The popes at it again..

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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.

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..

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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?

Originally Posted by BBC

"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.

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..

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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?

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

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?

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

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.

(for the record I agree with you about the whole need to move past the gay issue but there also is progress going on at the same time. Give it a while.

Also as a Christian I would like to ask you which sins have I committed? Not believing in something with no fallible evidence? .

I don't know if the Christan God is the correct God but I do believe that there is some sort of higher power. Look at the order and majesty of the world around you, and tell me that you can't even accept a chance of a God. Being the skeptical child of the enlightenment you are, you should hold everything, especially your own beliefs in question.

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.

Personally, I'm a universalist so I don't think you'll burn in hell anyway. Overall the points irrelevant in a debate about corruption in organized religion.

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?".

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

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.

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

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.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_...c_shock_horror

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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...

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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!

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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!

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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!

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 isn't an idiot
3. That this one incident doesn't prove that the catholic church is evil.

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

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..

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

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

Pray explain how this isn't a troll.

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.