Actually the inquisition was originally founded to root out fake converts from Islam. As the main cause f conflict between Spain and the Moors was religion, essentially the inquisition was an attempt to root out traitors. Also, the numbers of deaths were greatly exaggurated by the Lutherans in order to make themselves look better. I'll use this quote to give you the actual numbers: "Thankfully, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records and these are now being sifted through by historians. They paint a very different picture of sentencing patterns to traditional historians. Geoffrey Parker analyzed 49,000 trial records between 1540 and 1700, representing one third of the total, and found 776 executions took place. This suggests a total of about 2,000 in the period reviewed. Earlier records are less well preserved but do not support the picture of a bloodbath usually painted. Henry Kamen (p. 60) does not believe more than a thousand executions took place in the earlier period. Recent work, sponsored by the Catholic Church, also points to a significantly lower death toll. Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome, writes that about 125,000 people were tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain. Of these, about 1,200 - 2,000 were actually executed, although more killings were performed by non-church tribunals." if you want the site, this is it: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spanish-inquisition/death-tolls.html
Only a paltry 2000 people killed over meaningless distinctions between various bed-time stories and make-believe sky-fathers? Well that's all right then. The catholic church is pretty much off the hook. How many people would need to be wrongly murdered for you to think badly of an organisation? 3000? A million? I don't care how many people the catholic church has killed or caused to be abused. They clearly aren't the custodians of ANY sort of moral or universal truth and that's that. An organisation with a hotline to the creator of the universe and some higher moral sense just wouldn't act that way AT ALL. They are just humans. Flawed and stupid humans bumbling through life like the rest of us.
Well that's took the heat off me a bit PA, I owe you one. Guess you'll not be welcome at Mass for a while ... Gary
Yep the puritans were plenty nuts too, but is there really a big difference between murdering someone because you think they might be a which and murdering someone because you think they might be a muslim? Its all fear and hatred driven by superstitious mumbo jumbo just in different forms (and wearing different funny looking hats)
If you cannot take discussion boards seriously enough to carry on a coherent discussion, perhaps they aren't your cup of tea.
I'm no Catholic but I don't see that your argument follows logically. If a religion really did have the right deity and really did have some sort of privileged access to it's views why would that guarantee that followers of the religion would behave precisely as the deity wanted? Like you say people are just humans at the end of the day so wouldn't you expect them to get things wrong?
It's nothing personal, I assure you. I would be "on the case" of anyone who posted such ill-informed and amazingly one-sided drivel as you have, and who refused to discuss said drivel after posting it. Whether or not "others have posted worse" is irrelevant, because at everyone else in this thread has at least made an attempt to back their points and respond to any criticism which may have been leveled at their posts. I read this before you edited... it was phrased somewhat differently, along the lines of "I've missed winding people up." I believe people who get their enjoyment out of purposely winding others up on the internet are usually referred to as "trolls". Those who do it in RL as well... well there's a slightly different term for them. :whistle: I don't intend to "dish out" anything, merely point out the flaws in your reasoning. If you wish to continue responding by ignoring intelligent discussion and attempting to get a rise out of me, that is of course your prerogative.
Gary if you have no interest in discussing the topic and are now only posting to provoke other posters that is trolling. Kindly post on topic or avoid posting in the thread. Much obliged.
I'm no Catholic but I don't see that your argument follows logically. I'm not sure it is logical from my end but I'll try and explain. As I understand it the pope is God's highest representative on earth. Someone in direct contact with Him. Someone that on certain matters is deemed to be infallible. A man that it is also currently being revealed as someone that has directly allowed child abusers to continue abusing children. Now...if I was God...I'd probably use this man's closeness to me to have a word in his shell-like...something along the lines of... *In big booming God-voice* "Now look here Ratzinger...in a few years it's going to come out that you are going to let this Paedophile off the hook....be a good man and report him to the police now as if you don't it's going to make the organisation that represents my views and desires for mankind look like a right bunch of idiots. And while you're about it implement this across the board wherever an abusive priest is reported...it'll look better in the long run. You're making me look like an idiot up here". Clearly this little papal/god conversation never happened. Personally I would expect the custodians of "ultimate truth" to have a much better record of behaviour that reflects their priviliged position. Opposing slavery while everyone else condoned it for example. That's probably not logical (almost certainly not) but it's something I feel would be an indicator that they were much closer to preaching something worthwhile. Sort of like someone that knows what the stock market will do before it does it. Their behaviour would be very different to someone that didn't have that information.
There is no proof that the Pope covered up for pedophiles. In fact, the allegations were made by an ex bishop who was defrocked because he paid 250,000 in hush money to a gay ex lover.
Bruce_Lee93: I'm afraid that attempting to argue the pope's innocence isn't really the way to go... even if this pope is innocent, it's easy enough to find similar examples. Unfortunately, not all "religious people" are "Godly people" no matter what their positions or claims. Besides which, I believe religion is a personal thing... God speaks to the individual, no mediator such as the pope is necessary, nor do they have the authority they often claim, at least if one is going by the teachings of Christ in the bible. I think your time would be better spent in showing examples of the men and women who have done great things for their fellow man, in the name of God.
Well Bruce Lee. I'll admit I was born into a family with no religion. My mom converted to Buddhism while I was a child. My sisters and I explored spirituality on our own. My eldest sister is basically agnostic. My other sister is nominally Buddhist. I too am Buddhist and I unlike other converts to Buddhism I am just Buddhist. I do not feel a need to reconcile Buddhism with any other religion because I don't believe in the doctrines of other religions. Some believe that the path towards enlightenment and oneness with god or closeness with god are the same. I do not. I do not seek the salvation or closeness or submission to a higher power. I acknowledge there may be a higher power but I do not worship it. I believe achieving aware is my ultimate goal and that is different from seeking out God.
There is no proof that the Pope covered up for pedophiles. In fact, the allegations were made by an ex bishop who was defrocked because he paid 250,000 in hush money to a gay ex lover. Erm...you remember that point we made about your fondness of the Catholic church clouding your judgement on the actions of its representatives? I think it's happening again. This seems pretty damning to me. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html
Ok then, anything you want to say in response to me or PASmith? Otherwise Im going to start joining in with the bad jewjitsu puns.
What else do you want to know on the topic of religion in the arts? It's been noted several times in the thread that the arts themselves hold no religious connotations, that anything religious in the art is merely because of the personal preferences of the founder/school/teacher. So there really isn't any conflict between MA and religion, unless you create one.[1] If a certain custom in a particular school really bothers you, ask to be allowed to not partake in this part... if this isn't acceptable, find a school that doesn't have the custom. [1]Unless of course you have religious convictions against all forms/uses of violence. But to be honest, I can't really respect that viewpoint... Because there are situations where violence is absolutely necessary to prevent a greater evil.
I don't want this thread to become a 'joke thread'. If there is nothing more to say, let's just not say anything.
