Page 1 of 3 1 23 Last

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..

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?

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.

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

Then why bother debating or even discussing anything at all?

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.

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.

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..

Godwin by post 10, is that a record?

Was just heading for the easy comparison.

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.

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

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

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

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.



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

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.

You've completely missed the point. Reread.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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, 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

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.

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

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.

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..

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.

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

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 carefully.

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

Thank you kindly.

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

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

Page 1 of 3 1 23 Last