George Pell's Christmas Message (1 Viewer)

[A High Way Man]

RELIGION has been unfairly blamed for conflicts around the world in recent years, but Christians should remember the benefits of their devotion, Sydney Catholic Archbishop George Pell has said.

In his Christmas message, the archbishop reminds Christians that the birth of Jesus is a symbol of helplessness and hope.

"Christians believe that the almighty God has visited us, not just through prophets, saints and humanitarian heroes, but through sending his son to be born of a virgin in Bethlehem...," Cardinal Pell has said.

"Babies are vulnerable, more helpless initially than any of the animals.

"So too was the son of God, but every birth inspires hope, even when it is only hope against hope."

The archbishop has said God and his believers are not to blame for the world's wars or crimes and Christians should remember the benefits of their devotion.

"...God has been attacked angrily here and there in the English-speaking world and believers have been accused of causing most of the wars and crimes in history," Cardinal Pell has said.

"This is an exaggeration as the moral monsters of the twentieth century Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists and Hitler bitterly hated Jews and Christians.

"But all believers have to acknowledge the downside of their long story, while asking that their positive contributions are also recorded."

In July, more than 500,000 Christians will descend upon Sydney in celebration of World Youth Day and a papal visit.

Cardinal Pell has said followers would travel much further than Mary and Joseph did for the birth of their baby son Jesus in Bethlehem.

"I ask you all to welcome them into your hearts and perhaps, as at the Olympics, into your homes," he said.

"As we celebrate again the birth of the helpless newly-born Christ child, we should remember the sick and the sad, the lonely and the angry and reach out to help them."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22966044-2,00.html

lol at falling into that fallacy.. i've heard it many-a time on my e-travels.

STALIN AND HITLER HAD MOUSTACHES... THEREFORE PEOPLE WHO HAVE MOUSTACHES ARE PURE EVIL!

 

[Captain Gh3y]

All he's saying is that believers didn't cause the worst wars in history and in that much he's right ya silly cunt

 

[A High Way Man]

pell points out the ...dubious morality of an infamous group of men, then labels them as atheist/areligious. he implies that those who call themselves atheist/areligious are lacking in morals compared to the believers. screw that. this is a veiled spiteful attack on nonbelievers by pell. I think we should slit his throat.

 

[Enteebee]

Meh I don't really care, does seem to be a less than inspiring christmas message though.

 

[Enteebee]

Hanging out for the Queen's Chrissy message, yoyo.

Haha don't ask me why (probably the fairly british accent) but I've kinda always in the back of my mind imagined your parents as staunch monarchists - Is this true?

 

[chicky_pie]

Stalin was a atheist? i thought he was a jew, seriously

 

[volition]

People forget about the REALLY immoral thing the church does, and I'm not just talking about pedophilia or its stance on contraception (which are both also pretty bad).

I'm talking about teaching children that this "square circle"(god, a logically contradictory entity) exists in reality, and not just that, saying that "only a good boy/girl will see the square circle". This is really really bad, because they don't teach children how to determine truth from falsehood, which is a grave evil. They just say "believe this shit cos I say so", or generally offer crappy excuses for believing, rather than showing some kind of real, testable, repeatable methodology for discerning the turth. They are most probably condemning that child to a life of irrationality (unless the kid is smart/independent enough to escape the mental prison of christianity).

This is especially bad because they know that children are more vulnerable and unable to resist. So naturally, they'll "get em while they're young", and generally once they've got you as a kid, you stay a christian for life unless you happen to really question the logic behind irrational belief in god. Which explains a lot of things, like why the church tries so hard to brainwash children (World Youth Day for one MAJOR example), and doesn't waste so much time on adults, because they're less likely to believe this BS, being less vulnerable of course.

The church is stone evil and deserves none of your respect.

edit: just to pre-empt anybody who tries to play back at me saying "oh look at all the charitable/nice things the church does", this is completely irrelevant to whether or not brainwashing children is ok. You could be a mass murderer who offers spare time on wednesday afternoons to read stories to children at the orphanage, but you're still a mass murderer. This is not an excuse for destroying the capability of children to think for themselves in a rational manner.

 

[Enteebee]

I'm talking about teaching children that this "square circle"(god, a logically contradictory entity) exists in reality, and not just that, saying that "only a good boy/girl will see the square circle". This is really really bad, because they don't teach children how to determine truth from falsehood, which is a grave evil.

If so, are Santa Claus / The Tooth Fairy equally 'grave evils'?

 

[volition]

If so, are Santa Claus / The Tooth Fairy equally 'grave evils'?

Not really because parents don't really use the argument from morality with these. They don't say "if you don't believe in santa claus, you're a bad person/you're going to hell". It's nowhere near as pressured and forced on them.

The point is that kids aren't being taught the methodology for working out whats true/false, they often just get told to do/believe stuff "cos daddy says so"/some other random crappy excuse.

Although it's probably still bad to fool your kids into thinking santa claus does exist (once again, messing with their development as a rational being), it's nothing compared to the evil of christianity/god. At least kids grow out of believing in santa claus, people don't make the assumption that a kid will "grow out of christianity" when they're lying to the kid about god. It seems the whole point of bullying your kids into thinking god exists, is so they'll stay christian for life.

Religion is evil, reject it completely. Merry Christmas to you all.

 

[CharlieB]

^mad lulz

I am a strong Catholic, and not once, say after the age of 7, have i used a pathetic excuse like that.

All children, regardless of religious affiliation are naive and ignorant.

 

[A High Way Man]

All children, regardless of religious affiliation are naive and ignorant.

then its a greater crime to unleash upon them your dogma.

 

[volition]

Volition: A man of many contradictions.

While we're at it: God Bless Atheism!

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I stopped reading your post after this.

who's the dogmatic one then?

 

[Josie]

As a good friend of mine likes to say: Catholic Boarding School made him the atheist he is today.

I've probably read more of the bible than most Christians :\
(How many people can honestly say they've read the entire Old Testament, seriously..)

 

[Retrovertigo]

I read the thread title as George Pell's Christmas Massage and I thought they'd finally caught him kiddy-fiddling.


...

 

[ari89]

While we're at it: God Bless Atheism!

While is violence

we're is violence

at is violence

it is violence

God is violence

Bless is violence

Atheism is violence

 

[KFunk]

If so, are Santa Claus / The Tooth Fairy equally 'grave evils'?

When looking at the TV guide the other night I noted that some dicey made-for-TV version of Pratchett's Hogfather was being shown. I looked up the book on wikipedia to remind myself what it was about (I read it some time ago) and came across an amusing, yet interesting, little bit of exposition:

"The book is about the nature of belief, in particular that people need to believe in small things there is no evidence for, such as Hogfathers and Tooth Fairies, in order to believe in larger things, such as Justice and Hope."

 

[KFunk]

The church is stone evil and deserves none of your respect.

...This is not an excuse for destroying the capability of children to think for themselves in a rational manner.

It is true that God forms the centerpiece of most organised religions, but it is worth keeping in mind that a further significant aspect of these religions is that they endorse a particular way of life and some brand of moral system. In other words, they provide an account of what constitues 'the good life'.

Personally, I disagree with much of religiously derived morality (on the basis of my own, personally held beliefs) and I am fairly sympathetic to your dislike of dogma - I strongly support a broad, liberal education which encourages reflective criticism of one's own beliefs. However, I am also of the view, as you are well aware, that valuative (including ethical) claims aren't true or false in any objective sense and so I don't feel that valuative systems, such as found in religious doctrine, can be properly deemed irrational (unless they display certain features, such as overt inconsistency). Rather, criticism will typically only make sense, in my view, when cast from a position which already makes some assumptions about what is 'good' or 'valuable'. One approach may be to identify a shared ethical/valuative goal and argue that a given restructuring of your opposition's moral system would better achieve this goal (or something along those lines). A lot can be achieved when shared beliefs are involved, such as the desire to live in a stable/peaceful society (think of a social contractarian approach). On the other hand, if no common ground is identified then it is easy for the debate to be reduced to a giant, rhetorical pissing competition - an outcome which I personally don't see as very constructive.

In light of the above views I am inclined to feel that your attacks on religious 'irrationality' are only semi-founded. Yes, there are many areas in which many religions could benefit from rational reflection (not to say that religious belief can't be rational when approached in the right way), but there are also significant portions of religious doctrine (i.e. those which describe 'the good life') which I don't feel warrant the label 'irrational' given that they are just as arbitrary as many of our own ethical beliefs.

 

[volition]

In other words, they provide an account of what constitues 'the good life'

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the good life", but if the good life has nothing to do with God, then its fine to teach what you think the good life is. I think these are two separate issues.

so I don't feel that valuative systems, such as found in religious doctrine, can be properly deemed irrational (unless they display certain features, such as overt inconsistency)

For the most part, this is what I am charging them with. They claim the existence of a non-empirically verifiable being, so the burden of proof lies on them. There is no rational proof for God (it does depend on what we're defining God as), belief in God fundamentally requires a bit of idiotic blind 'faith'.

which I don't feel warrant the label 'irrational' given that they are just as arbitrary as many of our own ethical beliefs.

Not entirely sure what you mean, so I'd like an example if you don't mind.

But just to take a stab at it, two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that we irrationally do other things doesn't mean we should just embrace more irrationality.

 

[_dhj_]

Religion is a rational instrument, rational in the fulfillment of its primary purpose - the enactment of a state of social order. It offers something - for example the promise of an afterlife, food and clothing for the poor, an absolute point of spiritual reference, social networks etc. - in exchange for people to act in a certain way and follow a certain moral code which tends to establish an orderly society; quid pro quo. Of course religion has a role in society, but the more society is based on the rule of law, the more we are preoccupied with consumerist pursuits, the less religion has a role to play, and indeed the less religion does play a role.

Whether religion tells the truth is a different question. But volition answered his own question by pointing out the non-verifiability of the existence of god. The easier something is to prove, or alternatively the harder something is to disprove, the easier it is to believe or accept the thing. Morality and values, for example are essentially non-verifiable. But this simply allows morality to be determined rationally so that moral codes that yield favourable consequences dominate moral codes that do not. This is not to imply that religion yields relatively favourable consequences, rather, as I have mentioned there are other instruments that seem more effective, but it is easy to see its rationale and why it has been so prominent in the history of mankind.