# Cardinal Pell's no show



## Bribie G (12/12/15)

Tick Tock, Tick Tock......


----------



## technobabble66 (12/12/15)

Absolute. Disgrace. 

Why is he (and others) not treated like regular people, and answer to the law?? Surely he should be criminally charged with Aiding & Abetting, (Conspiring to) Perverting the Course of Justice, Offense to Harass Witness, Failure to Report a Serious Crime, & Suppression of Documents, etc. Instead there's a big drama over him merely answering some questions in a Royal Commission. 

He is a disgrace to humanity, let alone as a representative of a religion claiming adherence to the teachings of Jesus. 

He is a perfect example of everything that can go wrong in an institutionalised religion.


----------



## hellbent (12/12/15)

All I can say is some (note the word _"some_" ) of these highly respected men of God who every Sunday get up on their boxes and preach about about the evils of sin and how the devil will get us if we don't repent.... are the same hypocritical, lying, pedophiles who over the years took advantage of kids that were to naive know any different and to scared to tell.
What bloody right have they to preach Gods way to us when they break ever rule themselves?? They havent the guts to front up to their accusers by their "to weak to travel" excuse....weaks right...weak as piss! May they get all they deserve with intrest and more..!!
BTW before anyone starts having a go at me for knocking the church let me just tell you, I speak of a personal experience!

Edit: forgot to mention Alcoholics


----------



## pcmfisher (12/12/15)

But he wiil still go to heaven.

It's only the non believers that won't.


----------



## goomboogo (12/12/15)

He must have the same doctor as Christopher Skase.


----------



## antiphile (12/12/15)

It's probably just some weird form of schadenfreuder, but I've been addicted to watching the live stream of the Royal Commission. When Pell's senior counsel presented this petition yesterday, the thing that kept going through my head was why can't we show the same consideration for his health that he and the diocese showed for the victims'. Bring him back in cuffs if necessary.


----------



## seamad (12/12/15)

Despite the efforts of Myer ( Pell's minimum $20,000/day SC), the commissioner has Pell's measure, either Pell will never fly again anywhere, or he'll turn up to the RC at some stage.


> If the Cardinal’s health has not sufficiently improved by then to enable him to travel we will further consider the position, which may include further delaying his evidence to a date when he can travel safely to Australia


----------



## Leviathan (12/12/15)

I wonder how many more lifetimes it'll take before the penny drops on the religious.


----------



## DU99 (12/12/15)

wonder if pell is guilty too,does he have something to hide


----------



## antiphile (12/12/15)

Be patient, Leviathan. Many of these self-proclaimed moralisers have only had 2000 years to tweak their rules.

It also seems the way to really succeed in the church is to demonstrate very severe dementia. Everyone in yesterday's sitting was dumbfounded and shaking their heads (including the 3 commissioners) as Bishop Finnigan provided six hours of testimony using just 2 phrases; "I have no recollection of that" and "I doubt I'd ever have done that".


----------



## Mardoo (12/12/15)

Leviathan said:


> I wonder how many more lifetimes it'll take before the penny drops on the religious.


Hopefully it's an extremely large penny.


----------



## Rod (12/12/15)

Would only be good if he has to swear on the bible


----------



## Dave70 (12/12/15)

One would imagine for a deity capable of granting immortality, tinkering with the blood pressure of one of his loyal fanboys that he may attend an important appointment a minor imposition.

It / he/ she / transgender really is mysterious.


----------



## booargy (12/12/15)

I was hoping they would be treated like terrorists lock them up until they can be sure that they dindonuffin


----------



## hellbent (12/12/15)

pcmfisher said:


> But he wiil still go to heaven.
> 
> It's only the non believers that won't.


He can go to farkin hell as far as I'm concerned!


----------



## Bribie G (20/2/16)

Well, well, well - the noose tightens, although one should give everyone the right to remain innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (20/2/16)

I dont know what I detest more....... Pedophiles hiding in and behind the church, ...............or the church hiding and protecting pedophiles


----------



## Tropico (20/2/16)

I could never see Pell condescend to something as unimportant as an Australian Royal commission.


----------



## Bribie G (20/2/16)

Funny that he did a bolt to the Vatican (an independent country) about the time that the shyte was starting to hit the fan here at home.


----------



## Seaquebrew (20/2/16)

Tim Minchin has a good way of putting things

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EtHOmforqxk

Cheers


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (20/2/16)

Bribie G said:


> Funny that he did a bolt to the Vatican (an independent country) about the time that the shyte was starting to hit the fan here at home.


mmm..extradition could be interesting..... but **** him, drag the c*nt home to face the music.

Just because he is a high ranking church official *DOES NOT MAKE HIM ABOVE THE LAW.*


----------



## Weizguy (20/2/16)

Bribie G said:


> Funny that he did a bolt to the Vatican (an independent country) about the time that the shyte was starting to hit the fan here at home.


Almost seems like the church protecting it's own interests. Now a newspaper has released information that charges may be laid against Pell regarding paedohilia. I haven't heard the Pope supporting him recently.

As a Novocastrian, I proudly claim Pell and reserve the right to lynch him in the Newcastle City Mall.

Either way, let's go old school, like when the church used to make people undergo Trial by Ordeal. So, put him on a plane ASAP and fly him out for his RC appearance. If he dies, he was guilty, if he survives he can face the court's wrath.

SIMPLE!


----------



## Tropico (20/2/16)

I wonder what Donald Trump would say about Pell hiding behind those huge walls that surround the Vatican. No-one getting in, or out there.




Wrong finger Donald


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (20/2/16)

This thing about not being able to fly or travel is pure *Bullshit*

There are plenty of air ambulances with controlled environments designed to take patients on lengthy flights just like him

Or

Put the prick on a boat


----------



## Bribie G (20/2/16)

Just as well there are no longer any cabin boys.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (20/2/16)

Thats prob the reason he wont come back


----------



## Maheel (20/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Thats prob the reason he wont come _all over their _back


fixed that for you


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (20/2/16)

All those hyperventilating over sharia law need to take a good hard look at the canon law of the catholic church. It has operated for centuries and explains a lot about the church's response to, and their total failure to comprehend, the criminal nature of the actions of their pedophile priests.


----------



## djsmi4 (21/2/16)

> I haven't heard the Pope supporting him recently.


This is a big failing on the Pope's part - that he isn't actively doing something about it.





> Put the prick on a boat



Ironically he probably wouldn't be allowed back within the country by choosing this transportation method.


----------



## Tropico (21/2/16)

Maybe the pope could put his own words into action: "build bridges not walls".

But in this case I think it is: "do as I say, not as I do"


----------



## CmdrRyekr (21/2/16)

So where is 'god' in all this?



> “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”





> “Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.
> 
> The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.
> 
> Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, 'this might be all part of God’s plan,' or 'there are no accidents in life,' or 'everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves' - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.


----------



## Bribie G (21/2/16)

CmdrRyekr said:


> So where is 'god' in all this?


Religion, the Opium of the Masses.
That and AFL of course.


----------



## CmdrRyekr (21/2/16)

djsmi4 said:


> This is a big failing on the Pope's part - that he isn't actively doing something about it.


He needs to stand up on his tax-free gold plated balcony in his protected tax-haven, and publicly announce that any member of the kiddy-fiddler boys club church that is properly accused (i.e. with Police provided evidence) will NOT be protected at all by any boys club church member and will be put to public legal trial where the accuser chooses; and if convicted they must be immediately and explicitly thrown out of the boys club and into Gaol/Jail (as the locality will define the spelling).

Until then, he's not doing enough - and I'd say even that's not going far enough.



djsmi4 said:


> Ironically he probably wouldn't be allowed back within the country by choosing this transportation method.


Only if he was a refugee. You can arrive by boat if you're a citizen.


----------



## Feldon (21/2/16)

Bribie G said:


> Religion, the Opium of the Masses.
> That and AFL of course.


There is but one God and His name is Eddie, and Nathan is His prophet.


----------



## CmdrRyekr (21/2/16)

Feldon said:


> There is but one God and His name is Eddie, and Nathan is His prophet.


There _is_ evidence for their existence at least. Unlike other "gods".


----------



## AJS2154 (21/2/16)

Well, I would like to see Pell back here too, and I too wondered why he needed to be ensconsed in the Vatican around the time this gained momentum.

Nevertheless, all people are entitled to the presumption of innocence until otherwise proven guilty. Geroge Pell is also allowed that privilage.

If there is a God, and George Pell believes there is, then he must be sweating on his own judgement day. He will know is his own conscience if he has done something wrong, and if he has he must feel like his has plenty to answer for on that day.

He will stew in his own juice if he has done something wrong. Going to judgement day without making things right is considered a very bad thing in his faith. If he exists, The Big Man will deal with him......harshly I suspect.


----------



## Bribie G (21/2/16)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOWR2LPZ-TI


----------



## CmdrRyekr (21/2/16)

AJS2154 said:


> He will stew in his own juice if he has done something wrong. Going to judgement day without making things right is considered a very bad thing in his faith. If he exists, The Big Man will deal with him......harshly I suspect.


And if there isn't, he's gotten of scott free. 

Not good enough if you ask me.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (21/2/16)

As kerry Packer once said " I have been to the other side and there was nothing ******* there"


----------



## AJS2154 (21/2/16)

CmdrRyekr said:


> And if there isn't, he's gotten of scott free.
> 
> Not good enough if you ask me.


Yep, I agree with you buddy, no argument from me. But, failing him coming back to answer the accusations, that's about all we can hope for.


----------



## manticle (21/2/16)

I have a history of hating Pell for his arch conservative views and everything he stands for and he absolutely should be pushed in every which way to answer any and all questions in this regard.

He is still innocent till proven guilty. There's an awful lot that could go wrong with due process in this regard but if it's all that's available; anyone and everyone needs to be given that, no matter how much I personally despise them.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (21/2/16)

He is what they term as a "Protected Species"

He has God on his side......


----------



## manticle (21/2/16)

I know.
Cynical me says **** him and all his kind but if we let the actual principles of justice go, we're no better.

So far he's guilty by association, assumption and accusation and none of those are good enough.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (21/2/16)

And the fact he knows about it, but what did he do.....moved the priests......


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (21/2/16)

If only it was the same as Jake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX5tfRdkoY0


----------



## Dave70 (22/2/16)

manticle said:


> I know.
> Cynical me says **** him and all his kind but if we let the actual principles of justice go, we're no better.
> 
> *So far he's guilty by association, assumption and accusation and none of those are good enough.*


Much as I'd hate to see a miscarriage of justice, obscurantism or contempt will do for me.


----------



## technobabble66 (22/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> And the fact he knows about it, but what did he do.....moved the priests......


This. 
This really gets me - how on earth can he not be another face of evil?!

I'd completely agree with manticle - principles are only tested when it's tempting to do otherwise. And our principles of fair justice need to apply even to evil fkrs like Pell. 
Though I'd definitely agree given the extensive situation he should be forced to front up in court, even if air ambulances are required. The only good thing about his lamest of excuses for not showing up in court is that it reveals the kind of person he truly is. 

Slightly OT, I'm curious as to where all the xenophobes went who were protesting what *might* occur if a mosque was built somewhere. All the hype on how Islam could *potentially* harm our society. Where are they in this - where a Christian church has been shown to actually harm our society?? A Christian organization not only having pedophiles in their ranks (which, to be fair, could initially be any organization) but condoning and facilitating their evil - which I'd argue is the real evil in this. It reeks of hypocrisy and blind ignorance.


----------



## Dave70 (22/2/16)

technobabble66 said:


> This.
> This really gets me - how on earth can he not be another face of evil?!
> 
> I'd completely agree with manticle - principles are only tested when it's tempting to do otherwise. And our principles of fair justice need to apply even to evil fkrs like Pell.
> ...


Likely they successfully lobbied the local planning authority to deny the application. Job done. Why keep shouting about it. Just like the proposal for the islamic cemetery up the road fro my place was knocked back. That had nothing to do with 'xenophobia' and everything to do with bodily fluids of decomposing corpses contaminating the ground water. 

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself what is a better deal for society as a whole. Which is why I oppose the proliferation of _any religious _edifice. 
Unfortunately there seems to be an inverse relationship between how many mosques a country boasts and the prosperity of its inhabitants. Cant blame people - much less accuse them of xenophobia, for wanting not wanting to encourage hubs where bad ideas are spread. 
God is apparently omnipresent, a port a loo is as good as a church in practical terms.


----------



## pcmfisher (22/2/16)

AJS2154 said:


> If there is a God, and George Pell believes there is, then he must be sweating on his own judgement day. He will know is his own conscience if he has done something wrong, and if he has he must feel like his has plenty to answer for on that day.
> 
> He will stew in his own juice if he has done something wrong. Going to judgement day without making things right is considered a very bad thing in his faith. If he exists, The Big Man will deal with him......harshly I suspect.


He will make things right by then. All he needs is a few Hail Marys to absolve all his sins and he will be straight to heaven with God giving him a wink on the way past.
The worst and only unforgivable sin is non belief in God. 
It is only these heathen bastards that end up burning in Hell forever.


----------



## Mardoo (22/2/16)

Two words: beer volcano.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (22/2/16)

Mardoo said:


> Two words: beer volcano.


Ramen brother. May the Sauce be with you


----------



## yankinoz (22/2/16)

I taught anthropology for 25 years in a Catholic seminary. One unfortunate trait of the Catholic Church, and one that I'd argued with the priest/president, was the Church's extreme reluctance to admit fault. Comes with papal infallibility, I guess, but I think it's one source of many of their present problems, such as stonewalling on molestation. Money is another factor. Too bad--the priests and brothers I worked with really wanted to serve poor communities, and not just by preaching and performing sacraments.

Before that I was on the board of the national archives in PNG. At one point they requested copies of church archives, including those from WWII. All but one church involved in those years complied. Guess which one didn't?

What does all that have to Pell? Never mind the new pope, Rome will cover for him guilty or innocent, but Pell's arrogance does not help their cause..


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (22/2/16)

pcmfisher said:


> The worst and only unforgivable sin is non belief in God.


Well, I am well and truly screwed on that front


----------



## pcmfisher (23/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Well, I am well and truly screwed on that front


No you're not. Your spaghetti an meatballs God will save you.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (23/2/16)

In case anyone was starting to feel sorry for him: http://cathnews.acu.edu.au/207/174.php


----------



## pcmfisher (23/2/16)

yankinoz said:


> I taught anthropology for 25 years in a Catholic seminary. One unfortunate trait of the Catholic Church, and one that I'd argued with the priest/president, was the Church's extreme reluctance to admit fault. Comes with papal infallibility, I guess, but I think it's one source of many of their present problems, such as stonewalling on molestation. Money is another factor. Too bad--*the priests and brothers I worked with really wanted to serve poor communities, and not just by preaching and performing sacraments.*
> 
> Before that I was on the board of the national archives in PNG. At one point they requested copies of church archives, including those from WWII. All but one church involved in those years complied. Guess which one didn't?
> 
> What does all that have to Pell? Never mind the new pope, Rome will cover for him guilty or innocent, but Pell's arrogance does not help their cause..


But preaching, converting and saving souls is still their major mission while supposedly helping the needy.
Those poor and hungry still have to sit through a sermon or at least some sort of religious mumbo jumbo somewhere along the line. 
Sort of like holding their sandwiches ransom in the name of Jesus.


----------



## technobabble66 (23/2/16)

Doesn't it seem strange that he dedicates his life to preaching a message of how good, pious people will enter an eternal paradise when they die, yet he's avoiding catching a flight due to heart troubles - the downside of which would be that he dies and enters this eternal paradise??

Hypocrisy, awareness of a life of peddling lies, or awareness of the evils he's perpetrated?


Anyway, i happened to be reading some interesting psychology stuff, about Sociopaths compared to Psycopaths.
Does it sound a little like yours truly?:

"Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.
When committing crimes, psychopaths carefully plan out every detail in advance and often have contingency plans in place. Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. Their crimes, whether violent or non-violent, will be highly organized and generally offer few clues for authorities to pursue. Intelligent psychopaths make excellent white-collar criminals and "con artists" due to their calm and charismatic natures. "


----------



## TimT (23/2/16)

The question is, do we want Pell to suffer without having heard his evidence, or do we want him to serve the royal commission in the most useful way possible? Pell getting on a plane flight that might kill him - or might affect his healthy badly - would hardly benefit the commission. 

Amanda Vanstone wrote a good defence of Pell in The Age recently. Her argument as I take it does not so much absolve Pell of responsibility as point out that the common urge to 'take Pell down', to hunt him down as a representative of the church doesn't serve much good and may end up letting a lot of lesser-known figures in the church who are equally (or more) responsible for the crimes committed against children in their care off the hook.


----------



## Dave70 (23/2/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> In case anyone was starting to feel sorry for him: http://cathnews.acu.edu.au/207/174.php


Fair go now. Don't forget the churches role in helping to stop the spread of HIV in places like sub Saharan Africa by encouraging the use of condoms and thus saving thousands of people from an agonizing lonely death.

Or was it the other way around?


----------



## wide eyed and legless (23/2/16)

technobabble66 said:


> "Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.
> When committing crimes, psychopaths carefully plan out every detail in advance and often have contingency plans in place. Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. Their crimes, whether violent or non-violent, will be highly organized and generally offer few clues for authorities to pursue. Intelligent psychopaths make excellent white-collar criminals and "con artists" due to their calm and charismatic natures. "


Alice Morgan is my favourite psychopath, though I can't see the connection with Pell.


----------



## technobabble66 (23/2/16)

Pell seems to consistently (ie: over a decade or 2) display a comprehensive lack of understanding or even awareness of the emotional aspects of sexual abuse. 
Not just trying to downplay it in defense the church, but actually not comprehending the emotional elements/impact of these traumatic events. 

Maybe I read too much into his many comments on these topics, but it seems a very consistent subtext to his official and casual comments. 

The comment of his posted several posts above that abortion is a much greater sin than sexual abuse seems a good example of this. His use of sexual abuse as an completely unnecessary yardstick in reference to an unrelated question on abortion could indicate a distinct lack of comprehension of the impact of sexual abuse. As a one-off you wouldn't think much of it, but he's made other comments with similar subtext over the years.

Basically he seems to lack any fundamental understanding of emotions other than at an intellectual level.


----------



## Dave70 (23/2/16)

technobabble66 said:


> Pell seems to consistently (ie: over a decade or 2) display a comprehensive lack of understanding or even awareness of the emotional aspects of *raping children*.
> Not just trying to downplay it in defense the church, but actually not comprehending the emotional elements/impact of these traumatic events.
> 
> Maybe I read too much into his many comments on these topics, but it seems a very consistent subtext to his official and casual comments.
> ...


You see?
Resonates far more harshly when you give the offence its proper due rather using a term that could also describe pinching a lady's bottom.
Maby Pell needs some kind of euphemism filter on his e mail program.


----------



## Weizguy (23/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> He is what they term as a "Protected Species"
> 
> He has God on his side......


...or does he?
I can only tell that he has the backing of the church conspirators, so far.
Sorry, I just realised what you did there. Recanted, or maybe I don't recall.




technobabble66 said:


> <chopped>
> 
> Basically he seems to lack any fundamental understanding of emotions other than at an intellectual level.



He has learned to disable emotions, and he knows that he can absolve himself, just like he's had to forgive a lot of other people's 'sins', over the years. He may have forgotten how to turn his emotions back on.


----------



## Camo6 (23/2/16)

I can't for the life of me fathom how a religion where one can repent his sins on his deathbed and still be granted access to eternal life in Heaven, could possibly be responsible for any of these vile atrocities.

So, to clarify, the only people who should fear Hell is the non-believers who, in this enlightened age, aren't likely to start believing anytime soon.

Funny how we can detect billion year old gravitational ripples from far distant cataclysms yet we still can't resolve a worldwide rort that's occurring in our own society.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/2/16)

Dave70 said:


> Fair go now. Don't forget the churches role in helping to stop the spread of HIV in places like sub Saharan Africa by encouraging the use of condoms and thus saving thousands of people from an agonizing lonely death.
> 
> Or was it the other way around?


FARKING NAILED IT.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/2/16)

Camo6 said:


> .
> 
> So, to clarify, the only people who should fear Hell is the non-believers who, in this enlightened age, aren't likely to start believing anytime soon.


Except Pastafarians, where hell is a strip joint with a beer volcano.

As ACDC wrote.... "I'm on a highway to hell "


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/2/16)

From the Catlickers news
























​ 









Powered by Freefind









 

 

​ 













*OPINION*


*FEATURE*


*FEATURED CATHOLIC WEBSITE*





















*Pell calls abortion a greater crime than sex abuse *


Sydney's Archbishop George Pell told pilgrims at World Youth Day in Toronto "abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people".

During a catechesis session before a group of 500 young people, Pell was asked by a youth minister from Kentucky what Catholics should say when asked about the sex abuse crisis in the US Catholic church.

When the youth minister sought clarification, the archbishop explained that abortion "is always a destruction of human life".

Dr Pell then insisted his comments were not designed to downplay sexual abuse; he was merely trying to point out that sex abuse by Catholic clergy had attracted attention to the detriment of other issues.

Archbishop Pell stressed that Christ promises punishment for those who stray from the church's teachings on premarital sex, abortion and euthanasia -- as well as on social justice and looking after the poor.

The archbishop received a standing ovation from his audience, but was strongly criticised by sex abuse victims rights groups. The Sydney Morning Herald quotes child protection advocate Hetty Johnston's assessment of the speech as "ghastly, insensitive and appalling".

*LINKS*


----------



## CmdrRyekr (23/2/16)

Who was the clown that offered to nab Christopher Skase from Mallorca and drag him home? We need this bloke on the case. I'll chip in a tenner or two!


----------



## AJS2154 (23/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> *Pell calls abortion a greater crime than sex abuse *
> 
> 
> Sydney's Archbishop George Pell told pilgrims at World Youth Day in Toronto "abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people".


Perhaps I could just point out the obvious........the woman who decides to terminate her pregnancy, for whatever reason, isn't the person who stands in a pulpit each weekend sanctimoniously preaching on how people of all ages and marital status should, and should not, live their life. Nor is that lady the person who is entrusted to the precious young lives of children.....only to betray that poor child and their parents by abusing them.

That comment illustrates how absolutely out of touch some clergy are. If they understood the hideous crime their church has either been complicit in, or assisted by covering it up, then they would resign from their roles and seek immediate help.

They are trying to deflect by taking the moral high ground on women who often have guilt, shame and regret. Shame upon shame George Pell. 


John 8:7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/2/16)

Your Honour,

The defendant has been so deeply involved in his faith and devotion to it, that it would not be unfair to say that he may not fully understand what others in this world are currently thinking or the mood of society in general. Your honour, The defendant has failed to keep up with modern society due to his pursuite of clergy and ecclesiastical learning., I mean look Your Honour...its not like he had sex with them or anything.....


----------



## Dave70 (24/2/16)

CmdrRyekr said:


> Who was the clown that offered to nab Christopher Skase from Mallorca and drag him home? We need this bloke on the case. I'll chip in a tenner or two!


Actually, makes me think what an amateur Pell is when comes to dodging pressing legal engagements. A doctors certificate? _Pffft.._ Pathetic. Nobody's buying that. 


Skasie on the other hand, now there's a bloke who knew the value of theatrics when the chips (and Quintex share prices) were down.


_*cough!* _


----------



## wide eyed and legless (24/2/16)

The only things missing in that picture are the 'White Shoes'

I was reading that almost as many females as men sexually abuse young boys and only 86% of those get reported.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/2/16)

...I wish more women would sexually abuse me....... h34r:


----------



## RobW (24/2/16)

Here's to you Mrs Robinson


----------



## wobbly (24/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> ...I wish more women would sexually abuse me....... h34r:


The fact that they don't there's probably a non to subtle message in there somewhere 

Wobbly


----------



## pcmfisher (24/2/16)

Camo6 said:


> I can't for the life of me fathom how a religion where one can repent his sins on his deathbed and still be granted access to eternal life in Heaven, could possibly be responsible for any of these vile atrocities.


That's how it works.
This life is only a place to wipe your feet before being cast on to an eternal life in heaven if you have faith. Belief is the only prerequisite.
There are no consequences for anything. You can do anything because you know you are going to Heaven.
As you say, you repent your sins on your deathbed and you are home and hosed.

These people are morally bankrupt.


----------



## TimT (24/2/16)

_That's how it works._
_This life is only a place to wipe your feet before being cast on to an eternal life in heaven if you have faith. Belief is the only prerequisite._

Not according to a certain Christian authority - that is, Jesus. 

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I'm not sure where the whole idea that belief and/or deathbed repentance is a guarantee of salvation came from but my guess is a simplified evangelistic Christianity.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (24/2/16)

wide eyed and legless said:


> The only things missing in that picture are the 'White Shoes'
> 
> I was reading that almost as many females as men sexually abuse young boys and only 86% of those get reported.


Sorry, 86% DON'T get reported, every schoolboys fantasy I would imagine, the ones that do get reported are either Pigs in knickers, sexually assaulted a girl or there is something gravely amiss with the boys.


----------



## hotmelt (24/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> He is what they term as a "Protected Species"
> 
> He has *Masons* on his side......


FTFY


----------



## hotmelt (24/2/16)

Good luck hiding now pell
http://startsatsixty.com.au/current-affairs/news/good-luck-hiding-now-pell-abuse-victims-raise-thousands-for-trip-to-rome


----------



## madpierre06 (24/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> ...I wish more women would sexually abuse me....... h34r:





wide eyed and legless said:


> Sorry, 86% DON'T get reported, every schoolboys fantasy I would imagine, the ones that do get reported are either Pigs in knickers, sexually assaulted a girl or there is something gravely amiss with the boys.


If you blokes are REALLY serious about the seriousness of abuse.....do some research into the actual damage this causes young blokes,

And when you head to the pub and find the girls who were so easy to get...you can thank the blokes (some priests) who abused them. Because many are the direct product of this.


----------



## Dave70 (24/2/16)

hotmelt said:


> Good luck hiding now pell
> http://startsatsixty.com.au/current-affairs/news/good-luck-hiding-now-pell-abuse-victims-raise-thousands-for-trip-to-rome


*Abuse survivor Stephen Woods said he wants Pell to face the victims in person, in an “open” place, not locked away safely in Rome*

Locked away in Rome. Home to Vatican city and birthplace of Catholicism. Advantage Pell.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (24/2/16)

Start of a downward spiral for these wee lads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN9Hd0_uW6o


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/2/16)

madpierre06 said:


> And when you head to the pub and find the girls who were so easy to get...you can thank the blokes (some priests) who abused them. Because many are the direct product of this.


mmmm....cant really agree 100% with that......I dont think you can tie "being easy" to being abused...I would tend to think that if you where abused you wouldnt necessarily become "easy"... of course there will be exceptions to this rule, as there always is and will be


----------



## Camo6 (24/2/16)

TimT said:


> I'm not sure where the whole idea that belief and/or deathbed repentance is a guarantee of salvation came from but my guess is a simplified evangelistic Christianity.



1 John 1:9

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


1 John 1:7[SIZE=14.08px] [/SIZE]

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.


1 Corinthians 10:13 

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.


Acts 2:38[SIZE=14.08px] [/SIZE]

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


1 John 2:1 

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.





Acts 3:19


Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,


Hebrews 10:17

Then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”





The great thing about the Bible is it can be interpreted in so many ways.


----------



## tavas (24/2/16)

hotmelt said:


> FTFY


I thought the Masons and the Church didn't get along.


----------



## tavas (24/2/16)

Dave70 said:


> *Abuse survivor Stephen Woods said he wants Pell to face the victims in person, in an “open” place, not locked away safely in Rome*
> 
> Locked away in Rome. Home to Vatican city and birthplace of Catholicism. Advantage Pell.





Dave70 said:


> *Abuse survivor Stephen Woods said he wants Pell to face the victims in person, in an “open” place, not locked away safely in Rome*
> 
> Locked away in Rome. Home to Vatican city and birthplace of Catholicism. Advantage Pell.


I think the closest they will get to Pell is standing in St Peter's Basilica like all the other tourists. As sad as that is.


----------



## tavas (24/2/16)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought renouncing your sins on your deathbed only got you as far as judgement from God. If you don't repent, you go straight to hell, if you repent you get a chance at judgement and possibly cut some time in Purgatory.

But as Camo says, you can interpret the Bible any way you want. Just as Pell is doing. I'd call him a dog but that's an insult to dogs. Perhaps shit c*nt is a better description.


----------



## Camo6 (24/2/16)

Also depends on how many infidels you've beheaded.


----------



## AJS2154 (24/2/16)

Dave70 said:


> Actually, makes me think what an amateur Pell is when comes to dodging pressing legal engagements. A doctors certificate? _Pffft.._ Pathetic. Nobody's buying that.
> 
> Skasie on the other hand, now there's a bloke who knew the value of theatrics when the chips (and Quintex share prices) were down.


Yeah......but Dave Skasie did die not so long afterwards. Perhaps that is taking the charade a little too seriously. He really was a method actor.


----------



## madpierre06 (24/2/16)

Camo6 said:


> 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
> 
> 1 John 1:7[SIZE=14.08px] [/SIZE] But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
> 
> ...



Agree...what is your interpretation of these? ASnd the passage from Acts 2:38 has nothing to do with this, it is primarily for non-believers.

But it doesn't necessarily mean that you can use a deathbed repentance as a 'get out of jail free' card.

*James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.*

As far as the final judgement is concerned, the passage TimT quoted is on the money...your relationship with Jesus Christ is key, based on John 3:16. God Himself gave up the right to our final judgement once He had sent Christ, who went to the cross in order to allow us to be free of that judgement. That is why our relationship with Christ IS the key. He went willingly to facilitate this. 

How does this relate to Pell and his church, and their judgement? Those who lead, cause and enable other believers to sin...they'd be better offf having a bloody big rock tied to their necks and chucked in the water than face their final judgement (Matthew and Luke paraphrased). Just because they are high ranking members of a church/religion does not necessarily mean that they are followers of Christ. Far from it.


----------



## madpierre06 (24/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> mmmm....cant really agree 100% with that......I dont think you can tie "being easy" to being abused...I would tend to think that if you where abused you wouldnt necessarily become "easy"... of course there will be exceptions to this rule, as there always is and will be


Agree with you there, that's why I said 'many'. There is also the factor of how the abuse occurred, there is much of it which in the eyes of some would seem to be quite low-level or relatively harmless....but the damage it causes in how the victim 'does relationships' can be immeasureable. And that's why I took it to my original pouint...young blokes will be affected just as badly as girls when victims of the opposite sex. The 'jokes' which I originally quoted....are not funny at all. And when made are minimising abuse.


----------



## manticle (24/2/16)

Agreed with the last bit from mp.
Sexual abuse happens irrespective of gender (some of the court stories from the endemic ballarat abuse involve female collaborators) and often involve sadism as much as anything.
Scary, traumatic, made worse by the puerile idea that it's only ever a hot teacher to a newly evolving pubescent.
If a six year old is abused/raped/assaulted by a 60 year old in an institution, it's pretty horrible no matter what gender the perpetrator or victim.

I had fantasies about some of my teachers when I was in high school too but it doesn't make real abuse something to be taken lightly.


----------



## spog (24/2/16)

Been scrolling through this topic but not posting .
Never been abused myself but I know some who have been so I best stay out, lest I "have a go " and windup being either banned or sued.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (24/2/16)

A good friend of mine was taken advantage of at age 13 by a female employer (3 times his age) - he has terrible issues stemming from it. Maybe not as physically heavy as what has gone on behind the pulpit, but the psychological damage is real.


----------



## Camo6 (24/2/16)

madpierre06 said:


> Agree...what is your interpretation of these? Different to yours I imagine.
> 
> And the passage from Acts 2:38 has nothing to do with this, it is primarily for non-believers. Apologies, I just cut & pasted from Google. But the gist is the same, yeah?
> 
> But it doesn't necessarily mean that you can use a deathbed repentance as a 'get out of jail free' card. Again, open to interpretation. If one was to believe that to be the case than they could expect it to be so.



Sorry, straying off-topic. This thread isn't a discussion on religion as much as it is the abuse of power that can be associated with it. I was raised a Christian and appreciate a lot of its merits but have also seen the self righteous sanctimony it can create. God or no God, people need to be held accountable for their crimes and should not be protected due to their position. On that I can see we both agree.


----------



## madpierre06 (24/2/16)

Camo6 said:


> Sorry, straying off-topic. This thread isn't a discussion on religion as much as it is the abuse of power that can be associated with it. I was raised a Christian and appreciate a lot of its merits but have also seen the self righteous sanctimony it can create. God or no God, people need to be held accountable for their crimes and should not be protected due to their position. On that I can see we both agree.


Mate, I agree with you entirley here, and it was those points you raised which caused me much hatred and vitriol towards anything to do with such organisations for most of my life, having also been raised in 'em . And their use to cover/mitigate acts such as those which are central to this thread. No need to go into details but you get my drift.

My point about the 'deathbed rep.' is more to do with motive...if someone is genuinely remorseful...then that makes a great difference...


----------



## manticle (24/2/16)

Great difference to who?
How is genuine defined?
By what is that remorse driven? Fear of repercussion or something different?

Possibly leading to way OT and an interesting discussion for another time but I think the issues relate to individuals first, institutions next, religion/theology/philosophy latest but none can claim no fault


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/2/16)

Individual + institution + religion/theology/philosophy = The Holy Trinity


----------



## madpierre06 (24/2/16)

manticle said:


> Great difference to who? To Christ, as it His mediation for us upon which salvation depends.
> How is genuine defined? Heartfelt
> By what is that remorse driven? Fear of repercussion or something different? A heartfelt understanding that first and foremost one's sin is against God...if it's fear of repercussion, then it's not genuine remorse, it's fear driven.
> 
> Possibly leading to way OT and an interesting discussion for another time but I think the issues relate to individuals first, institutions next, religion/theology/philosophy latest but none can claim no fault


Kept it simple to avoid the OT, but I can say from experience that it is entirely possible to reach this state of heart and mind. It is relevant to the thread in that some people's understanding of what eternal life depends on is a tad off the mark. And whether blokes such as Pell can ever hope to be forgiven by God. The thing is, we were all actually forgiven once Christ went to the cross, that was the whole point of the cross. It is our relationship with Christ which determines our eternal outcomes. Nothing more, nothing less. The only unforgiveable sin is speaking against the Holy Spirit, which has been interpreted to equate to total rejection of Christ.

So, for Pell, as with anyone else, it is between he and Christ. That may be difficult to accept for many people, particularly those more personally affected by these things which have been committed. And understandably so. But it doesn't mean that he shouldn't have to face the natural consequences of his actions on this earth. As he should. If he doesn't, then that is no different to situations where many other people have gotten away with shit.


----------



## wereprawn (25/2/16)

Who is more trustworthy, the person who does good deeds because they care about fellow humans or the person who does those same deeds for fear of punishment from "God"? They're not necessary mutually exclusive , but my moneys on the former . Inspiring trust isn't one of Pells, or the church's strong points , unless you happen to believe in their imaginary sky friend.


----------



## Mardoo (25/2/16)

...who apparently wants to put his hand on your knee....for starters.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

madpierre06 said:


> Kept it simple to avoid the OT, but I can say from experience that it is entirely possible to reach this state of heart and mind. It is relevant to the thread in that some people's understanding of what eternal life depends on is a tad off the mark. And whether blokes such as Pell can ever hope to be forgiven by God. The thing is, we were all actually forgiven once Christ went to the cross, that was the whole point of the cross. It is our relationship with Christ which determines our eternal outcomes. Nothing more, nothing less. The only unforgiveable sin is speaking against the Holy Spirit, which has been interpreted to equate to total rejection of Christ.
> 
> So, for Pell, as with anyone else, it is between he and Christ. That may be difficult to accept for many people, particularly those more personally affected by these things which have been committed. And understandably so. But it doesn't mean that he shouldn't have to face the natural consequences of his actions on this earth. As he should. If he doesn't, then that is no different to situations where many other people have gotten away with shit.


I care SFA for God....whoever he is.

Religion is bullshit. 

That is all.


----------



## Dave70 (25/2/16)

wereprawn said:


> Who is more trustworthy, the person who does good deeds because they care about fellow humans or the person who does those same deeds for fear of punishment from "God"? They're not necessary mutually exclusive , but my moneys on the former . Inspiring trust isn't one of Pells, or the church's strong points , unless you happen to believe in their imaginary sky friend.


“Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Stephen Weinberg.





Ducatiboy stu said:


> I care SFA for God....whoever he is.
> 
> Religion is bullshit.
> 
> That is all.


Right.
No Easter eggs for you then.


----------



## RobW (25/2/16)

Just when you thought they'd plumbed the depths


----------



## michaeld16 (25/2/16)

Dave70 said:


> Right.
> No Easter eggs for you then.


Unless he believes in the Easter bunny


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

michaeld16 said:


> Unless he believes in the Easter bunny


Is his name Frank ?


----------



## pcmfisher (25/2/16)

madpierre06 said:


> Kept it simple to avoid the OT, but I can say from experience that it is entirely possible to reach this state of heart and mind. It is relevant to the thread in that some people's understanding of what eternal life depends on is a tad off the mark. And whether blokes such as Pell can ever hope to be forgiven by God.* The thing is, we were all actually forgiven once Christ went to the cross, that was the whole point of the cross. It is our relationship with Christ which determines our eternal outcomes. Nothing more, nothing less. The only unforgiveable sin is speaking against the Holy Spirit, which has been interpreted to equate to total rejection of Christ.*
> 
> So, for Pell, as with anyone else, it is between he and Christ. That may be difficult to accept for many people, particularly those more personally affected by these things which have been committed. And understandably so. But it doesn't mean that he shouldn't have to face the natural consequences of his actions on this earth. As he should. If he doesn't, then that is no different to situations where many other people have gotten away with shit.


We? Speak for yourself and other believers.

So God gave himself to himself to create a loophole for rules he created, ie original sin.
How absurd.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

Churches ( and any religious body ) should start paying tax

This whole Tax exception for church's is a load of shit.

The Catlickers Church make 100's of MILLIONS each year and have assets in NSW alone of over 2 billion











But then again...they have to pay for retirement home for pedophile priests....


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

or at the very least- pay land tax, and tax on any income, and have greater transparency/accountability to separate the genuine charity work from proselytising.


----------



## madpierre06 (25/2/16)

pcmfisher said:


> We? Speak for yourself and other believers.
> 
> So God gave himself to himself to create a loophole for rules he created, ie original sin.
> How absurd.



You miss the point...it was actually for non-believers. Still, we were also given the will to believe what we wish. Absolutely freely.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

Well....I believe there is no God ( or any religious deity ) , never has been, never will be


----------



## madpierre06 (25/2/16)

That'sd your belief /opinion, and I am no way going to try and convince you otherwise, the basis of your opinion is more than likely quite valid. And at no time will I ever ridicule anyone who does not believe, or the basis of their point of view. The difference between us is that I KNOW that He exists, and is very real. And my belief and the basis of it is ridiculed a great deal by yourself and others. That's fine, because we are told that is how it is and will continue to be. And I wouldn't have it any other way. I would ask you this though....why are you often the first to post when matters relating to God are raised, or even when they are not but the opportunity arises, you are the first to come in with a shot about something/someone who you do not believes exists. That's a lot of effort to put into something which supposedly does not exist.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

I don't believe anything. Belief by definition is accepting that something is true regardless of evidence.


----------



## madpierre06 (25/2/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> I don't believe anything. Belief by definition is accepting that something is true regardless of evidence.


So, when you have had experiental evidence....I'm no great academic, for mine though that's is when belief becomes knowledge.

That's a good point you make mate, because there is very little that I believe either. But in this case, I do know.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

madpierre06 said:


> So, when you have had experiental evidence....I'm no great academic, for mine though that's is when belief becomes knowledge.
> 
> That's a good point you make mate, because there is very little that I believe either. But in this case, I do know.


That's right. For those who experience faith evidence is irrelevant, because you just _know_.

Here's a little trick (for everyone) - the language we use determines how we think, and frames our perception of the world. If every time we're about to use the word 'belief' - switch it with the word 'think'. It will make us, at least briefly, apply some critical thought.


----------



## Parks (25/2/16)

Not positive doesn't mean negative.

You can believe something that is true if you haven't been given sufficient evidence of it. To believe is to come to a rational conclusion based on factors which do not conclusively prove it.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

madpierre06 said:


> . The difference between us is that I KNOW that He exists, and is very real.


How do you know he EXISTS....have you had the chance to actually meet him, ...where is the proof that he exists.....I mean there are billions of people who beleive he exists, but NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON...EVER HAS benn able to prove it...

I believe I am a millionare, the reality is that I am not one

How do you know he is real....


Dont try and put the burden on ME that GOD ( or whoever he is ) exists or does not

I give you Russells Teapot....

Russell's teapot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia










*Russell's teapot*, sometimes called the *celestial teapot* or *cosmic teapot*, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.[1] Russell wrote that, if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the ground that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.




Just because some bloke dressed in a white dress in a building reads from a book of stories on Sundays tells you he exists does not mean that he does.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

Because he has faith, I just explained that.


----------



## Feldon (25/2/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> I don't believe anything. Belief by definition is accepting that something is true regardless of evidence.


But you believe things all the time, we all do.

Eg. next time you're driving down the road and get the green light at an intersection you believe that the lights are showing red for traffic crossing the intersection, and you drive straight through, comfortable in the belief that the other set of lights are red. You have no direct evidence of their redness, just belief.


----------



## Feldon (25/2/16)

Stu said: "Well....I believe there is no God ( or any religious deity ) , never has been, never will be"


So, you don't believe in a belief system called religion. Makes you the same I'd say - a believer.

If you are human you cannot escape the reality that we are all hard wired to believe. Indeed, we must believe. Its just a matter of what.

Edit: to correct the quote I was referring to.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

Feldon said:


> If you are human you cannot escape the reality that we are all hard wired to believe. Indeed, we must believe. Its just a matter of what.
> 
> .


I believe that I will have a few beers after work ....


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

Feldon said:


> But you believe things all the time, we all do.
> 
> Eg. next time you're driving down the road and get the green light at an intersection you believe that the lights are showing red for traffic crossing the intersection, and you drive straight through, comfortable in the belief that the other set of lights are red. You have no direct evidence of their redness, just belief.


No, I _think_ that it is overwhelmingly likely to be red. It's a thought, not a belief. Important distinction. 



Feldon said:


> So, you don't believe in a belief system called religion. Makes you the same I'd say - a believer.
> 
> If you are human you cannot escape the reality that we are all hard wired to believe. Indeed, we must believe. Its just a matter of what.


What? See Parks' post #117:



Parks said:


> Not positive doesn't mean negative.


----------



## madpierre06 (25/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> How do you know he EXISTS....have you had the chance to actually meet him, ...where is the proof that he exists.....I mean there are billions of people who beleive he exists, but NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON...EVER HAS benn able to prove it...
> 
> I believe I am a millionare, the reality is that I am not one
> 
> ...



Mate, I'm not trying to put any burden on you ...I just asked a question. And regarding my EXPERIENCE as to knowing He exists....it would be wasted sharing that with someone who is unwilling to believe that God exists. You would be the first to admit that anything I may say would be disregarded. My experience had nothing to do with a bloke (no white robes, by the way) preaching from a pulpit....it was as far removed from that as could be. And I was coming from the same place you are, and saying the same things. I had as much hatred towards anything to do with these matters as anybody probably could.


----------



## madpierre06 (25/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I believe that I will have a few beers after work ....


No, you KNOW that you will.

And do enjoy 'em, I'm off to work.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

^ haha, perfect. End of thread. :beer:


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

madpierre06 said:


> No, you KNOW that you will.
> 
> And do enjoy 'em, I'm off to work.


Well I dont actually know if I will or not..I am yet to get there...I just believe that I will


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

Have faith, brother.


----------



## Feldon (25/2/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> No, I _think_ that it is overwhelmingly likely to be red. It's a thought, not a belief. Important distinction.
> 
> 
> What? See Parks' post #117:


Thinking is just the process by which we make decisions, its not the decisions themselves.

We do not think about the red lights for crossing traffic every time we approach an intersection. Its a matter of blind faith, based on belief.

(Sorry Liam, but I originally quoted you in another post that was meant to quote Stu - have edited it now).


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

madpierre06 said:


> Mate, I'm not trying to put any burden on you ...I just asked a question. And regarding my EXPERIENCE as to knowing He exists....it would be wasted sharing that with someone who is unwilling to believe that God exists. You would be the first to admit that anything I may say would be disregarded. My experience had nothing to do with a bloke (no white robes, by the way) preaching from a pulpit....it was as far removed from that as could be. And I was coming from the same place you are, and saying the same things. I had as much hatred towards anything to do with these matters as anybody probably could.


But how do you know he exists..

I have yet to find anyone who can explain that he does...even forthright Christain folk and clergy.....

All they say is that they believe he does, not that he actually does exist.


----------



## earle (25/2/16)

Now that's over lets pray

Our lager
Which art in barrels
Hallowed be thy drink
Thy will be drunk (I will be drunk)
At home as if in tavern
Give us this day our foamy head
And forgive us our spillages
As we forgive those who spill against us
And lead us not to incarceration
But deliver us from hangovers
For thine is the beer, the bitter, the lager
For ever and ever....
barmen


Edit: Shit too slow, its on again


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

Feldon said:


> We do not think about the red lights for crossing traffic every time we approach an intersection. Its a matter of blind faith, based on belief.


Plenty of drivers are guilty of that....


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

Feldon said:


> Thinking is just the process by which we make decisions, its not the decisions themselves.
> 
> We do not think about the red lights for crossing traffic every time we approach an intersection. Its a matter of blind faith, based on belief.


I see what you're shooting at but we're getting into cognitive theory here - in that 500 milliseconds that it takes for the brain to process sensory information and construct our conscious reality.. we've already passed the traffic lights. The brain makes decisions based on past experience (read: evidence), and adjusts when things change - It is a little bit removed from the active process of belief.


----------



## tavas (25/2/16)

In my experience, non believers/atheists are just as fanatical as religious believers, irrespective of which religion.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

Most athiests I know dont give rats, and I dont either

I just want someone to explain to me how God exists....

Its not that hard a question really...


But the standard answer is " You dont believe in him so I am not going to try and explain why he exists"...... kind of self defeating in a way...


----------



## Camo6 (25/2/16)

earle said:


> Now that's over lets pray
> 
> Our lager
> Which art in barrels
> ...






























Praise Yeasus Brother!


----------



## Feldon (25/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Most athiests I know dont give rats, and I dont either
> 
> I just want someone to explain to me how God exists....
> 
> ...


If you are seeking evidence of God's existence, that makes you an agnostic (= "I don't know") rather than an atheist.

Agnosticism is a more honest position to take and doesn't disrespect believers. Simply, when asked if God exists I reply 'I don't know'.

The problem with atheism is that its a believe system too - many athiests hold a conviction for it just as strongly as believers in religion.

And I think that religious believers who says they know God to exist have arrived at this position not from physical evidence but from metaphysical evidence.


----------



## Parks (25/2/16)

You are confusing atheist with anti-theist.


----------



## Camo6 (25/2/16)

madpierre06 said:


> The only unforgiveable sin is speaking against the Holy Spirit, which has been interpreted to equate to total rejection of Christ.





madpierre06 said:


> And I was coming from the same place you are, and saying the same things. I had as much hatred towards anything to do with these matters as anybody probably could.


Uh-oh...


----------



## Feldon (25/2/16)

Parks said: "You are confusing atheist with anti-theist." 

Hair-splitting in this context don't you think.


----------



## earle (25/2/16)

Yep, all you (us) non-beleivers are the same.



> The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
> Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
> Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
> The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

Well, I am probably an agnostic athiest....


----------



## Parks (25/2/16)

There is a pretty big fundamental difference between saying "I do not believe in your God/s" and "I believe there are no gods"


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

WHAT...you mean there are other Gods.......


----------



## Parks (25/2/16)

I can't tell you for a fact that there aren't [emoji6]


----------



## earle (25/2/16)

I just hope we can finish this before case swap. I know we got onto to philosophical stuff at the Xmas swap at Benken's but I really can't remember what it was about. Hmmm, maybe something to do with Muslim extremists?


----------



## hotmelt (25/2/16)




----------



## Parks (25/2/16)

Pretty sure it was about fortune tellers [emoji51]


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

earle said:


> I just hope we can finish this before case swap. I know we got onto to philosophical stuff at the Xmas swap at Benken's but I really can't remember what it was about. Hmmm, maybe something to do with Muslim extremists?


that was good fun, wish I'd gone to bed much earlier though :blink: *yawn*


----------



## Feldon (25/2/16)

earle said:


> Yep, all you (us) non-beleivers are the same.



Quote


> The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
> Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
> Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
> The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas.


Athieism is the belief in the non-belief in God.

There, FIFY.

Anyway whoever wrote that is illiterate. "...to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives".

Wickedness and sinfulness are nouns, not adjectives.


----------



## earle (25/2/16)

Parks said:


> Pretty sure it was about fortune tellers [emoji51]


 Or fortune telling terrorists "I can tell you exactly how you're going to die"


----------



## earle (25/2/16)

Ah, the old "your grammar is incorrect therefore your whole point of view is invalid" argument.


----------



## Feldon (25/2/16)

earle said:


> Ah, the old "your grammar is incorrect therefore your whole point of view is invalid" argument.


 Not at all.

My first point which you ignored is that "Athieism is the belief in the non-belief in God."


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

that sentence makes no sense, to the dictionary with you!


----------



## Feldon (25/2/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> that sentence makes no sense, to the dictionary with you!


How?

(and dictionaries provide definitions of words, not guidance on sentence structure)


----------



## earle (25/2/16)

Feldon said:


> Not at all.
> 
> My first point which you ignored is that "Athieism is the belief in the non-belief in God."


You are correct, I did ignore your first point but only because you rewrote the old incorrect definition of athieism with very slightly different words that made it no more correct.


----------



## earle (25/2/16)

Anyway, its been fun but I've got a meeting to get to. Carry on.


----------



## Feldon (25/2/16)

earle said:


> You are correct, I did ignore your first point but only because you rewrote the old incorrect definition of athieism with very slightly different words that made it no more correct.


Yes, my definition nailed it.

Bye bye.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/2/16)

You tried to redefine a word. To the dictionary with you!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

Parks said:


> I can't tell you for a fact that there aren't [emoji6]


Well that is a relief.. I was kinda worried there for a second


----------



## Tropico (25/2/16)

This will be bigger than "Bye Bye Bronwyn".

EDIT: Ooops "Goodbye Bronwyn"......forgotten already.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (25/2/16)

Ratio of believers and non believers is too one sided.
Though if there was a God and he made us in his image, and the non believers and believers meet halfway, that would make God a monkey.


----------



## Parks (25/2/16)

That's reminds me of a thing Ricky Gervais said -

"If there really was a god, why did he make me an atheist?"


----------



## seamad (25/2/16)

I just want to know if Stu has had a beer


----------



## manticle (25/2/16)

I have.


----------



## seamad (25/2/16)

me too

edit: Cheers


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

seamad said:


> I just want to know if Stu has had a beer


Nope

I had 4...

But God was not on my side for the meat raffles.....


----------



## Camo6 (25/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I care SFA for God....whoever he is.
> 
> Religion is bullshit.
> 
> That is all.





Ducatiboy stu said:


> Nope
> 
> I had 4...
> 
> But God was not on my side for the meat raffles.....



As penance for your blasphemy you are deprived of meatballs with tonight's spaghetti.




But relax. The beer fountain and strippers are still a goer.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

Ah yes, but last week, when the same God decided not to appear, I won. 

And strange as it may seem, but I have only ever won meat at raffles when God wasnt around ( and the local coppers and D's also drink there, and they havent spotted God either ...plenty of others, but not God )

This whole no God thing might work out financially...in the long term...( for accounting purposes I have not included extra's like beer and the odd bourbon )

At least if I put money into the meat raffles I get a return every now and again.


.........Now......better write a letter to the ATO and ask them about negative gearing meat raffle prizes on non religious grounds. gota be something in it, surely.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

Camo6 said:


> As penance for your blasphemy you are deprived of meatballs with tonight's spaghetti.


 But I had 4 beers.


----------



## seamad (25/2/16)

When I was in the surf club we did seafood tray raffles at Fisherman's Wharf on Saturday Arvo's, God must have really liked us because one of the boat crew always won the last draw of the day, even without buying a ticket, divine intervention if you like.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/2/16)

None of that malarky at ours.

We have the BEST security when it comes to the draw.....old codgers.

Nothin gets past them....Nothin.

In fact if you get drawn twice they arc up about it......


----------



## Camo6 (25/2/16)

My FIL always wins the meat raffles at the Merimbula RSL and bowling club much to the disgust of the locals.
Of course you'll ******* win when you spend a hundred bucks on tickets. Gotta roll my eyes when he tries to look surprised.


----------



## Tropico (25/2/16)

Pell and his cronies to show their muscles at Royal Commission video link: the untouchables.


----------



## Tropico (25/2/16)

The Earthly Paradise Heaven
The *Lascivious *The Church
The Gluttonous The Lawyers
The Avaricious and Prodigal The Tax-man
The Slothful Immigration
The Wrathful The politicians
The Envious 
The proud The police
Ante-purgatory The rest of us


----------



## Dave70 (26/2/16)

Feldon said:


> Not at all.
> 
> My first point which you ignored is that "Athieism is the* assertion* *of *the non-*existence* *of* God."


FTFY


----------



## pcmfisher (26/2/16)

Feldon said:


> If you are seeking evidence of God's existence, that makes you an agnostic (= "I don't know") rather than an atheist.
> 
> Atheism is about what you believe, agnosticism addresses what you know or claim to know. If you do not believe there are gods you are an atheist. If you do not know there is no gods you are agnostic.
> As Stu said he is an agnostic atheist. Someone that believes in god but does not claim to know in an agnostic theist.
> ...


----------



## TimT (26/2/16)

_Atheism is not a belief system. It has not dogmas or tenants._

In definition maybe. In practice, however.... 

(The pedant in me is restraining the urge to say 'of course atheism doesn't have '_tenants'_. It's definitely not a rental apartment' Oh crap, there he goes again....)


----------



## pcmfisher (26/2/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> I don't believe anything. Belief by definition is accepting that something is true regardless of evidence.


Na, that's faith you are talking about.

Faith is accepting something is true regardless of the evidence or lack of.
Faith is gullibility.
Faith is the excuse people give for believing something for which there is no evidence. If there was evidence, you wouldn't need faith.

You can believe things for good reason and bad reasons.
You do not _choose_ to believe anything either, you either believe it or you don't.

Evidence and reason are a good reason. They are a pathway to truth. Not absolute truth, by the way. I'm not sure it is possible to have absolute certainty in anything and think it is a useless concept anyway.

Faith, on the other hand, tells you nothing. Faith is a bad reason.

Faith is believing in something that you know aint so.


----------



## pcmfisher (26/2/16)

TimT said:


> _Atheism is not a belief system. It has not dogmas or tenants._
> 
> In definition maybe. In practice, however....
> 
> (The pedant in me is restraining the urge to say 'of course atheism doesn't have '_tenants'_. It's definitely not a rental apartment' Oh crap, there he goes again....)


Yeah, tenants, like residents in heaven.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/2/16)

So what happened before Christianity ( which is only 2000yrs old )......did God still exist..?


----------



## TimT (26/2/16)

Well that's a common position in these post-Enlightenment times - a division of the world into "truth" and "lies", and "known" and "not known", and "proven" and "not proven", combined with a claim that "I do not believe in anything" and a subsequent argument that "belief" or "faith" is equivalent to gullibility. C S Lewis had an old atheist tutor who he revered*, who used to claim, "I have no opinions!"

There's little room in this worldview for the difficult middleground, matters of "opinion" or "faith"; maybe even "subjectivity" is completely written out of the picture.

And yet it seems to me that faith is not simply gullibility; that there do exist a whole category of ideas that are not simply matters of proof or disproof. Morality is one example. Aesthetics (beauty) may be another. And then there are simple every day statements. Take for example a friend who you talk to on Monday, and who agrees with you to meet up on Saturday. Now, how can you *prove* that you won't meet up on Saturday? You can't! You trust him; you trust that he is telling the truth. It's a matter of faith. And it's very true you *may* turn up to the place on Saturday and he won't arrive - in which case you might either say, "it's just like the old so and so, the forgetful bastard", or you might begin to find him untrustworthy after all. But that means your faith has been misplaced; it doesn't mean that you cannot place faith in anyone or anything ever. 

*"_who he revered"_ - metaphorically, of course.


----------



## Parks (26/2/16)

pcmfisher said:


> If you do not believe there are gods you are an atheist. If you do not know there is no gods you are agnostic.


These two statements are semantically identical.

An atheist is, by definition, someone who does not believe in god/s.

An agnostic is more likely someone who believes there is a god of some kind or is simply unsure.

An anti-theist believes there is/are no god/s.

These 3 terms get used mistakenly quite a lot, often grouped together, but they all do have very distinct meaning.


----------



## Feldon (26/2/16)

Parks said:


> These two statements are semantically identical.
> 
> An atheist is, by definition, someone who does not believe in god/s.
> 
> ...


I did not make the statement you quote. pcmfisher did

(see post #177)


----------



## Dave70 (26/2/16)

TimT said:


> Well that's a common position in these post-Enlightenment times - a division of the world into "truth" and "lies", and "known" and "not known", and "proven" and "not proven", combined with a claim that "I do not believe in anything" and a subsequent argument that "belief" or "faith" is equivalent to gullibility. C S Lewis had an old atheist tutor who he revered*, who used to claim, "I have no opinions!"
> 
> There's little room in this worldview for the difficult middleground, matters of "opinion" or "faith"; maybe even "subjectivity" is completely written out of the picture.
> 
> ...


Dunno about that. Moral relativism, or any relativism for that matter smacks of the kind of new age / regressive left reluctance to call a spade a spade that seems to permeate even the most benign discussions. Clearly there are 'cultural' practices that are morally abhorrent and objectivity wrong by any reasonable measure, circumcision - male and female, women treated as chattel, initiation rites that would amount to torture in any other context. The list goes on.


----------



## TimT (26/2/16)

Dave, I'd argue if you try to trace back your moral arguments to their core assumptions - eg, 'circumcision' is 'Clearly...objectively wrong' and 'morally abhorrent' then you won't be able to get far. One example might be - 'Circumcision' is arguably wrong because - well, causing 'pain' is wrong. But why is causing pain wrong? It.... just is. And it seems obvious that this is so. Morally right and morally wrong, good and bad - we're back in the realm of faith. 

I'm sure philosophers have, are, and will be beating this question around forever: can we truly 'prove' morality? To me the question is absurd, and in most cases probably ends up in some kind of circular reasoning. Nietzsche asked the question somewhere in his genealogy of morals - when people first settled on a set of values.... what were the set of values they relied on to settle those values? In the circumstances it seems no wonder the poor guy went insane....


----------



## Blind Dog (26/2/16)

Why does something have to be in the 'realm of faith' simply because you can't reduce it to an objective assessment or proof?

You can't 'prove' morality and, IMO, to try to do so is futile. A quick look at the world today and over history shows that it is an incredibly fluid concept, twisted and perverted by some, nurtured and enhanced by others. But that's just in my view, and others may see the people I views as twisting and perverting morals as people who are nurturing and championing morals because they view the world differently to me.

But I don't need faith to be able to assess right and wrong, its a judgement based on who I am as a person which in turn is informed vast array of variables, many of which I won't even recognise as having any influence. At its simplest, its a question of putting myself in the position of the other person and trying to assess how I would feel. Its imprecise, instinctive, often wrong and perhaps too often overlaid with a hazy justification for doing something that may be 'wrong', but somehow benefits me without obvious harm to another.


----------



## Dave70 (26/2/16)

TimT said:


> *Dave, I'd argue if you try to trace back your moral arguments to their core assumptions - eg, 'circumcision' is 'Clearly...objectively wrong' and 'morally abhorrent' then you won't be able to get far. One example might be - 'Circumcision' is arguably wrong because - well, causing 'pain' is wrong. But why is causing pain wrong? It.... just is. And it seems obvious that this is so. Morally right and morally wrong, good and bad - we're back in the realm of faith. *
> 
> I'm sure philosophers have, are, and will be beating this question around forever: can we truly 'prove' morality? To me the question is absurd, and in most cases probably ends up in some kind of circular reasoning. Nietzsche asked the question somewhere in his genealogy of morals - when people first settled on a set of values.... what were the set of values they relied on to settle those values? In the circumstances it seems no wonder the poor guy went insane....


In that case we _are_ back in the realm of faith, or more accurately, belief. Therein lies the problem. Its not what people think, its _how_ they think. When you engage the gears of logic, reason and evidence in your mind, it sets in motion an entirely different worldview than wish thinking, superstition and god worship. Over and over, religious belief claims divine warrant to trump morality on its own terms.
I'll harp on circumcision because its still prevalent even in the developed west. When you see your otherwise lovely Jewish neighbors popping their eight day old son in the car and inquire where their off to and are told 'oh, its young Jacob's b'rit milah this evening', think about it. The screaming infant has no say in being held down by adults whilst the Mohel has at his genitals with a scalpel. 
Without the bizarre and ludicrous double standard of moral immunity granted for 'religious reasons', this practice would constitute the worst of criminal acts. 

Anybody who cant see that as objective wrong should be happy to assign their own child to this treatment on a coin toss. After all, who's to say causing pain is wrong?


----------



## TimT (26/2/16)

You seem to inadvertently go back to a kind of reductive proof of morality anyway Blind Dog, not a bad one either - an argument by compassion: considering all our actions from the point of view of not only ourselves but the other involved parties. 

But I don't think it's sufficient. It strikes me that a lot of commonly-accepted morality must lie outside of this metric - and it, too, falls back on a more basic value: why should we put '[ourselves] in the position of the other person and trying to assess how [we] would feel'? There is no real logical reason for us to do so, no real reason why we should do one over the other - unless we accept the basic proposition that we may make choices regarding the good and the bad, between the ethical and the unethical. It seems to me we fall back on, for want of a better word, faith yet again.


----------



## bradsbrew (26/2/16)

I believe the egg came before the chicken.


----------



## TimT (26/2/16)

It seems to be theological time. A friend just shared this this morning.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/2/16)

Dave70 said:


> The screaming infant has no say in being held down by adults whilst the Mohel has at his genitals with a scalpel.
> Without the bizarre and ludicrous double standard of moral immunity granted for 'religious reasons', this practice would constitute the worst of criminal acts.
> 
> Anybody who cant see that as objective wrong should be happy to assign their own child to this treatment on a coin toss. After all, who's to say causing pain is wrong?


I just object to the fact that we base a lot of "Mortality" on religious beliefs..


"No Sandra you cant have an abortion, its morally wrong "

" Sandra, we are taking your baby of you because it is morally wrong to have a child so young and you are not even married "

" its Ok father Ted, he was just a boy, he will grow out of it"

" No you may not use condoms, that is against the word of God "


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/2/16)

Anyway....some bloke wrote an album...


----------



## Camo6 (26/2/16)

I strongly believe in proof reading.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (26/2/16)

The only gods we will ever come across in this life are those who like to play god, and when were dead that's as far as it goes we are spent, Donald ducked, to be continued by our off springs, and in turn their off springs etc etc.
I have nothing against religion that is a persons right to believe in whatever they want, as misguided as I think it is I would not argue against their rights and would fight for their rights, as long as they don't affect me, and my non beliefs.

As for Pell all he has done is follow the protocol of the Catholic church, but has shown weakness in not doing the right thing by the abused,it is going to take a stronger person who is more concerned about his fellow man than how far up the ladder he can climb within that church.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/2/16)

I bet in a few weeks we get "an apology" from old George about how bad he feels and how he would have done things differently etc...etc...


Naturally, the apology would be heart felt & sincere and have nothing to do with saving face.....


----------



## wide eyed and legless (26/2/16)

About as much chance getting an apology as you would from the Imam of the Muslim faith for atrocities committed by Muslims.


----------



## Dave70 (26/2/16)

TimT said:


> You seem to inadvertently go back to a kind of reductive proof of morality anyway Blind Dog, not a bad one either - an argument by compassion: considering all our actions from the point of view of not only ourselves but the other involved parties.
> 
> But I don't think it's sufficient. It strikes me that a lot of commonly-accepted morality must lie outside of this metric - and it, too, falls back on a more basic value: why should we put '[ourselves] in the position of the other person and trying to assess how [we] would feel'? There is no real logical reason for us to do so, no real reason why we should do one over the other - unless we accept the basic proposition that we may make choices regarding the good and the bad, between the ethical and the unethical. It seems to me we fall back on, for want of a better word, faith yet again.


Only problem with that line of reason is, to paraphrase Hitchens, humnan decency is not derived from faith, it precedes it. 

This is in no way a loaded question, but do you believe there are no, or can be, no such thing as moral truths?


----------



## Steve (26/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I bet in a few weeks we get "an apology" from old George about how bad he feels and how he would have done things differently etc...etc...
> 
> 
> Naturally, the apology would be heart felt & sincere and have nothing to do with saving face.....


If he apologises then he is admitting guilt in my book. Imagine Joe Bloggs old perv off the street apologising on the stand for abusing kids do you think the judge would give a shit about this apology? He'd be sent down quicker than you can blink. Why/how are they getting away with it?


----------



## wide eyed and legless (26/2/16)

Steve said:


> Why/how are they getting away with it?


I did read once that a psychologist said the Catholic Church is akin to a very large ship it takes a long time to turn around, he also said all priests should be analysed before being ordained and all priests who abuse boys did so within the first year of being ordained.
He also said that those who abused boys had been subject of abuse themselves.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/2/16)

Wonder if old George is sitting there in the Vatican going " I am fucked, I am going to hell "


----------



## TimT (26/2/16)

_This is in no way a loaded question, but do you believe there are no, or can be, no such thing as moral truths?_

Huh? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but yes, I do believe there is a moral truth. That's pretty much what I'd been arguing.


----------



## Dave70 (26/2/16)

TimT said:


> _This is in no way a loaded question, but do you believe there are no, or can be, no such thing as moral truths?_
> 
> Huh? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but yes, I do believe there is a moral truth. That's pretty much what I'd been arguing.


Not the vibe I was getting. Probably missing something as we're not sitting a a table drinking. 



Ducatiboy stu said:


> Wonder if old George is sitting there in the Vatican going " I am fucked, I am going to hell "


Nah. 
I reckon Francis has got him down on his knees polishing the papal alter.


----------



## Bribie G (26/2/16)

I think they should all just chill out, go to a church and sit down and contemplate some fine stained glass art work as the afternoon sun shines through and contemplate on the wonder of the Church in our world.


----------



## Blind Dog (27/2/16)

TimT said:


> You seem to inadvertently go back to a kind of reductive proof of morality anyway Blind Dog, not a bad one either - an argument by compassion: considering all our actions from the point of view of not only ourselves but the other involved parties.
> 
> But I don't think it's sufficient. It strikes me that a lot of commonly-accepted morality must lie outside of this metric - and it, too, falls back on a more basic value: why should we put '[ourselves] in the position of the other person and trying to assess how [we] would feel'? There is no real logical reason for us to do so, no real reason why we should do one over the other - unless we accept the basic proposition that we may make choices regarding the good and the bad, between the ethical and the unethical. It seems to me we fall back on, for want of a better word, faith yet again.


Logically, you put yourself in the position of the other person because there's nothing but random happenstance as to why you are not that other person. That's not faith, karma or anything similar. It's nothing more than an acceptance that we are all essentially the same.

I'd also argue that there is little or no 'commonly-accepted morality'. I've tried and failed to find one that isn't trumped by one special interest or the other. The fact that the special interest commonly has a religious source may, or may not, be informative.


----------



## Bribie G (27/2/16)

When I was studying Philosophy a few years ago at UNE we covered "Altruism" quite thoroughly. Altruism is actually found in animals other than humans - it's wired in somehow and generally involves making sacrifices for other individuals that seem illogical, for example a rodent sacrificing itself to a snake in order to save the life of another rodent that isn't its immediate relative.
However if you sum up the benefits and downsides of that rodent's death it's nearly always resulted in preserving certain genes in the "gene pool" that were also possessed by the altruistic rodent that sacrificed itself and which weren't obvious at first sight.

In modern human society we have extended altruism beyond just the immediate family genes to our various societies we live in. That's why a lost toddler in Rockhampton will command far more news attention and masses of search volunteers that are usually unrelated to the toddler, than a ferry overturning in Bangla Desh killing 350 people including 25 toddlers.

But basically we are still mammals, or in the case of Pell, the odd rodent.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (27/2/16)

Well I did a quick google search on god...


Looks like he does exist after all

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/43192-seven-things-that-prove-god-is-real


----------



## manticle (27/2/16)

We all know god is real.
It's satan we need to be concerned about.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G22ZbyqrRRw


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (27/2/16)

I didnt realise satan was a woman.....


But then again. it does make sense.


----------



## Bribie G (27/2/16)

Satan was destroyed when Gollum, holding the ring, fell into fires of Mount Doom.

Peoples' poor grasp of history appalls me.


----------



## TimT (27/2/16)

As far as the doctrine of hellfire and Satan goes, nobody delivers it in sweeter tones than those smooth, smooth Louvin brothers.


----------



## pcmfisher (27/2/16)

TimT said:


> Dave, I'd argue if you try to trace back your moral arguments to their core assumptions - eg, 'circumcision' is 'Clearly...objectively wrong' and 'morally abhorrent' then you won't be able to get far. One example might be - 'Circumcision' is arguably wrong because - well, causing 'pain' is wrong. But why is causing pain wrong? It.... just is. And it seems obvious that this is so. Morally right and morally wrong, good and bad - we're back in the realm of faith.
> 
> I'm sure philosophers have, are, and will be beating this question around forever: can we truly 'prove' morality? To me the question is absurd, and in most cases probably ends up in some kind of circular reasoning. Nietzsche asked the question somewhere in his genealogy of morals - when people first settled on a set of values.... what were the set of values they relied on to settle those values? In the circumstances it seems no wonder the poor guy went insane....


Life is generally preferable to death.
Health is generally preferable to sickness.
Pleasure is generally preferable to pain.
These are some of the fundamental attributes for morality from an empathic and compassionate society.
I am not sure how faith comes into that. God believing unfalsifiable faith that is. That's what we are talking here. You can't compare that to anything.
We humans (and other species) are social creatures and I think the more moral we are, the more empathy, compassion we have for others, the better societal health we have. This can be shown. Once again, no faith required.

Circumcision and slavery is/was not regarded as immoral by some. People who claim this are just plain wrong. Demonstrably wrong.

It intrigues me that this sort of "morality" is the sort that comes from the bible. The claims are; this is the word of god, everyone gets their morality from god. That's faith. "Because god says so" = Faith.

I have always wondered, if we can only get our morality from god, are things moral because god says so or does god say so because they are moral?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (27/2/16)

TimT said:


> As far as the doctrine of hellfire and Satan goes, nobody delivers it in sweeter tones than those .



I prefer these guys...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etAIpkdhU9Q


----------



## wide eyed and legless (27/2/16)

Bobby meets God 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn1DXyHSWsg


----------



## Weizguy (27/2/16)

CmdrRyekr said:


> Who was the clown that offered to nab Christopher Skase from Mallorca and drag him home? We need this bloke on the case. I'll chip in a tenner or two!


Kick it off on Gofundme, if you can find him...


----------



## manticle (27/2/16)

wide eyed and legless said:


> Bobby meets God


Don' shite en ma mouth Doreen. Shite en ma mouth. Shite en ma mouth.


----------



## hotmelt (27/2/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> ...I wish more women would sexually abuse me....... h34r:





wobbly said:


> The fact that they don't there's probably a non to subtle message in there somewhere
> 
> Wobbly


Yeast issues?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (27/2/16)

hotmelt said:


> Yeast issues?





hotmelt said:


> Yeast issues?


Nah...

Not Christian enough


----------



## Glomp (28/2/16)

This all reminds me of the old nursery rhyme.

Georgie Porgie, Puddin' and Pie,
Kissed the altar boys and made them cry,
When the Royal Commission came out to play,
Georgie Porgie ran away


----------



## pcmfisher (29/2/16)

While we on the subject of depravity,

Check this out.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/2/16)

how wonderful


----------



## manticle (29/2/16)

Hard to believe such a practice could be allowable or sanctioned within a first world nation.


----------



## DU99 (29/2/16)

memory lapse ..


----------



## HBHB (29/2/16)

What's the bet he suddenly develops Alzheimer's and can't remember Jack shit. Prick.

All hail Dionysis.


----------



## Glomp (29/2/16)

I have this vision of Pell being treated like a bit of a sports person where they have massages during the game but he would have confessionals. A bit like speed dating but more like speed confessionals. Then he would be set for the next session without fear of going to hell.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/2/16)

pcmfisher said:


> While we on the subject of depravity,
> 
> Check this out.



Um...my head is still spinning. I will let you all know when my jaw removes itself from the floor.....maybe sometime next week



That is really fucked up


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/2/16)

Glomp said:


> I have this vision of Pell being treated like a bit of a sports person where they have massages during the game but he would have confessionals. A bit like speed dating but more like speed confessionals. Then he would be set for the next session without fear of going to hell.


All George needs to do is go to confessional and say a few Hail Mary's afterwards and all will be forgiven

Problem solved and everyone can get on with their lives


----------



## tavas (29/2/16)

Manticle's favourite opinion piece discussing poor old George.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-pell-punished-for--trying-to-aid-victims/news-story/2b1bc13054af6f4af60fcb33dc25efaa#itm=newscomau%7Chome%7Cnca-homepage-topstories%7C5%7Clink%7Chomepage%7Chomepage&itmt=1456719721009


----------



## tavas (29/2/16)

I'm not really familiar with Miranda Devine's work. Not sure if I would bother after reading this.


----------



## Dave70 (29/2/16)

pcmfisher said:


> While we on the subject of depravity,
> 
> Check this out.


They only banned that rubbish in New York, shamefully in 2012.
Then inexplicably reinstated the practice in 2015. This is modern New York, mind you, not some back ally in the Old City. 

http://nypost.com/2015/02/24/nyc-repealing-jewish-circumcision-law-requiring-consent/

_City Councilman David Greenfield (D-Brooklyn), who represents Orthodox Jewish communities, called the agreement a “big win for religious freedom in New York.”_

Well, bully for ******* religious freedom. And three cheers for the sexual mutilation of baby boys. c*nts. 


* = u


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/2/16)

tavas said:


> I'm not really familiar with Miranda Devine's work. Not sure if I would bother after reading this.


If dear old Miranda was on fire, I would be there with petrol.

She is full to the brim with her own importance

I noticed that she could help herself in including the ABC in her pathetic rant


----------



## Blind Dog (29/2/16)

pcmfisher said:


> While we on the subject of depravity,
> 
> Check this out.


If it's true, (edited after reading article linked by Dave) its freaking sick on so many levels.


----------



## pcmfisher (29/2/16)

Dave70 said:


> They only banned that rubbish in New York, shamefully in 2012.
> Then inexplicably reinstated the practice in 2015. This is modern New York, mind you, not some back ally in the Old City.
> 
> http://nypost.com/2015/02/24/nyc-repealing-jewish-circumcision-law-requiring-consent/
> ...


 OMIG (Oh my imaginary God)


----------



## spog (29/2/16)

Blind Dog said:


> If it's true, (edited after reading article linked by Dave) its freaking sick on so many levels.


Got that right.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/2/16)

Looks like the Catlickers church has a bit of catching up to do


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/3/16)

So George waffled on at the Royal Commission

" I am sorry i didnt do things betterr....blah...blah...blah..."

' I cant remeber ...blah...blah...blah "

Complete load of shit.


----------



## malt and barley blues (1/3/16)

I don't think a man of the cloth would risk telling porkies, they would be to worried about spending eternity in Mambo.


----------



## earle (1/3/16)

In the parts that I heard he seemed to cast blame on "The Church" rather than accepting any personal responsibility for the way things were handled.

:icon_offtopic: Here you go Stu - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/weddings-legalised-for-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/7208662


----------



## pcmfisher (1/3/16)

But, but he swore on the Bible...


----------



## Diesel80 (1/3/16)

earle said:


> In the parts that I heard he seemed to cast blame on "The Church" rather than accepting any personal responsibility for the way things were handled.
> 
> :icon_offtopic: Here you go Stu - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/weddings-legalised-for-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/7208662


Beware, Carbophelia coming to a school near you....!
Ready the napkins to wipe away ones sins.

Cheers,
D80


----------



## seamad (1/3/16)

Interesting info from buzzfeed :


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/3/16)

earle said:


> :icon_offtopic: Here you go Stu - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/weddings-legalised-for-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/7208662


About time we finally get a religion that makes sense


----------



## Lager Bloke (1/3/16)

Poor George,at least he has got talent digging holes to fall back on if the Vatican/church abandone him down the track,just by the last couple of days efforts.Reported this afternoon on ABC the germ priest Risdale would be the worst peadophile offender in Australian history and the church have tried to keep this covered up.I hope the authorities go through them all to the full degree possible/hopefully the victims and their families get as much relief + peace possible.Rob.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/3/16)

Watching him tonight on the news clips, I could not work out if he is being arrogant or he just doesn't give a ****


----------



## manticle (1/3/16)

Self righteousness.
A type of arrogance that leads to someone not believing they are required to give a ****.


----------



## Mardoo (2/3/16)

So, if these cover-ups happened all over the world (http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2016/03/01/grand-jury-2-bishops-hid-sex-abuse-of-hundreds-of-children-n2127129) it seems like we need to be looking higher up the totem pole for the source of the directive to cover these things up. 

When I was living in New Mexico it was general knowledge that the Servants of the Paraclete, located in Jemez Springs, was a bit of a warehouse for priests who were "difficult". That's the word a nun I knew used, also indicating that they had needed to be removed from contact with children. The fact that the Catholic Church has organisations to take these people out of service really says something.


----------



## Dave70 (2/3/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Watching him tonight on the news clips, I could not work out if he is being arrogant or he just doesn't give a ****


The good cardinal radiates so much amorality you could warm your hands of it.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (2/3/16)

Pell reminded me so much of Father O'Connor (Strumpet City) when I watched the news,his priggish attitude shone through.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (2/3/16)

Dave70 said:


> The good cardinal radiates so much amorality you could warm your hands of it.


The same way you get warmth from Satan....


----------



## Kumamoto_Ken (2/3/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> The same way you get warmth from Satan....


It is a pretty sweaty game apparently, even if they do play on ice...


----------



## spog (2/3/16)

Alright I'll have a say, Pell has a dicky ticker and cannot travel as it may upset the " dicky ticker". 
Yet I saw him on TV answering questions of an incredibly serious nature that would cause anyone great stress and discomfort , yet he seem to be as cool as a cucumber ?..........


----------



## dicko (2/3/16)

And he better get used to drinking hot beer 'cause where he is going that is all they serve


----------



## Liam_snorkel (2/3/16)

They have enough evidence already to drag him home for a trial after the commission but Australia doesn't have an extradition treaty with Rome, so regardless of what happens, he'll be chilling at the vatican for the rest of his days


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/3/16)

Anyway, whilst the catholic church ponders its navel...


----------



## wide eyed and legless (13/3/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Anyway, whilst the catholic church ponders its navel...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's him! He's the one who started it.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/3/16)

He was probably a Union man WEAL....


----------



## sponge (13/3/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Anyway, whilst the catholic church ponders its navel...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blue steel.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/3/16)

Derek Jesus


----------

