Is it possible for priests to believe in God?

[unicorn]

My hubbie and I recently watched the Canadian movie Bones of Crows, which portrayed the story of a Cree girl who was forcibly taken from her parents and involuntarily placed in the Canadian Indian residential school system. (Full disclosure, I chose this movie because I have the hots for one of its stars, actor Johnathan Whitesell)

The students at these schools faced rape, starvation, malnutrition, physical abuse, and even murder. In the movie (based on true events), the girl suffers, among other things, being raped by JW's character, then a deacon (later a priest and eventually cardinal), and a nun who intentionally crushes hand of the girl, who was a child prodigy pianist. One of the priests, when threatening her, mentions how he can murder students, and no one would investigate or care about it. Indeed, the girl documents the graves of murdered children, which are eventually dug up. In fact, the graves of hundreds were dug up in the days before filming took place at the film's location:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bones_of_Crows

"...The film was shot partially at the Kamloops Indian Residential School. Although the revelation of 215 unmarked gravesites at the school took place just one week before shooting was to start, the Tkʼemlúps te Secwépemc nation encouraged production to proceed because of the importance of getting residential school stories publicized and told...".

I've often wondered whether religious leaders actually believe what they're preaching, and this seems to be an extreme example of how widespread this disbelief among religious leaders is. Obviously, anyone who even thought it might be possible that the Bible is a valid religious document wouldn't risk eternal damnation. Clearly, these priests, deacons, and nuns didn't even believe there was any chance their actions would be punished. Interestingly enough, I couldn't find any evidence that rape per se is condemned in the Bible, though according to my husband (who was raised in a "religious" household), rape is generally regarded as adultery, so I guess it's forbidden. 

This movie has 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, so is worth the watch (it's on Hulu). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites

"...The Truth and Reconciliation Commission found records of 4037 deaths at the schools, and published a list. There were repeated outbreaks of tuberculosis in the early 20th century; "given their cramped conditions and negligent health practices, residential schools were hotbeds for the spread of TB", a National Post reporter wrote. Bodies were not returned to their families for burial, and families were not normally informed of the circumstances of their child's death. Commission chairman Murray Sinclair estimated in an interview that the true number of deaths could range between 6,000 and 25,000. Some of the students who died at the schools were buried in unmarked graves. Over time, markers at some graveyards were lost or destroyed...". (Although active TB can be fatal, most people who contract TB don't get ill, so most of these deaths were probably not due to TB)

[PeterRS]

This is a particularly important subject that has been mirrored sadly in quite a few countries. In Ireland, babies were often forcibly taken from unmarried mothers, many innocent and unaware of how women became pregnant, and placed in religious homes run by nuns. These were I believe officially sanctioned both by the church and the state with often brutal conditions for the children who would eventually be placed with proper 'couples'. The 2013 movie about one mother who tried to find her son "Philomena" is hugely moving.

For 100 years, the Australian government forcibly removed aboriginal children from their mothers to be placed with white parents, in forster care or in institutions, many managed by religious organisations. The facilities were basic and often brutal in the extreme as children were forced to think and become 'white'. This policy was rooted in the relatively common and deeply held colonial racist view that non-white people were inferior and thus incapable of leading their own lives. They were later given the term "The Stolen Generation". In 2008 the country's Prime Minister issued a formal apology in parliament to all those in The Stolen Generations.

Kipling's view of colonialism that it was "the white man's burden" to improve - and thus westernise - native populations is now too frequently regarded as true. Even though he wrote this at the end of the 19th century when America was colonising The Philippines, it had been common throughout almost all colonial history. Sadly, after colonial traders seeking loot for their nation's treasuries had arrived, flocks of missionaries would follow: Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals in all what they believed as their God-given right. Their mission was simple: convert souls for "their" God and to hell with local religious beliefs which had been practiced often for millennia. 

The rape of so many countries is one of the huge stains on so-called western civiisations. Seldom, alas, do we think of the consequent ravaging of local religions, customs and beliefs. In mid-19th century China alone, the Taiping Rebellion was a direct result of Christian missionaries spreading their doctrine. As a result between 20 and 30 million Chinese were killed. It is desperately sad that, in my view, around the world these priests and their hierarchy actually believed they were doing good. Even worse, in their efforts to win souls, some not infrequently resorted to ghastly forms of sadism and torture. I can't wait to see "Bones of Crows".

[bkkmfj2648]

8 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

Kipling's view of colonialism that it was "the white man's burden" to improve - and thus westernise - native populations is now too frequently regarded as true. Even though he wrote this at the end of the 19th century when America was colonising The Philippines, it had been common throughout almost all colonial history.

During my 62 day stay in Cebu (January / February 2025) in the Philippines - when I was lodging over on Mactan island - I visited 2 times the Mactan Shrine - where the Battle of Mactan is displayed.  Back in 1521, the local people - led by Lapu-Lapu, killed many of the Spanish forces that were invading the area - killing the Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan in the battle.  This was the first killing of a European in the Philippines. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mactan

When I discussed this history with many local Filipinos - how they replied was often consistent and a bit brainwashed (in my opinion).  They were proud that they defended their land from the Spaniards (only successfully in that battle), but they also told me that the local people at that time were savage and without culture, religion, and norms - and so it was good that eventually the Spaniards returned to bring them culture, religion, and trade.  So, it is as if, the Filipinos are condoning and endorsing:

Kipling's view of colonialism that it was "the white man's burden" to improve - and thus westernise - native populations 

at the sacrifice of their own (pre 1521) culture and history.

[PeterRS]

Painting any event in history with a broad brush inevitably leaves out part of the story. The Chinese - both its conservative leadership and vast numbers of ordinary citizens - frequently talk about the "century of humiliation" from the Opium Wars through the Japanese war. Much of that is true. The opium trade which condemned millions to death, the takeover of Chinese coastal cities by western powers which imposed their own national laws and not Chinese law, the Taiping Rebellion, the dreadful and utterly inexcusable destruction of one of the world's great treasures in Beijing's Summer Palace, and so on. What the Chinese frequently fail to talk about is how the Qing Dynasty, once one of the world's richest and most powerful, relatively quickly collapsed from within such that by the start of the 19th century it simply could not defend its own territory.

[unicorn]

2 hours ago, PeterRS said:

... at the end of the 19th century when America was colonising The Philippines...

I may be ignorant, but did the US forcibly take children from locals' families to horrific facilities in order to indoctrinate them? What I found most shocking about the "Canadian Indian Residential Schools" program, is that the last of these didn't close down until 1991!!! Hopefully there weren't still rapes and murders going on in the 1980s, but horrific crimes in those "schools" clearly went on well through the 1960s, maybe even 1970s. It's quite a shocking story, and the movie deserves to be seen. 

[Keithambrose]

17 hours ago, unicorn said:

I may be ignorant, but did the US forcibly take children from locals' families to horrific facilities in order to indoctrinate them? What I found most shocking about the "Canadian Indian Residential Schools" program, is that the last of these didn't close down until 1991!!! Hopefully there weren't still rapes and murders going on in the 1980s, but horrific crimes in those "schools" clearly went on well through the 1960s, maybe even 1970s. It's quite a shocking story, and the movie deserves to be seen. 

Yes, indeed. Ditto Australia and others. Even in the UK, the charity Dr Barnados sent orphans to Australia,  who suffered  very badly. Many other examples.

[unicorn]

3 minutes ago, Keithambrose said:

Yes, indeed..

Is there a Wikipedia page or website where I can learn more about this?

[Keithambrose]

46 minutes ago, unicorn said:

Is there a Wikipedia page or website where I can learn more about this?

Must be, I watched several documentaries on the topic. Theme seems to be not allowed to speak your native language,  made to work long hours, poor conditions, harsh treatment, including sexual abuse.

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

Is there a Wikipedia page or website where I can learn more about this?

You might wish to start here - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_laundries_in_Ireland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

You might wish to start here - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_laundries_in_Ireland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

Thank you for those references (Ireland and Australia). Any references to such activities in the US?

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

Thank you for those references (Ireland and Australia). Any references to such activities in the US?

I know little about American history, but I expect not in individual institutions. I'm not sure if native indian tribes were forced to assimilate their children. I always assumed that the white settlers preferred to fence off native Americans in reservations where they did their own thing, as it were. Yet  the treament of such peoples was certainlly appalling in so many ways. It strikes me that taken as a whole this is similar in many respects to what was done in Ireland, Australia and surely some other countries. 

A paper by Dr. Michael Kryzanek issued by Bridgewater State University 2 years ago summed up the history ot American treatment of native Americans thus -

"The history of the United States government’s treatment of Native Americans (also called Indigenous People) is a sad and cruel one filled with broken promises, forced removal from tribal lands, murderous conflict bordering on genocide and an adamant refusal to respect basic human rights. Presidents from Andrew Jackson to Ulysses Grant to Rutherford Hayes, to modern day presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon all supported legislation and rulemaking that diminished if not eliminated tribal control over land and denied them adequate health care, educational and housing support. The goal of presidential administrations and the Congress was to provide economic and financial opportunities to the “white man,” while driving the Native Americans into extreme poverty . . .

"It is important to remember that the Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924, even though these Indigenous People were the first settlers in the New World. Yet, greed, racism, cruelty and neglect on the part of the United States government and indeed the American people led to second class status for these first Americans." 

It strikes me that taken as a whole this is similar in many respects to what was done in Ireland, Australia and surely some other countries. As you may know, I am British and I am equally appalled by what the British did in many of their overseas colonial possessions. As I have stated earlier, I am writing a book about Myanmar. Britain basically destroyed that country and is mostly responsible for the horrors of the near eight-decades of civil war in that country.

[PeterRS]

To take the topic as its original meaning, I wonder what God actually means for priests and those preaching other faiths. I have yet to have any "man of God" explain to me various questions. As a fairly practical person, the Big Bang has always thrown up questions. I can understand that somewhere a gazillion years ago, our universe started with the Big Bang. Yet when I think of this I wonder: into what did our universe expand? To my thinking you cannot expand into nothing. Just as a balloon expands into the air around it, so the universe must have started expanding massively quickly into something! Did God create nothingness? Was God there at the Big Bang? DId God create it?

Then we are told the universe is still expanding into realms of space our minds simply cannot comprehend. Two years ago we were informed the diameter of the universe is likely to be 93 billion light years and still expanding. Is God responsible for this? Where is he/she/it? If God in all 'his' manifestations is merely an idea thought up by various men at various times in what is, let's face it, very recent history, why do we not own up to the fact that God is a fiction?

Why do we not accept that we really have no clue what God is? Why are we stuck with concepts of God which accept the appalling treatment of children in Canada, Australia, Ireland and elsewhere, World Wars, genocide, natural disasters and so on - and yet we are told week-in week-out about a God of love? Is it any wonder that in many countries, church attendance is falling rapidly?

[unicorn]

12 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...Did God create nothingness? Was God there at the Big Bang? DId God create it?...

Well, you have come to the crux of whether there is any reason to believe in a God at all. In particular, the stories of the Bible seem particularly preposterous. I'm at a loss to understand why anybody believes that stuff, but one would think that at least priests, deacons, and nuns believed what they're preaching. Despite my not believing in God or an afterlife, I would never murder or rape, because I find those acts personally repugnant. However, even if I didn't have an ethical issue with rape and murder, I can't imagine doing that if I had even a feeling that there may be a 1% chance that the Bible is a truthful document, and that I therefore might risk eternal torment by violating the ten commandments. I can't imagine these "religious" figures thought there was any chance whatsoever that the teaching of the Bible were truthful.

[PeterRS]

I can see that this thread will almost certainly throw up some major differences of opinion - which is great as isn't that what discussions are all about? As for the Bible. I have never believed the Old Testament. How can we believe the truth of what was basically merely an oral history for thousands of years before someone comitted it to written form? We all knoow that when telling a factual incident to friends, it may start out as, let's say, 90% fact. When those friends then relate it to their friends, it becomes 80% . . . and so on, with the result that often it ends up somewhere as virtually a totally different incident. 

I also think we must remember that during the period of which the Old Testament writes, that world was simply a series of smallish tribes living in a tiny part of our world. The future of the tribe was important, perhaps even its growth in order to defend itself against other tribes. Hence, perhaps, the prohibitions against any form of sex other than for actual procreation.

I have more faith in the New Testament in that i believe much of it probably did take place, if only becuase it is much nearer in time. But then my doubts arise when I recall that it was the still pagan Constantine who summoned the Council Nicea to determine what constitutes certain key elements of the Christian doctrine and eventually what would be included in- and as importantly what would be excluded from - the New Testament. Where are the Gospels of Judas, Peter, Philip, Thomas and the Nazarenes, for example, the last actually written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus? So why should we believe in that what was effectively decided for us by a group of clerics and others who lived three hundred years after Jesus' death? 

I therefore question what makes the Christian religion more important in our western thinking than, for example, the older Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, or even the more recently founded islam?

[unicorn]

8 hours ago, PeterRS said:

I can see that this thread will almost certainly throw up some major differences of opinion - which is great as isn't that what discussions are all about? As for the Bible. I have never believed the Old Testament. How can we believe the truth of what was basically merely an oral history for thousands of years before someone comitted it to written form? We all knoow that when telling a factual incident to friends, it may start out as, let's say, 90% fact. When those friends then relate it to their friends, it becomes 80% . . . and so on, with the result that often it ends up somewhere as virtually a totally different incident. 

I also think we must remember that during the period of which the Old Testament writes, that world was simply a series of smallish tribes living in a tiny part of our world. The future of the tribe was important, perhaps even its growth in order to defend itself against other tribes. Hence, perhaps, the prohibitions against any form of sex other than for actual procreation.

I have more faith in the New Testament in that i believe much of it probably did take place, if only becuase it is much nearer in time. But then my doubts arise when I recall that it was the still pagan Constantine who summoned the Council Nicea to determine what constitutes certain key elements of the Christian doctrine and eventually what would be included in- and as importantly what would be excluded from - the New Testament. Where are the Gospels of Judas, Peter, Philip, Thomas and the Nazarenes, for example, the last actually written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus? So why should we believe in that what was effectively decided for us by a group of clerics and others who lived three hundred years after Jesus' death? 

I therefore question what makes the Christian religion more important in our western thinking than, for example, the older Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, or even the more recently founded islam?

If I had to pick a religion, Zoroastrianism makes the most sense. It suffers from poor marketing, hence its lack of popularity. I read a book from a religious historical researcher, and he believed the Jesus story was concocted by the apostles. The Romans apparently kept good records of who was being crucified, and there are no records of "Jesus" until many years after his death. The most stupid religion, IMHO, is LDS, but boy do they have aggressive marketing, fundraising, and extortion to promote that religion. Eeek. In ancient history, civilizations which took on Christianity collapsed soon after conversion (Roman, Egyptian, British India)--so maybe polytheism is the way. Whenever we see on the news of tornadoes sweeping through the Bible Belt, I tell my husband "There goes Lord Shiva vacuuming the Bible Belt again!". 

[Keithambrose]

9 hours ago, PeterRS said:

I can see that this thread will almost certainly throw up some major differences of opinion - which is great as isn't that what discussions are all about? As for the Bible. I have never believed the Old Testament. How can we believe the truth of what was basically merely an oral history for thousands of years before someone comitted it to written form? We all knoow that when telling a factual incident to friends, it may start out as, let's say, 90% fact. When those friends then relate it to their friends, it becomes 80% . . . and so on, with the result that often it ends up somewhere as virtually a totally different incident. 

I also think we must remember that during the period of which the Old Testament writes, that world was simply a series of smallish tribes living in a tiny part of our world. The future of the tribe was important, perhaps even its growth in order to defend itself against other tribes. Hence, perhaps, the prohibitions against any form of sex other than for actual procreation.

I have more faith in the New Testament in that i believe much of it probably did take place, if only becuase it is much nearer in time. But then my doubts arise when I recall that it was the still pagan Constantine who summoned the Council Nicea to determine what constitutes certain key elements of the Christian doctrine and eventually what would be included in- and as importantly what would be excluded from - the New Testament. Where are the Gospels of Judas, Peter, Philip, Thomas and the Nazarenes, for example, the last actually written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus? So why should we believe in that what was effectively decided for us by a group of clerics and others who lived three hundred years after Jesus' death? 

I therefore question what makes the Christian religion more important in our western thinking than, for example, the older Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, or even the more recently founded islam?

I believe, that strictly speaking Buddhism is not a religion,  as there is no God.  It is a way of life, so to speak.

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

If I had to pick a religion, Zoroastrianism makes the most sense. It suffers from poor marketing, hence its lack of popularity.

I knew virtually nothing about the religion other than the opening of the Richard Strauss tone poem "Also Sprach Zarathustra" where Zarathustra in Nietsche's epic poem is the prophet, Zoroaster. In Iranian history, Zoroaster founded the religion of Zoroastrianism of which the God of Creation and the Sky is Ahura Mazda, the wide-winged creature that is quite commonly known. All those who attended Bangkok gogo bars for decades will know the opening of the Strauss work as it preceded the start of almost all shows. 

The symbol of Ahura Mazda

Goodness and Purity are key elements of the religion of which fire is the most important. In the Iranian city of Yazd the Zoroastrian temple has a fire which allegedly has been alight for 1,500 years.

The fire of Zoroaster

When I realised that Freddie Mercury's family were of the Zoroastrian faith, I investigated a little more. Most Iranians of the faith eventually moved to India where they were called Parsis. Now there are very few in Iran, most living in Yazd, although the religion is protected by the state.  Entering Yazd you pass two 'Towers of Silence' on which the dead are placed left uncovered. During the era of the Shah, this practice was forbidden. Now families wishing bodies to be buried in this manner must send them to Mumbai.

One of the Yazd 'Towers of Silence'

[Raposa]

11 hours ago, PeterRS said:

I therefore question what makes the Christian religion more important in our western thinking than, for example, the older Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, or even the more recently founded islam?

Can you please unpack a bit what you mean here because it is not immediately clear to me how your previous paragraphs supports your conclusion.

[Raposa]

2 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

I believe, that strictly speaking Buddhism is not a religion,  as there is no God.  It is a way of life, so to speak.

I didn’t know religions had to be theistic.

[PeterRS]

30 minutes ago, Raposa said:

Can you please unpack a bit what you mean here because it is not immediately clear to me how your previous paragraphs supports your conclusion.

What i was trying to say is that there is so much about Christianity which - to me - remains questionable. We know the Old Testament is especially questionable. We know that what is in the New Testament was largely determined by a group of religious leaders three centuries after the death of Jesus. How much of what is included is the actual truth. Much was excluded. What? And why? 

GIven that, I fail to understand why western nations over 2,000 years have in general adopted Christianity, in some cases virtually as a state religion. Why not Zoroastrianism? Why not Buddhism? What makes Christianity more important?

I hope that helps.

[unicorn]

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...What makes Christianity more important?...

From my understanding from religious historians, the appeal of Christianity is how easy it is to get to heaven, per New Testament lore. In ancient Rome and Egypt, only the rich and powerful could be assured a pleasant afterlife. Christianity made heaven open to the masses (in fact, being poor is preferred). That made Christianity a big hit. Then the empires fell... 🙄

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

From my understanding from religious historians, the appeal of Christianity is how easy it is to get to heaven, per New Testament lore.

I'd go a little further. The concept of heaven and hell was an invention to keep the mass of the people in line. Do good on earth and your place in heaven is all but guaranteed. Do bad and you descend into the fire of hell. After all, was not life for the mass of the people on earth little more than miserable?

And was this not the promise of Pope Urban II in 1095 when he persuaded all manner of thieves, vagabonds, adulterers and general riff raff to take part in the First Crusade to free Jerusalem from the Muslims who had invaded and taken it over. The leaderhip of the Crusade was mostly in the hands of noblemen, generally second sons with no rights to the lands of their fathers iin Europe who sought a new life with land they could own in the Levant. Urban told a tissue of lies about the acts of terror then in Jerusalem - a total fiction as the Muslims, Jews and Christians were all living side by side relatively peacefully - and basically promised all who took part a free ticket to heaven. Thus this rabble hoard looted and plundered its way across Europe and the Byzantine Empire in what turned out to be a successful, if temporary, result. Once in Jerusalem, as one commentator of the time put it, the streets ran with bood for days. Jews were hoarded into a large synagogue which was then burned to the ground. Muslims fared no better. So much for the all-loving Christian God!

But it is also the concept of purgatory which conerns me about the Christian religion. Does this appear anwhere in any part of the Bible? No! According to the Tractatus de Purgatorio Sancti Patricii, St. Patrick received divine guidance about purgatory from God in the 5th century. This state of being neither in heaven nor hell became increasingly popular. St. Augustine of Hippo had earlier argued that there are some "who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness." By the Middle Ages purgatory is found all over Christian writings and tradition. To me it seems clear  it was yet another means of keeping order on earth and had nothing to do with the Christian religion!

[kokopelli3]

On 3/27/2025 at 4:16 PM, PeterRS said:

. I have yet to have any "man of God" explain to me various questions. As a fairly practical person, the Big Bang has always thrown up questions. I can understand that somewhere a gazillion years ago, our universe started with the Big Bang.

For what it's worth, the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, Father Georges Lemaitre, a  Belgian cosmologist in 1927.  The Big Bang was estimated to have occurred about 13.8 billion years ago.

[Keithambrose]

7 hours ago, kokopelli3 said:

For what it's worth, the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, Father Georges Lemaitre, a  Belgian cosmologist in 1927.  The Big Bang was estimated to have occurred about 13.8 billion years ago.

Before Vinapu's stamp collection was  established?

[BjornAgain]

12 hours ago, kokopelli3 said:

For what it's worth, the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest...

I think Adams summed it up quite clearly:-

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.