in the head when it comes down to it.

so why would you want me to answer you?

It is not without interest.

Post by abelard
'his message'...you sound like the daily mirror...

Seeing as you reject Paul's take on the character I imagined you might think this wandering oriental holy man had some distincitve message for mankind.

i don't reject...i don't believe in anything second hand

Post by saracene
Shaw thought it was socialism.

shaw was a monomaniac..or should that be triomaniac...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
as near as i can go for a first approximation...see above
get yourself a red letter bible and just concentrate on what
are presented as the words of jesus...
forget the commentary.
quote his (alleged) words...not the fossil media's spin!

I've read the gospels a few times. Yes there's some tradtional proverbial folk wisdom we can respect.

then name it...
i said just his reported words, not the spin

Whos to say his reported words are not spin?

who says yours ain't...so what if they are....
why bother with unanswerables...

Post by saracene
anyway
Man shall not live by bread alone,
Get thee behind me, Satan; get thee hence: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. ( I like him resiting tempation in the wilderness)
No prophet is accepted in his own country.
A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men
light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto
all that are in the house. L
or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.
詖ive not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
詐eware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they
are ravening wolves.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is
hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: *else the bottles will be marred: the
new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new
wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
Can the blind lead the blind?
Some seed fell on stony ground where it had not much earth: and immediately it
sprang up, because it had not much deepness of earth: but when the sun was up,
because it had no depth of earth, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it
withered away.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Post by abelard
+2000 years of discussion/theology

Post by saracene
In John there's some attractive antsmeitism. There's stuff that might be thought mad as a box of frogs if we take it out of its superstious context.

paul...now john...fer jesus sakes concentrate!

I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God.
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the
abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of
the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth
forth evil things.>

so what?
--

You told me to concntreate of Jesus' words. Those are some of them. Are you never satisfied? I was just showing you thie bits I like because you asked me.

[abelard]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:39:58 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:11:04 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:47:54 -0700 (PDT), saracene
his nibs...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard

Post by saracene
How do you understand Jesus? What do you think his message was? You are a bit soft in the head when it comes down to it.

so why would you want me to answer you?

It is not without interest.

Post by abelard
'his message'...you sound like the daily mirror...

Seeing as you reject Paul's take on the character I imagined you might think this wandering oriental holy man had some distincitve message for mankind.

i don't reject...i don't believe in anything second hand

Post by saracene
Shaw thought it was socialism.

shaw was a monomaniac..or should that be triomaniac...

Post by saracene

Post by abelard
as near as i can go for a first approximation...see above
get yourself a red letter bible and just concentrate on what
are presented as the words of jesus...
forget the commentary.
quote his (alleged) words...not the fossil media's spin!

I've read the gospels a few times. Yes there's some tradtional proverbial folk wisdom we can respect.

then name it...
i said just his reported words, not the spin

Whos to say his reported words are not spin?

who says yours ain't...so what if they are....
why bother with unanswerables...

Post by saracene
anyway
Man shall not live by bread alone,
Get thee behind me, Satan; get thee hence: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. ( I like him resiting tempation in the wilderness)
No prophet is accepted in his own country.
A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men
light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto
all that are in the house. L
or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.
?ive not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
?eware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they
are ravening wolves.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is
hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: *else the bottles will be marred: the
new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new
wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
Can the blind lead the blind?
Some seed fell on stony ground where it had not much earth: and immediately it
sprang up, because it had not much deepness of earth: but when the sun was up,
because it had no depth of earth, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it
withered away.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Post by abelard
+2000 years of discussion/theology

Post by saracene
In John there's some attractive antsmeitism. There's stuff that might be thought mad as a box of frogs if we take it out of its superstious context.

paul...now john...fer jesus sakes concentrate!

I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God.
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the
abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of
the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth
forth evil things.>

so what?
--

You told me to concntreate of Jesus' words. Those are some of them. Are you never satisfied? I was just showing you thie bits I like because you asked me.

you didn't add that those are the bits you like!

you started with your negativish comments about the jew

now you liking the fellow...

it's so easy to get confused with you!

[Yellow]

In article <***@4ax.com>, abelard3
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
I have studied a fair number because it is a topic I am extremely
interested in. It is a hobby.
But to your core question. When the day comes that there is proof a god
exists we will all get to hear about it but until that time I assert
that my position, that all religion is nonsense, is quite a reasonable
one to hold.

religions tend to teach 'thou shalt not kill'....is that 'nonsense'?

Do they? Are you sure? I do not every remember seeing that as a core
teaching of Scientology for example.

And some religious texts are quite happy with killing, just as long as
you are killing the right folks.

But it does of course say that in The Bible, that you should not kill
people because if you do you will go to Hell. I agree you should not
kill people and I am even against Capital Punishment, but not because if
you do you will go to Hell.

Plus of course, discussing this in the context of Christianity, if you
do kill, as long as you repent you can *still* get into Heaven!

So in answer to your question - yes it is clearly nonsense. We should
all be taught not kill because it is morally wrong, not because you are
going to be smited by some deity if you do or loved by another if the
folks you murder are the ones he hates.

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
I assert the stories of Jesus are just stories because we have no proof
whatsoever that such a person ever existed and if they did, that any of
the events in The Bible ever occurred.
We have a lot of records from this period, but none that corroborate the
Jesus stories from The Bible.
If the day should come when proof presents itself to the contrary, then
I will obviously change by view.

how do you 'corroborate' a 'story'?

If the Bible stories could be corroborated they would cease to be a
stories and instead would be classed as reports of known to be true
events.

Post by abelard
jesus is alleged to have taught in parables(so did aesop and others)
most of his stories seem instructive to me...
why do you care who told the stories?

The story in question is that a man called Jesus existed and that he was
the son of a god, born of a virgin etc etc, and yes further to that he
is supposed to have told a few parables.

But the parables are not the 'stories' being referred to here, that
require the proof.

Post by abelard
looks to me like jesus was a very bright fellow...
so was socrates... do you believe in socrates?

Wiki suggests a lot is known about Socrates so I guess that means there
is corroborated proof of his existence. Don't know, don't care, because
we are talking about Jesus and for him, nothing.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
I have studied a fair number because it is a topic I am extremely
interested in. It is a hobby.
But to your core question. When the day comes that there is proof a god
exists we will all get to hear about it but until that time I assert
that my position, that all religion is nonsense, is quite a reasonable
one to hold.

religions tend to teach 'thou shalt not kill'....is that 'nonsense'?

Do they? Are you sure? I do not every remember seeing that as a core
teaching of Scientology for example.

i was talking of developed religion...not money making scams

you're going to be difficult...but that won't interest me...
i'm not interested in you telling me about selling indulgences or any
of the rest of the baloney

i bore easily...you have been warned

Post by Yellow
And some religious texts are quite happy with killing, just as long as
you are killing the right folks.
But it does of course say that in The Bible, that you should not kill
people because if you do you will go to Hell. I agree you should not
kill people and I am even against Capital Punishment, but not because if
you do you will go to Hell.
Plus of course, discussing this in the context of Christianity, if you
do kill, as long as you repent you can *still* get into Heaven!

your understanding is crude to the point of caricature

Post by Yellow
So in answer to your question - yes it is clearly nonsense. We should
all be taught not kill because it is morally wrong, not because you are
going to be smited by some deity if you do or loved by another if the
folks you murder are the ones he hates.

stop babbling

your theology is first grade

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
I assert the stories of Jesus are just stories because we have no

proof

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
whatsoever that such a person ever existed and if they did, that any of
the events in The Bible ever occurred.
We have a lot of records from this period, but none that corroborate the
Jesus stories from The Bible.
If the day should come when proof presents itself to the contrary, then
I will obviously change by view.

how do you 'corroborate' a 'story'?

If the Bible stories could be corroborated they would cease to be a
stories and instead would be classed as reports of known to be true
events.

like the good samaritan?

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
jesus is alleged to have taught in parables(so did aesop and others)
most of his stories seem instructive to me...
why do you care who told the stories?

The story in question is that a man called Jesus existed and that he was
the son of a god, born of a virgin etc etc, and yes further to that he
is supposed to have told a few parables.

you must make your own choices...that is most definitely not
my job

Post by Yellow
But the parables are not the 'stories' being referred to here, that
require the proof.

they are how and what jesus taught

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
looks to me like jesus was a very bright fellow...
so was socrates... do you believe in socrates?

Wiki suggests

suggests is rhetoric...so i don't care

i don't care if plato made him up...why do you care about jesus?

what ever either or neither of them taught...a body of work remains
and it was taught by someone or ones...

such bodies of work have taught people about how to
cope with life and living for centuries...

some even go for l. ron....

why not deal with evidence...

the tooth fairy will bring you a dime....does it matter....
other than problems with lying to(confusing) children

how to scare children into not doing things dangerous to themselves
and or others...
it is a real problem as you would notice if you saw the widespread
yobbery on western country's streets...
and many many other problems...eg how many children do you
suppose britain had with 'eating disorders'?...in 1940?

but that was before snowflake psychobabble of course...

do you suppose there is no connection?

do you know a few dozen 5 yos having a sexual identity crisis?

i'll take jesus before marx or tony bliar any day...

Post by Yellow
a lot is known about Socrates so I guess that means there
is corroborated proof of his existence. Don't know, don't care, because
we are talking about Jesus and for him, nothing.

not true..try josephus...

do you want his birth certificate? do you suppose he wasn't cock
chopped?...

[Yellow]

In article <***@4ax.com>, abelard3
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard
i bore easily...you have been warned

This may come as a shock, but you are not the centre of my universe.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard
i bore easily...you have been warned

This may come as a shock, but you are not the centre of my universe.

why on earth should i care about that?

you seem to prioritise your emotional life above reasoning

that's your choice...

but why post here if you have no intention of discourse?

[saracene]

Post by Yellow
We should
all be taught not kill because it is morally wrong,

I asked you whre your values came from. Where does that one come from? Is it just what you were taught or do you someohow intuit its truth?

[The Todal]

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

...

Post by Yellow
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

There are many bad religions, for sure, but it would be a mistake to
lump them all together. Just as it's wrong to say that all women are bad
because one woman is bad, or that all Japanese are bad because of one,
etc, so the same applies to religions.
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved. In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Same sense of "suffer". Except
that as well all know, the Catholics administer suffering like no other
religion. Don't let women have abortions - instead, make them go through
childbirth and then confiscate their babies. Then give the babies to
Catholic orphanages and schools where the children will be beaten and
made to work hard.

I'm afraid the Catholics pay little attention to any bible stories
telling them how they ought to be kind, forgiving and compassionate.

Let the little children suffer. The monks and nuns get off on it.

[James Harris]

Post by The Todal

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

...

Post by Yellow
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

There are many bad religions, for sure, but it would be a mistake to
lump them all together. Just as it's wrong to say that all women are bad
because one woman is bad, or that all Japanese are bad because of one,
etc, so the same applies to religions.
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved. In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Same sense of "suffer". Except
that as well all know, the Catholics administer suffering like no other
religion. Don't let women have abortions - instead, make them go through
childbirth and then confiscate their babies. Then give the babies to
Catholic orphanages and schools where the children will be beaten and
made to work hard.
I'm afraid the Catholics pay little attention to any bible stories
telling them how they ought to be kind, forgiving and compassionate.

ISTM that whether we are talking conduct or teachings there's very
little overlap between Catholicism and the Bible.

Post by The Todal
Let the little children suffer. The monks and nuns get off on it.

[abelard]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 13:46:36 +0100, James Harris

Post by James Harris

Post by The Todal

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow
says...

...

Post by Yellow
To repeat - we (as a country, as a state, as a world) need to stop
tolerating religion. Until the day comes that we stop protecting the mad
things people believe in the the name of "faith" this sort of thing,
along with all the other consequences of religion including terrorism
are simply going to continue.

There are many bad religions, for sure, but it would be a mistake to
lump them all together. Just as it's wrong to say that all women are bad
because one woman is bad, or that all Japanese are bad because of one,
etc, so the same applies to religions.
There are lots of misunderstandings, too. For example, the subject line
of this thread: Suffer the little children is - so very often - applied
to children suffering. In fact, the line was from the King James Bible
and in the English of the time "suffer" meant "put up with". As I
remember it, Jesus told his disciples to put up with the children (to
suffer the presence of the children) and not to turn them away. No
suffering was involved. In fact, in a society dominated by social rank
the disciples had turned the children away thinking that Jesus was too
important to be bothered with such children who wanted to see him. He
told his disciples, instead, to welcome the children and even to learn
from some of the children's qualities such as humility.
So rather than religions all being bad or the children being expected to
suffer, the original story is a morally uplifting one.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Same sense of "suffer". Except
that as well all know, the Catholics administer suffering like no other
religion. Don't let women have abortions - instead, make them go through
childbirth and then confiscate their babies. Then give the babies to
Catholic orphanages and schools where the children will be beaten and
made to work hard.
I'm afraid the Catholics pay little attention to any bible stories
telling them how they ought to be kind, forgiving and compassionate.

ISTM that whether we are talking conduct or teachings there's very
little overlap between Catholicism and the Bible.

catholic schools and associated parishes engage in a constant
daily battering of the new testament...habitually for many years...
prod schools tended to concentrate similarly on the old testament

i'm not up to date with the latest pc practices

Post by James Harris

Post by The Todal
Let the little children suffer. The monks and nuns get off on it.

[Ophelia]

Post by The Todal
Let the little children suffer. The monks and nuns get off on it.

James Harris

==

I am not sure who wrote the above, but I must disagree. I can't speak for
all nuns, but then neither can the writer of the above.

My school was run by Sisters of Mercy and a nicer and kindlier group of
people it would be hard to find.

I can only speak from my experience and it was a good one.

[Incubus]

I am not sure who wrote the above, but I must disagree.   I can't speak for
all nuns, but then neither can the writer of the above.
My school was run by Sisters of Mercy and a nicer and kindlier group of
people it would be hard to find.

I would have preferred Bauhaus :D

[Ophelia]

Post by Ophelia
I am not sure who wrote the above, but I must disagree. I can't speak for
all nuns, but then neither can the writer of the above.
My school was run by Sisters of Mercy and a nicer and kindlier group of
people it would be hard to find.

I would have preferred Bauhaus :D


==

But witches might not have been so kind as our nuns ... ;p

[Ian Jackson]

In fact, the line was from the King James Bible and in the English of
the time "suffer" meant "put up with".

While it can mean "put up with" or "tolerate", in this context, it
simply meant "allow" or "permit".

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.

It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

[abelard]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

what a muddled fellow you are...

you rage against religion...

and then you want to 'respect' dead bodies!!

[Yellow]

In article <***@4ax.com>, abelard3
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

what a muddled fellow you are...
you rage against religion...
and then you want to 'respect' dead bodies!!

I am as atheist as it is possible to be I object to the desecration of
graves, even those of people who died a very long time ago.

Started when I went to the British Museum when I was about 12 and walked
round the Egyptian section where they have scores of mummified bodies in
glass cabinets for folks to gorp at, and I have not changed my view.

If people want to be buried in a particular way, respect it.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

what a muddled fellow you are...
you rage against religion...
and then you want to 'respect' dead bodies!!

I am as atheist as it is possible to be I object to the desecration of
graves, even those of people who died a very long time ago.
Started when I went to the British Museum when I was about 12 and walked
round the Egyptian section where they have scores of mummified bodies in
glass cabinets for folks to gorp at, and I have not changed my view.
If people want to be buried in a particular way, respect it.

why?

[saracene]

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

what a muddled fellow you are...
you rage against religion...
and then you want to 'respect' dead bodies!!

I am as atheist as it is possible to be I object to the desecration of
graves, even those of people who died a very long time ago.
Started when I went to the British Museum when I was about 12 and walked
round the Egyptian section where they have scores of mummified bodies in
glass cabinets for folks to gorp at, and I have not changed my view.
If people want to be buried in a particular way, respect it.

why?
--

Indded. I think i'd like to be buried like an Egyptian Pharoah.

[JNugent]

Post by saracene

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

what a muddled fellow you are...
you rage against religion...
and then you want to 'respect' dead bodies!!

I am as atheist as it is possible to be I object to the desecration of
graves, even those of people who died a very long time ago.
Started when I went to the British Museum when I was about 12 and walked
round the Egyptian section where they have scores of mummified bodies in
glass cabinets for folks to gorp at, and I have not changed my view.
If people want to be buried in a particular way, respect it.

why?
--

Indded. I think i'd like to be buried like an Egyptian Pharoah.

With your brain extracted via your nostrils?

[Yellow]

In article <***@4ax.com>, abelard3
@abelard.org says...

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

what a muddled fellow you are...
you rage against religion...
and then you want to 'respect' dead bodies!!

I am as atheist as it is possible to be I object to the desecration of
graves, even those of people who died a very long time ago.
Started when I went to the British Museum when I was about 12 and walked
round the Egyptian section where they have scores of mummified bodies in
glass cabinets for folks to gorp at, and I have not changed my view.
If people want to be buried in a particular way, respect it.

why?

I have already told you why - when I saw the bodies of people who had
been removed from their graves put on show, I did not feel comfortable
with it while I do feel comfortable with people being left in their
graves.

Otherwise, what is the point of us in our time having graves? You of
course might come back and say - "none at all" - and I have no problem
with that either but if we are going to have them then I think they
should be respected.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

what a muddled fellow you are...
you rage against religion...
and then you want to 'respect' dead bodies!!

I am as atheist as it is possible to be I object to the desecration of
graves, even those of people who died a very long time ago.
Started when I went to the British Museum when I was about 12 and walked
round the Egyptian section where they have scores of mummified bodies in
glass cabinets for folks to gorp at, and I have not changed my view.
If people want to be buried in a particular way, respect it.

why?

I have already told you why - when I saw the bodies of people who had
been removed from their graves put on show, I did not feel comfortable
with it while I do feel comfortable with people being left in their
graves.

that surely is an emotional reaction...it doesn't say why you have
that emotion...

Post by Yellow
Otherwise, what is the point of us in our time having graves? You of
course might come back and say - "none at all" - and I have no problem
with that either but if we are going to have them then I think they
should be respected.

that is just a repeat...

crudely, catholic theology is about 'souls'...not dead bodies...
though that does tend to get confused by the less(poorly)
educated...

the idea that you will reclaim your body from its scattered
atoms is rather primitive...
modern science suggests that you are presently carrying
around atoms previously used by(all) others...
as i recall, current calculations are that all current humans
*incorporate* atoms one pissed by jesus!

another problem that may confuse, is that theology develops
under the guidance of reason...
it is not some frozen aspic stasis...

but such thoughts do not tend to comfort irish peasants..or
even english peasants during bereavement...
nor potentates irritated by the reality 'that they can't take
it with them'

[Yellow]

In article <***@4ax.com>, abelard3
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by Yellow
If people want to be buried in a particular way, respect it.

why?

I have already told you why - when I saw the bodies of people who had
been removed from their graves put on show, I did not feel comfortable
with it while I do feel comfortable with people being left in their
graves.

that surely is an emotional reaction...it doesn't say why you have
that emotion...

I have already told you - I went to a museum and saw the bodies.....

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
Otherwise, what is the point of us in our time having graves? You of
course might come back and say - "none at all" - and I have no problem
with that either but if we are going to have them then I think they
should be respected.

that is just a repeat...

Indeed it is because else can I tell you?

My favourite is green.
Why?
Because I like it.
Why?
Because I like the outside, inside.
Why?
It is how I feel.
Why?
I just do.
But that is an emotional response and you haven't said why said why
green is your favourite colour.....

Post by abelard
crudely, catholic theology is about 'souls'...not dead bodies...
though that does tend to get confused by the less(poorly)
educated...

No, nothing to do with any of that. Nothing to do with me believing
people have souls. Dead is dead. Compost and all that.

But I respect the living and I respect their wishes, and I feel
unconformable with removing bodies from their graves.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by Yellow
If people want to be buried in a particular way, respect it.

why?

I have already told you why - when I saw the bodies of people who had
been removed from their graves put on show, I did not feel comfortable
with it while I do feel comfortable with people being left in their
graves.

that surely is an emotional reaction...it doesn't say why you have
that emotion...

I have already told you - I went to a museum and saw the bodies.....

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
Otherwise, what is the point of us in our time having graves? You of
course might come back and say - "none at all" - and I have no problem
with that either but if we are going to have them then I think they
should be respected.

that is just a repeat...

Indeed it is because else can I tell you?
My favourite is green.
Why?
Because I like it.
Why?
Because I like the outside, inside.
Why?
It is how I feel.
Why?
I just do.
But that is an emotional response and you haven't said why said why
green is your favourite colour.....

Post by abelard
crudely, catholic theology is about 'souls'...not dead bodies...
though that does tend to get confused by the less(poorly)
educated...

No, nothing to do with any of that. Nothing to do with me believing
people have souls. Dead is dead. Compost and all that.
But I respect the living and I respect their wishes, and I feel
unconformable with removing bodies from their graves.

ok, thanx for expressing your (emotional) positions!

hopefully i get to understand you (your posts) better over time

[Fredxxx]

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

what a muddled fellow you are...
you rage against religion...
and then you want to 'respect' dead bodies!!

I am as atheist as it is possible to be I object to the desecration of
graves, even those of people who died a very long time ago.
Started when I went to the British Museum when I was about 12 and walked
round the Egyptian section where they have scores of mummified bodies in
glass cabinets for folks to gorp at, and I have not changed my view.
If people want to be buried in a particular way, respect it.

I hardly think the slaves of that era doing the burying cared much.

I would say they were buried in the manner desired, but where no one who
knew the mummies is still alive, nor even their known ancestors in this
case, their wishes become far less relevant.

[Yellow]

Post by Fredxxx

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

what a muddled fellow you are...
you rage against religion...
and then you want to 'respect' dead bodies!!

I am as atheist as it is possible to be I object to the desecration of
graves, even those of people who died a very long time ago.
Started when I went to the British Museum when I was about 12 and walked
round the Egyptian section where they have scores of mummified bodies in
glass cabinets for folks to gorp at, and I have not changed my view.
If people want to be buried in a particular way, respect it.

I hardly think the slaves of that era doing the burying cared much.
I would say they were buried in the manner desired, but where no one who
knew the mummies is still alive, nor even their known ancestors in this
case, their wishes become far less relevant.

I don't disagree with the rational side of the argument. :-)

[Incubus]

Post by Yellow
@abelard.org says...

Post by abelard

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass
grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation
by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

what a muddled fellow you are...
you rage against religion...
and then you want to 'respect' dead bodies!!

I am as atheist as it is possible to be I object to the desecration of
graves, even those of people who died a very long time ago.
Started when I went to the British Museum when I was about 12 and walked
round the Egyptian section where they have scores of mummified bodies in
glass cabinets for folks to gorp at

'Gawp'.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the
Holy Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort of
thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

I already get it: you're quite round the twist.

[Fredxxx]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the
Holy Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort
of thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.
It shows just how much the Catholics value human life. Babies and
children are worth nothing - wealthy priests get a proper grave and a
headstone.

I already get it: you're quite round the twist.

Are you Roman Catholic perchance?

[Handsome Jack]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the
Holy Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation by BBC News.

You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort
of thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.

The phrase "mass grave" is just a journalist's invention designed to
manipulate our emotions, by conjuring up a mental picture of nuns
bulldozing hundreds of emaciated corpses into a giant pit. It seems to
have succeeded with you.

If you think about it, though, each individual must have been buried in
a separate grave, because they all died at different times. So all that
really happened was that the graves were not individually marked with
expensive headstones.

[JNugent]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in  mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the
Holy  Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass  grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation  by BBC News.

 You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort
of thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.

The phrase "mass grave" is just a journalist's invention designed to
manipulate our emotions, by conjuring up a mental picture of nuns
bulldozing hundreds of emaciated corpses into a giant pit. It seems to
have succeeded with you.
If you think about it, though, each individual must have been buried in
a separate grave, because they all died at different times. So all that
really happened was that the graves were not individually marked with
expensive headstones.

Exactly.

The report goes on to state that all legal requirements were met (death
certificates, etc). All that was "missing" were headstones or other
means of marking a particular grave.

But there are are some who want the public to believe that this was like
something out of the footage of the liberation of Belsen. The first
thing I ask myself is why they want others to believe that.

[abelard]

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in  mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the
Holy  Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass  grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation  by BBC News.

 You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort
of thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.

The phrase "mass grave" is just a journalist's invention designed to
manipulate our emotions, by conjuring up a mental picture of nuns
bulldozing hundreds of emaciated corpses into a giant pit. It seems to
have succeeded with you.
If you think about it, though, each individual must have been buried in
a separate grave, because they all died at different times. So all that
really happened was that the graves were not individually marked with
expensive headstones.

Exactly.
The report goes on to state that all legal requirements were met (death
certificates, etc). All that was "missing" were headstones or other
means of marking a particular grave.
But there are are some who want the public to believe that this was like
something out of the footage of the liberation of Belsen. The first
thing I ask myself is why they want others to believe that.

it is essential for socialism to destroy christianism if it is
to become the established religion

a core belief of socialists is that the ends justify the means

[Fredxxx]

Post by abelard

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in  mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the
Holy  Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass  grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation  by BBC News.

 You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort
of thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.

The phrase "mass grave" is just a journalist's invention designed to
manipulate our emotions, by conjuring up a mental picture of nuns
bulldozing hundreds of emaciated corpses into a giant pit. It seems to
have succeeded with you.
If you think about it, though, each individual must have been buried in
a separate grave, because they all died at different times. So all that
really happened was that the graves were not individually marked with
expensive headstones.

Exactly.
The report goes on to state that all legal requirements were met (death
certificates, etc). All that was "missing" were headstones or other
means of marking a particular grave.
But there are are some who want the public to believe that this was like
something out of the footage of the liberation of Belsen. The first
thing I ask myself is why they want others to believe that.

it is essential for socialism to destroy christianism if it is
to become the established religion

Many socialists I know are religious, you seem to have a chip on your
shoulder.

Post by abelard
a core belief of socialists is that the ends justify the means

As do yours and other beliefs.

Personally I find the hypocrisy of following religions and holy books
distasteful when it impinges on others. That doesn't make me a socialist.

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in  mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's
the Holy  Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass  grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation  by BBC News.

 You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort
of thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.

The phrase "mass grave" is just a journalist's invention designed to
manipulate our emotions, by conjuring up a mental picture of nuns
bulldozing hundreds of emaciated corpses into a giant pit. It seems to
have succeeded with you.
If you think about it, though, each individual must have been buried
in a separate grave, because they all died at different times. So all
that really happened was that the graves were not individually marked
with expensive headstones.

Exactly.
The report goes on to state that all legal requirements were met (death
certificates, etc). All that was "missing" were headstones or other
means of marking a particular grave.
But there are are some who want the public to believe that this was like
something out of the footage of the liberation of Belsen. The first
thing I ask myself is why they want others to believe that.

I ask myself why you make that particular comparison. The thing about
Belsen was not that there were, duh, lots of bodies in pits. It was that
the inmates were starved and their typhus was untreated and they were
treated as sub-human.

Giving the Belen inmates their own personal graves with a nice headstone
and a garland of flowers really wouldn't atone for the indignity done to
these victims prior to their deaths.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury
them in  mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes,
it's the Holy  Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's
faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass  grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation  by BBC News.

 You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the
sort of thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.

The phrase "mass grave" is just a journalist's invention designed to
manipulate our emotions, by conjuring up a mental picture of nuns
bulldozing hundreds of emaciated corpses into a giant pit. It seems
to have succeeded with you.
If you think about it, though, each individual must have been buried
in a separate grave, because they all died at different times. So all
that really happened was that the graves were not individually marked
with expensive headstones.

Exactly.
The report goes on to state that all legal requirements were met
(death certificates, etc). All that was "missing" were headstones or
other means of marking a particular grave.
But there are are some who want the public to believe that this was
like something out of the footage of the liberation of Belsen. The
first thing I ask myself is why they want others to believe that.

I ask myself why you make that particular comparison.

Easy: it's because you re-use the term "mass graves", when a moment's
reflection would have told you that a series of individual graves dug
over the 117 year period mentioned in the article (1864 - 1981) cannot
credibly be described as a mass grave".

But you fell for it without a moment's critical thinking.

For some reason.

Post by The Todal
The thing about
Belsen was not that there were, duh, lots of bodies in pits. It was that
the inmates were starved and their typhus was untreated and they were
treated as sub-human.
Giving the Belen inmates their own personal graves with a nice headstone
and a garland of flowers really wouldn't atone for the indignity done to
these victims prior to their deaths.

And?

[The Todal]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in  mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the
Holy  Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass  grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation  by BBC News.

 You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort
of thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.

The phrase "mass grave" is just a journalist's invention designed to
manipulate our emotions, by conjuring up a mental picture of nuns
bulldozing hundreds of emaciated corpses into a giant pit. It seems to
have succeeded with you.

Emaciated? I suppose you're thinking of Belsen or Dachau.

To me, it conjures up a mental picture of a London plague pit. I don't
suppose all the bodies were buried simultaneously, or without some token
funeral service being said.

But the children buried by nuns probably weren't mourned by anyone at
all. Another useless orphan dying of TB or dying of a whack to the head
from a bullying nun when he misbehaved. No parent or uncle or aunt to
grieve, so no need to mark the grave in any way.

Post by Handsome Jack
If you think about it, though, each individual must have been buried in
a separate grave, because they all died at different times. So all that
really happened was that the graves were not individually marked with
expensive headstones.

I expect the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will establish the
facts and find out how these children met their deaths and what care was
taken to report these deaths to the coroner. Not.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them
in  mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's
the Holy  Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony
Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a
mass  grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an
investigation  by BBC News.

 You DID catch that this was in a cemetery, didn't you?

Burying bodies in a mass grave shows contempt for them. It's the sort
of thing that is done whenever a population is massacred.

The phrase "mass grave" is just a journalist's invention designed to
manipulate our emotions, by conjuring up a mental picture of nuns
bulldozing hundreds of emaciated corpses into a giant pit. It seems to
have succeeded with you.

Emaciated? I suppose you're thinking of Belsen or Dachau.

No. *You* were - and hoping to make silly people think of the same thing.

Post by The Todal
To me, it conjures up a mental picture of a London plague pit. I don't
suppose all the bodies were buried simultaneously, or without some token
funeral service being said.

"I don't suppose all the bodies were buried simultaneously..."

Do you think they all died simultaneously?

[Hint: the article contains the answer to that.]

Post by The Todal
without some token funeral service being said.

That's magnanimous of you.

Post by The Todal
But the children buried by nuns probably weren't mourned by anyone at
all. Another useless orphan dying of TB or dying of a whack to the head
from a bullying nun when he misbehaved. No parent or uncle or aunt to
grieve, so no need to mark the grave in any way.

How do you think you "know" any of that?

Post by The Todal

Post by Handsome Jack
If you think about it, though, each individual must have been buried
in a separate grave, because they all died at different times. So all
that really happened was that the graves were not individually marked
with expensive headstones.

I expect the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will establish the
facts and find out how these children met their deaths and what care was
taken to report these deaths to the coroner. Not.

Did you not READ the article?

Clearly, you didn't.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949

But without a certification of death issued by a doctor or a coroner, these children would not and could not legally be buried at all. All thee deaths of these children had clearly been registered otherwise how could such a comprehensive list of names be compiled?

Any suggestion that these deaths were illicitly concealed is therefore spurious.

There is no requirement in law for any body to be buried in a cemetery or church yard. Neither is there any requirement that the body shall be prepared for burial or cremation by an undertaker. There is not even a requirement for a coffin. Provided the death has been properly certified and registered the next of kin may dispose of the body as they see fit subject to certain hygiene laws.

It is therefore possible for any deceased person to be buried on land with the consent of the land owner, cremated or even buried at sea though a dead body , of course be cannot be simply abandoned.

It is interesting to note that nuns from the convent in question were buried in the same ground. This would suggest that the ground in question was hallowed ground.

My point here is that it would seem that there is no question here that the law has been broken. These catholic orphanages we in effect charities. Perhaps scarcity of funds available were the cause of these burials. Perhaps these findings do not indicate any callousness or lack or respect for these unfortunate children and at the end of the day death is death and not experience by the person concerned.

I would suggest that it is unlikely here that these children were laid to rest without a few words being said over them in prayer.

[saracene]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949

But without a certification of death issued by a doctor or a coroner, these children would not and could not legally be buried at all. All thee deaths of these children had clearly been registered otherwise how could such a comprehensive list of names be compiled?
Any suggestion that these deaths were illicitly concealed is therefore spurious.
There is no requirement in law for any body to be buried in a cemetery or church yard. Neither is there any requirement that the body shall be prepared for burial or cremation by an undertaker. There is not even a requirement for a coffin. Provided the death has been properly certified and registered the next of kin may dispose of the body as they see fit subject to certain hygiene laws.
It is therefore possible for any deceased person to be buried on land with the consent of the land owner, cremated or even buried at sea though a dead body , of course be cannot be simply abandoned.
It is interesting to note that nuns from the convent in question were buried in the same ground. This would suggest that the ground in question was hallowed ground.
My point here is that it would seem that there is no question here that the law has been broken. These catholic orphanages we in effect charities. Perhaps scarcity of funds available were the cause of these burials. Perhaps these findings do not indicate any callousness or lack or respect for these unfortunate children and at the end of the day death is death and not experience by the person concerned.
I would suggest that it is unlikely here that these children were laid to rest without a few words being said over them in prayer.

What grounds do you have for thinking that paddy nuns in Scotland would have behaved more decently than their sisters in ireland?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/mass-grave-of-796-babies-found-in-septic-tank-at-catholic-orphanage-in-tuam-galway-30327483.html

[abelard]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 06:26:44 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by The Todal
Never abort them. Just make their lives a misery and then bury them in
mass graves without any inquest into their deaths. Yes, it's the Holy
Catholic Church, of course. Jacob Rees-Mogg's faith. Tony Blair's faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949

But without a certification of death issued by a doctor or a coroner, these children would not and could not legally be buried at all. All thee deaths of these children had clearly been registered otherwise how could such a comprehensive list of names be compiled?
Any suggestion that these deaths were illicitly concealed is therefore spurious.
There is no requirement in law for any body to be buried in a cemetery or church yard. Neither is there any requirement that the body shall be prepared for burial or cremation by an undertaker. There is not even a requirement for a coffin. Provided the death has been properly certified and registered the next of kin may dispose of the body as they see fit subject to certain hygiene laws.
It is therefore possible for any deceased person to be buried on land with the consent of the land owner, cremated or even buried at sea though a dead body , of course be cannot be simply abandoned.
It is interesting to note that nuns from the convent in question were buried in the same ground. This would suggest that the ground in question was hallowed ground.
My point here is that it would seem that there is no question here that the law has been broken. These catholic orphanages we in effect charities. Perhaps scarcity of funds available were the cause of these burials. Perhaps these findings do not indicate any callousness or lack or respect for these unfortunate children and at the end of the day death is death and not experience by the person concerned.
I would suggest that it is unlikely here that these children were laid to rest without a few words being said over them in prayer.

What grounds do you have for thinking that paddy nuns in Scotland would have behaved more decently than their sisters in ireland?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/mass-grave-of-796-babies-found-in-septic-tank-at-catholic-orphanage-in-tuam-galway-30327483.html

i once collected the responsibility of burying a young child...

the local priest would not do the job as a parent was a prostitute
and the child unbaptised...
the parents asked me to perform a ceremony(help them), which i did...

(in the third world)

[saracene]

Post by abelard
(in the third world)

Was that Mars or Venus?

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by saracene

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
I would suggest that it is unlikely here that these children were laid to rest without a few words being said over them in prayer.

What grounds do you have for thinking that paddy nuns in Scotland would have behaved more decently than their sisters in ireland?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/mass-grave-of-796-babies-found-in-septic-tank-at-catholic-orphanage-in-tuam-galway-30327483.html

Let me say first that I have no real liking for closed religious orders on the grounds that any God who loves his people would not seek to boost his own esteem by demanding such devotion from them.

IMV closed orders are a product of the particular sect they serve.

In answer to your question, none!

I am not a catholic nor ever have been but there was a nunnery in the village where I once lived. They ran a nursery/infant school in a rambling old once CoE vicarage. This school has since closed and been replaced by a modern primary voluntary aided RC school built on a different site and now I believe functions as a care home for aged nuns.

I can never remember engaging any of them in conversation but met them often on the street or on buses, in shops etc. They struck me as very nice ladies always the first to great you with a smile and a "good morning" or "good evening" as appropriate.

I can't imagine any of them doing anything untoward.