Orange Walk EH today

[Mysterion]

2 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

They should immediately stop segregation of schools. Teaching them differences at a young age, just so their church can get some new members.

If you believe in the 'magic man', then your a moron, plain and simple.

 

I think it's important to note that there isn't a segregation of schools. Any child of any faith (or those who have none) can attend any school in Scotland (this is subject to the local population, waiting lists, placing requests).  I attended an RC school which had many people from many religious/non religious backgrounds. 

 

What you are arguing for is that religious education for specific purposes should be ended.

(ie. Children in P3 and P7 should not receive the sacraments and become full members of the church within the school teaching aspects of religious study & practice)

 

Having attended an RC primary school i agree.

 

Any pragmatic person would suggest that it should be phased out over a decade to allow those who have placed their children in an RC school to finish the religious aspects of the primary education system and allow the school to then evolve. 

 

I think it's worth also noting that no one is taught that people are different in schools.

I see posts on Kickback from time to time that trot out this same line. At absolutely no point growing up in Edinburgh did an RC school teach me that i was different.

 

Ironically - I actually have a general belief that the "teaching them differences at a young age" thing applies more to those who have not attended an RC school or to those who offer it. After all, they feel strongly about the view, share it and in turn instil (almost religiously) their view of the world to their own children telling them of the difference. 😄

 

Just some views, it's not meant to offend and as i said early in the post i agree with making a change to end this. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Mysterion
added extra bit at en of 2nd last paragraph that i'd missed out.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

I think it's important to note that there isn't a segregation of schools. Any child of any faith (or those who have none) can attend any school in Scotland (this is subject to the local population, waiting lists, placing requests).  I attended an RC school which had many people from many religious/non religious backgrounds. 

 

What you are arguing for is that religious education for specific purposes should be ended.

(ie. Children in P3 and P7 should not receive the sacraments and become full members of the church within the school teaching aspects of religious study & practice)

 

Having attended an RC primary school i agree.

 

Any pragmatic person would suggest that it should be phased out over a decade to allow those who have placed their children in an RC school to finish the religious aspects of the primary education system and allow the school to then evolve. 

 

I think it's worth also noting that no one is taught that people are different in schools.

I see posts on Kickback from time to time that trot out this same line. At absolutely no point growing up in Edinburgh did an RC school teach me that i was different.

 

Ironically - I actually have a general belief that the "teaching them differences at a young age" thing applies more to those who have not attended an RC school or to those who offer it. After all, they feel strongly about the view, share it and in turn instil (almost religiously) their view of the world. 😄

 

Just some views, it's not meant to offend and as i said early in the post i agree with making a change to end this. 

 

State funded RC schools shouldn't exist, only state funded non denominational schools, and preferably without a chaplain or hymns or bollocks.

Religion should have no place in Scottish schools.

[Mysterion]

11 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

State funded RC schools shouldn't exist, only state funded non denominational schools, and preferably without a chaplain or hymns or bollocks.

Religion should have no place in Scottish schools.

 

Which is what i said albeit with a pragmatic (fair) phased approach. 

[OBE]

3 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

They should immediately stop segregation of schools. Teaching them differences at a young age, just so their church can get some new members.

If you believe in the 'magic man', then your a moron, plain and simple.

 

The biggest lie impressionable children will ever hear...

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

State funded RC schools shouldn't exist, only state funded non denominational schools, and preferably without a chaplain or hymns or bollocks.

Religion should have no place in Scottish schools.

I generally agree, but historically state funded public schools were an initiative of protestant denominations. It’s one I happen to think was a very good idea and applies well beyond any particular sect, but there’s some historical mistrust over come there too.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Me too. All of them can GTF with their usually hate filled nonsense . Not the slightest interest in any religions. And anyone who attempts to throw it down my throat...can GTF.  Its just not happening.  Its been one of the greatest cons in history to keep people down. The greatest in fact. 

Aye, then everyone will be anti-war, just like Christopher Hitchens, not filled with weird anti-Muslim hatred, like Sam Harris, totally tolerant of others like Jerry Coyne, imminently peaceable, like Pol Pot.

 

Or maybe religion is just tied up in a bigger problem… anyway…

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

State funded RC schools shouldn't exist, only state funded non denominational schools, and preferably without a chaplain or hymns or bollocks.

Religion should have no place in Scottish schools.

This.

[Malinga the Swinga]

2 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

Aye, then everyone will be anti-war, just like Christopher Hitchens, not filled with weird anti-Muslim hatred, like Sam Harris, totally tolerant of others like Jerry Coyne, imminently peaceable, like Pol Pot.

 

Or maybe religion is just tied up in a bigger problem… anyway…

You really need to stop find excuses to defend the fable that is religion.

After all, if God did exist, he must presumably be happy with what is happening. If not, he isn't a god worth following, he's just a sick *****.

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Or maybe religion is just tied up in a bigger problem… anyway…

Of course it is, the different societies we live in worldwide have many problems. Really, religion is more a symptom than a cause when it comes to the bigger picture, but it's also a cause in itself in the smaller picture. 

 

There's a very positive side to religion though, as I've said before on here, I've seen with my own eyes the peace it gave my ex and her sister when their mother was dying at 47. But the whole thing isn't as benign and wholesome as that unfortunately.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

You really need to stop find excuses to defend the fable that is religion.

After all, if God did exist, he must presumably be happy with what is happening. If not, he isn't a god worth following, he's just a sick *****.

 

Cool, you've discovered the theodicy problem, congratulations! Most people get to it in about middle or high school.

 

It would be rather impossible to defend "the fable that is religion" given that globally it's countless mutually contradictory fables. FFS folk learn 20th century British Christianity and think they're experts on the sum total of a major part of the human experience . . .

 

But that's not what the thread is about anyway . . .

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

You really need to stop find excuses to defend the fable that is religion.

After all, if God did exist, he must presumably be happy with what is happening. If not, he isn't a god worth following, he's just a sick *****.

Actually forget what I said, let's concentrate on "god's a ***** - discuss"

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Of course it is, the different societies we live in worldwide have many problems. Really, religion is more a symptom than a cause when it comes to the bigger picture, but it's also a cause in itself in the smaller picture. 

 

There's a very positive side to religion though, as I've said before on here, I've seen with my own eyes the peace it gave my ex and her sister when their mother was dying at 47. But the whole thing isn't as benign and wholesome as that unfortunately.

 

I will never make the argument that any religion (or other spiritual beliefs—a lot of non-Western practices don't fall neatly into the "religion" cateogry) is inherently harmless or benign or unproblematic.

 

My objection is just to overly simplistic dismissals.

 

Take universal public education for example. I'm a huge fan. Scotland got universal public education before most of Europe, and as a result, experienced its own Enlightenment, produced world-famous philosophers, mathematicians, and inventers. Scottish engineers were so ubiquitous that an early science fiction TV show put a man named "Scotty" as the ships engineer in a spaceship.

 

Presbyterianism was inherently tied up in this—with its singular emphasis on scripture over the traditions and hierarchy of the Roman church, it seen as an imperative that everyone know how to read, so public education became a major focus. Of course, the rulers in London and Edinburgh were right behind this because public education was seen as, and became, a means of breaking Gaelic power and gaining authority over the Gaedhealtacht. Compulsory public education was also loved by anti-Catholics as a way of breaking the hold of "papism." Compulsory education in Edinburgh and London for estate inheritors also worked a trick on cracking the clan system and bringing highland and island lands into the investment markets of the capitals, which in turn in large part led to the Clearances.

 

And this doesn't even begin to get to the "Indian Schools" in the United States.

 

Was Presbyterianism good because it helped spur Scotland to a world-leading position of education and learning, or was it bad because it was used as a spearpoint of colonialism, exploitation, and violence? Unquestionably, yes to both.

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

Aye, then everyone will be anti-war, just like Christopher Hitchens, not filled with weird anti-Muslim hatred, like Sam Harris, totally tolerant of others like Jerry Coyne, imminently peaceable, like Pol Pot.

 

Or maybe religion is just tied up in a bigger problem… anyway…

Bollocks . I am proud I was brought up by two parents who never gave religion any time of day . They felt that if anyone has faith that’s fine but don’t force it on others . I don’t need a fairy tale book to indoctrinate me what is moral or hood and what’s not . I can’t easily make that judgement , like most . I have no issue with any religious people . If they believe that’s fine . I don’t . We evolved from lower than plant life , not from a super hero . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

State funded RC schools shouldn't exist, only state funded non denominational schools, and preferably without a chaplain or hymns or bollocks.

Religion should have no place in Scottish schools.

Agreed . I was at a funeral last week . It was a humanist one . First one I’ve ever been too . It was lovely . Just a talk about her life , shared memories and some of her favourite songs played . At the end she was back up the “ soil “ as she was cremated . 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Led Tasso said:

 

I will never make the argument that any religion (or other spiritual beliefs—a lot of non-Western practices don't fall neatly into the "religion" cateogry) is inherently harmless or benign or unproblematic.

 

My objection is just to overly simplistic dismissals.

 

Take universal public education for example. I'm a huge fan. Scotland got universal public education before most of Europe, and as a result, experienced its own Enlightenment, produced world-famous philosophers, mathematicians, and inventers. Scottish engineers were so ubiquitous that an early science fiction TV show put a man named "Scotty" as the ships engineer in a spaceship.

 

Presbyterianism was inherently tied up in this—with its singular emphasis on scripture over the traditions and hierarchy of the Roman church, it seen as an imperative that everyone know how to read, so public education became a major focus. Of course, the rulers in London and Edinburgh were right behind this because public education was seen as, and became, a means of breaking Gaelic power and gaining authority over the Gaedhealtacht. Compulsory public education was also loved by anti-Catholics as a way of breaking the hold of "papism." Compulsory education in Edinburgh and London for estate inheritors also worked a trick on cracking the clan system and bringing highland and island lands into the investment markets of the capitals, which in turn in large part led to the Clearances.

 

And this doesn't even begin to get to the "Indian Schools" in the United States.

 

Was Presbyterianism good because it helped spur Scotland to a world-leading position of education and learning, or was it bad because it was used as a spearpoint of colonialism, exploitation, and violence? Unquestionably, yes to both.

It doesn't matter what it was, it only makes what it is now.

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

Actually forget what I said, let's concentrate on "god's a ***** - discuss"

Not much too discuss. There is no such thing as god in any way, shape or form. It's hocus pocus and deep down we all know it.

Now some may say it gives comfort, but all that goes to prove is that people in desperate times will believe any shit they're told, particularly if it comes from a snake oil salesman, or priest if you prefer, who will lie through there teeth to get their claws into a victim. After all, theres money to be made by pedalling their lies.

Should you believe in God, which makes you a moron as no god can exist, how do you justify the cruelty and torment people inflict on others and suffer themselves, yet all can be forgiven by confessing to your behaviour (sins) before you die? The excuse given is 'he works in mysterious ways'. That's a cop out for ******* behaviour. 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Malinga the Swinga

[Doctor FinnBarr]

1 hour ago, Led Tasso said:

 

I will never make the argument that any religion (or other spiritual beliefs—a lot of non-Western practices don't fall neatly into the "religion" cateogry) is inherently harmless or benign or unproblematic.

 

My objection is just to overly simplistic dismissals.

 

Take universal public education for example. I'm a huge fan. Scotland got universal public education before most of Europe, and as a result, experienced its own Enlightenment, produced world-famous philosophers, mathematicians, and inventers. Scottish engineers were so ubiquitous that an early science fiction TV show put a man named "Scotty" as the ships engineer in a spaceship.

 

Presbyterianism was inherently tied up in this—with its singular emphasis on scripture over the traditions and hierarchy of the Roman church, it seen as an imperative that everyone know how to read, so public education became a major focus. Of course, the rulers in London and Edinburgh were right behind this because public education was seen as, and became, a means of breaking Gaelic power and gaining authority over the Gaedhealtacht. Compulsory public education was also loved by anti-Catholics as a way of breaking the hold of "papism." Compulsory education in Edinburgh and London for estate inheritors also worked a trick on cracking the clan system and bringing highland and island lands into the investment markets of the capitals, which in turn in large part led to the Clearances.

 

And this doesn't even begin to get to the "Indian Schools" in the United States.

 

Was Presbyterianism good because it helped spur Scotland to a world-leading position of education and learning, or was it bad because it was used as a spearpoint of colonialism, exploitation, and violence? Unquestionably, yes to both.

 

Can you just stop please, we've already had your idiot views earlier in this thread, could you please stick to what quarterback is getting arrested this week for rape/sexual molestation.

[Malinga the Swinga]

2 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

I will never make the argument that any religion (or other spiritual beliefs—a lot of non-Western practices don't fall neatly into the "religion" cateogry) is inherently harmless or benign or unproblematic.

 

My objection is just to overly simplistic dismissals.

 

Take universal public education for example. I'm a huge fan. Scotland got universal public education before most of Europe, and as a result, experienced its own Enlightenment, produced world-famous philosophers, mathematicians, and inventers. Scottish engineers were so ubiquitous that an early science fiction TV show put a man named "Scotty" as the ships engineer in a spaceship.

 

Presbyterianism was inherently tied up in this—with its singular emphasis on scripture over the traditions and hierarchy of the Roman church, it seen as an imperative that everyone know how to read, so public education became a major focus. Of course, the rulers in London and Edinburgh were right behind this because public education was seen as, and became, a means of breaking Gaelic power and gaining authority over the Gaedhealtacht. Compulsory public education was also loved by anti-Catholics as a way of breaking the hold of "papism." Compulsory education in Edinburgh and London for estate inheritors also worked a trick on cracking the clan system and bringing highland and island lands into the investment markets of the capitals, which in turn in large part led to the Clearances.

 

And this doesn't even begin to get to the "Indian Schools" in the United States.

 

Was Presbyterianism good because it helped spur Scotland to a world-leading position of education and learning, or was it bad because it was used as a spearpoint of colonialism, exploitation, and violence? Unquestionably, yes to both.

All these words yet ignoring fact that Presbyterianism is , as is every other religion, complete and utter bollocks.

You'd be as well asking if slavery was good or bad or Hitler was good or bad. 

They are world events, religion is made up pish.

[The Real Maroonblood]

4 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

All these words yet ignoring fact that Presbyterianism is , as is every other religion, complete and utter bollocks.

You'd be as well asking if slavery was good or bad or Hitler was good or bad. 

They are world events, religion is made up pish.

It's caused plenty of misery as well.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Bollocks . I am proud I was brought up by two parents who never gave religion any time of day .

 

Cool story

 

 

2 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

They felt that if anyone has faith that’s fine but don’t force it on others . I don’t need a fairy tale book to indoctrinate me what is moral or hood and what’s not . I can’t easily make that judgement , like most . I have no issue with any religious people . If they believe that’s fine . I don’t .

 

Pretty much same

 

2 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

We evolved from lower than plant life , not from a super hero . 

 

The vast majority of religious people believe in natural selection as a prime driver of speciation and a 4.6 billion year old earth. Including me.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

It doesn't matter what it was, it only makes what it is now.

 

It's a bit blinkered trying to judge an institution without looking at it's done in the comparatively recent past IMO.

 

Indigenous Americans and Gaels aren't too happy about churches trying to sweep what they were part of under the rug and say, "ah, it's all in the past," nor should they be.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

Can you just stop please, we've already had your idiot views earlier in this thread, could you please stick to what quarterback is getting arrested this week for rape/sexual molestation.

 

Mate this is the thread about people parading through the streets proclaiming that what they're doing is about religion despite very little evidence that it's actually about religion. What religion is and isn't is rather germane to the topic.

 

As to quarterbacks, you'll have to go ask the other NFL fans on this board, I quit watching over a decade ago because of the CTE and freezing out Kaepernick nonsense.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

32 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

All these words yet ignoring fact that Presbyterianism is , as is every other religion, complete and utter bollocks.

You'd be as well asking if slavery was good or bad or Hitler was good or bad. 

They are world events, religion is made up pish.

 

All other religions?

 

What's your issue with Sikhism? What about the pagans on this thread?

 

For someone seemingly opposed to pish, you seem to talk a lot of it.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Not much too discuss. There is no such thing as god in any way, shape or form. It's hocus pocus and deep down we all know it.

Now some may say it gives comfort, but all that goes to prove is that people in desperate times will believe any shit they're told, particularly if it comes from a snake oil salesman, or priest if you prefer, who will lie through there teeth to get their claws into a victim. After all, theres money to be made by pedalling their lies.

Should you believe in God, which makes you a moron as no god can exist, how do you justify the cruelty and torment people inflict on others and suffer themselves, yet all can be forgiven by confessing to your behaviour (sins) before you die? The excuse given is 'he works in mysterious ways'. That's a cop out for ******* behaviour. 

 

 

The existence of God or lack thereof is easily one of the least interesting and most difficult topics of religious conversation. You have to define both what "God" means and what "existence" means. People even within the same denomination have big differences of opinion about what or who God is, and philosophers and theoretical scientists will tie you in knots about existence.

 

And once again, you're stuck on the theodicy problem, which has a thousand different competing answers to it, none of which you seem to have bothered to familiarize yourself with. Which is all fine and good, but means for the moment you're just talking shite.

[Unknown user]

15 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

It's a bit blinkered trying to judge an institution without looking at it's done in the comparatively recent past IMO.

 

Indigenous Americans and Gaels aren't too happy about churches trying to sweep what they were part of under the rug and say, "ah, it's all in the past," nor should they be.

It doesn't matter what Presbyterianism has done, it doesn't get a free pass with anything because of past endeavours, so it's irrelevant.

[Unknown user]

13 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

The existence of God or lack thereof is easily one of the least interesting and most difficult topics of religious conversation. You have to define both what "God" means and what "existence" means. People even within the same denomination have big differences of opinion about what or who God is, and philosophers and theoretical scientists will tie you in knots about existence.

 

And once again, you're stuck on the theodicy problem, which has a thousand different competing answers to it, none of which you seem to have bothered to familiarize yourself with. Which is all fine and good, but means for the moment you're just talking shite.

Theodicy?

[Doctor FinnBarr]

34 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Mate this is the thread about people parading through the streets proclaiming that what they're doing is about religion despite very little evidence that it's actually about religion. What religion is and isn't is rather germane to the topic.

 

As to quarterbacks, you'll have to go ask the other NFL fans on this board, I quit watching over a decade ago because of the CTE and freezing out Kaepernick nonsense.

 

Your actually the one who took this thread off topic spouting pish about Northern Ireland. Come back when you've actually checked facts instead of just posting pish.

[ZadokThePriest]

Some astonishing ignorance on this thread, which isn't really worth replying to.

 

By all accounts, the Edinburgh parade went well.

 

Well done to those on here who are involved for not rising to some of the misinformed and hateful comments.  It's interesting that those who get high and mighty about bigotry often show the most bigoted tendencies themselves.

 

Been an Orangeman for 15 years and haven't looked back.  My own private lodge has gone from 21 members 8 years ago to 39 members now, with more in the pipeline.  Many Orangemen don't go to Church, but many do.  Personally, I'm a member of the Free Church of Scotland.

 

Have a good weekend all :)

[Doctor FinnBarr]

8 minutes ago, ZadokThePriest said:

Some astonishing ignorance on this thread, which isn't really worth replying to.

 

By all accounts, the Edinburgh parade went well.

 

Well done to those on here who are involved for not rising to some of the misinformed and hateful comments.  It's interesting that those who get high and mighty about bigotry often show the most bigoted tendencies themselves.

 

Been an Orangeman for 15 years and haven't looked back.  My own private lodge has gone from 21 members 8 years ago to 39 members now, with more in the pipeline.  Many Orangemen don't go to Church, but many do.  Personally, I'm a member of the Free Church of Scotland.

 

Have a good weekend all

 

From 21 bigots to 39 inside 8 years, woo hoo, you must be so proud.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

Theodicy?

 

The problem of how pain can exist if God is all powerful and loving. It's a very common topic in theology circles. I don't really expect anyone who isn't interested in theology to be up on the debate, but it's tedious to have it raised like some "gotcha" as if it isn't a difficult but also well-worn problem.

 

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

It doesn't matter what Presbyterianism has done, it doesn't get a free pass with anything because of past endeavours, so it's irrelevant.

 

It matters what Presbyterianism has done because it the church needs to admit to its errors and ways it has harmed people in the past, and it needs to make reparations where it can.

 

As to its good things, it's not a matter of getting a free pass, but rather a point of understanding what and where the church has done well, and trying to replicate those things.

 

51 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

Your actually the one who took this thread off topic spouting pish about Northern Ireland. Come back when you've actually checked facts instead of just posting pish.

 

I've admitted my errors above and corrected them. Mostly I made two foolish errors because I was tired—I conflated the Battle of the Bogside with Bloody Sunday, which was pretty egregious, and I assigned Orange Walk-related violence as an immediate cause rather than a proximate cause, as it was the Apprentice Boys parade that was the immediate cause. Both were pretty silly mistakes, but neither really undermined the point I was trying to make about the history of Orange Walks and how they've pretty directly led to violence, suffering, and death.

[Doctor FinnBarr]

11 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

The problem of how pain can exist if God is all powerful and loving. It's a very common topic in theology circles. I don't really expect anyone who isn't interested in theology to be up on the debate, but it's tedious to have it raised like some "gotcha" as if it isn't a difficult but also well-worn problem.

 

 

It matters what Presbyterianism has done because it the church needs to admit to its errors and ways it has harmed people in the past, and it needs to make reparations where it can.

 

As to its good things, it's not a matter of getting a free pass, but rather a point of understanding what and where the church has done well, and trying to replicate those things.

 

 

I've admitted my errors above and corrected them. Mostly I made two foolish errors because I was tired—I conflated the Battle of the Bogside with Bloody Sunday, which was pretty egregious, and I assigned Orange Walk-related violence as an immediate cause rather than a proximate cause, as it was the Apprentice Boys parade that was the immediate cause. Both were pretty silly mistakes, but neither really undermined the point I was trying to make about the history of Orange Walks and how they've pretty directly led to violence, suffering, and death.

 

FFS, still talking pish then

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Just now, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

FFS, still talking pish then

 

Which bit has you upset, dear?

[tightrope]

Something not right if a baptised catchment child gets priority for a place at a school over non baptised catchment child, also non Catholic Teachers can't get a permanent contract at RC Schools. Would we get away with it over race? I think not. BTW this is not an anti Catholic post. 

[Doctor FinnBarr]

1 minute ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Which bit has you upset, dear?

 

Ooer, has something upset you Mrs. Is it the fact I pulled you for knowing **** all about Northern Irelands history or the fact that you're God is a pile of pish?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Just now, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

Ooer, has something upset you Mrs. Is it the fact I pulled you for knowing **** all about Northern Irelands history or the fact that you're God is a pile of pish?

 

Post-corrections, which bit is wrong?

[Doctor FinnBarr]

1 minute ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Post-corrections, which bit is wrong?

Tell me which bit of "God" is real and which bit is a ****en fairy story

[ZadokThePriest]

29 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

The problem of how pain can exist if God is all powerful and loving. It's a very common topic in theology circles. I don't really expect anyone who isn't interested in theology to be up on the debate, but it's tedious to have it raised like some "gotcha" as if it isn't a difficult but also well-worn problem.

 

 

It matters what Presbyterianism has done because it the church needs to admit to its errors and ways it has harmed people in the past, and it needs to make reparations where it can.

 

As to its good things, it's not a matter of getting a free pass, but rather a point of understanding what and where the church has done well, and trying to replicate those things.

 

 

I've admitted my errors above and corrected them. Mostly I made two foolish errors because I was tired—I conflated the Battle of the Bogside with Bloody Sunday, which was pretty egregious, and I assigned Orange Walk-related violence as an immediate cause rather than a proximate cause, as it was the Apprentice Boys parade that was the immediate cause. Both were pretty silly mistakes, but neither really undermined the point I was trying to make about the history of Orange Walks and how they've pretty directly led to violence, suffering, and death.

 

I agree about the problem of suffering, and I've heard Christians tackle it in many different ways.

 

You can look at it from a lot angles, and I've heard compelling arguments to do with free will, salvation, a fallen world and even medical discoveries further down the line.  As you say, it's tedious when someone raises it as a gotcha!   My personal experience is that going into a full explanation can be a waste of time as you know you won't get a good-faith response, although that isn't always the case.

 

The way I see it, is that if an atheist uses the problem of suffering as an argument against a loving God's existence, then the burden of proof is actually on them to prove why a just, loving God couldn't allow it.  That's an extremely hard thing to prove.

 

I've read some of your comments regarding the Orange Order and Northern Irish/Irish history, and believe you to be well off the mark on more than a few points.  I say that in the nicest possible way

 

The Orange Order is a big part of my life and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.  No gotchas though! 😜

Edited June 17, 2022 by ZadokThePriest

[Watt-Zeefuik]

6 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

Tell me which bit of "God" is real and which bit is a ****en fairy story

 

Stay on topic, you're accusing me not knowing Northern Irish history, which bit that I said about NI was wrong?

 

As to divine ontology, you're not religious and don't seem to have any interest in it, why should I bother you with it?

[Unknown user]

24 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

The problem of how pain can exist if God is all powerful and loving. It's a very common topic in theology circles. I don't really expect anyone who isn't interested in theology to be up on the debate, but it's tedious to have it raised like some "gotcha" as if it isn't a difficult but also well-worn problem.

 

Ok I'm with you, but if it's a very common topic in theology circles why would you expect anything else from slightly interested laymen?

 

The problem with theology, and the reason people aren't interested in it, is that it's just a network of mazes designed to take the debate away from "aye but God's not real."

People aren't up on the debate for the same reason they haven't learned the rules of quidditch - they don't care about something so irrelevant to their lives.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, ZadokThePriest said:

The way I see it, is that if an atheist uses the problem of suffering as an argument against a loving God's existence, then the burden of proof is actually on them to prove why a just, loving God couldn't allow it.  That's an extremely hard thing to prove.

Well that's why you have an imaginary friend and I don't .

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 minutes ago, ZadokThePriest said:

 

I agree about the problem of suffering, and I've heard Christians tackle it in many different ways.

 

You can look at it from a lot angles, and I've heard compelling arguments to do with free will, salvation, a fallen world and even medical discoveries further down the line.  As you say, it's tedious when someone raises it as a gotcha!   My personal experience is that going into a full explanation can be a waste of time as you know you won't get a good-faith response, although that isn't always the case.

 

The way I see it, is that if an atheist uses the problem of suffering as an argument against a loving God's existence, then the burden of proof is actually on them to prove why a just, loving God couldn't allow it.  That's an extremely hard thing to prove.

 

I've read some of your comments regarding the Orange Order and Northern Irish/Irish history, and believe you to be well off the mark on more than a few points.  I say that in the nicest possible way

 

The Orange Order is a big part of my life and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.  No gotchas though! 😜

 

Feel free to push back against what you think I've gotten wrong about the Oranges. I've conceded to Geoff that the Oranges in many ways act as a community hall and general community charity, and in that capacity, all the better to them. However, I'm a stickler for institutions going through the process of examining the darker parts of their histories and atoning for them. To my Irish Catholic friends, the Oranges are not just the hall down the street where they have the bingo on Wednesday and dances on Saturdays. If the Oranges want to move beyond all that, I wish you all the best, but you don't get there with a broom and a rug.

[ZadokThePriest]

2 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Feel free to push back against what you think I've gotten wrong about the Oranges. I've conceded to Geoff that the Oranges in many ways act as a community hall and general community charity, and in that capacity, all the better to them. However, I'm a stickler for institutions going through the process of examining the darker parts of their histories and atoning for them. To my Irish Catholic friends, the Oranges are not just the hall down the street where they have the bingo on Wednesday and dances on Saturdays. If the Oranges want to move beyond all that, I wish you all the best, but you don't get there with a broom and a rug.

 

Thanks mate, I'll go through the posts tomorrow and add my tuppence worth.

 

I'm the first to admit that as an institution we do have our problems! 😬

 

Speak soon.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Ok I'm with you, but if it's a very common topic in theology circles why would you expect anything else from slightly interested laymen?

 

The problem with theology, and the reason people aren't interested in it, is that it's just a network of mazes designed to take the debate away from "aye but God's not real."

People aren't up on the debate for the same reason they haven't learned the rules of quidditch - they don't care about something so irrelevant to their lives.

 

If someone is actually interested in the answer, I agree with Zadok on this, that I'll happily go down the rabbit hole of how both I personally answer the question and how denominations and theologians I know of answer it, but if the person trying to pose the question is just doing it as a, "aha, hadn't thought of that, had you?" kind of question, what's the point?

 

And folk will never believe me on this, but "is God real?" is simply a silly question. God isn't just unprovable, God is almost entirely unknowable. Without any further constraints, I may as well ask you "Is zardleblibble real?" without telling you what I'm thinking of when I say "zardlelibble." It's not a question of whether there's a magical man in the sky, but a question of whether something that might be called "divine" or even "good" exists in the world, what form that takes, how we can even know such a thing, and how we should respond to knowing it.

 

The first principles of most forms of Christianity, historically, don't start with fussing over whether God exists or not—that's become a bit of a fashion in British Christianity, particularly the Anglican church, in the last few hundred years, but that's a bit of a historical anachronism. Christianity centers on Jesus of Nazareth, his teachings, his followers, and the reports of miraculous events from his life. "Was Jesus God?" is still an extremely hard question to nail down, but at the very least it's a more productive place to start. There's an actual basis for a conversation there.

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

5 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

You really need to stop find excuses to defend the fable that is religion.

After all, if God did exist, he must presumably be happy with what is happening. If not, he isn't a god worth following, he's just a sick *****.

that will all be sorted out at Armageddon mate - keep the faith 😃

[Unknown user]

11 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

If someone is actually interested in the answer, I agree with Zadok on this, that I'll happily go down the rabbit hole of how both I personally answer the question and how denominations and theologians I know of answer it, but if the person trying to pose the question is just doing it as a, "aha, hadn't thought of that, had you?" kind of question, what's the point?

 

And folk will never believe me on this, but "is God real?" is simply a silly question. God isn't just unprovable, God is almost entirely unknowable. Without any further constraints, I may as well ask you "Is zardleblibble real?" without telling you what I'm thinking of when I say "zardlelibble." It's not a question of whether there's a magical man in the sky, but a question of whether something that might be called "divine" or even "good" exists in the world, what form that takes, how we can even know such a thing, and how we should respond to knowing it.

 

The first principles of most forms of Christianity, historically, don't start with fussing over whether God exists or not—that's become a bit of a fashion in British Christianity, particularly the Anglican church, in the last few hundred years, but that's a bit of a historical anachronism. Christianity centers on Jesus of Nazareth, his teachings, his followers, and the reports of miraculous events from his life. "Was Jesus God?" is still an extremely hard question to nail down, but at the very least it's a more productive place to start. There's an actual basis for a conversation there.

Again though, it's your side that wants to have a productive conversation, to deflect away from the central point.

 

Not that it matters though, Christianity is doomed, thank God, and this thread's about the orange order staining our country, not radge theology.

[Unknown user]

14 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

that will all be sorted out at Armageddon mate - keep the faith 😃

[Ulysses]

22 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Indeed. I often wonder why Aughrim doesn't get the same interest as the Boyne given it was the more decisive battle. Maybe because it is west of the Shannon and no one cares?

 

PS I accept your nuance. I was keeping it high level for those who source Wiki as their history sources.

 

I think Aughrim doesn't get the attention it deserves because the Orange Order says it shouldn't - their main man wasn't there.

 

The nuance isn't universally accepted either.  History seems to be in the eye of the beholder. 

[Ulysses]

It would seem that the solution to Protestant sectarian behaviour in Scotland is to close Catholic schools.  It would also seem that if someone believes something you are sure is wrong, the best way of responding to that is to tell them how moronic they are.  And it also appears that the definitive answer to the question "why do you have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of that supreme being you think exists?" is "don't be such a fool, everyone with a titter of wit knows that my supreme being is unknowable".

 

Have I captured all that fully?

[ColinSmith1255]

10 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Me too. All of them can GTF with their usually hate filled nonsense . Not the slightest interest in any religions. And anyone who attempts to throw it down my throat...can GTF.  Its just not happening.  Its been one of the greatest cons in history to keep people down. The greatest in fact. 

👍

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

Again though, it's your side that wants to have a productive conversation, to deflect away from the central point.

 

Not that it matters though, Christianity is doomed, thank God, and this thread's about the orange order staining our country, not radge theology.

 

I mean I could go back over the thread to remind myself, but I feel like I deflected because as you say it was off topic. But after folk lob enough insults masked as questions at you, you kind of want to respond.

 

The "central point" seems to be that folk have an idea of God in their head that they're sure doesn't exist. I don't really care—the God they're sure doesn't exist doesn't look much like the divine that I know. I can go on for a few hefty chapters about it but I presume nobody else really cares much either, but then that gets called deflecting?

 

But if the church dies, it dies. It will be resurrected in a way I can't imagine.