big_kev Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 taught by nuns etc did me no harm. Probably explains the clothing fetish.... Anyhow...remember the "Singing Nun" that was a sad story....wonder if the youngsters on here know about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigjeeze Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 You may not beleive but there are some 900m people that do. Don't dismiss it just because it doesn't work for you. I dismiss it because I don't believe in the existence of a supreme being. People who do are either immature and still need a mother/father figure to cling on to or they are losers who just need someone to take the blame for their failings in life rather than themselves. So again I say - Because you either believe or not doesn't make it true or false - You are assuming you are right - They are assuming they are right. I am always amused at how many people get religion when the chips are down - God help us, Jesus Lord etc - Did you get married in a church? Are your children baptised? will you have a funeral service and be buried in consecrated ground? If you have to say Yes to any of those things that makes you as big a hypocrite as the believers you so readily denigrate. I have never been baptised - I am of no religious persuasion - but I do believe in God. I follow no religious leaders and make up my own mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fosterman Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I started reading this thread and have to admit felt both anger and compassion ( in no particular order ). Personally, I cannot understand any following/religion/belief which does not permiss life saving techniques which are widely acceptable in this day and age, however, if that is their belief, then we must reluctantly accept it, though we do not have to understand it. However, may I be permitted to move this debate to a side debate...please bear with me on this. As my sign in suggests I (and my wife) are foster carers, we are currently looking after 2 brothers, who have been neglected by their mother and father, both of whom are alive. the brothers are part of a family of 5 children ( and mum is pregnant again ). I am not really trying to make a point, more of a paradox (if that is he right word). Just trying to provoke further thought in a similar, though perhaps parallel vein ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumof4 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Not every child that goes into foster care is neglected by the birth parents.There are many reasons why it happens as i am sure you are aware, but yes the majority are neglected/abused in some way by either birth parents or are deemed at risk by a family member or friend of the family.But sometimes the emergency foster care is for respite, or when something happens to a parent and there is no one immediately there to care for the child/children Unfortunately, there are some parents in this world who cannot for whatever reason look after their child, neglect, abuse them.And abuse comes under a few different titles: SexualEmotionalNeglectPhysical Cant remember the others as its been a very long time since i was involved in it all. If as you say the mum is pregnant again, then i am sure there have been meetings to decide as to whether the new child will be at risk, if it is deemed so then a court order will remove the child shortly after birth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_kev Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 So again I say - Because you either believe or not doesn't make it true or false - You are assuming you are right - They are assuming they are right. I am always amused at how many people get religion when the chips are down - God help us, Jesus Lord etc - Did you get married in a church? Are your children baptised? will you have a funeral service and be buried in consecrated ground? If you have to say Yes to any of those things that makes you as big a hypocrite as the believers you so readily denigrate. I have never been baptised - I am of no religious persuasion - but I do believe in God. I follow no religious leaders and make up my own mind. I am not assuming I am right I know I am. No I did not get married in a church. I don't actually have any kids ( that I know of ) but yes I would have them baptised as I regard this as a formal naming ceremony no other practical option exists. I will have a funeral ( rememberance ) service, i do not see this as being religious. No I do not believe in burial and even if I went insane and beciame religious I would still not be vain enough to do this. I was baptised ( Presbytarian ) which probably moves me even further up the C of E's Hit list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigjeeze Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 . I am not assuming I am right I know I am. No I did not get married in a church. I don't actually have any kids ( that I know of ) but yes I would have them baptised as I regard this as a formal naming ceremony no other practical option exists. I will have a funeral ( rememberance ) service, i do not see this as being religious. No I do not believe in burial and even if I went insane and beciame religious I would still not be vain enough to do this. I was baptised ( Presbytarian ) which probably moves me even further up the C of E's Hit list. Explain how you know you are right? Baptism is nothing to do with naming - it is a wholly religious ceremony and particular to the religion in whose church it is performed. If you don't believe in God or religion why have a funeral service - surely a wake or party would be more apropriate? I agree with you on burial - I couldn't give a monkeys what happens to the body. DOn't worry about being on a hit list - no one would care enough! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_kev Posted November 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 Explain how you know you are right? Baptism is nothing to do with naming - it is a wholly religious ceremony and particular to the religion in whose church it is performed. If you don't believe in God or religion why have a funeral service - surely a wake or party would be more apropriate? I agree with you on burial - I couldn't give a monkeys what happens to the body. DOn't worry about being on a hit list - no one would care enough! Its a matter of reasoning and logic, I make my own decisions based on my own judgement, as I said before most of the belief are just a way of people diverting blame to make themselves feel better.....from this I know I am correct. I would still hold the Baptism in church as I see it as part of the traditional naming ceremony.....the mumbo jumbo that goes with it I see as part of the fee for using the facilities. Ditto for funerals...although personally I would also have a wake. As you can see i have now been removed from the hit list.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insider Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 Christening is the naming bit. Baptism is supposed to come later when you're old enough to make the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigjeeze Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 The liturgy of baptism in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist traditions makes clear reference to baptism as not only a symbolic burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation, one that draws parallels to the experience of Noah and the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea divided by Moses. Thus baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Christ. Catholics believe that baptism is necessary for the cleansing of the taint of original sin, and for that reason infant baptism is a common practice. The Eastern Churches (Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy) also baptize infants on the basis of texts such as Matthew 19:14, which are interpreted as supporting full Church membership for children, and so baptism is immediately followed by Chrismation and Communion at the next Divine Liturgy regardless of age. Orthodox likewise believe that baptism removes what they call the ancestral sin of Adam.[35] Anglicans believe that Baptism is also the entry into the Church and therefore allows them access to all rights and responsibilities as full members, including the privilege to receive Holy Communion. Most Anglicans agree that it also cleanses the taint of what in the West is called original sin, in the East ancestral sin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_kev Posted November 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 By "baptism" I mean a generic naming ritual where one shows the child off to family and friends and makes them aware of its existance and what it is to be called. p.s All the references to "original sin" is just religions way of debasing women...I think all the major religions do this at every oppurtunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.