NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of recent developments in the world, the Vatican has concluded that the world has lost it’s sence of God, which is an essential condition to have the right to live on this God given earth. Therefore, in the recently summoned Vatican Council held between november 2003 and april 2004, the Council of High Cardinals and Pope Innocentius XIV have not only reinstated the supreme authority of the Pope over all christians in the world, they have also made a declaration concerning the behaviour of christians.

The Roman Church points out that the excessive civil rights have gone over the top and have made our civilization decadent to dangerous proportions. The Pope strongly condemnes euthanesia, abortion and genetic alteration as an intrusion in godly powers, which will be severly punished when the Judgement day comes. Not only should these practices be banned by law, this resolution is also meant to emphasize the teachings of God and the Ten Commandements. From now on, the catholic teachings will be dominant in a man’s life and the United Nations will strive to stimulate a moral life.

Signed,
The Chancellor of State
Lothario Conti de Segni

"Curiously enough, the only thought that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was "Oh no, not again"." - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy.

I can now say I have at least one more thing in common with the humble bowl of petunias.

:roll:

Oh, yes and might I add,

"Do not confuse your vested interests with ethics. Do not identify the enemies of your privilege with the enemies of humanity." - Max Lerner, Actions and Passions, 1949.

That will do for now, as my key-board slide tray just collapsed as I walked out of the room ... ergonomics be darn'd, it could have bruised me !

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Ok......Whatever :roll:

::Backs away from the muttering representitive of Innocentius and::

Anyone have the phone number for a decent doctor?

The pope has no right nor authority to proclaim anything to me. Mnay of my ancestors and brothers and sisters in faith were killed for the right to live in freedom. Freedom to worship Christ without an interfering self-proclaimed intercesor. I am the UN Regional Delegate for The United peoples of Abraham, and I amstudying at a Seminary to become a Lutheran Pastor, and as Martin Luther himself said
The Pope has as little right to ex-communicate me as does an ass!
-Martin Luther, The Great Reformer
WWJD
Amen.

There Is No God But YKWH And Moses Is His Messenger

Don't you agree that when we have given the right by God to live on his earth that we ought to live by his conditions? When you are an atheist, ask yourself the question who or what created the universe and you will admit that the human species have no right to intervere with the powers of God. Let us live a moral life, like it was intended to be.

Signed,

The Chancellor of State
-Lothario Conti de Segni

We all may live a moral life and worship our creator God, but the Bishop of Rome has no right to special privilige over our capacity to do so.
WWJD
Amen.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts.

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Don't you agree that when we have given the right by God to live on his earth that we ought to live by his conditions? When you are an atheist, ask yourself the question who or what created the universe and you will admit that the human species have no right to intervere with the powers of God. Let us live a moral life, like it was intended to be.

Signed,

The Chancellor of State
-Lothario Conti de Segni
I'm not an atheist, but I don't believe in your God. Where does that leave me?

There is only one God for every human being on this earth, only the Jews call him Jahweh and the muslims call him Allah. When you believe in multiple gods, you propably see the works of nature as seperate gods.

The Papal authority of all catholics can be found in the 'Donatio Constantini' in which Emperor Constantine gives the Pope the supreme authority over his realm, for he acknowledges his mortality and his subjected status to God. The pope is the servant of God on earth, the brigde between heaven and earth (the pontifex) and therefore has the MORAL supremacy over all christain subjects superceding the authority of the national leaders.

Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe in. Even athiests has to believe that there is no god.

Whether they are right or wrong, that is not for us to force down their throats. Morals change in time. (remember, even the bible once supported Polygamy, Stoning heritics, and civil unrest.) [thunder rumbles above delegate's head] All that can be done is to live the life you want to live and be an example to others. If your philosophy is suitable to others, then others will adopt your way of thinking.

Oh, and we have more options than that poor bowl of petunias... we at least can miss the ground!

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I don't believe in Gods of any kind. I have a personal religion with no controlling deities, but there are angels and demons. I do not see any reason why I should have to listen to the Pope's decrees.
I also have a strict moral code by my reckoning, but it is likely far different from your moral code. What I see as moral may not be what you see as moral, and vice-versa.

The vision of Christ that thou dost see
Is my vision's mortal enemy.
-William Blake

Seriously. What gives the Emperor Constantine any more authority than an ass?

I'm no atheist: I'm a Daoist, and I couldn't give a toss about any god you or anyone else has to offer. Your faith has no authority over me.

And just 'cause I know y'all love that Scripture:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

And let's be frank here, the Pope's loaded.

Visit the following forum to read more on the subject:
http://s6.invisionfree.com/European_Union/index.php?showtopic=13

Believe or don't believe, you must always remember that there are always two variaties of the truth: thé truth and your truth. We feel the Roman Catholic Church has given evidence of it's value many times in history which can be read in the Holy Scriptures for example.

-Lothario Conti de Segni.

New Testament - John 9:24

"Whereas once I was blind, now I can see"

Remember that phrase

Morals change in time. (remember, even the bible once supported Polygamy, Stoning heritics, and civil unrest.) [thunder rumbles above delegate's head] All that can be done is to live the life you want to live and be an example to others. If your philosophy is suitable to others, then others will adopt your way of thinking.

And let's be frank, the Pope's Absolute Moral Authority Straight Down From God condoned slavery, the Inquisition, the random massacres of the Crusades and any number of massacres against Jews.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Say: O unbelievers
I serve not what you serve,
and you are not serving what I serve,
nor am I serving what you have served,
neither are you serving what I serve.

To you your religion, and to me my religion!

Maybe this is a case for the age old argument of,

PLEASE KEEP RELIGION

OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD PEOPLE !

"Can you dig it?" :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

As a devout atheist, I’m happy enough for other people to think what they want about the existence of god or any other form of faith. What gets me annoyed is when people try making you believe their beliefs.
In this case, there is not a hope in hell that I will be allowing some antediluvian senile Pope and his corrupt kiddie-fiddling minions to decide what I should and should not be doing with my life.
If God wants to influence me, he’s welcome to do so without using all the fraudsters who claim to be the middle men. But otherwise, I’m happy to let god do his thing as long as he leaves me alone.
Oh, and preaching from a several thousand year old fairy tale book is not the best way to convince me either Innocentius.

We are more likely to live a wholesome humane life if we are not bossed about by moralistic busybodies.

OK, let's assume that Christianity rather than any other religion or non-religious creed is correct. Hey, let's even assume that Protestants etc are also wrong. How can you justify Roman Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy? The schism arose because of the power struggle between Rome and Constantinople. The only religious justification I have seen is on behalf of the Orthodox: Catholics break the Commandment concerning the worship of graven images. One may therefore argue that Catholicism (and hence Popery) is heretical.

Burn them! Burn them!

Ahem. Catholicism offers one truth. It is arrogant, vain and maybe even sinful to presume that your beliefs are the absolute truth to which we must all submit.

Has not history proved the right of the Roman Catholic Church to be the representative of God on earth..? But stop this discussion, please, for it has absolutely nothing to do with our UN proposal.

Al we say is that the people have to start recognizing a superior being (God) again, because the excessive civil rights have gone so far that we are starting to destroy this planet with our terrible behaviour.

Even if you do not believe in God, you must acknowledge the 'peace keeping' ability and the stability of religion!!

Signed,

The Chancellor of State,
-Lothario Conti de Segni

Has not history proved the right of the Roman Catholic Church to be the representative of God on earth..?

The Crusades. Slavery. Pogroms. The Inquisition. The genocides of the Native American peoples. Opposition to scientific knowledge wherever it could be found. These are not, to my mind, very Christian activities.

Not to say that any organisation that old hasn't been involved with things just as bad, but that's precisely my point: your Church is fallible and nothing more than human.

Al we say is that the people have to start recognizing a superior being (God) again, because the excessive civil rights have gone so far that we are starting to destroy this planet with our terrible behaviour.

Yep, global warming is caused by the souls of aborted babies, floating around in the stratosphere. You heard it here first.

Even if you do not believe in God, you must acknowledge the 'peace keeping' ability and the stability of religion!!

See above. If we were to pick a religion for peace-keeping, it'd be more likely to be one of the Eastern lot. The monotheistic traditions are as good at war as they are at peace.

this proposal effectively repeals any freedom of religon - as member states would be forced to acknowledge the existence of God regardless of it they believed it or not.

Has not history proved the right of the Roman Catholic Church to be the representative of God on earth..? But stop this discussion, please, for it has absolutely nothing to do with our UN proposal.

No, history has proven how corrupt the catholic Church (and indeed most organised faiths) is and how totally inept they are.

And yes, it has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with this proposal.

Even if you do not believe in God, you must acknowledge the 'peace keeping' ability and the stability of religion!!

Nope, because there was war when the Vatican was more controlling during the 17 and 1800's, so that arguement has as much solidarity as your average dessert jelly.

The only thing that kept medieval Europe from totally destroying each other was the fact that all were christians: the church unified Europe and prevented a lot of wars that would have been fought if it wasn't for the church. Why don't you see that things like the gay parade and legal drugs are a slow but destructive force to society, for they stimulate mentalities that are very dangerous.

-Lothario Conti de Segni

The only thing that kept medieval Europe from totally destroying each other was the fact that all were christians: the church unified Europe and prevented a lot of wars that would have been fought if it wasn't for the church.

Innocentius has a point here. Most Catholic kings didn't want to risk being excommunicatated and all the baggage that comes with, so they played friendly with their fellow kings. Luckily, there were plenty of non-catholics (Eastern Orthodoxies, Jews, Arabs, old ladies in the woods) that the Church was only to happy to sponsor attacks against. So yes, they did keep Catholic Europe from destroying itself by waging war agaisnt other people. Hmmm.

Let me just point out anyone who is baptised roman Catholic swears obedience to God. And since the Church and the Pope is Christ messenger on earth we are obligated as catholics to do as he says especially on doctrin issues which innocentious has stated above if anyone denies these they are in error against the Church and are commiting heresy. Which is a mortal sin and i implore them to reconsider and read the church documents. Pius the X warned us about these thing in pachendi

The only thing that kept medieval Europe from totally destroying each other was the fact that all were christians: the church unified Europe and prevented a lot of wars that would have been fought if it wasn't for the church. Why don't you see that things like the gay parade and legal drugs are a slow but destructive force to society, for they stimulate mentalities that are very dangerous.

-Lothario Conti de Segni

And they were also using religion to rob the poor of what little they had (I'm thinking Revolution-era France) Not to mention all of the corruption that abounded in the Middle Ages, Church prescence or not. Don't get me wrong, I am a practicing Roman Catholic, but I find some of the dogma to be absurd. Brand me a heretic if you will, but homosexual unions seems to me a Hell of a lot more Christlike than accusing their genes of sins. Come on. If I'm in the wrong, please direct me to a location where I can buy a freakin' indulgence.

idk you could probly search for one in the direction of hell. Again you cant be a practicing roman catholic if u deny dogma, and its one thing to not understnd it but you our right denied it so therefore my friend u are a heretic and need guidance.

If Innocentius (or, hell, let's be really optimistic here, Of portugal) could actually answer the points made against them instead of repeating the dogma that was expressed in the first post over and over again, it would be much appreciated.

If Innocentius (or, hell, let's be really optimistic here, Of portugal) could actually answer the points made against them instead of repeating the dogma that was expressed in the first post over and over again, it would be much appreciated.

....and much unexpected. I'm sure they will simply use some "evidence" from the bible or some evidence that came from the mouth of some pope....It's all very very predictable.

What is the point of giving evidence to a bunch of infidel heretics? Study your history, study some theology and you will see that there is more truth out there, beyond your little garden. And what evidence are we to show? Everything significant thing that occured concerning catholicism happend centuries ago and can only be proven through the Holy Scriptures. If you do not acknowlegde their authority, then there is no point for me to discuss this issue any further.

And thank you, Portugal, for giving me support. The only European countries who have always been loyal to the Roman Church were Spain and Portugal.

Signed,
The Chancellor of State,
Lothario Conti de Segni

What is the point of giving evidence to a bunch of infidel heretics?

Funny, that's just what Muslim extremists would say. I've never heard of Catholic fanatics before, but it's certainly possible, as you've proven.

Study your history, study some theology and you will see that there is more truth out there, beyond your little garden.

I've studied history at a higher level, and theology. Next!

And what evidence are we to show? Everything significant thing that occured concerning catholicism happend centuries ago and can only be proven through the Holy Scriptures.

Not true, there are other sources which if you had any knowledge of the event you'd know. I don't have the time to go into them now as I am busy drumming up support for my proposal. At any rate, proven is certainly not the right word to associate with that piece of fiction you call Scriptures.

If you do not acknowlegde their authority, then there is no point for me to discuss this issue any further.

good good. Now the UN can debate things worthy of it's time.

Hirota.... what is there left to say...

Who do you think gave you your miserable life? Was it the mix of genetics of your father and mother? Let us presume that was the case, than who created those genetics? There are some questions you can not answer with science and it happens to be that the further you approach the core, the beginning, the fewer answers to can find.

I was once a hardcore atheist like yourself, but I realized that my feelings were rooted in the desire to have an explenation for everything and the fear of giving some control over my life away.

Lothario Conti de Segni

Who do you think gave you your miserable life?


MISERABLE?????!!!!! That, sir, is a good way to get me irate.....

Was it the mix of genetics of your father and mother? Let us presume that was the case, than who created those genetics?

Chemical reaction, it's very very easy to explain (I also studied biology)

There are some questions you can not answer with science and it happens to be that the further you approach the core, the beginning, the fewer answers to can find.

But of course your scriptures know the answer, I'm sure. :roll:

I was once a hardcore atheist like yourself, but I realized that my feelings were rooted in the desire to have an explenation for everything

I don't need an explaination, I need the opportunity to discover the answer for myself. You've come to your own decision that God is the answer and good for you, but I'm sure you would resent any idiot who attempts to tell you what to do and what to believe. It's the same here, except you are that idiot trying to tell me and other members what to do and what to believe.

And personally, I have an explaination that satisfies my curiosity on the matter. The answer to everything and the meaning of life is irrelevant. It is what you do with life that matters. I'm sure there is an answer, but nobody can provide it with certainty (regardless of what some religous charlatan may claim), so I'm happy waiting till it is answered.

and the fear of giving some control over my life away.

A well founded concern. It's called self-determination and all human beings have that right.

Hmmm... Let me see, you studied history, theology and biology.. :? Yeah, me too, in High School! And you explain the beginning of your life as a chemical reaction, but then you have not answered the question where that reaction came from: what is the beginning of everything?

The right of self determination is a right not given nor confirmed. It is a 'right' we think we have. How about getting killed in the most weirdest of circumstances, is that self determination?

Napoleon Bonaparte I:
"Religion is what keeps the poor from robbing the rich".
"I seperate religion and God. On one hand there is God: a hypothese. On the other hand, there is religion: a certainty".

Innocentius: Who do you think gave you your miserable life? Was it the mix of genetics of your father and mother? Let us presume that was the case, than who created those genetics? There are some questions you can not answer with science and it happens to be that the further you approach the core, the beginning, the fewer answers to can find.

'Miserable life'? Not something that can be judged here, dearie. 'Who' created genetics? How about 'what'? Of course there are questions that cannot be answered by science; indeed, the very existence of the universe is currently unexplainable. This does not justify Catholicism or any other religious belief. It just means there are things we dot know.

In Ecopoeia, we are content - indeed, relieved - that we do not have an answer for everything. Intractable adherence to one's views no matter what arguments come your way is foolhardy. It's disappointing that you feel yourself only able to act as a cypher for a creed that has no greater claim to absolute truth than any other mythology, or indeed science itself.

Hiroko Ai
Speaker for Spirituality
Founder of the Viriditan Philosophy

Science cannot start from scratch: there has to be some kind of beginning conditions for science to evolve. We are no less tolerant than some people here: they ignore the possibility of a higher being without even considering it. That makes us both stubborn, for we have a different version of the truth.

Signed,

-Lothario Conti de Segni
Chancellor of the Constitutional Monarchy of Innocentius

In Ecopoeia, we are content - indeed, relieved - that we do not have an answer for everything.

Agreed. 100% Saying "I don't know" is the best way of finding out the right answer.

Personally, it sounds to me that Innocentius, in his "desire to have an explenation for everything" has decided that religion, has answered that. The average illiterate, uneducated, naive and gullible commoner in the european middle ages probably had a similar desire, and probably came to much the same decision. How very disappointing that when we come to the foundations of Innocentius' motives we find the same illiterate uneducated, naive and gullible oaf existing and still alive and well.

After carefull study of the history of this religion we the people of Wetland have determined that it is a danger to humanity. However we have freedom of religion and so our people are free to practice this barbaric religion. Although we do encourage them to follow the more humane religion of Wat. After all it his his father who created the universe on a dull sunday afternoon.

Ambassador Atheic Wats

Hirota, you did not reply to my latest messages and you gave a very lame excuse about the illiterate people of the middle ages. You forget that the most educated men in those times were devout christians like Thomas More, Thomas van Aquino and Isaac Newton.

That makes us both stubborn, for we have a different version of the truth.

Exactly, and now you want to impose your version on others? And that is the difference. For I do not want to impose, yet you do.

You forget that the most educated men in those times were devout christians like Thomas More, Thomas van Aquino and Isaac Newton.

Wrong time frame. I refer to knights and castles and commoners who thought the world was flat (because the church said so) and the earth was the center of the universe (again because the church said so) and that if you floated you were obviously a witch, etc etc.

And you want us to listen to what the church says about such things as god when it's messed up on the earth being flat, and the center of the universe?

Anyway, I don't need to answer your points, it's your proposal that's going to fade away into nothingness.

Innocentius, there's a difference in our standpoints here beyond belief/non-belief. You wish to inflict your beliefs on others, Hirota and I are in favour of leaving people and national governments free to make their own decisions. We are not dismissing the possibility of higher beings without considering it. Ecopoeia has a mixed-faith history that we take pride in respecting. Your missionary zeal is unwelcome.

OOC: In addition, the beliefs of 'the educated' from centuries ago is pretty much irrelevant in this debate. I'm not sure why you mention them.

DP

TP

Yeah. We're not saying your religion is necessarily wrong. We're saying that you can't tell us we have to believe it's right.

Science cannot start from scratch: there has to be some kind of beginning conditions for science to evolve.

Oh, lord, don't break out the frickin' cosmological argument. Nobody's taken that seriously for centuries. You have exactly the same questions unanswered if you posit a God as you do if you don't posit one.

Your stance, a far as I can make out, is that you've come to believe in the Catholic faith, and therefore so should all the rest of us. Believe me, if you'd had Catholicism drilled into you from birth your faith would be much less real. It's essential that everyone has the liberty to make their own spiritual decisions - otherwise no choice is made, and without choice there is no value to belief.

You proclaim that the Vatican has the absolute authority of God, but have consistently failed to answer examples I and others have given where it has clearly made massive moral errors. This is cowardly argument.

Truely thought there si nothing we can say to change any of you most likely, but i will pray for you and youyr conversion. But let this be know we have presented the truths of the one true holy and apostolic Church of God and because you know of this you will be responsible for it unto death, and will be judged for that. May God bless all of you!

of portugal

In light of recent developments in the world, the Vatican has concluded that the world has lost it’s sence of God, which is an essential condition to have the right to live on this God given earth. Therefore, in the recently summoned Vatican Council held between november 2003 and april 2004, the Council of High Cardinals and Pope Innocentius XIV have not only reinstated the supreme authority of the Pope over all christians in the world, they have also made a declaration concerning the behaviour of christians.

The Roman Church points out that the excessive civil rights have gone over the top and have made our civilization decadent to dangerous proportions. The Pope strongly condemnes euthanesia, abortion and genetic alteration as an intrusion in godly powers, which will be severly punished when the Judgement day comes. Not only should these practices be banned by law, this resolution is also meant to emphasize the teachings of God and the Ten Commandements. From now on, the catholic teachings will be dominant in a man’s life and the United Nations will strive to stimulate a moral life.

Signed,
The Chancellor of State
Lothario Conti de Segni

As a representitive of a nation which extends [U]true[U/] religious freedom to it's citizens, and as a Taoist personally, I take true offense at the implication that your beliefs and diety somehow condemn me to some mythical dimension for some fancied offense.

Visit the following forum to read more on the subject:
http://s6.invisionfree.com/European_Union/index.php?showtopic=13

Believe or don't believe, you must always remember that there are always two variaties of the truth: thé truth and your truth. We feel the Roman Catholic Church has given evidence of it's value many times in history which can be read in the Holy Scriptures for example.

-Lothario Conti de Segni.

No offense, but do you mean by evidence of the Roman Catholic Churchs values such as:

The Crusades :?:
The Inquisition :?:
The burning, drowning, crushing, stoning, and hanging of women and men for the fictional offense of witch craft :?:
The Forced convertion of European, Asian, and Native American peoples :?:
The centuries of warfare with the Protestants :?:
The Authoritarian control of christians for centuries :?:
The blatant and outright changing of the Bible, the basic tenant of your religios beliefs :?:

[quote="Innocentius"]Hmmm... Let me see, you studied history, theology and biology.. :? Yeah, me too, in High School! And you explain the beginning of your life as a chemical reaction, but then you have not answered the question where that reaction came from: what is the beginning of everything?[quote]

I believe that answer was given correctly as 'a chemical reaction'! A chemical reaction that has been in progress for an estimated 4 billion years and began when the first pre-protein molicule was formed in Earth's primordial waters.

Visit the following forum to read more on the subject:
http://s6.invisionfree.com/European_Union/index.php?showtopic=13

Believe or don't believe, you must always remember that there are always two variaties of the truth: thé truth and your truth. We feel the Roman Catholic Church has given evidence of it's value many times in history which can be read in the Holy Scriptures for example.

-Lothario Conti de Segni.

No offense, but do you mean by evidence of the Roman Catholic Churchs values such as:

The Crusades :?:
The Inquisition :?:
The burning, drowning, crushing, stoning, and hanging of women and men for the fictional offense of witch craft :?:
The Forced convertion of European, Asian, and Native American peoples :?:
The centuries of warfare with the Protestants :?:
The Authoritarian control of christians for centuries :?:
The blatant and outright changing of the Bible, the basic tenant of your religios beliefs :?:

Crusades were promoted by the Church but noi actually lead by them. And also because it is not doctrine it was open to error as we see in this instance. The inquisition in spain was started by last time I check queen izabela and ferdinand neither of them pope last time i checked and tgherfore not representatives of the faith. And thw witches weere mostly killed by puritans and protestants and at no time did church teachings condon these actions. And the people in the church are not innocent of killing the church is because our church teachings tell us we cannot kill to convert so some people who were mislead did these thing not the church. The protestants actually started most of the wars w/ the church england ireland etc. Ohh and for your last comment where did they change the bible? I believe it was the church that preserved it and can still be conected to the ead sea scrolls.

He's probably talking about all the other Gospels that were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. I read a Time article about them once, very interesting.

On a vaguely related note, everyone here, if they haven't already, should read Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code, both by Dan Brown. Excellent works of storytelling, and religious (sorta-kinda) as well, but mostly because they're good books.

Visit the following forum to read more on the subject:
http://s6.invisionfree.com/European_Union/index.php?showtopic=13

Believe or don't believe, you must always remember that there are always two variaties of the truth: thé truth and your truth. We feel the Roman Catholic Church has given evidence of it's value many times in history which can be read in the Holy Scriptures for example.

-Lothario Conti de Segni.

No offense, but do you mean by evidence of the Roman Catholic Churchs values such as:

The Crusades :?:
The Inquisition :?:
The burning, drowning, crushing, stoning, and hanging of women and men for the fictional offense of witch craft :?:
The Forced convertion of European, Asian, and Native American peoples :?:
The centuries of warfare with the Protestants :?:
The Authoritarian control of christians for centuries :?:
The blatant and outright changing of the Bible, the basic tenant of your religios beliefs :?:

Crusades were promoted by the Church but noi actually lead by them. And also because it is not doctrine it was open to error as we see in this instance. The inquisition in spain was started by last time I check queen izabela and ferdinand neither of them pope last time i checked and tgherfore not representatives of the faith. And thw witches weere mostly killed by puritans and protestants and at no time did church teachings condon these actions. And the people in the church are not innocent of killing the church is because our church teachings tell us we cannot kill to convert so some people who were mislead did these thing not the church. The protestants actually started most of the wars w/ the church england ireland etc. Ohh and for your last comment where did they change the bible? I believe it was the church that preserved it and can still be conected to the ead sea scrolls.

Respectfully,

You should attempt to make these excuses to someone who knows less about history then I myself does!

The Pope directly choose the commanding royalty for each crusade, and infact the third crusade was preceded by a famous speech by the Pope.
The Spanish and Portugese inqusitions were directly supported by the Pope.
As many witchs were burned by catholics as were burned by Protestants, the only difference was the fact that catholics called them 'posessed of the Devil' as opposed to 'witchs'.
The New World was split between Portugal and Spain 'by Papel writ' this writ covered not only lands and resources, but also the peoples that populated the new world.
The '30 years war' was initiated by the Holy Roman Emporer, a representitive of the catholic church as ordained by the Pope, to expunge the protestant influence from the Holy Roman Empire.
The wars against the Moors of Spain (from Charlemagne to the final liberation of Granada) were all sponsored and supported from the Papel Throne. In fact Charlemagne was originally given the title of 'Holy Roman Emporer' as a result of a successful campaign against the Moors.

You can't forget whichever Crusade it was (either 1st or 4th, I always forget) where they just stopped on some Mediterranean isle and murdered all the Jews there in the name of God.

in the recently summoned Vatican Council held between november 2003 and april 2004, the Council of High Cardinals and Pope Innocentius XIV

Wait a minute. Even for babtized Roman Catholics, this shit is moot. I follow John Paul XXIII. Who is this impostor pope you quoted? Because I don't have to listen. (or did JPXXIII kick the bucket and I somehow not be informed, and the conclave resolve relatively quickly? If so, apologies and grievances, but I think I would have heard)

I resent the many accusations that us non-theists have not considered the existence of a deity. I have considered these things at great length, and I have concluded that I believe that although it is possible that some being may have created the universe in a kind of light-the-blue-touchpaper-on-the-Big-Bang style, he/she/it then stepped back and hasn't interfered since. This places me far closer to atheism in most cases, because I don't believe that an all-powerful and all-loving god is looking over us.

I don't appreciate it when people tell me that I must change my beliefs, or have my civil rights impinged upon, without any kind of reasoned argument. Generally when I ask for some backing or explanation, I merely have scripture or papal quotes thrown at me - the bible is not proof that christianity is correct, because to prove that it's correct we must prove that the Christian god is real and that he inspired its writing (and in order to do this, the bible is quoted again! - it's like if I started a religion with a holy book, and wrote in the book "What is written here is all true", and when people asked me why they should believe what the book says, I pointed out that sentence.)

The other arguments that have been put up are that religion is a stabilising force etc, or that I will go to hell if I don't believe. But the point of theology is to find truth, and I will not compromise my personal attempts to find truth in order to take up an ideology simply for its convenience. I don't think anyone should do that.

And anyway, if you really want to impose one religion that will bring peace and kindliness, surely Buddhism or something similar would be far more appropriate.

If you want to hear a well-reasoned explanation of genetic evolution and what we know of how it may have begun, read "River Out Of Eden" by Richard Dawkins. You will see how flimsy many of the arguments put up against modern Darwinism are, and it's also a fascinating book.

Finally, I'd like an explanation of the following statements:

excessive civil rights have gone so far that we are starting to destroy this planet with our terrible behaviour.

things like the gay parade and legal drugs are a slow but destructive force to society, for they stimulate mentalities that are very dangerous.

I'd like to see you persuade me that homosexuality is wrong without using scripture.

Oh God... how am I to respond to all these accusations?

Alphared, concerning science, you can go back in time as far as you want to, but you will come to a point when you cannot explain the 'reactions' anymore. Thén you will have to ask yourself: what started all this?

Furthermore, when you accuse the Church of crimes, you have to realize it was a different time. You can never understand history if you can not see the events in perspective.

And then Vivelon... Vivelon...

First of all, the current Pope in the REAL world is John Paul II, not the twenty third!! And may I remind you we are playing a game and that we can impersonate everyone we want? The last pope Innocentius was XIII in the eighteenth century: that makes me the XIV. You can also regard me as an anti pope, not uncommon in history.

Myopia...
I do not believe these statements require any more explanation. If you read this entire discussion and the Covenant itself, you'll see it has been explained many times. For further enlightment: look around or watch some television.

Signed,
The Chancellor of State
-Lothario Conti de Segni

Of course, you are falling into the trap of presuming that there is a beginning at all. Many of the early religions did not have the concept of an ultimate beginning. It was the Hebrew faith that first required a definite starting point.

My brothers and sisters of all faiths:

We, the Most Serene and Holy Patriarch, must step in to make clear our displeasure with our brother the Pope's announcement. We are saddened that he, continuing the error which split he and his branch from the Tree of Orthodoxy, has resorted to meddling in the lives of those his church would claim to represent. We ask him, in the Name of God, and The Ever-Blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos, and the Saints and Patriarchs, to humbly present himself before us in repentance, that we might welcome him back into the True Faith, uncorrupted and spotless, which we have inherited from the Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Most Holy Apostles.

To those outside of the Holy Church, we send our most benevolent greetings. While we do not ordinarily present ourselves to the international body for the purpose of politics, we have been forced to speak for those who cannot.

This day we put our signature to this,

+Theophilus, Patriarch of All Eastern Orthodxy

Now we just need some arians, armenians and coptics to join, and we've got the whole loving family of christianity.

religion has pretty much caused most wars around the world. I think its disgusting and should hold no political power

Furthermore, when you accuse the Church of crimes, you have to realize it was a different time. You can never understand history if you can not see the events in perspective.

The point wasn't to say 'the Church is evil': it was to say 'it's fallible.' It claimed the exact same authority over witch-burning, the Crusades and the genocides of the New World (not to mention fiercely defending the belief that the sun orbits the Earth in perfect circles and that the world began 6000-odd years ago) as it does today over contraception, abortion, female clergy and gay marriage. It's been totally wrong in the past, to an extent that's undeniable. How can it pretend to weild absolute authority in the present?

religion has pretty much caused most wars around the world. I think its disgusting and should hold no political power

Most wars are caused by conflict over territory, resources and power.

If you can make an honest list of "religious" wars, that were actually caused by religion and that did not merely have the acquiescence of religious leaders, I will provide a longer of those that were not.

I'd like an explanation of the following statements:

[quote:cc8b6d9e76="Innocentius]
excessive civil rights have gone so far that we are starting to destroy this planet with our terrible behaviour.


things like the gay parade and legal drugs are a slow but destructive force to society, for they stimulate mentalities that are very dangerous.

I'd like to see you persuade me that homosexuality is wrong without using scripture.[/quote:cc8b6d9e76]

Myopia...
I do not believe these statements require any more explanation. If you read this entire discussion and the Covenant itself, you'll see it has been explained many times. For further enlightment: look around or watch some television.

Ok, I'll accept that excessive drug-taking isn't conducive to good personal and social health. However, this doesn't mean it should be illegal, and furthermore I think science is a better deterrent than religion when it comes to drugs - the thing that's going to stop me taking herion or whatever is not fear of sin, since I don't think that things one does to oneself are really morally very wrong, it's the scientific evidence of the damage it does that scares people off.

But with the other things: I guess you're referring to climate change and our destruction of the environment when you say "we are starting to destroy this planet with our terrible behaviour". But that's less to do with civil rights and more to do with capitalist industry's pollution, and to some extent in America Christianity has become the religious wing of capitalist politics - the right wing is capitalist and big on forcing Christian ethics onto everyone (see bush's domestic policies such as eroding sex education to replace it with abstinence - which studies have shown to lead to unsafe sex).

As to homosexuality and gay pride parades, you say just look around or watch tv, but I see nothing wrong with it when I do see it. Either it's the camp, bright, fun, carnival thing, which does noone any harm, or it's just people who have found other people that they love and care for. So what exactly is your point? Religious objections are unfounded until you can prove the truth of the bible, there is increasing scientific evidence that homosexuality can be perfectly natural (and even if it can't, so what? It's natural for humans to roam around in tribes, killing those who trespass on our territory and for the alpha male of the tribe to rape females, so I don't see how something being natural can make it right or unnatural make it wrong), so what's your argument against homosexuality.

The Covenant is the pope's written "wisdom"? Then I see no real reason why his word constitutes an authority that I should listen to - can you offer a reason not based on his religious standing? And nowhere in this discussion have I seen an adequate argument to oppose homosexuality. So tell me: without using scripture, can you present an effective argument against homosexuality?

The thing is (This isn't expressed very well, I can't find the right words), judging by the arguments with which I have been presented with so far, each belief in a religion can only really be proven if you assume another of its beliefs to be correct. Therefore, in order to believe an entire religion, it seems to me that you have to take at least one of its beliefs as read - i.e. assume it's correct without much real justification. That's why I don't think you're able to adequately answer my question about homosexuality.

in the recently summoned Vatican Council held between november 2003 and april 2004, the Council of High Cardinals and Pope Innocentius XIV

Wait a minute. Even for babtized Roman Catholics, this shit is moot. I follow John Paul XXIII. Who is this impostor pope you quoted? Because I don't have to listen. (or did JPXXIII kick the bucket and I somehow not be informed, and the conclave resolve relatively quickly? If so, apologies and grievances, but I think I would have heard)

its John paul II

Oh God... how am I to respond to all these accusations?

Alphared, concerning science, you can go back in time as far as you want to, but you will come to a point when you cannot explain the 'reactions' anymore. Thén you will have to ask yourself: what started all this?

Furthermore, when you accuse the Church of crimes, you have to realize it was a different time. You can never understand history if you can not see the events in perspective.

First, the lack of understanding something does not preclude it's explaination. Second, the lack of scientific understanding of all things neither proves nor disproves the existance of divine intervention. I, for one, will not be asking 'what start all this?' when in reality what is important is the fact that it is still going and that I am a part of it.

A murder is a murder irregardless of the time interval from the act to the present. The same applies to all criminals, wether they are prosecuted for there crimes or not. I understand the perspective of the history involved, as I also understand that the catholic church doesn't understand the current state of the world; lest we forget it took the Papel throne until the 1980's to recognize and accept that the world was spherical in nature!

On a personal note: Living ones life in accordance with a text (Torah, Bible, Ko'ran) written 2000 years ago which inessence relates the history of a relatively small (by the standards of 2000 years ago) cultural group. Is respectfully, innane. Continuing to live under such a doctrine even knowing that the tenants it advises its followers to adhere to do not anyway reflect standards, technologies, or knowledge gained at any point after it's authorship, is respectfully, counter-productive. To use such a doctorine as ones sole reference to life, trusting in it blindly, without making the simple effort of looking at the current state of the world around you is, quite respectfully, moronic. To live in such a state of being, knowing it actively contravenes the basic Human nature is simply spiteful to who and what you are, an act specifically condemned in that very text that you use to excuse your action.

I am quite familiar with the text in question, over a number of readings. I have found nothing to prove to me that it is an interesting narrative of the early history of a cultural group. I did find that many of the passages, not specifically devoted to the activities of that culture, were available through many earlier sources primarily the Sumarian culture which pre-dated the Hebrew culture by as much as 2000 years. These passages include the creation story and the flood story both of which were written by a culture that believed in and worshipped 1000's of gods. This would seem to illistrate that monotheists who believe in these explainations of events are in fact heretical at there very core.

The opinion of,
The Confederacy of Alphared

So I got a couple of popes mixed up. Big F***in' deal. The point is, none of what your made up pope said in this fictional Vatican Council applies to me because it is fictional.

Alphared, although the Hebrew creation story and other stories in Genesis may have been stolen from other early mythologies, the importance is the spin put on the stories by the Hebrews. According to most other mythologies at the times, humans were made to serve their multiple gods and cower before them. They were nothing to these gods. Then, along came the Hebrews, and, regardless of the source, identified a God that loves us, cares for us, and considers us good enough to be His chosen people (well, technically for Jews to, but Christianity came from Judaism, so we throw ourselves into the mix as well).

The only thing that kept medieval Europe from totally destroying each other was the fact that all were christians: the church unified Europe and prevented a lot of wars that would have been fought if it wasn't for the church. Why don't you see that things like the gay parade and legal drugs are a slow but destructive force to society, for they stimulate mentalities that are very dangerous.

-Lothario Conti de Segni

Yummy, not again. Byzantines were christians and cathlics betrayed them. C'mon man, become communist, lol

Our wayward brother the Pope has indeed forgotten the hideous actions of the so-called "Crusade" of 1204, in which knights representing the Roman Catholic Church attacked, brutalized, and occupied the Most Holy Patriarchate of Constantinople. We in the True Faith (for that is the meaning of "Orthodox") have declined to make issue of this, as we understand the failings inherent in erroneous beliefs. We ask only that our misguided brother Innocentius look, as Our Lord commanded, at the beam of wood in his own eye before calling to account the speck of sawdust in his brother's eye.

As for homosexuality:

1) In the New Testament, it is declared that those who believe in Christ are freed from the burden of the Law: "...the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the Law. But thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ..." (I Corinthians 15:56), and "...sin will no longer have power over you; you are now under grace, not under the Law." (Romans 6:14); this being so, the Law of Leviticus no longer binds Christians, as it has been fulfilled in Christ.

2) In Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, there does not exist the word "homosexual" (it was invented by a German psychiatrist in the 1890's), nor even the idea of homosexuality as we understand it today. If homosexuality is a sin, then God will judge it, as is His right, and His alone. We are called not to judge one another but rather to show the love of Christ to everyone: "...a new commandment give I unto you; that ye show love one to another even as I have loved you..." (The Gospel According to St. John 15:12) EVERYONE, regardless of their person, and in doing so, we let the Light of Christ brighten an otherwise dark and cruel world.

"Judge not, lest ye also be judged."

We call upon our poor brother the pope to think carefully upon the seed that he is sowing, that it may not ripen into a harvest of hate and destruction.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

Well i'm glad that one branch of christianity is accepting of homosexuality. I heard about this release from the laws of leviticus from a Christian i know (now that i think of it I'm not actually sure whether he's protestant, catholic or what), but he told me that Jesus only said that the rituals described were no longer necessary, and the "moral law", including the ban on homosexuality, still applies.

I'd still like to hear some justification from Innocentius.

I'd like an explanation of the following statements:

[quote:ea425663e6="Innocentius]
excessive civil rights have gone so far that we are starting to destroy this planet with our terrible behaviour.


things like the gay parade and legal drugs are a slow but destructive force to society, for they stimulate mentalities that are very dangerous.

I'd like to see you persuade me that homosexuality is wrong without using scripture.

Myopia...
I do not believe these statements require any more explanation. If you read this entire discussion and the Covenant itself, you'll see it has been explained many times. For further enlightment: look around or watch some television.

Ok, I'll accept that excessive drug-taking isn't conducive to good personal and social health. However, this doesn't mean it should be illegal, and furthermore I think science is a better deterrent than religion when it comes to drugs - the thing that's going to stop me taking herion or whatever is not fear of sin, since I don't think that things one does to oneself are really morally very wrong, it's the scientific evidence of the damage it does that scares people off.

But with the other things: I guess you're referring to climate change and our destruction of the environment when you say "we are starting to destroy this planet with our terrible behaviour". But that's less to do with civil rights and more to do with capitalist industry's pollution, and to some extent in America Christianity has become the religious wing of capitalist politics - the right wing is capitalist and big on forcing Christian ethics onto everyone (see bush's domestic policies such as eroding sex education to replace it with abstinence - which studies have shown to lead to unsafe sex).

As to homosexuality and gay pride parades, you say just look around or watch tv, but I see nothing wrong with it when I do see it. Either it's the camp, bright, fun, carnival thing, which does noone any harm, or it's just people who have found other people that they love and care for. So what exactly is your point? Religious objections are unfounded until you can prove the truth of the bible, there is increasing scientific evidence that homosexuality can be perfectly natural (and even if it can't, so what? It's natural for humans to roam around in tribes, killing those who trespass on our territory and for the alpha male of the tribe to rape females, so I don't see how something being natural can make it right or unnatural make it wrong), so what's your argument against homosexuality.

The Covenant is the pope's written "wisdom"? Then I see no real reason why his word constitutes an authority that I should listen to - can you offer a reason not based on his religious standing? And nowhere in this discussion have I seen an adequate argument to oppose homosexuality. So tell me: without using scripture, can you present an effective argument against homosexuality?

The thing is (This isn't expressed very well, I can't find the right words), judging by the arguments with which I have been presented with so far, each belief in a religion can only really be proven if you assume another of its beliefs to be correct. Therefore, in order to believe an entire religion, it seems to me that you have to take at least one of its beliefs as read - i.e. assume it's correct without much real justification. That's why I don't think you're able to adequately answer my question about homosexuality.[/quote:ea425663e6]

How about these facts about homosexuality A) 26% of children in homosexual "marriages" are molested wherin a true marriage only .6% are molested by their parents.B) Most marriages last for at least 8 years whereas homosexuals last two yrs. C) A study wsa done and showed that children who have divorced parents are pshychologically better off than children with homosexual parents. D) Within homosexual "marriages" it is common for the "couple to have over ten sex partners other than their mate. If you want more u can teleram me and ill send you about 5o stated research facts

How about these facts about homosexuality A) 26% of children in homosexual "marriages" are molested wherin a true marriage only .6% are molested by their parents.B) Most marriages last for at least 8 years whereas homosexuals last two yrs. C) A study wsa done and showed that children who have divorced parents are pshychologically better off than children with homosexual parents. D) Within homosexual "marriages" it is common for the "couple to have over ten sex partners other than their mate. If you want more u can teleram me and ill send you about 5o stated research facts

come now no responses? im waiting

Let's see a reliable source for these figures. And by 'reliable', I mean 'not some anti-homosexual propaganda source who'll make up whatever suits their sordid little prejudices.'

all studies done by the goivermengt budy 8) sorry if the truth hurts

Then let's see your source.

I will do ohh and your voice it sounds a little shaky. nervous are we that there is someone who actally has the facts to show how intrinsically wrong homosexuality is?

Nope, I'm convinced that you don't have reliable data to back up your sick little claims.

Further: homosexual marriage has nothing to do with adoption rights, and as a Catholic I don't see why you should care whether a marriage breaks up after two years, eight or twenty - if it breaks it's equally against your dogmas.

The old 'homosexuality equals child abuse' claim is the province of hate-filled lunatics, and is particularly rich coming from someone who claims the Catholic Church is infallible.

Of Portugal: Yes, I too would like to see links to your sources, because quite frankly I don't trust you to quote trustable sources. Furthermore, those statistics may have been taken out of context ("there are lies, damn lies, and statistics"), or the studies may simply have been bad methodology (i.e. small sample sizes, dubious analysis) or freak results. I'm especially suspicious of A your claims about child abuse, because it just sounds either fake or out of context, and B the one about psychological health, because as far as I know the general consensus amongst the psychiatric community is (and has been for a couple of decades) that the more important factor affecting children's mental health is the stability of the parents' relationship as opposed to their genders.

I also don't really give a damn about your second and fourth statistics. First of all, you're comparing actual heterosexual marriages with non-married homosexual relationships (because they can't, at present, marry), so it isn't a "fair test" (didn't you ever study science? Every science investigation I do at school we have to explain how our experiment is a fair test - all variables must be kept the same except for the one you're studying - so if you want to compare homosexual and heterosexual relationships you need to compare the exact same kinds of relationship). Second, what business is it of yours or mine if they decide that a relationship isn't working out, or if they want to have an open relationship?

We have not been a nation long but do you think the pope will also ask the UN to stop us from handling pork and footballs? Will we have to stop eating all that great shell fish we have in our paradise!? We also don't bury our garments when our females have their time of the month, and the old testament actually requires all of the above I believe. Of course being a new nation, we probably don't have the advanced thoughts that the pope has.

Evolve I say, let us figure out our mistakes, learn baby learn.

:shock:

Not exactly on topic... at all, but does anyone else's computer load p. 4 kinda screwy? Nothing but the last few posts are centered. Everything else is in a like half-inch collumn at the far right of the screen. It's pissing me off, and I was wondering if it affected anyone else, or if it's just that my computer is total shit (or both?)

("there are lies, damn lies, and statistics")

Or as I like to say... 72.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

And Radarme States, far from defending the idea of this proposal (is it seriously a proposal?) passing, you're quoting the wrong stuff. God! We're Catholics. We pick and choose what parts of the OT apply. Have you been living under a rock? The only OT stuff that still applies to the Church are the 10 commandments and that teeny tiny verse about homosexuality being wrong. The rest of Exodus and Leviticus? They aren't important 'cuz they (insert Catholic joke here)

(no OP, I'm not insulting my religion or whatever BS you come up with. I'm insulting the way it's run.)

Seriously, if the Bible is inspired by God, it must be what God wants, becaus God is omnitient and can't be wrong (but, He's omnipotent, so He can be wrong if He wants too... but that's a headache for another day) so why does some of it 'not apply'? If the Bible is so inspired, shouldn't we follow its law to the letter? unless... maybe... God forbid... times change!

"Of course being a new nation, we probably don't have the advanced thoughts that the pope has."
Radarme States


All I can say is precisely! No person is more able or advanced than the Pontiff. "Reason" is an opiate, some things defy all human reason. The Pope, granted Holy Wisdom, is the closest we as humans have in interpreting the word of the Lord.

Archbishop Pares
Leader of the First Estate

Kingdom of Phillipsania and her Dominions

Buzzmania will no longer tolerate any religion or group that promotes spiritual separation. Here in Buzzmania we see fundamentalists of any stripe to be inimical to the public good, and have henceforeward banned all religions who practice separatist teachings as espoused by the great satan in Rome. We cannot allow a vocal minority to inflict its deluded teachings on our populace when the world is struggling to find a union of all faiths. Catholocism once meant "all encompassing" or "universal" now it has come to mean "segregationist" and "Intolerant"
If the Vatican and it's unholy band of wastrel pedophiles wishes Buzzmania to acknowledge its words, then they should use the vast accumulated wealth they have amassed to do the good thier book directs them to do, and join the rest of the world in celebrating the similarities in all our faiths. The notion of any religion dictating terms to enter heaven, or proclaiming itself the sole arbiter of human morals is repugnant to us, and we cannot state strongly enough how vehemently we reject christian dogma. Jesus was cool, Buddha was cool, Mohommed was cool, moses rocked, and brahma was way wild. So you can't tell me Ghandi isn't in heaven. Every avatar and incarnation of The great spirit that has come to earth has given every people the same simple message; "love one another" And how have the children of earth responded to the message? Like greedy children fighting for the right to say "my god is better than your god" And the saddest part is that most religions agree it is the SAME god! Grow up all of you, and accept that we were too tiny intellectually to handle all of gods truth, or to imagine the myriad ways in which we have been blessed. Accept that the person next to you is as equal in gods eyes as you yourself, and you will find welcome in Buzzmania, and again in the realms beyond.
If you insist in thinking yours is the one way ticket to paradise, go away, you obviously have mental problems that we are not willing to tolerate here. So leave us in peace, and we will pray for you to join us one day as brothers and children of one loving power.

I don't agree with everything Catholicism has to say (though I do admire the services and liturgical rituals), but I do think there should be some sense of morality in those who lead nations. Christianity's (or Judiaism's) morality is superior to the rest (sorry if that sounds egositical, that's just what I believe), and should ideally reign in public policy making. Everybody has their own ideas of what morality is, and believes it is superior to other moral claims, so I don't think anybody can say that nobody has the right to force morality on society through legislation. That's basically what politics is all about. Even those who say that morals are relative to your individual opinions take this idea itself as a moral authority over those who define their morals and make a superiority claim. So, enough of this saying that we don't have the right to force morality on each other. The question is, who's morality are we willing to force on society? That's what it boils down to.

"All I can say is precisely! No person is more able or advanced than the Pontiff. "Reason" is an opiate, some things defy all human reason. The Pope, granted Holy Wisdom, is the closest we as humans have in interpreting the word of the Lord.

Archbishop Pares
Leader of the First Estate

Kingdom of Phillipsania and her Dominions

Absolutely untrue, my son. We are in direct descent from the Holy Apostles, without changing their teachings in the slightest bit, unlike our misguided brother, the bishop of Rome. The Roman Church has been in error since A.D. 1054, adding to and taking away from the great repository of Truth without regard for Holy Scripture. We would never wish to subject the Church to such action.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

Not exactly on topic... at all, but does anyone else's computer load p. 4 kinda screwy? Nothing but the last few posts are centered. Everything else is in a like half-inch collumn at the far right of the screen. It's pissing me off, and I was wondering if it affected anyone else, or if it's just that my computer is total shit (or both?)

It's not your computer it shows up screwy on mine too. It's as if some higher power didn't like what we were saying.... :wink:

Every avatar....

Although I am not a theist, if people conclude for themselves that they do believe in a higher power that intervenes in our world, this is the kind of belief that I would like to see spread. A religion not based on control or competition, but simply on being good to those around you. I applaud you.

"Of course being a new nation, we probably don't have the advanced thoughts that the pope has."
Radarme States


All I can say is precisely! No person is more able or advanced than the Pontiff. "Reason" is an opiate, some things defy all human reason. The Pope, granted Holy Wisdom, is the closest we as humans have in interpreting the word of the Lord.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that that statement was meant to be sarcastic. Seriously, give me one good reason to believe that the man sitting in the Vatican, who wants to remove our freedoms and thus oppose human socio-political evolution and scientific progress, has the answers. I have heard it said that the church should not move with the times. But progress is, always has been, and hopefully always will be, part of what makes us essentially human. By opposing progress in so many of its forms, the church opposes the spirit that makes humanity great.

I don't agree with everything Catholicism has to say (though I do admire the services and liturgical rituals), but I do think there should be some sense of morality in those who lead nations. Christianity's (or Judiaism's) morality is superior to the rest (sorry if that sounds egositical, that's just what I believe), and should ideally reign in public policy making. Everybody has their own ideas of what morality is, and believes it is superior to other moral claims, so I don't think anybody can say that nobody has the right to force morality on society through legislation. That's basically what politics is all about. Even those who say that morals are relative to your individual opinions take this idea itself as a moral authority over those who define their morals and make a superiority claim. So, enough of this saying that we don't have the right to force morality on each other. The question is, who's morality are we willing to force on society? That's what it boils down to.

No religious concept should be the sole basis of a law. Laws must be justifiable without the use of scripture or dogma. I'm not complaining about people enforcing morality through law, because of course that's inevitable, I'm complaining about people enforcing morality that cannot be justified without the use of religion. If god is going to punish people for being gay or whatever when they die, let god punish them and not us. It's only other people's place to intervene if somebody is getting hurt. (Yes, I recognise that this is another system of morality, but it can actually be argued, rather than me simply throwing out quotes to justify it from a source which has not been proven to be reliable).

Grow up, all of you. If you don't like Catholocism, don't talk about it. I don't run around talking about Islam or Hinduism and bash it, yet it seems that the only acceptable discrimination left in America is that against white Christians. Knock it off, if you don't want to be "governed by the Pope" or whatever else you're whining about, don't waste your time here.

The proposal being put up is that the pope will be recognised as an authority by the UN. So those of us who don't want to be governed by the pope do have to argue it out here and defeat this proposal.

EDIT: Of Portugal, I'm still waiting for a reply on the comments I posted on page 4 about your statistics.

I don't run around talking about Islam or Hinduism and bash it, yet it seems that the only acceptable discrimination left in America is that against white Christians. Knock it off, if you don't want to be "governed by the Pope" or whatever else you're whining about, don't waste your time here.

That's probably because there aren't too many people in the US who are trying to make Islam or Hinduism the basis of law. (I'm all too happy to bash religious states in other countries). Christians who insist on trying to force their religion on everybody else, which all too many of them have a tendency of doing, deserve everything they get.

The question is, who's morality are we willing to force on society? That's what it boils down to.

One based on shared principles. Which means a secular one.

Not exactly on topic... at all, but does anyone else's computer load p. 4 kinda screwy? Nothing but the last few posts are centered. Everything else is in a like half-inch collumn at the far right of the screen. It's pissing me off, and I was wondering if it affected anyone else, or if it's just that my computer is total shit (or both?)

("there are lies, damn lies, and statistics")

Or as I like to say... 72.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

And Radarme States, far from defending the idea of this proposal (is it seriously a proposal?) passing, you're quoting the wrong stuff. God! We're Catholics. We pick and choose what parts of the OT apply. Have you been living under a rock? The only OT stuff that still applies to the Church are the 10 commandments and that teeny tiny verse about homosexuality being wrong. The rest of Exodus and Leviticus? They aren't important 'cuz they (insert Catholic joke here)

(no OP, I'm not insulting my religion or whatever BS you come up with. I'm insulting the way it's run.)

Seriously, if the Bible is inspired by God, it must be what God wants, becaus God is omnitient and can't be wrong (but, He's omnipotent, so He can be wrong if He wants too... but that's a headache for another day) so why does some of it 'not apply'? If the Bible is so inspired, shouldn't we follow its law to the letter? unless... maybe... God forbid... times change!

Obviously you dont know the bible to well, When the new law of the new testament was establised thyen the old laws were abolished except the 10 commandements. Furthermore those laws were meant to keep the Jews in line because they kept failing God. Oh and if you really do believe the bible is right then you should be against homosexuality ;).

ok here is one of the sights others will be comeing http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02&f=PG03I03 and another http://www.pathlights.com/Public%20Enemies/Homo-sheet.htm

6. The Homosexuals: Their Health

Due to their use of excretory organs for sex and their high level of promiscuity, homosexuals open themselves up to serious illnesses, some of which are unique to gays (e.g. "gay bowel disease," exotic ailments caught via anal sex).

· Jaffe's 1983 study of 170 male homosexuals found a striking array of diseases: 21

o 77% had contracted gonorrhea at some point in their lives;

o 44% had suffered from syphilis;

o Nearly 30% had been treated for parasitic diarrhea;

o Around 90% had used marijuana; over half had used cocaine; and about half had used LSD.

· Others facts of note:

o 30% of all 20 year old gay men will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are age 30. 22

o The infection rate for infectious hepatitis B is 20-50 times greater for homosexual males than for heterosexual males. It is estimated that 1/2 to 3/4 of homosexual men have or have had this disease. 23

o Homosexual men accounted for 13.2% of gonorrhea cases in 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The same study reported a frightening increase in the AIDS among gay men - an increase that statistically resembles the AIDS explosion of the 1980’s. 4.4 percent of gay and bisexual men ages 23-39 are newly infected with HIV each year. 24

o Between 25 and 33% of homosexuals are alcoholic (vs. 7-10% for the general population). 25

· Today homosexual males account for 54% of all reported AIDS cases.26 The greatest risk factor for sexual transmission of the disease is receptive anal intercourse, in which the rectum is frequently torn. Even without tears, semen can easily penetrate the rectal wall, enter the blood stream and wreak havoc with the immune system.

o Note that the vagina is not susceptible to the passing of semen beyond the vaginal wall.

o The cost of dealing with these health risks is difficult to calculate. The annual medical costs of caring for AIDS patients alone are expected to increase from $5 billion in 1990 to over $10 billion in 1993.

· Although AIDS has claimed the lives of so many homosexuals, large percentages of gays either fail to have themselves tested for the HIV (50% in a Los Angeles study) or continue to have sex with seropositive partners. The same Los Angeles report revealed several remarkable statistics for the 823 male subjects, including: 27

o 64% had engaged in "definitely" unsafe practices (e.g. unprotected anal intercourse in the past two months);

o 81% reported "possibly or definitely" unsafe sex in that same time;

o Only 9% restricted themselves to "definitely safe" activities (e.g. mutual masturbation);

o 6% had used IV drugs, 3% had shared needles, 50% had smoked marijuana, 26% had used cocaine.

· The gay lifestyle profoundly affects the homosexual life span. A 1998 study suggested that a homosexual lifestyle, on the average, shortens one’s lifespan by roughly 20 years.

The facts lead us to conclude that homosexual behavior is inherently perverse and unhealthy. A perusal of gay publications shows that homosexuality revolves around bizarre and dangerous expressions of lust (cf. the revealingly named "You Can Do It All! Just Do It Safer," by the Gay Men's Health Crisis, Inc.).

6. The Homosexuals: Their Health

Due to their use of excretory organs for sex and their high level of promiscuity, homosexuals open themselves up to serious illnesses, some of which are unique to gays (e.g. "gay bowel disease," exotic ailments caught via anal sex).

· Jaffe's 1983 study of 170 male homosexuals found a striking array of diseases: 21

o 77% had contracted gonorrhea at some point in their lives;

o 44% had suffered from syphilis;

o Nearly 30% had been treated for parasitic diarrhea;

o Around 90% had used marijuana; over half had used cocaine; and about half had used LSD.

· Others facts of note:

o 30% of all 20 year old gay men will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are age 30. 22

o The infection rate for infectious hepatitis B is 20-50 times greater for homosexual males than for heterosexual males. It is estimated that 1/2 to 3/4 of homosexual men have or have had this disease. 23

o Homosexual men accounted for 13.2% of gonorrhea cases in 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The same study reported a frightening increase in the AIDS among gay men - an increase that statistically resembles the AIDS explosion of the 1980’s. 4.4 percent of gay and bisexual men ages 23-39 are newly infected with HIV each year. 24

o Between 25 and 33% of homosexuals are alcoholic (vs. 7-10% for the general population). 25

· Today homosexual males account for 54% of all reported AIDS cases.26 The greatest risk factor for sexual transmission of the disease is receptive anal intercourse, in which the rectum is frequently torn. Even without tears, semen can easily penetrate the rectal wall, enter the blood stream and wreak havoc with the immune system.

o Note that the vagina is not susceptible to the passing of semen beyond the vaginal wall.

o The cost of dealing with these health risks is difficult to calculate. The annual medical costs of caring for AIDS patients alone are expected to increase from $5 billion in 1990 to over $10 billion in 1993.

· Although AIDS has claimed the lives of so many homosexuals, large percentages of gays either fail to have themselves tested for the HIV (50% in a Los Angeles study) or continue to have sex with seropositive partners. The same Los Angeles report revealed several remarkable statistics for the 823 male subjects, including: 27

o 64% had engaged in "definitely" unsafe practices (e.g. unprotected anal intercourse in the past two months);

o 81% reported "possibly or definitely" unsafe sex in that same time;

o Only 9% restricted themselves to "definitely safe" activities (e.g. mutual masturbation);

o 6% had used IV drugs, 3% had shared needles, 50% had smoked marijuana, 26% had used cocaine.

· The gay lifestyle profoundly affects the homosexual life span. A 1998 study suggested that a homosexual lifestyle, on the average, shortens one’s lifespan by roughly 20 years.

The facts lead us to conclude that homosexual behavior is inherently perverse and unhealthy. A perusal of gay publications shows that homosexuality revolves around bizarre and dangerous expressions of lust (cf. the revealingly named "You Can Do It All! Just Do It Safer," by the Gay Men's Health Crisis, Inc.).

Interesting, now can you prove that heterosexual statistics are not the same or worse? See it is great to prove your case in this way, but scientifically speaking you have proven nothing without statistical analysis of the control group, which is in this case heterosexuals. Your agreement is that homosexuality is abnormal (and a sin) and that heterosexuality is normal (and therefore not a sin) so prove it.

Im i am sorry i just pstd sights about homosexuality and left all the evidence in the post above i belive it is you who has to prove homosexuality is harmeful or dangerous

Let me just ask you all, all of you who consider themselves Catholic and have somewhat of and understanding of Jesus' teachings, did Jesus not say, in at least one of the Gospels, "Love one another as yourself", "Judge not, lest ye be judged", "Do unto others, as you would have them do to you"? I believe he said all of those, and more (although I don't have a Bible with me right now to check)

So tell me, which do you think Jesus cares more about? Us loveing and not judging, or us following discriminatory laws set down by imperfect humans?

And I believe someone mentioned the word "catholic" meaning open to all. Why is the Church so hypocritical? As much BS as OP will give me about "judging the sin not the person" etc, the person committing the "sin" is being judged as much as the sin is. It's human nature, the same reason communsism doesn't work. You can say all this shit, but let's face it... I lost my train of thought here, but it had something to do with no one being truly "catholic" if they're anti-gay.

Im i am sorry i just pstd sights about homosexuality and left all the evidence in the post above i belive it is you who has to prove homosexuality is harmeful or dangerous

Wrong, you have proven homosexuality can be harmful, but you have claimed that it is more harmful then heterosexuality. You have not proven your claim, it is not me place to prove your claim for you, in fact in legislators around the world your claim would be picked apart if no proof is all the proof you have. All things in life can be proven to be harmful it is a different matter all together to prove them more harmful then other things.

He's right, OMG! I'm tyoing, losing valuable dead skin cells to the surface of the keyboard. What's more, someone else could use this keyboard and pick up a teeny tiny bacterium, clinging to my dead skin cell. Then they could eat something, w/o washing their hands and get sick off the little bacterium and die.

See, anything can be proven to be harmful. God! I may never type again after that little scare.

· Today homosexual males account for 54% of all reported AIDS cases
On a world scale, categorically false. By far the majority of HIV cases today are among heterosexual Africans - in societies where homosexuality is a strong taboo. It's only the province of homosexuals in the Western world - and even there it's growing faster among the heterosexual population.

All these arguments I see you put forth are arguments against unsafe promiscuity in general - there's nothing specifically homosexual about them. Have you ever considered that a major reason why homosexual culture is promiscuous is because they're rejected by the conventional society that encourages stable relationships? If someone comes up to you and says 'Stable relationships are good. Homosexuality is EVIL' and you're gay, chances are you'll ignore everything he says because he's clearly an idiot.

Around 90% had used marijuana; over half had used cocaine; and about half had used LSD.
What the hell has this got to do with anything? Does this mean that if I can prove that more men than women engage in violent crime, that I should deny all men basic human rights because of this?

What you're arguing against isn't homosexuality but a lifestyle associated with it. It's like saying that we should ban all music because some musicians have unhealthy lifestyles.

The greatest risk factor for sexual transmission of the disease is receptive anal intercourse, in which the rectum is frequently torn.
Yeeeeah, and heterosexuals would never do anything of the sort. *cough cough*

ok here is one of the sights others will be comeing http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02&f=PG03I03 and another http://www.pathlights.com/Public%20Enemies/Homo-sheet.htm

Well the first site doesn't appear to exist (I can't access the specific page, and the internet saysthat www.frc.org dosn't exist - maybe you typed it wrong?), and the second clearly isn't the impartial, unbiased source that we demanded - come on, I'm not going to trust somebody who labels homosexuals public enemies to present the facts in a balanced manner.

You claimed to have gotten your statistics from the government.

I'm going to argue against your statistics now, mostly ignoring my doubts about their honesty.

6. The Homosexuals: Their Health

Due to their use of excretory organs for sex and their high level of promiscuity, homosexuals open themselves up to serious illnesses, some of which are unique to gays (e.g. "gay bowel disease," exotic ailments caught via anal sex).

· Jaffe's 1983 study of 170 male homosexuals found a striking array of diseases: 21

o 77% had contracted gonorrhea at some point in their lives;

o 44% had suffered from syphilis;

o Nearly 30% had been treated for parasitic diarrhea;

30% of all 20 year old gay men will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are age 30. 22

o The infection rate for infectious hepatitis B is 20-50 times greater for homosexual males than for heterosexual males. It is estimated that 1/2 to 3/4 of homosexual men have or have had this disease. 23

Homosexual men accounted for 13.2% of gonorrhea cases in 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The same study reported a frightening increase in the AIDS among gay men - an increase that statistically resembles the AIDS explosion of the 1980’s. 4.4 percent of gay and bisexual men ages 23-39 are newly infected with HIV each year. 24

· Today homosexual males account for 54% of all reported AIDS cases.26 The greatest risk factor for sexual transmission of the disease is receptive anal intercourse, in which the rectum is frequently torn. Even without tears, semen can easily penetrate the rectal wall, enter the blood stream and wreak havoc with the immune system.

o The cost of dealing with these health risks is difficult to calculate. The annual medical costs of caring for AIDS patients alone are expected to increase from $5 billion in 1990 to over $10 billion in 1993.

· Although AIDS has claimed the lives of so many homosexuals, large percentages of gays either fail to have themselves tested for the HIV (50% in a Los Angeles study) or continue to have sex with seropositive partners. The same Los Angeles report revealed several remarkable statistics for the 823 male subjects, including: 27

o 64% had engaged in "definitely" unsafe practices (e.g. unprotected anal intercourse in the past two months);

o 81% reported "possibly or definitely" unsafe sex in that same time;

o Only 9% restricted themselves to "definitely safe" activities (e.g. mutual masturbation);

What you're pointing out here is nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality itself, you're simply showing that when there is poor awareness of STDs, couples don't use the protection they should. And whose fault is this? Opposition to sex ed., essential for explaining these dangers, comes mainly from conservatives (esp. the Christian right), as does opposition to greater access to condoms.

And the 1983 study mentioned at the top has a pretty small sample, and as has been pointed out, there is no control group. This is not scientific.

And I will have to stray from not criticising the actual truthfulness of the numbers - as has already been pointed out, AIDS is actually more prevalent in heterosexuals now. Also, all of this refers to male homosexuality. Lesbians have some of the lowest occurence rates for STDs. Are you proposing that we ban male homosexuality but not female? Or can you present a case against that too (if you do try, please try and make it less shoddy than your case against male homosexuality)

o Around 90% had used marijuana; over half had used cocaine; and about half had used LSD.

o Between 25 and 33% of homosexuals are alcoholic (vs. 7-10% for the general population). 25

o 6% had used IV drugs, 3% had shared needles, 50% had smoked marijuana, 26% had used cocaine.

Again, I'd like a control group comparison for EVERY statistic. But anyway, I'll work for now with what you've given me.

So people who are likely to be sexually liberal (as in supporting greater sexual freedom and rights) are also likely to take a more liberal stance on drugs - big surprise! Again, this is nothing whatsoever to do with love that can exist between members of the same sex.

Plus, constant condemnation and a fear of coming out to friends and relatives who may be less than accepting is always going to be depressing, and many people are driven to drugs and alcohol by depression. So once again, I'm guessing that any drug-taking rates over and above heterosexual rates are at least partially the fault of those who shun and vilify homosexuals.

Quite apart from the fact that I believe it should be the individual's choice what he/she puts into his/her body, and that it's none of your or my business to judge them for it.

· The gay lifestyle profoundly affects the homosexual life span. A 1998 study suggested that a homosexual lifestyle, on the average, shortens one’s lifespan by roughly 20 years.

That's one study. Just one. Can you even show that it was done using proper methodology and peer-reviewed?

A perusal of gay publications shows that homosexuality revolves around bizarre and dangerous expressions of lust (cf. the revealingly named "You Can Do It All! Just Do It Safer," by the Gay Men's Health Crisis, Inc.).

I would imagine that many campaigns to encourage safe sex amongst heterosexuals have taken a similar strategy - you can't and shouldn't stop people certain engaging in consensual acts which you don't like, so the sensible thing to do is to compromise and encourage people to do so safely.

Oh, and next time you're at a newsagent's, "peruse" the top shelf for heterosexual publications, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of "expressions of lust", many of which will probably appear to you "bizarre and dangerous". You're condemning a public health campaign, which actually aims to alleviate some of the health problems that you've already complained about!

As has been pointed out, nowhere have you actually presented a case for condemning homosexuals. You've simply stated the obvious - that people need to use protection when they have sex, and that people who are shunned by large bigoted parts of society and often even their families will often turn to drugs and alcohol.

This discussion is getting out of hand.. The only thing I said about homosexuality is that the Gay Parade is an icon of the excessive lifestyle of people nowadays. Not in any way did I intend to discriminate anyone or start such a discussion. And let me give some of you a tip: don't make a post of a hundred sentences: keep it short, no one is going to read it.

Jeez here it is again since clicking you mouse on the Frc libk was too complicated

Jeez here it is again since clicking you mouse on the Frc libk was too complicated ohh and the other lnks wsa just showibng facts and I have already on other threads explained its immorality, and now I am just arguning it froma social view point and how it is a threat to societ and is not harmless

Jeez here it is again since clicking you mouse on the Frc libk was too complicated ohh and the other lnks wsa just showibng facts and I have already on other threads explained its immorality, and now I am just arguning it froma social view point and how it is a threat to societ and is not harmless http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02&f=PG03I03

Innocentius, I apologise for writing a lot, but when I feel strongly about something i'm not going to restrict my argument about it.

Of Portugal: I have clicked on the link repeatedly, and yet again it doesn't function. Can anyone else try it? Is it just my computer? And I'll thank you kindly not to insult my intelligence. I'm perfectly capable of clicking a link, the issue is the link's ability to send me where you want me to go.

You claim to have presented a case that homosexuality is a danger to society. But all your statistics do is (if they are actually true and not, as I suspect, suffering from bias and poor methodology) show that homosexuals' lifestyles may pose a danger to themselves and other homosexuals. And since all these acts and associations are consensual, the people who might risk getting hurt are all doing so of their own free will. Since this isn't really a situation in which exploitation could occur by allowing freedom to perform consensual acts, then I see no reason why we shouldn't allow people do to what they want (even if, as you claim, they are risking harming themselves).

I would like you to briefly summarise your case for homosexuality being immoral, or at least direct me to a thread where you have already done so, so that I can see what I'm arguing against. I'd also like you to respond to my question about female homosexuality - can you even begin to present a case against that?

Innocentius, I am sorry that this has gotten off-topic, but in an attempt to return to the original issue - please explain why it should be Christian morality, and not secular, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist morality, that is forced upon the world?

Jeez here it is again since clicking you mouse...

We'll trouble you not to take the Lord's name in vain, young man.

"We'll trouble you not to take the Lord's name in vain, young man."

*Snorts, sends coffe splattering into computer screen*

Bugger. Anyway... somewhere back on page 4 or 5, Of portugal asserted that RC faith is based on the 10 Commandments. RC churches appear to promote the image of Mary as an icon. A graven image, if you will. This is in direct contradiction of one of your Commandments. No wonder the Orthodox are so stricken with sadness at such woeful hypocracy from there Christian brethren.

Eastern Orthodoxy, I'm very glad you have contributed to this debate (slanging match?) - would you be able to clarify the 'graven images' issue? I understand it was a contributing factor in the Schism.

As I understand it (with a quick glance at the online Catholic Encyclopedia) the understanding is that Catholics worship the saints and Mary and so on, but don't adore them, which is reserved for God. Worship is defined as purely a token of profound respect.

Of course, in practise the distinction gets very blurred, and it seems likely that a significant proportion of people (particularly those who aren't theologians) will cross the line. Given the Catholics' predeliction for playing it safe, morally speaking, this seems something of an anomaly. Why go out of your way to find a loophole in the First Commandment, but condemn homosexuals on the basis of some obscure and defunct Levitican code? Makes no sense.

Ah, I see. It's just platonic.

tries not to snigger at the idea of a jealous God getting shirty over supposedly platonic relations

GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

:twisted:

GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

:twisted:

As much as I'd like to simply agree with you, if we're going to ask the theists to justify their statements we have to hold ourselves to the same standards.

Innocentius, I apologise for writing a lot, but when I feel strongly about something i'm not going to restrict my argument about it.

Of Portugal: I have clicked on the link repeatedly, and yet again it doesn't function. Can anyone else try it? Is it just my computer? And I'll thank you kindly not to insult my intelligence. I'm perfectly capable of clicking a link, the issue is the link's ability to send me where you want me to go.

You claim to have presented a case that homosexuality is a danger to society. But all your statistics do is (if they are actually true and not, as I suspect, suffering from bias and poor methodology) show that homosexuals' lifestyles may pose a danger to themselves and other homosexuals. And since all these acts and associations are consensual, the people who might risk getting hurt are all doing so of their own free will. Since this isn't really a situation in which exploitation could occur by allowing freedom to perform consensual acts, then I see no reason why we shouldn't allow people do to what they want (even if, as you claim, they are risking harming themselves).

I would like you to briefly summarise your case for homosexuality being immoral, or at least direct me to a thread where you have already done so, so that I can see what I'm arguing against. I'd also like you to respond to my question about female homosexuality - can you even begin to present a case against that?

Innocentius, I am sorry that this has gotten off-topic, but in an attempt to return to the original issue - please explain why it should be Christian morality, and not secular, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist morality, that is forced upon the world?

I have an answer to your question- Because it is the Judeo-Christian morality with regard to the sanctity of life and social institutions upon which human civilization was built and without which it can not continue.

And Buddhism, Hinduism and Daoism, among many others, also regard life as sacred. And civilisations were built on those, too, in some cases well before Judeo-Christianity came on the scene.

Altruism is necessary for civilisation, yes, but I find it bizarre that Judeo-Christians think they have the monopoly on it. Your position is, quite frankly, unsustainable.

Hey while they are saying all of this, why don't they also release the missing books of the bible, or why don't they explain what the Celestial Kingdom is while they are at it, and they could restart baptizms for the dead.

Hey while they are saying all of this, why don't they also release the missing books of the bible, or why don't they explain what the Celestial Kingdom is while they are at it, and they could restart baptizms for the dead.

There are no "missing" books, there are books that were deemed unworthy of the Bible by the Council of Nicea. The books included in the Bible are the word of God via the Holy Spirit via man.

The Judeo Christian morality is the one on which our Justice and Social systems are founded. Erosion of those morals results directly in the erosion of society.

In part. In part they owe a lot to the Greek ethical thinkers, the atheist Utilitarians, the legal codes of the Indus Valley civilisations... as I said, you don't have anything like a monopoly.

"All I can say is precisely! No person is more able or advanced than the Pontiff. "Reason" is an opiate, some things defy all human reason. The Pope, granted Holy Wisdom, is the closest we as humans have in interpreting the word of the Lord.

Archbishop Pares
Leader of the First Estate

Kingdom of Phillipsania and her Dominions

Absolutely untrue, my son. We are in direct descent from the Holy Apostles, without changing their teachings in the slightest bit, unlike our misguided brother, the bishop of Rome. The Roman Church has been in error since A.D. 1054, adding to and taking away from the great repository of Truth without regard for Holy Scripture. We would never wish to subject the Church to such action.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself when he made Peter the first Pope. The Eastern Orthodox Church chose to remove itself from the Pope's authority, which was a mistake, as he is a vessel of the Holy Spirit on Earth. Nevertheless they are still God fearing people (if somewhat misguided), and they are seen as close allies and friends of the Catholic Church. We plan on meeting many of our Eastern friends when we are finally united in the love of the Father.

The facts lead us to conclude that homosexual behavior is inherently perverse and unhealthy.

Now tell me, why is homosexuality more dangerous? Is it something unique to the 'situation', or is it caused by something external?

if homosexuals have, on average, more diseases than heterosexuals, is this merely because of their homosexuality, or is it because of a combination of:

A: generally insufficient education on the risks of unprotected sex and the avoidance of such
and
B: the social stogma attached to homosexuality causing depressions and a sense of fatalism in homosexuals?


To summarize, you may have pointed out that problems excists with homosexuals (hurrah for you), but the question remains; Do these problems come from within, or without?

Homosexuality, just like cloning and abortion, is a dissolution of the foundation of society. A study just released in Sweden shows that gay couples divorce at a rate 50% higher than normal couples, and lesbians divorce at a staggering 160% higher rate. If we allow such trends to continue, society will eventually deteriorate into a brutish mass.

"Curiously enough, the only thought that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was "Oh no, not again"." - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy.

I can now say I have at least one more thing in common with the humble bowl of petunias.

:roll:


Here here... and I'm devoutly Catholic. :?


Homosexuality, just like cloning and abortion, is a dissolution of the foundation of society. A study just released in Sweden shows that gay couples divorce at a rate 50% higher than normal couples, and lesbians divorce at a staggering 160% higher rate. If we allow such trends to continue, society will eventually deteriorate into a brutish mass.

Who's going to break the bad news to him that homosexuality's existed throughout the millenia and society's still functioning?

Anyway... somewhere back on page 4 or 5, Of portugal asserted that RC faith is based on the 10 Commandments. RC churches appear to promote the image of Mary as an icon. A graven image, if you will. This is in direct contradiction of one of your Commandments. No wonder the Orthodox are so stricken with sadness at such woeful hypocracy from there Christian brethren.

Eastern Orthodoxy, I'm very glad you have contributed to this debate (slanging match?) - would you be able to clarify the 'graven images' issue? I understand it was a contributing factor in the Schism.

Although I don't understand the Orthodoxy's take on the matter, I somewhat know my own faith's (although technically I'm a heretic because I believe homos are people, but we won't go into that). We do not so much worchip the icons, statues etc. as recognize them as being holy and favored by God. Therefore, we ask them to intercede for us with the big guy upstairs, I guess in hopes that He will listen to them more than he would to us. I personally don't risk crossing the line between praying for intercesion and idol worship. I address my prayers to the Big Cheese, Himself, and occasionally to Jesus Christ (Superstar!)

EO, how does your sect feel about the homosexual issue? (apologies if you've already mentioned it and I just wasn't paying attention)

Well I tried both the libks and they both work and the site gives straightforward facts with sightings from goverment research and thats pretty sad if you have to say the libk doesnt work to defend yourself. oh and vivleo I nvr said homos arent ppl jeez. U must nvr had read any of my post they are ppl but their actions are wrong.

Hey while they are saying all of this, why don't they also release the missing books of the bible, or why don't they explain what the Celestial Kingdom is while they are at it, and they could restart baptizms for the dead.

There are no "missing" books, there are books that were deemed unworthy of the Bible by the Council of Nicea. The books included in the Bible are the word of God via the Holy Spirit via man.

The Judeo Christian morality is the one on which our Justice and Social systems are founded. Erosion of those morals results directly in the erosion of society.

The States of Stephenson fully agree with this assessment. While we are a predomintly Christian nation, we see the correlation between the erosion of morals and society. Those who claim that God does not exist do not understand that some nations base thier entire governments on these morals that God and religion stand for. If there are nations that choose to ignore morals and religion, then that is their right as a soverign nation, but do not expect the entire world to embrace your views. This goes the same for the religious nations. As free peoples, we cannot always expect others to agree with us.

I understand that the assertion "Jesus Christ himself... made Peter the first Pope" is somewhat open to debate. Pavia, I disagree with you on, er, everything you've said.

Of Portugal, the link does not work on my computer. Repeated attempts have shown only "page cannot be found" errors. Don't accuse me of lying and cowardice. Can somebody else try the link?

Pavia, why should anyone but the couples involved give a damn about homosexual divorce rates?

And it is nothing short of narrow-minded, ethnocentric, and, quite frankly, ignorant, to claim that "it is the Judeo-Christian morality with regard to the sanctity of life and social institutions upon which human civilization was built and without which it can not continue". As has been pointed out, eastern civilisations were not based on judaism or christianity. Rich and colourful civilisations and cultures emerged in Africa and the Americas before being crushed by christian colonialists. For a long time, the Islamic middle east carried the torch of science while European Christianity went through the Dark Ages (they only caught up in some areas by stealing technologies and ideas while on the Crusades), and to the best of my knowledge China was well in advance of Europe for long periods of history. All major religions have a respect for human life and social institutions, so Judeo-Christian systems don't have the monopoly you claim. And secular philosophies can be just as good:

Abandoning religion as a basis for government does not automatically mean abandoning morality as a basis for government. It just means that ideas about ethics must actually be justified before they can be set down in law. And that's no bad thing. I don't need to believe in God to recognise the inherent value of every human life, or to know that it's wrong to steal, or to respect democracy in government and society. Why should government be incapable of functioning ethically without a judeo-christian basis if I and so many others are not?

There has never been a downfall of a society or civilisation attributable to homosexuality or anything similar (sodom and gomorrah does not count unless you can produce some other evidence than scripture, or you can prove the accuracy of scripture). However, the history books are full of examples where religion has been very effective at causing destruction and war, and Christian colonialists (often working on the belief that they were spreading god's word) have destroyed and even enslaved numerous civilisations and societies.

As has been pointed out, eastern civilisations were not based on judaism or christianity.

All morality ultimately comes from God and is laid out for man in the Bible. It is arrogant and sinful to think that humans can fabricate their own idea of morality, as today's "secularists" would have you believe.

Its amazing how everyone stoped talking about homosexuality after I gace that sight :lol:

I have an answer to your question- Because it is the Judeo-Christian morality with regard to the sanctity of life and social institutions upon which human civilization was built and without which it can not continue.

It is a provable fact that civilization existed long before monotheism.

The Judeo Christian morality is the one on which our Justice and Social systems are founded. Erosion of those morals results directly in the erosion of society.

Absolutely wrong, modern justice and social systems are founded in the laws of Hammarabi, a king who was most decidedly not a christion or a jew...in fact he died centuries before either was ever conceived.

Its amazing how everyone stoped talking about homosexuality after I gace that sight :lol:

Maybe if you weren't so pompous about the subject people would still be talking about it. What's the point of discussing it when you have the preconcieved notion that it's wrong and won't even listen if someone argues against you? You can't even prove it properly. You never presented a control group. There's a bunch of other complaints about your style of debate that make people ignore you completely. I might restart the debate, but Frankly, I don't care. I have my belief, and I don't have to prove it to you.

But if you truly want us to continue talking about it, tell me: Why did God make the gays gay?

Its amazing how everyone stoped talking about homosexuality after I gace that sight :lol:

I gave up because your site wouldn't work, you wouldn't present any actual debate - only cut-and-paste statistics that, as has been pointed out, are based on poor methodologies - and because of your sheer arrogance, especially your claims that I lied about the website failing to function and this claim that we are too scared. The topic has changed because you seem incapable of offering yourself as a proper opponent to debate with.

All morality ultimately comes from God and is laid out for man in the Bible. It is arrogant and sinful to think that humans can fabricate their own idea of morality, as today's "secularists" would have you believe.

If you're claiming that the eastern civilisations' moral systems were inspired by god but perhaps not in quite as pure a form as christianity's, what about Buddhism? It contains much morality but (as far as I know) does not believe in any deity being in charge.

In fact, perhaps you could back up that statement with some kind of argument? Some kind of proof that the Bible actually is the word of god?

Until you do, I can't see what's wrong with my secular morality.

All morality ultimately comes from God and is laid out for man in the Bible. It is arrogant and sinful to think that humans can fabricate their own idea of morality, as today's "secularists" would have you believe.

Assuming of course that you are correct in your assertions. Which you may not be.

Gah, why bother? I'd have better luck if I was a vampire seeking sustenance from a stone...

Why did my call for decent behaviour turn out to become a discussion about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality? There are other forums that discuss that problem... All I have to say is that God created sins for people would experience his mercy.

pointless debate, pointless arguements. This was never going to reach quorum anyway, so I'm not seeing the point of debating with religous fanatics.

As has been pointed out, eastern civilisations were not based on judaism or christianity.

All morality ultimately comes from God and is laid out for man in the Bible. It is arrogant and sinful to think that humans can fabricate their own idea of morality, as today's "secularists" would have you believe.

What makes you say this? Oh right, it's in the bible. :roll:
And the bible is right because it's the word of god, and it's the word of god because that's what it says in the bible.

Sometimes I wonder why so many people are allowed out of the sanitorium.

And the bible is right because it's the word of god, and it's the word of god because that's what it says in the bible.

I always find myself pointing this out too! Have you ever had a reasonable response to this?

Why did my call for decent behaviour turn out to become a discussion about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality? There are other forums that discuss that problem... All I have to say is that God created sins for people would experience his mercy.

We started talking about it because it's one of the most controversial issues of behaviour that what you proposed would affect. But now that we've lost patience with Of Portugal's refusal to debate properly, it's really shifted to the legitimacy of using Judeo-Christian ethics as a basis for legislative morality - which is related to your original proposal because it attempted to have governments acknowledge the Pope as an authority to be heeded and respected.

And the bible is right because it's the word of god, and it's the word of god because that's what it says in the bible.

I always find myself pointing this out too! Have you ever had a reasonable response to this?

I dunno, are 'You're mean!', 'You're intolerant!', 'You're a liberal!' or 'Baagh snub grog arg flub flub flub' reasonable arguments?

And the bible is right because it's the word of god, and it's the word of god because that's what it says in the bible.

I always find myself pointing this out too! Have you ever had a reasonable response to this?

I dunno, are 'You're mean!', 'You're intolerant!', 'You're a liberal!' or 'Baagh snub grog arg flub flub flub' reasonable arguments?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And the bible is right because it's the word of god, and it's the word of god because that's what it says in the bible.

I always find myself pointing this out too! Have you ever had a reasonable response to this?

I dunno, are 'You're mean!', 'You're intolerant!', 'You're a liberal!' or 'Baagh snub grog arg flub flub flub' reasonable arguments?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

is that a 'no'?

'Baagh snub grog arg flub flub flub'

Ah...that old chestnut. Irrefutable, really.

There are no "missing" books, there are books that were deemed unworthy of the Bible by the Council of Nicea. The books included in the Bible are the word of God via the Holy Spirit via man.

so your bible contains the book of jasher then? {joshua 10:13, 2 samuel 1:18} and all of the other books that are explicitly mentioned in the bible that my copy seems to be missing?

and then there is the synoptic problem...

Its amazing how everyone stoped talking about homosexuality after I gace that sight :lol:

Maybe if you weren't so pompous about the subject people would still be talking about it. What's the point of discussing it when you have the preconcieved notion that it's wrong and won't even listen if someone argues against you? You can't even prove it properly. You never presented a control group. There's a bunch of other complaints about your style of debate that make people ignore you completely. I might restart the debate, but Frankly, I don't care. I have my belief, and I don't have to prove it to you.

But if you truly want us to continue talking about it, tell me: Why did God make the gays gay?

Well if I have to explain the bible to you then you are a pretty bad catholic. Anyway it says in there the reason I have the exact quotation but if you know the bible well enough you can find it. 8)

Its amazing how everyone stoped talking about homosexuality after I gace that sight :lol:

Maybe if you weren't so pompous about the subject people would still be talking about it. What's the point of discussing it when you have the preconcieved notion that it's wrong and won't even listen if someone argues against you? You can't even prove it properly. You never presented a control group. There's a bunch of other complaints about your style of debate that make people ignore you completely. I might restart the debate, but Frankly, I don't care. I have my belief, and I don't have to prove it to you.

But if you truly want us to continue talking about it, tell me: Why did God make the gays gay?

Well if I have to explain the bible to you then you are a pretty bad catholic. Anyway it says in there the reason I have the exact quotation but if you know the bible well enough you can find it. 8). ohh and maybe you wont argue with me because you are unable to argue your point!

Its amazing how everyone stoped talking about homosexuality after I gace that sight :lol:

I gave up because your site wouldn't work, you wouldn't present any actual debate - only cut-and-paste statistics that, as has been pointed out, are based on poor methodologies - and because of your sheer arrogance, especially your claims that I lied about the website failing to function and this claim that we are too scared. The topic has changed because you seem incapable of offering yourself as a proper opponent to debate with.

All morality ultimately comes from God and is laid out for man in the Bible. It is arrogant and sinful to think that humans can fabricate their own idea of morality, as today's "secularists" would have you believe.

If you're claiming that the eastern civilisations' moral systems were inspired by god but perhaps not in quite as pure a form as christianity's, what about Buddhism? It contains much morality but (as far as I know) does not believe in any deity being in charge.

In fact, perhaps you could back up that statement with some kind of argument? Some kind of proof that the Bible actually is the word of god?

Until you do, I can't see what's wrong with my secular morality.

haha nice defeance the link doesnt work. thats funny you have to lie when you see the true facts what poor debator. Im guessing you are liberal by how you argue.

Maybe this is a case for the age old argument of,

PLEASE KEEP RELIGION

OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD PEOPLE !

"Can you dig it?" :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

I agree. The United Nations was founded with one of its ideas as to NOT favor any religion or religious lacking thereof.

"Herschel, you hear 'bout that pope fella' with the resolution?"
"Guy with the pointy hat right?"
"Yeah, but that's not the..."
"I had a hat like that once."
"That's nice, but..."
"In my day all hats were pointy. You didn't hear about anyone sitting on your hat in the good ol' times."
"The pope is gonna..."
"We used to have pointy umbrellas too."

I'll give a few (very few) pointers regarding Orthodoxy and its position on this subjuct:

Orthodoxy, unlike Roman Catholicism and Western Christianity in general, is not primarily concerned with the Fall of Man; we believe that man is basically good, but misguided, and as such, needs to be put on the "right" or "true" way...i.e., "orthos" (correct/right) "doxos" (praise/worship). Unlike our poor brother, the pope, we do not need to become a clashing cymbal or a booming drum; we feel that by living rightly, loving God and every man (and woman) as an image of God, we can heal the world.

Regarding the images: the Saints are given "dulia"(veneration); the Ever-Virgin Theotokos (Mother of God) is given "hyperdulia"(great veneration), but ONLY God is given "latria" (worship). The ikon is a physical manifestation; more than just an "image", more like a mirror, of the thing it represents. When we bow and kiss the sacred ikon of the Crucifixion (as an example), our hearts and minds are not focussed on the wood, metal, and paint of which the image is made, but on the Reality behind that image. When we look upon an image of St. Athanasius and ask him to pray before the Throne of the Eternal, we are focussing on that great communion of all the Saints, both alive and dead; it is the same as asking a living friend to pray for us, to intercede with God on our behalf.

Regarding homosexuality: we have stated this before, and will say it again: our duty on earth is *not* to judge each other. God and God alone can judge, because He is the only One for Whom judgement is possible. He stands outside of time and space and encompasses within Himself all of reality; therefore He and only He can see all things in their true perspective. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, then pray for those who are homosexual. If you *act* as if it is wrong, by punishing or discriminating or otherwise standing in judgement, then you are not only usurping the unique power of God, but are behaving contrary to the way that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ DEMANDS that you act if you claim Him as your own. He spoke judgement to the Scribes and Pharisees, but He is God. He orders us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, have mercy to the sinner, take care of widows and orphans; He demands our absolute and *unconditional* love for even those that would harm us. He demands this because He has shown this same love to us. Without it, the great pillar of pure and holy love that gives us our being, then even the pope on his chair, we, the patriarch on our throne, are nothing more than animate dust, cold and alone.

"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." - 1 John 4:7,8

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him." - 1 John 4:16


Is this spirit reflected in our poor brother the Pope's words? In "Of Portugal" 's posts? We would suggest to them that they look upon the Ikon of the Saviour on the Cross, meditate upon His great work, and turn to their gay brothers and sisters with tears of repentance and love. We would suggest to them that they roll up their sleeves and work in an AIDS hospice, giving care and love to those whom caring and loving are denied by a cruel and inhospitable world; we suggest to them that they fulfill the scriptures:


"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." - St. Luke 6:38

We do not presume to make political statements, but when our brother the pope insists upon trying to form the world in his own image, we gently remind him that God has already made the world, in His Image. We are merely stewards, entrusted with a precious gift. Let us lead the nations in love and respect, not in fear and humiliation.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

Its amazing how everyone stoped talking about homosexuality after I gace that sight :lol:

I gave up because your site wouldn't work, you wouldn't present any actual debate - only cut-and-paste statistics that, as has been pointed out, are based on poor methodologies - and because of your sheer arrogance, especially your claims that I lied about the website failing to function and this claim that we are too scared. The topic has changed because you seem incapable of offering yourself as a proper opponent to debate with.

All morality ultimately comes from God and is laid out for man in the Bible. It is arrogant and sinful to think that humans can fabricate their own idea of morality, as today's "secularists" would have you believe.

If you're claiming that the eastern civilisations' moral systems were inspired by god but perhaps not in quite as pure a form as christianity's, what about Buddhism? It contains much morality but (as far as I know) does not believe in any deity being in charge.

In fact, perhaps you could back up that statement with some kind of argument? Some kind of proof that the Bible actually is the word of god?

Until you do, I can't see what's wrong with my secular morality.

haha nice defeance the link doesnt work. thats funny you have to lie when you see the true facts what poor debator. Im guessing you are liberal by how you argue.

At least he argues...

"All I can say is precisely! No person is more able or advanced than the Pontiff. "Reason" is an opiate, some things defy all human reason. The Pope, granted Holy Wisdom, is the closest we as humans have in interpreting the word of the Lord.

Archbishop Pares
Leader of the First Estate

Kingdom of Phillipsania and her Dominions

Absolutely untrue, my son. We are in direct descent from the Holy Apostles, without changing their teachings in the slightest bit, unlike our misguided brother, the bishop of Rome. The Roman Church has been in error since A.D. 1054, adding to and taking away from the great repository of Truth without regard for Holy Scripture. We would never wish to subject the Church to such action.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself when he made Peter the first Pope. The Eastern Orthodox Church chose to remove itself from the Pope's authority, which was a mistake, as he is a vessel of the Holy Spirit on Earth. Nevertheless they are still God fearing people (if somewhat misguided), and they are seen as close allies and friends of the Catholic Church. We plan on meeting many of our Eastern friends when we are finally united in the love of the Father.

My brother Pavia, and all my brothers and sisters in the nations:

The title "pope", from the Greek "papa", was an honorific afforded every single bishop in the Christian world in the first three centuries A.D. That the bishop of Rome has taken it as his "title" is his own business, and has no theological importance whatsoever. To us, he is our brother, the bishop of Rome. Our Saviour made the Confession of St. Peter ("Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God") the foundation upon which the Church was built. The Orthodox Church can claim unbroken descent from all Twelve of the Apostles, and as such, has inherited the Spirit of Truth in an unbroken and unsullied line from Christ. It was the bishop of Rome, not content with being "primus inter pares", who declared himself the sole arbiter of the Church, contrary to every previous act in the history of the Church. The whole Church, not just the pope, is the repository of the Truth, and the whole Church, in Council, is led by the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church has not moved. We constitute the "catholic" (small "c" meaning "universal") Church...it is the "Roman" Catholic church which, throughout the centuries, has split from the trunk of the Church.

Ecopia: the single most important issue in the Schism of Rome from Orthodoxy was the "filioque" ("and the Son") clause; in the Nicene Creed the original formula regarding the Holy Spirit is that He "proceeds from the Father"; the Roman church began adding the phrase "and the Son", which was condemned in Council. The early period of the Christian church was troubled by a number of dissensions about the nature and relationship of the three Persons of the Trinity. In the West the Holy Spirit was seen as coming from the Father and the Son, though subordinate to neither. In the Eastern part of the undivided Catholic church the Holy Spirit was seen as originating from the Father alone, although the Son sent the Holy Spirit under the title paraclete. The phrase"filioque" was first added to the Nicene Creed at the Synod of Toledo in Spain in 447. The formula was used in a letter from Pope Leo I to the members of that synod, responding to heresies they were confronting. At the third synod of Toledo in 589, the ruling Visigoths, who had been Arian Christians submitted to the Catholic Church and were obliged to accept the Nicene Creed with the filioque. The Eastern Orthodox churches refuse to accept a formula which we see as an alteration in doctrine.

Although the second Ecumenical Council had amended the Nicene Creed, the third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus in 431, had forbidden any further changes to it. In the ninth century, Pope Leo III agreed to the filioque clause theologically, but was opposed to adopting it in worship in Rome, and insisted on using the Nicene Creed in Mass in Rome as it was expressed at the Council of Ephesus and all the Ecumenical Councils up until that time, i.e., WITHOUT the filioque. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine, a related issue was the right of the Pope to unilaterally make a change to the Nicene Creed, as opposed to having an Ecumenical Council define the Creed.

I see a strong correlation between the arrogance of the bishop of Rome in the past with what our poor brother Innocentius is doing here with his "covenant"; a unilateral usurpation of power unacceptable to the whole Church.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

And the bible is right because it's the word of god, and it's the word of god because that's what it says in the bible.

I always find myself pointing this out too! Have you ever had a reasonable response to this?



How's this for a resonable response. Can you prove that the bible wasn't divinely inspired?

There is only one God for every human being on this earth, only the Jews call him Jahweh and the muslims call him Allah. When you believe in multiple gods, you propably see the works of nature as seperate gods.

The Papal authority of all catholics can be found in the 'Donatio Constantini' in which Emperor Constantine gives the Pope the supreme authority over his realm, for he acknowledges his mortality and his subjected status to God. The pope is the servant of God on earth, the brigde between heaven and earth (the pontifex) and therefore has the MORAL supremacy over all christain subjects superceding the authority of the national leaders.

Unfortunately for my poor brother the pope, the document of which Innocentius speaks was proven a forgery several centuries ago.
The document known to us as the Donation of Constantine is one of the most famous medieval forgeries. Written sometime c. A.D. 750, it was embedded in the Forged Decretals in the early 9th century, and so drifted into the main collections of legal material used in the Middle Ages, including Gratian's Decretum. In the absence of a stable political environment in Italy from the collapse ofthe Roman empire to the establishment of the modern Italian state, the papacy was obliged to provide for its own security. The document was used to justify it doing so. The text purports to be a legal document issued bythe Emperor Constantine, transferring control of Italy and the western provinces to Pope Sylvester in gratitude for being cured of leprosy. The Renaissance Popes, whose spiritual role seemed often secondary to their function as the heads of a minor Italian state, used it extensively to oppose the territorial ambitions of the great powers and support their own.

The Donation of Constantine ("Constitutum Donatio Constantini") is a fraudulent Roman imperial edict, supposedly issued by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 324, which purported to grant Pope Sylvester I and his successors sovereignty and spiritual authority over Rome, Italy, and the entire Western Roman Empire. The legend claims that the donation was Constantine's reward to Sylvester for curing him of leprosy by a miracle. Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople, which became the centre of power of the Eastern Roman Empire, later the Byzantine Empire. Were the document genuine, the popes would have ruled as emperors in the West; a succession of Western Emperors who were not popes after Constantine suggests that the document was false. The Popes used the Donation to bolster their powers and their territorial claims as prince bishops in medieval Italy. The Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla proved in 1440 that the Donation could not be genuine by analysing its language, and showing that the Latin in the document could not have been written in the year 324.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:
"This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known and demonstrated. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (De Concordantiâ Catholicâ, III, ii, in the Basle ed. of his Opera, 1565, I) spoke of it as a dictamen apocryphum. Some years later (1440) Lorenzo Valla (De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, Mainz, 1518) proved the forgery with certainty. Independently of both his predecessors, Reginald Pecocke, Bishop of Chichester (1450-57), reached a similar conclusion in his work, "The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy", Rolls Series, II, 351-366. Its genuinity was yet occasionally defended, and the document still further used as authentic, until Baronius in his "Annales Ecclesiastici" (ad an. 324) admitted that the "Donatio" was a forgery, whereafter it was soon universally admitted to be such. It is so clearly a fabrication that there is no reason to wonder that, with the revival of historical criticism in the fifteenth century, the true character of the document was at once recognized."

So if my poor brother the pope wishes to base his temporal power on a forgery, he will find himself, once more, adrift without purpose.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

First of all, the Pope is not your poor brother!

Second, the authority of the Pope is based on the same principle a king acquires his authority: the acceptance of the people and the traditions of history. The Pope has always been elected by a group of very wise men, the cardinals, who obtained their positions through a magnificent carreer. The newly elected Pope is therefore the most wise man of them all and he continues the tradition of Saint Peter, functioning as the representative of God on earth.

Yes, the Donatio Constantini was indeed a forgery, but that does not prove nor refute the authority of the Pope on world politics.

Signed,
The Chancellor of State,
Lothario Conti de Segni

Postscriptum, we thank Phillipsania for his noble support

Innocentius wrote:
There is only one God for every human being on this earth, only the Jews call him Jahweh and the muslims call him Allah. When you believe in multiple gods, you propably see the works of nature as seperate gods.

The Papal authority of all catholics can be found in the 'Donatio Constantini' in which Emperor Constantine gives the Pope the supreme authority over his realm, for he acknowledges his mortality and his subjected status to God. The pope is the servant of God on earth, the brigde between heaven and earth (the pontifex) and therefore has the MORAL supremacy over all christain subjects superceding the authority of the national leaders.

just so you know the muslims do not share the same God as Catholics they say they do but they dont. We believe in the trinity in one whereas they dont believe in the trinty and is therefore not the same God.

Innocentius wrote:
There is only one God for every human being on this earth, only the Jews call him Jahweh and the muslims call him Allah. When you believe in multiple gods, you propably see the works of nature as seperate gods.

The Papal authority of all catholics can be found in the 'Donatio Constantini' in which Emperor Constantine gives the Pope the supreme authority over his realm, for he acknowledges his mortality and his subjected status to God. The pope is the servant of God on earth, the brigde between heaven and earth (the pontifex) and therefore has the MORAL supremacy over all christain subjects superceding the authority of the national leaders.

just so you know the muslims do not share the same God as Catholics they say they do but they dont. We believe in the trinity in one whereas they dont believe in the trinty and is therefore not the same God.

My dear brother de Segni:

One of Innocentius' own followers, "Of Portugal", wrote the following:

"The Papal authority of all catholics can be found in the 'Donatio Constantini' in which Emperor Constantine gives the Pope the supreme authority over his realm, for he acknowledges his mortality and his subjected status to God. The pope is the servant of God on earth, the brigde between heaven and earth (the pontifex) and therefore has the MORAL supremacy over all christain subjects superceding the authority of the national leaders."

yet, you write:

"Yes, the Donatio Constantini was indeed a forgery, but that does not prove nor refute the authority of the Pope on world politics."

So which of you is correct? You also state that the papal chair has "always" been filled by a "group of very wise men, the cardinals, who obtained their positions through a magnificent career."

Shall we remind you of some of your history? It was not until the Lateran Synod of 1059 that Pope Nicholas II decreed ("In Nomine Domini") that the pope was to be elected by the cardinal bishops. That is not exactly "always", is it? It was not until 1130 that *all* cardinals took part in papal elections.
As far as "magnificent careers", we must assume you did not mean to include Giovanni Cardinal de Medici, appointed to the cardinalcy at the mature age of 13. In 1505, after securing the papal chair with the help of lavish bribes and promises of appointments, Pope Julius II published a bull declaring papal elections to be nullified by simony (the promising and/or giving of offices and/or money in return for favors). In 1591, the antics surrounding papal elections were so ridiculous that Pope Gregory XIV had to officially ban all betting (by cardinals) on papal elections, the length of a new pontificate, and on whom was going to be created cardinal.

With these instances in mind (and there are hundreds throughout the history of the papacy and the cardinalcy), we humbly suggest that our poor brother the pope think very carefully upon the path he is treading. We call him, once again, to repentance and submission to the Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We feel that he should heed the Gospel which says:

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." - St. Matthew 6:19-21

+Theophilus, Patriarch

"Well, the Donation of Constantine as a document is indeed a forgery. As an exact object, I am in accordance with that statement. However, I do believe the Emperor Constantine in action/spirit allowed for the transfer of Rome to the Pontiff. The document, indeed well meaning, was meant to represent on paper what eventually became a fact, namely Papal Supremacy Over Rome."

Archbishop Pares
Cardinal of Phillipsania
First Estate

This is the President of the Commonwealth of Rose on the Issue of the Catholic Covenant:

Pope, papa. I am a devout Catholic, I follow the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I would like to say, and I'm sorry if I sound heritical but, HAVE YOU GONE MAD! The politics are different then from today. If we were to make that proposal or resolution past, the amount of money wasted would be maddening. Imagine hidden Jews worshiping Yaweh. Or Muslisms hiding in cemetaries. Then we have to send out soldiers to get them out and kill them. Also, the amount of riots would be insane. And it's just not the money either. What about the Protestants or the cults. That would be against all civil rights. Please Pope, reconsider your proposal, it would be like Revelations... and we don't want that do we? I am ready to get ex-communicated now.

President Sergei Ilyanov of the Commonwealth of Rose.


P.S. Relgion should not be involved in the matters of the United Nations, I say we stop debating. Thank you.

"Well, the Donation of Constantine as a document is indeed a forgery. As an exact object, I am in accordance with that statement. However, I do believe the Emperor Constantine in action/spirit allowed for the transfer of Rome to the Pontiff. The document, indeed well meaning, was meant to represent on paper what eventually became a fact, namely Papal Supremacy Over Rome."

Archbishop Pares
Cardinal of Phillipsania
First Estate

Unfortunately, my dear brother Pares, the Emperor Constantine I died in May of A.D. 337, and the Donation forgery was not written until some 400 years later; we do not see how it would be possible for him to have overseen in either action or spirit the idea of papal supremacy. He himself would never have allowed it; he considered himself, as Emperor, the "Equal of the Apostles" and the "Vice-Gerent of God on Earth", titles which would certainly not be in much harmony with claims of papal supremacy. The striving of our poor brother the pope and his predecessors for temporal power over the centuries is a sad and dangerous thing to see; this so-called "covenant" is simply one more step from the Truth of the Gospel that keeps the Roman church in the shadow of the Light. Remember that we are told:

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king." - I Peter 2:13-17

Is this the blueprint for world domination? Spiritually, YES. Temporally, NO. If we would change the world, we must *live* the Gospel, not *legislate* it. If there is anything that we have learned in dealing with the world, it is that people must be led by example, not pummelled into submission by laws.

We extend our apologies to President Ilyanov, but we cannot allow these thoughts to go unanswered.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

And the bible is right because it's the word of god, and it's the word of god because that's what it says in the bible.

I always find myself pointing this out too! Have you ever had a reasonable response to this?



How's this for a resonable response. Can you prove that the bible wasn't divinely inspired?

Yes! You're right! Since we can't prove the bible was not divinely inspired, we should all follow it's instructions! Huzzah! :roll:

Wait! I can't prove Duke Nukem 3D wasn't divinely inspired, we should follow that instead! Or maybe we should follow the Smurfs, or a potatoe, or clouds, or...


Now, anyone else have a *reasonable* response?

Heh, quite pointless I say. Who's to enforce this act? If it even occurs, I'll just resign from the UN.

Yes but then again why live your life by a book?!...a freakin book. Wow I'm sure when I got married that if my wife had come with a manual maybe life at certain points would be easier. However in essance, action makes character and so do decisions when we really do not know what to do. that in my eyes is the mark of true enlightenment/ intelligence. Here is an excellent quote from an infamous voice of our American century:
"...Turn back the pages of history and see the men who have shaped the destiny of the world. Security was never theirs, but they lived rather than existed. Where would the world be if all men sought securityand had not taken risks? or gambeled with their lives on the chance that, if they won, life would be different and richer? It is from the bystanders (who are in the vast majority) that we recieve the propaganda that life is not is not worth living , that life is drudgery,..These are the ones who sqeeze the excitement they can from life out of the imaginations and experiances of others through BOOKS, and movies. These are the insignifigant and forgotten men who preach conformity because it is all they know,... They lacked the only true courage : the kind which enables men to face the unknown regardless of the consequences. In closing: "Who is the happier man, he who has braved the storm of life and lived, or he who has stayed securley on shore and merely existed?" - Hunter S. Thompson
Nuff said!

And the bible is right because it's the word of god, and it's the word of god because that's what it says in the bible.

I always find myself pointing this out too! Have you ever had a reasonable response to this?



How's this for a resonable response. Can you prove that the bible wasn't divinely inspired?

Yes! You're right! Since we can't prove the bible was not divinely inspired, we should all follow it's instructions! Huzzah! :roll:

Wait! I can't prove Duke Nukem 3D wasn't divinely inspired, we should follow that instead! Or maybe we should follow the Smurfs, or a potatoe, or clouds, or...


Now, anyone else have a *reasonable* response?

Unfortunately, my son, there is no other response. The Bible is entirely self-referential; i.e., it proclaims that it is itself the inspired Word of God. External exegesis cannot prove divine inspiration for *anything*, and although we tend to frown upon answers like Harkartopia's comment about "Duke Nukem 3D", it actually strikes closer to the truth than it may seem.
Therein lies the difficulty; even Christ Himself said that the single most important "proof" that exists is that we (Christians) "love one another even as I have loved you. By this shall men know ye..." and in the Epistle of James is written "...faith without works is dead." Our duty, as Christians, is to be a light of the world, the salt of the earth, a city upon a hill: we should be so full of the love of God that others will *want* to be like us. This and this alone can "prove" the Scriptures to be the Word of God they claim to be. This is why we, as Patriarch, must stand in opposition to our brother the pope. Once again we declare that men (and women) cannot be forced by legislation to be what we want them to be. We must lead by example.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

You may tell members of your religion to do whatever you want, but don't expect it to have any effect on a nation with an overwhelming pagan majority, such as Callisdrun. Therefore, Callisdrun will continue to allow homosexual marriages, will continue to let its citizens practice paganism, will continue to allow abortions, will continue to be a prime exporter of condoms and other forms of birth control, and will do all this with the support of the vast majority of its population.

The Rep of Komokom looks about all the posts, notes the unification ability of religion, laughs at it, then strolls out to see if the beastiality thread got locked yet. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

The Rep of Komokom looks about all the posts, notes the unification ability of religion, laughs at it, then strolls out to see if the beastiality thread got locked yet. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

OOC: hee hee, unification ability. :lol:

All morality ultimately comes from God and is laid out for man in the Bible. It is arrogant and sinful to think that humans can fabricate their own idea of morality, as today's "secularists" would have you believe.


If you're claiming that the eastern civilisations' moral systems were inspired by god but perhaps not in quite as pure a form as christianity's, what about Buddhism? It contains much morality but (as far as I know) does not believe in any deity being in charge.

In fact, perhaps you could back up that statement with some kind of argument? Some kind of proof that the Bible actually is the word of god?

Until you do, I can't see what's wrong with my secular morality.

Everyone has an intrinsic, God-given morality, but not all have heard the word of God from the Church. Some hear it and choose to turn their back on it and that is a sin, but it is the stance of the Catholic Church that all religions can ultimately lead to God ("Crossing the Threshold of Hope," His Holiness John Paul II).

You for example- you know what the word of God is, but you come up with all these defense mechanisms to deny its truth. You are a sinner (so are we all), but you can still change your life. Not only do I not need to reierate the many historical arguments and personal testimonies that the Bible is the word of God, I don't need to tell you any of this because deep down you already know.

Not only do I not need to reierate the many historical arguments and personal testimonies that the Bible is the word of God, I don't need to tell you any of this because deep down you already know.

Might I say to all,

"Do not confuse your vested interests with ethics. Do not identify the enemies of your privilege with the enemies of humanity."

- Max Lerner, Actions and Passions, 1949.

And might I add, do not presume to know the minds of others.

Uncertain policy that.

Thats my two K Dollars. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)

I love how my religion works. Jesus tells us that the tmeple laws don't matter or something to that effect as long as we love each other, and so what do we do? We make a bunch of rules about how to love each other and "live how Christ wants us to" Seriously, if Christ wanted us to not allow homosexual marriage, wouldn't he have said so?

-The prince of Vivelon, only signing his post because "It's always so cool when Komokom does it"

What confuses me is why Catholics are so hellbent on opposing homosexuality in particular. Wouldn't it make far more sense to campaign against, say, masturbation? I mean, it's got to be more widespread than homosexuality, and it's no better according to their dogma.

Sorry for the absence, i've been busy and the site's been unresponsive when i have had time to try it.

haha nice defeance the link doesnt work. thats funny you have to lie when you see the true facts what poor debator. Im guessing you are liberal by how you argue.

Stop being so arrogant and offensive. I've tried your link repeatedly and it has not worked. Why would I lie when I know you're perfectly capable of copy-pasting it here?

How's this for a resonable response. Can you prove that the bible wasn't divinely inspired?

No, but that doesn't mean that I should immediately devote blind faith to the Bible. An absence of refutation is not proof, and it is no reason to believe that proof is unnecessary.

Eastern Orthodoxy, thanks for your enlightening information. I didn't know much about your branch of Christianity. Although I don't share your beliefs, I applaud the way you put them into practice and your advocation of not enshrining religious doctrine in law.

You for example- you know what the word of God is, but you come up with all these defense mechanisms to deny its truth. You are a sinner (so are we all), but you can still change your life. Not only do I not need to reierate the many historical arguments and personal testimonies that the Bible is the word of God, I don't need to tell you any of this because deep down you already know.

By this, do you mean that I have heard Christianity's teachings and deep down know they're right, but refuse to follow them? For the sake of getting in a reply now, I'll assume that's what you mean - sorry if I misinterpreted.

I do not know it "deep down". It might be comforting to believe that there is a deity looking down making sure that everything goes to plan, and and when I die I won't actually be gone. I might want to believe it. But if I look around at the world and actually use reason and logic, I cannot see any way that a benevolent and omnipotent god could exist, otherwise the world would not be the way it is, in terms of bad luck, natural disasters, diseases, and the genetic and locational lottery of birth. I have yet to be offered an adequate answer to the question of evil and suffering that accounts for the destruction and pain caused by natural forces, which would be under the control of an omnipotent deity if one existed.

I also haven't been shown adequate evidence that the bible is the word of god.

You for example- you know what the word of God is, but you come up with all these defense mechanisms to deny its truth. You are a sinner (so are we all), but you can still change your life. Not only do I not need to reierate the many historical arguments and personal testimonies that the Bible is the word of God, I don't need to tell you any of this because deep down you already know.

By this, do you mean that I have heard Christianity's teachings and deep down know they're right, but refuse to follow them? For the sake of getting in a reply now, I'll assume that's what you mean - sorry if I misinterpreted.

I do not know it "deep down". It might be comforting to believe that there is a deity looking down making sure that everything goes to plan, and and when I die I won't actually be gone. I might want to believe it. But if I look around at the world and actually use reason and logic, I cannot see any way that a benevolent and omnipotent god could exist, otherwise the world would not be the way it is, in terms of bad luck, natural disasters, diseases, and the genetic and locational lottery of birth. I have yet to be offered an adequate answer to the question of evil and suffering that accounts for the destruction and pain caused by natural forces, which would be under the control of an omnipotent deity if one existed.

I also haven't been shown adequate evidence that the bible is the word of god.

To our brother Myopia and all our brothers and sisters in the nations:

Well, Myopia, you have indeed hit upon the most common refutation of the omniscience/omnipotence of God: the "problem of evil". We know that this forum is regarding our brother the pope's attempt to legislate morality, but if we may be indulged, we would like to try to give a very brief discourse on how we see this problem. For those of our brothers and sisters who do not care, we humbly ask them to simply scroll down until they find a resumption of the topic more to their liking.

Is God omnipotent? Can He do whatever He pleases? Yes, *except* the intrinsically impossible: "Can God make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?". When He created the universe, and all that is, visible and invisible, in that act of creation, He set in motion laws which He has allowed to govern physical reality to a great extent. He may, of course, suspend those laws if He sees fit; you may attribute to Him miracles. But you cannot attribute nonsense; as C.S. Lewis said, "Nonsense remains nonsense even if we talk it of God." Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes; these are all results of natural law, and they do cause harm. But the same kinds of natural law give us electricity, architecture, medicine, agriculture, the sciences, technology, and all the other blessings which spring from the laws of the natural world. The universe was created, and mankind within it, with certain freedoms; in humanity we call this "free will". Nature, however, is not free in and of itself to violate the laws by which God has put in place to govern it. A nature fixed by laws, coming into contact with a creature that is capable of governing itself, creates a system in which there is the possibility, though not the *necessity* , of evil and suffering; not all states of being will necessarily be equally agreeable to the free creatures that mankind is. Man, if he desires, is capable of using the fixed laws of nature to hurt one another. God, in allowing free will, must by necessity allow this abuse of natural law, because otherwise we are left in a world in which human choices are left meaningless; if we cannot make the decision, consciously, to do good or evil, then we are not free at all. If you exclude the possibility of human evil, you exclude the possibility of human goodness.

Which brings us to the question: if God is "good", why would He not cause suffering to end? The answer, we believe, lies in the very understanding of what "good" is; indeed, what "love" is. Within He Who is God, "love" is not what we might define as love: the desire to see others happy; not happy "because" of something external, but simply happy. This, in contrast to the love of God, is merely "kindness". Kindness does not necessarily mean that we wish the object of our affection to become good or bad, but merely happy. The love of God desires exactly that, that we become good, closer to Him in thought, word and deed. The goodness of God is not merely interest in what we consider our welfare, but that we be made better; we are the true objects of His love, a love that would rather see us struggle in our efforts to become more like Him than to simply wallow in complacency and arrogance. His love is like that of an artist for his creation; a lover for his beloved: exacting, demanding, brilliantly pure and, inescapably, demanding perfection. He will not lessen the force of His love by bringing it to our level; He demands that we rise to meet Him in the essence of the pure creative fire that made us. That we suffer in doing so is a by-product of our being forced to deal with the love of God as it is, and *not* as we wish it to be.

We, as Christians, see the gap between the love of God as it truly exists, and the "love" which mankind seeks, as a result of our turning from Him in disobedience. We are good, as a creation of His, made in His image. But we choose to turn His creation against itself, fomenting hatred, discrimination, abuse, and horror in ways that are almost unimaginable. Simply reading the history of mankind's brutality is evidence enough. However, in this secular age, mankind repeatedly denies his own culpability; he makes evil the product of poor upbringing, or poverty, or abuse; the very things that are a *result* of the flawed character of humanity when it turns from its Creator. We have become so ingrained in our refusal to admit our faults that we sometimes act not just as imperfect beings but as rebels fighting against God. We will not countenance our own failings as long as we see our own self-will as more important than obedience to God. Thus, the function of suffering, at the lowest possible level, is to throw up a red flag: all is *not* well. We are *not* in harmony with His purposes: to to good and to love each other. We may be willing to rebel against Him, but pain and suffering call out to be dealt with. Both good and evil men serve God's purpose, but it *will* make a difference to all mankind in the end whether you choose to serve Him or betray Him.

His omnipotence allows Him to deal with us, imperfect as we are, without destroying us. He is, by very definition, perfection. Perfection cannot be sullied by imperfection, or it becomes imperfect. As we are imperfect, we could not possibly hope to reach that state of being whereby we could be allowed to touch Him, see Him, as He truly is; the very Essence of His Being could not allow it. But yet, His omnipotence allows us the freedom to continually seek to do His will; to strive to become more like Him, in goodness, and strength, and creativity. His omnipotence guarantees our continued existence. His grace allows us to see beyond ourselves, to glimpse that perfection which we may (as Christians believe) attain through the merits of Christ's sacrifice. He created us within a system that *allows* for evil. He has given us Himself, in human flesh, by Whom we can overcome that evil.

The Bible is, we believe, the blueprint of His decision to act within the realm of human history. It was written by men, for men, but gives us a perspective on it that puts us more properly in our place: we are a creation, totally and absolutely seperated from our Creator, *until* He decides to bridge that gap. We believe that although the Bible may not be literally word-for-word perfect, its perfection is in that it contains everything we need to know to reach a state of grace; it gives us the chance to understand why we suffer and how we can end that suffering.

We are not sure if this explains what you ask in any way, and we are imperfect, so our words are necessarily imperfect; we ask only your indulgence in allowing us to speak as well as we can.

+Theophilus, Patriarch

OOC: I use the male pronoun throughout not for any theological reason, but simply because it is an historic case; I do *not* believe that God has a gender in and of Itself.

:roll: theres one on every message board....

regardless of your religion, God made the ten commandments for everyone. those are his rules.

in my opinion, religion comes along when people want to justify bending those rules because they cannot obey them. hence, the different beliefs in religions. thus, leading to all the crap that is going on today.

if one cannot serve God on earth, then how can one expect to serve him in heaven?

What confuses me is why Catholics are so hellbent on opposing homosexuality in particular. Wouldn't it make far more sense to campaign against, say, masturbation? I mean, it's got to be more widespread than homosexuality, and it's no better according to their dogma.

:lol: Hey they don't want to supress their priests too much :wink:

:roll: theres one on every message board....

regardless of your religion, God made the ten commandments for everyone. those are his rules.

in my opinion, religion comes along when people want to justify bending those rules because they cannot obey them. hence, the different beliefs in religions. thus, leading to all the crap that is going on today.

if one cannot serve God on earth, then how can one expect to serve him in heaven?

Ah yes,

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."

- George Bernard Shaw. :wink:

Yet let us remember,

"If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise."

- Johann von Goethe. :D

And perhaps, the most critical question in religion in relation to christianity,

"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?"

- Mark Twain. :(

There is my 2 K Dollars for now.

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)

Religion does have a part to play in society. It helps to keep people obedient, loyal and live moral lives. The Church should therefore be strong and protected and encouraged by the State. In addition your comments on the morally and culturally decadent and materialistic state of the world are correct and religion can be one thing that helps to solve this problem.

However the State should be strong as well and the Church should not be able to change key Government policies on any issue without an extremely good reason. An example of this is that the German Church persuaded the National Socialist party to stop from its euthanasia policies before the war.

Also your claim that Catholicism is the one true faith makes us question you as well. How do you know that the Protestant faiths or Orthodoxy are not correct?

Eastern Orthodoxy, I'll have to read that again when I'm feeling slightly more lucid, but I think I get the gist that God allows evil and suffering because without problems to surmount we could never reach the state he wants us to attain.

If so, why is the suffering created by humans and inflicted upon each other not enough? Why does god feel the need to add to that with a cruel lottery of natural destruction? Do people in, say, Central America, where people die younger, suffer more disease, and are struck with horrific hurricanes, need more suffering than those in the UK or most of the USA (the parts that don't get hurricanes)?

You said that laws were laid down and cannot break themselves. But if god is all-knowing and all-powerful, surely he could have devised physical laws that result in a world where humans are still capable of harming each other, but where there is not naturally-caused suffering?

Religion does have a part to play in society. It helps to keep people obedient, loyal and live moral lives. The Church should therefore be strong and protected and encouraged by the State.

In my opinion this is the worst thing about organised religion. Yes it was necessary during our evolution for there to be some control method that encouraged people to work together and not harm the interests of their societies. However, now most of us do not require religion to act ethically toward each other, so the only aim of religion should be to find theological and philosophical truth, and then to live according to what one believes that truth is.

When religion was described as the opium of the masses (which I think it can be but isn't always), it wasn't meant as a compliment.

regardless of your religion, God made the ten commandments for everyone. those are his rules.

in my opinion, religion comes along when people want to justify bending those rules because they cannot obey them. hence, the different beliefs in religions. thus, leading to all the crap that is going on today.

If that were true then every religion would have all of the ten commandments at its heart. Although most religions have some of the same rules as the 10 commandments as central tenets, many relegate some of those rules to lesser status, or don't follow them at all, and almost all religions have some central tenets that don't correspond to anything in the ten commandments: e.g. Islam has 5 central "pillars", one of which, if I remember correctly, is an obligation to pray at certain times - as far as I remember, none of the ten commandments require regular prayer.

For what it's worth, the Five Pillars of Islam are shahada (acknowledgement of the uniqueness of God), salat (prayer), sawm (fasting), zakat (religious tax) and hajj (pilgrimage). This isn't a marvellous example, though, because Islam is essentially a Judeo-Christian religion, and acknowledges the prophecy of Moses (as well as of Christ). This illustrates pretty well why the 'X is the law of God, and everything else is just perversions of it' doesn't work too well: the Muslims consider that the Qur'an is the word-for-word Message of God, and that the Bible is the result of an earlier version of it being corrupted by man.

A better example would be Daoism or Buddhism, the central tenets of which have nothing to do with 'thou shalt not' at all.

Eastern Orthodoxy, I'll have to read that again when I'm feeling slightly more lucid, but I think I get the gist that God allows evil and suffering because without problems to surmount we could never reach the state he wants us to attain.

If so, why is the suffering created by humans and inflicted upon each other not enough? Why does god feel the need to add to that with a cruel lottery of natural destruction? Do people in, say, Central America, where people die younger, suffer more disease, and are struck with horrific hurricanes, need more suffering than those in the UK or most of the USA (the parts that don't get hurricanes)?

You said that laws were laid down and cannot break themselves. But if god is all-knowing and all-powerful, surely he could have devised physical laws that result in a world where humans are still capable of harming each other, but where there is not naturally-caused suffering?

Religion does have a part to play in society. It helps to keep people obedient, loyal and live moral lives. The Church should therefore be strong and protected and encouraged by the State.

In my opinion this is the worst thing about organised religion. Yes it was necessary during our evolution for there to be some control method that encouraged people to work together and not harm the interests of their societies. However, now most of us do not require religion to act ethically toward each other, so the only aim of religion should be to find theological and philosophical truth, and then to live according to what one believes that truth is.

When religion was described as the opium of the masses (which I think it can be but isn't always), it wasn't meant as a compliment.

regardless of your religion, God made the ten commandments for everyone. those are his rules.

in my opinion, religion comes along when people want to justify bending those rules because they cannot obey them. hence, the different beliefs in religions. thus, leading to all the crap that is going on today.

If that were true then every religion would have all of the ten commandments at its heart. Although most religions have some of the same rules as the 10 commandments as central tenets, many relegate some of those rules to lesser status, or don't follow them at all, and almost all religions have some central tenets that don't correspond to anything in the ten commandments: e.g. Islam has 5 central "pillars", one of which, if I remember correctly, is an obligation to pray at certain times - as far as I remember, none of the ten commandments require regular prayer.

Our brother Myopia and all our brothers and sisters in the nations:

WARNING: THIS IS A LONG ONE. We apologize, and if necessary will move this to another thread. But we feel compelled to pull these issues together by the actions of our brother Innocentius and his "covenant".

To be honest, the Orthodox believe that God, in and of Himself, in His most pure Essence, is absolutely unknowable. Our human minds cannot possibly comprehend Him in and of Himself; we are then forced to rely on those things about Himself that He has chosen to reveal. We must, with humility, place the existence of natural disasters in this category: we just do not know. But we can once again point to the blessings of life which stem from the laws that govern the natural world as well; everything we have, everything we create, outside of ourselves is a product of the physical world in which we live. We must assume that there is indeed a purpose to the suffering which you cry out against: perhaps (and we only guess) it is to bring out the best in human nature when we aid those who have been struck; the earthquake in Iran resulted in US doctors etc. going into that country, the "Medecins sans Frontieres" attempts to aid anyone anywhere regardless of nationality or states of war which exist between nationalities, etc. But the bottom line is, we just do not know.

The distinction between the "moral law" and the "ritual law" contained in the "Old" Testament is vital to understanding the attempt by our poor brother the pope to legislate his morality.

The moral law is, indeed, what we call the "10 Commandments". These commandments, apart from imposing the recognition of a single, all-powerful God, codify the most basic tenets necessary for civil life: bans on theft, murder, etc., all the things which can destroy society. We believe that these tenets are actually written in the hearts of all men; every known society in the history of mankind has had the "Golden Rule" in one form or another...EVERY SINGLE recorded society on earth, throughout history. We believe that religion is an attempt, by mankind, to recognize that these tenets are objective, all-encompassing, and not tied to a specific time or culture or society; religion is the struggle to acknowledge the power, beyond our understanding, that wrote these tenets on our hearts.

The ritual law was created by God for the Jews. Specifically. He wanted to set them apart as His own, as a special nation, through whom He would do His great work. He told them what they could eat, what they could wear, how they should treat each other, in minute detail. Although people claim that the dietary laws (for instance) were a sort of primitive health code, that is NOT how God treated them. They are His rules simply because He chose them to be, healthy or not. There is nothing inherently evil about wearing clothes made of two different kinds of cloth, but yet He commands the Jews not to, simply because He decided to. The Levitical law was promulgated to make the Jews different from all the other nations in the world.

Christians have been free from that law since Christ fulfilled it, making it no longer necessary to a relationship to God to follow the ritual law. In a blunt example, St. Peter had a dream in which he saw a blanket or sheet filled with both clean and unclean animals (ritually speaking), and a voice said ,"Kill and eat." When Peter protested, saying that some of the animals were unclean, the voice said, "What I have made clean is clean." Peter had been devoted to the Jewish faith. He knew the Levitical Law. The sheet that was lowered to him in Acts 10 was full of unclean animals that were an abomination for the Jews to eat. Then a loud voice told him to kill and eat. Peter was hungry, yet in spite of his hunger he would not defile himself with anything unclean. God let him know that He had cleansed the most unclean thing. Once God declares something or someone clean, who are we to declare it unclean? God told Peter to go then to the Gentiles, doubting nothing. That term is "diakrino" in the Greek. It connotes a conflict with oneself in the sense of hesitation, heavy misgivings or wavering between hope and fear. But God removed that fear, that hesitation, by His word. Christians can live without fear of the law, because God has fulfilled it in Christ.

We would like to mention a few more things regarding homosexuality and the Bible in particular.

You would assume that if Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was homosexual activity, other authors in the Bible would make that connection. But nowhere does that happen. Listen to Ezekiel: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49-50).
Amos warns that Israel will be overthrown just as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah (Amos 4:11) and for the same general reason: the poor are oppressed and the needy are crushed (Amos 4:1). Also in Isaiah: the people of Jerusalem and Judah "proclaim their sin like Sodom" (Isaiah 3:9). The charge? "Your hands are full of blood" (Isaiah 1:15); "the spoil of the poor is in your houses" and for "grinding the face of the poor" (Isaiah 3:14, 15). Indeed, "the daughters of Zion are haughty" and are "glancing wantonly with their eyes" (Isaiah 3:16). Also in Zephaniah: "Moab shall become like Sodom, and the Ammonites like Gomorrah" (Zephaniah 2:9), for these have filled houses "with violence and fraud" (Zephaniah 1:9).

The only New Testament reference to Sodom and Gomorrah comes from Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who predicts a similar judgment in His own day (Matthew 10:14-15). Who will receive it, and why? Those towns which do not provide welcome and sustenance to his appointed missionaries who travel the countryside preaching and healing.

"Sodomites" are mentioned in lists of "wrongdoers" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) and "the lawless and disobedient" (1 Timothy 1:9-10). In both these listings, however, there is considerable evidence that the language used indicates a condemnation of pederasty - the sexual and/or economic exploitation of children, particularly young boys - rather than against homosexual activity per se. In a similar way, Paul's description of women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural" and of "men committing shameless acts with men" (Romans 1:26-27) is set within a larger context of idolatry. Pagan temple cult prostitution, using adult men and women as well as young boys, was common in that day.

In all these references to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, the issue is wantonness. It is about domination of others, about malignant power, about God's intended harmony. In each, our relationship to God, and His justice among His creatures, are intimately linked. Spiritual realities and socio-economic realities are mirror images.

Even if you discount these contextual factors, even if you disregard all alternative explanations set out above, there's still a major issue of consistency in our notions of biblical authority. The preface for that issue has been mentioned: what about all those other prohibitions? The Bible prohibits gluttony at least as many times, even calling it a form of idolatry at one point (Philippians 3:19). Some 60 percent of the U.S. population is overweight, and all but a tiny handful, who have biological disorders, are clearly gluttonous. Why not condemn these? More caustic for us, especially we Christians, is the Bible's repeated authorization for the institution of slavery. It's there in the Bible, in simple language: "Slaves, obey your masters" (Ephesians 6:5). The simple language of Scripture prohibits women wearing gold jewelry, braiding their hair and wearing expensive clothing (1 Peter 3:3). In other words, gold wedding bands are a sign of apostasy. And not only are women to be silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34), they also are to have their heads covered and their faces veiled (1 Corinthians 11:5-6).

Does our brother the pope intend to follow his "covenant" with further proscriptions based on these ancient cultural situations? We are afraid that he might.

We beg him, and his followrers, once more to turn to the Gospel of love. The idea is ancient and deeply biblical: "The only thing that counts is faith working through love," according to Paul (Galatians 5:6). Fidelity to the Bible, to paraphrase Jesus, can be summarized in two intertwined statements: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "your neighbor as yourself" (St. Matthew 22:37-40).

Is homosexuality compatible with Christian faith? Is heterosexuality compatible with Christian faith? Uncircumcised, or circumcised? Neither question, we would suggest, is relevant.

"We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will" (Acts 15:11).

+Theophilus, Patriarch

Excellent posts, Eastern Orthodoxy. I'd like to add one of my favorite adages which I heard from a priest a while back: "God is not a divine rapist." The meaning being, if God abolished evil, thereby taking away our freewill and forcing us to love him, that would not be love, but forced love, or rape. And I think we can all agree that there's quite a difference between love and rape. God wouldn't be perfect, and therefore not God if he were a rapist. And besides, wouldn't the world be quite pointless if we were all forced to love God? I think so. I love God and this creation that he's given us.

Thanks Rehochipe. Hopefully my point was clear even if the example wasn't.

We beg him, and his followrers, once more to turn to the Gospel of love. The idea is ancient and deeply biblical: "The only thing that counts is faith working through love," according to Paul (Galatians 5:6). Fidelity to the Bible, to paraphrase Jesus, can be summarized in two intertwined statements: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "your neighbor as yourself" (St. Matthew 22:37-40).

Is homosexuality compatible with Christian faith? Is heterosexuality compatible with Christian faith? Uncircumcised, or circumcised? Neither question, we would suggest, is relevant.

This is the kind of spirit which I consider to be the good side of religion (the bad side being when people try to continue out-dated bigotry and closed-mindedness on the basis of doctrine), and the part that really deserves greater recognition.

To be honest, the Orthodox believe that God, in and of Himself, in His most pure Essence, is absolutely unknowable. Our human minds cannot possibly comprehend Him in and of Himself; we are then forced to rely on those things about Himself that He has chosen to reveal. We must, with humility, place the existence of natural disasters in this category: we just do not know. But we can once again point to the blessings of life which stem from the laws that govern the natural world as well; everything we have, everything we create, outside of ourselves is a product of the physical world in which we live. We must assume that there is indeed a purpose to the suffering which you cry out against: perhaps (and we only guess) it is to bring out the best in human nature when we aid those who have been struck; the earthquake in Iran resulted in US doctors etc. going into that country, the "Medecins sans Frontieres" attempts to aid anyone anywhere regardless of nationality or states of war which exist between nationalities, etc. But the bottom line is, we just do not know.

I think that the pain some of us inflict on each other is enough to bring out the best in others. I simply do not have your trust and acceptance. It's not just the existence of suffering caused by natural forces that pushes me away from belief, it's the fact that it is inflicted on some so much more than others, simply determined by their location, and the cruel lottery of birth.

Even to someone who is prepared to accept it, your argument could show only that evil and suffering doesn't disprove god - it isn't demonstration that there is a god, and truthfully I haven't really seen any real evidence of the existence of a higher power.

Also, I have heard about the distinction between moral and ritual law - but the christian I talked to told me that moral law - the part that still applies - covered not only the ten commandments but the bit in leviticus against homosexuality as well as various other things.

damn - QP

QP

QP

the origin of sin came from man. quite simply, it was due to a lack of faith in God and his word. they didnt trust his word and therefore brought sin upon the world. what happens in the world cannot be blamed on God. it is a direct result of mans unfaithfulness.

its quite simple to me and doesnt require deep spiritual thought. Follow his commandments. if you cannot follow the basic ten commandments then religion and church are for you. church is nothing but a place to hide from your sins and religion "gives" unfaithful people the "ok" to criticize everyone else who doesnt believe the same thing they do. this process makes people feel more holy or forgiven. and that, in my opinion, is why religion was created in the first place.

His laws are very basic and non negotiable. who cares if someone wants to pray 5 times a day?? good for them. just dont go out and kill a group of people because you believe that it will grant you virgins in heaven. it wont. "thou shalt not kill" its very easy. it does not say, "thou shalt not kill unless you believe that its ok to kill someone" and it doesnt say, "thou shalt not commit adultery unless someone really hot hits on you"

how many times someone prays or doesnt pray has nothing to do with the basic laws of God.

religion and church are illusions. Faith is something that cannot be obtained by going to church every Sunday, or being a christian, muslim, buddhist, etc.

faith is only obtained by believing in and following Gods laws for us. its not that hard to figure out.

Oh, look.

I'm an atheist.

:)

- Le Représentant de Komokom, Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Quelle est tolérance ? C'est la conséquence de l'humanité. Nous tous sommes constitués du frailty et de l'erreur ; pardonnons réciproquement chaque folie d'other's, celle est la première loi de la nature.

EO, please stop talking about "your poor brother, the Pope" This thread is not because of the Pope, but some poor, overzealous, misguided fool claiming papacy. Pope John Paul II is our Pope, not Innocentius. He's a nobody.

as far as I remember, none of the ten commandments require regular prayer.

II Keep holy the Sabbath day

That one requires regular prayer (weekly not daily). Every week on the Sabbath (Sunset on Friday to Sunset on Saturday for Jews because that was God's rest after creating the world, and Sunday for Christians because Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday) we are called to put God first, by atending religious services, sharing in ceremonial meals, prayer etc. So, it's kinda a stretch, but the 10 Commandments do require it.

Komokom, where do you get all these nice quotes?

DT, Faith can be obtained by going to Church every Sunday, or praying 5 times facing Mecca, or for all I know, eating a plate of nachos. Different people discover their faith in different ways, but the point is (with the exception of atheists) all faith returns to God, often not in the Judeo-Christian form, but still one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth etc. Yadda yadda yadda. But we aren't here to discuss the origins of faith, we're here to discuss faith's place in politics.

I love how my religion works. Jesus tells us that the tmeple laws don't matter or something to that effect as long as we love each other, and so what do we do? We make a bunch of rules about how to love each other and "live how Christ wants us to" Seriously, if Christ wanted us to not allow homosexual marriage, wouldn't he have said so?

-The prince of Vivelon, only signing his post because "It's always so cool when Komokom does it"

WOW this is an incredibly dumn comment. hahahahaha. ok, lets star at the basics. Do you belive in the Trinity? Well if so then God definately did. The bible is the worD OF God correct? well then he did because in numorous spots he condemns homosexual actions. ( I will site if anyone needs me to and have not seen my other posts). Therefore because Christ is part of the Trinity and God speaks to us throught the Bible then He did tell us so. Also becaise the Church is Christ on earth the Church has continually condemned homosexual actions and marriage. :lol:

Komokom, where do you get all these nice quotes?

While my ego tells me I should say because I enjoy nachos, :wink:

In actual fact I found a very nice web site on one of my surfing expeditions, the sacred trail to which sits below :

> > > The Quote Garden (http://www.quotegarden.com/) < < <

Its a great, free, resource and I hope y'all like it as much as I do.

Also becaise the Church is Christ on earth the Church has continually condemned homosexual actions and marriage.

... Then I would conclude that your religion does nothing more then propogate hatred and injustice, ignorance of the good in others for the sake of the idea of the good in one man, long departed.

Did your Jesus save us for this ? ...

- Le Représentant de Komokom, Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Quelle est tolérance ? C'est la conséquence de l'humanité. Nous tous sommes constitués du frailty et de l'erreur ; pardonnons réciproquement chaque folie d'other's, celle est la première loi de la nature. - Voltaire.

I love how my religion works. Jesus tells us that the tmeple laws don't matter or something to that effect as long as we love each other, and so what do we do? We make a bunch of rules about how to love each other and "live how Christ wants us to" Seriously, if Christ wanted us to not allow homosexual marriage, wouldn't he have said so?

-The prince of Vivelon, only signing his post because "It's always so cool when Komokom does it"

WOW this is an incredibly dumn comment. hahahahaha. ok, lets star at the basics. Do you belive in the Trinity? Well if so then God definately did. The bible is the worD OF God correct? well then he did because in numorous spots he condemns homosexual actions. ( I will site if anyone needs me to and have not seen my other posts). Therefore because Christ is part of the Trinity and God speaks to us throught the Bible then He did tell us so. Also becaise the Church is Christ on earth the Church has continually condemned homosexual actions and marriage. :lol:

I know what you mean but you are wrong sir in your wording!
Jesus is part of the Godhead not the Trinity. They are one in purpose not in body/Spirit. At least not the spirit you seem to be refering to.
All three Jesus, his father Elohiem, and the Holy Ghost are have the title God. Both Heavenly Father and Jesus have bodies, unlike the Holy Ghost who is only spirit with a body.
But yes, the Bible is the word God as long as it is translated correctly. I'd say at leaat 80% correct with a 5% margin of error for my prediction.
(a little side note)
Oh and if your church bears not his name then you are not his church but the one of who you bear the name of. If the church bears Moses' name then it is Moses' church. If it bears Adam's name then it is Adam's church. But if it bears Jesus's name then it is his church.
Hopefully your church bears his name :lol:

Oh important fact for Eastern Orthodoxy:
Hwavely Father is not a God of Condusion. Your words such as

"To be honest, the Orthodox believe that God, in and of Himself, in His most pure Essence, is absolutely unknowable. "

are in direct contrast with the sceiptures...

Confusion comes from Man not God.

You say many good things earlier but this unknowable thing when you say you know him is weirdness in and of itself.

no i am sorry but i know my faith. There is one God made of three persons Father Son and Holy Ghost. Oh and by the way I am Roman Catholic the true one holy and apostolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ!

no i am sorry but i know my faith. There is one God made of three persons Father Son and Holy Ghost. Oh and by the way I am Roman Catholic the true one holy and apostolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ! And I know my faith cold contrary to my liberal and unformed friend vivelon.

Well, if the discussion is about religion/faith's place in politics, then that is a very difficult issue. However, all I have seen so far is petty squabbling over minor issues. Now, does the Roman Catholic church have control over christians? Not really, unless you are Roman Catholic. Is it even correct? Not for me to decide, I leave that up to God. I personally am a member of the Church of Christ. I think that most churches are more or less in synch on most issues. The only truly serious one that comes to my head is baptism, and I have never read a scripture that claimed baptism was not necessary.

What I do know is that Jesus was baptized, and every time someone joined the church, they repented and were baptized. However, I don't know for sure that just because they got baptized means now YOU have to. What I DO know is that I am baptized, and it can't hurt me at all. And I know when I go to heaven (hopefully, because I am not a good person) that God will not deny me because I wasn't baptized. Now, do I care if someone else disagrees? Not a bit. Do what you want. I can only tell you what I believe, and let you live your life.

The real trouble begins when people get caught up who is "right." As Voltaire said, " I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it." So if you disagree with someone, then fine. Get over it, and go on with your life. And please, don't take the ignorant and deliberately provocative statements of some christians, and assume that all the rest of us are such assholes.

EO, please stop talking about "your poor brother, the Pope" This thread is not because of the Pope, but some poor, overzealous, misguided fool claiming papacy. Pope John Paul II is our Pope, not Innocentius. He's a nobody

May I remind you that this is a role playing game! In a sence, we are all nobody's. All I care about is my region, where I am recognized as the Pope. I don't care about your opinion: of course I am not the real Pope, Jeesh... let us not forget this is a GAME people!

A pope eh? That was a good response, and a respectful one, but all religious leaders higher than bishop are doing what they should not, so abdicate, Innocentius!

i dont think the pope can say how my country will be run. i dont always agree with the ethnics of the church. i say we all must seperate the church and state!

OP, you're not making much sense here. If (I'm not denying JC's place in the Trinity) because Christ is one-and the same with God, why
A. does he contradict certain other laws that were given by God?
B. if those laws that God allowed JC to contradict were not necessary to love God more closely etc, why were they given in the first place?

And I know my faith cold contrary to my liberal and unformed friend vivelon.
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I don't know my faith because, in the real faith, God wants us all to be hateful intolerant bastards. Don't try to counter that. I specifically remember you telling me that under the care of priests, which is "where homosexuals belong" it was "too kind" to accept their homosexuality. What kind of flipped out horrible version of God do you worship?

(are you supposed to capitalize pronouns in refererence to JC as well, or just to the Big Cheese?)

OP, you're not making much sense here. If (I'm not denying JC's place in the Trinity) because Christ is one-and the same with God, why
A. does he contradict certain other laws that were given by God?
B. if those laws that God allowed JC to contradict were not necessary to love God more closely etc, why were they given in the first place?

And I know my faith cold contrary to my liberal and unformed friend vivelon.
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I don't know my faith because, in the real faith, God wants us all to be hateful intolerant bastards. Don't try to counter that. I specifically remember you telling me that under the care of priests, which is "where homosexuals belong" it was "too kind" to accept their homosexuality. What kind of flipped out horrible version of God do you worship?

(are you supposed to capitalize pronouns in refererence to JC as well, or just to the Big Cheese?)


once again you make yourself look like a moron. hahahahaha. first of all the laws of the old testemnet were gotten ride of in the new testement with Christ Church. And those laws were given because the Jews were not remaining faithful to Him and His word (sounds familiar dont it :D ) and also I said I have even quoted it here it is (ohh and thanks for misquoting me that is so juvenile :wink: )

Persona Humana
VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of."


there ya go again have fun with that one. the diffrence between u and me is I have backing from facts and my Church unlike you. You come up with quoted from your head and you are even fighting the doctin of your own religion.

OP, you're not making much sense here. If (I'm not denying JC's place in the Trinity) because Christ is one-and the same with God, why
A. does he contradict certain other laws that were given by God?
B. if those laws that God allowed JC to contradict were not necessary to love God more closely etc, why were they given in the first place?

And I know my faith cold contrary to my liberal and unformed friend vivelon.
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I don't know my faith because, in the real faith, God wants us all to be hateful intolerant bastards. Don't try to counter that. I specifically remember you telling me that under the care of priests, which is "where homosexuals belong" it was "too kind" to accept their homosexuality. What kind of flipped out horrible version of God do you worship?

(are you supposed to capitalize pronouns in refererence to JC as well, or just to the Big Cheese?)


once again you make yourself look like a moron. hahahahaha. first of all the laws of the old testemnet were gotten ride of in the new testement with Christ Church. And those laws were given because the Jews were not remaining faithful to Him and His word (sounds familiar dont it :D ) and also I said I have even quoted it here it is (ohh and thanks for misquoting me that is so juvenile :wink: )

Persona Humana
VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of."


there ya go again have fun with that one. the diffrence between u and me is I have backing from facts and my Church unlike you. You come up with quoted from your head and you are even fighting the doctrin of your own religion. how you like them apples. Ohh and im going to be talking to your parish priest this sunday not about yu dont worry but I am going to ask him to give a sermon on this sermon. hope your there for it. And may I point out this everything but homosexuality you are conservativ about. But yet somehow on this subject you go to the oppositre end to the baby killers. hmm kinda odd and your best friend on nation states is komokom an atheist odd aint it

once again you make yourself look like a moron. hahahahaha Depends on whose point of view. Alright, you, the representatives get to decide, who's more of a moron, OP or I?

And I didn't misquote you, you paraphrased that to me one night, and that is specifically how you said it. I have a mind like a steel trap, you know.

And those laws were given because the Jews were not remaining faithful to Him and His word (sounds familiar dont it ) Once again, you contradict yourself. In numerous cases, you have said that religion should not change simply because society changes, so why should the Law change to reflect the people's obedience (or disobedience)?

hmm kinda odd and your best friend on nation states is komokom an atheist odd aint it Better him then a bigot.

And may I point out this everything but homosexuality you are conservativ about. But yet somehow on this subject you go to the oppositre end to the baby killers. So... you're saying I need to be entirely conservative or entirely liberal? That there's no gray area?

hmm kinda odd and your best friend on nation states is komokom an atheist odd aint it Better him then a bigot.

1) Now children, play nice. :wink:

2) Of Portugal, please don't put words in my mouth by association, it'll earn you a metaphorical slap, e.g. - "Quit it, Churchy". :)

3) Vivelon is not my "best friend" here, simply another player whom I have civil conversations with and - mutually - respect, (I hope, :wink: ). This is so for a variety of reasons, most notably the mentioned "civil" bit, and their usual tendancy not to degrade a debate by making it personal. Also I must admit I do see eye to eye with them on particular matters, this is due rather to my perspective on things as an private individual, not in regard to my loudly trumpeted atheism and dislike of preachy types. :wink:

Hope that clears the matter up before it spirals ...

By the by, Vivelon, that question of yours, where do I get my good quotes from, the link if you missed it is up the thread, on page 9 or page 10 I think, look for the big red > > > and < < < :wink: , just in case.

- Le Représentant de Komokom, Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Quelle est tolérance ? C'est la conséquence de l'humanité. Nous tous sommes constitués du frailty et de l'erreur ; pardonnons réciproquement chaque folie d'other's, celle est la première loi de la nature. - Voltaire.

For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality.

Prove the existence of said objective moral order. What's to say that there is no objective morality to the universe, or that there is one but it isn't yours?

In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.

Again, before this statement means anything you must offer evidence that the "Sacred Scripture" is in fact the word of god.

hmm kinda odd and your best friend on nation states is komokom an atheist odd aint it

Are you suggesting that people with different viewpoints and beliefs shouldn't mix?

In numerous cases, you have said that religion should not change simply because society changes, so why should the Law change to reflect the people's obedience (or disobedience)?

I think it's that he reckons religion can change as much as it likes, as long as it's not liberalisation.


That quote garden is interesting Komokom. Thanks for the link!

The Catholic Covenant is back in the United Nations!
Please restrict your discussions to the proposal...

Un Proposal: Moral Decadency

Strength: significant

The Catholic Covenant

Description:

Anno Domini 2004

In light of recent developments in the world, the Vatican has concluded that the world has lost it’s sence of God, which is an essential condition to have the right to live on this God given earth. Therefore, in the recently summoned Vatican Council held between november 2003 and april 2004, the Council of High Cardinals and Pope Innocentius XIV have not only reinstated the supreme authority of the Pope over all christians in the world, they have also made a declaration concerning the behaviour of christians.

The Roman Catholic Church points out that the excessive civil rights have gone over the top and have made our civilization decadent to dangerous proportions. The Pope strongly condemnes euthanesia, abortion and genetic alteration as an intrusion in godly powers, which will be severly punished when Judgement day is upon us. Not only should these practices be banned by law, this resolution is also meant to emphasize the teachings of God and the Ten Commandements. From now on, the catholic teachings will be dominant in a mans life and the United Nations will strive to stimulate a moral life.

Issued and Signed,

The Chancellor of State
Lothario Dei Conti de Segni

In nomine patris, filius et spiritus sanctus

Why should I care what the Bible says anyway?

If the mods are looking carefully, this will be deleted. By illegalising euthanasia, you are repealing a past resolution, which makes your proposal game mechanics - thus thankfully we are saved (though it wouldn't reach quorum anyway).

Also, this bit:

it’s sence of God, which is an essential condition to have the right to live on this God given earth

To me, this appears to sanction the murder or exile to outer space of all non-monotheists - since, according to your words, those of us who do not have a "sence" of god don't have the right to live on Earth.

once again you make yourself look like a moron. hahahahaha Depends on whose point of view. Alright, you, the representatives get to decide, who's more of a moron, OP or I?

And I didn't misquote you, you paraphrased that to me one night, and that is specifically how you said it. I have a mind like a steel trap, you know.

And those laws were given because the Jews were not remaining faithful to Him and His word (sounds familiar dont it ) Once again, you contradict yourself. In numerous cases, you have said that religion should not change simply because society changes, so why should the Law change to reflect the people's obedience (or disobedience)?

hmm kinda odd and your best friend on nation states is komokom an atheist odd aint it Better him then a bigot.

And may I point out this everything but homosexuality you are conservativ about. But yet somehow on this subject you go to the oppositre end to the baby killers. So... you're saying I need to be entirely conservative or entirely liberal? That there's no gray area?

first point you did misquote me you can barely ever remeber to do your own homework. And natural law did not change no moral laws changed only disciplines. Moral law comes from the natural law and natural law never changes. whereas disciplines can change from diociese to diociese. third. those laws were to keep the jews in line to god because they were constantly disobeying him. it is like the military when you have alot of men disobeying rules you tighten the penalties and become even more strict. how am i a bigot? let see a bigot is against people. I am not I am against their actions. so does that make u a bigot against women who want to cut off parts of their bodies? No I am saying about being conservative is that you all of a sudden just jump over the fence defy your faith and natural law. and there is a gray area on poliics but on moral law either you are right or wrong ohh and guess what buddy you are wrong.

hmm kinda odd and your best friend on nation states is komokom an atheist odd aint it Better him then a bigot.

1) Now children, play nice. :wink:

2) Of Portugal, please don't put words in my mouth by association, it'll earn you a metaphorical slap, e.g. - "Quit it, Churchy". :)

3) Vivelon is not my "best friend" here, simply another player whom I have civil conversations with and - mutually - respect, (I hope, :wink: ). This is so for a variety of reasons, most notably the mentioned "civil" bit, and their usual tendancy not to degrade a debate by making it personal. Also I must admit I do see eye to eye with them on particular matters, this is due rather to my perspective on things as an private individual, not in regard to my loudly trumpeted atheism and dislike of preachy types. :wink:

Hope that clears the matter up before it spirals ...

By the by, Vivelon, that question of yours, where do I get my good quotes from, the link if you missed it is up the thread, on page 9 or page 10 I think, look for the big red > > > and < < < :wink: , just in case.

- Le Représentant de Komokom, Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Quelle est tolérance ? C'est la conséquence de l'humanité. Nous tous sommes constitués du frailty et de l'erreur ; pardonnons réciproquement chaque folie d'other's, celle est la première loi de la nature. - Voltaire.

just to point out to u earlier you said you were an atheist. check for it if u dont believe me. and now dont be a bigot against Churchy people. no intolerance of intolerance rigght? dont stoop to my level

For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality.

Prove the existence of said objective moral order. What's to say that there is no objective morality to the universe, or that there is one but it isn't yours?

In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.

Again, before this statement means anything you must offer evidence that the "Sacred Scripture" is in fact the word of god.

hmm kinda odd and your best friend on nation states is komokom an atheist odd aint it

Are you suggesting that people with different viewpoints and beliefs shouldn't mix?

In numerous cases, you have said that religion should not change simply because society changes, so why should the Law change to reflect the people's obedience (or disobedience)?

I think it's that he reckons religion can change as much as it likes, as long as it's not liberalisation.


That quote garden is interesting Komokom. Thanks for the link!

nope natural law never changes buddy its always the same but it will never become liberla because it doesent change and it is not libeal now. Scripture is the writing of God and if you deny it there is nothing I can do to prove it to you.

how am i a bigot?

Because you would deny homosexuals basic rights, such as the right to marry those that they love.

on moral law either you are right or wrong

Prove it. Prove the existence of an objective morality. (N.B. don't assume I believe there isn't one, I just think you can't posit that as an argument unless you can actually prove it)



And while I was typing this post, you posted this:

Scripture is the writing of God and if you deny it there is nothing I can do to prove it to you.

The reason you can't prove it is or even offer persuasion is that there is no good reason to believe it - I at least have never been presented with any such reason or evidence.

how am i a bigot?

Because you would deny homosexuals basic rights, such as the right to marry those that they love.

on moral law either you are right or wrong

Prove it. Prove the existence of an objective morality. (N.B. don't assume I believe there isn't one, I just think you can't posit that as an argument unless you can actually prove it)



And while I was typing this post, you posted this:

Scripture is the writing of God and if you deny it there is nothing I can do to prove it to you.

The reason you can't prove it is or even offer persuasion is that there is no good reason to believe it - I at least have never been presented with any such reason or evidence.

The reason to believe it is because it is Gods writings and to deny so is to be a heretic. And tell me this do you have a concience? I hope so that is natural law but because of corrup culture and sin it gets cluded and people them become unmoved by sin. And there is no right in homosexuality! The same thing could be said about rapist they may say they find love by doing that. and why cant a man love himself and marry hi self and why cant a man love his brother or sister and marry them? or his parents? tell me to what point are people going to be allowed no longer to "love' aka lust. (not truely love) and why cant a man marry his goldfish. Ok in a marriage there is a husband and wife. and last time I checked there is nothing like this in any homo union. and furthor more the only reason the dictionary redefined it is to suit homo purposes.

Are you actually thinking before you post?

I implicitly asked why I should believe that the bible is god's writing, and you answered (and I quote):

The reason to believe it is because it is Gods writings and to deny so is to be a heretic

:roll:


Yes I have a conscience, but that doesn't prove an objective morality. A conscience can legitimately and justifiably be viewed as a mechanism evolved (whether by gene or meme evolution - memes being the units of the evolution of ideas, just as genes are the units of genetic evolution. Read some Richard Dawkins to find out more) to allow human societies to function. A tribe whose members all instinctively feel that it is wrong to kill or harm each other and feel an obligation to work for the good of the group is likely to prosper and spread the genes or memes which cause them to behave the way they do.

The same can be said of reproductive instincts. We are naturally repulsed by the concept of incest, because those humans who weren't died out through being poor competitors because of inbreeding.

In modern times it is justifiable for the state to impose by refusing to approve incestuous marriages in the interests of any children (inbreeding is not good for the kids' genetic makeup and thus their welfare). Marriages between a person and himself, or a person and a goldfish, should not be recognised because marriage is a statement of a mutual, loving bond - you can't be bonded to yourself, and we can't ensure that the goldfish has consented. However, two homosexuals can have a deep, loving, mutual bond in the same way a heterosexual couple can, so they shouldn't be denied this right.

And you can't ban people from loving or lusting. You can only ever ban people from having it legally recognised, and in the vast majority of cases you shouldn't even do that.

Excellent Myopia, unfortunately I believe it falls on deaf ears. It appears that Of Portugal is the type of fearful, hateful christian that made me question my religion a long time ago

Are you actually thinking before you post?

I implicitly asked why I should believe that the bible is god's writing, and you answered (and I quote):

The reason to believe it is because it is Gods writings and to deny so is to be a heretic

:roll:


Yes I have a conscience, but that doesn't prove an objective morality. A conscience can legitimately and justifiably be viewed as a mechanism evolved (whether by gene or meme evolution - memes being the units of the evolution of ideas, just as genes are the units of genetic evolution. Read some Richard Dawkins to find out more) to allow human societies to function. A tribe whose members all instinctively feel that it is wrong to kill or harm each other and feel an obligation to work for the good of the group is likely to prosper and spread the genes or memes which cause them to behave the way they do.

The same can be said of reproductive instincts. We are naturally repulsed by the concept of incest, because those humans who weren't died out through being poor competitors because of inbreeding.

In modern times it is justifiable for the state to impose by refusing to approve incestuous marriages in the interests of any children (inbreeding is not good for the kids' genetic makeup and thus their welfare). Marriages between a person and himself, or a person and a goldfish, should not be recognised because marriage is a statement of a mutual, loving bond - you can't be bonded to yourself, and we can't ensure that the goldfish has consented. However, two homosexuals can have a deep, loving, mutual bond in the same way a heterosexual couple can, so they shouldn't be denied this right.

And you can't ban people from loving or lusting. You can only ever ban people from having it legally recognised, and in the vast majority of cases you shouldn't even do that.

pk what aboput someone who is truely skitso? and wants to marry his laternate personality. and i believe homosexuality is also abusive to children and creates a atmosphere bad for the children go to my previously stated site frc.org and see what i mean. and no they cannot have the same love because love in a mrriage includes haveing children and homo unions are lacking that finality.

Excellent Myopia, unfortunately I believe it falls on deaf ears. It appears that Of Portugal is the type of fearful, hateful christian that made me question my religion a long time ago

How am i hateful? one of my own cousins is homosexual his name is adam and we are great friends. but he knows that its is a intrinsically disorered and will not idulges in that lust. Just like you will not support rape i will not support homosexuality. You may not hat the person but may hate the action.

A man is defined by his actions, so to hate a man's actions is to hate the man. In your statement you only admitted to being friends with your gay cousin because he conforms to the behavior that you feel is right. In fact I would wager that if your cousin did live a openly gay lifestyle and engaged in what you call "lust" you would no longer associate with him. You fear what you don't understand, and you hate the things you fear as a matter of self preservation. By the way, your grammar and spelling is horrible, take your time and use a dictionary if you must so I can actually read your response.

Calling this guy a 'Heretic' and a 'Hateful,Fearful Christian' doesn't do you any favours either. However true it may be, you shouldn't perform this judging, as it makes you just as bad as you say he is. So watch what you say Turd-Brain

I made no judgement on him as a person, he may be a very good person, his comments, however, reflect a general consensus of Christians to look down upon, and in some situations, hate those things they don't understand.
I am no better, sometimes I am disgusted by some of those who don't conform to what I believe is good behavior, I however will stand by their right to live the way they want to live.
There is a reason why most people who don't abide by the christian way of life have to fight for their rights, while no one has made any attempt to take away the rights of christians.

A man is defined by his actions, so to hate a man's actions is to hate the man. In your statement you only admitted to being friends with your gay cousin because he conforms to the behavior that you feel is right. In fact I would wager that if your cousin did live a openly gay lifestyle and engaged in what you call "lust" you would no longer associate with him. You fear what you don't understand, and you hate the things you fear as a matter of self preservation. By the way, your grammar and spelling is horrible, take your time and use a dictionary if you must so I can actually read your response.

now who us judgeing? you are sooo intolerant of my intolerance! jeez! And hateing a man by his actions is an opinion. which is not mine. And no if my cousin was gay activly i still would love him cause hes my cousin and I culd possibly help him. And who said I dont understand? Umm yah I dont really care about grammer or spelling considering this is a game but in some of the things that I am writng now outside of school I am completely gramatucal and I always ead over everything I write. And next time dont put words in my mouth or judge me. you dont know me therfore dont judge me

I am no better, sometimes I am disgusted by some of those who don't conform to what I believe is good behavior, I however will stand by their right to live the way they want to live.
[/quote]

Tell me, are you disgusted by rapist? or people who like child porno? So will you condon this because they want to live like that? Or drug dealers? I mean where do you draw the line what black and whats white?

Calling this guy a 'Heretic'...
No one's calling him a heretic. I'm the heretic, and I think maybe he called someone else a heretic.

Anyways, whoever could not see OP's site, I didn't pay much attention, but I can vouch it does exist (I believe you that you have trouble accessing it, my computer sucks too)

Tell me, are you disgusted by rapist? or people who like child porno? So will you condon this because they want to live like that? Or drug dealers? I mean where do you draw the line what black and whats white? Well, your first two examples are issues of no consent being given, so it doesn't matter how one of the parties wants to live, only if both parties agree.

And no if my cousin was gay activly i still would love him cause hes my cousin and I culd possibly help him. And if he refused your 'help'?

(ooc: how do I do a sig?)

Speak of the devil! It finally let me in to that frc site! Ok...OP, that site proves nothing. The problems it sets out are mostly to do with the duration and stability and exclusivity of homosexual relationships. First problem - heterosexual marriages are used as a control group to compare to all homosexual relationships. Here in the UK, we expect better standards of methodology from teenagers doing science experiments than are apparently expected from Americans whose job it is to conduct surveys! Second, you claimed that these statistics are from the government - however only a few of the stats on the site are actually govt commissioned surveys. Three, the exclusivity, duration, and stability of a relationship should only be the concern of those who engage in that relationship. The site doesn't prove anything about kids, it just shows that fewer homosexual couples than thought would be interested in taking a child into their home - that doesn't mean that where they would be, they would abuse the child. Four, we already dealt with the STD stuff earlier.

Tell me, are you disgusted by rapist? or people who like child porno? So will you condon this because they want to live like that? Or drug dealers? I mean where do you draw the line what black and whats white?Well, your first two examples are issues of no consent being given, so it doesn't matter how one of the parties wants to live, only if both parties agree.

Yes, as Vivelon says, it's a matter of consent. Gay couples enter into a relationship voluntarily, just as heterosexual couples do.

pk what aboput someone who is truely skitso? and wants to marry his laternate personality.

I'm not an expert on multiple-personality disorders, but are both personalities ever both present?

and i believe homosexuality is also abusive to children and creates a atmosphere bad for the children go to my previously stated site frc.org and see what i mean.

Nowhere does it even claim to show that homosexual couples can't provide a good atmosphere for child-rearing. It just claims that there are relativley few homosexual couples who want to adopt.

and no they cannot have the same love because love in a mrriage includes haveing children and homo unions are lacking that finality.

(Well, according to those who report the march of scientific progress, not for long - a mouse was recently born using the genetic material of two female mice. But I'll argue this assuming that homosexuals can't have kids.) Not all married couples have children. Not all married couples are capable of having children. Should they too be disbarred from marriage?

Oh, and you still haven't proven the existence of an objective morality, or responded to my dismissal of your appallingly flimsy argument that the bible is the word of god because it is the word of god. :wink:

just to point out to u earlier you said you were an atheist.

:roll: Yes, O.P. and that was not my point, :wink:

check for it if u dont believe me.

I am aware of my own post, and belief, or lack there of. :wink:

and now dont be a bigot against Churchy people. no intolerance of intolerance rigght? dont stoop to my level

1) Missing the point again. :wink:

2) Darn'd it, the point there is to be intolerant of intolerance,

Argh ! :D

- Le Représentant de Komokom, Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

Why are all those God believers always so persistent in trying to force their way of thinking and living onto the others in this world? YOU do it your way, let others do it THEIR way and stop fussing about it.

Everyone has the right to free choice. Your right of free choice ends, where you deny someone else this freedom.

Even the slightest suggestion that NON believers do not live their lives by moral standards or well considered choices is a MAJOR insult from anyone who calls himself a believer. Not believing in God does not qualify anyone as being a barbarian.

PLEASE: It's a new day, wake up!

Religion has two main purposes:

One, it gives the people spiritual satisfaction. If religion does not satisfy this need, the state, sports, or musicians will. Catholicism is a very respectable institution which has earned it's right through history.

Second, it helps to control society along with laws and it helps to control the people by giving them a moral teaching. It makes the world a better place.

Chancellor Lothario Conti de Segni

Why are all those God believers always so persistent in trying to force their way of thinking and living onto the others in this world? YOU do it your way, let others do it THEIR way and stop fussing about it.

Everyone has the right to free choice. Your right of free choice ends, where you deny someone else this freedom.

Even the slightest suggestion that NON believers do not live their lives by moral standards or well considered choices is a MAJOR insult from anyone who calls himself a believer. Not believing in God does not qualify anyone as being a barbarian.

PLEASE: It's a new day, wake up!

I am not forcing it on anyone I am not for any manditory religion period. but just like you I am sharing my views which are based on my religon. Because according to my religion you cannot make anyoen convert. Im just makeing an argument thats all. I think Innocentious has good intentions but is not really aware of everything he should know as the "pope" of nations states

Why are all those God believers always so persistent in trying to force their way of thinking and living onto the others in this world? YOU do it your way, let others do it THEIR way and stop fussing about it.

Everyone has the right to free choice. Your right of free choice ends, where you deny someone else this freedom.

Even the slightest suggestion that NON believers do not live their lives by moral standards or well considered choices is a MAJOR insult from anyone who calls himself a believer. Not believing in God does not qualify anyone as being a barbarian.

PLEASE: It's a new day, wake up!

I am not forcing it on anyone I am not for any manditory religion period. but just like you I am sharing my views which are based on my religon. Because according to my religion you cannot make anyoen convert. Im just makeing an argument thats all. I think Innocentious has good intentions but is not really aware of everything he should know as the "pope" of nations states. ohh and kk it was a joke and im not being intolerant im just saying their actions are wrong and cannot be supprot. Are you intolerant of rapist? just a point

Calling this guy a 'Heretic'...
No one's calling him a heretic. I'm the heretic, and I think maybe he called someone else a heretic.

Anyways, whoever could not see OP's site, I didn't pay much attention, but I can vouch it does exist (I believe you that you have trouble accessing it, my computer sucks too)

Tell me, are you disgusted by rapist? or people who like child porno? So will you condon this because they want to live like that? Or drug dealers? I mean where do you draw the line what black and whats white? Well, your first two examples are issues of no consent being given, so it doesn't matter how one of the parties wants to live, only if both parties agree.

And no if my cousin was gay activly i still would love him cause hes my cousin and I culd possibly help him. And if he refused your 'help'?

(ooc: how do I do a sig?)

anyone who denys dogma is a heretic sorry man ask a priest. and what if the child consent to phornograohy eh? like a 12 yr old is it ok for 1 35 yr old to be like ohh yah. its sick and wrong and my cousin could never stop me for praying for him :D ! as can all of you :wink:

Imposing Catholic rules upon all the nations in the UN OOC: even in a game :shock: , is rediculous, stupid, bigoted, zealous, and a travesty of all th UN stands for. I am a christain, by I don't go and wae the 10 commandments in a Muslims face every time I see one, you know. So if you want to follow catholic laws then do so, but don't make us do it, besides, if you maged to get a reselutionlike that passed, I would nuke you (not your coutry just you, I would kidnap you, put you in space, torture you, then send wats left of you far a way and detonate a nuke designed to be reallly painful!!!!

The Nation of Juifs issues this decree:

While our nation has religious affiliation, it is our foreign policy to take immediate military action against any nation imposing their own religion or beliefs forcefully on any other nation.

One, it gives the people spiritual satisfaction. If religion does not satisfy this need, the state, sports, or musicians will. Catholicism is a very respectable institution which has earned it's right through history.

Second, it helps to control society along with laws and it helps to control the people by giving them a moral teaching. It makes the world a better place.

We don't need religion for these tings anymore. We are capable of acting ethically without it. Therefore, the point of religion should only be a search for truth. What we really need is philosophy.

and what if the child consent to phornograohy eh? like a 12 yr old is it ok for 1 35 yr old to be like ohh yah.

Which is why governments set minimum ages which must be reached in order to give informed consent. It wouldn't be right because the child probably isn't emotionally and mentally developed enough to give that consent.

I am a christain, by I don't go and wae the 10 commandments in a Muslims face every time I see one, you know.
To be perfectly honest, a Muslim would agree with all of the Ten Commandments, and would probably claim that he practised them better than many Christians do.

anyone who denys dogma is a heretic sorry man ask a priest.

It used to be dogma that the sun orbited the earth. It used to be dogma that slavery was acceptable. It used to be dogma that the Jewish race, as a whole, was to blame for the death of Christ.

Given all this, I don't think there's very much wrong with being a heretic.

Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of it but degenerated into vice.

Um, that was me. Stupid puppets.

Innocentius you are a hipocrit. By your own catholic beliefs selfishness is rewarded with hell. You may say, "What selfishness is there in an honest Catholic opinion?". I tell you, by your attempt to bring a hammer of compulsory religion down you will do 2 selfish things:1. force everyone to believe what you believe and 2. "buy" a "plot" of "land" from "god" in "heaven", which in itself is a selfish action. Also, by your catholic tradition, anyone, I repeat anyone, either atheist, budhist, muslim or whatnot, who searches for a truth will be saved on "judgement day" when "god" and "jesus" save us. You search for no truth but merely perform a random action that will destroy human rights.
"coerce": 1:to repress, 2:to compel. It's safe to say you coerce. What's wrong with that? Coercion is a root of all evils. The very supression of human rights which you try to combat is only fueled by the main force of combatation, religion, coercion. So, let's save human rights by destroying them.
Also, you cause something called "panopticism". Through your actions, you cause a network of forced religion. You will have military and police forcing humans to worship "god", much like the Romans forcing Jews to eat pork and worhsip Zeus. What is wrong with panopticism? Nothing, really. It only destroys human rights. Murder. Slavery. Rape. Also, panopticism is fueled by capitalism. Slavery. Death. Poverty. Starvation.

Be smart. Save a life. Save a slave. Free an opinion. Keep religion out of the UN. Stay tuned for more reasons not to have religion in the UN.

Join the Region of Debate to learn how to do this.

Rebute this if you want, it's a free world.

I think Innocentious has good intentions but is not really aware of everything he should know as the "pope" of nations states.

Actually, Innocentious is not the recognised pope of Nationstates. The recognised pope of Nationstates actually runs the nation known as "Holy Vatican See", and he is generally recognised by most nations as the NS pope, at least to those who are able to tell fantasy from reality. There are, of course those who still retreat into "I will recognise no other pope than the pope in the real world.", and of course that is up to them. I think most people would consider Innocentious an anti-pope, since only his region seems to recognise him as pope. The majority of NS Catholics, however, follow the pope in Holy Vatican See.

On On Portugal's various posts, this is all I have to say:

http://www.slightlywarped.com/forumpictures/threadsucks/makeitstop.jpg

I am a christain, by I don't go and wae the 10 commandments in a Muslims face every time I see one, you know.
To be perfectly honest, a Muslim would agree with all of the Ten Commandments, and would probably claim that he practised them better than many Christians do.

anyone who denys dogma is a heretic sorry man ask a priest.

It used to be dogma that the sun orbited the earth. It used to be dogma that slavery was acceptable. It used to be dogma that the Jewish race, as a whole, was to blame for the death of Christ.

Given all this, I don't think there's very much wrong with being a heretic.

Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of it but degenerated into vice.

Now the real question is can u even prove they were dogma maybe the first about the earth but the others i think are b.s.

I think Innocentious has good intentions but is not really aware of everything he should know as the "pope" of nations states.

Actually, Innocentious is not the recognised pope of Nationstates. The recognised pope of Nationstates actually runs the nation known as "Holy Vatican See", and he is generally recognised by most nations as the NS pope, at least to those who are able to tell fantasy from reality. There are, of course those who still retreat into "I will recognise no other pope than the pope in the real world.", and of course that is up to them. I think most people would consider Innocentious an anti-pope, since only his region seems to recognise him as pope. The majority of NS Catholics, however, follow the pope in Holy Vatican See.

On On Portugal's various posts, this is all I have to say:

http://www.slightlywarped.com/forumpictures/threadsucks/makeitstop.jpg

o ok that makes sense can u make a lik to his nation?

Okay. We all know that it was dogma that the sun orbited the earth, and frankly, one example is enough; if you claim you're infallible, only one failure is needed to prove you wrong. However, let's just lay out the other two, shall we?

Slavery was not only accepted, but never questioned by the early Christians and Church. The Emperor Gratian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06729c.htm), while a Christian himself, "decreed that a slave who accused his master of any offence except high treason to the state should be burned alive at once, without inquiring into the justice of the charge." Saint Paul commanded slaves to obey their masters (Col. 3:22-25; Eph. 6:5-8).

Throughout the medieval period the Catholic Church participated closely in the feudal system (where serfs were effectively slaves, bound to the land on which they were born) passing any number of laws regulating it.

The Bull Romanus Pontifex (http://www.kwabs.com/romanus_pontifex_bull.html) of 1455 explicitly acknowledges slavery as lawful, and indeed encourages it if it will lead to the conversion of slaves to Catholicism. Portugal and Spain, devoutly Catholic countries, were the first to realise the potential of mass slavery in the New World. James Boswell, writing against the abolitionist movement, said
To abolish a status which in all ages GOD has sanctioned, and man has continued, would not only be robbery to an innumerable class of our fellow-subjects; but it would be extreme cruelty to the African Savages, a portion of whom it saves from massacre, or intolerable bondage in their own country, and introduces into a much happier state of life...
The Church vacillated greatly on the issue; statements were made both condemning and accepting slavery. While many statements were made encouraging masters to treat slaves kindly, and to set free slaves who were baptised, we also find this in the Canon of Gregory IX:

It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture. It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors. All theologians are unanimous on this.
It's also on record that certain Popes bought slaves. The Church was particularly consistent in recommending that Muslims and pagans should be enslaved - this based on the Aristotelean approach to slavery, which is that it's better to be enslaved by a benign master if you don't know what's good for you.

In 1866 the Holy Office was asked to respond to the institution of the 13th Amendment, and said this:
Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is*not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.

As for the Jews: Innocent III sums it up:
the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free...

Damn, even the Pope accepts that the Catholic Church has screwed up in the past. In 2001 he "asked forgiveness from God for wrongs committed by the Catholic Church over the centuries, including those inflicted on Jews, women and minorities." A seperate apology had already been issued, several hundred years late, to Galileo.

Do you guys beleive that the great flood happened?

Right, it’s time for me to step in again…

First, Pope Innocentius XIV is being recognized as the legitimate pope in the EU and in the European Union. (Two different regions). Cohersion with all nationstates is impossible, and therefore you can see him as either the real pope of these regions, or as the anti-pope of the world. Whatever suits your criticism best. For more background information, browse through the forums at : http://s6.invisionfree.com/European_Union , where we are really active.

Concerning the Papal history, I admit there have been numerous mistakes. However, each mistake must been seen in it’s context, meaning you cannot judge them with the values you have nowadays. Also, study the history of your nation, of the royal or presidential dynasty / tradition in your land, and you will see there have been numerous mistakes in their reign too. In your life too!! Be gentle with who or what you judge, for it compromises your objective vision.

Concerning the Catholic dogma: to those attached to the Roman Catholic Church, I can only say that if you are a good christian, you don’t need these teachings. If you need some guidance, here they are. To the rest, we can only hope that the life you lead is meaningful and moral. If not, consider the possibilty of a God. If you have reached this far, consider recognizing the Church as the legitimate provider of religion. You will see, it opens many doors to your spiritaul salvation.

Signed,

The Chancellor of State (Premier)
Lothario Dei Conti de Segni

In nomine patris, filius et spiritus sanctus

Concerning Papal history, I admit there have been numerous mistakes. However, each mistake must been seen in it’s context, meaning you cannot judge them with the values you have nowadays. Also, study the history of your nation, of the royal or presidential dynasty / tradition in your land, and you will see there have been numerous mistakes in their reign too. In your life too!! Be gentle with who or what you judge, for it compromises your objective vision.
Oh, sure, every nation has done some bastardly stuff in its time - but they don't consider themselves to be the final authority on what's right and wrong, as a rule.

Then who do you consider to be that final authority over that? The United Nations? Do you acknowledge their superiority over what's right and wrong? Those filthy and greedy politicians are by no means better than our respectable church.

Religion has two main purposes:

One, it gives the people spiritual satisfaction. If religion does not satisfy this need, the state, sports, or musicians will. Catholicism is a very respectable institution which has earned it's right through history.

Second, it helps to control society along with laws and it helps to control the people by giving them a moral teaching. It makes the world a better place.

Chancellor Lothario Conti de Segni

Well...
Religion in itself may be a good form of moral teaching, but then again so is good parenting, if you CHOSE to be one. Possibly if you focused on raising children instead of ramrodding religion down their throats they might just grow up happy. Considering that more than 30% of suicides are due to abusive treatment of children (yes this includes the ramrodding of religion down their throats)(yes this is true)(yes I had a friend whose parents forced religion on him, he shot himself dead a while back), it seems it is not a good moral teacher. Plus the fact that when someone has 8000000000 kids they feel left out, unwanted(except for the moments when they go to church for more ramrodding), starved, and when they see mom staying at home cooking and dad ramrodding, it imprints on them, creating 800000000 super- womanizing/babymaking/kidtorturers. It does NOT increase morality when forced on the child/person. PLus on a more oobvious note, is it moral to force an opinion? So quit playing the morality card, dammit. However, religion isn;\'t bad when there is choice behind it. I know very nice religioous people, who were raised with the choice of their religion. Most biblethumper-raised people i know are either pushing daisies or are converting to some new religion. Which brings me to my next point, WHY ARE CATHOLICS THE "BETTER RELIGION?" i dont know, and they are NO BETTER OR WORSE than others. Get over it, let people have alife of there own and chose their own religion. Also whebn you say catholicism has earned its right through history, i do agree. They have been known for SEXISM, RACISM, COERCION, and other horrid crimes. note all of these cause the same DEATH, PAIN, and IMMORALITY you claim occurs in the status quo, andTHEN SOME, including POVERTY, MURDER, SlAVERY, ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION(which causes more death and starvation etc.) and MORE. Which causes more harm? CHOICE (FREEDOM) or COERCION (to FORCE, to OPRESS, to REPRESS)?

Then who do you consider to be that final authority over that? The United Nations? Do you acknowledge their superiority over what's right and wrong? Those filthy and greedy politicians are by no means better than our respectable church.
WHICH IS WHY YOU EXPECT THEM TO ENFORCE THE COERCISIVE RELIGION LAW? youre right those filthy and greedy politicians would love to pass your "non-filthy and greedy" law. THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE, DOOFUS!!!!