Cheers

Venise

I’m sure we’ll catch up again - soon!

Liz with love!

Graves attempts to solve the riddle of a mediaval Welsh poem full of both Arthurian and pagan references, attributed to Taliesin. To solve this puzzle, it becomes necessary to takes the reader on the most amazing guided tour of pre-monotheistic religions and mythologies. This leads him to a theory that at the heart of all poetry is the loss of the primordial first deity in human culture, a goddess associated with the moon. Graves traces a pattern in which this goddess is sooner or later supplanted, subordinated and then banished when agricultural revolutions lead to a male sun/sky god and finally an abstracted God in everything. But, Graves claims, the archetype of that goddess still remains in the human psyche, explaining for example why so many Catholics are moved to contemplate Mary more than any of the male (or male-seeming) figures of the Trinity. An amazing read, whether you agree with Graves’ conclusions or not.

Cheers
Liz45

LIZ: Fortunately I have not had your abuse at the hands of men, I can’t imagine what you have been through, but yes, yes, and yes against all churches. Religions, born at a stage of man’s relatively early beginnings, have a common thread in that they make sure women are regarded as one of the lower forms of animal life. As breeding machines, as creatures to look up with awe and inspiration at their god-like husbands, and as in Pakistan where a woman can be sentenced to gang-rape because one of her brothers committed a minor crime. QUESTION: ‘at their god-like husbands; or as husband-like gods’?

Even I, without your experiences, have frequently asked in genuine bewilderment. “Are men the same species as women?”

Cheers, and thanks to both of you. And, oh yes, the moderators had me for breakfast over the weekend.

Venise with love.

I think since Monday this thread has developed a very peaceful tone. Full of disagreement still, but agreeable disagreement. It’s come a long way.

In particular I appreciate this: “Under the Australian Constitution we, the members of a secular state, have the freedom to choose our beliefs without earning the interference of bigots.” A great point, one of the best in the whole thread.

That freedom … it may not count as an article of religion in itself, but along with other freedoms that go with it, I think it’s worth defending as if it were one. So, rather than take sides in the God debate here in public, suffice it to say here that I believe in that. Hang it over my heart like a medallion.

Cheers
James

Yes, we are both passionate about what we believe in. I don’t think there’s that much difference between us. I’m just as aggro about religions as you are, although I come from a slightly different angle - I still hold them and their dogma in as much contempt as you do. Hypocritical bunch of ?????

Perhaps it’s because women are closer to the realities of what these bastards go on with. Perhaps we look at things differently. I wonder sometimes, if I’m not just a different sex, but living on a different planet - to men - a lot of men! Most men???

Take care!

Re: MODERATORS: You have my total support on this isue.

Re: FRIAR MARCUS: Yes, it probably seems that way to you James, cont…

I’M LEAVING A TON OF SPACE SO THAT CRIKEY’S HATCHET MEN/WOMEN CAN DO THEIR WORST.

But after a lifetime spent in the subject of atheism one gets to know the buzz-words put out by the not-so-godly believers.

Do you find Liz’s comments at all forceful, (Hi LIZ, keep up the good work!) both of us are passionate about the things we believe in; although I certainly agree that Liz is a much better writer than me, yet you find me objectionable.

May I ask you if you have any religious affiliation?

Cheers and fond regards

Venise

What You Didn’t Know About The War
This video is mandatory viewing to all supporters of the war(s).

Narration used in the video is DAHLIA WASFI. Her website is http://www.liberatethis.com/

Please also visit:

http://www.antiwar.com/

http://www.ivaw.net/

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.wearechangevancouver.org/

That’s the flaw in your otherwise well-argued suggestion that all the population should be intimately aware of war. Maybe not a fatal flaw, but still a flaw. As I said in the story about the US heroin in Vietnam, the problem began with the war being too much in the public’s faces. This led to Congress tying the army’s hands behind its backs. Without political interference at home, the US and ARVN and ANZ forces would have won.

You would be right to suggest that moral dilemmas are rarely clear cut

Otherwise they would not be dilemmas

Perhaps the message from our examples is that it is important to eliminate all the best options before resorting to the most violent and least safe

This needs to recognise also that appeasement can encourage an aggressor

With the wisdom of hindsight it is relatively easy to see the early signals of aggression by Germany in Europe, Japan in China, and many others since

What is clear also that the world lacks a trusted mechanism for peaceful peacekeeping across international borders which would be as efficient as good policing within law abiding borders

We go to jelly when it comes to crossing international borders to stop the likes of Idi Amin and Pol Pot and other tyrants

This is what I mean when I say that we fail to win the peace, and as a consequence the innocent suffer inside countries. Waiting until violence erupts across international borders and then acting too late is indicative of poor management of the human race

I honour national differences when they are peaceful and creative … but not when they act as a cover for obvious human rights abuses on a large scale

The world has a long way to go in managing all its affairs peacefully for the benefit of all

A War on Poverty would be a great war to win, and it requires no casualties

I am an idealist who believes that idealism works if we try harder

If we can make land mines and cluster bombs we can distribute food, water & basic health

It is only a matter of the necessary will to win the selected battle

With Best Wishes

Friar Hilarius

It was only a matter of time before someone asked the right questions.

Congratulations on being the first!

In order to keep the variables to the minimum, let us assume a triangle with all the people involved well separated

You have a clear line of fire and immediate access to the loaded gun, which is capable of precise aim (not a scatter gun). Also for added clarity you are a trained user of firearms and as near to 100% certain of hitting your target as it is possible to be

Once this scenario is resolved your added complexity can be considered. You are absolutely right to bring in extra issues … to approximate more closely the real life situation of trained soldiers in the field

For the moment … at its simplest … what is the answer where there is virtual certainty that the child’s life can be saved, at the expense of the madman’s? I personally believe the answer is clear, even though madness diminishes or removes culpability in the eyes of the law. It is a matter of who deseves the greater protection, at the expense of another.

I am considering your scenario most carefully, and given the fact that you have nominated a scatter gun I believe I would charge the gunman without firing, while calling on all around to take cover. If I was shot first that would end the matter in terms of anything I could usefully do. If I was successful I would have minimised greatly the potential for what the Americans so politely term “collateral damage”

With Best Wishes

Friar Hilarius

From the catholic point of view, that belief is considered to be an effect of the Holy Spirit. There’s an interesting biological theory that belief is a genetic instinct, having certain natural-selection advantages, and some have the gene and some don’t. (These two theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive by the way - the catholics’ Holy Spirit could in theory “enter your soul” by tweaking the believer gene.)

Accumulated canon fleshes out the details, but I’ve met a lot of people who reject all the canon yet still believe in a God. They often describe this god in vague expressions like “God is truth”. Doesn’t mean much to me, but who cares what I think? From an atheist point of view, accumulated canon could be simply the same sort of embellishment we fill in for our beloved but unknown heroes, like King Arthur.

Bottom line? No one is hurting anybody just by believing or not believing. It’s when they try to force their belief on others that somebody gets hurt — whether it’s the Christian boarding-school master torturing kids to save them from hell, the Taliban self-appointed enforcer of God stoning women for showing their face, or the old KGB 5th Directorate forcing church-goers into psychiatric facilities for “sluggish schitzophrenia”.

Live and let live, that’s what I say.

Friar, earlier you posed this moral analogy:

“A madman has shot and killed several children. You are in a situation where you see this madman about to kill another child. No one else is around. You see that someone has loaded a gun but has been shot dead by the madman before he or she can fire it. The gun is within your reach. Would you use it?”

Suppose the gun was a sawn-off scattergun, and you knew from experience you were a lousy shot. You estimate you’ve got a 75 per cent chance of hitting the bad guy, a 50 per cent chance of hitting the child, and a 25 per cent chance of hitting other children in the same arc of fire. What then?

I happen to think God has everything to do with the meaning of life. More has been written by more people from that point of view than just about any other topic in human history. It’s more than a little arrogant of you, to say the least, to dismiss anything else along that line as an automatic fail, without need for further thought.

Came the day, and I went in to bat and got out pretty early - a matter of numbers of balls, not runs?? Then came the turn of the chauvinist to bat. The other women, who were also pretty fired up about his comments, urged me to bowl????I got him out first ball! It made me smile for weeks - still does when I think of it! He’s no longer with us, but I never let him forget it! he did have the good grace to blush???(It was a fluke!!What fun!)

I know one really nice priest, well ex priest. He left as he wasn’t quite the type the church wanted. Said mass for gays, lesbians, aboriginals etc and was actively known to support them - I mean in protests etc. A priest giving communion to ‘this lot’ wasn’t a good look! He got married I think or maybe ‘lived in sin’ - don’t know, don’t care. I hope he’s still happy. A lovely gentle man!

So, while I make a mean cup of tea, I’ll decline thank you! My late litle Mum made great scones/home made strawberry jam, and freshly whipped cream - I didn’t inherit her talents!
I could imagine the sermons if James and I wrote them! What a hoot!

But I wish I was

Friar Hilarius

There ‘s a job for you making tea in the kitchen during services

Only joking

Actually you would be more useful helping James to write my sermons for me

If you promise to be good you could even do a sermon or two yourself

Or the whole service … at least you would keep everyone awake

Friar Hilarius

You would be made extremely welcome

I would celebrate by replacing the unused month old biscuits

You would brighten up the services, and you might even like to join the choir

The ladies guild would give you a particularly warm welcome, and

You could help me write my sermons

Friar Hilarius

I hate sermons, the offical ones and those made up on the spot! Drives me nuts! I’d prefer they show me, rather than lecture me while they do a Pontius Pilate!

I don’t have the answers. If I did I’d be known around the world, and life would be so much different - no poverty would come first, and justice. Peace is not the absence of war, it’s the presence of justice! Can’t remember who said it, but it’s good, really good!

Friar Hilarius