The popes at it again.. [Archive]

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 03:03

Alexander the Pretty Good

12-23-2008, 03:10

BY the way don't get this thread as a bash at Roman Catholics as a whole.
Bah, this thread had so much potential and there you dash it!

What science is the Pope preaching? It appears mostly confined to the realm of morality to me. And don't think the RCC isn't down with science - I'm pretty sure they've accepted evolution among other things.

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 03:16

Bah, this thread had so much potential and there you dash it!

What science is the Pope preaching? It appears mostly confined to the realm of morality to me. And don't think the RCC isn't down with science - I'm pretty sure they've accepted evolution among other things.

The whole science thing is a jab at the fact they preach no science. Yet claim that their "Godly" statements are greater than that of our mere mortals science.

Also I'm not sure if the RCC did accept the theory of evolution? Even if they did their just picking and choosing "Gods words". So the garden of Eden's now a lie but Noah still brought the Animals to safety?

GeneralHankerchief

12-23-2008, 03:24

:coffeenews:

The head of the Catholic faith is reinforcing standard Catholic doctrine. Religion and science don't mesh too well. I think I'm going to go to sleep tonight and wake up tomorrow.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-23-2008, 03:26

A) When will the Pope and the Church stop trying to preach it's science? What really has more validity, A millennium old book with no hard facts or years of rigorous scientific research. Hmm tough choice.

B) Does the pope not understand that every time he preaches ridiculous stuff like this he encourages millions of people to follow them. The example of his no contraception policy shows the trouble it causes. If the Pope really is God's voice one earth why does he not care about saving humanity instead of sticking so closely to a book that yet again has no hard proof to support it.

You don't have to believe it. So stop complaining.

CountArach

12-23-2008, 03:31

You don't have to believe it. So stop complaining.
Then why bother debating or even discussing anything at all?

InsaneApache

12-23-2008, 03:31

Ahhh...the old 'Gay Threat Ploy' .....

It's a bit rich coming from a bloke dressed in a frock with people kissing his pinky ring left right and centre.

Again I ask the question. Where in the New Testament did Jesus denounce homosexuality? When some religious nutter maniac scholar can show that Jesus, not one of his blazing apostles, said that gays should have the equivalent of heavy objects hung from their genitalia, then I might, might decided that they may have a point.

Until that time, just keep kissing that pinky ring.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-23-2008, 03:33

Then why bother debating or even discussing anything at all?

Because the two are rather different. This is a question of faith. It only effects you if you choose to believe it.

CountArach

12-23-2008, 03:34

Because the two are rather different. This is a question of faith. It only effects you if you choose to believe it.
The exact same things applies to political Doctrine.

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 03:34

You don't have to believe it. So stop complaining.

Sure I don't have to believe it, tell you what the problems is though. Millions have been put to death and condemned a death sentence by such harmless "teachings"

And it's all well and good I don't have to believe the Church's theory that all homosexual acts our sinful and Gay people are going to hell. People didn't have to believe Adolf Hitlers racial purity theory's but hey that still caused harm. The fact is words are dangerous and by speaking his words the Pope is telling millions of people growing up who might be confused about their sexuality that what they are feeling is wrong and simply them being tempted by the "devil".

That's what I have a problem with. I know I'd be pretty annoyed and mentally distraught if I grew up with some one telling me that writing with my left hand was bad and I was going to hell.

So yer point is words are harmful. therefore maybe the Pope should be a little more sensible when running his mouth about such issues..

InsaneApache

12-23-2008, 03:38

Godwin by post 10, is that a record? :inquisitive:

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 03:44

Godwin by post 10, is that a record? :inquisitive:

Was just heading for the easy comparison. ~;)

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-23-2008, 03:48

Sure I don't have to believe it, tell you what the problems is though. Millions have been put to death and condemned a death sentence by such harmless "teachings"

Think about it like this. The Pope says not to use condoms. But he also says not to have premarital sex. You either have to take both of these pieces of advice, or neither. The people are accepting one thing and ignoring the other, so I hardly think that their faith has an awful lot to do with it.

And it's all well and good I don't have to believe the Church's theory that all homosexual acts our sinful and Gay people are going to hell. People didn't have to believe Adolf Hitlers racial purity theory's but hey that still caused harm.

Congratulations, you managed to compare a system of racial extermination to a speech.

The fact is words are dangerous and by speaking his words the Pope is telling millions of people growing up who might be confused about their sexuality that what they are feeling is wrong and simply them being tempted by the "devil".

How is that dangerous? It might not be right (in your opinion), but it's not dangerous.

The exact same things applies to political Doctrine.

No. Political doctrine effects you if the party espousing it gets elected.

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 04:02

Think about it like this. The Pope says not to use condoms. But he also says not to have premarital sex. You either have to take both of these pieces of advice, or neither. The people are accepting one thing and ignoring the other, so I hardly think that their faith has an awful lot to do with it.

Well lets see here. Premarital sex is a really successfully idea isn't it? How about you marry some one then only to find out that you don't connect sexually and the most important thing about any relationship is therefore gone. That's then going to be a very happy marriage isn't it? If you believe this then good luck finding a wife because no offence it wont work out.

Congratulations, you managed to compare a system of racial extermination to a speech.

Big comparison I know. What I was trying to get across though is the fact that words are powerful and words harm.

How is that dangerous? It might not be right (in your opinion), but it's not dangerous.

Are you not in touch with reality? You know what happens when you tell a teenage kid that his feelings are wrong and that his thoughts are sinful? He's going to get depressed and upset. This could then lead to other effect such as the stress of living with his so called "infection of satan" starts to effect his school grades. Maybe it might come back to haunt him in later life when he finally realises those weren't just irrational thoughts or him being tempted by the devil but he's now stuck on a loveless marriage and hes been living a lie to himself for the last 30 years.

Even better some one who is told that their thoughts are evil and wicked decides he can't handle them any more. he goes to his bedroom wraps some rope around his neck and hangs himself. Now tell me that it's not dangerous?

It's not just about the speech it's about the whole way the Church is still pursuing ancient scripture over common sense.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-23-2008, 04:14

Well lets see here. Premarital sex is a really successfully idea isn't it? How about you marry some one then only to find out that you don't connect sexually and the most important thing about any relationship is therefore gone. That's then going to be a very happy marriage isn't it? If you believe this then good luck finding a wife because no offence it wont work out.

You've completely missed the point. Reread.

Big comparison I know. What I was trying to get across though is the fact that words are powerful and words harm.

Words are only powerful when accompanied by actions. Hitler's words didn't result in the deaths of millions of Jews and other groups, his actions did.

Are you not in touch with reality? You know what happens when you tell a teenage kid that his feelings are wrong and that his thoughts are sinful? He's going to get depressed and upset.

Providing he isn't a militant atheist, which seems to be all the rage among teens these days. You seem to be making all your assumptions on the basis that all homosexual teens are devout Catholics. I'm a practicing Catholic and not completely in line with the Church's teachings on these matters (EDIT: I am straight, FYI). Most criticism of the Pope seems to come from non-Catholics who believe Catholics simply eat up everything the Pope says and have no personal opinions.

Even better some one who is told that their thoughts are evil and wicked decides he can't handle them any more. he goes to his bedroom wraps some rope around his neck and hangs himself. Now tell me that it's not dangerous?

Let's continue this. Kids commit suicide because their girlfriend leaves them, because of alcohol or drugs, because of a myriad of reasons. I somehow don't think, from personal observation, that what they see as "some old guy" has much influence over them compared to these things. How many homosexuals in recent times have been killed in the West as a direct result of the Catholic Church? Find me a statistic.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-23-2008, 04:22

Well lets see here. Premarital sex is a really successfully idea isn't it? How about you marry some one then only to find out that you don't connect sexually and the most important thing about any relationship is therefore gone. That's then going to be a very happy marriage isn't it? If you believe this then good luck finding a wife because no offence it wont work out.

Ok, look, sex is not the most important part of a relationship. I'll grant that bad sex is a big problem but to be honest if you don't have love, trust, respect and a whole lot else sex is not going to fix those problems. Additionally, unless you are very repressed you can tell if you want to screw someone's brains out before you actually jump into the sack.

I grant you it can make things more difficult, and it can kill a relationship but chastity does work for some people.

Are you not in touch with reality? You know what happens when you tell a teenage kid that his feelings are wrong and that his thoughts are sinful? He's going to get depressed and upset. This could then lead to other effect such as the stress of living with his so called "infection of satan" starts to effect his school grades. Maybe it might come back to haunt him in later life when he finally realises those weren't just irrational thoughts or him being tempted by the devil but he's now stuck on a loveless marriage and hes been living a lie to himself for the last 30 years.

Even better some one who is told that their thoughts are evil and wicked decides he can't handle them any more. he goes to his bedroom wraps some rope around his neck and hangs himself. Now tell me that it's not dangerous?

It's not just about the speech it's about the whole way the Church is still pursuing ancient scripture over common sense.

Thirty years ago homosexuality was barely tollerated, no it is widely accepted. On the other hand bestiality and paedophillia are not. Traditionally paedophillia was acceptable and homosexuality was not.

Traditionally there was no such thing as marital rape.

I hate to say it but the Pope is drawing on more than just the Bible, he's drawing on 2500 years of secular philosophy as well. Now, you don't have to agree with him but he has an arguement, not just a belief.

It's worth considering that the same arguement may resurface the next time we have a population shortage.

naut

12-23-2008, 05:07

You don't have to believe it. So stop complaining.
:bow:

Seamus Fermanagh

12-23-2008, 05:29

Well if the Vatican wasn't quite satisfied with its current policy's on no contraception which is helping the HIV/AIDS rate soar in 3rd world country's like Africa apparently we should now be more worried about those pesky Gays than saving the rain forests..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7796663.stm

So super Pope once again preaches the kind words to save man from his own destruction. Just some slight problems.

A) When will the Pope and the Church stop trying to preach it's science? What really has more validity, A millennium old book with no hard facts or years of rigorous scientific research. Hmm tough choice.

B) Does the pope not understand that every time he preaches ridiculous stuff like this he encourages millions of people to follow them. The example of his no contraception policy shows the trouble it causes. If the Pope really is God's voice one earth why does he not care about saving humanity instead of sticking so closely to a book that yet again has no hard proof to support it.

C) Maybe the Pope should talk to those priests who have been thrown out of the order for their "sinful" acts on children. If the order really is holier than though then why are so many of it's clergy committing a sin worse than any their "big book of facts" teaches?

Just another one of my thousands of reasons what is wrong with religion. BY the way don't get this thread as a bash at Roman Catholics as a whole. On the contrary I have a problem with all religion for reason I really don't have the time to go into..

HIV/AIDS rates have not and will not "soar" as a result of this pronouncement by the Holy Father. African cultural mores and, most importantly, the quality of preventitive medicine and education throughout the developing nations in Africa (I'm assuming you're aware that Africa is not a single country and that you were simply typing quickly), have far more to do with this incidence than does any promulgation of the Catholic church.

Answers to your letterd concerns:

A) When Gabriel blows his trumpet on the last day

B) He does indeed know this and cares very deeply. His definition of "saving humanity" is somewhat different than is yours. "The moral is to the physical as three to one." As an aside, as an American Catholic who is all to frequently subjected to assertions that "Catholics don't read the Bible," I got a chuckle out of your dig about the Holy Father's attention to the text.

C) The Church, at least in the USA, dropped the ball initially on this. Efforts to address the issue and heal as much of the damage as possible have received much attention over the last few years. The Holy Father was, as a Cardinal, deeply involved in initial phases of the shift in effort on this issue. As to how/why such things happen, the answer is pretty simple. Priests are human and prone to sin -- even grave sin -- as would be any other person. Persons with the pedophilia problem are, as has been noted in research over the last 20 years, particularly prone to acting as their mental defect suggests they act -- even knowing it to be gravely wrong.

As to wanting to have a go at religion in general, you should save your effort. God can neither be proved nor disproved, so its really a question of belief that each must answer for themselves.

A Merry Christmas to you.

Marshal Murat

12-23-2008, 05:40

Sure I don't have to believe it, tell you what the problems is though. Millions have been put to death and condemned a death sentence by such harmless "teachings"

Let's take another teaching, non-violence. Gandhi preached non-violence, as did Martin Luther King Jr. They talked, and talked, and talked about non-violent resistance to injustices. How well would these ideas have worked if Gandhi hadn't personally done the Salt March, or MLK the Birmingham Protests? Rhetoric can get you places, but only when actions enforce rhetoric do you see any results.
United Nations directives &tc. don't get anything done, because there is nothing to back them up. Dictators don't cower before a directive, because it has no teeth, and without teeth it is meaningless.

What I'm trying to say is, the Pope isn't in the wings of your church, holding a sniper rifle, making sure you goose-step to Catholic Doctrine. It'd be kinda cool if he was, but he isn't. You can make your own choices. If the Catholic Church can't accept you for who you are, then maybe you shouldn't be in the Catholic Church. There is alot of pressure on homosexuals I'm sure, to conform to what their family expects of them, but it's your choice, your decision.

Pontius Pilate

12-23-2008, 07:52

Just another one of my thousands of reasons what is wrong with religion. BY the way don't get this thread as a bash at Roman Catholics as a whole. On the contrary I have a problem with all religion for reason I really don't have the time to go into..

The real problem with religion is not the actual religion itself, but what people add on to it, or how they interpret it. Believing in heaven and hell, etc. really can't hurt anyone, but going out and trying to make other people believe in it against their will can cause problems.

so how is this thread Not a bash against Roman Catholics? are you not trying to discredit the person who is most holy and important to them?

Alexander the Pretty Good

12-23-2008, 08:11

The whole science thing is a jab at the fact they preach no science. Yet claim that their "Godly" statements are greater than that of our mere mortals science.
I think any ethical scientist would agree that science without morality is madness. The Church is one source of morality.

Also I'm not sure if the RCC did accept the theory of evolution? Even if they did their just picking and choosing "Gods words". So the garden of Eden's now a lie but Noah still brought the Animals to safety?
Evolution is taught in Catholic schools, and looking a possibly deeply-flawed wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Post_Vatican_II), a Cardinal said (sometime around 2005 Anno Domino)

Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism.

And maybe if you shared why you were so dogmatically opposed to belief more of us could understand where you are coming from, tibilicus.

/just read Canticle for Leibowitz and feelin' good about the Roman Catholic Church :P
//ex-Catholic
///slashies

Lord Winter

12-23-2008, 08:51

Religon and Science are too different world veiws dealing with different topics they aren't at war at each other. People just confuse the exact domain of each.

and just slamming the Pope isn't really enough to condemn religon as a whole.

HoreTore

12-23-2008, 09:29

No. Political doctrine effects you if the party espousing it gets elected.

.....and religion holds no political power?`:inquisitive:

rory_20_uk

12-23-2008, 11:47

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 14:24

I think any ethical scientist would agree that science without morality is madness. The Church is one source of morality.

Evolution is taught in Catholic schools, and looking a possibly deeply-flawed wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Post_Vatican_II), a Cardinal said (sometime around 2005 Anno Domino)

And maybe if you shared why you were so dogmatically opposed to belief more of us could understand where you are coming from, tibilicus.

/just read Canticle for Leibowitz and feelin' good about the Roman Catholic Church :P
//ex-Catholic
///slashies

Basically the whole concept of it. It was basically drawn up by humans to explains stuff science couldn't thousands of years ago and to give people emotional security. Today with amount of support out there and the knowledge of the modern world it seems pretty redundant to me.

Another problem I have is with all the wings of religion as a whole. Due to the fact this threads about Catholics I will use Christianity as an example, any other religion could be used just as easily though. Basically you've got your fundamentals who believe the bible word by word. In my opinion these people are nut jobs and I find it extremely hard to see how a book can hold the answer to everything in life.

You then have your more liberal and less fundamental Christians but they then just go and pick what they want from the bible and say it's right. So the garden of Eden isn't literal but Moses was a real person. You can't just pick and choose from some book to prove a point. You could get any combination of answers by doing that. The bible then mentions one minute that God is vengeful but the next he's all loving? If a God really is all powerful and loving then why the whole human suffering argument? If it is just a test like many Christians say then why surely let so much pain exist? Does that mean God is cruel?

Like most Atheists I don't jump to conclusions, as a kid I attended church, I was never forced to, but I can honestly say that almost from day one the whole concept of me standing in a building and clapping my hands and singing songs to praise something I can't even see seemed primitive and pointless to me.

Are you also saying that if I lead my life like I currently do by being a good person and helping other I'm not going to go to "heaven" as I don't clap my hands in that building every Sunday? Yet some one who does and leads no where near as good a life as me will? I find that stupid to be honest. Also look at all the great non Christian people i.e Gandhi. Is he now burning in hell according to some Christians?

I appreciate the security and emotional reassurance religion and the church can give but even then that can be found in other sources. One of my friends is heavily religious (he's a Methodist) so when he's feeling down he goes and talks to some one at the church. I on the other hand head over to a buddy's house with a 6 pack of beer and would prefer to talk it over with him. I can let things of my chest much easier that way.

So yer that's what I find wrong with religion. You don't have to agree with it but free speech and all that. If Benedict aloud his opinion I'm aloud mine..

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 14:36

I think any ethical scientist would agree that science without morality is madness. The Church is one source of morality.

Yes science needs ethics but are you ignoring the other sources of morality. Are you suggesting that you have to be religious to be moral? Yes the church is one source of morality, where it draws it's morals from though have no solid backing and again it all comes down to that big book of facts. Morality can just as easily be obtained from a law maker for example. I'm not religious and I know what is wrong or right. it's human instinct, murdering is wrong, period.

rory_20_uk

12-23-2008, 15:31

Yes science needs ethics but are you ignoring the other sources of morality. Are you suggesting that you have to be religious to be moral? Yes the church is one source of morality, where it draws it's morals from though have no solid backing and again it all comes down to that big book of facts. Morality can just as easily be obtained from a law maker for example. I'm not religious and I know what is wrong or right. it's human instinct, murdering is wrong, period.

Damn right. Religion just provides a different answer to the "why" that small children (or philosophers) ask.

Humans instinctively act in groupings as that is what has worked. We have extended them to even include ones that are a slight detriment to ourselves, but generally still helping others on average helps ourselves.

~:smoking:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-23-2008, 17:06

.....and religion holds no political power?`:inquisitive:

Only if you vote for it. Which is your choice.

Banquo's Ghost

12-23-2008, 17:17

A word of warning before we continue. Apparently it is necessary each time we have a discussion on religion to request that posters read the rules (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=109341) carefully.

Characterising people with whom you disagree as "nut jobs" or variants thereof will attract the disapproval of staff.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Alexander the Pretty Good

12-23-2008, 17:53

Yes science needs ethics but are you ignoring the other sources of morality. Are you suggesting that you have to be religious to be moral?
Hardly. But I don't think science and faith are as incompatible as you make it sound. Newton would disagree with that conjecture.

Yes the church is one source of morality, where it draws it's morals from though have no solid backing and again it all comes down to that big book of facts. Morality can just as easily be obtained from a law maker for example. I'm not religious and I know what is wrong or right. it's human instinct, murdering is wrong, period.
Where do you get off telling me murder is wrong, you fundamentalist?

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 19:46

Hardly. But I don't think science and faith are as incompatible as you make it sound. Newton would disagree with that conjecture.

That isn't the argument. yes many of the worlds great scientific minds have been religious the fact is the pope in this speech said that homosexuality is a problem of main kind and is going to cause man kinds extinction. By this he accepts that homosexuality is a choice, not something were born with. This pretty much goes against all scientific evidence that homosexuality isn't in fact a choice and i'm sure if you ask any gay person they will tell you otherwise. I'm sure they will all tell you hey didn't "choose" to be a social exile.

Where do you get off telling me murder is wrong, you fundamentalist?

That's a whole different ball game and if you want to talk Philosophy and ethics this thread is going to go way of. I also stated that is my personnel moral beliefs. If you think murders alright in certain situations then good for you. Just don't go preaching it to a mass load of people a la Pope.

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 20:03

Just thought I'd post an update on the whole issue..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7797269.stm

Just thought I would pull out a little quote from the text..

Earlier this month, the Vatican said that a proposed United Nations resolution decriminalising homosexuality went too far.

So now Gay people are criminals? Ye it isn't the child molesters or mass murderers who are the criminals but gay people. Maybe we should lock them all up?

And maybe if the Vatican has such a problem with Gay people God needs to stop the straight folks constantly having Gay children. A complete loss of logic..

Lord Winter

12-23-2008, 20:03

Another problem I have is with all the wings of religion as a whole. Due to the fact this threads about Catholics I will use Christianity as an example, any other religion could be used just as easily though. Basically you've got your fundamentals who believe the bible word by word. In my opinion these people are nut jobs and I find it extremely hard to see how a book can hold the answer to everything in life.

You then have your more liberal and less fundamental Christians but they then just go and pick what they want from the bible and say it's right. So the garden of Eden isn't literal but Moses was a real person. You can't just pick and choose from some book to prove a point. You could get any combination of answers by doing that. The bible then mentions one minute that God is vengeful but the next he's all loving? If a God really is all powerful and loving then why the whole human suffering argument? If it is just a test like many Christians say then why surely let so much pain exist? Does that mean God is cruel?

The Old Testament is suppose to be the history of the code of law needed before Jesus. So most of the whole God will smite you part is recognized as outdated and not needed, being able to give way to the New Testament's message of forgiveness and Grace. Your right picking and choosing, can give you any combination of answers needed, but is that truly the opposite of the literal fundamental Christians? I would argue that such picking and choosing is still a fairly fundamental reading. Instead the overall spirt, instead of the text, should be read out of the bible. Perhaps part of what I'm saying is the Bible is not the only source of religious truth and must be combined with Human reasoning and ones sense of morals.

As for the whole human suffering thing, I'm not going to try to answer it. Except for maybe a mention of Life without Free Will is meaningless.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-23-2008, 20:25

Basically the whole concept of it. It was basically drawn up by humans to explains stuff science couldn't thousands of years ago and to give people emotional security. Today with amount of support out there and the knowledge of the modern world it seems pretty redundant to me.

Conjecture and personal opinion.

Another problem I have is with all the wings of religion as a whole. Due to the fact this threads about Catholics I will use Christianity as an example, any other religion could be used just as easily though. Basically you've got your fundamentals who believe the bible word by word. In my opinion these people are nut jobs and I find it extremely hard to see how a book can hold the answer to everything in life.

Oh, they are irritating, but they don't actually read the Bible, book by book, they read bits at a time.

You then have your more liberal and less fundamental Christians but they then just go and pick what they want from the bible and say it's right. So the garden of Eden isn't literal but Moses was a real person. You can't just pick and choose from some book to prove a point. You could get any combination of answers by doing that. The bible then mentions one minute that God is vengeful but the next he's all loving? If a God really is all powerful and loving then why the whole human suffering argument? If it is just a test like many Christians say then why surely let so much pain exist? Does that mean God is cruel?

Progressive revelation and human fallability. Regardless of the origin of any religion it is transmitted by people.

[/quote]Like most Atheists I don't jump to conclusions, as a kid I attended church, I was never forced to, but I can honestly say that almost from day one the whole concept of me standing in a building and clapping my hands and singing songs to praise something I can't even see seemed primitive and pointless to me.[/quote]

This is like me as a Christian saying, " don't believe I'm right, I know." It looks exactly like you are jumping to conclusions here. You certainly don't know anything about Catholicism if you though they didn't accept evolution.

Are you also saying that if I lead my life like I currently do by being a good person and helping other I'm not going to go to "heaven" as I don't clap my hands in that building every Sunday? Yet some one who does and leads no where near as good a life as me will? I find that stupid to be honest. Also look at all the great non Christian people i.e Gandhi. Is he now burning in hell according to some Christians?

This is a common misconception. Adherence to Christian doctrine does not equal salvation, such has never been stated. Hell is the punishement meted out to unrepentant sinners. You are unrepentant, but so is the Bishop who steals from the Collection Plate. As far as living a good life, consider this:

You live an outwardly good life without being a Christian, this suggests to others that they can do likewise. Therefore, by your actions tou condemn them to hell because you incite others to participate in the Sin or rejecting God.

Personally I'm not concerned overmuch with my own salvation. God will either save me or he won't, I just try to do the best I can because I have no real understanding of how the decision is made.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-23-2008, 20:31

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7797269.stm
So now Gay people are criminals? Ye it isn't the child molesters or mass murderers who are the criminals but gay people. Maybe we should lock them all up?

How about you go to the rationale behind that instead of jumping to conclusions - or, rather, trying to make other people jump to conclusions?

"Unjust discrimination" against gay people should be avoided, but the use of wording such as "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in the text would "create serious uncertainty in the law", it said.

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 20:33

Conjecture and personal opinion.

Oh, they are irritating, but they don't actually read the Bible, book by book, they read bits at a time.

Progressive revelation and human fallability. Regardless of the origin of any religion it is transmitted by people.

Like most Atheists I don't jump to conclusions, as a kid I attended church, I was never forced to, but I can honestly say that almost from day one the whole concept of me standing in a building and clapping my hands and singing songs to praise something I can't even see seemed primitive and pointless to me.

This is like me as a Christian saying, " don't believe I'm right, I know." It looks exactly like you are jumping to conclusions here. You certainly don't know anything about Catholicism if you though they didn't accept evolution.

This is a common misconception. Adherence to Christian doctrine does not equal salvation, such has never been stated. Hell is the punishement meted out to unrepentant sinners. You are unrepentant, but so is the Bishop who steals from the Collection Plate. As far as living a good life, consider this:

You live an outwardly good life without being a Christian, this suggests to others that they can do likewise. Therefore, by your actions tou condemn them to hell because you incite others to participate in the Sin or rejecting God.

Personally I'm not concerned overmuch with my own salvation. God will either save me or he won't, I just try to do the best I can because I have no real understanding of how the decision is made.[

I know enough about the Vatican and it's passed to know that it is a corrupt organization. Even going back to issues such as indulgences in the 15th and 16th century this is evident to seem. Again this isn't saying all Catholics are corrupt but the main institution IMO could be a hell of a lot more spiritual and more in touch with God instead of the other act it engages in. The amount of wealth not just the Catholic church but other churches demand is staggering. Religion is a multi billion doller business and if you believe the Pope and co really care about our salvation over there bank balance then that I'm afraid is wrong.

Also as a Christian I would like to ask you which sins have I committed? Not believing in something with no fallible evidence? Does your teachings also suggest that if a murderer repents his sins he's free to go to heaven but as long as i'm a good man but refuse to accept something that has no solid backing I will rot in hell?

It would appear God doesn't just work in mysterious way but incredibly illogic ones..

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-23-2008, 20:37

Religion is a multi billion doller business and if you believe the Pope and co really care about our salvation over there bank balance then that i'm afraid is wrong.

World's largest charity, anyone?

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 20:53

How about you go to the rationale behind that instead of jumping to conclusions - or, rather, trying to make other people jump to conclusions?

What you've done is completely wrong. You quoted my post and purposely left out the extract I posted.

How is it jumping to conclusions when The Vatican says that decriminalizing homosexuality is a step to far? tell me what you get out of that quote because all I can get is the Catholic Church's blatant homophobic attitude.

If the church really does accept the theory of evolution why are they so afraid to move in to the 21st century on issues like this?

Also your quote about the world biggest charity anyone. If the pope really cared so much he could sell of all the Church's property and assets and probably solve world hunger over night. Would he though? Over his dead body. It's like saying bill gates is a billionaire businessman who contributes vast sums to charity. What does he care more about though his business or his charity work? The business obviously. The church is no different from this.

Also are you denying that the core of the church isn't riddled with corruption dotted through out history?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-23-2008, 21:21

What you've done is completely wrong. You quoted my post and purposely left out the extract I posted.

When you press the quote button it does not automatically include material quoted by the quoted user. I fail to see how it is completely wrong, though I'm sure Tosa would be willing to listen if you have an issue with the quotation system. :inquisitive:

How is it jumping to conclusions when The Vatican says that decriminalizing homosexuality is a step to far? tell me what you get out of that quote because all I can get is the Catholic Church's blatant homophobic attitude.

Because you took an excerpt from a newspaper and proclaimed it to explain the whole story, while leaving out the Vatican's explanation from the same article?

Also are you denying that the core of the church isn't riddled with corruption dotted through out history?

And what do you call corruption? Where are your modern-day examples of such?

Lord Winter

12-23-2008, 21:52

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 23:26

And what do you call corruption? Where are your modern-day examples of such?

The fact a lot of clergy men are playing far from the rules is corruption enough. Look at all the cases where priests and the church have paid families of who were victims of child molestation. That money was to stop the press getting hold of such things. Now couldn't that money be spent helping those truly in need? Instead of shielding the clergy from there disgraceful acts which they are to cowardly even to admit?

Are you also telling me that you honestly think higher positions amongst the cardinals and such have never had asking prices on? I.E I'll let you get to this level of the clergy if you make it worth my while.

The fact the pope is treated like a king is enough. As far as I'm aware isn't the whole idea of the pope to preach Gods word? Maybe instead of having the big palace and robes as well as having people kiss his ring he could accept that if there is a God he isn't it. I just see him sitting there on his thrown and think to myself " what gives you the right to play the role of God amongst men?".

tibilicus

12-23-2008, 23:29

Your losing creditability when your slamming the church for stuff that happened 500 years ago. I agree with you that the Pope isn't the best way to communicate with God, but your going to far when your making him out to be the most evil force ever.

I'm not making him out to be evil. I'm making him out as some one who seems to have the right to bash a whole group of people and get away with it because he is an almighty spiritual leader. He could of said some more censored stuff in that speech and keep every one happy. Instead he played the card which the church of England's Archbishop of Canterbury plays all the time, I'll say something controversial for media attention. Come on popey, if you feel you need to broaden your flock try preaching honesty not hate.

You also say there is progression on the gay thing yet the other day the Pope called it unnatural and a threat to the human race? As well as saying acts to decriminalize it are a step to far. Sounds like great progress to me that.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-23-2008, 23:35

I know enough about the Vatican and it's passed to know that it is a corrupt organization. Even going back to issues such as indulgences in the 15th and 16th century this is evident to seem. Again this isn't saying all Catholics are corrupt but the main institution IMO could be a hell of a lot more spiritual and more in touch with God instead of the other act it engages in. The amount of wealth not just the Catholic church but other churches demand is staggering. Religion is a multi billion doller business and if you believe the Pope and co really care about our salvation over there bank balance then that I'm afraid is wrong.

I've heard this arguement before, and it always baffles me, be it the Church, a political party etc. the same fallacy keeps coming up. So the Catholic Church was corrupt in the 15th Century, the current Pope was not involved in any of that. Converesly, he was involved in the clampdown on deviant clergy.

As to the money issue:

The Catholic Church has massive outgoings, how much do you think it takes to keep St Peter's in Rome open for a day? I can tell you that the much smaller St Peter's in my own city costs £15,000 a day to keep open, and that doesn't take account of the structural work which there simply isn't money for right now. I'm not a Catholic at all, I don't agree with Papal Supremacy, or disbarring women from Holy Orders, to name only two issues I have with the Roman Church, but to suggest that the Pope is more concerned with his bank balance than anything else is absurd. If he was he would not make statements which caused some people to turn away from Rome, and he'd tithe.

I'm not aware of the Catholic Church demmanding people's money, weddings and funerals cost, granted, but it costs to have that done anywhere. If you are comparing Roman Church to the Megachurches in the Bible belt they frankly couldn't be further apart.

Also as a Christian I would like to ask you which sins have I committed? Not believing in something with no fallible evidence? Does your teachings also suggest that if a murderer repents his sins he's free to go to heaven but as long as i'm a good man but refuse to accept something that has no solid backing I will rot in hell?

It would appear God doesn't just work in mysterious way but incredibly illogic ones..

Well lets begin with you: What sins have you not committed? I was asked this recently and my interlocutor was able to peg me for fornication (illicit) because that's a mental as much as physical thing, theft, and false witness. He could have added taking thew Lord's name in vain and not honouring my father and my mother for starters. I've probably breached every commandement at some point except murder.

So, can you say you have never done anything wrong? I doubt it, and the tiniest imperfection disqualifies you from a place in heaven.

The murderer would be forgiven so long as he truely repents. That means he does it out of genuine contrition, not to save his soul, and he aceepts his guilt. How do you suppose a truely penitant murderer feals about himself? He has to accept his sins, and then be willing to ask for forgiveness, and to abandon all claim over his own soul.

By contrast, you demand forgiveness based on your own merit without actually being willing to ask for it. You don't even believe in the being that can absolve you.

You don't actually want forgiveness or absolution.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-23-2008, 23:44

I'm not making him out to be evil. I'm making him out as some one who seems to have the right to bash a whole group of people and get away with it because he is an almighty spiritual leader. He could of said some more censored stuff in that speech and keep every one happy. Instead he played the card which the church of England's Archbishop of Canterbury plays all the time, I'll say something controversial for media attention. Come on popey, if you feel you need to broaden your flock try preaching honesty not hate.

You also say there is progression on the gay thing yet the other day the Pope called it unnatural and a threat to the human race? As well as saying acts to decriminalize it are a step to far. Sounds like great progress to me that.

Look, I know this is a difficult thing for you to grasp but Churchmen are in the buisness of saving souls, not making life easy.

The Pope cannot broaden his flock by sacrificing doctrine on the alter of popularity, if he does that the Faith ceases to have the power to save anyone.

Now, I really want to hear what Docter Williams has said that has you all riled up.

Incongruous

12-23-2008, 23:49

It is belief. It trancends reason. The definition of belief includes that it can not be shaken with empirical data.

So what if hundreds, thousands, millions die? God's will.
So what if hundreds, thousands, millions suffer? God's will.
So what they've been two popes in the past, the obvious wealth of the Church when it preaches to help the poor, the hiding of abuse cases? It's all part of God's plan.

~:smoking:

Yes often at mass we all gather round the altar, slit the throats and butcher the bodeis of pagans and barbarians. We make sure the children drink a pint of blood each before we strip them naked and have out Godly way with them via buggery, then we torture and crucify them and send the pictures to 4chan.

Then we finfish it off by having a blood orgy and a Crusade.

Oh what fun to be Catholic!

Sorry, its just that I thought you had not achieved the maximum amounty of populist anti-church crap required by the fashion-o-meter.:2thumbsup:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2008/12/23/pope_revealed_to_be_catholic_shock_horror

tibilicus

12-24-2008, 00:29

Look, I know this is a difficult thing for you to grasp but Churchmen are in the buisness of saving souls, not making life easy.

The Pope cannot broaden his flock by sacrificing doctrine on the alter of popularity, if he does that the Faith ceases to have the power to save anyone.

Now, I really want to hear what Docter Williams has said that has you all riled up.

From your post before this you seem to suggest I can't accept to whole im an evil sinner thing. So I have a question for you. Why can't you just accept when we die we become worm food and that's then end of it? You know as well the Hobbit has some pretty wonderful characters in that much like the bible. I'm starting to think that maybe Gandalf the Gray could be God because it's written in a pretty convincing narrative book.

And doctor Williams had said many things. In particular it was his comment about Sharia Law being accepted in the UK. He knew that wouldn't go down to well with his fellow church members or any one else for that matter. What he did know however is that it would bring the attention of the media on to the church. Something which he felt he needed to do because lets be honest religion isn't really all that important in comparison to what it was here 50 years ago.

tibilicus

12-24-2008, 00:34

Also that link to the daily telegraph site above is ignoring the obvious. It claims the pope never said anything offensive towards gays yet this is what the BBC has him credited as saying.

saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment.

I fail to see how anyone can find that not to be a very backward or crude statement. Then again it is the BBC's opinion against the telegraphs. I wonder which one i'm going to hold closer.. A neutral media source or the daily toriegraph whoops I mean telegraph...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-24-2008, 00:45

From your post before this you seem to suggest I can't accept to whole im an evil sinner thing. So I have a question for you. Why can't you just accept when we die we become worm food and that's then end of it? You know as well the Hobbit has some pretty wonderful characters in that much like the bible. I'm starting to think that maybe Gandalf the Gray could be God because it's written in a pretty convincing narrative book.

Did I say you were evil? I said you weren't perfect, perfection is the standard for entry into heaven.You wanted to know why you, as a "good person" couldn't get into heaven and I responded by pointing out that nobody is perfect, including you. As far as the Hobbit goes, the blunt answer is that Tolkien wasn't claiming any form of divine inspiration.

And doctor Williams had said many things. In particular it was his comment about Sharia Law being accepted in the UK. He knew that wouldn't go down to well with his fellow church members or any one else for that matter. What he did know however is that it would bring the attention of the media on to the church. Something which he felt he needed to do because lets be honest religion isn't really all that important in comparison to what it was here 50 years ago.

He said it was "unavoidable": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm. A topic here at the .Org a few months ago proved him exactly right. As I said, he's a priest, he's not out to win popularity contests.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-24-2008, 00:47

Also that link to the daily telegraph site above is ignoring the obvious. It claims the pope never said anything offensive towards gays yet this is what the BBC has him credited as saying.

I fail to see how anyone can find that not to be a very backward or crude statement. Then again it is the BBC's opinion against the telegraphs. I wonder which one i'm going to hold closer.. A neutral media source or the daily toriegraph whoops I mean telegraph...

The BBC is left-wing, not neutral. Conversely the Telagraph has become increasingly pro-Catholic.

tibilicus

12-24-2008, 00:55

Did I say you were evil? I said you weren't perfect, perfection is the standard for entry into heaven.You wanted to know why you, as a "good person" couldn't get into heaven and I responded by pointing out that nobody is perfect, including you. As far as the Hobbit goes, the blunt answer is that Tolkien wasn't claiming any form of divine inspiration.

He said it was "unavoidable": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm. A topic here at the .Org a few months ago proved him exactly right. As I said, he's a priest, he's not out to win popularity contests.

He isn't out to win a popularity contest no. But are you honestly saying he wasn't doing it for publicity?

And another problem I find with religion is the whole they seem to think there better than you approach. It's actually rather offensive to people to call them imperfect because they don't believe in something which has no solid evidence. To get at my original point again basically look at this statement.

saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is as important as protecting the environment.

Now you wont find that offensive due to your personnel beliefs but lets see if you find this offensive..

saving humanity from Christian or Roman Catholic behaviour is as important as protecting the environment.

Are you telling me that wouldn't be offensive to you as a catholic. I'm sure if you were gay you would be offended by a statement such as the first one then wouldn't you. yet your trying to justify it as not offensive. I'm straight and even I find that statement offensive and quite vulgar.

CountArach

12-24-2008, 00:59

Yes often at mass we all gather round the altar, slit the throats and butcher the bodeis of pagans and barbarians. We make sure the children drink a pint of blood each before we strip them naked and have out Godly way with them via buggery, then we torture and crucify them and send the pictures to 4chan.

Then we finfish it off by having a blood orgy and a Crusade.
I knew it!

tibilicus

12-24-2008, 01:00

The BBC is left-wing, not neutral. Conversely the Telagraph has become increasingly pro-Catholic.

No it is neutral. it may appear left wing to compensate for the fact the media is as a whole is generally left wing. Due to the fact it has access to public funding it is obliged to be politically neutral. Trust me I'm liberal and left wing and the BBC isn't.

The telegraph on the other hand is right wing. That's a certainty. You can probably guess my opinion on that paper due to the fact I hold it in the same fold as the daily mail for my most disliked papers. This isn't about politics though so moving swiftly on.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-24-2008, 01:11

He isn't out to win a popularity contest no. But are you honestly saying he wasn't doing it for publicity?

To be perfectly honest I think the Archbishop is not the most grounded or worldly of people and outside the Church and Seminary he's a fish out of water. He tends to put his foot in it.

And another problem I find with religion is the whole they seem to think there better than you approach. It's actually rather offensive to people to call them imperfect because they don't believe in something which has no solid evidence. To get at my original point again basically look at this statement.

You need to proof read better, you have the wrong "there", makes it a bit difficult to read. To be honest though I find it offensive as well, and I don't think I'm better than an atheist. I don't go in for earthly regeneration of sanctification.

To deal with your point though, I saw the BBC tonight, as far as I can gather he did not say that. What he actually said is that men are men, women are women and the only good sex is the baby-making kind after the relationship has been sanctified by the Roman Church.

Now, I never actually said he was right, what I said was that he's not saying it just because he's Roman Catholic, and that there is a strong secular anti-homosexual arguement which predates Christianity.

Anyway, you have to admit that at a very basic biological level he has a point. If the only sex was homosexual then hummanity would be finished in a generation.

Ultimately this has to do with power=politics, not homsexuality; that's just a side issue. The problem with gender theory for the Roman Catholic Church is that if men and women are essentially the same. and are only distinguished by learned behaviours, then the arguement for closing the priesthood to women begins to break down.

tibilicus

12-24-2008, 01:21

The BBC is left-wing, not neutral. Conversely the Telagraph has become increasingly pro-Catholic.

To be perfectly honest I think the Archbishop is not the most grounded or worldly of people and outside the Church and Seminary he's a fish out of water. He tends to put his foot in it.

You need to proof read better, you have the wrong "there", makes it a bit difficult to read. To be honest though I find it offensive as well, and I don't think I'm better than an atheist. I don't go in for earthly regeneration of sanctification.

To deal with your point though, I saw the BBC tonight, as far as I can gather he did not say that. What he actually said is that men are men, women are women and the only good sex is the baby-making kind after the relationship has been sanctified by the Roman Church.

Now, I never actually said he was right, what I said was that he's not saying it just because he's Roman Catholic, and that there is a strong secular anti-homosexual arguement which predates Christianity.

Anyway, you have to admit that at a very basic biological level he has a point. If the only sex was homosexual then hummanity would be finished in a generation.

Ultimately this has to do with power=politics, not homsexuality; that's just a side issue. The problem with gender theory for the Roman Catholic Church is that if men and women are essentially the same. and are only distinguished by learned behaviours, then the arguement for closing the priesthood to women begins to break down.

At a very basic biological level yes. The fact is it is wrong though due to the fact 10 % if that are actually gay. now that's still 90% of the population to reproduce. Doesn't seem like a problem to me.

To go back to the point you gathered from the BBC tonight that isn't what he said despite the fact those words were quoted on the official BBC news website?

Oh and thanks for pointing at my spelling and structure of my sentences. I'm actually a minor dyslexic so have to take a while to put my sentences together and even then they're sometimes muddled. Maybe it's Gods punishment for me though hey? I guess i'm just not as perfect as a catholic!

Lord Winter

12-24-2008, 01:53

tibilicus

12-24-2008, 02:01

and once again you dodge the actual point in any post thrown at you. We all agree that pope bashing gays = bad. We're just trying to argue that:

1. All religion doesn't equal evil
2. Everyone who's not an atheist is an idiot
3. That this one incident doesn't prove that the catholic church is evil.

I never said all religion was evil, more that I merely disagree with all religion. Just because I disagree though doesn't mean I think of those Buddhist monks as evil people.

I also don't think all non atheists are idiots. Misguided in my opinion yes, but no not Idiots.

Again I don;t think the church is evil but do I think it's corrupt? yes. I also have a problem that the Pope acts as God amongst men and lives in a palace and gets people to kiss his ring. Who gives him the right to do that? It also seems to me that his loyal flock spends more time worshipping him than their so called God..

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-24-2008, 02:25

2. Everyone who's not an atheist is an idiot

:inquisitive:

Pray explain how this isn't a troll.

Lord Winter

12-24-2008, 02:44

:inquisitive:

Pray explain how this isn't a troll.

Mistyped that is, should have been an isn't. Seems like Tibulus still got the point of it. Fixed

@ Tibulus

I see just the way you were coming seemed like you were arguing the opposite of the three points I put out. It seemed like you were saying that behavior like the popes was inevitable in any religion.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-24-2008, 03:09

At a very basic biological level yes. The fact is it is wrong though due to the fact 10 % if that are actually gay. now that's still 90% of the population to reproduce. Doesn't seem like a problem to me.

To go back to the point you gathered from the BBC tonight that isn't what he said despite the fact those words were quoted on the official BBC news website?

Oh and thanks for pointing at my spelling and structure of my sentences. I'm actually a minor dyslexic so have to take a while to put my sentences together and even then they're sometimes muddled. Maybe it's Gods punishment for me though hey? I guess i'm just not as perfect as a catholic!

Nowhere does the BBC quote the Pope as saying, "saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is as important as protecting the environment." It's in the preface to the report, and there are no quotation marks. The BBC has paraphrased what they believe the Pope to have said, several commentators, including those interviewed by the BBC have noted that he said no such thing.

As far as your spelling goes, I'm more than a "minor dyslexic" and I manage. My mother teaches dyslexics and I don't recall her ever saying that it affects sentence structure. It certainly has nothing to do with being Roman Catholic or not.

Though why you mention that at all, I don't know. One would think that you are under the missaprehension that I am myself a Papist.

No it is neutral. it may appear left wing to compensate for the fact the media is as a whole is generally left wing. Due to the fact it has access to public funding it is obliged to be politically neutral. Trust me I'm liberal and left wing and the BBC isn't.

The telegraph on the other hand is right wing. That's a certainty. You can probably guess my opinion on that paper due to the fact I hold it in the same fold as the daily mail for my most disliked papers. This isn't about politics though so moving swiftly on.

The BBC has got into trouble numerous times for not being balanced, for being anti-religious, anti-monarchy and anti-establishment. Just because the BBC is obliged to be neutral doesn't mean it is. Priests are obliged to be Holy, but you clearly don't believe that. If you think the BBC is neutral then I submit that it is merely less left wing than you are.

tibilicus

12-24-2008, 03:24

Nowhere does the BBC quote the Pope as saying, "saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is as important as protecting the environment." It's in the preface to the report, and there are no quotation marks. The BBC has paraphrased what they believe the Pope to have said, several commentators, including those interviewed by the BBC have noted that he said no such thing.

Even still why would it of made it into the news and why would so many groups be outraged by his remarks? You seem to ignore the fact that his remarks were offensive and many gay rights groups have already condemned and are outraged by his remarks. Maybe you need to stop defending some one who has made a clear statement which has offended many people.

As far as your spelling goes, I'm more than a "minor dyslexic" and I manage. My mother teaches dyslexics and I don't recall her ever saying that it affects sentence structure. It certainly has nothing to do with being Roman Catholic or not.

Dyslexia can effect the way you read sentences as well as your ability to put them together. It also effects other things like hand writing and the like. It also obviously effects my reading speed and my ability to read stuff clearly hence why I often don't proof read anyway. I find your statement here quite offensive because you not only question me but then go on to suggest I'm a retard who can't spell. I don't have a clue who on earth you think you are by saying this but I'm incredibly offended you would try and insult my intelligence on this level. Your post carry an extremely snobbish undertone in that bit of your post.

I sincerely hope your not this offensive in real life by trying to get low blows over on peoples intelligence and there learning problems. You know if your going to try and get me with another low blow like that don't even bother posting in this thread again.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-24-2008, 03:52

Even still why would it of made it into the news and why would so many groups be outraged by his remarks? You seem to ignore the fact that his remarks were offensive and many gay rights groups have already condemned and are outraged by his remarks. Maybe you need to stop defending some one who has made a clear statement which has offended many people.

Dyslexia can effect the way you read sentences as well as your ability to put them together. It also effects other things like hand writing and the like. It also obviously effects my reading speed and my ability to read stuff clearly hence why I often don't proof read anyway. I find your statement here quite offensive because you not only question me but then go on to suggest I'm a retard who can't spell. I don't have a clue who on earth you think you are by saying this but I'm incredibly offended you would try and insult my intelligence on this level. Your post carry an extremely snobbish undertone in that bit of your post.

I sincerely hope your not this offensive in real life by trying to get low blows over on peoples intelligence and there learning problems. You know if your going to try and get me with another low blow like that don't even bother posting in this thread again.

What may be God's greatest gift to us of all is free will. You may believe as you choose, as may I.

You have studied myths and stories, compared cultures and religions and have, you believe, hit upon a central idea -- that it is all "make-believe." Well-intentioned, perhaps, but not to be taken seriously when compared to the absolutely proveable results of scientific research. For you, Life, Self-conscious sentience, and the entire panapoly of existence are merely the random by-products of happenstance following the eruptive dissolution of a singularity -- and ultimately meaningless since they have their brief moment in the sun ameliorated only by the chance to transmit their DNA towards a future that will inevitably be blotted out when the nearest star begins its inevitable decay. Or, as Shakespeare said, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

I look out a an incomprehensibly vast universe that all our science has only BARELY begun to describe and see the hand of God. I see the vibrant spirit that shines from my daughter's eyes, and in that light I think I glimpse a bit of God's promise of Heaven.

Can I prove you wrong? No. Can you prove me wrong? No. We will come upon the answer in time -- or not, if your version of life is correct.

tibilicus

12-24-2008, 03:58

What may be God's greatest gift to us of all is free will. You may believe as you choose, as may I.

You have studied myths and stories, compared cultures and religions and have, you believe, hit upon a central idea -- that it is all "make-believe." Well-intentioned, perhaps, but not to be taken seriously when compared to the absolutely proveable results of scientific research. For you, Life, Self-conscious sentience, and the entire panapoly of existence are merely the random by-products of happenstance following the eruptive dissolution of a singularity -- and ultimately meaningless since they have their brief moment in the sun ameliorated only by the chance to transmit their DNA towards a future that will inevitably be blotted out when the nearest star begins its inevitable decay. Or, as Shakespeare said, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

I look out a an incomprehensibly vast universe that all our science has only BARELY begun to describe and see the hand of God. I see the vibrant spirit that shines from my daughter's eyes, and in that light I think I glimpse a bit of God's promise of Heaven.

Can I prove you wrong? No. Can you prove me wrong? No. We will come upon the answer in time -- or not, if your version of life is correct.

I don't really have time to reply as I want some sleep but can I just add that for some one who takes a completely different view on life to me that was a really good post. Kudos to that. :bow:

Mooks

12-24-2008, 04:23

What may be God's greatest gift to us of all is free will. You may believe as you choose, as may I.

You have studied myths and stories, compared cultures and religions and have, you believe, hit upon a central idea -- that it is all "make-believe." Well-intentioned, perhaps, but not to be taken seriously when compared to the absolutely proveable results of scientific research. For you, Life, Self-conscious sentience, and the entire panapoly of existence are merely the random by-products of happenstance following the eruptive dissolution of a singularity -- and ultimately meaningless since they have their brief moment in the sun ameliorated only by the chance to transmit their DNA towards a future that will inevitably be blotted out when the nearest star begins its inevitable decay. Or, as Shakespeare said, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

I look out a an incomprehensibly vast universe that all our science has only BARELY begun to describe and see the hand of God. I see the vibrant spirit that shines from my daughter's eyes, and in that light I think I glimpse a bit of God's promise of Heaven.

Can I prove you wrong? No. Can you prove me wrong? No. We will come upon the answer in time -- or not, if your version of life is correct.

I see the hand of Odin and Thor (Jk)

Do you think that the main difference between atheists and theists is that atheists trust whats physical and theists put their trust more on the emotional side?

HoreTore

12-24-2008, 09:15

Only if you vote for it. Which is your choice.

That tops of my list of "naive statements of today".

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-24-2008, 15:35

Even still why would it of made it into the news and why would so many groups be outraged by his remarks? You seem to ignore the fact that his remarks were offensive and many gay rights groups have already condemned and are outraged by his remarks. Maybe you need to stop defending some one who has made a clear statement which has offended many people.

No, he hasn't made a clear statement. People have gone, "Ah, the Pope! He must have meant Y when he said X." Now he may well have meant Y, but that does not change the fact that he said X, not Y.

As far as Gay Rights groups go, it is their job to be outraged. They exist to prevent us from overstepping a certain line.

Dyslexia can effect the way you read sentences as well as your ability to put them together. It also effects other things like hand writing and the like. It also obviously effects my reading speed and my ability to read stuff clearly hence why I often don't proof read anyway. I find your statement here quite offensive because you not only question me but then go on to suggest I'm a retard who can't spell. I don't have a clue who on earth you think you are by saying this but I'm incredibly offended you would try and insult my intelligence on this level. Your post carry an extremely snobbish undertone in that bit of your post.

I sincerely hope your not this offensive in real life by trying to get low blows over on peoples intelligence and there learning problems. You know if your going to try and get me with another low blow like that don't even bother posting in this thread again.

Dyslexia can affect the way you read sentances, because your eyes don't track, but it doesn't affect the way you form them because Dyslexia is primarily a disfunction of reading, not a disfunction of Grammar.

Now, let me make this very clear:

I was offended because you suggested that, A. I believed I was better than you because I was a Papist, when I would not and am not (a Papist), B. That you should be excused from the correct use of spelling and grammar because you claim to have a "minor" dysfuction of reading.

If you have trouble writing that would be dysgraphia, if you have trouble with composing written sentences that is the fault of your teachers. Nowhere did I suggest you were mentally deficient but I am not impressed that you claim dyslexia as an excuse.

Nor did I like the your snide tone.

Now, it is Christmas Eve and this is the point at which I sign off until Boxing Day.