Castle Aching

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, wagonman said:

Rather, it was the sister who married a Roman Catholic who raised eyebrows, whereas the neighbours who bought things on hire purchase attracted outright condemnation!"

 

 

There are some similarities in these two approaches to life.

 

[Full disclosure, since we're all coming out: practising Roman Catholic. Currently requiring a lot of practice...]

 

No-popery* is alive and thriving in this country. it's simply found a new target: Islam.

 

*remember the Acton-Tichingfelds and the"no pot-pourri" riots?*

[Regularity]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

practising Roman Catholic

As in, not got it right yet.

I think I would describe myself more a "vague RC, with a leaning towards Quakerism". (Nothing like a bit of ceremony now and then, but you need to make up your own mind on important issues...)

 

Some Religious people do amazing things, simply: https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-02-01/dutch-church-ends-96-day-service-armenian-family-spared-deportation

[Nearholmer]

There is an immense amount about faith that I shall never understand, being of a naturally sceptical disposition in most things, not just religious ones, but it sure does move people to do quite extraordinarily humane things, and quite extraordinarily inhumane things, sometimes even the same person to do both.

 

My reading of it is that adult faith involves the switching-off or turning-down of internal control functions, surrendering some part of self-control, that normally limit what a person is capable of, and that once those functions are no longer fully operative, things can rather go either way, according to many different factors.

 

Of course, faith isn't the only thing that leads people to do deeply inhumane things, being brutal without the excuse of god is just as common as being brutal with the excuse of god ........ but people doing deeply humane things in the absence of faith does seem to be pretty rare.

[runs as required]

I'm bracing myself for the manifestos of the two big parties - said by R4 to have  "more than a touch of sepia about them"

dh

[Regularity]

9 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Of course, faith isn't the only thing that leads people to do deeply inhumane things, being brutal without the excuse of god is just as common as being brutal with the excuse of god ........ but people doing deeply humane things in the absence of faith does seem to be pretty rare.

Ahem. Stalin?

Edited November 21, 2019 by Regularity
Plenty more could be added to the list.

[RedGemAlchemist]

11 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

...people doing deeply humane things in the absence of faith does seem to be pretty rare.

Then, speaking as a former RSPCA worker, it pleases me to be one of the exceptions to this. 

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

Then, speaking as a former RSPCA worker, it pleases me to be one of the exceptions to this. 

 

Hmm, an organisation that does much good, no doubt, but ....

 

As a lawyer, you sometimes get to see how organisations really behave, away from their public face. 

 

Like Queen Victoria, though in a different way, the RSPCA, too, seems to have a somewhat suburban attitude. Great for rescuing Pit Bulls from urban cages, not so great out in the countryside, which, like many suburban do-gooders, it takes no trouble to understand.

 

In my experience its ignorance of equine husbandry is sometimes profound and its private prosecution strategy trigger happy to say the least.  With all the cruelly indifferent self-righteousness of governments and NGOs the world over, I've seen it commit gross injustices against perfectly decent individuals whose lives have been destroyed ultimately with no evidence worth the name of cruelty or neglect.

 

I'm afraid the RSPCA comes with a BIG health warning.  There are other animal charities, IMHO, far more deserving of support.  

[RedGemAlchemist]

25 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Hmm, an organisation that does much good, no doubt, but ....

 

As a lawyer, you sometimes get to see how organisations really behave, away from their public face. 

 

Like Queen Victoria, though in a different way, the RSPCA, too, seems to have a somewhat suburban attitude. Great for rescuing Pit Bulls from urban cages, not so great out in the countryside, which, like many suburban do-gooders, it takes no trouble to understand.

 

In my experience its ignorance of equine husbandry is sometimes profound and its private prosecution strategy trigger happy to say the least.  With all the cruelly indifferent self-righteousness of governments and NGOs the world over, I've seen it commit gross injustices against perfectly decent individuals whose lives have been destroyed ultimately with no evidence worth the name of cruelty or neglect.

 

I'm afraid the RSPCA comes with a BIG health warning.  There are other animal charities, IMHO, far more deserving of support.  

Why do you think I left?

 

Well that and the fact that my manager was a colossal b**** and was clearly just trying to line her pockets. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by RedGemAlchemist
Clarification

[Regularity]

3 minutes ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

Why do you think I left? 

Personal integrity.

[Edwardian]

18 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Personal integrity.

 

What he said!

[Nearholmer]

“Ahem. Stalin?”

 

Did you read what I’d written, or what you assumed I would write? 

[tomparryharry]

Oh Lord, it's Friday! Lighten up!

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing can faze me, or upset me, about science fiction, in film, books, audio, or by other means. 

 

The door was opened to me when I saw Neil Armstrong* order 2 dozen burgers, and  a large drink to go in downtown Houston, in July, 1969.  I thought at the time.... "Wow! That's impressive".  After that, it was all downhill.....*

 

So, loosen up, it's Friday!

 

Cheers,

Ian.

 

* I did meet Neil Armstrong. No,  not the one from space, the one from Accrington.  And, the burger bar was on a hill......

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

Oh Lord, it's Friday! Lighten up!

 

 

That's not helping. I've been sure its Thursday all day so far.

[Northroader]

It’s Friday?

(I’ve become a hermit since foolishly suggesting a nice little tableau for a model railway yesterday, why did I do it, I must repent in the desert forever)

Edited November 21, 2019 by Northroader

[RedGemAlchemist]

19 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

Oh Lord, it's Friday! Lighten up!

Gentlemen, I think we've found someone who lives out of temporal sync. Where's The Doctor when you really need her? 

[Hroth]

4 minutes ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

Gentlemen, I think we've found someone who lives out of temporal sync. Where's The Doctor when you really need her? 

Still looking for their sonic screwdriver down the back of the sofa...

[Regularity]

26 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Did you read what I’d written, or what you assumed I would write? 

Would write? Had written, maybe.

 

The major killing sprees of the 20th Century, which far outnumber everything else, involved irreligious leaders ordering their forces to commit mass exterminations. 

Hitler was clearly bonkers but generally viewed as anti-clerical if not irreligious, but he did not personally kill 6m people. He got others to do that for him.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Taylor, and more. Might be a few individuals kicking it off, but they themselves killed relatively few. They used others to do that, whose consciences - religiously-based or not - were not sufficiently advanced along the path of not killing other people to resist the order to do what they thought was wrong.

Even people like Saddam Hussein were atheists using other people's religions to get them into an in-group/out-group mentality, but his agenda was not in itself based on religious views.

More people have died under the rule of despotic atheists in the 20th Century than due to religious differences ever.

(I am aware that since the basic tenets of all the world's major religions are built on tolerance and respect, that any number at all dying as a result of religious divergence is not really acceptable.)

 

Fundamentally, it boils down to individuals deciding whether they would rather stand for their own beliefs no matter what, or simply do what is required to stay alive.

I don't think atheism is any better than any religion in this respect, but either viewpoint could result in a desire for more harmonious existence.

 

I prefer people who simply don't believe in God to atheists: less likely to try to convince me that I am wrong in their presumption of what I believe.

[RedGemAlchemist]

8 minutes ago, Regularity said:

I don't think atheism is any better than any religion in this respect, but either viewpoint could result in a desire for more harmonious existence.

 

I prefer people who simply don't believe in God to atheists: less likely to try to convince me that I am wrong in their presumption of what I believe.

I totally agree with this. I only have a lack of respect for religious people if they try and shove it in my face and only consider myself atheist because I've personally found no clinching proof of either an afterlife or a God and that is the technical term, not because I'm at all militant about it like the stereotypical. 

 

In short, if I dislike you, it's not because of your race, religion or anything like that - it's because you're an a***hole. 

 

Peace and love, y'all. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by RedGemAlchemist

[Donw]

I do not know the level of illiteracy in 1905 but it must have been substantial and many  more who were somewhat restricted in that area so I suspect a lot of the population who believed what the priest told them. 

Personally while thre may have been a creator of the universe I find it an immensely conceited idea that a being who could create billions of stars in each of billions of galaxies with an unkown number of planets was really bothered about wheher some individuals on a small planet circling one star were sexually attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite one particularly as we do not need to worry about enough children being born. I also find the idea that quite how you show your appreciation of the universe and its creator, would be a burning issue.  However I may be wrong but who could tell me which of the various tales is correct?

 

Don

Edited November 21, 2019 by Donw
word msteriously changed

[RedGemAlchemist]

15 minutes ago, Donw said:

 Personally while thre may have been a creator of the universe I find it an immensely conceited idea that a being who could create billions of stars in each of billions of galaxies with an unkown number of planets was really bothered about wheher some individuals on a small planet circling one star were sexually attracted to the same sect rather than the opposite one particularly as we do not need to worry about enough children being born. I also find the idea that quite how you show your appreciation of the universe and its creator, would be a burning issue.  However I may be wrong but who could tell me which of the various tales is correct?

Exactly. If there is a god, in my opinion I think they'd be indifferent at best towards us. When you're running the entire universe, a bunch of insignificant beings on one world are ultimately irrelevant. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by RedGemAlchemist

[Edwardian]

12 minutes ago, Donw said:

I do not know the level of illiteracy in 1905 but it must have been substantial and many  more who were somewhat restricted in that area so I suspect a lot of the population who believed what the priest told them. 

 

 

The association of illiteracy with credulity is both interesting and, these days, quite poignant.  

 

Given the content and apparent effects of Fake News, Donald Trump's Tweets, Interfering Russians,  One-Nation-Two-Systems treaty terms, much of Social Media, the Labour Party manifesto, the entire contents of the Daily Mail, and just about everything Boris Johnson has ever written up to and including anything he may or may not have entered onto a birth certificate, one must ask whether there is now a correlation between literacy and credulity.  

 

12 minutes ago, Donw said:

 

Personally while thre may have been a creator of the universe I find it an immensely conceited idea that a being who could create billions of stars in each of billions of galaxies with an unkown number of planets was really bothered about wheher some individuals on a small planet circling one star were sexually attracted to the same sect rather than the opposite one particularly as we do not need to worry about enough children being born. I also find the idea that quite how you show your appreciation of the universe and its creator, would be a burning issue.  However I may be wrong but who could tell me which of the various tales is correct?

 

Don

 

That's 'cos you're not special. I'm special, 'cos God loves ME!

 

(and He supports my reactionary social agenda, and the re-introduction of Smiting to secondary schools)

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, tomparryharry said:

Oh Lord, it's Friday! Lighten up!

 

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That's not helping. I've been sure its Thursday all day so far.

 

Possibly he's still on the Julian calendar.

 

In terms of pre-Grouping, that's hardcore!

[Hroth]

39 minutes ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

Exactly. If there is a god, in my opinion I think they'd be indifferent at best towards us. When you're running the entire universe, a bunch of insignificant beings on one world are ultimately irrelevant. 

 

There is the school of thought that all "life" on Earth is merely an unfortunate surface infection that should clear up sooner or later.  If it persists, the application of a topical antibiotic should solve the problem....

 

[Hroth]

34 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Possibly he's still on the Julian calendar.

 

When we went Gregorian, the Vox Populii cry was "Give us back our 11 days!", so I assume with Solar Creep, Julian is probably so adrift by now that Thursday IS Friday, though the week has been lapped twice...

 

Other Calendars are available...

[RedGemAlchemist]

9 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

There is the school of thought that all "life" on Earth is merely an unfortunate surface infection that should clear up sooner or later.  If it persists, the application of a topical antibiotic should solve the problem....

 

Isn't that the school of thought practiced by the villain of the first Kingsman movie?