Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Short Stories available for anyone to read
Forum rules
These posts are public, and will be searched by Google. If you want to maintain "First Worldwide Rights" on your story, post in the Short Stories (Member Only) forum. Story authors still retain ownership and copyright, either way.
User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Church and State and so much hate

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:03 am

In 1933, the Catholic Church had viewed the Nazis as a barrier to the spread of communism from Russia. In this year, Hitler and the Catholic Church signed an agreement that he would not interfere with the Catholic Church while the Church would not comment on politics. However, this only lasted until 1937, when Hitler started a concerted attack on the Catholic Church arresting priests etc. In 1937, the pope, Pius XI, issued his "Mit brennender Sorge" statement ("With burning anxiety") over what was going on in Germany. However, there was never a total clampdown on the Catholic Church in Germany. It was a world-wide movement with much international support.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ch ... ermany.htm

Strawman
does quote Nazis
when he can
so I bring in the Nazis.

If the Pope then opposed
the Nazis
and died then I suppose
the Catholic Church would be quite clean.

You will lean
on the fact
that the Pope is quite 'Human'
but what does that do
to
the almost inhuman
Catholic Dogma of Papal Infallibility
and inability
to err?

The errors
of the Catholic Church
wasn't solely committed in the Middle Ages
since this was very well in the Modern Age.

This Secular Age
thus diminishes the Relative Power
of the Church and limits abuse of Power.
In July 1933, the Nazis signed an agreement (Concordat) with the Catholic Church. The Vatican would accept the Nazi government in return for the Nazis not interfering with the Catholic Church. The Papal Nuncio, Eugenio Pacelli who signed the agreement was elected Pope Pius XII in 1939.

Pius XII remained silent throughout throughout the war although he had unrivalled knowledge of the treatment of Jews and other minorities. He did, however, attempt to save Christian converts.

This proved irrelevant because the Nazi definition of a Jew was racial and not religious. Nevertheless, certain individual priests and nuns risked everything and sometimes lost their lives saving Jews.
http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks ... 6VK1LGW670
The Church happily accommodated some of the cruellest rulers in history.

In recent centuries the Roman Church has always favoured authoritarian regimes that have allowed it privileges, while opposing liberal and democratic governments that have not. For example, in 1862 Pius IX concluded a concordat with the right-wing Roman Catholic President of Ecuador, who had achieved power through a coup against the liberal government. Roman Catholicism was to be the only religion permitted and was to be given a dominant role in the country's affairs. The Church was granted total control of education. This was the sort of arrangement that the Church would try to emulate wherever it could.

As it still does today, the Church felt itself competent to give direction on political matters. Pius IX forbade Roman Catholics from engaging in Italy's new democratic process, either as candidates or voters. Pius's successor, Leo XIII (pope 1878-1903), was a keen critic of socialism and other political theories. His successor, Pius X, who reigned between 1903 and 1914, consistently criticised and suppressed liberal and socialist influences. On the other hand he was exceedingly tolerant of right-wing groupings such as Action Française in France and Azione Cattolica in Italy. Pope Pius XI (pope 1922-1939) had equally clear ideas about the suitability of national governments. He was a fierce opponent of communism. Much more acceptable were the politics of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco, all of whom were Roman Catholics.

In 1928 Pius reached an easy accommodation with Mussolini, under which civil divorce was not to be permitted in Italy. Under the terms of a concordat the following year, priests in Italy who left the Church were to be penalised, for example by being precluded from certain jobs. Under the terms of the Lateran Treaty, the Pope recognised the state of Italy with Rome as its capital, getting in return the Vatican City as an independent state, an indemnity for the loss of the Papal States, and an undertaking that Roman Catholicism should be the state religion of Italy. Catholicism became the only recognised religion in Italy with monopoly control over areas like births, education, marriages and deaths. Mussolini described the Pope as a "good Italian", and the Pope described Mussolini as “a man sent by Providence”. He also declared that the treaty had "given Italy back to God". Pius must have been highly impressed by Mussolini's ability, since he encouraged him to use it by invading and colonising Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia) in 1935. One of the justifications for carrying out various atrocities including the use of poison gas was the that local attachment to Monophysite belief — an early form of Christianity regarded by the Catholic Church as heretical.

A Catholic political party “Catholic Action” was founded in Italy and emulated in Spain, Portugal and Croatia to promote Catholic and fascist interests. Extreme right wing movements were openly supported by the Catholic Church in Austria, Hungary and Slovakia. So too in the Republic of Ireland where the Blue Shirt Movement — modelled on Hitler's Brownshirts and Mussolini's Blackshirts — was dedicated equally to fascism and the Catholic Church, neither party regarding this as anything other than natural. Religious profession was part of the membership requirement. Blue Shirt volunteers fought for Franco during the Spanish Civil War.

Franco enjoyed the most cordial relations with the papacy. The Pope had denounced the separation of Church and State in Republican Spain and supported Franco when he started the Spanish Civil War in 1936. For his part Franco felt himself to have been appointed by God, and considered the civil war to be a holy war. A devout Christian, he persecuted atheists and habitually carried around the mummified arm of St Theresa of Ávila. He even granted the Blessed Virgin Mary the rank of Field Marshal in the Spanish army. The Roman Church supported Franco throughout. His overthrow of the elected government was hailed as La Crujada — “the Crusade”.

Anti Falangist propaganda in Spain clearly linked Christianity (represented by the bishop's mitre) with Nazism (represented by the swastica) and fascism (represented by the fasces-bomb, and with blood-shed and death.

When Franco won his holy Crujada, Pius XII (pope 1939-1958) sent him a telegram congratulating him on his "Catholic victory". Divorce became illegal, adultery became a criminal offence, and religious education was made compulsory, with the Church controlling the textbooks. Children had to be given at least one name with adequate religious connotations. Some 25,000 civil marriages were declared invalid. A concordat with the Vatican in 1953 made it illegal to publish works of religion or philosophy without the approval of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Hitler Youth Day Badge 1933] The Church had a slightly less easy time with Nazi Germany yet did not find too much difficulty with the relationship. In 1933 the Roman Catholic bishops in Germany, at a conference at Fulda, voted down a resolution critical of Nazism. Instead they issued a pastoral letter expressing gratitude to Hitler for his moral stance, their ideas of morality being concerned with matters like family planning and mixed bathing1. Like many other Christian leaders, Cardinal Faulhaber thought Hitler to be a good Christian, although he had doubts about some of his "evil associates".

In general, the Roman Church adopted a positive attitude towards Hitler's regime. As soon as he came to power in 1933 Rome advised that there would be no support for any policy of opposition. A concordat between Germany and Rome concluded in the same year reassured Roman Catholics that the German State was legitimate and acceptable. Pope Pius XI had little difficulty in negotiating his concordat with Nazi Germany. It followed an established authoritarian model of the Lateran treaties2. It explicitly documented the symbiotic relationship between Church and State, binding them together in the traditional manner. Article 16, for example, included a bishops" oath of loyalty to the State, and Article 30 a prayer for the Third Reich3. As a Roman Catholic himself, Hitler made basic decisions concerning the Roman Catholic Church personally, leaving the Protestant Churches to his Protestant colleagues. No Christian Church seriously opposed Hitler, and many supported him. Some even regarded him as a new redeemer, sent by God. In 1936 Hitler warned Cardinal Faulhaber that: "unless National Socialism gets the better of Bolshevism, all is up in Europe for Christianity and the Church"4.
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com ... litics.htm
Christianity breeds authoritarianism. Given that Christians claim to have the one true faith, to have a book that is the Word of God, and (in many cases) to receive guidance directly from God, they feel little or no compunction about using force and coercion to enforce "God's Will" (which they, of course, interpret and understand). Given that they believe (or pretend) that they’re receiving orders from the Almighty (who would cast them into hell should they disobey), it's little wonder that they feel no reluctance, and in fact are eager, to intrude into the most personal aspects of the lives of nonbelievers. This is most obvious today in the area of sex, with Christians attempting to deny women the right to abortion and to mandate near-useless abstinence-only sex "education" in the public schools. It's also obvious in the area of education, with Christians attempting to force biology teachers to teach their creation myth (but not those of Hindus, Native Americans, et al.) in place of (or as being equally valid as) the very well established theory of evolution. But the authoritarian tendencies of Christianity reach much further than this.

Up until well into the 20th century in the United States and other Christian countries (notably Ireland), Christian churches pressured governments into passing laws forbidding the sale and distribution of birth control devices, and they also managed to enact laws forbidding even the description of birth control devices. This assault on free speech was part and parcel of Christianity’s shameful history of attempting to suppress "indecent" and "subversive" materials (and to throw their producers in jail or burn them alive). This anti-free speech stance of Christianity dates back centuries, with the cases of Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno (who was burnt alive) being good illustrations of it. Perhaps the most colorful example of this intrusive Christian tendency toward censorship is the Catholic Church’s Index of Prohibited Books, which dates from the 16th century and which was abandoned only in the latter part of the 20th century—not because the church recognized it as a crime against human freedom, but because it could no longer be enforced (not that it was ever systematically enforced—that was too big a job even for the Inquisition).

Christian authoritarianism extends, however, far beyond attempts to suppress free speech; it extends even to attempts to suppress freedom of belief. In the 15th century, under Ferdinand and Isabella at about the time of Columbus's discovery of the New World, Spain's Jews were ordered either to convert to Christianity or to flee the country; about half chose exile, while those who remained, the "Conversos," were favorite targets of the Inquisition. A few years later, Spain's Muslims were forced to make a similar choice.

This Christian hatred of freedom of belief—and of individual freedom in general—extends to this day. Up until the late 19th century in England, atheists who had the temerity to openly advocate their beliefs were jailed. Even today in many parts of the United States laws still exist that forbid atheists from serving on juries or from holding public office. And it’s no mystery what the driving force is behind laws against victimless "crimes" such as nudity, sodomy, fornication, cohabitation, and prostitution.

If your nonintrusive beliefs or actions are not in accord with Christian "morality," you can bet that Christians will feel completely justified—not to mention righteous—in poking their noses
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html#numberfive
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

My Idealism is backed by Science

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:11 pm

Science may prove we are bad
but gladly
that isn't the case
and at any case
why adopt such a dour
and sour
position on our race?

Our race
will evolve and mature
to be more cooperative for sure
to ensure
long term survival
since survival
in an Interdependent World
that nobody fully understands
I understand
will require the Worldly
knowledge of many specialists
that would consult other specialists.

The potential for Humans
to become a Superorganism
is there if we lone organisms
would care to be part of the hive mind
that we might soon be able to find.
When it really comes down to it—when the chips are down and the lights are off—are we naturally good? That is, are we predisposed to act cooperatively, to help others even when it costs us? Or are we, in our hearts, selfish creatures?
This fundamental question about human nature has long provided fodder for discussion. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin proclaimed that all people were born broken and selfish, saved only through the power of divine intervention. Hobbes, too, argued that humans were savagely self-centered; however, he held that salvation came not through the divine, but through the social contract of civil law. On the other hand, philosophers such as Rousseau argued that people were born good, instinctively concerned with the welfare of others. More recently, these questions about human nature—selfishness and cooperation, defection and collaboration—have been brought to the public eye by game shows such as Survivor and the UK’s Golden Balls, which test the balance between selfishness and cooperation by pitting the strength of interpersonal bonds against the desire for large sums of money.
But even the most compelling televised collisions between selfishness and cooperation provide nothing but anecdotal evidence. And even the most eloquent philosophical arguments mean noting without empirical data.
A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively.
This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... after-all/
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

(Continued) same source as above and new material

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:31 pm

7 total experiments, using a whopping 2,068 participants—suggest that we are not intuitively selfish creatures. But does this mean that we our naturally cooperative? Or could it be that cooperation is our first instinct simply because it is rewarded? After all, we live in a world where it pays to play well with others: cooperating helps us make friends, gain social capital, and find social success in a wide range of domains. As one way of addressing this possibility, the experimenters carried out yet another study. In this study, they asked 341 participants from a nationwide sample about their daily interactions—specifically, whether or not these interactions were mainly cooperative; they found that the relationship between processing speed (that is, intuition) and cooperation only existed for those who reported having primarily cooperative interactions in daily life. This suggests that cooperation is the intuitive response only for those who routinely engage in interactions where this behavior is rewarded—that human “goodness” may result from the acquisition of a regularly rewarded trait.
Throughout the ages, people have wondered about the basic state of human nature—whether we are good or bad, cooperative or selfish. This question—one that is central to who we are—has been tackled by theologians and philosophers, presented to the public eye by television programs, and dominated the sleepless nights of both guilt-stricken villains and bewildered victims; now, it has also been addressed by scientific research. Although no single set of studies can provide a definitive answer—no matter how many experiments were conducted or participants were involved—this research suggests that our intuitive responses, or first instincts, tend to lead to cooperation rather than selfishness.
Although this evidence does not definitely solve the puzzle of human nature, it does give us evidence we may use to solve this puzzle for ourselves—and our solutions will likely vary according to how we define “human nature.” If human nature is something we must be born with, then we may be neither good nor bad, cooperative nor selfish. But if human nature is simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group even when it comes at our own personal expense.
I can defend my positions
with Scientific Evidence
and hence so far no evidence
exist for me to retract any of my positions.

If I do find that I'm wrong
then I'm happy to be wrong
since I learn something new.

Maybe holding to a religion
prevents the acquisition
of new
knowledge
since to my knowledge
many religious
people hold to their Security Blanket
that does get
to hide things from their eyes.

If their eyes
sees evidence
that detracts from their faith,
the evidence
must be discarded in favor of faith.

My faith
in Humanity isn't quite blind faith.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 13/?page=2
The Yale Infant Cognition Center is particularly interested in one of the most exalted social functions: ethical judgments, and whether babies are hard-wired to make them. The lab’s initial study along these lines, published in 2007 in the journal Nature, startled the scientific world by showing that in a series of simple morality plays, 6- and 10-month-olds overwhelmingly preferred “good guys” to “bad guys.” “This capacity may serve as the foundation for moral thought and action,” the authors wrote. It “may form an essential basis for...more abstract concepts of right and wrong.”

The last few years produced a spate of related studies hinting that, far from being born a “perfect idiot,” as Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued, or a selfish brute, as Thomas Hobbes feared, a child arrives in the world provisioned with rich, broadly pro-social tendencies and seems predisposed to care about other people. Children can tell, to an extent, what is good and bad, and often act in an altruistic fashion. “Giving Leads to Happiness in Young Children,” a study of under-2-year-olds concluded. “Babies Know What’s Fair” was the upshot of another study, of 19- and 21-month-olds. Toddlers, the new literature suggests, are particularly equitable. They are natural helpers, aiding distressed others at a cost to themselves, growing concerned if someone shreds another person’s artwork and divvying up earnings after a shared task, whether the spoils take the form of detested rye bread or precious Gummy Bears.

This all sounds like cheering news for humanity, especially parents who nervously chant “share, share, share”
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Dogmatic Positions are sometimes untenable

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:28 pm

http://www.uie.com/articles/failure_not_an_option/
"Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgments."

"Experience is the name everyone gives their mistakes."
The Scientific Method is a wonderful tool as long as you don't care which way the outcome turns; however, this process fails the second one's perception interferes with the interpretation of data. This is why I don’t take anything in life as an absolute…even if someone can “prove” it “scientifically.
Cristina Marrero
I'm happy to be wrong
since I don't have a Dogmatic
Position to automatically
defend and being wrong
is part of life and the Scientific Method.

While many people of Faith
hold the Scientific Method
in high regard I can't give Faith
a similar status since Faith
does seem to contradict reason
in many cases.

In any case
I'm reasonable
and I expect reasonable
disagreement will forever exists
between Theist
and Atheists
due to
incompatible Worldviews.

I don't have the Christian
Worldview
but understand
the abovementioned Worldview
hence Christians
must understand
my Worldview
and I do stand
by my Worldview.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

I can ruin your faith...

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:48 pm

I don't really need to be save
and I don't want to be saved.

I can't suspend disbelief
to believe
in a Deity and hence leave
my beliefs
as they are since it maybe futile
to debate
this topic any further at any rate.

I similarly acknowledge the futility
of trying to deconvert Strawman
even if I do the best that I can
to really ruin his cherished assumptions
and I do really assume
that in the end
we still are friends.

I may have deconverted a few
but in my view
I was simply trying to defend my views.
Although many Christians insist that they believe in the Bible because it is the Truth, I’ve noticed that many of them ask me, “What’s the harm? Why do you have to fight against Christianity? Even if you're against it -- doesn't it do a lot of good in the world?” It’s almost like someone asking someone who is trying to stop the movie in a theatre, “What’s the harm? Why can’t you let people enjoy their film? They’re decent people, living good lives, and the film encourages them. Why would you want to take such a beautiful film away?”

Indeed, many atheists have this attitude. They see Christianity as a relatively harmless fairy tale. Sometimes they go to church, sing Christian songs, enjoy a sermon. Indeed, the number of people who do this may be larger than those who claim to be nonreligious. Craig Goeschel has a book out called CHRISTIAN ATHEIST that is meant to berate Christians for not being true to their convictions, but there is actually a real religious affiliation of Christian Atheists who think the Bible is a fairy tale, but who live according to its commands and see great value in its symbolism nonetheless.

So why would I fight Christianity? Because of how extensively the fairy tale comes into contact with reality. Many nonbelievers, like Richard Dawkins and, more diplomatically, Neil Degrasse Tyson, say that they don’t mind people being religious as long as they keep it to themselves – that is, as long as what nonbelievers see as fantastic beliefs aren’t applied to the real world. In essence – you may be able to close your eyes and drive a car using the force in your dreams and in your imagination in a movie theatre, but the moment you start doing that on the road, we’re going to have an issue.

The main place I fight Christianity, then, is where its exaltation of faith comes into contact with the real world. This is why I wrote notes like the one about 101 things about Christianity that make me angry – these are points in which Christianity comes into contact with the “real world” in destructive ways. The reason I am so against Christianity wholesale is because its premise is that all men are depraved and can only be saved through faith in the Bible’s God. If that were in one’s imagination, that’s one thing. But applied to the real world, I think you have rather disastrous consequences.
http://barrierbreaker.hubpages.com/hub/ ... ospel-away
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Strange sex tales of Catholic Priests in my Strange Country

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:28 pm

If only these horny Catholic Priests
did at least
use a rubber thing
then they wouldn't have to bring
children to this World
that the World
might consider illegitimate
at any rate.

I heard of rumors
like these when I was young
and seeing these rumors
had basis while young
made my leaving the Church
quite easy.

The Catholic Church
easily
keeps stuff like these under the rug
and it bugs
me that the Church
needs to deny Human Priests
even the least
sinful sex between married couples
that more than a couple
of Christian
Churches now
do somehow
allow.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/06/17/ ... pt-secrets
Citing sources, Rufo said almost one-third of Pampanga’s more than 100 priests had or have illicit relationships.

Instead of shunning the priests and giving them the boot, however, the community there appears to have given them the support, with the number of church-goers even rising to hear them deliver their homilies.

“Kapampangans are known for their deep religiosity, loving and spoiling their priests to a fault,” Rufo said. He interviewed several lay leaders who said the supposed misdeeds of priests are downplayed just because “we look up to our religious leaders.”

He cited, for example, the case of Father Crispin Cadiang who later asked to be discharged from his priestly duties after admitting to siring two children. Cadiang then said he was surprised “when people hearing mass increased in my parish…The people’s show of support was very encouraging.”

There’s also the case of Ed Panlilio, who first made headlines when he challenged the big named politicians in Pampanga. Asked by members of the Jesus is Lord Movement prior to his gubernatorial bid in 2007 if he had affairs with women and fathered a child or two, Panlilio only said: “I have had my mistakes. Who does not?”

Wrong signal

Rufo, citing an interview with Archbishop Emeritus Oscar Cruz, said the nonchalance of Kapampangans may be giving a wrong signal to priests.

“This hands-off culture, prevalent in Pampanga, only prodded other priests to violate their celibacy vow. It was like a virus that surreptitiously infected others,” he said.
If there were those who raised hell, they were only in the minority, Rufo said.

Such was the case of a layman who filed a complaint against Father Jeffrey Maghirang of the Metropolitan Cathedral San Fernando in October 2011. The layman accused Maghirang of having an affair with his wife.

San Fernando, Pampanga Bishop Paciano Aniceto got wind of the complaint, but downplayed the situation like all other cases there, Rufo said. The case was later dismissed for lack of evidence.

“[To the] complainant, it did not matter anymore. When we visited him a few months after his case was junked, he said he was in the process of moving on. This meant separating from his wife, having custody of their child and vowing to keep track of Maghirang’s movements,” the book says.

Skeletons in the closet

The book exposes many more secrets of the Catholic Church, which remains mum on the reports.

There’s the story of the protégés of the late Manila Cardinal Jaime Sin – Bishop Teodoro Bacani and Bishop Crisostomo Yalung – who left their duties after being embroiled in scandals. The latter, after supposedly having an affair with a young woman and allegedly using the church’s coffers to care for their child, is now in Sacramento, California.

“Within the Church, two factions emerged: one pushed to sweep the scandal under the rug while another group argued the Church should come clean. Those who favored secrecy won,” Rufo said.

There’s also the case of Malolos Bishop Cirilo Almario who was allegedly involved in the “carnal corruption of several young seminarians…[Almario] and several priests were reportedly involved.”

It was the then Papal Nuncio who ordered Almario’s removal from the post.

Still, “the secrecy and the confidentiality somehow worked. Long time priests in Malolos we talked to said they were not aware of the scandal. Current Malolos Bishop Jose Oliveros…also said he was not aware of the incident. It was as if it never happened,” Rufo said.

In his book, Rufo tried to answer the issue of secrecy in the church.

Shame

He said there is a guideline in handling sexual abuses and scandals, but this is just paper tiger – imposing but ineffective. “The Church law says that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith may, at its own discretion, conduct an inquiry itself or guide the bishop on how to proceed with the case,” he said.

What about the victims?

The book says the stigma of shame, coupled with the influence of the church lording over the laity, almost always leads to the incident being swept under the rug.

“Most of the victims do not feel pain or violence during the moment of abuse. It is at a much later time, when one understands fully the harmful effects, that one begins to talk. When the abuser is from the clergy or religious, the culture tends to remain silent because accusing a religious person imbued culturally with holiness and divine authority can disturb the peace of society.”
Clerical marriage is the practice of allowing clergy to marry, a practice not to be confused with that of allowing married persons to become clergy. Clerical marriage is admitted in Protestantism, Anglicanism, Independent Catholic Churches, Judaism, Islam, and the Japanese sects of Buddhism. The Roman Catholic Church, while allowing married men to be ordained (only exceptionally in its Western form but more commonly in the Eastern Catholic Churches), also excludes clerical marriage.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_marriage
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Christian Arrogance

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:21 pm

I'm not a Communist
or a Nazi even if I'm an Atheist.

I'm Capitalist
as perhaps the most free market
supporter out there can get
and I really despise the Nazis.

My vision is grounded on facts
unlike the Nazis
and the Communists
and unlike in fact
the Theist
that groundlessly associate Atheists
with both Nazis and Communists.

There are moral Atheists
whose integrity might be better than Theists.

Why keep associating Atheists
that live moral
lives with immoral
ideologies that might have more in common
with religion.

Religion
like Communism
and Nazism
had Dogmatic Assertions
that were beyond question.
Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality. It's only natural that those who believe (or play act at believing) that they have a direct line to the Almighty would feel superior to others. This is so obvious that it needs little elaboration. A brief look at religious terminology confirms it. Christians have often called themselves "God's people," "the chosen people," "the elect," "the righteous," etc., while nonbelievers have been labeled "heathens," "infidels," and "atheistic Communists" (as if atheism and Communism are intimately connected). This sets up a two-tiered division of humanity, in which "God's people" feel superior to those who are not "God’s people."

That many competing religions with contradictory beliefs make the same claim seems not to matter at all to the members of the various sects that claim to be the only carriers of "the true faith." The carnage that results when two competing sects of "God’s people" collide—as in Ireland and Palestine—would be quite amusing but for the suffering it causes.
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html#numberfive
Political religious organizations, such as the Nazi Party, held strong to the idealization of cultural and political power over the country at large. The church body of the state no longer held control over the practices of religious identity. For example, Nazism is situated into this base meaning, and therefore was countered by many political and religious organizations as being a political religion, based on the dominate encasing which the Nazi regime had over the religion and population
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_religion
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Buddhist Nirvana or nonexistence is better than Heaven

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:16 pm

It's best to make the most of this life
than bet on an illusive afterlife.

I already ruined
Gods Plan
or God planned
for me to ruin
his Perfect Plan
that I plan
to keep on ruining.

Predestination maybe at work
and irony does work
at poking holes
at God's Holy
Plan.

I plan
to live a moral life without God
and God
maybe there but I haven't heard
a single word
from God.

Hell
at any rate may very well
be where the Free Thinkers
are and Heaven might really stink
but that isn't just what I do think.

http://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk ... vangelical Christians often tell people that God has a plan for them and that they should just follow his plan. Aside from the obvious fact that God doesn’t exist, even if he did, that advice would still be problematic.
First, God apparently has horrible communication skills. He can’t seem to relay his plan to anyone. All we have about his alleged plan is this crappy book series written cryptically by anonymous sheep herders in the bronze-age. You could justify anything with the Bible. Numbers 31: 17-18 justifies rape and genocide and yet I don’t even hear the GOP advocating either of those things… although admittedly they do come pretty close.
Also, if God had a perfect plan, then any deviation from that plan would mess up the entire plan. So giving people the advice that they ought to follow God’s plan for them is kind of silly. I choose not to follow God’s plan, so as a result I fucked up God’s plan for you already.
But what if God planned for me to not follow his plan? That’s a good question but it would mean that God planned for me to be tortured for all eternity and that destroys the claim that I “chose” to live a life of sin rebelling against God. God planned for me to rebel all along and I then had no choice in the matter just as the Christian would have no choice by to follow God’s plan. So the advice is still meaningless and now it’s cruel too.
Besides, what exactly is God’s plan? Did anyone bother to read the fine print? If you follow the alleged plan of God and if the conclusion of that plan is that you will end up in Heavenly bliss, you should really reconsider that plan because if you read the fine print it sucks.
First of all, eternity is a pretty long time. I don’t think Christians really realize just how long eternity is. Second, bliss for God is kissing his ass. Yeah, that is what you will be doing for all eternity. Even if that were a fun thing to do and I really don’t think it is, how long can you really kiss God’s ass before it gets pretty boring? After a few thousand years that shit gets old. After a million years you would probably be suicidal except that when you do kill yourself, you will end up right back kissing God’s ass again… for eternity!
I could of course go on about how horrible Heaven is according to the Bible, but I think you get my point. If you actually believe God is real and that Heaven is as described in the Bible, then it is pretty clear that God’s plan for you sucks ass. The good news is that it is all make believe anyway. My plan for you is to live your life. Find what you like to do in life and do it. Be good to others and enjoy your life.[/quote]
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

So Much Church interference in State Matters

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:59 pm

For almost 15 years, activists have tried to legalize family planning options for Filipinos. Although more than 80 percent of Filipinos are Catholic, a survey conducted in 2007 revealed that the vast majority of the country’s population believe that it is important to manage fertility and plan their family. Close to 90 percent believe that the government should provide budgetary support for modern artificial methods of family planning, including the contraceptive pill, intra-uterine devices (IUDs), condoms, ligation, and vasectomy.
The majority of Filipinos are for the bill, according to Red Tani, President of the atheist organization Filipino Freethinkers, with only seven percent – "a noisy minority" – against it. "It might seem that there is actual controversy, but this issue has been decided on a national level for quite awhile now," says Tani.
The widespread support for the bill shows there is no such thing as a Catholic block vote, but the perception of one scares legislators away from voting in favor of it. "Congressmen are also harassed by bishops who warn that that they will not support them or their move for re-election if they vote on the bill." Tani says that the CBCP wants to demonize the bill by saying it allows abortion. But according to the facts, abortion will remain illegal and the bill could help reduce the number of abortions.
Despite over three decades of efforts to reduce population growth in the Philippines, the United Nations Population Fund has found that fertility levels remain high, especially in poor families. They UN says this reflects the unmet demand for family planning among Philippine citizens. At the moment the availability of not only contraceptives, but also educational programs is vary scarce due to an executive order in Manila.

The Reproductive Health Bill would promote family planning
Loss of Moral Leadership

A further aspect weighing heavy on the church’s shoulders is that it has accepted donations from the state lottery which is funded through legalized gambling while at the same time being openly opposed to gambling. Lagman believes the church is being hypocritical and that it has now become a question of double standards and morals. "People will think twice before following the position of the church because they are losing their moral ascendancy."
Tani believes that the Philippine Catholic Church has become its own downfall. "They have no right to legislate their morality on the entire country when they themselves have elements of corruption and deception," says Tani. "The people have lost trust in them…They are proposing as a solution to poverty fixing corruption or removing corruption from the government, which is very hypocritical because as the recent scandal shows, they themselves have corruption in their own backyard."
Other recent scandals in the country's Catholic Church have exposed that the church is one of the richest organizations in the Philippines, with 18 billion pesos (almost 300 million euros) in stocks in public companies. Tani accuses the church of supposedly being for the poor but doing as little as possible to help them.
All of this, combined with a perceived violation of church and state and uninvestigated child abuse scandals leads to what Lagman calls a decline of "moral leadership" of the church.
http://www.dw.de/catholic-church-spendi ... /a-6573405

Was it God's
plan for our Catholic country
to remain a poor country?

Many Catholic Nations
suffer from overpopulation
due to a lack of affordable contraception.

We lost a decade due to vocal Christians
and the Christians
were dogmatic
despite evidence that a proplylactic
will prevent abortions
in our poor nation.

The lower classes
do have more kids than the middle classes
and a lack of affordable contraception
maybe at the root of poverty
in many
Catholic Nations.

Christians must focus on the greater
evil
of poverty
and not the lesser
evil
of sexuality
when evil
is defined as suffering.
The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10354), informally known as the Reproductive Health Law or RH Law, is a law in the Philippines, which guarantees universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and maternal care.

While there is general agreement about its provisions on maternal and child health, there is great debate on its mandate that the Philippine government and the private sector will fund and undertake widespread distribution of family planning devices such as condoms, birth control pills, and IUDs, as the government continues to disseminate information on their use through all health care centers.

Passage of the legislation was controversial and highly divisive, with experts, academics, religious institutions, and major political figures declaring their support or opposition while it was pending in the legislature. Heated debates and rallies both supporting and opposing the RH Bill took place nationwide.

The Supreme Court delayed implementation of the law in March 2013 in response to challenges. On April 8, 2014, the Court ruled that the law was "not unconstitutional" but struck down eight provisions partially or in full.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsi ... ct_of_2012
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Defending the Iron Cage of Secular Bureaucracies

Post by secretnude » Sun Jun 22, 2014 2:33 am

It is important to understand that this basic mode of organization is a hallmark of modernity and it is, on balance, a very good thing.  The alternative is a system of ad hoc rules and one that employs people based on patronage or family ties. We should want dispassionate, properly trained functionaries following established rules doing basic administration work.
To restate:  do you want the rules at the DMV to be arbitrary?  That is to say do you want them just made up the rules on the spot, dependent on whom is working that day and what their mood is?  Do you want driver’s licenses issue on a wholly ad hoc system of qualification?  Do you want people who do safety inspections on airplanes to actually know what they are doing or do you want them getting the job because Uncle Bob got to hire whomever he pleased?
Of course, dispassionate bureaucrats who follow the rules can be massively frustrating when we have a problem, don’t understand the rules, and/or are in a hurry.  When we have a problem with the DMV (or our insurance company) we don’t want the rules, we want “common sense” in a way that solves our problem the way we want it solved.  Of course, depending on the situation, the solution that we want may not comport with the rules (and perhaps for very good reasons) and that can be extremely frustrating (and yes, sometimes the rules are dumb).  What we forget, however, is that complex organizations (even relatively small ones like your doctor’s office) cannot make up the rules on the fly and tailor every experience to the individual (if not idiosyncratic) needs of a given client.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/in-def ... reaucracy/

We in the Philippines have trouble
keeping within the Iron Cage
of Modernity and do engage
in quite troublesome
acts of corruption.

Where corruption
is low, the rules apply to fairly to all
which you might recall
is Max Weber's Iron Cage.

The Iron Cage
thus is a fair cage
and makes everyone
suffer equally for everyone's
benefit.

In the Philippines, some do benefit
from immature Bureaucracies
where many rules are bent
for the rich that can bribe
and bribery
is indeed a corruption of the rules
that are maybe quite fair rules
that indeed must apply to all fairly.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Sun Jun 22, 2014 2:48 am

I tell you the truth.
I would not be alive except that there is a God who loves me.
I was trapped in a world of self-centeredness, not looking for God.
If I woke up because someone was praying for me I can't tell; but I was not praying for myself, because God didn't exist for me other than as a second-hand memory.

You can have your scientific studies. The Soviet Union was full of scientific studies. You claim to know on the basis of a study. I know because I have experienced my own hidden depravity. I know myself, and I am fundamentally flawed.

I do not judge you. For all your statements to the contrary, you are like I was. You're honest enough to admit that you have no empathy for my Downs Syndrome brother. But even as I felt love for my brother, I can't believe some of the ways I abused him as a child because I was stronger and smarter, and an ignorant child.

I pray that one day you will experience the love of your Father. I finally couldn't stand to live without knowing that there is meaning and purpose to the gift of consciousness that woke up my dust, and that our Maker loves us.

I don't know if I am right or wrong about this, but I will tell you because it's true. I feel that I have tried to be a friend to you, and to respect our differences. But I do not feel that you have reciprocated. You have poured out a veritable flood of contemptuous agenda-filled atheist talking points. Whether I have posted or not, you seem to relish insulting Christians, with sarcasm, using all the wit and imagination at your disposable to shit from morning to night on what is Holy to the majority of people in both our countries.

Now, like my brother, everyone has disabilities. And I should not judge high-function Aspergers people with brain tumors, from an emotionally abusive family, as being responsible for their blindness.

Still, I know that what you say is causing me to feel smeared.

I didn't have to tell you any of this. Most people would just stop responding, and ignore you. But I wanted to let you know, just in case you have others in your life who have just stopped responding and ignored you, that ...

this, too, is proof of the fundamental flaw.
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

I was merely reacting to your Evangelism

Post by secretnude » Sun Jun 22, 2014 3:18 am

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismathe ... ngeliz.htm
Christians write posts to atheists online with the sole purpose of proselytizing. Atheists are treated not as human beings worthy of equal consideration, but as targets — almost as if they are being hunted. It shouldn't be a surprise when atheists find this annoying and complain.
I apologize
if I wasn't nice
and I do lack empathic abilities.

I was reacting to your evangelical
tendencies.

If you don't push faith
on me I won't push my lack of faith.

I don't hate
you or Christians personally
perhaps only intellectually.

This discussion
was Newton's Third Law of Motion
in action.

I understand your emotional reasons
for wanting to save.

However, I don't want to be saved.

I find it insulting to be an object
for salvation
since I already rejected
salvation.

Thank you for the discussion
and I hope to continue this interaction
perhaps with less tension.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswith ... n-atheist/
Take seriously that atheists are atheists and not just nominal believers. When atheists have strong intellectual and, even, emotional aversions to the Christian faith, this is not because we “are mad at God”. It’s because they really really don’t believe in God and Christianity. If we are mad, we are mad at the pernicious influence of both bad Christians and what we think are bad Christian ideas. It does no good to just quote the Bible at us. We are completely impervious to that. Not to be harsh–but it only makes me feel like laughing and pitying you when you quote the bible at me with an air of authority demanding that I quaver before God’s might. Unlike nominal believers, deep down we atheists just don’t find the Bible compelling. We do not believe it is authoritative. A lot of us think it’s wicked. And we already know plenty about the Gospel.  If you want to engage us, you have to meet our objections to it. Many of us were formerly as devout as you are. Almost all of us grew up in a culture saturated with Christianity. Atheists score higher on religious literacy tests than Christians do.
...
Loving people means more than just saving them. If you’re turning another person into a project, stop it. Treat them like your peer and not someone to be manipulated and shaped for their own good against their knowledge.
You don’t know what is best for them. If you believe God is in control, let God figure out what you would best provide some particular person. I know a once anti-theist atheist who spent a year or so just meeting weekly with a Christian pastor just to talk freely, with no motives of converting anyone. The atheist came away still an atheist but was now drastically more sympathetic to Christians and more hostile to anti-theist atheists. He probably would not have shown up to even two meetings had he sensed the pastor had an agenda to make him change his faith and let that permeate their interactions.
You just sow the seeds. Some will fall on rocky ground. Some on the path. Some on fertile ground and grow. Don’t worry about the results. If you believe in Jesus, that’s his job, not yours.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

I take full responsibility for my morality perhaps unlike u

Post by secretnude » Sun Jun 22, 2014 3:31 am

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2 ... d.html?m=1
Theists claim that atheists don't want the responsibility and moral obligation of dealing with rules and morality. When, in fact, it is the atheist who must own his own ideas and actions and has no god to blame, only himself. From this day forward, you are a responsible human being in a way you probably never imagined.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismathe ... sMoral.htm
based on the assumption that the only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a reason reject atheism and convert to Christianity.

First, it must be noted that there is no logical connection between this argument's premises and conclusion — it's not a valid argument. Even if we accept that it's true that there is no point in being moral if there is no God, this wouldn't be an argument against atheism in the sense of showing that atheism isn't true, rational, or justified.
The Brain Tumor wasn't detectable
in the last MRI and I'm able
to attribute that to Science and not Religion.

I respect Religion
but the tension
as in my previous
post is when people of religion
assume everyone that needs religion.

Your religion
is your business
and my religion
is none of your business.

I'm flawed but I don't need
a higher
power
that most people suppose I need.

I accept full responsibility
for my actions
and I am responsible
solely for my actions
unlike those that attribute
their cute
morality to a Deity
like that
of the Cosmic Cat.

http://infidels.org/library/historical/ ... itute.html
On the whole, the Old Testament cannot be considered a moral guide.

Jehovah was not a moral God. He had all the vices, and he lacked all the virtues. He generally carried out his threats, but he never faithfully kept a promise.

At the same time, we must remember that the Old Testament is a natural production, that it was written by savages who were slowly crawling toward the light. We must give them credit for the noble things they said, and we must be charitable enough to excuse their faults and even their crimes.

I know that many Christians regard the Old Testament as the foundation and the New as the superstructure, and while many admit that there are faults and mistakes in the Old Testament, they insist that the New is the flower and perfect fruit.

I admit that there are many good things in the New Testament, and if we take from that book the dogmas, of eternal pain, of infinite revenge, of the atonement, of human sacrifice, of the necessity of shedding blood; if we throw away the doctrine of non-resistance, of loving enemies, the idea that prosperity is the result of wickedness, that Poverty is a preparation for Paradise, if we throw all these away and take the good, sensible passages, applicable to conduct, then we can make a fairly good moral guide, -- narrow, but moral.

Of course, many important things would be left out. You would have nothing about human rights, nothing in favor of the family, nothing for education, nothing for investigation, for thought and reason, but still you would have a fairly good moral guide.

On the other hand, if you would take the foolish passages, the extreme ones, you could make a creed that would satisfy an insane asylum.

If you take the cruel passages, the verses that inculcate eternal hatred, verses that writhe and hiss like serpents, you can make a creed that would shock the heart of a hyena.

It may be that no book contains better passages than the New Testament, but certainly no book contains worse.

Below the blossom of love you find the thorn of hatred; on the lips that kiss, you find the poison of the cobra.

The Bible is not a moral guide.

Any man who follows faithfully all its teachings is an enemy of society and will probably end his days in a prison or an asylum.

What is morality?

In this world we need certain things. We have many wants. We are exposed to many dangers. We need food, fuel, raiment and shelter, and besides these wants, there is, what may be called, the hunger of the mind.

We are conditioned beings, and our happiness depends upon conditions. There are certain things that diminish, certain things that increase, well-being. There are certain things that destroy and there are others that preserve.

Happiness, including its highest forms, is after all the only good, and everything, the result of which is to produce or secure happiness, is good, that is to say, moral. Everything that destroys or diminishes well-being is bad, that is to say, immoral. In other words, all that is good is moral, and all that is bad is immoral.

What then is, or can be called, a moral guide? The shortest possible answer is one word: Intelligence.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Evangelicals are extremely annoying

Post by secretnude » Sun Jun 22, 2014 3:45 am

evangelical
christians who like to argue and force their ideas of religion on others. sometimes resulting in violence and always voice raising.
Dude, that chick is so fucking evangelical!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... cal&page=2

I often have wondered why you persist
on converting
me when I do insist
that I don't need to be converted.

If its a sign that Strawman cares
thank you but I already dared
to warn you as before
that the topic of conversion
shouldn't be mentioned
anymore.

Any more
attempt to convert
maybe futile
and the futility
should be
obvious to you
since I do respect your
intelligence.

Please respect my intelligence
and try not to be Evangelical
even if practically
that will abandon a tenet
of your faith
but that tenet
is what I do really quite hate.
“Do you seriously expect non-Christians to behave like Christians?”


Think it through.

Most people in the West no longer consider themselves Christian.

Or even if they use the term “Christian” to describe themselves, few believe in the authority of scripture or profess a personal faith in Jesus Christ.

So why would we expect them to behave like Christians? Why would we expect people who don’t profess to be Christians to:

Wait until marriage to have sex?

Clean up their language?

Be celibate when they’re attracted to people of the same sex?

Pass laws like the entire nation was Christian?

Seriously? Why?

They’re not pretending to be Christians. Why would they adopt Christian values or morals?

Please don’t get me wrong.

I’m a pastor. I completely believe that the Jesus is not only the Way, but that God’s way is the best way.

When you follow biblical teachings about how to live life, your life simply goes better. It just does. I 100% agree.

I do everything I personally can to align my life with the teachings of scripture, and I’m passionate about helping every follower of Christ do the same.

But what’s the logic behind judging people who don’t follow Jesus for behaving like people who don’t follow Jesus?
http://careynieuwhof.com/2013/02/why-ch ... oral-hook/
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Life isn't Dark without that Cosmic Cat

Post by secretnude » Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:20 am

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/
"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now." - Madalyn O'Hair
I do respect people of Religion
that keeps their Religion
to themselves.

I would have kept my lack of Religion
mostly to myself
but the Evangelism of Strawman
made me express my views
since I can
defend my views
to a hilt.

I hope to tilt
the discussions here from personal
issues to more controversial views
that are still heretical
keeping in mind
that heretical views
are hard to find
and that I'm a heretic
that's very well
fine with hell.

I'm quite well
and happy
to be an Atheist.

I wish that Theists
can be
also happy
for me.
The universe can be a horribly cruel and pitiless place in which to find yourself. Many people live horrible and short lives or horrible and long lives and never know love, comfort, or compassion from another human being. Be very glad you aren't one of those, and think about how you might feel if you were. Consider if that is sufficient to motivate you to want to help—knowing that no god is going to fix it, and only other people can lend a hand. To me, that puts, again, greater responsibility upon us all to do what we can to help other people. We can't suggest they suffer for some divine reason, or that they will have a better reward someday. We must own up and step up. If they suffer for reasons we can alleviate, then they suffer due to our lack of compassion and assistance. And we help them with the knowledge that if we need assistance, most often other people will be there to help us in a similar fashion, because—thank evolution—most social animals really are biologically driven to care about group welfare.
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2 ... d.html?m=1
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Actually Glad that we had this Discussion... let us move on

Post by secretnude » Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:44 am

I may have very well become a New Atheist
but it was in reaction
to Theist
actions.

I embrace my identity
as a New Atheist
and take full responsibility
for the content here.

I initially did fear
censorship
but censorship
seems to be almost absent here
and I'm actually glad
to have discussions that sadly
others may take badly.

Once again if any one is hurt
I didn't intend to hurt
and some Truths
do hurt.

The Catholic Church
kept some Truths
hidden and that is a fact.

I do actually wish the Catholic Church
good and that's a fact.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Live and let Live

Post by secretnude » Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:07 am

http://infidels.org/library/modern/evan ... spair.html
Optimism, often flying the banner of secular humanism, sees humanity as the master of its own fate. Often, it also sees humanity as the author of the moral law. This no doubt adds color to the charge, so often laid at humanism's feet, that it cannot explain or justify the objectivity of moral values. Now it is a mistake to think that morality is a matter of mere human invention or convention; but it is equally a mistake to think that morality can have no objective basis apart from the will of God.

That God plays no essential role in most objectivist theories of ethics is hardly news. The theory I favor is a form of naturalism. All complexities aside, there are certain moral truths that apply universally in virtue of certain universal facts about human beings: about our fundamental needs, desires, abilities, and natural ends. We are fundamentally social beings. Many of our personal ends can best be achieved, or can only be achieved, through cooperation with others. These facts, though some of them concern our mental states, are quite objective facts about human nature. They determine, in many respects, how it is rational for human beings to treat one another; and, because we are among other things rational beings, these reasons become reasons for us.
I may not be able to reciprocate
since at any rate
I don't know what you want
and I don't have the empathic
capacity to determine what
you want
empathically.

An emotional rapport maybe
impossible
and intellectual agreement maybe
also impossible.

I'm not your project
and don't project
your
life on me
since you
don't really know me.

I'm writing
as much as I can
since I might soon be working
again
as soon as I stop taking
the drugs that I'm currently taking.

Life
without God isn't life
without hope
and I hope
you let me live my life.
strawman wrote: I feel that I have tried to be a friend to you, and to respect our differences. But I do not feel that you have reciprocated. You have poured out a veritable flood of contemptuous agenda-filled atheist talking points. Whether I have posted or not, you seem to relish insulting Christians, with sarcasm, using all the wit and imagination at your disposable to shit from morning to night on what is Holy to the majority of people in both our country
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

I hope this makes things very clear

Post by secretnude » Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:42 am

I just like the Christians out there
to consider that there
are people who are fine
without the Divine.

I'm an Atheist
and hence do expect from me Atheist
talking points
that might disappoint
a die hard Christian.

However, I would like to point
that I normally keep all this to myself
and I'm defending myself
from a certain
Christian
that does wish he can
convert me.

If time
was spent on more productive
matters than trying to convert me
I would be more productive
with fictional
poetry rather than a fictional
God that
might just be the Cosmic Cat.
Dr. Boghossian argues that faith-based processes are unreliable and unlikely to lead one to the truth. Since our goal as knowers is to have more true beliefs than false ones, faith, as a process for getting to the truth, should be abandoned in favor of other, more reliable processes. The talk was followed by a question and answer session from the audience.

There are many bad ways of discovering truth about the way the world works like divination, dowsing, sacrificing animals, and lucky guesses. And most people—even people of faith—would agree that these are poor and unreliable. Faith, says Dr. Boghossian, is like these other methods and should be discarded on the same grounds. He shows how the practices of various religious traditions have been shown using the methods of science to be ineffective and lead their practitioners to false conclusions. When confronted with the discomforting evidence, people of faith tend to shift their claim from, “my faith is true” to “my faith is useful.” But this isn’t a valid move argues Boghossian.

In this powerful presentation, professor Boghossian is not interested merely in tearing down faith but in demonstrating how a life guided by reason and evidence can be so much richer and more fulfilling.

Copyright © 2012 by Peter Boghossian and Philosophy News
http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2012 ... ay-No.aspx
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

I am not a Sinner needing Salvation

Post by secretnude » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:29 am

strawman wrote:I have experienced my own hidden depravity. I know myself, and I am fundamentally flawed..
...
Now, like my brother, everyone has disabilities. And I should not judge high-function Aspergers people with brain tumors, from an emotionally abusive family, as being responsible for their blindness
http://www.tacanow.org/about-autism/fac ... -syndrome/
The new DSM-V proposes to remove the diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome but when reading the new diagnostic criteria, you may realize you/your child no longer fits the definition of Autism Spectrum Disorder and may, or may not, meet the criteria for a new diagnosis called Social Communication Disorder – which has no therapies, treatments, programs or insurance coverage.
I'm not blind
to my defects
and in effect
I do find
that you do make a judgement
by virtue of that comment.

I know I'm defective but I'm not depraved.

I don't need to be saved.

I may be unfixable
since Asperger's isn't curable.

However,
to judge me from our interactions
when I do know myself
better
than you know my inner-self
maybe a from of self-deception
that's a creation
of your need
to fix people indeed.

Christians are simply very annoying.

I do find extremely annoying
assumption that we Atheists are sinners.

Christians are a bunch of whiners.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:38 am

Fine, but for one thing. I have not tried to save you or change you, only told you my personal view. When we talk about why we have those views, all is well. You imputed evangelical characteristics to me which I do not have. So my offense was imaginary. I never told you the things that you say evangelicals do.

Like telling Obama why he's wrong to like Hip Hop, certain that he likes Hip Hop and watermelon because he's black. In that case it's considered a form of racism. More accurately, it's prejudice - judging without evidence, based on categorizing people by tropes.

If I did not "try to convert you", then your attitude is left standing there swinging, by itself, claiming that
a life guided by reason and evidence can be so much richer and more fulfilling.
I have been friendly to you through a mutual interest in strange stories for strange listeners. We usually don't have problems with people who share our appreciation for the strangeness of existence. Your condition, background, and the fact that you express yourself only in poetry is chock full of existential strangeness. Interaction in what I perceived to be your isolation is something the DC community is encouraged to do.
As you said yourself, you feel free to express your ideas here.
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

Post Reply