The Paracast, Guests and Religion.

[tyder001]

Take little soundbites out of context much? Bully much? Bye bye mikey!

 

[mike]

I don't really see anything in this thread that necessitates it being closed.

Clearly i'm not the only one who thinks you DID ask for the thread to be closed.
and the above quote also speaks to the claim of incivility.... there was none.

The truth is people were expressing opinions that were negative of a construct you hold dear, They were not being rude or uncivil, but they were critical of something you hold precious.
So you attempted to censor the discussion, with false claims. And when that failed you proceeded to inject the very same behaviour you yourself complained about.

 

[tyder001]

I did ask. I said I asked. Sheessh! There is no law in asking. But, I also said other things that explained and even tried to reason with you. So,, since you seem to be bound and determined to "win" and argument here. I declare you Da Man!

 

[mike]

Yes you did ask........

Which is at odds with

I never tried to get the thread shut down

Either you did or you didnt try and get the thread shut down, i know which it is, i'm not so sure you do, you've made claims both ways

 

[tyder001]

Bye the way T.O. and I have had several "spats" over the past couple of years. He's heard me say things and he's said things and we go back and forth. But, we don't get as nasty and personal as you have gotten here. He will call something I say "tripe" and I will respond with hypocrite and he will respond with "what the hell are you talking about?" and I will go and he will go and on and on. But, at the end of the day we just agree to disagree. To bad you can't do that. I don't know you and I don't know if you are truly a bully or if you are just wound way to tight. But, I do get what you are saying. You think I'm dishonest. That's unfortunate because I am a lot of things. But, I'm not dishonest. My post are out there for everyone to see. As I've said before I did ask for it to be closed. Angel didn't agree and I didn't ask again. As for civility, maybe you think accusing people and berating people is civil as long as you don't name call. That' s fine Mike but it's just not true. Now, Again I hope we can start over. If not then that's fine. It's just a forum and we don't have to be BBF's. Now there is my olive branch.

 

[mike]

If pointing out the emperor has no clothes makes me nasty and a bully in your eyes, well given your conduct in this thread i guess no one should be surprised.
I dont know if you are dishonest in general, but you have been dishonest in this thread, claiming ppl were being uncivil was dishonest, claiming you never asked the thread to be shut down when you clearly did was dishonest, what you call accusing people i see as pointing out the discrepancies of their claims

I get that you are not happy with being called out on the discrepancy between

I never tried to get the thread shut down

and

I did ask. I said I asked. Sheessh! There is no law in asking

Its not a good look, i would be embarrassed too in your shoes.
And while its true there is no rule against asking for the thread to be closed, the motive and method in which you did, again doesnt cover you in much glory does it.
You tried to censor and silence those who's opinions conflicted with yours, not because they were being uncivil, but because you didnt like what they said.
Thats not a good reason to ask to have those who wished to discuss the topic gagged.
In my world THATs bullying, trying to impose your will on others right to free speech for no other justification than what they were saying while perfectly civil, impacted your comfort zone

If you think accusing me of being a bully for pointing out the obvious will help divert the attention away from your behaviour, good luck with that.
the only person who's been demonstrably uncivil in this thread is you, the person whos gotton personal and name called is you, the hypocrisy youve tried to lay at the feet of others is yours. a very clear example of do as i say but not as i do.

All ive done is point out the misrepresentation, discrepancies and hypocrisy in your posts in this thread.
I get that its not a good reflection on you, and that you are uncomfortable in the spotlight of exposure, but im not sure that makes me a bully
I dont really care, you tried to censor and gag the other contributers for the basest most selfish of reasons, you did so using tactics that i and others have recognised as dishonest

If recognising and calling you out on this makes me nasty in your eyes, oh well.................

I dont have it in for you, i do my best to argue the facts, not the personalities. But its not unusual for people who find themselves having their facts and methods questioned to try and spin it as an attack on their personalitys, much in the same way you tried to claim the participants were being uncivil.

 

[tyder001]

How odd! As my sainted mother always said "Son, the more you stir shit, the more it stinks." So, I'm gonna stop after this and after the next cut and paste job by Mike. Yes, I did "ask" that the thread be closed. I didn't DEMAND, I asked. Angel disagreed and I let it go. I did say it seemed uncivil. It did since a believer and forum member (not me) said they were Catholic and they were trying to be civil.

Then I opened up a can of worms that I should not have. I mentioned something that I honestly should have either started another post on. Either that or I should have pm'd Trained or Angel if I thought there was a double standard. I then felt that it was being insinuated that I was homophobic. I am certainly not homophobic. Then I did let loose with an "uncivil" comment. It wasn't vulgar or particularly nasty as these things go. But, it wasn't apporpriate since I had already stated (as Mike has cut and pasted over, and over, and over and over.) that people were being uncivil. Anyway, I did attempt to defuse it since it seemed that Mike was getting personal and I thought a little over the top. So, yes I did "ask" and Angel disagreed but NO I didn't demand. Yes, I did think that a prior thread on Randi was given short shrift and mabe in some part of my brain I have been holding that. If so then I am guilty of being silly but still not dishonest. Finally, yes I do have some things to say about the intrepid skeptics who research the hell out of so called believers but don't look in their own back doors. But, that is for another thread and maybe I will start one at some point. So, finally if I was at any time "uncivil" then it was to Trained and not to Mike. Was I hypocritical? Looking back on the thread and the conversation with Trained Observer then yeah I'll admit I got carried away and that was hypocritical. So, shoot me! But, was I uncivil to mike? No. Did I try to make peace with him? Well, look at the last few post and I know they speak for themselves. Now, I'm done. I'm done with this thread even if somebody comes along and cuts and pastes till hell freezes over. It's just an internet forum and thank God I don't have to live with or around Mike. I'm sure he feels the same way. I have honestly enjoyed and still do enjoy sparring with and challenging and being challenged by the members of this forum. But, this has gone into sillyville.

Finally, I know James Randi doesn't read this board. But, if my statements and pulling up things that were posted in the past and going by quotes that may or may not be out of context. Well, if it makes him feel as frustrated that somebody who doesn't know him such as Mike has made me feel. Then I owe Mr. Randi an apology. So, maybe this has done some good after all. It has certainly enabled me to take a step back and look a little more clearly at words and the way accusations can make a person feel.

Peace.

 

[trainedobserver]

Bye the way T.O. and I have had several "spats" over the past couple of years. He's heard me say things and he's said things and we go back and forth. But, we don't get as nasty and personal as you have gotten here. He will call something I say "tripe" and I will respond with hypocrite and he will respond with "what the hell are you talking about?" and I will go and he will go and on and on. But, at the end of the day we just agree to disagree. To bad you can't do that.

But you have gotten nasty and personal in this thread as Mike has already pointed out and you are grossly mischaracterizing our interchanges. I really don't appreciate that much.

It makes no sense to interject an individual who has had only allegations made against him in places like the David Icke forum by some faceless, anonymous, person on the Internet into a discussion about an institution that has been proven in numerous trials to have harbored and covered up pedophilia, rape, and gross misconduct.

Do you honestly want to equate unproven allegations made by anonymous people to hundreds, if not thousands of individuals who have come forward and the numerous criminal charges against the clergy that have been subsequently prosecuted? You have to ask why you would do such a thing, especially if you are at all genuinely concerned about civility.

 

[tyder001]

Read my last post. I think I explained where I am coming from. If not then that's OK also.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I just want to point something out: I remember the Randi thread, I think there are actually a few threads that bring the charges up. I don't think any were ever closed, but I could be wrong. Anyway, the allegations against Randi never amounted to anything so we should just stop bringing them up. However, there does seem to be an epidemic of paedophilia in the Catholic church - that's a proven fact. That doesn't mean that all Catholics are paedophiles, nor do they condone it. Everyone in my family was brought up Catholic, some of them still go to church, none of them are paedophiles. Neither are any of the priests I know. The over arching message of all religions is be nice to each other. Keep that in mind please.

 

[trainedobserver]

On the Paracast and guests religion ...

I was driving in this morning listening to Coast to Coast and they had some lady on there who has apparently bought into the Zecharia Sitchin speculation on human origins wholeheartedly. The Sitchin theory permeates much of current UFO mythos and gets brought up again and again by so many people on the paranormal talk show circuit. It is at the heart of Sanchez's UFO Highway for example.

Since the Sitchin theory is the work of one man that was rejected by scholars, scientists, and academics who are trained in the field, Sitchinism (if I can coin the term) borders on a religious belief system akin to something like Mormonism for example. As in Mormonism, much is made of the translations (or alleged translations) of ancient languages by a single untrained individual.

So, it might be possible discuss with a guest how their faith in Sitchin's story, differs from a faith in some other ancient text although some might not find it that interesting.

I have always thought that paranormal and anomalous activity may have been starting points for various religions and I think if you look at the paranormal subculture (or however you want to describe it) there are numerous religions forming from the emerging mythos as it churns on itself. The whole Annunaki business might be considered one such religious belief system.

 

[tyder001]

I am very interested in the conversation that some of the religions could have a common thread. While I don't believe that ancient aliens contacted mankind. I do find it very interesting and a fun topic to get into. I would love to see somebody like Michael Heisser (I don't think I spelled that right) on the show refuting some of Sitchin and Von Danikens theorys. It might make for a good conversation.

 

[trainedobserver]

...However, there does seem to be an epidemic of paedophilia in the Catholic church - that's a proven fact. That doesn't mean that all Catholics are paedophiles, nor do they condone it. Everyone in my family was brought up Catholic, some of them still go to church, none of them are paedophiles. Neither are any of the priests I know.

I honestly do not understand why good people continue to tolerate the systemic problems ( and they are systemic) within the church. Of course many of them aren't, they are leaving. It seems obvious the institution and the criminals committing the crimes and covering it up are at fault and not the generations of victimized Catholic families. Unless you want to count the continued tolerance of the epidemic for hundreds of years because it is covered by the cloak of religion. I cannot believe that this was just noticed recently. You have ask, "Why has it gone on so long?"

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I honestly do not understand why good people continue to tolerate the systemic problems ( and they are systemic) within the church. Of course many of them aren't, they are leaving. It seems obvious the institution and the criminals committing the crimes and covering it up are at fault and not the generations of victimized Catholic families. Unless you want to count the continued tolerance of the epidemic for hundreds of years because it is covered by the cloak of religion. I cannot believe that this was just noticed recently. You have ask, "Why has it gone on so long?"

It really is sad. Most people seem to shut it out because they feel a need to pray to their god. Most people of my generation that I know, really don't care too much about religion any more. It really is more of a cultural thing - I'm someone's godfather, but not because I'm religious. It more of a symbolic thing.

 

[pixelsmith]

This church has a very interesting image within the stained glass...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

This church has a very interesting image within the stained glass...

Yup - I've actually seen that window in person. My friend got married in that church. However, it's possible it's not a unique stained glass window.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Mike said: [Some background: I'm a man, ive been married to a woman for 26 years, i find the sight of two women kissing a bit of a turn on, the sight of two men kissing a bit yucky.
I dont know why this is, it might be genetic or social , i dont know.

Same here.

Mike said: But that is not in of itself a justification to impose that reaction and subsequent restrictions on them.
Marriage between a black man and a white woman, two men, two women, or a man and a woman is all the same to me, the configuration of the skin they wear is irrelevant.
If they choose each other, that connection has nothing to do with the skin each entity wears, and everything to do with the person inside.

I agree.


I think the problem is that faith is a very strong spiritual/emotional bond for some of us. The people that some of this caracatures just don't resonate with me or the people of faith that I have been raised around. When I was a youth and going to church I NEVER heard the local pastor say "Lets make it illegal for gays to walk down the street." I have Christian friends and family now and they never, ever say "Lets go bomb the abortion clinic and stone the infidels." Just because you can sling dirt on any religion or group using past sins or the idiocy of a few doesn't mean there is no good or sane people following that religion. Finally, let me say this.

I'm not a born again evangelical bible thumping card carrying right wing person. However, I do still pray. You don't? No problem. I find comfort in the inner dialog of my life and a thousand "studies" trying to disprove my hope are not worth one moment or one 10th of the moments when I have simply "known." I absolutely don't believe that we are here by accident. I absolutely don't believe that there is a mean old man in the sky that will burn you in hell if you don't watch out. But, yeah I do think we are an eternal expression of intent and purpose. I like Mikes statement that it's just skin because I think we are in "earth suits" while we are here. But, none of that means a rat's ass to the way you should live your life or vote in an election. But, the Christian "church" that I grew up in didn't try to rig elections or change the laws of the land. I was taught "be in the world, but not of the world." By that they meant "You don't make the laws of the land and you don't impose your will on others. However, you live in Christ no matter what the world does." Now, has that changed? Yeah, as far as right wing and politics go, it has. But, the people I still know from my old home town are still "giving out food and hot chohcolate in front of the downtown church on winter days." The pastors daughter is still leading the Halloween Dress like a Zombie parade downtown. The youth still drive over to Atlanta (I'm from Northeast Alabama) to give out clothes around Peachtree Street. The pastor still goes to the home to pray with the sick and dying and family. Matter of fact two young gay guys (no, they were not a couple) used to go to church there. The pastor never preached fire and brimstone while they were there or after for that matter. Not his style. So, some of this right wing hysteria bashing on this thread has just left me a little cold. It's propaganda and it's mud slinging and it's silly. Now, are there other side examples I can give? Hell Yeah! I could tell ya some horror stories about born again religious folks. But, mainly I agree with jpw.in.wi this is not the place to have an intelligent discussion on religion if you really are interested in taking it to a deep level. However, for the ones who just want to show how much they can curse and call names and sling mud at the name of Christ or Buddha or Mohammed or Krisna or the little old lady who prays for her family. It's an excellent place.

To be fair tyder001, I don't think anyone on this thread has actually called Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha or any other figure from religion anything derogatory. As I've said, many members of my family whom I love are very religious. For me to slander the name of a religious leader or follower would be for me to slander my own family.
I think it is the interpretation of religion by man that is what is being called into question here. Probably like your own family, I am confident my extended family have no deeds of shame on their name. Many leaders (non divine ones) of faiths have done bad things if not in the name of religion, then against other religions.
I only brought up this whole discussion because when people are very fundamental in their beliefs of religion that pretty much guarrantees they are accepting some things in the holy books that are difficult to just accept (at least for me). I am equating some of those beliefs to belief in the paranormal. On the Paracast, I think we do not just accept beliefs but we question them. Because religion sometimes gets brought up in the Paracast I think we should apply the same standards to 'faith' in the paranormal as we do to 'faith' in religion. Where this discussion has gone elsewhere has just turned into a bit of religion against non-religion and whether there is any merit in that alone, my point about burden of proof or reasons for belief still stand. I think it is the whole point of the show, otherwise guests could just come on and give a lecture without having to answer for any of it.
I want to hear from all sides, but I want to apply the same standards too!
gordon

 

[Goggs Mackay]

From the BBC: Joseph Ratzinger was born into a traditional Bavarian farming family in 1927, although his father was a policeman... At the age of 14, he joined the Hitler Youth.... World War II saw his studies at Traunstein seminary interrupted when he was drafted into an anti-aircraft unit in Munich... Muslims took offence when, in 2006, he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things....Then Jews were taken aback when a breakaway group of bishops was welcomed back into the Church fold, including one who was found to be a Holocaust-denier.

From: miskeptics.org: Victims of clerical sex abuse have reacted furiously to Pope Benedict’s claim yesterday that paedophilia wasn’t considered an “absolute evil” as recently as the 1970s.
In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered “normal” by society.

“In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said.

“It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than’ and a ‘worse than’. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

He sure sounds twisted to me, and if you don't think he is evil-looking, you need to check with an eye doctor...

Take away the robes and stuff and clothe the pope differently and he absolutely looks like he could be straight out of a horror film! But so could many people and to say he looks evil is not to accuse the man himself of evil. I think loads of politicians look evil!
I don't think anyone was seriously stating that on the basis of some photos, that pope benedict is evil. I think it was intended to be a light-hearted jibe. If looking evil was the only crime the church had to defend itself against then as we say in the UK, they'd be 'quids in'! (means basically laughing because they are in the money - though I am not making any reference to anything financial, it was just an expression).
I have looked carefully at every post so far in this thread and I am also finding it difficult to find anyone being less than civil and overtly attacking anyone. I think to close this thread would be plain censorship. No-one has been personally attacked, nothing has been said that you cannot read in a million other places.
I would hope the legitimate reasons to close a thread are way beyond what has occured in this thread or no-one would say what they really want and that would spoil the purpose of the forums.
If anyone starts getting nasty and personal then maybe a thread should be closed but I do not think that is the case in this thread.
gordon

 

[tyder001]

I agree goggsmackay. I think I was kind of bringing some baggage I had been previously thinking about. Then once I stepped in it I should have just backed out. But, ego and just wanting to justify my thoughts let me get carried away. It happens and it's part of the experience of being human. I do think if a person says their religion tells them that u.f.o.'s are demonic or angelic the yes the religion is open for debate and looking at it from all angles. I think it's an interesting question and if I had simply stayed on topic I could have added to the discussion. I do wonder about the spiritual battles that the bible and koran and torah talk about. It's interesting to me because ancient aliens as the gods and demons of legend is a fascinating subject.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

This is to the moderators. I have NEVER asked for a thread to be closed. I don't believe in censorship and I am not Catholic. But, I saw a James Randi thread closed because folks were getting to personal and mean. I've seen threads closed because the same old tired arguments were going back and forth and the tone was getting personal and nasty and unproductive. I'm a social worker and have worked first hand with both victims and abusers and it is a nasty gut wrenching soul scarring abomination. But, this is getting to a point where this is simply an agenda from a couple of folks who have a personal grudge against an organization. Yes, the Catholic Church has been exposed as having some extreme problems and condoning in it's ranks the most vile actions ever done on a human. On the other hand so has Penn State University and local law enforcement and education and other places. But, the Catholic Church or Penn State or any other organization was not founded to harm others. Lets not forget that yes the church needs to come into the 21 centuary. But, they have also and continue to "clothe the poor." and feed the hungry and open hospital to heal the sick and give comfort to the dying when time is up here and science and comfort and material things are finished. So, yes you can always sling mud. But, out of respect to those who work and pray and have done much good and are just trying to live life and find their way. I'm asking that this thread be either closed or at least that some civility be brought back into it. Folks some of you are starting to look a lot like the very things that you proclaim to hate.

Peace!

Steve, you can be right and still say it in a way that is wrong and makes you wrong.....My wife to me on a subject that I felt strongly about and was beating somebody else up verbally about.

Tyder001 - I want to thank you for your participation in this thread - it is important, at least to me, to hear various sides. But I am not sure why you want the thread closed? I think we have similar backgrounds when it comes to religion and if the thread is closed then I would not be able to read what yourself, or mike, or T.O or chris has to say. Yes, if anyone is slandered in a legal way, or anyone is getting overly nasty and personal - enough to cause anyone real psychological harm, then maybe a thread should be closed. I just don't find it the case here. I accept maybe we all have things we are more easily offended over than other things but in a society of free speech I think the bar should be set quite high before any censorship is performed.
I for one, have time for your posts and I want them to continue. Ok, sometimes certain posts may get away from the core issue as people bring up personal bugbear etc but I dont think closing a thread that has not personally harmed anyone is the way to go.
long may you all participate in these forums.
I don't want anyone to think I am wishy-washy and always the peacemaker cos I hate conflict! nothing could be further from the truth, I have read every post on this thread and I don't want it taken away!
gordon