PolishForums LIVE  /  Archives [3]    
   
Archives - 2010-2019 / News  % width 110

Anti-atheisation institute in Poland emerging


Polson  5 | 1767  
19 Jun 2013 /  #61
it was the kings that killed.

The kings that obeyed religious laws. Anyway, if the kings were that bad, then we were right to get rid of them ;)

Catholics are God-fearing, know that phrase?

Yes, and that explains a lot. People also fear dictators. It doesn't mean they respect and believe in them. Fear and respect/faith are two different things.

I still don't think I need to follow religious laws to be a good, righteous man. I don't need to fear God's wrath.
jon357  73 | 23112  
19 Jun 2013 /  #62
if somebody says that cathilicism killed thousands then i laugh

The Catharsis, Bogumils, Albigensians wold not share your inane giggling. Nor would the French Protestants on St Bartholomew's Day or the Templars.
goofy_the_dog  
19 Jun 2013 /  #63
Again u r talking about king's decisions.. It his conscience that is to blame. Catholicism is against unjustifiable slaughter

lol polson, there is no denocracy with God ;-)
Polson  5 | 1767  
19 Jun 2013 /  #64
Catholicism is against unjustifiable slaughter

In its history, Catholics often found 'justified' to punish the heretics, any possible way, not just excommunion.
Of course, we have to take the time, era into account. But saying that Catholicism is all pure and innocent is not true. It has bloods in its hands too.

lol polson, there is no denocracy with God ;-)

What do you mean?
jon357  73 | 23112  
19 Jun 2013 /  #65
Again u r talking about king's decisions.. It his conscience that is to blame. Catholicism is against unjustifiable slaughter

No. Each of those massacres was condoned (and in some cases directly ordered) by the Vatican and the perpetrators absolved.
goofy_the_dog  
19 Jun 2013 /  #66
Then vatican would be called a power hungry organisation that wants overthrow the king ;)
U r hypocritical.
People are meant to fear god's punishment polson, u said that u dont want to be it that way, catholics or not ee all have no right to oppose God. This is why i said that a god is a sort of a king, as he is, u dont u with him, and the same goes for,th. church
Polson  5 | 1767  
19 Jun 2013 /  #67
U r hypocritical.

Who is? Catholics who hide behind God and their religion/faith because they're too scared of life (and afterlife)? ;)

People are meant to fear god's punishment polson

Well, people do what they want I guess. I can just talk for myself of course. I'd rather really believe in something, cuz it makes sense to me, than just mostly be scared of...Ragnarök. Oops, not the same religion, sorry ;P
Ironside  50 | 12383  
19 Jun 2013 /  #68
Nobility or clergy, whatever the 'family'. As you said earlier (?), clergymen often came from nobility. Not all of course.

due to the state control over the Church in France- blame the state not the pope.

If that's only what you know about him, I suggest you read his biography. He did a little more than just 'story telling'.

Talking rubbish and conjuring things

I never said you were a great thinker ;)

I know but you are in no position to judge it one way or the other.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, maybe that makes sense tho.

What are you talking about? We were talking about declaration and reality. people were and are unequal in life and no declaration changed that.

So when you're unhappy, you just shup up and suffer in silence?

No when you are unhappy you go and kick a puppy. Or if you are a great thinker you destroy all order to create reality that suits YOUR needs and YOUR vision above everybody else.

Back then, when you were born peasant, you would die peasant. There was no other possibility.

Who told you that? Was it the same teacher who though you about glorious Revolution?

I'll just quote Churchill: democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

Well he like to make witty comments as for a professional politician. I have on for you The Devil is in the details .

Working women is not good to you?

Working women was a cleaver ploy at the time. One that profited manufacture owners.

And yes, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. But in between, we can find a comfy middle class. Growing.

Growing belly? What? If you are suggesting that a middle class is growing you are seriously deluded. Maybe by the French example which is representative for others major countries.

eaching kids that they are sinners, poor little guilty creatures who have to suffer as Jesus suffered for them, is not another kind of brainwashing?

It would even been funny if not for the fact that you have no clue.

Well, the Church lives on people who believe. If believers go away, what would happen to the Church?

The same goes for a state, for any kind of social order. The difference is if you don't want to be a catholic you are not. If you don't like your state you have to emigrate or the state is using force against you.

Easy to judge now. The Terror should have never happened, of course. But then what should have happened? Nothing, at all? We should have kept the ancient system, that was fine to you?

You should work with the King making evolutionary changes. Not let the world let riot run wild. Just because you can - reason unleashed can be deathly it seems. But then worshipers of reason never had the sense to realize it.

Before the French Revolution for instance. Death penalty for the heretics, the infidels, or misbelievers. When the law is based upon a religion, you have to follow it, no matter what you believe in.

Nonsense that was convention taken by the state. In Protestant countries much more witches have been killed and they cannot blame it on the RCC.

You know what I meant.

pray tell me. What would happened if some French dude or few would say that the President is a son of devil and should be removed and France should be returned to religious origins?

Every established rule defends itself - right? Ring a bell now?
OP Polonius3  980 | 12275  
20 Jun 2013 /  #69
Polson: France used to be called 'najstarsza córa Kościoła' (the Church's eldest daughter). Now more approrptiate would be 'najstarsza córa Koryntu!'.(the eldest daughter of Corinth).
Polson  5 | 1767  
20 Jun 2013 /  #70
Now more approrptiate would be 'najstarsza córa Koryntu!

Because?

people were and are unequal in life and no declaration changed that.

By nature, yes, in terms of rights, not really. I'm talking about rights.

Or if you are a great thinker you destroy all order to create reality that suits YOUR needs and YOUR vision above everybody else.

It's funny that almost all modern states today followed the example of France (and the US, and even Poland and its early Constitution). People are so evil to want freedom. Fools they are.

Who told you that? Was it the same teacher who though you about glorious Revolution?

When you were born in a small village, far from any big city, you were illiterate, barely spoke a proper language, so yes, you were doomed to a life in your small village, with an arranged marriage with your neighbours.

It would even been funny if not for the fact that you have no clue.

Well, you may not believe me, but I've been to the church a few times. I even had catechism classes as a kid.

You should work with the King making evolutionary changes.

In France, the king was believed to be chosen by God. Evolutionary ideas were not the priority.

What would happened if some French dude or few would say that the President is a son of devil and should be removed and France should be returned to religious origins?

They would very certainly get laughed at.
Ironside  50 | 12383  
20 Jun 2013 /  #71
No. Each of those massacres was condoned (and in some cases directly ordered) by the Vatican and the perpetrators absolved.

you are simplifying a very complex issues. I hope you are aware of that.
jon357  73 | 23112  
20 Jun 2013 /  #72
When you were born in a small village, far from any big city, you were illiterate, barely spoke a proper language, so yes, you were doomed to a life in your small village, with an arranged marriage with your neighbours.

Indeed. And there are sections of society who believe this to be a good situation.
Ironside  50 | 12383  
20 Jun 2013 /  #73
even Poland and its early Constitution

Poland didn't.

By nature, yes, in terms of rights, not really. I'm talking about rights.

What the diffe3nce does in make? If you are peasant with some rights or full rights ? At least in 19th century France?

When you were born in a small village, far from any big city, you were illiterate, barely spoke a proper language, so yes, you were doomed to a life in your small village, with an arranged marriage with your neighbours.

Yes what was his choice in 1780 and 1830? Same or just go and work in the pits. Really great upgrade.

Well, you may not believe me, but I've been to the church a few times. I even had catechism classes as a kid.

Where there anything about people starving as a fault of the Church? Was there explicitly state and let them starve? Or you are just making stuff up connecting wrong dots?

In France, the king was believed to be chosen by God. Evolutionary ideas were not the priority.

Is that your excuse?
jon357  73 | 23112  
20 Jun 2013 /  #74
In France, the king was believed to be chosen by God. Evolutionary ideas were not the priority.

Indeed - and people are free to believe that if they want. The great achievement of laicity is that the laws which govern society are not based on such things. France does that very well.
Barney  17 | 1672  
20 Jun 2013 /  #75
In Christendom all kings were supposedly chosen by God which makes atheism and monarchism incompatible
jon357  73 | 23112  
20 Jun 2013 /  #76
Plent of people living in or originally from countries with Monarchies would disagree with you. They are in fact very compatible - since the Divine Right of Kings hypothesis is not universally held. The concept of Monarchy has evolved over the years (and was never absolute; there are majority Buddhist countries ruled by Monarchies - they dont have gods at all).
Polson  5 | 1767  
20 Jun 2013 /  #77
Poland didn't.

I meant it showed the way. Poland's Constitution was the first in Europe.

What the diffe3nce does in make? If you are peasant with some rights or full rights ?

The difference is that today, you can be born peasant, and end up a successful lawyer, or even president. Equal chances. You may not like the idea, but that's what it is about.

There are still inequalities, loads of them, there's no perfect world, but you can't compare today's society with the one centuries ago.

and 1830?

How about we stick to 2013? Changes take time.

Where there anything about people starving as a fault of the Church? Was there explicitly state and let them starve?

I never said that the Church wants to make people live in misery. Maybe you are making up stuff.

Is that your excuse?

Sure, if explaining stuff is excusing, then yes, it is an excuse.
If you really think that royal families and nobles (and clergy) wanted to change anything, you're wrong.
Ironside  50 | 12383  
20 Jun 2013 /  #78
I meant it showed the way. Poland's Constitution was the first in Europe.

yet Poland didn't turned ugly with terror.

The difference is that today,

Ah today after 200 years. what makes you think that without Revolution things would be worse, could be even better.

I never said that the Church wants to make people live in misery. Maybe you are making up stuff.

you implied that because of the Church there were misery. As if without the church misery wouldn't be widespread. Maybe you don't know what you are saying?

If you really think that royal families and nobles (and clergy) wanted to change anything, you're wrong.

Some did, plenty of them sided with Revolution.
However they could be swayed to improve things given a chance.
Anyway.
My point is that the Church wasn't responsible for certain illnesses and inadequacies in France before Revolution.
That picking on religion as a culprit of all wrongs is just plainly derailed thinking.
Barney  17 | 1672  
20 Jun 2013 /  #79
They are in fact very compatible - since the Divine Right of Kings hypothesis is not universally held. The concept of Monarchy has evolved over the years (and was never absolute; there are majority Buddhist countries ruled by Monarchies - they dont have gods at all).

In Christendom all kings were supposedly chosen by God

The concept of monarchy goes hand in glove with Christianity, a democrat and/or an atheist has to reject the unelected
jon357  73 | 23112  
20 Jun 2013 /  #80
No they don't - and there are millions of people who are happily both.
OP Polonius3  980 | 12275  
20 Jun 2013 /  #81
The term 'good Catholic family' may trigger confusion, resentment and perhaps even some envy amongst the godless, but maybe they should ask themselves why no-one ever says 'good godless family', 'good atheist family', 'good agnostic family or 'good pagan family'. Sure, someone can say those things to prove a point or just to be funny. One can also say 'good peanutbutter family' or 'good ćwikła family' as a lopsided joke. But as a concept 'good Cahtolic family' does exist. It means a family whose shared Catholic faith is a bonding factor integrating its members round a common system of values. Others ałso have values -- someone will say. Sure they do, but still 'good atheist family' and the others are rarely if ever seen or heard. Ever wodner why?
Polson  5 | 1767  
20 Jun 2013 /  #82
yet Poland didn't turned ugly with terror.

So? Poland is better? The Terror period was probably not necessary, but it happened. I'd say it was a nasty side effect of all the things that were happening.

what makes you think that without Revolution things would be worse, could be even better.

Weren't you the one saying that what ifs were useless?
I enjoy using my comp, talking to people about anything at the other end of the world, travelling. Without the Revolution (and some other events), the farthest I could have 'travelled', as a peasant, would be to the next village. Not very exotic. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, who knows anyway? What ifs.

you implied that because of the Church there were misery. As if without the church misery wouldn't be widespread. Maybe you don't know what you are saying?

Only saying that where there's strong religious beliefs, traditions take a lot of place, at the expense of modernism (->improvement of people's life, in general). I know what you'll say, modernism is evil, only through traditions can a civilisation survive. Anyway.

Some did, plenty of them sided with Revolution.

True, indeed. Also because many felt that if they didn't, they'd be the enemies of the Revolution, and they knew what could happen.

My point is that the Church wasn't responsible for certain illnesses and inadequacies in France before Revolution.
That picking on religion as a culprit of all wrongs is just plainly derailed thinking.

Agreed. Everything is not the Church's fault.
Barney  17 | 1672  
20 Jun 2013 /  #83
and there are millions of people who are happily both.

It's possible to be both a democrat and an atheist I agree, but to be a monarchist one must either believe in god or be undemocratic.
Harry  
20 Jun 2013 /  #84
but to be a monarchist one must either believe in god or be undemocratic.

Either that or believe in constitutional monarchy; I certainly do.
Ironside  50 | 12383  
20 Jun 2013 /  #85
Also because many felt that if they didn't, they'd be the enemies of the Revolution, and they knew what could happen.

Like Robespierre ?

Only saying that where there's strong religious beliefs, traditions take a lot of place, at the expense of modernism (->improvement of people's life, in general).

That is presumption without merit. I call-it an ideological bias.

Weren't you the one saying that what ifs were useless?

Sure those are useless but that different. To put it differently. Revolution wasn't the only path for improvement, in my opinion it was the worse one from few possible.
Polson  5 | 1767  
20 Jun 2013 /  #86
Sure they do, but still 'good atheist family' and the others are rarely if ever seen or heard. Ever wodner why?

Your opinion is that it's just not possible, or...?
There are plenty of atheist/agnostic families, and kids are not less happy/healthy than those coming from 'good Catholic families'.

Like Robespierre ?

In a way, yes.

That is presumption without merit. I call-it an ideological bias.

Then find me a very modern and very religious state.
Most religious states (Catholic or any other religion) have a vast part of their population living in poverty.
Again, I'm not saying that modern countries are dreamlands, and religious ones are holes. Things are more complex than that. It's just a general observation.

Revolution wasn't the only path for improvement, in my opinion it was the worse one from few possible.

Maybe you're right. Well, that's if Revolution = Terror, which is not the case. The Terror was a period of the Revolution.
Anyway, some would say that 'terrorism' is sometimes necessary for such drastic changes. Others would say it serves their political aspirations.
Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between. But I never said I agreed with the Terror period.
Anyway, history is history.
OP Polonius3  980 | 12275  
20 Jun 2013 /  #87
'good atheist family' and the others are rarely if ever seen or heard

But you never hear anyone refer to them as 'a good atheist family', do you?
Again it's not a qwursiton that such a family cnanot be good, but 'good Catholic family' is an existing conceopt, these others are not.
Harry  
20 Jun 2013 /  #88
but maybe they should ask themselves why no-one ever says 'good godless family', 'good atheist family', 'good agnostic family or 'good pagan family'.

Maybe you should ask yourself why nobody ever says 'a godless paedophile' or 'an atheist paedophile' or 'an agnostic paedophile' or 'a pagan paedophile'
Ironside  50 | 12383  
20 Jun 2013 /  #89
Then find me a very modern and very religious state.
Most religious states (Catholic or any other religion) have a vast part of their population living in poverty.

Qatar ?

In a way, yes.

So his reign of terror was caused by his fear of the Revolution.Interesting theory.
Polson  5 | 1767  
20 Jun 2013 /  #90
Qatar ?

You don't want to talk about Qatar ^^
Rich doesn't mean modern.

So his reign of terror was caused by his fear of the Revolution.Interesting theory.

We don't know much about his implication in the Terror period. But you, Iron, probably know much better than 'us' ;)

Archives - 2010-2019 / News / Anti-atheisation institute in Poland emergingArchived