Johanes de Silentio Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Yeah and Hitler, if he was to believed, was a sceptic himself yet committed countless atrocities against millions of people simply because of their religion. For every example you fire at me, I'll happily fire one back in your direction. It could be a lonnnnnnnnnng night indeed. Except Hilter was a ruthless, sadistic, murderous, maniac. Your point makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - nobody's seriously talking about killing six million Christians just because they happen to be deluded. Actually, it could easily be argued that the Holocaust was as much/more about race or ethinicity as/than religion. The Holocaust was wrongful, whatever the reason. I used Galileo Galilei as just one very obvious example of religous narrow mindedness and intolerance by Christians - how about the millions of people who were punished for non-conformity? The Church/religion has no place in a modern educated society, imo. Drums & flutes = pish! Praising terrorists form the terraces = pish Mumbling dreary hymns in freezing cold buildings once a week in praise of what amounts to a sock puppet = pish! I respect people's right to believe/worship, if that's what they want to do - but I reserve the right to comment on any aspect of society I choose - aetheists have had to put up with centuries of intolerance - if Christians don't like criticism, that's too bad - suck it up! I haven't even mentioned Darwin or Dawkins yet! God, give me strength! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 This is an oxymoron. Do I need to start quoting scripture on unity? Christianity is all about unity, man and God, man and other men. It should unite, if it divides, it's not Christianity. What you mean is religious divide. Oh dear GOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 The Church/religion has no place in a modern educated society, imo. Drums & flutes = pish! Praising terrorists form the terraces = pish Mumbling dreary hymns in freezing cold buildings once a week in praise of what amounts to a sock puppet = pish! I agree it would be pish! I'm glad that it's nothing like that at all. I'm sorry that you don't know any better. If you'd like to know what churches can be like, I would happily recommend some to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I agree it would be pish! I'm glad that it's nothing like that at all. I'm sorry that you don't know any better. If you'd like to know what churches can be like, I would happily recommend some to you. I do know better - I have been to Churches (and Chappels) on many ocassions. Are you saying it's now like some righteous gospel trip? Now that, I might actually be tempted to go to! Oi! Religion, imo, ought to be a personal thing - if you want to worship, you can do it anywhere at anytime, surely? And, as Marsilius said - even if one accepts that the Church has spiritual power, it should NOT have any temporal or political power - right on, Marsiglio! And, yes - I do resent the patronising evangelical thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Hearts are owned by Lithuanians Lithuania is a Catholic country Therefore..... It saddens me that a Hearts fan would describe us a 'protestant club' Surely we are a 'football club' and have never had a sectarian signing policy Religion has bugger all to do with sport in my book and bigotry even less The Op seems to be labouring under a misapprehension that we have the same kind of history as Rangers but now a few catholics are starting to support us Its the other way around in my opinion - we have never been sectarian and in fact have always had plenty of catholic players/fans etc etc and in fact one of our first managers was one of the early Irish catholic Hibs players James Mcghee It is more our modern history where a misguided minority have tried to drag us down the sectarian road Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Well, it is. To quote the late Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". All religion's make lots of extraordinary claims, I'm still waiting for the extraordinary proof - surprisingly, nothing so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Well, it is. To quote the late Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". All religion's make lots of extraordinary claims, I'm still waiting for the extraordinary proof - surprisingly, nothing so far. common misconception, the flat-earth theory didn't exist and the church didn't believe it if it did. That idea of people believing in a flat earth came from an American writer in the 19th century who wanted to make the colombus story sound more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Well, it is. To quote the late Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". All religion's make lots of extraordinary claims, I'm still waiting for the extraordinary proof - surprisingly, nothing so far. isaiah 40:22 (circa 740 b.c) "It is he who sits above the circle* of the earth" *same hebrew word can be rendered sphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davjambo Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 OK, well, we'll see shall we. I am doing a little bit of research on this for an article for eighteen74 for the future. My understanding is that Edinburgh (and Scotland as a whole) had its share of anti-Irish and anti-Catholic agitators at that time. The "no Popery" campaign was certainly well known and people would have been aware of it. However, the history books also make it clear that it is easy to exaggerate its influence. Most people would simply not have been bothered as long as they could earn a crust. Into that society, we have lads who frequented a particular dance hall. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that the dance hall was a protestant institution or did not allow catholics. It is possible, I suppose, given the nature of the times but there is certainly no evidence for it. Hearts did briefly play in red, white and blue before adopting maroon. However, again, there is no evidence whatsoever that the red white and blue they adopted had anything to with the union flag or any political connotations whatsoever. Indeed, if it did, the club chose pretty quickly - within a year or so of formation - that they would choose maroon. Hibs were a club formed for the Irish population. Of that there is no doubt. However, again, there is no evidence that that club was formed as a result of players being turned away by Hearts - it was simply a natural coming together of people with a common background - something which happens in all walks of life in all parts of the world. Indeed, the one fact of which we can be quite sure demonstrates quite clearly that Hearts were not a sectarian club - when Hibs were refused entry to the Scottish FA on the grounds that they were not a Scottish club but an Irish one, it was Hearts which deliberately broke the rules to play against Hibs and have them admitted to the FA. Why would they have done so if they were anti-Irish - that was precisely the behaviour they were seeking to change. So, there is no evidence that Hearts are a protestant club, whatever that means. GC I am amazed the amount of jambos that don't know that story, I also think that our small bigotted protestant fringe like to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Except Hilter was a ruthless, sadistic, murderous, maniac. Your point makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - nobody's seriously talking about killing six million Christians just because they happen to be deluded. Actually, it could easily be argued that the Holocaust was as much/more about race or ethinicity as/than religion. The Holocaust was wrongful, whatever the reason. I used Galileo Galilei as just one very obvious example of religous narrow mindedness and intolerance by Christians - how about the millions of people who were punished for non-conformity? The Church/religion has no place in a modern educated society, imo. Drums & flutes = pish! Praising terrorists form the terraces = pish Mumbling dreary hymns in freezing cold buildings once a week in praise of what amounts to a sock puppet = pish! I respect people's right to believe/worship, if that's what they want to do - but I reserve the right to comment on any aspect of society I choose - aetheists have had to put up with centuries of intolerance - if Christians don't like criticism, that's too bad - suck it up! I haven't even mentioned Darwin or Dawkins yet! God, give me strength! i agree it wasn't relevant, nor was the point i was responding to. I mean - atheists being persecuted- wtf? What century we talking about here? I find it hard to believe that the vast majority on here even know anyone that has been genuinely slighted by something the church has spouted within their lifetime, never mind persecuted. Next we'll be talking about witch burnings et al. Why not just throw the Romans into the equation whilst we're at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 i agree it wasn't relevant, nor was the point i was responding to. I mean - atheists being persecuted- wtf? What century we talking about here? I find it hard to believe that the vast majority on here even know anyone that has been genuinely slighted by something the church has spouted within their lifetime, never mind persecuted. Next we'll be talking about witch burnings et al. Why not just throw the Romans into the equation whilst we're at it. I'm still awaiting my apology from the Italian government... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 common misconception, the flat-earth theory didn't exist and the church didn't believe it if it did. That idea of people believing in a flat earth came from an American writer in the 19th century who wanted to make the colombus story sound more interesting. JIG, the "flat earth" bit was me trying to point out the ridiculousness of religion, and according to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Historical_development the "flat earth" idea has been going on a bit longer, the early Egyptians and Greeks thought the earth was flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 i agree it wasn't relevant, nor was the point i was responding to. I mean - atheists being persecuted- wtf? What century we talking about here? I find it hard to believe that the vast majority on here even know anyone that has been genuinely slighted by something the church has spouted within their lifetime, never mind persecuted. Next we'll be talking about witch burnings et al. Why not just throw the Romans into the equation whilst we're at it. It should be clear that I was, in fact, speaking historically - surely a topic as vast as the existence of God needs to be examined in the big picture, rather than merely in contemporary contexts? If you do want to talk about contemporary problems caused by religion, ask anyone from Belfast, or any pregnant young lassie who's been forced to flee from Ireland because The Pope said she wasn't allowed to use contraception - this is man who has never even had sex telling every other **** how to behave sexually. Atheists/non-conformists have been persecuted en masse since Christianity took hold of Europe - that's massive - and you want to ignore it? I will not ignore it - I resent that, and the Crusades, and the exclusion crisis, and the Religious Wars of 16th Century Europe, and all the rest of the ****e that religion and sanctimonious religious maniacs have been responsible for. Anyway, you're boring! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots civil war Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 i think a massive factor in us being viewed as a protestant club is the fact that we have only recently come through the troubles scotland and ireland are intrinsically linked through race and also football clubs(septic and lochenders) and have been now for hundeds of years we have just been caught up in it because our deadliest rivals are irish and catholic heritage im quite sure hearts were not percieved as anything in religious stakes up until 1970s however,its understandable surely of the club to have a majority of protestant supporters in its history 1.protestant majority of population in capital city of a largely protestant nation. 2.fiercest rivals having `percieved` foreign connections borne by the fact of the name hibernian and playing in green and white 3.the `troubles` causing great divide amongst football fans when the disaffected amongst the above mentioned clubs made their voices heard,thus creating hearts fans to become involved against them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 It should be clear that I was, in fact, speaking historically - surely a topic as vast as the existence of God needs to be examined in the big picture, rather than merely in contemporary contexts? If you do want to talk about contemporary problems caused by religion, ask anyone from Belfast, or any pregnant young lassie who's been forced to flee from Ireland because The Pope said she wasn't allowed to use contraception - this is man who has never even had sex telling every other **** how to behave sexually. Atheists/non-conformists have been persecuted en masse since Christianity took hold of Europe - that's massive - and you want to ignore it? I will not ignore it - I resent that, and the Crusades, and the exclusion crisis, and the Religious Wars of 16th Century Europe, and all the rest of the ****e that religion and sanctimonious religious maniacs have been responsible for. Anyway, you're boring! How many pregnant lassies are "forced to flee" Ireland each year? Do you have figures? I'm also an athiest and I don't give a toss about any persecutions. If people harbour resentment for something that happened hundreds of years ago that's done them personally no harm whatsoever then society is doomed. We will all always hate everyone. If anything we should be grateful that we live in enlightened times, where people are free to worship or not as they please. Ultimately we shouldn't get ourselves too hot and bothered by what other people choose to believe. No matter which group turns out to be right, the vast majority of people on the planet will have been wrong so any argument or bigotry based on that is just as nonsensical as any person might conceive another's opposite beliefs to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rab Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 It should unite, if it divides, it's not Christianity. What you mean is religious divide. Christianity, like other religions, is about interpretation. It has to be, because the theories the faith is based on have no more evidence now than they did centuries ago. So what facts there are are given to interpretation. If there is more than one interpretation, there is a division. There are many interpretations of Christianity. Islam and Judaism have interpretations of Christianity, and each sect of Christianity has its own interpretation of what Christianity is. My personal opinion would be that any interpretation of Christianity that excludes one or more other interpretations is divisive, and has either caused conflict or is very likely to. So, in my opinion, there is a Christian divide. And it's a very painful one, particularly in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teepee Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Incidentally, more seriously, I did some very minor rallying round on this topic two or three years ago and, anecdotally at least, it is correct to say that there are Catholics who are put off coming to Hearts games because of some of the songs which are sung. I argued at the time that one way in which Vlad could really make a difference to Hearts would be to eradicate once and for all the sectarian element in our support and thereby attract a significantly wider fanbase. I was told that there is a Committee within the club working on this issue and that, effectively, it was all in hand. I suspect that the Fans Charter was one of the by-products of the committee Oh, that was not before I had been sent threats by e-mail and phone by the way but I'm not that bothered about those. GC see i find that strange, as Born and bred Hearts fan who happens to be catholic by birth just as my brother, my father, grandfather and great grandfather were. I have neve been offended by the songs that were sung in the shed(incidentally a damn sight more intolerant than any of the so called sectarian tunes belted out these days) and it never bothered me. I went to catholic primary school and secondary school and the majority of us were hearts fans. I always took the view that it was where you born in Edinburgh not what church you attended that defined your support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 How many pregnant lassies are "forced to flee" Ireland each year? Do you have figures? I'm also an athiest and I don't give a toss about any persecutions. If people harbour resentment for something that happened hundreds of years ago that's done them personally no harm whatsoever then society is doomed. We will all always hate everyone. If anything we should be grateful that we live in enlightened times, where people are free to worship or not as they please. Ultimately we shouldn't get ourselves too hot and bothered by what other people choose to believe. No matter which group turns out to be right, the vast majority of people on the planet will have been wrong so any argument or bigotry based on that is just as nonsensical as any person might conceive another's opposite beliefs to be. Very briefly: I have no 'figures' on young lassies forced to flee Ireland because of pregnancy, but then why would I? This is not a formal academic debate. You don't give a toss about persecution? Blimey! Society is doomed! We do not live in 'enlightened' times. I do not hate anyone. Individual/private worship is fine. Organised/evangelical religion is wrong - it's political and dangerous - the clergy should not have any kind of power or control over the lives of others, as they have had for centuries. The main problem with religion. though, is that... there is no God! Sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 This bit confuses me. Who, exactly, is being excluded from Tynecastle. I get the impression that anyone that wants to support Hearts will do so, you cannot force someone to support the club, likewise I don't think barriers are placed on anyone gaining entry to Tynecastle. People of a number of religions, and race can be seen within Tynecastle. I would guess that those from an Indian subcontinent background (i.e. Pakistan/India/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka) are possibly the least represented within Tynecastle, but I don't believe that is because they are not wanted. I think the truth is that in most of those countries football is very much a low level sport, and they'd be more liable to attend Tynecastle if we changed from a football team to a cricket team. In terms of Hearts being a Protestant club I don't think that is the case. I think the same happened historically in Edinburgh as happened in both Glasgow and Dundee. In those cities Hearts, Rangers and Dundee came first. The local Irish population in each city then formed teams to represent their own communities/religion, and, if you like, created the basis on which religious divide could then grow. The non Catholic citizens of those cities at the time were more likely to support one of the three former teams, which then became referred to as the Protestant clubs. Think way back in the late 1800's it is probably reasonably safe to say that religion wise it was very much a case of you were either one or the other, or neither, and if you admitted to being neither you'd probably end up in the sh*t. I do not think 'excluded' is the right word... Put off or aprehensive is probably more accurate. Walk past certain pubs on matchday and stand in a que in an asian run paper shop after the game and you will know what I mean. I take your point about cricket but I do not think that is any longer the case to such a great degree... I think that people 'from' the sub-continent, ie: just arrived will be very much willow and leather freaks, but the kids attending Tynie High and the other schools in the area who were born here are far more likely to be football fans... I have seen a few asian guys (single figures) at games but not in any great numbers and I was just wondering what happens that stops them going to games, I mean they are more than likely footy fans at school and yet when it comes to adolescence and adulthood they are poorly represented at the games. I don't think they are being excluded but they obviously do not feel it is for them... Shame really as the extra income would be welcome in a league that sees two clubs so far out front in terms of support and income and us a distant third... The potential is there, I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Hearts are owned by LithuaniansLithuania is a Catholic country Therefore..... It saddens me that a Hearts fan would describe us a 'protestant club' Surely we are a 'football club' and have never had a sectarian signing policy Religion has bugger all to do with sport in my book and bigotry even less The Op seems to be labouring under a misapprehension that we have the same kind of history as Rangers but now a few catholics are starting to support us Its the other way around in my opinion - we have never been sectarian and in fact have always had plenty of catholic players/fans etc etc and in fact one of our first managers was one of the early Irish catholic Hibs players James Mcghee It is more our modern history where a misguided minority have tried to drag us down the sectarian road You misunderstand me... I say in the OP that I find nothing in our original history that defines us as a protestant club but that is the way we are described and viewed by many. We are seen as a protestant club by a lot of people and you cannot really blame them when certain songs are heard in certain places. My thinking is this... There is a section of the support who are happy for us to be seen this way as it suits them and their views on such things. One argument this section of our support could cite is that it brings in supporters to the club who have a similar belief set... Afterall, this worked for Rangers and Celtic right? Well the thing is, they have that whole market sown up really and if we continue to just accept people labouring under this misconception of us all being 'mini-Huns' then we will never be able to bring in as many new fans. The Hun-minded and the Tim-minded will always choose RFC and CFC first and everyone else will go by geography, experience, romantic image or hereditery (paternal/maternal) direction. Then however there is a large number of people out there who through their background of imigration etc do not have a natural club to radiate to... All I am trying to say is that we should maybe do more not to put people off and thereby lose the club income by putting up barriers through certain songs and comments while wearing the colours of our non-denominational club. I am not judging these people, I just think we need to take the opportunity to tie up more of the people in our catchment area. The community work done by Hearts and the breakfast clubs etc are a step in this direction but I would like to see the club do even more and try and connect more with the local community to an even greater extent... Have more of a presence in the Gorgie area than just a stadium alone... Be a club that anyone living nearby is proud to reside beside because it is something they want to be identified as sharing a community with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 see i find that strange, as Born and bred Hearts fan who happens to be catholic by birth just as my brother, my father, grandfather and great grandfather were. I have neve been offended by the songs that were sung in the shed(incidentally a damn sight more intolerant than any of the so called sectarian tunes belted out these days) and it never bothered me. I went to catholic primary school and secondary school and the majority of us were hearts fans. I always took the view that it was where you born in Edinburgh not what church you attended that defined your support I am sure you are right that it didnt offend you but I can assure you that I received at least half a dozen PM's at the time citing examples of people who would not go to games because of sectarian singing. If there was some way of retrieving PM's from the old Kickback, I could copy and paste them but I dont believe there is any way - unless any Mods know differently ?? GC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I do not think 'excluded' is the right word... Put off or aprehensive is probably more accurate. Walk past certain pubs on matchday and stand in a que in an asian run paper shop after the game and you will know what I mean. I take your point about cricket but I do not think that is any longer the case to such a great degree... I think that people 'from' the sub-continent, ie: just arrived will be very much willow and leather freaks, but the kids attending Tynie High and the other schools in the area who were born here are far more likely to be football fans... I have seen a few asian guys (single figures) at games but not in any great numbers and I was just wondering what happens that stops them going to games, I mean they are more than likely footy fans at school and yet when it comes to adolescence and adulthood they are poorly represented at the games. I don't think they are being excluded but they obviously do not feel it is for them... Shame really as the extra income would be welcome in a league that sees two clubs so far out front in terms of support and income and us a distant third... The potential is there, I reckon. It is well documented that there are a number of reasons why more Asians do not attend football. However, it is surely not rocket science that some Asians might be put off coming to Tynecastle or following the team away once they are told that "Edinburgh is wonderful except for Hibs, Jews and *******" You misunderstand me... I say in the OP that I find nothing in our original history that defines us as a protestant club but that is the way we are described and viewed by many. We are seen as a protestant club by a lot of people and you cannot really blame them when certain songs are heard in certain places. My thinking is this... There is a section of the support who are happy for us to be seen this way as it suits them and their views on such things. One argument this section of our support could cite is that it brings in supporters to the club who have a similar belief set... Afterall, this worked for Rangers and Celtic right? Well the thing is, they have that whole market sown up really and if we continue to just accept people labouring under this misconception of us all being 'mini-Huns' then we will never be able to bring in as many new fans. The Hun-minded and the Tim-minded will always choose RFC and CFC first and everyone else will go by geography, experience, romantic image or hereditery (paternal/maternal) direction. Then however there is a large number of people out there who through their background of imigration etc do not have a natural club to radiate to... All I am trying to say is that we should maybe do more not to put people off and thereby lose the club income by putting up barriers through certain songs and comments while wearing the colours of our non-denominational club. I am not judging these people, I just think we need to take the opportunity to tie up more of the people in our catchment area. The community work done by Hearts and the breakfast clubs etc are a step in this direction but I would like to see the club do even more and try and connect more with the local community to an even greater extent... Have more of a presence in the Gorgie area than just a stadium alone... Be a club that anyone living nearby is proud to reside beside because it is something they want to be identified as sharing a community with. I think this comes back to what I was saying earlier. In order to do that, reaslitically, you need to make it very difficult or impossible for those with that agenda to attend and be involved in the club. That is completely possible but will take (i) money and (ii) a very strong will. At present, our club has neither. I agree that there is a huge opportunity missed here. Imagine the goodwill and publicity which could be generated by being the first club to say to the OF (and our own bigots) "we are not prepared to tolerate this behaviour at all" and actually enforce it - anyone singing a sectarian song gets a life ban - end of story. The safety in numbers argument wont work either. If you dont want to eject the whole Celtic or Rangers support for fear of trouble, you eject a dozen at each game, you ban them for life, you seek assurances from their own clubs that they are doing the same and you publish their names. Eventually, the message will begin to permeate that they are not welcome if they continue to behave like that. At last, a positive story for the newspapers concerning Hearts eradicating racism and sectarianism once and for all in an era when Scottish football is utterly clueless and in the gutter. Something which could actually make us all proud of Hearts again as a football club. GC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teepee Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I am sure you are right that it didnt offend you but I can assure you that I received at least half a dozen PM's at the time citing examples of people who would not go to games because of sectarian singing. If there was some way of retrieving PM's from the old Kickback, I could copy and paste them but I dont believe there is any way - unless any Mods know differently ?? GC sorry i wasn't for one minute disputing what you had been told by others i just found it a strange response from those telling you why the wouldn't go to tynie. As i said the vast majority of catholics i went to school with were hearts fans maybe it was a case of as we were younger and born hearts fans we just took the rough with the smooth, i suppose it could be intimidating if you were not a regular goer to tynecastle or someone looking for a club to support with no family history of supporting that team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Very briefly: I have no 'figures' on young lassies forced to flee Ireland because of pregnancy, but then why would I? This is not a formal academic debate. You don't give a toss about persecution? Blimey! Society is doomed! We do not live in 'enlightened' times. I do not hate anyone. Individual/private worship is fine. Organised/evangelical religion is wrong - it's political and dangerous - the clergy should not have any kind of power or control over the lives of others, as they have had for centuries. The main problem with religion. though, is that... there is no God! Sorry! No, other than yourself no one really gives a feck about this so called historic persecution that you're so keen to bring up in every conversation. i personally don't know anyone that feels they have been persecuted by the church or by those that choose to dedicate their life to religion and I'm sure i'm not alone thinking that. So aye, you've got to appreciate that it's not going to be relevant to the vast majority of JKB members. Also, I think you're living in a different world if you think the church or religion has any real clout in today's Western society. You're contradicting yourself by stating you have no axe to grind blah, blah, blah, but you still harbour bitterness about the crusades etc - the crusades ffs! I had to pick myself up off the ground after reading that one. I'll say one thing about you, unlike me (because I'm boring) you certainly know how to make these threads entertaining. Wp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teepee Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 there is no God! Sorry! Thank christ you know the answer, but why keep it to this board, im quite sure the papers might just be interested in someone having found out that he/she/it really dosent exist in any shape, form or manner and has just been used as a way of controlling the masses in less enlightened times and in the meantime building huge stockpiles of riches for there own gain...... so are you sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 You should feel honoured that you were here at the very moment in time that the question mankind has been mulling over for centuries, hell, even millenniums has been answered in a definitive, decisive and thoroughly detailed manner. I wonder what we'll all talk about now! I wonder what Dawkins will do now with his time? So... Did anyone bring a fitba with them, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 No, other than yourself no one really gives a feck about this so called historic persecution that you're so keen to bring up in every conversation. i personally don't know anyone that feels they have been persecuted by the church or by those that choose to dedicate their life to religion and I'm sure i'm not alone thinking that. So aye, you've got to appreciate that it's not going to be relevant to the vast majority of JKB members. Also, I think you're living in a different world if you think the church or religion has any real clout in today's Western society. You're contradicting yourself by stating you have no axe to grind blah, blah, blah, but you still harbour bitterness about the crusades etc - the crusades ffs! I had to pick myself up off the ground after reading that one. I'll say one thing about you, unlike me (because I'm boring) you certainly know how to make these threads entertaining. Wp. I do not harbour any personal bitterness - my point is that organised religion is and has been destructive, which makes them fair game - if you cant see that, then you're stupid. And who said anything about Western civilisation? There's a whole world out there that has been influenced by religious maniacs. Sorry if the 'boring' remark stung - I didn't want to get into a looooooooooooooooooooooooong discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Thank christ you know the answer, but why keep it to this board, im quite sure the papers might just be interested in someone having found out that he/she/it really dosent exist in any shape, form or manner and has just been used as a way of controlling the masses in less enlightened times and in the meantime building huge stockpiles of riches for there own gain...... so are you sure? No one can ever be sure about this. Here's a question: If there is a 'God', whatever that may be... why does it need worshiping particularly? What the hell is that about? I do think you are correct though to link religion with social control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest King Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 i think a massive factor in us being viewed as a protestant club is the fact that we have only recently come through the troubles scotland and ireland are intrinsically linked through race and also football clubs(septic and lochenders) and have been now for hundeds of years we have just been caught up in it because our deadliest rivals are irish and catholic heritage im quite sure hearts were not percieved as anything in religious stakes up until 1970s however,its understandable surely of the club to have a majority of protestant supporters in its history 1.protestant majority of population in capital city of a largely protestant nation. 2.fiercest rivals having `percieved` foreign connections borne by the fact of the name hibernian and playing in green and white 3.the `troubles` causing great divide amongst football fans when the disaffected amongst the above mentioned clubs made their voices heard,thus creating hearts fans to become involved against them Intresting mate, but not sure about the bit in bold . My grandparents generation have commented on how there are now Catholics supporting Hearts and Protestants supporting Hibs and how strange it is because when they were younger all the Protestants in the city would support Hearts and Catholics, Hibs. This is obviously not the case anymore, but it is understandable that people view Hearts as a Protestant club if they look at the history of Edinburgh. Anti Irish feeling at the time, although im not sure how strong that was, and the fact that your are not an Irish Catholic would probably mean that you as a Protestant would not follow Hibs, instead one of the other Edinburgh teams. With you either being a Protestant or Catholic back then, it is clear to see why this divide occured. I assume it would cause quite a bit of tension back in the day. Like you say, the 70s would bring about those feelings again and its something which has hung around ever since, on a much smaller scale obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 No one can ever be sure about this. Here's a question: If there is a 'God', whatever that may be... why does it need worshiping particularly? What the hell is that about? I do think you are correct though to link religion with social control. Your question has so many answers that it's not possible to get one true answer. Each individual perceives the world around him/her diffrently to the next person, thus every person will have their own theory/thoughts on why they choose to worship 'a' God. Some out of desperation, some out of comfort, some just because and so on... Whether you're religious or not, you have accept that religion is a complex and fundamental part of the human experience. It always has been and more than likely always will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Intresting mate, but not sure about the bit in bold . My grandparents generation have commented on how there are now Catholics supporting Hearts and Protestants supporting Hibs and how strange it is because when they were younger all the Protestants in the city would support Hearts and Catholics, Hibs. This is obviously not the case anymore, but it is understandable that people view Hearts as a Protestant club if they look at the history of Edinburgh. Anti Irish feeling at the time, although im not sure how strong that was, and the fact that your are not an Irish Catholic would probably mean that you as a Protestant would not follow Hibs, instead one of the other Edinburgh teams. With you either being a Protestant or Catholic back then, it is clear to see why this divide occured. I assume it would cause quite a bit of tension back in the day. Like you say, the 70s would bring about those feelings again and its something which has hung around ever since, on a much smaller scale obviously. That is so obviously not the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_the_Jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 If I may be so bold as to say that its time that the protestants stopped protesting. It was a long time ago after all. In all honesty I bet you many on here do not know why they are called protestants and what they were protesting about in the first place. Jamie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest King Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 That is so obviously not the case And why is that not the case? Did they not say it like? Im not claiming to be an expert here, because religion bores me, but this is my theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Your question has so many answers that it's not possible to get one true answer. Each individual perceives the world around him/her diffrently to the next person, thus every person will have their own theory/thoughts on why they choose to worship 'a' God. Some out of desperation, some out of comfort, some just because and so on... Whether you're religious or not, you have accept that religion is a complex and fundamental part of the human experience. It always has been and more than likely always will be. No, I don't have to accept that at all - most humans do seem to have a need to believe that there is more to life than what we experience first hand - that's most probably a psychological thing, and in no way implies the actual existence of God. Now let's see if anyone can actually answer the question: (because you dodged it) Why does this 'God' need to be worshipped? I'd really like to know the answer to this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmarkus1981 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 "You can't prove there's no God, no fairies, no leprechauns, or that Thor or Apollo don't exist. There's got to be a positive reason to think that fairies exist. Until somebody does, we can say technically we are agnostic about fairies. We can't disprove them, but we think it's a bit of a waste of time trying. And the same goes for God." IMO, the problem is that neither one from either side will jsut walk away and say 'fair enough, believe what you want'. Everyone is always trying to change the others mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 And why is that not the case? Did they not say it like? Im not claiming to be an expert here, because religion bores me, but this is my theory. Not having a go at you mate Just saying that Herats have always had non-protestant supporters and Hibs protestant If Hearts were such a proddy club then we would never have appointed James Mcghee as one of our first managers or had a Jewish chairman that had such a big part to play in our history i'm not saying that religion doesn't come into it for a number of supporters but I don't think it has ever been the overwhelming majority i'm an atheist myself and would hate for us to be lumped in with the Old Firm sectarian baggae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 "You can't prove there's no God, no fairies, no leprechauns, or that Thor or Apollo don't exist. There's got to be a positive reason to think that fairies exist. Until somebody does, we can say technically we are agnostic about fairies. We can't disprove them, but we think it's a bit of a waste of time trying. And the same goes for God." IMO, the problem is that neither one from either side will jsut walk away and say 'fair enough, believe what you want'. Everyone is always trying to change the others mind. Indeed. Actually, when it comes down to it, we can't prove *anything* at all, simply because we can't even prove we exist (perhaps this is all just a dream after all ). So, people should be free to believe what the hell they want (yes, even including holocaust-deniers, although in my opinion they are wrong). It's not belief that causes problems, it's how those beliefs affect other people that is the problem. Human rights is what it all comes down to - people should be able to believe what they want as long as the human rights of individuals are protected within society. Of course the definition of human rights, although agreed on mostly these days internationally, can still be open to interpretation, but it's for us a global society to work that out. This can get complicated however. Let's say some person starts telling everyone that he/she believes that people of a certain skin colour have less brain power anatomically than others. Should we allow that person to express this view in public? Or should the cut-off point be, as it seems to be at the moment, that views can be expressed as long as they do not cause incitement to criminal action (including suppression of human rights)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 No, I don't have to accept that at all - most humans do seem to have a need to believe that there is more to life than what we experience first hand - that's most probably a psychological thing, and in no way implies the actual existence of God. Now let's see if anyone can actually answer the question: (because you dodged it) Why does this 'God' need to be worshipped? I'd really like to know the answer to this! So you're denying religion is an integrated part of mankind and has been since the dawn of mankind? You really have no clue what you're blabbing on about, huh? Living in your own little world here. Whether you believe it or not personally, religion is an integrated part of society a society that is purely human driven. it's complex simply because, unlike your simplistic thought process, it's been around for years so it's not as simple as brushing it aside and pretending it doesn't exist to the extent that it has little impact on how billions live their lives. Jeez, did you really need that spelt out to you? I answered your question, but like everything else, it goes over you head and your only purpose in this thread is to dismiss everything out of hand if it doesn't tie in with your own simplistic view of the world. Anyway, i'm done with you as you're really not worth the effort any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Now let's see if anyone can actually answer the question: (because you dodged it) Why does this 'God' need to be worshipped? I'd really like to know the answer to this! Okay, I'll have a bash. Firstly, God does not 'need' anything, nowhere in the bible does God 'need' to be worshipped. Secondly, God is worthy of worship and exultation. He is Almighty, Creator, He is The Supreme Being. Thirdly, God created us to be in relationship with Him. We worship Him (freely, by choice) because we recognise his deity and sovereignty. Worship is a response to God's love. It involves anything we do in response to that, whether that's singing praise, praying, giving, serving, working, offering everything we do as a holy sacrifice to God. This is our spiritual act of worship. So, your question fails to understand the fundamental nature of God (He doesn't need anything), we choose to worship Him (or not) as a response to His greatness and His love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwull22 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Who "made up" the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest King Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Not having a go at you mateJust saying that Herats have always had non-protestant supporters and Hibs protestant If Hearts were such a proddy club then we would never have appointed James Mcghee as one of our first managers or had a Jewish chairman that had such a big part to play in our history i'm not saying that religion doesn't come into it for a number of supporters but I don't think it has ever been the overwhelming majority i'm an atheist myself and would hate for us to be lumped in with the Old Firm sectarian baggae Indeed, they have never been a protestant club and employed the idea that if your anything else your not wanted at Tynecastle. But what I said was simply the observation of a few old timers who have lived in Edinburgh all their lives, through the 20s 30s 40s etc. and followed Hearts. There opinions were that if you were an Irish Catholic you would support the team founded by Irish Catholics for Irish Catholics. If your anything else, you would follow another team. In this case Hearts. Considering the number of Protestants living in Edinburgh at this time, its no suprise that Hearts had a largely protestant support, and Hibs Catholic. Its clearly an old fashioned view on things but i can see why this happened. I agree though, it is not an overwhelming majority of our support these days. It would probably be quite interesting to see the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 So you're denying religion is an integrated part of mankind and has been since the dawn of mankind? You really have no clue what you're blabbing on about, huh? Living in your own little world here. Whether you believe it or not personally, religion is an integrated part of society a society that is purely human driven. it's complex simply because, unlike your simplistic thought process, it's been around for years so it's not as simple as brushing it aside and pretending it doesn't exist to the extent that it has little impact on how billions live their lives. Jeez, did you really need that spelt out to you? I answered your question, but like everything else, it goes over you head and your only purpose in this thread is to dismiss everything out of hand if it doesn't tie in with your own simplistic view of the world. I'm not denying that it is, I'm denying that it has to be - religion is man-made - man could have chosen something else - something equally bizzare! Christianity itself was a very minor sect before being embrace by the Romans, who then attempted to impose it on everyone else. Enough with the personal insults, by the way - it's not very Christian - you're supposed to turn the other cheek. You didn't answer the question, and you still haven't. I'll start it for you: God needs to be worshipped because... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwull22 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Indeed, they have never been a protestant club and employed the idea that if your anything else your not wanted at Tynecastle. But what I said was simply the observation of a few old timers who have lived in Edinburgh all their lives, through the 20s 30s 40s etc. and followed Hearts. There opinions were that if you were an Irish Catholic you would support the team founded by Irish Catholics for Irish Catholics. If your anything else, you would follow another team. In this case Hearts. Considering the number of Protestants living in Edinburgh at this time, its no suprise that Hearts had a largely protestant support, and Hibs Catholic. Its clearly an old fashioned view on things but i can see why this happened. I agree though, it is not an overwhelming majority of our support these days. It would probably be quite interesting to see the numbers. There aint no such thing as religion therefore everyone is welcome at tynie? But it is true that its the Catholic Church, not necessarily the people that always seem to want to be separate and yet it seems to me as an atheist that those of the Protestant persuasion(equally deluded) that get accused of being sectarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Just a bit curious here... We have a bit of a problem with racism and sectarianism in this country (no worse than other countries probably but they are not my home or concern) and it gets me thinking... I am a 100% convinced atheist and as such find the whole thing a terrible waste of time and -horrificaly- sometimes... even life. Hearts are traditionaly believed to be a protestant football club, as are Rangers who -unlike us- actually went as far as being sectarian in their policy regarding their players faith (apparently), as did the first sectarian football club in our country Hibs... Again apparently... Perhaps someone with more historical knowledge will be able to tell me the real story... To me the whole thing is pretty ludicrous... I mean it's a sport right?... a game, football... Nothing at all to do with which version of an ancient fairytale the supporter chooses to believe... Even taken as a business, rather than a sport, I come to the same conclusions... You need to attract more people to your side than the next lot and as such the changing ethnicity of our catchment area is not getting utilised properly and we as a club are suffering in terms of potential income in this regard. We are described as a protestant club and it has almost become an accepted part of our club's heritage now... Are we that though? I know a couple of Catholics that support our team and a sikh bloke too... Changing times, just as we have a more diverse population surrounding our club the accepted views of civilized people have changed a great deal too. I have never read or seen anything in our original history of 130 odd years ago that makes me think of Hearts as a Protestant club, I may be wrong but I always interpret that side of it as a later thing... Something that cropped up in response to the political environment of the times... Not least of all global conflicts and war and relationships with our neighbours over the Irish sea. I know we were started in an environment and time that meant that our population surrounding the club was predominantly Church of Scotland but back then people were more steadfast in their beliefs also... Even some of the loudest critical voices of other faiths and races, around here, do not live a strict protestant lifestyle that would justify their hatred or in most cases just casuall dislike of others who are not of the same belief or skin colour. I put it to the folks on here that we are missing a great opportunity to grow as a club by attacting others to our crest and getting their born and bred bums on seats in Tynecastle on a regular basis... We would always be Hearts, we would always be proud of our great history but just as the world has changed, shouldn't our attitudes also? I mean capitalism demands that only the biggest ultimately survive and I think it would do us good to swell our ranks by not being so openly hostile to others joining our cause and helping us grow. I am Scottish and white and anyone who was attracted to us as a football club from a different background to that would be there because something about our proud history made them want to be a part of our club and the new pages of our history being written (possibly by an illiterate, in Vlad's era) right now... It would never dilute what our club stands for in my opinion because what Hearts stand for is so much bigger than the relatively recent bigot tag that we have been lubered with. Just wondered where other people stand on this topic... I know that a lot of folk would dissagree stongly with what I am saying but I am open to their different opinion and would take their views on board too. Cheers. Hearts are a Scottish club. Just because other folk started Irish Catholic clubs we got branded a protestant club because Scotland is believed to be a protestant country. I am probably being seen as cynical but Rangers and Celtic do market themselves on their beliefs and have done for sometime. While elsewhere in the country we all tried to dilute the religious or ethnic divide, both the oldfirm pushed the marketing and their fanbase. IMO this whole thing has got to a ridiculous place where if you slag off the catholic church, Ireland or Celtic, you are an orange B in their eyes. My recent altercations with some of the Irish guys in the boozer has left me bamboozled. I have said to them to give up on their thoughts of a replay with France. There has never been a problem before, but all hand jokes could potentially leave the pub divided between the Irish and the Orange Bassas. I personally believe that until all kids get the same education from the same non religious schools we will always have a problem in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmarkus1981 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Who "made up" the Bible? Outstanding my good man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Who "made up" the Bible? If by 'made up' you mean wrote, it was written by various people, there 66 books written by about 40 different people. It's complicated by the fact that several books were co-authored and there's a couple of books nobody's very sure who the author was. I believe that all those books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so ultimately God wrote the bible, He just used men to do so. If by 'made up' you mean put together, the particular books were chosen around the 4th century, some made it, others didn't. There was some controversy over what was canon and what wasn't. There were a number of councils sat, several under the authority of St Augustine, where holy men, again led by the Spirit, made the decision of what should be included and what should not. I hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest King Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Who "made up" the Bible? A number of people wrote different parts of the Bible I think, Moses for example. He is the only name that comes to my head. I think I read that it was various stories put together by people, probably of importance, to teach Christianity and the message of God to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwull22 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 A number of people wrote different parts of the Bible I think, Moses for example. He is the only name that comes to my head. I think I read that it was various stories put together by people, probably of importance, to teach Christianity and the message of God to everyone. Ah we get to the point, its to control the masses, did Moses ever exist? Did Jesus for that matter, and who said so? Or was it these same "people of importance", you don't need religion to decide whats right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Who "made up" the Bible? The jews (apparently) wrote the old testament while being held by their Babylonian masters around 440 BC. The babylonians had a written language and the jews used this to document their history that had previously been passed down orally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest King Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 There aint no such thing as religion therefore everyone is welcome at tynie There is such a thing as religion but religion shouldnt have anything to do with who goes to Tynecastle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.