NationStates Jolt Archive

I started this thread because of what was posted in this one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11245775#post11245775

I live in the Baptist Bible Belt of the USA, which is very annoying, because these people think like Selfuria does. That the Roman Catholic Church is "the most corrupt religon on earth" and that we're not real "Christian". Neverminding the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was the FIRST church. Baptist and the other denomination didn't come around till Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis. Hell he wasn't even try to start his own denomination, he was trying to change the Roman Catholic Church itself. I am sick and tired of hearing uneducated idiots like "Selfuria" (or Baptist idiots) talk about how "bad" the Catholic Church is, and yet their knowledge of the actual church is limited by their converstation with one Catholic, or what their preacher told them. Now look, I will be the first to admit that the Roman Catholic Church has some problems, every denomination, every religion that was ever concieved in the span of human history has problems. Why, because humans are falliable. Everything that humans have created, are bounds to have errors and mistakes, it just the way human nature is. Even in the mist of the fault of the Roman Catholic Church, we still manage to produce people like Pope John Paul II, or Mother Theresa. Hell, I can name five Fathers myself that I'm glad I've made friends with.

I think what is important that the people outside the Catholic faith need to look at is what our message is. And no, it's not that it's ok to molest alter servers. :rolleyes: . The message is that Jesus has died for our sins, and that through the power of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) that we may do good things and ask for their guidance. All I am asking for, from the people outside the Catholic faith, is that you actually know what you are talking about. Go to a local Catholic Church, talk to the Father there. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to explain how the church works. By the time you're done I hope you'll realize that the Catholic Church does share the core Christian value that other churches has. We just like to do our mass (church service) diffrently, and we like to honor Mary, and the Saints. So please, next time you want to bash the Catholic Church, please, at least know what you're saying instead of repeating the stuff you hear on The 700 Club.

Although I've admittedly not clicked on your link, I'd be the first to say 'hear, hear!'. I'm an atheist, sure. But I try to remain respectful about this sort of thing, and I don't think that it's too much to ask of everyone to do the same. I've ranted about this in the past, I know. And I won't now, since he just did. But...

hear hear?

Anti-Catholic stigma in Protestant sects comes from the very source and reason that Protestantism was created at all - to oppose Catholicism. As a result, the tradition that Catholics are bad and corrupt has been passed on to virtually every Protestant sect.

Unfortunantly, most Protestants seem to forget this. And other little historical facts, such as that the New Testament was canonized by Catholics. Each little book that is in it today was voted on and grouped by Catholics. Or the doctrine of the Trinity, invented by Catholics as a modifcation to their Bianity doctrine five decades previously. It goes on and on.

In essence, all Protestant religions have roots in what Catholicism created. Prottys are essentially dumbed down Catholic rebels.

I'm atheist, but I support Catholics against Baptists because Catholics are in favor of abortion, but i think both cathoilc sand baptists should stop reading the bible and start working more. Atheists can't do all the work for the country anymore.

I'm atheist, but I support Catholics against Baptists because Catholics are in favor of abortion, but i think both cathoilc sand baptists should stop reading the bible and start working more. Atheists can't do all the work for the country anymore.


I'd note over in the Judaism thread this guy claimed to be a weird hybrid of pagan-Christian-Catholic. He's a troll.

I'm atheist, but I support Catholics against Baptists because Catholics are in favor of abortion, but i think both cathoilc sand baptists should stop reading the bible and start working more. Atheists can't do all the work for the country anymore.
Yeah, this guy was aparently Ultra-protestant about apocaliptic scripture too.
Anyway, since when do Catholics support abortion?

I'm atheist, but I support Catholics against Baptists because Catholics are in favor of abortion, but i think both cathoilc sand baptists should stop reading the bible and start working more. Atheists can't do all the work for the country anymore.Actually, Catholics are against abortion and the Pope John Paul II, God rest his soul, himself had condemned it. As well, by many Catholics consider it a mortal sin.

Freebasing catholics gives you a papal high...








Sorry, I'll go...

I'd note over in the Judaism thread this guy claimed to be a weird hybrid of pagan-Christian-Catholic. He's a troll.

I'm pro-progress Altruism. I've seen you in other topics and you often call anyone a troll who disagrees with you, or brings up points that you don't want debated.

You are the epitome of what would occur if you seized control and put YOUR vision of progress on all of us. i.e. dissent silenced, etc.

Freebasing catholics gives you a papal high...








Sorry, I'll go...


:fluffle: I was thinking the SAME thing:D

Yeah, this guy was aparently Ultra-protestant about apocaliptic scripture too.
Anyway, since when do Catholics support abortion?

When I was presenting fundyism I specifically mentioned it, but I don't think I ever used the Apocalyspe in any arguments. Can you elaborate?

Perhaps you didn't like the idea of a moral law and God. But, it's a moot point, because indeed I share your view that the idea of objective morality and God must be ended for progressive policies to ever have a chance at being implemented.

Freebasing catholics gives you a papal high...








Sorry, I'll go...

I was thinking along similar lines too! :p

Hell, I can name five Fathers myself that I'm glad I've made friends with.
I think what is important that the people outside the Catholic faith need to look at is what our message is. And no, it's not that it's ok to molest alter servers. :rolleyes: .

We just like to do our mass (church service) diffrently, and we like to honor Mary, and the Saints.


The message of the Catholic church does seem to be it's terrible to molest little kids. Then there's the whole "covering that up and conspiring against the congregation to allow a child molestor to strike again" aspect of things. That last one is the doozy. It's kind of a "killed the entire church stone dead" thing really, in Ireland anyway. My generation are just not prepared to deal with an organisation which knowingly concealed child rapists. They have to import priests into Ireland now as noone is joining them.

It'd be bad enough if they were Scientologists or something, you'd expect that from scum like that. When they stand up on their altars telling real people how to live their lives the irony is a bit too rich these days. It kind of washes away faith like a giant douche.

When I was presenting fundyism I specifically mentioned it, but I don't think I ever used the Apocalyspe in any arguments. Can you elaborate?

Perhaps you didn't like the idea of a moral law and God. But, it's a moot point, because indeed I share your view that the idea of objective morality and God must be ended for progressive policies to ever have a chance at being implemented.
You're coment to me was something along of Nero not possibly being the Anti-christ mentioned in Revelation, and then said that the only way I could have thought this (which has been widely accepted by Catholic theologeons) was because of the progressive theories public education( which I've never had) . Anyway, I may aslo be blending you with the other guy, but just about everything you said falls way into the protestant camp.

You're coment to me was something along of Nero not possibly being the Anti-christ mentioned in Revelation, and then said that the only way I could have thought this (which has been widely accepted by Catholic theologeons) was because of the progressive theories public education( which I've never had) . Anyway, I may aslo be blending you with the other guy, but just about everything you said falls way into the protestant camp.

Well, I don't remember, but, in any case, are you saying that the Catholic Church believes that the events in Revelation have already occured?

Well, I don't remember, but, in any case, are you saying that the Catholic Church believes that the events in Revelation have already occured?
Their is no official teaching I'm aware of on revalation specifically, however the Catholic view of prophesy is that it is not nessarily a hard and fast description of what will happen, but rather warnings or messages to specific people at a specific time that may include certain details of future events. The Catholic Church does believe there will be an end of days, but most scholars within the Church believe that most of revealation is an allusion to the sporatic persectutions of Christians in pre-Constantine Rome.

you might want to edit the title of the thread, as it implies using dead Catholics as recreational drugs (wry chuckle)

Though, actually, there are a few corrections I'd make...

(1) The Baptists come _way_ later than the Reformation. They were born in one of the American Great Awakenings. (you're on what, the fourth or fifth of those now ? Very sleepy but very pious people down there :) ) This is significant because many Baptists don't even realize their roots. They're just dropped into their community and told "this is what right thinking folks believe" and so they believe it too. They're told that Catholics aren't just evil, but evil masquerading as good.

You see the Baptists' hatred of Catholics serves some useful purposes. By having this list of sins that Catholics are "guilty" of, they can thus affirm that their own beliefs are good. And the great thing is, these are passive things. Thus their believers get to feel more virtuous without actually having to DO anything except be a Baptist and believe what others in their community believe.

For example they don't have an extensive hierarchy, the Catholics do, they state that heirarchy is bad. Gets between the faithful and G*d. Thus, by not having one they are good.

They made themselves in part as the antithesis of what they hated so that just by getting up in the morning and getting out of bed they're better than other people.

We'll leave it to others in the thread to debate the merits of the supposed virtues of their being the anti-Catholics....

(2) One of the main virtues that Catholicism offers is that it has a body of theological interpretation. They admit the Bible as written has some...difficulties...regarding consistency, logic and message. (And this by itself is one thing that makes the Baptists see red because they claim there's no issues like this at all. How they reconcile the subtle but real changes in their own interpretation with the claim that the Bible's instructions are clear and obvious is beyond me...)

Basically, the Catholic Church endorses the idea that you have to do some meticulous research into how to resolve the ambiguities of the Bible. And that new research can overturn an old standard of interpreation at any time. As long as the Pope puts his seal on a doctrinal change, it's good. Since the Pope is God's special agent, he is incapable of making the wrong choice from the facts he gets by nature of his selection by G*d If the Pope does err, it's because the research was bad.

(the Cardinals insist they do not discuss the candidacy of _anyone_ during their sequestration to elect a new pope and thus each person simply casts their votes in isolation and it is by G*d's influence that votes are changed and eventually a consensus emerges.)

Now, this doctrine has some cupidity...regardless, what it boils down to is that the Catholics are committed to trying to keep the religion alive and rooted in the contemporary times. Yet are trying to do so without letting it devolve into a religion by popular opinion. This is a very good thing.

In the sects without such a mechanism, doctrinal progression is essentially a mostly random process determined by internal politics and accidents of what the most persuasive orator of a given generation believes. Or it does become a religion of popular opinion poll results.

While the Catholics are not incapable of bad choices, at least they are referring to facts and carefully articulated positions rather than whim to decide what is right and what is wrong.

(3) You do have a profoundly different viewpoint by having saints and having seven sacrements. The difference is not just "we do things differently but our purpose is the same". By selecting certain tools you teach and affirm by their use differences in worldview and ethical behaviour.

The Sacrements in Catholicism are essentially Church sponsored divine magic to invoke G*d's grace upon the individual members or the whole congregation. Basically, the Priest or other officiating get's G*d's attention and G*d surveys the scene, affirms that all is as it should be, and grants the aid that he always does if asked properly.

The similiarity of this with heathen ritual magic makes many Protestants declare Catholicism evil _just for this alone_.

However, what these people miss the point of is that humans need ceremony and ritual. While some stout souls can declare a moral goal and march towards it like a one person battalion, most people cannot. They need to have myth and poetry and persuasion and all sorts of irrational and emotional influences to help them do what they say they intend to do.

Ritual never ensures virtue. But without it, most people have a very hard time sticking to their ethical guns. If virtue were just a matter of resolve and knowing what was right, humans wouldn't be this messed up. (wry look)

As to the Saints, again, this idea seems blashpemous to some Protestants. Because it's saying that by your deeds you can become a sort of angel. And that from there on, a Saint acts to help G*d in the dominion of the Earth.

First, this contradicts the idea that only your belief (faith) saves you from damnation, and that no one is any more saved than anyone else. (though the practice of this second half of the doctrine is rather....lacking...in a lot of communities). Secondly, it implies that G*d needs human help. After all, if there wasn't a special patron of protection against lightning (Saint Barbara I think) until this woman went and got herself canonized, that implies G*d didn't make the world work correctly in the _first_ place. Which is in indirect assault on G*d's omniscience and majesty.

To say humans can approach G*d by pious behaviour is to say that maybe humans aren't 100% wretched. That they can do worthwhile things by their will and choice. This is a deeply offensive position to some protestants. Their theology emphasizes the debased nature of humanity and it's worthlessness save insofar as people can elect to recognize G*d's majesty and believe in Him.

(4) Your exhortation for them to learn your reasoning before disagreeing with it is ironically an immoral act to many of them. You see...to them, it's like asking a Satanist to explain himself to you before you go on to disagree with that person's ethical choices. First, you're self evidently in the wrong by having refused to uphold the _literal commandment of the bible_ in many regards.

Second, if they care about your reasoning, they're admitting that your reasons might justify a change in their understanding of what is right and wrong. But to them, you're not supposed to _think_ in order to know what is right and wrong, you're supposed to _hear_ and _obey_. In this respect they are exactly like Moslems, ironically.

The key here is that they don't think there is any amibiguity in the Bible. They regard it as a self evidently clear insturction manual that means exactly what their pastors say it does and only what they say. If anyone else says they are believing in G*d without accepting His unambiguous word, that person does not _really_ believe in G*d.

What you have is an idea system that has an absolutely hermetic protection against change by anyone who believes in it in its pure form. An entreaty for understanding and tolerance is futile to quite a few folks.

Btw, you might want to assess the differences that are evident between Catholicism and the arm of Protestant Catholicism descending from the Baptists....and then compare Catholicism to Judaism on those variables. You might see an interesting pattern. You might not.

The message of the Catholic church does seem to be it's terrible to molest little kids. Then there's the whole "covering that up and conspiring against the congregation to allow a child molestor to strike again" aspect of things. That last one is the doozy. It's kind of a "killed the entire church stone dead" thing really, in Ireland anyway. My generation are just not prepared to deal with an organisation which knowingly concealed child rapists. They have to import priests into Ireland now as noone is joining them.


Of course, this is an example again of people favoring passive differences to make themselves feel good about themselves. I'm not defending or trivializing the crimes involved. However, it's worth noting that _every_ comparably long lived and large scale organization has a _great deal_ of appalling skeletons in their closets. Often skeletons that were known to and acknowledged by the majority or near entirety of the organization. (like the American military's policy of trashcanning most charges of rape by female personnel against male personnel)

It's the inevitable tax of corruption levied on any mega-organization. Gather power, watch power abused. Refuse to gather power, and make impossible a great many things that can only be done with massed power.

I find that argument about Catholicism to be the wrong reason entirely to dislike it. There are plenty of things to complain about, but not the things that the Protestants do or the laypeople icking in shock at the rape scandals do.

Its akin to how people who go through terrible tragedies doubting G*d's existence, really....holy presence does not mean happily ever after.

I'll note I _am_ trying to convert to Judaism, and that I really _don't_ like Catholicism. But it is _so_ much better than the majority of its Christian competitors.

Neverminding the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was the FIRST church.
As far as I remember there was no "Roman Catholic Church" before 1054 when the undivided church divided into 2. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Maybe they called the earlier Church Catholic too.

And anyway Protestant Churhces are just reformations of Catholic Church. Baptist may think what ever they want. (=I agree that some of these Reformation churches have just lost it.)

As far as I remember there was no "Roman Catholic Church" before 1054 when the undivided church divided into 2. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Maybe they called the earlier Church Catholic too.

And anyway Protestant Churhces are just reformations of Catholic Church. Baptist may think what ever they want.

Exactly. The Greek Church is/was the first Christian church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_of_Jerusalem

Aside from covering up rampant child molestation and launching the Crusades for purely nonreligious reasons, the Catholic Church is fine.

Their is no official teaching I'm aware of on revalation specifically, however the Catholic view of prophesy is that it is not nessarily a hard and fast description of what will happen, but rather warnings or messages to specific people at a specific time that may include certain details of future events. The Catholic Church does believe there will be an end of days, but most scholars within the Church believe that most of revealation is an allusion to the sporatic persectutions of Christians in pre-Constantine Rome.

The Church included Revelations basically because they were scared not doing so would undermine their legitimacy because it was such a popular text. However, my understanding (and my observations, based on how rare readings from it were in the service when I used to be Catholic in my youth) is they'd really rather not talk about it. This would make sense if on theological grounds from the very start at Nicene _they didn't want it in there_. But it wasn't quite heretical enough to persuade them to not pander to popular opinion and include it :) Ironically, it's one of the main sources of anti-Catholicism now :)

I could be dead wrong here, but that was what I was told by someone apparently knoweldgeable a long way back.

As far as I remember there was no "Roman Catholic Church" before 1054 when the undivided church divided into 2. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Maybe they called the earlier Church Catholic too.

And anyway Protestant Churhces are just reformations of Catholic Church. Baptist may think what ever they want. (=I agree that some of these Reformation churches have just lost it.)

Well the Catholics of course say they inherited the legitimacy of the pre-schism Church, and the Greek Orthodox say they have it. Since almost no one knows about the Great Schism, both sides' assertation to this legacy pass unchallenged :) I know almost nothing about the Greek Orthodox Church except that I like the decentralization of the uppermost authority.

As to losing it....theology is (like any logical system) a great way to go wrong with confidence. But without imposing order and rigor on your ethical thinking, you're in the Church of What I Was Going To Do Anyway. And there you have indeed lost the whole point of the Church...which is there to act as a guidance mechanism with real influence upon your behaviour.

I just want to get this out, cause I really like this thread and where its been going. I'm not a Catholic, but I love the Church. I've gone to two Catholic Churches for several masses each. I've befriended two priests and a nun. They really are good people. Simultaneously kind, Christian, and intelligent. Something I've found to be a rare combination since neo-conservatives hijacked the Christian faith for the glory of ethnocentric America. I can't go to Protestant Churches without them basically sucking George W's nuts anymore, outright talking like he's some savior of Christian America from the liberal sinners. Catholics, being an internation Church, don't have that same national bias, and I appreciate that.

Also, studying some of the Saints, I've been really inspired. Saint Francis of Assisi is probably one of the single most amazing historical figures I've ever studied. Same goes for Saint Thomas More.

Aside from covering up rampant child molestation and launching the Crusades for purely nonreligious reasons, the Catholic Church is fine.

Reach far enough back and either your own society or the society it sprang from has committed genocide; engaged in wars of agression to harvest slaves; and practiced the belief that the State is the Property of the gods.

The litmus of the merit of an ideology is how it affected its society(s) overall through its history and more particularly within recent history. Beliefs can work well for ages, and then stop, or vice versa.

And btw, the Roman Catholic Church did exist before circa 1000 or whenever you said. Early Church figures around 100 and 300 ad used the word "catholic" which roughly means "universal" in Greek to specify it as being different from the more Gnostic sects of Christianity. Also, since the Bishop of Rome has held the most power since around 300AD, it wasn't called the Roman Catholic Church, but it already was in a de facto sense

Heh Catholics, Protastants, Baptists, Mormans, JW's whatever it don't really matter, they are are Christian faiths and all take the Bible as their holy scripture(yes I know about the book of mormon).

The point is however that there are things that not not add up about the Bible and so by extentions the Christian faith. Yes I make your right in calling on detractors to know learn a little about the faith, but anybody can pick up a Bible read it and come to their own conclusions.

The origianal poster says that the point of Catholosism is that christ died for our sins. I would ask is the whole concept of sin, original sin, and the need for a sacrifice to attone for these sins, in accordance with the idea of a loveing God?

The Christian concept of God seems very flawed to me, and to my mind at least it seems as though Christianity is largely based on the words and workings of man, and not God.

The Bible is full of scorn for women so in this almost enlightend time of equal oppertunities can it be right that us mankind, is more loving than God? Of course not, God can not be wrong, so it must be this interpretation of God that is incorrect.

Now I ask is have I made some, one, any valid points here, and if I have realise that I am also one that has not studied the Bible, Christianity, or Catholosim in any great detail, other than reading your holy scripture and finding it lacking.

I don't feel at home with Christians anymore either, but not because I don't like God or because I just want to sin, sin, sin all the time. mainly just because I've been so disappointed over and over by hypocrisy, and because pretty much every point that was made in the post before me.

But I do like Christians and respect their faith. I just can't follow something out of fear of Hell instead of conviction of my own free will and reason.

I just want to get this out, cause I really like this thread and where its been going. I'm not a Catholic, but I love the Church. I've gone to two Catholic Churches for several masses each. I've befriended two priests and a nun. They really are good people. Simultaneously kind, Christian, and intelligent. Something I've found to be a rare combination since neo-conservatives hijacked the Christian faith for the glory of ethnocentric America. I can't go to Protestant Churches without them basically sucking George W's nuts anymore, outright talking like he's some savior of Christian America from the liberal sinners. Catholics, being an internation Church, don't have that same national bias, and I appreciate that.

Also, studying some of the Saints, I've been really inspired. Saint Francis of Assisi is probably one of the single most amazing historical figures I've ever studied. Same goes for Saint Thomas More.

Given that George Bush's poll numbers have been quite low for some time, I doubt "every" Protestant in America fits that description.

And btw, the Roman Catholic Church did exist before circa 1000 or whenever you said. Early Church figures around 100 and 300 ad used the word "catholic" which roughly means "universal" in Greek to specify it as being different from the more Gnostic sects of Christianity. Also, since the Bishop of Rome has held the most power since around 300AD, it wasn't called the Roman Catholic Church, but it already was in a de facto sense

The churches were part of a greater Chalcedonian mass. The Bishop of Constantinople was as powerful as the Bishop of Rome, if not more so in all practicality.. in any case, it's easier to debate Roman Catholicism, because the great majority of people on forums like this know nothing of Catholicism beyond pedophile priests, the crusades, and the Pope, none of which concern the Greek Church.. :p If you eliminate posts that simply attack those three points without any real understanding, you'd have almost no one left.

I just want to get this out, cause I really like this thread and where its been going. I'm not a Catholic, but I love the Church. I've gone to two Catholic Churches for several masses each.

As my pagan high priest friend says "Few people create sacred space like the Catholics". And this is a big part of what people need...a place and time who's very nature inspires and focuses their attention.

I've befriended two priests and a nun. They really are good people. Simultaneously kind, Christian, and intelligent. Something I've found to be a rare combination since neo-conservatives hijacked the Christian faith for the glory of ethnocentric America. I can't go to Protestant Churches without them basically sucking George W's nuts anymore, outright talking like he's some savior of Christian America from the liberal sinners.

(Grins) there's a reason that the Catholic Church has a political party in Germany (and I think other European countries) which has had tremendous staying power. Because they go with social justice and equity as the points to emphasize about the juncture of the State and Religion.

Whereas many of the American Protestant sects see that junction as about using the power of the State to force people to believe and act in G*dly things. Not realizing that historically, theocracies are far more corrupt than Churches that advise rather than dictate.

More concisely, roughly speaking, politically active Catholics want to see more good done; politically active protestants want to stop evil. The latter exercise is far far more hazardous, morally and in terms of achieving its ends.



Catholics, being an internation Church, don't have that same national bias, and I appreciate that.


Yes, explicitly making the Church into "the Department of Spirituality" as most early modern nation states (England, the Scandinavian countries, Benelux) made it harder to "wake up" from the tempting daydream that excessive involvement in government can serve G*d's ends. The Catholics took long enough to do this as is, and the national churches in some places show signs of perhaps still being part asleep.


Also, studying some of the Saints, I've been really inspired. Saint Francis of Assisi is probably one of the single most amazing historical figures I've ever studied. Same goes for Saint Thomas More.

In a way, many Protestant sects don't like people to work _too hard_ at being virtuous. Because that would imply your actual ethical behaviour was more important than your belief in G*d.

I find it entirely too convenient that regarding faith you can do all these amazing expressions of devotion and belief and all that....without having to do a SINGLE thing to back them up. Just believe hard enough and that's the most important part to them.

I find it hard to chalk up to coincidence that they chose the belief path that does not endorse the value of what you actually _do_ in the world. (if it's not related to converting more Christians, which I admit, they are very very keen on).

I don't feel at home with Christians anymore either, but not because I don't like God or because I just want to sin, sin, sin all the time. mainly just because I've been so disappointed over and over by hypocrisy, and because pretty much every point that was made in the post before me.

But I do like Christians and respect their faith. I just can't follow something out of fear of Hell instead of conviction of my own free will and reason.

Heh yeah but if you read the Bible, you will find that Hell is not a place but a state of being without God.

Given that George Bush's poll numbers have been quite low for some time, I doubt "every" Protestant in America fits that description.


Ah, but...are they low because Protestants disagree with him as to what he should be doing...or are the p*ssed at him for not _doing_ it to a large enough degree ?

As to losing it....theology is (like any logical system) a great way to go wrong with confidence. But without imposing order and rigor on your ethical thinking, you're in the Church of What I Was Going To Do Anyway. And there you have indeed lost the whole point of the Church...which is there to act as a guidance mechanism with real influence upon your behaviour.
Agreed. I'm just saying that some churches seem to have lost their interest in religious life and guidance mechanisms. They are so confident about their righteousness that they don't bother to follow their own teachings anymore.

Now I ask is have I made some, one, any valid points here, and if I have realise that I am also one that has not studied the Bible, Christianity, or Catholosim in any great detail, other than reading your holy scripture and finding it lacking.

You don't say! I'm truly shocked.. :eek:

You don't say! I'm truly shocked.. :eek:


Ohhh hehe the point of my post of course was to say that the Christian faith is rooted in the Bible, and it is not beyond the realms of impossibility to pick up and read the Bible to make your mind up on the Christian faith. Or are you sugessting that there is another book, and that by studiying the Bible one will not 'get' what it is to be Christian?

Ohh and cheers for picking up on one tiny little part of my post to make your reply to, it shows how hard you people study rather than just say ohhh I don't know, belive what you are told.:eek:

Ohhh hehe the point of my post of course was to say that the Christian faith is rooted in the Bible, and it is not beyond the realms of impossibility to pick up and read the Bible to make your mind up on the Christian faith. Or are you sugessting that there is another book, and that by studiying the Bible one will not 'get' what it is to be Christian?

Naw, just 2000 years of Christian philosophy, from the Pseudo-Dionysius to the Philokalia to Kallistos Ware and Pope John Paul II.. other than that, not much. ;) Seriously though, no one would say that your observations on Scripture aren't valid, just that it might help to look at things in religious and historical context, for example, before making judgments.

Naw, just 2000 years of Christian philosophy, from the Pseudo-Dionysius to the Philokalia to Kallistos Ware and Pope John Paul II.. other than that, not much. ;) Seriously though, no one would say that your observations on Scripture aren't valid, just that it might help to look at things in religious and historical context, for example, before making judgments.

Yeah I guess you too have a point, and as I say I don't claim to be an expert. Are you suggesting though to practise Christianity that study of the Bible alone is not enough, and that you need to study the history of the church to get to God?

I can't belive that is true for a second, coz if it was then millions of people have been sold a dummy, ummm mind you there is mention in the Bible of only a certian number of people making it to heaven huh, so perhaps iot is true.

I have no problems with Catholics. The Catholics seem to have a problem with me, though.

As an Anglican in the Church of England, our church would happily allow any Catholic to take Communion and celebrate with us. If I try to take Communion in a Catholic church, however, I am, according to the Vatican, condeming the Priest to Purgatory for wasting Consecrated bread on an 'unblessed'.

But aside from that I have no real problems. As an Anglo-Catholic I have sometimes wondered about becoming a Roman Catholic.

Heh Catholics, Protastants, Baptists, Mormans, JW's whatever it don't really matter, they are are Christian faiths and all take the Bible as their holy scripture(yes I know about the book of mormon).

The point is however that there are things that not not add up about the Bible and so by extentions the Christian faith.


Exactly. And the difference between the sects is in how they decide how to make those puzzling parts yield a sensible (to them) answer. If you want to decide if they have made the right "ethical math" you have to study them a lot to find out why they came to the conclusions they did.

It also helps to study history and sociology and thus have an idea of to what degree choices were made because they were favored by the culture of the time, as opposed to the theology of the sect.


Yes I make your right in calling on detractors to know learn a little about the faith, but anybody can pick up a Bible read it and come to their own conclusions.


Ah, but that is what a church exists to do ....which is to put large red lines around the areas of interpretation that simply cannot be correct if you accept their decisions of how to do the "moral math". Or, as in the case of some churches, to explicitly abolish red lines, but those sects are small and akin to spiritual anarchists. (Which I mean as a compliment)


The origianal poster says that the point of Catholosism is that christ died for our sins. I would ask is the whole concept of sin, original sin, and the need for a sacrifice to attone for these sins, in accordance with the idea of a loveing God?


This is the sort of question that has driven people historically to found breakaway sects actually. Cosmology is always vitally important to folks. And if you ask them to live with one that they cannot see something worthy of unadultered Respect, then they will live somewhere else if they can find an alternative.

(Though at times in history there were no alternatives; my one history professor said that it is hotly disputed if anyone in Western Europe can properly be an atheist when before a certain point (roughly, the Enlightenment) there simply was no intellectually supported position endorsing that belief.)


My understanding is the Catholic answers to those questions are:

(a) Sin is indifference to the consequences of your actions, and thus apathy to whether you hurt yourself and/or others. It is what you avoid not because G*d threatens you, but becauase to truly be alive, you must care about the world and connect to it. (Though they are still liberal with the threats anyway because it's easier than trying to make everyone get the finer points of doctrine. (wry look))


(b) original sin is the idea that G*d gave Adam and Eve a chance at eternal happiness and they messed it up. It was not a hard choice: one commandment, keep it unfailingly. What original sin means for a Catholic is to never forget that humans have proven thus that they cannot "get it right" on their own, even when the situation is simple. Thus, humans need G*d to help them "get it right".

The idea is not that you have original sin because Adam and Eve messed up, but that Adam and Eve were archtypical humans, suspended in an eternity long span. If you had been in their place, you would have made the same mistake. If a creature is capable of doing something once over infinite time, it is capable of doing it an infinite number of times.

I _believe_ the idea is that there had been (somehow) a real chance that Adam and Eve could have kept their word, and that when they failed to do so it was indeed their fault, and not G*d's for creating them that way. And thus each human does bear collective responsibility for "having to do things the hard way now" because of that idea of "any human in their place would do the same eventually".

The metaphysical mechanism of this last point is probably going to be unconvincing to you, I think. (I doubt it would convince me.) I am not famliar with it, but knowing Catholicism, it will be very abstract oriented, very logical, and probably have the air of a rationalization to exhonerate G*d of having put Adam and Eve in an unfair situation.

(c) The Christian theology states that Judaism pre Christ was an experiment by G*d to see if giving special tutoring to a whole people could help them be better. The Christians state that the Jews (by eventually losing their soveriegnity and then being scattered in the Diaspora) proved that these events showed that they weren't that good, or they could have stopped these things from happening.

******

I will note that for large parts of the New Testament, the things it says about Jews are messed up. So much that it is actually evidence that the NT is _not_ based on any firsthand accounts of Jesus' life. Because if they were , the details reported of the nature and practices of the Jews would not have been so hopelessly wrong . They are contradicted by the archeological evidence of what Judaism was like to live under at the time.

So there is I think a very real question if the Jews had gone wrong. If they hadn't, then it is debatable if any of the rest of this was in fact necessary. Or maybe Jesus was just a dissatisfied Rabbi saying "you're all doing it wrong, do it like I say instead".

It's a question of what you find more plausible based on the facts as humanity knows them so far.

*******

Thus, at the point of Christ, it is established that no matter how you educate humans, they just can't make themselves behave. So...the resurrection was an act of celestial magic. By infusing the full measure of G*d's divinity into a mortal being from the inception, Jesus was humanlike enough, that by making a sufficiently pious act, he could enable people to do right again.

It's like the mirror to how humans made themselves responsible for the Fall from Eden. Just as Adam and Eve had a chance to fail, and they did, Jesus had a chance to fail (however small) and because he didn't, all of humanity was able to progress again.

The key to this progress is two fold: the Crucifiction and the Resurrection; and the New Testament. By the lessons of the New Testament, G*d gave his "revised lesson plan", which was better informed by the experience of mortal life and thus capable of insights denied to Judaism. Jesus' life was G*d's chance for a mortal eye education in how humans worked and the lessons were written on the fly as the outcome of Jesus' experience.

And by the death and return....by dying in the effort to give back to humans their chance to be able to do good (which had been proven lost by the Jews' misfortunes), it was a sacred magickal rite to repair the damage done by Adam and Eve's disobeidence. Because it had a chance of failure (that is, the Jesus might not die with pure enough intent (divine essence is trumped by mortal fallibility) (or in not accepting to come to the cross in the first place), it had the basis to address the species wide defect of Adam and Eve.

It's not that a sacrifice was demanded by G*d but that for inscrutable metaphysical reasons it was the only way to generate the power within the mortal plane to accomplish what had to be done.

Yet it could not repair it entirely. It just got humans back to the point where they still are capable of f*cking up, but now they are capable of doing good again, too.

I'm not sure of the finer points, but I'm pretty sure that's the gist. And again, I doubt the theological akido needed to make this make sense is probably going to be unconvincing to you :)


The Christian concept of God seems very flawed to me, and to my mind at least it seems as though Christianity is largely based on the words and workings of man, and not God.


Historically speaking, you are correct. It was written by Paul, based loosely on vague traditions propigated from Jesus' time. Why were they vague ? Because the early Christians were an apocalypse cult waiting for the world to end. When it didn't end in their lifetime (as promised!) then they were in a bit of a crisis. Paul was the person to resolve that crisis for them. His writings and those of his disciples were the basis of the Orthodox church.

I'm not sure how the Christians reconcile the archeology and the historical document study with what they believe. But at least some of the sects _do_ try to make that reconcilation, the Catholics among them. Unlike say the Moslems or some of the Protestants.

I would submit that since there is no consistent evidence of G*d's involvement in humanity, if there is a G*d, it has to be some type of aloof and non interventionist G*d. Or at least, one that only intervenes in _exceptional_ circumstances. So if you want to be content with and satisfied as to the existence of G*d much less what message G*d had for humanity....you have three hoices:
(a) examine history to see if any major circumstances seem likely to involve G*d's intervention, and look for the pattern.
(b) accept that G*d doesn't intervene and look for some pattern of attributes about the world that would imply divine agency and thus some sort of Order to venerate and live for.
(c) decide that the existence of G*d is irreconcilable with not intervening, and declare religion as purely as sociopolitical construct.

Churches are very keen to discourage this sort of investigation because anyone who does "prove it for themselves" tends to be very persuasive and have the potential to create a new religion themselves. Since they think they're right, this is a bad thing, and to be forestalled. (though you could argue it is the act of an ogilopolist trying to restrict competition :) )


The Bible is full of scorn for women so in this almost enlightend time of equal oppertunities can it be right that us mankind, is more loving than God? Of course not, God can not be wrong, so it must be this interpretation of God that is incorrect.


Well (impish look) you could look at things and assume that G*d _is_ male and wants males to have an advantage. Things like the reproductive cycles of dogs (male dogs have lots of sex and enjoy it and the bitches' bodies are mined to yield pups, killing them or nearly so by the third litter), or predisposing human males perceptions to most commonly be centered on hierarchy and status as a major concern...and from there male-dominated society grows like a crystal.

I don't :)

The Catholics defend themselves on this front by saying that the early Christians were not sexist, and that there were strands of concern for equity for women even in the dark ages. Then, mistakes were made, and it took the church a long time to get back to it's roots. A similiar process to how the Church justified killing in G*d's name and now the Catholics say that was never in the Bible and was a heretical position that they have learned the error of their ways on.

That's the genius of Catholicism is being able to admit its wrongdoings periodically and try to look to theologically valid alternatives to confront the issues that led to the wrongdoing. The process is erratic and imperfect because humans are erratic and imperfect.


Now I ask is have I made some, one, any valid points here, and if I have realise that I am also one that has not studied the Bible, Christianity, or Catholosim in any great detail, other than reading your holy scripture and finding it lacking.

Well, that's my understanding of "the official Catholic answers" to your questions. Hopefully that serves whatever end you had in asking them :)

I would ask to confirm these with an actual Priest, but I'm fairly sure this is the general way it goes. I was fairly devout and educated in Church history for a Catholic when I was one.

[regarding P's post]
Naw, just 2000 years of Christian philosophy, from the Pseudo-Dionysius to the Philokalia to Kallistos Ware and Pope John Paul II.. other than that, not much. ;) Seriously though, no one would say that your observations on Scripture aren't valid, just that it might help to look at things in religious and historical context, for example, before making judgments.

Er, it seemed clear to me that he was asking for such information about the historical and religious context. But was sharing his provisional conclusions.

It would be more productive to answer them than to mock him for asking them. If his attitude in some of the questioning seems disrespectful...then seeing how he responds to answers will show if it was intended or just cheerful puzzlement at the apparent shortcomings in the patterns he made with the existing information.

Agreed. I'm just saying that some churches seem to have lost their interest in religious life and guidance mechanisms. They are so confident about their righteousness that they don't bother to follow their own teachings anymore.

(nods) and I agree, there seems to be a polarization between religions that are trying to get back to their beliefs and theology and retrench...and the ones that are claiming that theology is unnecessary or even bad (like the Pentecostals and Baptists)

An interesting dichotomy....

Luther would be turning in his grave to see some of the fruits of the Reformation (wry look)

(nods) and I agree, there seems to be a polarization between religions that are trying to get back to their beliefs and theology and retrench...and the ones that are claiming that theology is unnecessary or even bad (like the Pentecostals and Baptists)

An interesting dichotomy....

Luther would be turning in his grave to see some of the fruits of the Reformation (wry look)
Well, he was quite pissed with some of the more radical reformists while he was still alive. :)

Pentecostals. That's the word in English.

Heh yeah but if you read the Bible, you will find that Hell is not a place but a state of being without God.


Not true.

The OT, describes Hell as what youre saying, the NT, alluded it was indeed, a place, with suffering, torture, lake of fire etc..

It wasnt until the NT, that we associate Hell with torture.

Part of the Fire and Brimstone technique, of early chrisitian recruiting.

(nods) and I agree, there seems to be a polarization between religions that are trying to get back to their beliefs and theology and retrench...and the ones that are claiming that theology is unnecessary or even bad (like the Pentecostals and Baptists)

An interesting dichotomy....

Luther would be turning in his grave to see some of the fruits of the Reformation (wry look)

What hell did Martin Luther know?

Martin Luther is probably also rolling in his grave, becuase there are Jews prospering somewhere on the planet.

Not true.

The OT, describes Hell as what youre saying, the NT, alluded it was indeed, a place, with suffering, torture, lake of fire etc..

It wasnt until the NT, that we associate Hell with torture.

Part of the Fire and Brimstone technique, of early chrisitian recruiting.


Heheh great! So what is the Christian supposed to belive? Does the NT then overwrite what is taught in the OT?

Heheh great! So what is the Christian supposed to belive? Does the NT then overwrite what is taught in the OT?


According to them, yes.

They say that the NT pretty much supercedes the OT, wich is conveinient, when you bring up the ark thing, or the "Guy who gets swallowed by a whale" thing, or any of the other rediculiously outlandish events the fundies try to say really happened.

I also suspect its easier for them to believe that Jesus fufilled the messianic prophecies too, but the Jews arent so eager to acknowledge.

Exactly. And the difference between the sects is in how they decide.....and on and on and on!

Cheers for the reply and you are correct it didn't really change my mind. In fact I still cant eqate a loving God with the concept of sin, and now you mention some cosmic magik to undo the choice that Adam and Eve made, because that was the only way God could do it?

Again it does not correlate with the idea of an all powefull, all knowing God, surly such a God can make things right without the treat of hell, or the idea of original sin, or any of the Christian mumbo jumbo that we have.

Cheers, though as I say for addressing my questions.

Catholic basing?

Is that when you take a Catholic and use a chemical/thermal process to increase their potency?

Heheh great! So what is the Christian supposed to belive? Does the NT then overwrite what is taught in the OT?
That's pretty much the idea...

So please, next time you want to bash the Catholic Church, please, at least know what you're saying instead of repeating the stuff you hear on The 700 Club.
to be honest, i'm quite happy to see the vatican crumble to dust. the catholic church is the most hypocritical religious institution in the world. the teachings of Jesus are very clearly against having a church leader living like a wealthy monarch while people die of hunger. the fact that the church has improved throughout centuries does not clean it's hypocritical stance. Jesus was, first and foremost, a person that would say, in his own words, "practice what you preach".

that is not to say that anyone should throw a blanket over catholics and treat them with automatic contempt. generalisations are weapons of the ignorant. there are many good catholics that don't like the vatican. there are good catholics who have never thought deeply about how hypocritical it is to have a pope, when we consider the core and true values of Jesus.

however unfortunate this may be, you have to admit that by being a devout catholic and not speaking out against the hypocrisy, a catholic is ultimately condoning the wealthiness the vatican, actively or passively, particularly when there are other christian denominations that don't (like protestants). obviously, not all popes are alike either. JPII was quite possibly one of the best popes ever but he was still far from perfect (e.g. the condoms issue). unfortunately he didn't live forever either. catholics now have a pope that is going backwards and God knows who will follow him.

That's pretty much the idea...


Soooooo the ten comandments then we can ignore?

Not true.

The OT, describes Hell as what youre saying, the NT, alluded it was indeed, a place, with suffering, torture, lake of fire etc..

It wasnt until the NT, that we associate Hell with torture.

Part of the Fire and Brimstone technique, of early chrisitian recruiting.
Heaven and Hell are metaphors, not places where you go after dying. this is another perfect example of how the Catholic Church twisted Jewish beliefs to control the masses in its early history.

Heaven and Hell are two sides of the same coin:
Earth and what humanity makes of it.
your own mind and what you make of it.

even the catholic priest in my home town preaches this...

Heaven: an environmental paradise where people respect each-other and live in peace. where people don't have 12 kids and endanger the sustainability of their world. a world without violence and hate.
Hell: a world of endless torture, death and suffering, ravaged by fire and violence. a world falling apart and overpopulated (hence why Jesus said he would pick 1 out of 10.000 to live in paradise), where people fight each-other for the last remaining and dwindling resources (e.g. oil).

Soooooo the ten comandments then we can ignore?
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 7:12

and

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "
Matthew 19:19

edit: and Matthew 19:17, 19:18 (just for clearance)
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Soooooo the ten comandments then we can ignore?
if you followed Jesus word's, you wouldn't break the ten commandments (the numbers relate to the numbering of the OT, not the number of commandments):

1. Then God spoke all these words: saying:
2. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage:
”I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3. you shall have no other gods before me.
4. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6. but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
8. Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy.
9. For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
10. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
12. Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
13. You shall not murder.
14. You shall not commit adultery/fornicate
15. You shall not steal.
16. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
17. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Exodus 20:1-17

look at line number 14. my bible, from 1955, says "you shall not fornicate". this makes more sense, since line 17 covers adultery by saying "you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife".

what were we being told? not to have sex?? no. place this book thousands of years ago and you should understand better the implications. at that time, there was no safe contraception. indulging yourself in sex would inevitably doom the world, as our current population levels clearly show.

this also justifies 3. "you shall have no other gods before me." the earliest "gods" adored by mankind were usually gods related to fertility, with very heavy sexual connotations. adoring fertility would lead to the overpopulation problem.

Jesus preached and practiced much of this. it is widely believed now that he may have belonged to a jewish sect known as essenes, who refrained from having sex with their wives as much. some argue that this may explain suspicions that he also engaged in sex with men. maybe it had to come out somehow...

there sure is a lot of "Baptist Bashing" in this thred......I would start my own whiney thred about it....but there really wouldn't be a point.........

:(

So please, next time you want to bash the Catholic Church, please, at least know what you're saying instead of repeating the stuff you hear on The 700 Club.
Ok. I bash the Catholic Church for murdering millions of people in Africa. To the best of my knowledge, Pat Robertson hasn't said boo about that.

there sure is a lot of "Baptist Bashing" in this thred......I would start my own whiney thred about it....but there really wouldn't be a point.........

:(

Good call. :fluffle:

I prefer free-basing to catholic-basing ;)
Too bad you can't edit your post titles, huh?

Good call. :fluffle:
sure, then someone would start the "athiest bashing" thred, then someone else another "christian bashing" thred, then.....you get the picture

although, maybe it would just take another route and we would get all kinds of hilarious yet whiney threds.......

anyway, I don't think I am going to hop on the "everybody hates me, I guess I will start a thred about it and bitch about everyone else" bandwagon.

what were we being told? not to have sex?? no. place this book thousands of years ago and you should understand better the implications. at that time, there were no safe contraception. indulging yourself in sex would inevitably doom the world, as our current population levels clearly show.

this also justifies 3. "you shall have no other gods before me." the earliest "gods" adored by mankind were usually gods related to fertility, with very heavy sexual connotations. adoring these gods would lead to the overpopulation problem.

Jesus preached and practiced much of this. it is widely believed now that he may have belonged to a jewish sect known as essenes, who refrained from having sex with their wives as much. some argue that this may explain suspicions that he also engaged in sex with men. maybe it had to come out somehow...

Sorry Assis,

But this seems like such a bit of strange thinking I really don't know what to say.

Except it is a matter of historical knowledge that at this time the world was not as populated as it is now, and also before the onset of Christianity the Pagans of Europe where definatly not over run with children. In fact at this period in our history haveing loads of kids was probably a better thing to do than having only one or two, because of the rtate of infant mortality.

to be honest, i'm quite happy to see the vatican crumble to dust.

And this is about the 1,000,000th time I've heard this.

the catholic church is the most hypocritical religious institution in the world. the teachings of Jesus are very clearly against having a church leader living like a wealthy monarch while people die of hunger.

Actually the Pope is poor, he doesn't own anything, all of the wealth you see is actually part of the entire Church. Comon people, how hard is it to ask your local Catholic priest some questions?

the fact that the church has improved throughout centuries does not clean it's hypocritical stance. Jesus was, first and foremost, a person that would say, in his own words, "practice what you preach".

He also preach thou shall not judge. Look, any organization that is as big and as old as the Catholic Church itself will have skeletons in it's closet, that's a given. However I fail to see what is so hypocritical about the Church's teachings. Every man of cloth (priest, bishops, cardinals, archcardinals Pope) is poor, they've taken a vow of poverty. However, I have seen the local Baptist preacher driving around in his new Jaguar.


that is not to say that anyone should throw a blanket over catholics and treat them with automatic contempt. generalisations are weapons of the ignorant. there are many good catholics that don't like the vatican. there are good catholics who have never thought deeply about how hypocritical it is to have a pope, when we consider the core and true values of Jesus.

Please, tell me, how is it hypocritical to have a Pope? Jesus was a leader, he was a preacher, he had followers, not much diffrent than the Church today.


however unfortunate this may be, you have to admit that by being a devout catholic and not speaking out against the hypocrisy, a catholic is ultimately condoning the wealthiness the vatican, actively or passively, particularly when there are other christian denominations that don't (like protestants).

and he really does love that new Jaguar. and his 3 story home, and oh how he gets a hard on by telling his church employees not to work overtime so he doesn't have to pay them. Please, I can name SEVERAL Baptist church that has wealthy preachers that it isn't even funny. I'm not even lying about the Jaguar, and my preacher? He's driving around in an 80's Crown Victoria that he got off a used car lot for a few thousand dollars. See the Church has a system in place to keep their priest from overspending. Everything that anyone want to use the money for is documented. Like when we got our new church, we had to go to the Diocse and get the Bishop approval, money is very well regulated in the Church itself. Unlike the Baptist church with the Jaguar priest.


obviously, not all popes are alike either. JPII was quite possibly one of the best popes ever but he was still far from perfect (e.g. the condoms issue). unfortunately he didn't live forever either. catholics now have a pope that is going backwards and God knows who will follow him.

and what has Benedict XVI done wrong, and please, please, please for the love of GOD do NOT bring up the Youth Nazi stuff.

Ok. I bash the Catholic Church for murdering millions of people in Africa. To the best of my knowledge, Pat Robertson hasn't said boo about that.

Nah he was too busy with his diamond mines in South America.

Please, tell me, how is it hypocritical to have a Pope? Jesus was a leader, he was a preacher, he had followers, not much diffrent than the Church today.

actually the difference would be that Jesus is God and the pope is not, first commandment Thou shall have no other god's before me.

My main problem with the Catholic church (not Catholic people mind you) is that it's too legalistic.

actually the difference would be that Jesus is God and the pope is not, first commandment Thou shall have no other god's before me.

My main problem with the Catholic church (not Catholic people mind you) is that it's too legalistic.

Umm, we don't consider the Pope a God....

Umm, we don't consider the Pope a God....
I didn't say you did. You compared him to Jesus, I was saying that the Pope is not God, so by saying that having him lead you is the same as Jesus leading his followers is stupid. It's not a fair comparison, for it to be a fair comparison you would have to either throw out Christ's divinity or say that the pope is indeed divine.

actually the difference would be that Jesus is God and the pope is not, first commandment Thou shall have no other god's before me.

My main problem with the Catholic church (not Catholic people mind you) is that it's too legalistic.

No problem with having problems with the Catholic church's organization...

I am a catholic, a fervient one, due to my spanish and south latin heritage and yet I do not agree with all the policies of the church.

1.- The Pope is not a god, nor his word is law to me

2.- I prefer people to use condoms than to have 9 unwanted children, aborting ten times, or dying of AIDS

3.- I have known through my life a lot of priests, bishops, and even a Cardinal. they looked like wonderful people, who really cared for the welfare of those around them. The jesuit order has made excellent advances in helping the poor and the uneducated here in South America, and people still loves them for doing so.

4.- The children abusers should be met with all the might of the law, and I think the church should be more compromised to eliminate such a scourge.

5.- Although the pope is not rich, as he do not own any money or goods of his own, he lives like a Prince because he is our leader and we want him to look like one. Bush has a quite expensive Air Force One, and a palace in Washington, quite beautiful, along with a special service of bodyguards and such. Leaders usually have luxuries and commodities, that doesn't mean they do not care about the poor.

I didn't say you did. You compared him to Jesus, I was saying that the Pope is not God, so by saying that having him lead you is the same as Jesus leading his followers is stupid. It's not a fair comparison, for it to be a fair comparison you would have to either throw out Christ's divinity or say that the pope is indeed divine.

Got a point there, I retract my earlier statement. Hmm, can I use John the Baptist?

Got a point there, I retract my earlier statement. Hmm, can I use John the Baptist?
sure, but Paul would be a better example, writing those letters to churches all over the world (well, the world then....) telling them what to think and stuff. ;)

I didn't say you did. You compared him to Jesus, I was saying that the Pope is not God, so by saying that having him lead you is the same as Jesus leading his followers is stupid. It's not a fair comparison, for it to be a fair comparison you would have to either throw out Christ's divinity or say that the pope is indeed divine.
Which is sort of the stance the church takes … making him infallible in the matters of the faith supposedly. Not quite true divinity but damn near it

Which is sort of the stance the church takes … making him infallible in the matters of the faith supposedly. Not quite true divinity but damn near it

Please, just talk to a Catholic priest for half an hour, that is ALL I ask people. In Church Dogma, the only time the Pope is infalliable is when he sits in the seat of Peter. Which isn't being used by the current Pope because well he's just a Pope in between Popes.

sure, but Paul would be a better example, writing those letters to churches all over the world (well, the world then....) telling them what to think and stuff. ;)

That's true, I'll have my new statement later today.

Please, just talk to a Catholic priest for half an hour, that is ALL I ask people. In Church Dogma, the only time the Pope is infalliable is when he sits in the seat of Peter. Which isn't being used by the current Pope because well he's just a Pope in between Popes.
I don't think you should really get into Catholic dogma with UpwardThrust....

just a warning...

Nah he was too busy with his diamond mines in South America.

Eh? I thought it was Africa. Some of Compasionate "funds" from the shrub pay for this planes to run "aid"

I don't think you should really get into Catholic dogma with UpwardThrust....

just a warning...
I second that warning. :P

I don't think you should really get into Catholic dogma with UpwardThrust....

just a warning...
Yes thrusty gets a bit upset

Yes thrusty gets a bit upset
I was just thinking you would probably kick his ass into next Tuesday and while it would be entertaining for me, I think as a good Christian I should warn him....

I was just thinking you would probably kick his ass into next Tuesday and while it would be entertaining for me, I think as a good Christian I should warn him....
I'm not a good Christian (I'm a wicked godless heathen), but I felt a warning was in order because I don't want to have to clean body parts off the forum floor again. :P

Please, just talk to a Catholic priest for half an hour, that is ALL I ask people. In Church Dogma, the only time the Pope is infalliable is when he sits in the seat of Peter. Which isn't being used by the current Pope because well he's just a Pope in between Popes.
I have spent more then a few hours doing so already … first of all are we discussing the “old catholic church” or the new one (post first Vatican council of 1870)? (Just the fact that they made a re definition of his powers shows that the entire church was not and is not in agreement over this issues)

Further explination is needed for thoes that dont know about papal infallibility

At the first Vatican council they defined papal infallibility to be such

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable (see Denziger §1839).
-- Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, chapter iv


Which is the current definition used by the church, though they have never published a list of decrees by popes that are considered to fall under this clause (To name a few Pope Pius IX’s Decrees in 1950 and 1954 about the Immaculate conception and consumption of Mary) as well as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Pope John Paul II though this has never been made official by the church.

I'm not a good Christian (I'm a wicked godless heathen), but I felt a warning was in order because I don't want to have to clean body parts off the forum floor again. :P
Yeah I just have to keep my temper down … it’s a bitch when they use that organization of theirs against you … specially when you are in 6th grade

Further explination is needed for thoes that dont know about papal infallibility

At the first Vatican council they defined papal infallibility to be such


Which is the current definition used by the church, though they have never published a list of decrees by popes that are considered to fall under this clause (To name a few Pope Pius IX’s Decrees in 1950 and 1954 about the Immaculate conception and consumption of Mary) as well as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Pope John Paul II though this has never been made official by the church.
I seem to have killed the thread with this one

Wow Upward! You are on a roll today.

I think I will let you have fun this time! :)

anyway, I don't think I am going to hop on the "everybody hates me, I guess I will start a thred about it and bitch about everyone else" bandwagon.

No, this is a thread about "everyone acts like they're the Voice Of Reason for hating X when in fact their hatred isn't based in Reason at all". Yes, there's a lot of antipathy to Baptists and many other Protestant sects here. I wouldn't expect them to feel any differently in return, even if they did know as much as they needed to know to claim this "Mantle of Reason" they aspire to.

Irreconcilable differences cannot always lead to smiling, happy, amiable tolerance. What should be expected is that neither side will "reach for their guns" and try to get the force of the State to enforce their position.

Further explination is needed for thoes that dont know about papal infallibility


Papal Infallibility is just an analogous doctrine to having a final court of appeal. Someone has to have the final say on what's what when people say "I know the rules as they are have been X, but I think they should be Y now". That final arbitrator might be wrong, but you have to assume they're right till someone of equal stature overturns their ruling.

Otherwise, no one is bound to obey the law because they can say "well, that's just what the Supreme Court/Pope says, what do _they_ know".

This is what its about in practice. Yes, the name brings to mind hubris filled visions, sometimes which were actually true. But if was _really_ about literal "infallbility" then no Pope could change anything another Pope had decreed.

I will note given that the Papacy only took about 1800 years to admit the Jews didn't deserve to be hated for having been the people of the society that crucified Jesus, I am hardly a great fan of their decisions :) However, I do respect that their mechanism. Based on the decisions on structure and hierarchy and ethical jurisprudence which they made, that mechanism for decision making is a better one than the most of the other sects.

No, this is a thread about "everyone acts like they're the Voice Of Reason for hating X when in fact their hatred isn't based in Reason at all". Yes, there's a lot of antipathy to Baptists and many other Protestant sects here. I wouldn't expect them to feel any differently in return, even if they did know as much as they needed to know to claim this "Mantle of Reason" they aspire to.

Irreconcilable differences cannot always lead to smiling, happy, amiable tolerance. What should be expected is that neither side will "reach for their guns" and try to get the force of the State to enforce their position.
can you explain to me the difference though, between this guy getting mad because someone in another thred said "Catholics...blah...blah" and me getting mad because this guy says "Baptists blah..blah"

there isn't. There also isn't a point to a thred like this other than to whine and bash those whom you percieve to bash you.

I seem to have killed the thread with this one

No. Though I'll admit, most people find theology deadly dull. Which is why there can be such wildly divergent mechanisms for adjudicating "right and wrong"...yet are endorsed fervently but out of so much ignorance on all sides.

Even the Jews, and I think those still trying to hold the Law know more about their faith on average than any other sect of comparable size.

I certainly didn't understand Papal Infallibility, for example, till I was out of university. Of course, I had no real incentive to given I was a rabid secular humanist at the time (wry look)

Heaven and Hell are metaphors, not places where you go after dying. this is another perfect example of how the Catholic Church twisted Jewish beliefs to control the masses in its early history.

Heaven and Hell are two sides of the same coin:
Earth and what humanity makes of it.
your own mind and what you make of it.

even the catholic priest in my home town preaches this...

Heaven: an environmental paradise where people respect each-other and live in peace. where people don't have 12 kids and endanger the sustainability of their world. a world without violence and hate.
Hell: a world of endless torture, death and suffering, ravaged by fire and violence. a world falling apart and overpopulated (hence why Jesus said he would pick 1 out of 10.000 to live in paradise), where people fight each-other for the last remaining and dwindling resources (e.g. oil).
So, judging from current events, we're already in hell?

can you explain to me the difference though, between this guy getting mad because someone in another thred said "Catholics...blah...blah" and me getting mad because this guy says "Baptists blah..blah"

there isn't. There also isn't a point to a thred like this other than to whine and bash those whom you percieve to bash you.

It's ironic. The assertation that "the other side" doesn't care about the facts....is true about your own post right there.



All I am asking for, from the people outside the Catholic faith, is that you actually know what you are talking about. Go to a local Catholic Church, talk to the Father there. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to explain how the church works. By the time you're done I hope you'll realize that the Catholic Church does share the core Christian value that other churches has.


This is the main concluding point of his post. A plea that if you have to disagree, disagree based on the facts. Admittedly, the facts and equity are not the most important things to all philosophoical persuasions. But it's saying "if you justify your opinions by reason and fairness, then this is serving notice you've been saying things not rooted in fact and which are simply not fair.

Do tell me how any of my posts "whined" about Protestants. If I had a beef with them (and I admit I do) I referred each time to _what facts that was based on_. I am willing to be corrected on any area where I am not stating the facts. But I am pretty confident that I am, because I have studied a lot on religion, I have a good memory, and I have enough analytical skills to see how the various systems work as a whole.

Shall we tabulate the number of gratuitous slams there are against Protestantism versus the number of statements that give factual grounds for ire or which are to serve the main purpose of the thread (to explain what Catholicism _is_) ?

Whereas many of the American Protestant sects see that junction as about using the power of the State to force people to believe and act in G*dly things. Not realizing that historically, theocracies are far more corrupt than Churches that advise rather than dictate.

More concisely, roughly speaking, politically active Catholics want to see more good done; politically active protestants want to stop evil. The latter exercise is far far more hazardous, morally and in terms of achieving its ends.

In a way, many Protestant sects don't like people to work _too hard_ at being virtuous. Because that would imply your actual ethical behaviour was more important than your belief in G*d.

I find it entirely too convenient that regarding faith you can do all these amazing expressions of devotion and belief and all that....without having to do a SINGLE thing to back them up. Just believe hard enough and that's the most important part to them.



I think you nailed it there. That's why the priests fiddling kiddies isn't the problem, you have to file that under "shit happens". The cover up of these deeds and the lack of action by the clergy as a whole, is a conspiracy of inaction which just isn't acceptable in a service industry world. I guess being screwed over by customer support won't work as a tactic nowadays.

Cheers for the reply and you are correct it didn't really change my mind. In fact I still cant eqate a loving God with the concept of sin, and now you mention some cosmic magik to undo the choice that Adam and Eve made, because that was the only way God could do it?

Again it does not correlate with the idea of an all powefull, all knowing God, surly such a God can make things right without the treat of hell, or the idea of original sin, or any of the Christian mumbo jumbo that we have.

Cheers, though as I say for addressing my questions.

(Grins) you anticipate why I'm _not_ a Catholic despite my willingness to respect them on many things.

If you're going to believe in a G*d, you have to come to some conclusion that reconciles how the world can be so messed up yet spring from divine origins.

(and this is after granting that humanity must face some adversity. the point is that there is a lot of data that at least on the face of it denies that anyone or anything designed the human world to avoid all the suffering that it reasonably could.

For example, why aren't human beings programmed with an "empathy circuit" so that they cannot kill someone else without killing themselves, and feel the pain of whatever they do to another within themselves ?

You have to account for that data which implies the absence of divine agency, if you aspire to hold a religious belief in G*d that is based in reason.)

This is a challenging exercise. I will freely admit it is simpler and at least as supported by the facts (it depends how you perform this reconciliation...) to say that there is no G*d.

My choice to believe is a rational mechanism steered by emotion. I need a G*d shaped entity in my cosmology and ethical structure, for better or for worse. 11 years as a secular humanist finally taught me this. I make no assertation however that because it was the best for me it is the best for everyone.

One of the many things I do like about Judaism (and why I am trying to get within that paradigm of Law) is that there are still communities of people reading from the same page, generally speaking. You do after all have the right to prefer "your own kind"...but you also have a duty to know what "the other kinds" _are_.

I was a rabid secular humanist at the time (wry look)

What went wrong since?

According to them, yes.

They say that the NT pretty much supercedes the OT, wich is conveinient, when you bring up the ark thing, or the "Guy who gets swallowed by a whale" thing, or any of the other rediculiously outlandish events the fundies try to say really happened.

I also suspect its easier for them to believe that Jesus fufilled the messianic prophecies too, but the Jews arent so eager to acknowledge.

If you study the Bible, you'll know what Jesus has changed from the Old Testament. The Jews believe that Jesus was/is a prophet.

to be honest, i'm quite happy to see the vatican crumble to dust. the catholic church is the most hypocritical religious institution in the world. the teachings of Jesus are very clearly against having a church leader living like a wealthy monarch while people die of hunger. the fact that the church has improved throughout centuries does not clean it's hypocritical stance. Jesus was, first and foremost, a person that would say, in his own words, "practice what you preach".

that is not to say that anyone should throw a blanket over catholics and treat them with automatic contempt. generalisations are weapons of the ignorant. there are many good catholics that don't like the vatican. there are good catholics who have never thought deeply about how hypocritical it is to have a pope, when we consider the core and true values of Jesus.

however unfortunate this may be, you have to admit that by being a devout catholic and not speaking out against the hypocrisy, a catholic is ultimately condoning the wealthiness the vatican, actively or passively, particularly when there are other christian denominations that don't (like protestants). obviously, not all popes are alike either. JPII was quite possibly one of the best popes ever but he was still far from perfect (e.g. the condoms issue). unfortunately he didn't live forever either. catholics now have a pope that is going backwards and God knows who will follow him.

The supposed hypocrisy is only seen by those who aren't Catholic, as a Catholic views this quite differently than you obviously do from siting issues like condoms etc.

:p Ok. I bash the Catholic Church for murdering millions of people in Africa. To the best of my knowledge, Pat Robertson hasn't said boo about that.

Wow, when did this war/mass murder happen that you're perpetrating? Are you sure you're not on the bottle?

This is the main concluding point of his post. A plea that if you have to disagree, disagree based on the facts. Admittedly, the facts and equity are not the most important things to all philosophoical persuasions. But it's saying "if you justify your opinions by reason and fairness, then this is serving notice you've been saying things not rooted in fact and which are simply not fair.

Do tell me how any of my posts "whined" about Protestants. If I had a beef with them (and I admit I do) I referred each time to _what facts that was based on_. I am willing to be corrected on any area where I am not stating the facts. But I am pretty confident that I am, because I have studied a lot on religion, I have a good memory, and I have enough analytical skills to see how the various systems work as a whole.

Shall we tabulate the number of gratuitous slams there are against Protestantism versus the number of statements that give factual grounds for ire or which are to serve the main purpose of the thread (to explain what Catholicism _is_) ?
and you miss the entire point of my post.

There is no difference between what he is argueing against and what he is argueing for.

He is upset that one person or a few people 'bashed' an entire group to which he belongs, and in turn bashes an entire group.

No, this is a thread about "everyone acts like they're the Voice Of Reason for hating X when in fact their hatred isn't based in Reason at all". Yes, there's a lot of antipathy to Baptists and many other Protestant sects here.

I am disappointed that this is happenning. I haven't noticed it but am going by your word here. This is not the Christian way to act.

I started this thread because of what was posted in this one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11245775#post11245775

I live in the Baptist Bible Belt of the USA, which is very annoying, because these people think like Selfuria does. That the Roman Catholic Church is "the most corrupt religon on earth" and that we're not real "Christian". Neverminding the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was the FIRST church. Baptist and the other denomination didn't come around till Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis. Hell he wasn't even try to start his own denomination, he was trying to change the Roman Catholic Church itself. I am sick and tired of hearing uneducated idiots like "Selfuria" (or Baptist idiots) talk about how "bad" the Catholic Church is, and yet their knowledge of the actual church is limited by their converstation with one Catholic, or what their preacher told them. Now look, I will be the first to admit that the Roman Catholic Church has some problems, every denomination, every religion that was ever concieved in the span of human history has problems. Why, because humans are falliable. Everything that humans have created, are bounds to have errors and mistakes, it just the way human nature is. Even in the mist of the fault of the Roman Catholic Church, we still manage to produce people like Pope John Paul II, or Mother Theresa. Hell, I can name five Fathers myself that I'm glad I've made friends with.

I think what is important that the people outside the Catholic faith need to look at is what our message is. And no, it's not that it's ok to molest alter servers. :rolleyes: . The message is that Jesus has died for our sins, and that through the power of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) that we may do good things and ask for their guidance. All I am asking for, from the people outside the Catholic faith, is that you actually know what you are talking about. Go to a local Catholic Church, talk to the Father there. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to explain how the church works. By the time you're done I hope you'll realize that the Catholic Church does share the core Christian value that other churches has. We just like to do our mass (church service) diffrently, and we like to honor Mary, and the Saints. So please, next time you want to bash the Catholic Church, please, at least know what you're saying instead of repeating the stuff you hear on The 700 Club.

No thanks. Confessing to pedophiles isn't my thing.

Other posters addressed his first paragraph quite well, so....

Jesus was, first and foremost, a person that would say, in his own words, "practice what you preach".


Jesus said so many things in the New Testament that depending on which statements you count the most important, you can justify pretty much anything. Which is the whole process of Christian religion. To decide which of the teachings are the most important, and what should follow for behavioural norms based on those prioritizations.

To assert that _on the face of it_ Catholicism is _obviously_ contradictory to the teachings of Jesus is just as flawed as Catholics saying the same thing about Baptists.

If you're going to criticize a religion, you have to point to bad outcomes and then prove they follow from the teachings of the religion. Catholicism has many criticisms that can be substained against it....but immo, Protestantism (generally) has even more (wry look).

You are trying to be reasonable, but you're still reaching for the "my prioritizations are better than your prioitizations" assertation without (so far) going into cause and effect.


there are good catholics who have never thought deeply about how hypocritical it is to have a pope, when we consider the core and true values of Jesus.


I assume you're alluding to Jesus' opposition to the Sanhedrin ? I'll note that these authorities were all about ritual and obedience for their own sake, without much inward dwelling spirituality.

The Papacy, on the other hand, is about teaching the basis for spirituality. It is a regimented, centralized educational and moral law institution. The Pope is the executive of the organization and the final authority on all decisions.

It is not immoral in and of itself to choose to organize in this fashion. It is not even necessarily un-Jesus like. Did he make any pronouncements on how human organizations should be laid out ? Did he state that collective efforts were bad, or that having leaders of such efforts was bad ?

I do admit that institutions that have too many layers can easily engage in folly. That's why I like Judaism the best :)

But they have been passionately concerned with the values of Jesus all along. To say they are not is to say that all their research and arguments and ponderings were somehow intrinsically wrong, while your own are somehow intrinsically correct.



however unfortunate this may be, you have to admit that by being a devout catholic and not speaking out against the hypocrisy, a catholic is ultimately condoning the wealthiness the vatican, actively or passively,


You _really_ do not want to get into "guilt by association" or "passive endorsement". This is such an endemic human failing...because it tars pretty much every human organization, religious or secular.

For example, am I responsible (when I worked at Call Centre for customer service) for my group mate who has a nervous breakdown because the management mistreats them ? Once the management acts immorally, if you go by "guilt by association" I am immoral to keep working there if I do not try to organize a strike and overturn that decision.

As an American (I assume you are, believe me I can find an example about your country if you are not) are you guilty for the tens of thousands of Iraqis dead following the illegal American invasion of Iraq? Even if you voted against Bush, he is has -committed impeachable offenses- and by not taking part in a campaign of civil disobedience to call him to account, you are accessory to his crimes.

Again, Christian religion is about deciding what sayings of Jesus rank above the others and in what order. the contemporary Church is fairly good about not being hypocritical.

The historical church was not particularly more hypocritical than its organizational (religious and secular) peers. For example, monarchs said with a straight face that they were the caretakers of their subjects, and then went off and started wars of aggression for plunder which wouldn't benefit their subjects. They appealed to the Bible too :)


particularly when there are other christian denominations that don't (like protestants).


Ah, because these organizations have no hypocrisy or heresy of their own, of course. Like the Baptists having a total obsession about making converts which is _not_ requested much less demanded by the Bible...yet which they often make the center of their injunctions to the faithful.

(For a good essay refuting this from an actual Protestant, see http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/U/urgency.html)

Or the claims of many Protestant missionaries today that "how well you are doing materially in the world is a sign of how G*d rewards your G*dliness, so you have no obligations to your community because they will prosper or falter based on their virtue or sinfulness." This is a _hugely_ non-canonical teaching and it's still going strong hundreds of years after it was started...with devestating effects on the communities where it takes hold as a belief.

These people are dirt poor and telling them they no longer have an obligation to try and help each other along with basic survival issues counts as "bad wisdom" if I ever heard it.

The mere existence of a differing belief does not prove its superiority by that existence. So far you have above two grounds for saying it's obvious that a morally good person should leave the Catholic Church
(1) because Jesus clearly teaches that having a Pope is immoral
(2) because the Papacy has committed wrongdoing and this makes the worshippers accessories to the crimes.
Yet at the very least I cast serious doubt on both allegations. So by what right do you say it is _absolutely obvious_ that Catholicism is a "bad faith" ?



obviously, not all popes are alike either. JPII was quite possibly one of the best popes ever but he was still far from perfect (e.g. the condoms issue). unfortunately he didn't live forever either. catholics now have a pope that is going backwards and God knows who will follow him.

And therein you miss the whole point of the Papacy. If it rested on the Pope being a wonderful human being every time, then it would obviously have no validity because no human organization has found a way of guaranteeing that each successor to top management will be that good.

In point of fact, it's an idiot proofing. If the Pope is a vile SOB, then he will decide things so self evidently corrupt that this will provoke a succeeding Pope to overrule him. And in fact, if the SOB hadn't brought the issue to a head by showing the wrong side of it, the issue might have gone unaddressed. If the Pope is really good, great things get done. If the pope is just average, nothing too bad happens.

The key to the idiot proofing is the entrenched bureaucracies and agencies within the church which exist to remind the Pope of what they're supposed to be believing. He may be at the top, but his decisions are informed and shaped by a collective consensus under him that is neither arbitrary nor ignorant.

The point of the organization is to ensure that the moral teachings of the past are amended when they need to be amended but that they are not changed at the whim of popularity. It is the zealous seeking and guardianship of the behavioural norms that follow from their prioritization of Jesus' teachings. (and some even more glacially slow work on editing that priority order)

I am disappointed that this is happenning. I haven't noticed it but am going by your word here. This is not the Christian way to act.

Being Christian is not being above negative feelings. If you believe you know what is right, and you see someone stating the opposite, and see things proceeding from that, you have a right to your negative opinion of them.

All I'm saying is that if you claim to be valuing logic and reason, you have an obligation to get the facts and be sure that your reasoning is correct. Of course, being humans we're lazy and don't do that pro-actively. But if someone challenges you with facts, you must either refute them or incorporate the new facts into your system.

And I will certainly agree this thread has not been post after post of "let's say how awful the Protestants are rah rah rah!"...but I was trying to adress the criticism made by concentrating on the degree to which it was true.

:p

Wow, when did this war/mass murder happen that you're perpetrating? Are you sure you're not on the bottle?


Well, there's two substainable charges there

By the current sex education policies, the Church has encouraged the spread of HIV and has encouraged the overpopulation that has led to crippling economic and political problems.

And historically, the Church endorsed the trans-Atlantic slave trade which demographically devestated Africa in the 14th-18th centuries.

If you study the Bible, you'll know what Jesus has changed from the Old Testament. The Jews believe that Jesus was/is a prophet.

Actually Jews do not. Tropical Sands could wax eloquent on this but I'll give you the short version:

By the lights of Judaism he is a false prophet. He claimed to be fulfilling prophecies that did not exist, and he failed to fulfill ones which he made. Most prominently that the end of the world would be within one human lifetime of his ascension.

The Jews don't go for an overly metaphorical reading of prophecy because then you can judge any prediction to be true at almost any time (or argue that it is not, conversely). This is why despite having many people who aspired to the mantle of prophethood, only a relatively small number were accorded that status.

Some Jews regard him as a talented Rabbi. But historically, that is a fairly novel position, and for most of history, he was regarded as being a textbook case of a _bad_ Rabbi. Certainly, few things that he said which Christians hold as special wisdom were unique to or even first said by him.

For more details, see Tropical Sand's website, the addy is in the tag to any of his posts. I dont' 100% agree with his whole body of opinion but he has a nice summary of "Why Christians cannot claim continuity with Judaism" and refutations of common falsehoods related to Judaism which are the basis for Christianity's claim to be supercede it.

Papal Infallibility is just an analogous doctrine to having a final court of appeal. Someone has to have the final say on what's what when people say "I know the rules as they are have been X, but I think they should be Y now". That final arbitrator might be wrong, but you have to assume they're right till someone of equal stature overturns their ruling.

Otherwise, no one is bound to obey the law because they can say "well, that's just what the Supreme Court/Pope says, what do _they_ know".

This is what its about in practice. Yes, the name brings to mind hubris filled visions, sometimes which were actually true. But if was _really_ about literal "infallbility" then no Pope could change anything another Pope had decreed.

I will note given that the Papacy only took about 1800 years to admit the Jews didn't deserve to be hated for having been the people of the society that crucified Jesus, I am hardly a great fan of their decisions :) However, I do respect that their mechanism. Based on the decisions on structure and hierarchy and ethical jurisprudence which they made, that mechanism for decision making is a better one than the most of the other sects.
Which is the same schism that many of the European churches had with the first council

The difference in your analogy is that unlike the court which is supposed to interpret the law of the land they don't have a claim to an un-provable source. This makes their claim not just that of interpretation but of creation of dogma.

The situation you describe is close but not quite the same (can any analogy ever be?)

No. Though I'll admit, most people find theology deadly dull. Which is why there can be such wildly divergent mechanisms for adjudicating "right and wrong"...yet are endorsed fervently but out of so much ignorance on all sides.

Even the Jews, and I think those still trying to hold the Law know more about their faith on average than any other sect of comparable size.

I certainly didn't understand Papal Infallibility, for example, till I was out of university. Of course, I had no real incentive to given I was a rabid secular humanist at the time (wry look)
Church dogma took me at a rather young age ... they used their internal organization to broad side me and my family as a child (I am making no claims that the pope was the origin but rather the organization was)

After the mistakes of said organization leading to years of therapy for me and the death of one of my good friends I ... well I have an over average interest in such. I by no means no it all, it is not my focus in life but I wish to keep informed. Though I do fail being objective which is one of my biggest failures in understanding it.

and you miss the entire point of my post.

There is no difference between what he is argueing against and what he is argueing for.

He is upset that one person or a few people 'bashed' an entire group to which he belongs, and in turn bashes an entire group.
Hypocrisy is common, sadly to say I seem to see it crop up in the religious more then the not, but in the end it is hard to not be in some way when you prefer one un-provable deity over another. Though it happens more in people trying to enforce their doctrine over other peoples with the same standing (if that makes any sense)

No thanks. Confessing to pedophiles isn't my thing.
I know the feeling, I cant go near those things anymore

What went wrong since?[that you stopped being a secular humanist]

(grins and laughs maniacally and then quiets)

Ahem.

A lot of things


First, from what I observed, judging by recent history, the present, and the apparently imminent future....the movement will not accomplish what it aspires to. It claims to seek the best outcomes based on objective reason . It claims to argue for those outcomes' superiority in open and rigorous debate. Thus, it hopes to persuade any who believe that logic and reason should be the primary grounds of legitimacy for policy that secular humanism's positions are best.

And I see it going wrong at every step in this chain:
(1) Science is becoming debased. We have come to the point in scientific inquiry where determing what humans are doing, why they are doing it, and what the underlying dynamics are (and having an ability to make useful predictions)....has faltered.

The problem was that the beginnings of the scientific revolution were in the investigation of physical reality. It was relatively easy (once you undersood the imperical method) to isolate variables, make hypotheses, measure results and come (eventually) to clear predictive mechanisms about the phenomena involved.

Studying humans is a nightmare by comparison. It requires us to go far more slowly, to accept far less specificness in the results, and to amass _far_ more data to try and be confident of our results.

Yet consider the study of traffic flows. The first hypothesis about them was that they were like water, so you managed traffic flows by similiar actions. This theoretical framework has clearly failed.

Twenty years later, the only two positions in the field are "just let it happen and live with traffic problems and "the water model". Because all the energy has been on attacking or defending that model. And it's not even right. (This btw, is from a book called (I believe) "The coming dark age" it was on sale in hardcover in an airport bookstore a year ago....)

I've seen this sort of thing in other problems too. The politicization of scientific inquiry has poisoned the process and shows no sign of abating. We have followers of reason who can't be bothered to follow the precepts of reason because we've come to the stage where getting results that way in any timely manner is just _too hard_.

(2) Secular humanism is supposed to seek to persuade by nuanced and meticulous argument. Yet their willful ignorance to how their opponents think, and the refusal to address the concerns those opponents have, is an abysmal shortcoming.

If you're seeking to persuade "undecided" or "swayable" people on the fringes of the opposition, you have to face them with respect and empathy. This is the _rational_ thing to do. It is not what I saw in years of debate and I decided that I saw no sign it was ever going to happen except as a rare and fleeting exception

(3) Most humans dont' care a fig for logic and reason at the end of the day. And this is because of how they're designed. Emotions are what allow us to choose one course of action above another. And the general emotional temperment of humanity is to not be very concerned with or influenced by abstract debate.

Moreover, most humans aren't even _capable_ of parsing abstract debate. I had a mentor who was the smartest person I ever met. He was an able leader, a skilled negotiator and diplomat, observant, a trained scientist, and amiable and gregarious. Popular anywhere he went and yet not a panderer.

He finally made me understand that feminism could make no further gains on its ideological agenda because the things it was concerned with were too abstract to be understood by most humans he had met. I remember being _extremely_ upset for two days before I reconciled this fact into my belief structure.

Because looking back on all my arguments with others over the years, it finally made sense. No wonder they looked at me like I was crazy. It was because I was talking about thing that didn't exist, as far as they were concerned!

Moreover, while secular humanism claims to be the best agent for positive change in the world, the rank and file of the movement simply do not understand the positions their opinion leaders articulate. I swear, I have seen so many well intending but vapid believers at rallies and online threads....they believe in what the opinon leaders say because they like it, not because they've thought it through. It makes my head hurt to watch.

That's just how secular humanism failed, in my opinon.

Then there's the fact that Judaism had almost all the same aspirations and has been in the process of fulfilling them more satisfactorily. You might want to read my posts on the Judaism thread if you're interested in specifics (if it's not on the "General" menu I believe you can still access it by looking at my message history or I can dig out the thread number. I don't know other ways becasue database management isn't one of my skills :)

Oh, and finally, the pattern I saw was that most humans don't seem to be emotionally suited to confront the fear of death without some hope that somehow it's not the end. Trying to rob people of their security blanket on this front _alone_ makes spreading secular humanism as the dominant force a bootless task. Yes, you might resent humans needing that comfort...but they need it. And secular humanism does not have anything to offer in its place.

My study of history showed me the failure of self appointed elites to make changes over the wishes of the typical citizen. Humans at large are not the right "shape" socially and emotionally to endorse and support secular humanism.

I started this thread because of what was posted in this one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11245775#post11245775

I live in the Baptist Bible Belt of the USA, which is very annoying, because these people think like Selfuria does. That the Roman Catholic Church is "the most corrupt religon on earth" and that we're not real "Christian". Neverminding the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was the FIRST church. Baptist and the other denomination didn't come around till Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis. Hell he wasn't even try to start his own denomination, he was trying to change the Roman Catholic Church itself. I am sick and tired of hearing uneducated idiots like "Selfuria" (or Baptist idiots) talk about how "bad" the Catholic Church is, and yet their knowledge of the actual church is limited by their converstation with one Catholic, or what their preacher told them. Now look, I will be the first to admit that the Roman Catholic Church has some problems, every denomination, every religion that was ever concieved in the span of human history has problems. Why, because humans are falliable. Everything that humans have created, are bounds to have errors and mistakes, it just the way human nature is. Even in the mist of the fault of the Roman Catholic Church, we still manage to produce people like Pope John Paul II, or Mother Theresa. Hell, I can name five Fathers myself that I'm glad I've made friends with.

I think what is important that the people outside the Catholic faith need to look at is what our message is. And no, it's not that it's ok to molest alter servers. :rolleyes: . The message is that Jesus has died for our sins, and that through the power of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) that we may do good things and ask for their guidance. All I am asking for, from the people outside the Catholic faith, is that you actually know what you are talking about. Go to a local Catholic Church, talk to the Father there. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to explain how the church works. By the time you're done I hope you'll realize that the Catholic Church does share the core Christian value that other churches has. We just like to do our mass (church service) diffrently, and we like to honor Mary, and the Saints. So please, next time you want to bash the Catholic Church, please, at least know what you're saying instead of repeating the stuff you hear on The 700 Club.

AMEN SISTA! :D I live in a Baptist/MEthodist area myself. The Baptists are always flaming other Christians simply due to the fact that Methodists, Catholics, Non-Denoms, and others worship in a different way than they do (no matter how similar their practices are). Baptists and Methodists are very nearly identical, and Baptists STILL hate the Methodists! :headbang: When I went to Baptist churches, all I heard was "Methodists got it wrong" "Catholics are satanic" and "T3h B4p71s7z r t3h pwn4g3!!!!!11111!!11!eleventy!1shift+one!!11!1!"

Trolls. :sniper:

[regarding papal infallibility]
The difference in your analogy is that unlike the court which is supposed to interpret the law of the land they don't have a claim to an un-provable source. This makes their claim not just that of interpretation but of creation of dogma.

The situation you describe is close but not quite the same (can any analogy ever be?)

The Papacy may say they're justified by divine inspiration _in the very end_, but their actual reasoning turns to the theological history of the Church, just like the Supreme Court refers to the common law. The process of reference is quieter and sometimes actually invisible, but it does go on when the Pope does their job. And as I said, when a Pope behaves badly, the system is designed to account for that.

Church dogma took me at a rather young age ... they used their internal organization to broad side me and my family as a child (I am making no claims that the pope was the origin but rather the organization was)

After the mistakes of said organization leading to years of therapy for me and the death of one of my good friends I ... well I have an over average interest in such. I by no means no it all, it is not my focus in life but I wish to keep informed. Though I do fail being objective which is one of my biggest failures in understanding it.

I sympathize. I had their beliefs put in me at a similar age with similar force and trauma. But every Church does that. They are more organized and efficient in educating about their beliefs, but they are no more culpable in traumatizing folks than the majority of their similar-scale peers, from what I've seen.

The reason the Church is struggling so much in America and Canada is because they have been ham handedly hurting rather than teaching so many of those raised within the faith. People like you and all the other ex Catholics I know in my circle of acquaintances.

I don't mean by the sexual abuse (though that was certainly bad enough!) They had a captive audience, but they lost so many chances to gain champions of their faith. But this is the results of not educating their Priests well enough in the fine points of understanding the different personality archtypes of humanity. There's only four (so far as modern psycholgoy can tell) but the differences between them are -just a little important-.

The problem is a large ponderous organization does not spin on a dime, and this understanding about how people learn is only 40 or 50 years old. So that -is- a case of a valid criticism of their structure. If they weren't so big and so schlerotic for internal communications, they might have already changed.

Believe me, I still viscerally "ick" at them. And I am glad they weren't smarter because I do believe after years of careful contemplation that Judaism is as good as it gets (by the criteria I value), and I might not have looked far enough afield and hard enough if they hadn't accidentally tortured me.

(It was ironic that my priest was a moderate and reasonable man...and by age nine, I essentially started ignoring him "because he wasn't being hard enough on sinners" :) Religious education for autism-spectrum disordered folk should have a whole course of it's own at the seminary :) )

Also, as an autistic-spectra type, I'm glad they did get to me (though I wish there had been another choice that was reasonable for my circumstances while growing up), because most such whom I've met have _no_ superego type function at all. Mine is far too strong, but I am better off with a hypertrophied one than not having it at all, as far as I can see.

I started this thread because of what was posted in this one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11245775#post11245775

I live in the Baptist Bible Belt of the USA, which is very annoying, because these people think like Selfuria does. That the Roman Catholic Church is "the most corrupt religon on earth" and that we're not real "Christian". Neverminding the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was the FIRST church. Baptist and the other denomination didn't come around till Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis. Hell he wasn't even try to start his own denomination, he was trying to change the Roman Catholic Church itself. I am sick and tired of hearing uneducated idiots like "Selfuria" (or Baptist idiots) talk about how "bad" the Catholic Church is, and yet their knowledge of the actual church is limited by their converstation with one Catholic, or what their preacher told them. Now look, I will be the first to admit that the Roman Catholic Church has some problems, every denomination, every religion that was ever concieved in the span of human history has problems. Why, because humans are falliable. Everything that humans have created, are bounds to have errors and mistakes, it just the way human nature is. Even in the mist of the fault of the Roman Catholic Church, we still manage to produce people like Pope John Paul II, or Mother Theresa. Hell, I can name five Fathers myself that I'm glad I've made friends with.

I think what is important that the people outside the Catholic faith need to look at is what our message is. And no, it's not that it's ok to molest alter servers. :rolleyes: . The message is that Jesus has died for our sins, and that through the power of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) that we may do good things and ask for their guidance. All I am asking for, from the people outside the Catholic faith, is that you actually know what you are talking about. Go to a local Catholic Church, talk to the Father there. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to explain how the church works. By the time you're done I hope you'll realize that the Catholic Church does share the core Christian value that other churches has. We just like to do our mass (church service) diffrently, and we like to honor Mary, and the Saints. So please, next time you want to bash the Catholic Church, please, at least know what you're saying instead of repeating the stuff you hear on The 700 Club.

Fair play to you!! ALL the christian peoples need to be true to Jesus' teachings! Perhaps the most poignient thing to remember at this juncture is that we cannot be one anothers judges. We can be accountable to one another and we can certainly disagree with one another but for one denomination to slate another is the antithesis of what it is to be Christian.

Religions built around christianity are utterly human. The focus of ALL true Christianity is divine!


Kin Wicked

No problem with having problems with the Catholic church's organization...

I am a catholic, a fervient one, due to my spanish and south latin heritage and yet I do not agree with all the policies of the church.


Good on you. It is heartening to see someone who values tradition and faith without being chained by it. A Pope may have the right to decree doctrine, but people conscience have the right to disagree, too. Thus the more educated the Church's members are, the less uniformity of belief there will be.

Which will be a change that it will interesting to see how the Church copes with.

I have no problems with Catholics. The Catholics seem to have a problem with me, though.

As an Anglican in the Church of England, our church would happily allow any Catholic to take Communion and celebrate with us. If I try to take Communion in a Catholic church, however, I am, according to the Vatican, condeming the Priest to Purgatory for wasting Consecrated bread on an 'unblessed'.

But aside from that I have no real problems. As an Anglo-Catholic I have sometimes wondered about becoming a Roman Catholic.

This is one of many reasons that I"m skeptical of how well the Church will manage the coming years...and the main sign that Pope John Paul II wasn't as great as people think he is... because he appointed dim witted but conseratively bent folk to all the senior posts during his tenure. I think that was a large part of why he clung to life so hard.

And Pope Benedict is one of the SMARTER ones, too. (shakes her head)

The uniformity he thus created is coming back to bite them on the ass :)

As I keep saying, don't think I think Catholics are the best thing since sliced bread; they just have some good ideas (and more of them than most Protestants. So do the Anglicans, and possibly a few more. :) (I suppose I don't really count the Anglicans as Protestant because they truly did try to limit their changes to reforms rather than the wild theological and spiritual adventures of the Great Awakenings)

Making reforms without going too far is a significant accomplishment.

What hell did Martin Luther know?

Martin Luther is probably also rolling in his grave, becuase there are Jews prospering somewhere on the planet.

Luther hated the Jews, I'm well aware of that. I'm not saying he was a divine genius, right on all things in all ways.

But the point was he wanted to reform the church. He REALLY wanted to stay within it. Yet he had to break with it or see his complaints buried in committee (at best) or ignored (most likely).

He had a vision of trying to be more true to the spirit of the Law of G*d. By meticulous attention to theological debate and history.

In practice, many of the Protestants have effectively thrown theology overboard. So as the grandfather of their movements, his grave spinning is relevant :) When you turn on the founder of your branch of Christianity, you should at least stop and explain _why_ you're doing it :)

I think the protestants are probably just upset that they are heathens and will have to go to hell when they die because they arent part of jesus' real church.

I think the protestants are probably just upset that they are heathens and will have to go to hell when they die because they arent part of jesus' real church.

So anyone who isn't Catholic automatically goes to Hell? I hope you're kidding, Troll.

That the Roman Catholic Church is "the most corrupt religon on earth"... Neverminding the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was the FIRST church.
The whole problem with that statement is that "most corrupt" shows a biased viewpoint. And, in all likelihood, whoever says it has not researched all the religions on Earth in any in depth or objective sort of way. However, that being said. It is a corrupt entity, political and otherwise. History shows that it to be so. WWII was a recent indicator, and so was the whole priest shell game, directed by the current pope, and former (possibly still) Nazi sympathizor (sp?). The fact that there were many movements of Christianity that were wiped out by things like the Spanish Inquisition (done to wipe out those who believed other than the Catholic Church, IIRC). So most corrupt, prolly not. Corrupt, indubitably. As to it being the "FIRST church," hard to say considering that many that there were something like six different movements of the religion. You encourage people to talk to a catholic priest, fine. I encourage people to do some research into the matter, using multiple sources. I suggest an anthropologist. I'm not saying the church's ideals aren't noble, just their actions rarely follow through.

Now look, I will be the first to admit that the Roman Catholic Church has some problems...
Pretentious of you, you aren't the first, nor will you be the last.

Everything that humans have created, are bound to have errors and mistakes, it just the way human nature is.
Hmm, errors and mistakes... like the bible. Full of errors, contradictions, and other unpleasantries. As well as, here's a shocker, an evil god. With mentions of others. I.e. he isn't the one god.

Even in the midst of the fault of the Roman Catholic Church, we still manage to produce people like Pope John Paul II, or Mother Theresa. Hell, I can name five Fathers myself that I'm glad I've made friends with.
I as well have met one or two I am glad to call friends. However, the majority, fathers and followers, seem to be overly pretentious, pricks too interested in denouncing others and proclaiming their beliefs than recognizing that athiests, agnostics, wiccans and others sometimes follow the same beliefs better than they, and without requiring some "divine inspiration" to help their fellow humans. I know plenty of people who don't believe in god that are better "christians" than any of the self-proclaimed christians that I know.

I think what is important that the people outside the Catholic faith need to look at is what our message is. And no, it's not that it's ok to molest alter servers. :rolleyes: .
Please tell me you aren't making light of that f*cked up sh*t. Besides, what's more important, words or actions? I think actions; maybe I'm wrong, but words don't tend to mean much without actions to back them up.

The message is that Jesus has died for our sins, and that through the power of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) that we may do good things and ask for their guidance.
The story of Jesus is almost identical to those of other beings, most notably the son of Horus and Ises. Also, he didn't do anything that hadn't been done before by others. The second sentence seems to suggest that we can't do good things without the "power of the holy trinity," which is so much BS. Buddhists, Taoists and plenty of others perform good deeds all the time. They don't need the power of the "holy trinity" or their guidance to accomplish them. Just a bit of human decency and kindness, something not exclusive to christians. I believe even the bible has stories of such noble actions that occured before the trinity existed.

All I am asking for, from the people outside the Catholic faith, is that you actually know what you are talking about.
I was a catholic for a very long time. I was raised catholic, I know what a father is likely to say, I have been baptised, recieved communion, done all the jazz required. Guess what, I think the church is a horrible thing. It is there only for those who need to feel a part of a group, whatever the cost. Politics rule the church, and the church guilts people into doing as it wishes. After all, guilt is prolly the only thing holding it together. Considering the unverifiable and unbelievable novel it is based on. If somebody wrote that today, we would call it fiction, fantasy, and probably not worth a read due to inconsistencies, lewdness, and other blemishes.

... the Catholic Church does share the core Christian value that other churches has. We just like to do our mass (church service) diffrently, and we like to honor Mary, and the Saints. So please, next time you want to bash the Catholic Church, please, at least know what you're saying instead of repeating the stuff you hear on The 700 Club.
It may share the values, but that doesn't mean much. Considering a confession can make everything all better, like some adhesive strip applied to broken flesh. Kill someone, bankrupt thousands, rape children, it's okay; just confess on your death bed. You probably will be sincere about it then. As to honoring mary and the saints. Hmm, lets see, each has a realm of influence, saying little rhymes brings favor from them; seems like polytheism and witchcraft to me. Just accepted by the church. And as to repeating things from the The 700 Club, I don't pay attention to that crap either. I have studied many religions, and many spiritual belief systems. I have concluded that religions are corrupt and too often used as political tools; therefore, in need of taxation and cessation. Unorganized religions (like wicca) or spiritual belief systems seem to be far better.

The whole problem with that statement is that "most corrupt" shows a biased viewpoint. And, in all likelihood, whoever says it has not researched all the religions on Earth in any in depth or objective sort of way. However, that being said. It is a corrupt entity, political and otherwise. History shows that it to be so. WWII was a recent indicator, and so was the whole priest shell game, directed by the current pope, and former (possibly still) Nazi sympathizor (sp?). The fact that there were many movements of Christianity that were wiped out by things like the Spanish Inquisition (done to wipe out those who believed other than the Catholic Church, IIRC). So most corrupt, prolly not. Corrupt, indubitably. As to it being the "FIRST church," hard to say considering that many that there were something like six different movements of the religion. You encourage people to talk to a catholic priest, fine. I encourage people to do some research into the matter, using multiple sources. I suggest an anthropologist. I'm not saying the church's ideals aren't noble, just their actions rarely follow through.


Pretentious of you, you aren't the first, nor will you be the last.


Hmm, errors and mistakes... like the bible. Full of errors, contradictions, and other unpleasantries. As well as, here's a shocker, an evil god. With mentions of others. I.e. he isn't the one god.


I as well have met one or two I am glad to call friends. However, the majority, fathers and followers, seem to be overly pretentious, pricks too interested in denouncing others and proclaiming their beliefs than recognizing that athiests, agnostics, wiccans and others sometimes follow the same beliefs better than they, and without requiring some "divine inspiration" to help their fellow humans. I know plenty of people who don't believe in god that are better "christians" than any of the self-proclaimed christians that I know.


Please tell me you aren't making light of that f*cked up sh*t. Besides, what's more important, words or actions? I think actions; maybe I'm wrong, but words don't tend to mean much without actions to back them up.


The story of Jesus is almost identical to those of other beings, most notably the son of Horus and Ises. Also, he didn't do anything that hadn't been done before by others. The second sentence seems to suggest that we can't do good things without the "power of the holy trinity," which is so much BS. Buddhists, Taoists and plenty of others perform good deeds all the time. They don't need the power of the "holy trinity" or their guidance to accomplish them. Just a bit of human decency and kindness, something not exclusive to christians. I believe even the bible has stories of such noble actions that occured before the trinity existed.


I was a catholic for a very long time. I was raised catholic, I know what a father is likely to say, I have been baptised, recieved communion, done all the jazz required. Guess what, I think the church is a horrible thing. It is there only for those who need to feel a part of a group, whatever the cost. Politics rule the church, and the church guilts people into doing as it wishes. After all, guilt is prolly the only thing holding it together. Considering the unverifiable and unbelievable novel it is based on. If somebody wrote that today, we would call it fiction, fantasy, and probably not worth a read due to inconsistencies, lewdness, and other blemishes.


It may share the values, but that doesn't mean much. Considering a confession can make everything all better, like some adhesive strip applied to broken flesh. Kill someone, bankrupt thousands, rape children, it's okay; just confess on your death bed. You probably will be sincere about it then. As to honoring mary and the saints. Hmm, lets see, each has a realm of influence, saying little rhymes brings favor from them; seems like polytheism and witchcraft to me. Just accepted by the church. And as to repeating things from the The 700 Club, I don't pay attention to that crap either. I have studied many religions, and many spiritual belief systems. I have concluded that religions are corrupt and too often used as political tools; therefore, in need of taxation and cessation. Unorganized religions (like wicca) or spiritual belief systems seem to be far better.
Boo-yaa!!!!
*mega-BOW*

:cry:


Catholic Basing?

The catholic church already has more bases than all the US armed servies put together.

Their HQ if the vatican, for Christ's Sake.

I'm atheist, but I support Catholics against Baptists because Catholics are in favor of abortion, but i think both cathoilc sand baptists should stop reading the bible and start working more. Atheists can't do all the work for the country anymore.

Oh yeah, geez, we dont even hold jobs. Instead we hold massive orgies in church while you athiests work the fields.

what were we being told? not to have sex?? no. place this book thousands of years ago and you should understand better the implications. at that time, there was no safe contraception. indulging yourself in sex would inevitably doom the world, as our current population levels clearly shows.

this also justifies 3. "you shall have no other gods before me." the earliest "gods" adored by mankind were usually gods related to fertility, with very heavy sexual connotations. adoring these gods would lead to the overpopulation problem.

Jesus preached and practiced much of this. it is widely believed now that he may have belonged to a jewish sect known as essenes, who refrained from having sex with their wives as much. some argue that this may explain suspicions that he also engaged in sex with men. maybe it had to come out somehow...
Sorry Assis,

But this seems like such a bit of strange thinking I really don't know what to say.
don't have to apologise. :D i keep forgetting how much i have read about all this (history, religion and environment - my three favourite subjects these days) and that maybe not so many people have read the same things... i've worked on several environmental projects to teach children how to care for it so, believe me, i'm not talking out of my *censored*. i must emphasise that it is my interpretation, based on what i've read.
Except it is a matter of historical knowledge that at this time the world was not as populated as it is now, and also before the onset of Christianity the Pagans of Europe where definatly not over run with children. In fact at this period in our history haveing loads of kids was probably a better thing to do than having only one or two, because of the rtate of infant mortality.
first of all, let's assume that Jesus was not all-knowing, so that we can look at how a "simple" man could have known these things. there's really no magic involved.

surely, infant mortality was much higher but you must remember that a lot of people, particularly the poorest, had a lot of kids (and i mean a lot), at that time. a friend of mine has 12 brothers and he's only about 30 years old (poor mother hehehe). i agree with you that having one or two children might not be enough but having 10+ was certainly excessive, under certain circumstances which i will explain further down.

the controversial gay sex issue, which i've stated as being a theory (not proven fact), is supported by a unique passage from the gospel of Mark that was found in a letter. it is more commonly known as 'The Secret Gospel of Mark'. this unique passage is somewhat controversial and it is believed that it may have been suppressed by the leaders of the early christian church. the authenticity of the letter is disputed but, given its content, there is no way that it wouldn't be. the fact that it may have been suppressed obviously fuels the speculation. this is what it says:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.
you can start finding out more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

it doens't prove that he had sex with that young man but it is certainly controversial. whether it is true or false is actually irrelevant to support the population issue, as i'll show you. it is just a sign that sex between men may have been one way to ease the pressure, if you know what i mean (men do feel it often), without risking pregnancies.

about the population issue, i was actually quite surprised seeing someone question that they might have seen what was coming, so i'm sorry for not having backed it up better in the original post.

first, it is easy to underestimate that there might be examples for them to draw these conclusions a very long time ago. also, you must take into account the clearness of vision of people like Jesus; it's overwhelming. let me show you why i believe all this, since it's actually a really simple thing to do. i can quickly give you at least 3 examples:

1. ever heard of the mayan prophecy by 7th century mayan Pacal Votan? it goes like this:
"if humanity wishes to save itself from biospheric destruction it must return to living in natural time."
obviously, 'biospheric' is probably a translation (i doubt the word existed then) but it clearly shows that mayans prophesied that mankind was at risk in the future, due problems related to sustainability of the environment. this certainly implies a problem with resources becoming scarce, which implies too many people for existing resources. but how could they see it? another example:

2. have you heard the north american indian prophecy from the 19th century?
only after the last tree has been cut down
only after the last river has been poisoned
only after the last fish has been cought
only then will you find
that money cannot be eaten.
obviously, this is a much more recent example but - still - the 19th century we didn't have that many population problems, particularly in north america.

more about it here: http://www.birdclan.org/rainbow.htm

3. now for the "key" to this knowledge. it is understandingly easy to assume that population problems didn't exist in the distant past. however, they did exist: in small islands. the best example i can offer you of this is the Easter Island (believed to have been populated from around AD 300-400):
European contact with the island began in 1722 on Easter Sunday when Dutch navigator Jacob Roggeveen found about 2,000-3,000 inhabitants on the island, although the population may have been as high as 10,000-15,000 only a century or two earlier. The civilization of Easter Island was long believed to have degenerated drastically during the 100 years before the arrival of the Dutch, as a result of overpopulation, deforestation and exploitation of an extremely isolated island with limited natural resources. Evidence to support this sudden collapse is that the oral traditions of the islanders are obsessed with cannibalism. To severely insult an enemy one would say: "The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth". This suggests that the food supply of the people ultimately ran out. (Diamond 2005:109)

All that can be said is that there was a massive, anthropogenic alteration of the ecosystem, and subsequently a cultural transition while a conclusion cannot be drawn for a catastrophic event. By the mid-19th century the population had recovered to about 4,000. Then in a mere 20 years, deportation via slave traders to Peru and diseases brought by Westerners almost exterminated the whole population - only 110 inhabitants were left on the island in 1877.
source here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_island

islands have been populated for millenia so it is not far-fetched that this knowledge could have been passed on at all. i hope you can understand better now my interpretation of the Old Testament.

So, judging from current events, we're already in hell?
i believe we're reaching it, yes... and it's only going to get worse in the future. i see no signs of improvement...

First, from what I observed, judging by recent history, the present, and the apparently imminent future....the movement will not accomplish what it aspires to. It claims to seek the best outcomes based on objective reason . It claims to argue for those outcomes' superiority in open and rigorous debate. Thus, it hopes to persuade any who believe that logic and reason should be the primary grounds of legitimacy for policy that secular humanism's positions are best.
That's just how secular humanism failed, in my opinon.

Then there's the fact that Judaism had almost all the same aspirations and has been in the process of fulfilling them more satisfactorily. You might want to read my posts on the Judaism thread if you're interested in specifics (if it's not on the "General" menu I believe you can still access it by looking at my message history or I can dig out the thread number. I don't know other ways becasue database management isn't one of my skills :)

Oh, and finally, the pattern I saw was that most humans don't seem to be emotionally suited to confront the fear of death without some hope that somehow it's not the end. Trying to rob people of their security blanket on this front _alone_ makes spreading secular humanism as the dominant force a bootless task. Yes, you might resent humans needing that comfort...but they need it. And secular humanism does not have anything to offer in its place.

My study of history showed me the failure of self appointed elites to make changes over the wishes of the typical citizen. Humans at large are not the right "shape" socially and emotionally to endorse and support secular humanism.

Well when you talk of "most humans" I presume what you're saying is "humans inferior in intellect" which just plain isn't nice. If your secular humanity hopes to explain humanity in clockwork ways it clearly isn't going to work. To throw oneself onto a more visceral religiosity in the hope of more accurate answers is hardly a solution. Religion is an opiate for those who give up and surrender to lifes slings and arrows.

Maybe your secular humanists were a self appointed elite of spocksuckers, that doesn't mean religion is the answer to anything. All it is is the end of questions, not the same as answers. All Judeism has is numerology, secrets, and bizzare OCD style behaviour. Its an autistic religion, just look at that stupid wooden block craziness.

All religions put god before other people and that is bullshit especially seeing as there is no god. Putting an imaginary friend before other people is not a good thing to do.

I sympathize. I had their beliefs put in me at a similar age with similar force and trauma. But every Church does that. They are more organized and efficient in educating about their beliefs, but they are no more culpable in traumatizing folks than the majority of their similar-scale peers, from what I've seen.

The reason the Church is struggling so much in America and Canada is because they have been ham handedly hurting rather than teaching so many of those raised within the faith. People like you and all the other ex Catholics I know in my circle of acquaintances.

I don't mean by the sexual abuse (though that was certainly bad enough!) They had a captive audience, but they lost so many chances to gain champions of their faith. But this is the results of not educating their Priests well enough in the fine points of understanding the different personality archtypes of humanity. There's only four (so far as modern psycholgoy can tell) but the differences between them are -just a little important-.

The problem is a large ponderous organization does not spin on a dime, and this understanding about how people learn is only 40 or 50 years old. So that -is- a case of a valid criticism of their structure. If they weren't so big and so schlerotic for internal communications, they might have already changed.

Believe me, I still viscerally "ick" at them. And I am glad they weren't smarter because I do believe after years of careful contemplation that Judaism is as good as it gets (by the criteria I value), and I might not have looked far enough afield and hard enough if they hadn't accidentally tortured me.

(It was ironic that my priest was a moderate and reasonable man...and by age nine, I essentially started ignoring him "because he wasn't being hard enough on sinners" :) Religious education for autism-spectrum disordered folk should have a whole course of it's own at the seminary :) )

Also, as an autistic-spectra type, I'm glad they did get to me (though I wish there had been another choice that was reasonable for my circumstances while growing up), because most such whom I've met have _no_ superego type function at all. Mine is far too strong, but I am better off with a hypertrophied one than not having it at all, as far as I can see.

.

My original problem with them did not stem solely from the forced education of a catholic elementary school it stems from this

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200207/10_horwichj_stjoes-m/ (the story predates when they finally released his latest round of abuse)

He committed acts of molestation on me and three friends from the 4th grade to the beginning of the 6th grade when he was “removed” What is worse this is not the first time he committed as the story says he committed acts in the 1970’s and was transferred around and finally put in charge of an large parish and an ELEMENTRY SCHOOL (WTF were they thinking)

The organization spent years on various gag orders parading me through all kinds of interviews with priests and bishops so they could evaluate my NEED for therapy (which they declined to cover until recently) and when they found out I was bisexual the current priest asked me not to frequent his parish in the future (as if I wanted to go)

I will never forgive the organization, it may be my weakness but I see such an organization as to convenient for corrupt individuals to steer the blind or the unwilling to question.

Personal faith can be a beautiful thing but group faith like that will always be un trusted and viewed with a great amount of suspicion

The vatican, st peter's cathedral especially, is the most splendid place in the whole world.

Is this not evidence that it is God's house?

The vatican, st peter's cathedral especially, is the most splendid place in the whole world.

Is this not evidence that it is God's house?
No

No


Fine then,

atheist myself, &c.

Assuming that god exists and decided he would found a religion, isnt it pretty clearly god's house?

Fine then,

atheist myself, &c.

Assuming that god exists and decided he would found a religion, isnt it pretty clearly god's house?
Naw I have seen the photo's ... also been to rome, beautifull but not that beautifull I enjoy some other parts of the world more

.
He committed acts of molestation on me and three friends from the 4th grade to the beginning of the 6th grade when he was “removed” What is worse this is not the first time he committed as the story says he committed acts in the 1970’s and was transferred around and finally put in charge of an large parish and an ELEMENTRY SCHOOL (WTF were they thinking)

I will never forgive the organization, it may be my weakness but I see such an organization as to convenient for corrupt individuals to steer the blind or the unwilling to question.


These bad things will happen but to cover them up in the way they have in Ireland as well is beyond tolerance. There were scandals in Ireland many years ago and they were given a chance to mend their ways. After decades they had done nothing and covered up further breaches of trust. As GWB would say "you can't fool me another time is what I'm trying to say here". Even the dullest of bible scholars can spot the hypocrisy in their statements and deeds.

All Judeism has is numerology, secrets, and bizzare OCD style behaviour. Its an autistic religion, just look at that stupid wooden block craziness.

All religions put god before other people and that is bullshit especially seeing as there is no god. Putting an imaginary friend before other people is not a good thing to do.

I just read back on some of the posts and I wasn't aware that you were autistic before I wrote that. I'd have put it differently otherwise.

And this is about the 1,000,000th time I've heard this.
i am sorry to tell you but, depending on me, you will hear it many times more. the vatican can crumble to dust or - better - sell it all or make a museum and feed the hungry with the revenue.
Actually the Pope is poor, he doesn't own anything, all of the wealth you see is actually part of the entire Church. Comon people, how hard is it to ask your local Catholic priest some questions?
did i say the pope owned the wealth or did i say he lived like a king [surrounded by wealth]?
He also preach thou shall not judge. Look, any organization that is as big and as old as the Catholic Church itself will have skeletons in it's closet, that's a given.
i'm not judging individuals, at least not as much as i'm judging the hypocrisy of the institution. also, he preached that you would be judged by the measure that you used to judge others, which is slightly different. since i live a pretty monastic life these days and i'm not surrounded by luxury, my conscience is clean, at least in this respect. i am far from perfect, just working on trying to be as perfect as i can. i hope one day i can look Jesus in the eyes, even if my own faith is between little and none.
However I fail to see what is so hypocritical about the Church's teachings. Every man of cloth (priest, bishops, cardinals, archcardinals Pope) is poor, they've taken a vow of poverty. However, I have seen the local Baptist preacher driving around in his new Jaguar. and he really does love that new Jaguar. and his 3 story home, and oh how he gets a hard on by telling his church employees not to work overtime so he doesn't have to pay them. Please, I can name SEVERAL Baptist church that has wealthy preachers that it isn't even funny. I'm not even lying about the Jaguar, and my preacher? He's driving around in an 80's Crown Victoria that he got off a used car lot for a few thousand dollars. See the Church has a system in place to keep their priest from overspending. Everything that anyone want to use the money for is documented. Like when we got our new church, we had to go to the Diocse and get the Bishop approval, money is very well regulated in the Church itself. Unlike the Baptist church with the Jaguar priest.
first, i'm not judging the teachings, i'm judging the practice of an institution, first and foremost. if the teachings don't match the practice it's called hypocrisy, which Jesus thoroughly despised. as to your comparison to the baptist, it doesn't necessarily make the pope a good example. to illustrate my point: a thief is not as bad as a murderer but that doesn't make the thief good. let me emphasise this; i am not comparing the pope to a thief or a murderer. this was only to illustrate my point.
Please, tell me, how is it hypocritical to have a Pope? Jesus was a leader, he was a preacher, he had followers, not much diffrent than the Church today.
"If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."

Jesus said, "Why have you come out to the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in soft clothes, [like your] rulers and your powerful ones? They are dressed in soft clothes, and they cannot understand truth."

"Let one who has become wealthy reign, and let one who has power renounce it."

"If you have money, don't lend it at interest. Rather, give it to someone from whom you won't get it back."
[Jesus, in the Gospel of Thomas]
"Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock"
[Zechariah 11:15-17]
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
[1 Tim. 2:5]
He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics.
[Mark 6:7]
Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction, he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself up as God.
[II Thessalonians 1.1]
And this is what is spoken while the Pope receives his crown...
"Receive this Tiara, adorned with three crowns, and know that Thou art Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World and Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth."
i believe i have pretty good reasons to be against having a pope living surrounded by luxury, wearing the finest garments, golden necklaces, etc, etc. and in case the words of God and Jesus aren't enough to prove my point, two images should speak for two thousand words:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/GestatorialChair1.jpg

http://www.techhouse.org/~dj/coasmonk.jpg

and what has Benedict XVI done wrong, and please, please, please for the love of GOD do NOT bring up the Youth Nazi stuff.
i know nothing about the nazi youth. if he was part of it (is that what you are saying?), it doesn't make him a bad person today (or even then, since he was a child). i do not hate him, but i despise where he stands. i feel that the fact that he lives surrounded by wealth goes directly against everything Jesus stood for. if you want to know what is a good example of christian (and catholic) leadership, read my player's name; the monk Francisco de Assis. he lived a wealthy life but he chose poverty, despite being called a fool by his own father. i don't know if he was perfect but i do believe he was nearer. this particular pope has also gone backwards on religious tolerance. you know Fatima, right? John Paul II supported the construction of a study centre where several faiths could congregate. in 2003 there was an inter-religious congress:
The Shrine’s rector told the Congress that “Fatima will change for the better”. Addressing Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Orthodox, Buddhist and African Pagan representatives he stated: “The future of Fatima or the adoration of God and his mother at this holy Shrine, must pass through the creation of a shrine where different religions can mingle. … The shrine of Fatima is … already becoming a universalistic place of worship.”
source: http://www.lightforthelastdays.co.uk/docs/current_events/future_of_god.html

not anymore... since he died, so did the iniciative...

my dear friend. i have nothing against catholics. i have something against the institution. please understand this. think and do as your own conscience guides you. i think and do as my my own conscience guides me, according to the words of Jesus.

and i wish i believed in God...

Well when you talk of "most humans" I presume what you're saying is "humans inferior in intellect" which just plain isn't nice.


(I'll note I don't think intelligence makes you less scared of death, but I assume you are saying throughout my post)

"plain isn't nice". But the (indirect) statement is accurate. The median (not mean) IQ scores (imperfect, but they do correlate with intelligence) covers about 92.5% of the population falling within 10 pts of 100 on that scale. So my implicit assertation that most people are in the same general ballpark is correct. And that ballpark is plainly inadequate for the challenge of devising and testing the solutions to the complex problems that haunt the modern age.

If we get through these challenges, it will be by the brilliance of a few finally being adopted by the many. (I'll concede this may even be a predominant likelihood.) Not because everyone hears the argument of what to do and decides to follow it . But because someone finds a way to make doing the right things easy enough for people to add to their list of daily responsibilities

If this does happen this way (and that's how it's happened historically _up until now_ throughout the modern age)...that's a strong testimonial to the general lack of levels of human intelligence necessary for advanced problem solving. We're good enough to survive, but not good enough to live by the standard of efficiency secular humanism embraces.

Take environmentalism for example. Everyone agrees it's a good thing to do more to lessen the impact of human habitation on the Earth. So why are we still struggling to meet Kyoto in those countries that signed it ? It wasn't a night and day improvement they were shooting for. Why are we still addicted to automobiles as the lynchpin of our economy when this fixation is clearly bad for the economy _and_ the environment ?

If people were so smart, why is it almost impossible to manage large projects efficiently and get them completed on time ? Why are government and large business alike hard pressed to get any program accomplished consistently and within budget ?

Admittedly, these successes happen. If talent is common and significant intelligence is routine they should happen _frequently_. But they don't.

If human talent is that thick on the ground, it shouldn't be difficult. But the reason "Dilbert" often reads like a documentary is because these organizations can't wait till they have 2-5 qualified applicants (ability wise) for a position. They take whomever seems the most pleasant and pray they can teach them enough to do their job. ("Hire soft [skills endowed people], train hard [skills into them]" is the mantra they use.) It's amazing how great the gap is between "able to look like you're doing your job" and "doing your job properly" is.


Maybe your secular humanists were a self appointed elite of spocksuckers


And you were talking about polite just a moment ago....

Actually, I was never part of an actual group. When I refer to a "movement" I mean every political or business or academic figure I saw who made clear that they had at least one or two of the key beliefs of the set general accepted as "secular humanist. I saw debate threads, policy positions, random rhetoric, politicial activity....and over time I realized humanism wasn't going to carry the day (for the reasons stated).

In fact, no united political party with a mass following has been founded by secular humanism. The fact that this has not happened implies two things. One is that such folk are relatively scarce. Two is that there are serious internal divisions within the general movement.

Yet unity is exactly the asset their opponents have and which appears as out of reach of these "progressives" today as it was in mid 19th century Britain (which is when the attitude actually gained credibility as an alternative worldview and not "craziness").

A bit much to hope they'll change the world when they can't even agree on how to organize a political party and persuade significant numbers to sign up for it.


that doesn't mean religion is the answer to anything. All it is is the end of questions, not the same as answers. All Judeism has is numerology, secrets, and bizzare OCD style behaviour. Its an autistic religion, just look at that stupid wooden block craziness.


On what basis do you arrive at these declarations ? I've read two books, numerous web sources, talked to several Jews and had a convert (you know, one of the ones who tends to know what it's about the most) confirm my idea of it was basically correct. And that understanding opposes your claims.

But I'm not going to waste time spelling it out if you don't _have_ a basis for your opinon except for haphazard observation and whim. (Which is the way most people acquire most of their opinions and is another sign of the lack of specialized cognitive ability in humanity.)

I'll note that Judaism is _not_ the end of asking questions. In point of fact, it is about the unending search to keep the answers to the major ethical and moral questions of life open. That's what the whole point of the Rabbinical system: massive parallel processing in deriving norms to confront ethical challenges.

Judaism has _no_ problems embracing the scientific worldview. Members of this society have had a disproportionate influence on the arts and sciences of "Western Civilization" throughout the entirety of modern history. Rather a difficult feat for a "crazy" religion.


All religions put god before other people and that is bullshit especially seeing as there is no god. Putting an imaginary friend before other people is not a good thing to do.

First, there actually is no way to prove a negative.

Secondly, Judaism does NOT put G*d before people. The whole point of the Law is to _help humans_. It's not like Christianity and all about scoring the brownie points to earn salvation. The main reward of Judaism for its worshippers is the existence of communities that are better places to live in the here and now. Their viewpoint is that the Law exists to help humans, not that humans exist for the Law.

Thirdly, even if there was no Judaism I would have nothing to do with Secular Humanism at this point. As I stated, its aspirations cannot be carried out with actual living breathing humans. Regarding this contention, you have not even mounted a defense of except "people are smarter than you claim"

(And I submit that in fact they are not (see above). A movement that prides itself on hard headed realism that cannot grasp that basic fact has SERIOUS problems.)

(In a related vein, statistically, the majority of atheist/agnostics (according to USA polls) would not want an atheist/agnostic president. Intriguing that the majority of such people think there is something lacking in the general pool of adherents to their philosophical system.)

.
My original problem with them did not stem solely from the forced education of a catholic elementary school it stems from this
[snip: exposition of abuse and justifably righteous anger at the Church for covering it up][abreviating it because I'm not contesting or discussing aspects of the abuse]


I regret hearing you had to go through that torture.

And if your position is that _no_ mass religion can be trusted then I would actually agree (I would argue Judaism is an exception, but I can't see how it would be relevant to you). I had thought you were a mainstream sect Protestant saying Catholicism was uniquely bad.

However, an entity can have social utility despite being morally derelict.

That's why I have a limited endorsement of Catholicism. It gives back more to society than it takes, compared to any other Christian sects of comparable size.

But such brute force utilitarianism does not exhonerate them for the evil that they do (such as this), and Catholics owe it to themselves as well as society to exert every influence they can to force the Church to be true to its principles...even if it means bankrupting that Church.

However, I don't see how that takes away from Catholicism's rough parity or superiority to its competitors.

I just read back on some of the posts and I wasn't aware that you were autistic before I wrote that. I'd have put it differently otherwise.

Why ?

You're a secular humanist. A hard head, clear eyed idealist serving the tide of history.

If you have judged Judaism to have the characteristics of "autism" then stand by that judgement.

If on the other hand, you have NOT got a judgement to stand by...and were just stringing together random perjoratives.....I inquire just how much of your position is from reasoning based on facts and how much is arbitrary, off the cuff judgement dressed up as impartial reason ?

Not advisable. Seriously. The parachute doesn't have a chance to deploy, not even if you jump from off the very top of the Papal hat. Not even on a windy day. Don't try it.

Why ?

You're a secular humanist. A hard head, clear eyed idealist serving the tide of history.

If you have judged Judaism to have the characteristics of "autism" then stand by that judgement.

If on the other hand, you have NOT got a judgement to stand by...and were just stringing together random perjoratives.....I inquire just how much of your position is from reasoning based on facts and how much is arbitrary, off the cuff judgement dressed up as impartial reason ?

As I may have mentioned before you seem to have glommed onto a bunch of elitist logic polishers trying to answer the human question. Their approach is 80% condesention and 20% constipation. They have no love in their hearts. Or spocksuckers as I like to say.

I do think Judeism is an autistic religion. Next time you're rocking back and forth at the wailing wall think about that. Also putting an asterix in the word god and wearing a hat all the time. They got some spooky habits. I just wanted to be clear that I'd come to that conclusion all by myself before I'd seen your posts saying you were autistic. I was just making the point that I wasn't using the term as a taunt at you. Sorry I bothered really.

As a secular humanist (if that's what you call me) I believe in humans. All the misplaced love and fear and respect which people transfer into money and gods belongs to humans. That's a test of faith, anyone can believe in a magical friend who created the universe.

We are God
Because only we can create the idea
Of His existence in our holy brains
-- Domingo de Santa Clara

As I may have mentioned before you seem to have glommed onto a bunch of elitist logic polishers trying to answer the human question. Their approach is 80% condesention and 20% constipation. They have no love in their hearts. Or spocksuckers as I like to say.


So what is your favored faction doing ? Is it a party ? A political club ? A labor union ? A silent majority waiting for the moment to act ? You've just written off the entirety of the vague-but-not-quite-ineffectual network of opinion movers and academics and businessmen (there are a few) who were actually _trying_ to do something to promote secular humanist values. What do you have that is going to promote your values in its place ?

I am curious about who is left given that what I "glommed onto" in my secular humanist days was simply the sum of anyone who endorsed a significant fragment of the humanist agenda without showing signs of religiousity. That was a pretty diverse body of people. And yet you label every last one of them a fellatio enthusiast (as though that were a bad thing (laughter)) without knowing the specifics of what they articulated.

Except you seem to oppose anything that results from lots of thinking. It sounds like you're opposed to anyone who derived a policy from research and logic and then attempts to persuade bodies of authority to enact it. What other approach is left ?


I do think Judeism is an autistic religion. Next time you're rocking back and forth at the wailing wall think about that. Also putting an asterix in the word god and wearing a hat all the time. They got some spooky habits.


Once again you refuse to support your contention. You're just stating a position as truth and leaving it there. That's pretty hypocritical for someone purporting to follow Reason as one of their highest values.

I had rather thought that hurling insults (which is what this post is almost entirely about) was considered poor form in serious debate. Yet that is what almost the entirety of this post has been about.

Every ritual and practice the Jews have has a purpose which they learn with the ritual. They are mnemonic devices to remind people of their ethical aspirations. What do _you_ do to make it harder for you to violate your ethics when you're tempted to do so ?


I just wanted to be clear that I'd come to that conclusion all by myself before I'd seen your posts saying you were autistic. I was just making the point that I wasn't using the term as a taunt at you. Sorry I bothered really.


(Shakes her head and laughs) You've spent the entire post until now insulting me and the religion I aspire to follow. And now you're trying to prove that you weren't offering a particular _kind_ of insult earlier. Why ? What is the point ?

You've abdicated from responding to any facts I've shared or any arguments I've presented. That is the supreme act of rudeness in a debate. Before that everything else is irrelevant. So I say one last time: present your case or shut up.


As a secular humanist (if that's what you call me) I believe in humans. All the misplaced love and fear and respect which people transfer into money and gods belongs to humans. That's a test of faith, anyone can believe in a magical friend who created the universe.


Believe in what about humans ? That they would be much better behaving if there were no divine forces to think about or luxuries for them to enjoy ? That's a species of utopianism. Which, if you weren't aware, at last count has failed to create any viable societies or subsocieties.

And once again, your understanding of religion in general and Judaism in particular is abysmal. Would you like to learn how you were wrong ? Even when I was a secular humanist, I showed far more respect for why people did what they did.

How do you plan to persuade anyone to change their minds if all you're going to do is tell them how wrong they are and that they have to change ? Your failure to address their needs or their view of the universe dooms you to failure unless you're delivering your demands down the barrel of a gun. (Which is it's own type of failure because behaviour imposed by force only lasts as long as force is applied and to the degree it is applied.)

(Grins) you anticipate why I'm _not_ a Catholic despite my willingness to respect them on many things.

If you're going to believe in a G*d, you have to come to some conclusion that reconciles how the world can be so messed up yet spring from divine origins.

(and this is after granting that humanity must face some adversity. the point is that there is a lot of data that at least on the face of it denies that anyone or anything designed the human world to avoid all the suffering that it reasonably could.

For example, why aren't human beings programmed with an "empathy circuit" so that they cannot kill someone else without killing themselves, and feel the pain of whatever they do to another within themselves ?

You have to account for that data which implies the absence of divine agency, if you aspire to hold a religious belief in G*d that is based in reason.)

This is a challenging exercise. I will freely admit it is simpler and at least as supported by the facts (it depends how you perform this reconciliation...) to say that there is no G*d.

My choice to believe is a rational mechanism steered by emotion. I need a G*d shaped entity in my cosmology and ethical structure, for better or for worse. 11 years as a secular humanist finally taught me this. I make no assertation however that because it was the best for me it is the best for everyone.

One of the many things I do like about Judaism (and why I am trying to get within that paradigm of Law) is that there are still communities of people reading from the same page, generally speaking. You do after all have the right to prefer "your own kind"...but you also have a duty to know what "the other kinds" _are_.

I actualy agree with everything that you have said, and for the record I too have a faith in God, I am not though and have never been, and truely belive I shall never be a Christian of any denomination.

As I say I don't mind Chrtistians, in fact I don't mind many people, but I just don't think that the Christian concept of God works, and I would rather see people question their faith when needed and change their minds if needed than to blindly follow what they are told. After all to my mind, there is only one God, and if God has decied to seed the earth with many religions, then so be it. I dare say that when it really comes to the crunch the Catholic way of reaching God is every bit as valid as say the Pagan way.

My girlfriends family are Christians.. I don't know how to 'class' them properly. They're like modern-day and shit. Anyway, I'm going to have to ask permission to go out with her and apparently something that concerns him (father) is that I'm not a Christian... I'm Catholic. I'm in the middle of being confirmed and how a Christian person can be concerned about this really pisses me off.

It's as if I'm not good enough and it's something I've noticed quite a lot with their family. They sit on their high horse and look down and judge others. I really hate going to their family dinners. They mock me for going to a Catholic boys school (jokingly, but only just) and say they "don't hold it against me". Stupid little comments like this get so annoying.

Ignorance is another problem with them. They look down on Maori people aswell which infuriates (sp?) me.. My gf's mother acts like she knows everything and refuses to accept she might be wrong on absolutely anything.


So yea, just a little rant about my gfs Christian family.

I regret hearing you had to go through that torture.

And if your position is that _no_ mass religion can be trusted then I would actually agree (I would argue Judaism is an exception, but I can't see how it would be relevant to you). I had thought you were a mainstream sect Protestant saying Catholicism was uniquely bad.

However, an entity can have social utility despite being morally derelict.

That's why I have a limited endorsement of Catholicism. It gives back more to society than it takes, compared to any other Christian sects of comparable size.

But such brute force utilitarianism does not exhonerate them for the evil that they do (such as this), and Catholics owe it to themselves as well as society to exert every influence they can to force the Church to be true to its principles...even if it means bankrupting that Church.

However, I don't see how that takes away from Catholicism's rough parity or superiority to its competitors.

Agreed … and that is in fact my position … one of distrust for all organized religions as they ultimately put some form of human in leadership as an authority on faith … some take more care then others but in the end some human is in the loop and that has massive potential for abuse.


My focus on Catholics is primarily because they are just about the biggest organized and VERY dogmatic religion. That and my past.

My girlfriends family are Christians.. I don't know how to 'class' them properly. They're like modern-day and shit. Anyway, I'm going to have to ask permission to go out with her and apparently something that concerns him (father) is that I'm not a Christian... I'm Catholic. I'm in the middle of being confirmed and how a Christian person can be concerned about this really pisses me off.

It's as if I'm not good enough and it's something I've noticed quite a lot with their family. They sit on their high horse and look down and judge others. I really hate going to their family dinners. They mock me for going to a Catholic boys school (jokingly, but only just) and say they "don't hold it against me". Stupid little comments like this get so annoying.

Ignorance is another problem with them. They look down on Maori people aswell which infuriates (sp?) me.. My gf's mother acts like she knows everything and refuses to accept she might be wrong on absolutely anything.


So yea, just a little rant about my gfs Christian family.
It is the other way in this area … EVERYONE is catholic, being non catholic gets you viewed with much suspicion in the small farming town I am from or the big city next to it.

It is the other way in this area … EVERYONE is catholic, being non catholic gets you viewed with much suspicion in the small farming town I am from or the big city next to it.
Heh.. I hate some other Catholics.. Mostly the conservative bastards.

Well, there's two substainable charges there

By the current sex education policies, the Church has encouraged the spread of HIV and has encouraged the overpopulation that has led to crippling economic and political problems.

And historically, the Church endorsed the trans-Atlantic slave trade which demographically devestated Africa in the 14th-18th centuries.

Okay, so the church is responsible for promoting abstinence and people are doing the contrary and so the church is responsible??? That doesn't make any sense. Going back many centuries does not enhance your point either.

I hate to use this, I've probably used this before on this site against Christianity in one form or another

God is love (1 John 4:16)
God is a jealous God (Deuteronomy 6:15)
Love is not jealous (1 Corinthians 13:4)

Explain?

Okay, so the church is responsible for promoting abstinence and people are doing the contrary and so the church is responsible??? That doesn't make any sense. Going back many centuries does not enhance your point either.
No they had an active stance on misinformation on the effectiveness of condoms especially as concerned with HIV protection.

There also have been implications of certain catholic organizations poking holes in condoms before distributing them in Africa.

Also their endorsement of Abstinence ONLY “education” (I put the quotes cause it is BS to call it education)

As I may have mentioned before you seem to have glommed onto a bunch of elitist logic polishers trying to answer the human question. Their approach is 80% condesention and 20% constipation. They have no love in their hearts. Or spocksuckers as I like to say.
ND, try to calm down please. your language is not carrying much love either so it's damaging your own arguments. just some friendly advice. when we become angered, we stop seeing and speaking clearly. it happens to all of us... it's a basic human flaw.
I do think Judeism is an autistic religion. Next time you're rocking back and forth at the wailing wall think about that. Also putting an asterix in the word god and wearing a hat all the time. They got some spooky habits.
see what i mean? what's so spooky about wearing a hat or placing an asterisk on a word, for respect of your own beliefs? why should that scare you? it scares me when a nutter wearing a hat starts speaking hatred towards others, but when that happens my mind is not on the hat; it's in his mouth and brain.
As a secular humanist (if that's what you call me) I believe in humans. All the misplaced love and fear and respect which people transfer into money and gods belongs to humans. That's a test of faith, anyone can believe in a magical friend who created the universe.
if you are an humanist, try to learn a bit more about the humans you choose to criticise, so that your credibility is not damaged by ignorance of a subject you do not understand fully. judaism does not believe in a magical being. judaism (the faith) does not attempt to define the nature of God. for all it's worth, a jew can individually interpret God as chemicals and pure matter. Jesus was a jew and humanist, no one can deny that.

Heh.. I hate some other Catholics.. Mostly the conservative bastards.
Yeah I don’t get it Catholicism is viewed overall as one of the more liberal organization then most other Christian sects. But around here they are often more hardcore conservative then anything else

Yeah I don’t get it Catholicism is viewed overall as one of the more liberal organization then most other Christian sects. But around here they are often more hardcore conservative then anything else
Well, for me, it's the opposite. Very liberal around here. I only know like 3-4 really hardcore conservatives.. They're not that well liked though, heh.

I hate to use this, I've probably used this before on this site against Christianity in one form or another

God is love (1 John 4:16)
God is a jealous God (Deuteronomy 6:15)
Love is not jealous (1 Corinthians 13:4)

Explain?

Yeah

Again?

And why exactly this go against Catholicism?

Second quote "Deuteronomy", old testament, I rest my case. There are worst controversies in the bible, but arguments like these ones are against all of those who read the bible literally, like the so called "Christians"

Check Levitic for better references, those are almost funny

Actually Jews do not. Tropical Sands could wax eloquent on this but I'll give you the short version:

By the lights of Judaism he is a false prophet. He claimed to be fulfilling prophecies that did not exist, and he failed to fulfill ones which he made. Most prominently that the end of the world would be within one human lifetime of his ascension.

The Jews don't go for an overly metaphorical reading of prophecy because then you can judge any prediction to be true at almost any time (or argue that it is not, conversely). This is why despite having many people who aspired to the mantle of prophethood, only a relatively small number were accorded that status.

Some Jews regard him as a talented Rabbi. But historically, that is a fairly novel position, and for most of history, he was regarded as being a textbook case of a _bad_ Rabbi. Certainly, few things that he said which Christians hold as special wisdom were unique to or even first said by him.

For more details, see Tropical Sand's website, the addy is in the tag to any of his posts. I dont' 100% agree with his whole body of opinion but he has a nice summary of "Why Christians cannot claim continuity with Judaism" and refutations of common falsehoods related to Judaism which are the basis for Christianity's claim to be supercede it.

I have to disagree with you but I'll leave it at that.

My girlfriends family are Christians.. I don't know how to 'class' them properly. They're like modern-day and shit. Anyway, I'm going to have to ask permission to go out with her and apparently something that concerns him (father) is that I'm not a Christian... I'm Catholic. I'm in the middle of being confirmed and how a Christian person can be concerned about this really pisses me off.

It's as if I'm not good enough and it's something I've noticed quite a lot with their family. They sit on their high horse and look down and judge others. I really hate going to their family dinners. They mock me for going to a Catholic boys school (jokingly, but only just) and say they "don't hold it against me". Stupid little comments like this get so annoying.

Ignorance is another problem with them. They look down on Maori people aswell which infuriates (sp?) me.. My gf's mother acts like she knows everything and refuses to accept she might be wrong on absolutely anything.

So yea, just a little rant about my gfs Christian family.
judging from your "rant", i would argue that your girlfriend's family is acting as hypocritical as they accuse catholics to be, best shown by their poor treatment of the Maori. just plain wrong. i would argue the people like the Maori or the Amazonian indians are doing much more to save the world than civilised modern society. but that's just my point of view...

No they had an active stance on misinformation on the effectiveness of condoms especially as concerned with HIV protection.

There also have been implications of certain catholic organizations poking holes in condoms before distributing them in Africa.

Also their endorsement of Abstinence ONLY “education” (I put the quotes cause it is BS to call it education)

You mean the misinformation that its 100% effective and since having it here in Canada and in the US the infection rates are rising? If that's what you mean, then I agree. Abstinence is the only way, if you can't control yourself you suffer the consequences, I would say that AIDS can be included in that.

judging from your "rant", i would argue that your girlfriend's family is acting as hypocritical as they accuse catholics to be, best shown by their poor treatment of the Maori. just plain wrong. i would argue the people like the Maori or the Amazonian indians are doing much more to save the world than civilised modern society. but that's just my point of view...
Hmm. Lots of stupid Maori give them a bad name.. Alcoholism, abuse and all the idiotic drug-related stuff.. Maori seem to have lost their values in many cases.
It's so sad to see it unfolding before your eyes.

Yeah I don’t get it Catholicism is viewed overall as one of the more liberal organization then most other Christian sects. But around here they are often more hardcore conservative then anything else

Catholics can be classified as liberal in the sense of social justice but in the sense of social responsibility, they could and would be considered Conservative. The political spectrum has changed, although the Catholic way hasn't really changed that much in the same time period as CPC or Liberal or NDP parties here in Canada. You can say that Jesus was the ultimate socialist, but socialism has turned its back on Jesus, for the most part. Conservatism is associated with big business, and it is an accurate assessment, although recently the Liberal party is associated with it even more so than the Conservative Party.

Its not that Catholics have changed, the parties have changed themselves.

Hmm. Lots of stupid Maori give them a bad name.. Alcoholism, abuse and all the idiotic drug-related stuff.. Maori seem to have lost their values in many cases.
It's so sad to see it unfolding before your eyes.
i'm sure it is, but you can apply that to anyone. even my mother has had a problem with drinking before and she's white, catholic and european...

i'm sure it is, but you can apply that to anyone. even my mother has had a problem with drinking before and she's white, catholic and european...
Ditto.

I'm just saying, native groups are picked out and their downfalls are made so much more obvious. The massive thing in the news here has been a Maori families inability to comply with police over two dead twins. It's just stupid things that could be avoided so easily.

You mean the misinformation that its 100% effective and since having it here in Canada and in the US the infection rates are rising? If that's what you mean, then I agree. Abstinence is the only way, if you can't control yourself you suffer the consequences, I would say that AIDS can be included in that.
Somehow I knew you would not know the difference between teaching abstinence and abstinence only education

Teaching abstinence is absolutely not a problem

But the trend lately in some areas is to teach absence only, meaning their sexual education consists of ONLY teaching about abstinence, rather then also being taught about birth control and condoms and the such.

The stats from those areas where they teach abstinence only are clear. There is a marked RIZE in both pre-marital sex, and children out of wedlock. Also a marked RISE in STD occurrence

There also have been implications of certain catholic organizations poking holes in condoms before distributing them in Africa.


Proofs?

Somehow I knew you would not know the difference between teaching abstinence and abstinence only education

Teaching abstinence is absolutely not a problem

But the trend lately in some areas is to teach absence only, meaning their sexual education consists of ONLY teaching about abstinence, rather then also being taught about birth control and condoms and the such.

The stats from those areas where they teach abstinence only are clear. There is a marked RIZE in both pre-marital sex, and children out of wedlock. Also a marked RISE in STD occurrence
Abstinence-only "education" also ignores that fact that pretty much everybody is going to have sex at some point in their life.

It overlooks the fact that plenty of married, monogamous people don't want to have a baby every time they fuck, so even people who are virgins on their wedding night will need to know about contraception.

It overlooks the fact that good sex ed classes will include instructions on how to perform breast and testicle self exams, which can help people detect cancers or other ailments earlier.

It overlooks the fact that rape exists.

And, of course, it overlooks the pure, simple fact that never in all the history of humanity has there been a single human society in which everybody abstained from sex until marriage.

Proofs?
Why? Like I said there had been implications and I was just clarifying some of the accusations the poster he quoted. (I could have it wrong and that’s not what he meant but those are some of the biggies that I have heard around)

That’s why I used that fancy word “Implications” trying to hint at that is one of those accusations out there. Sorry if it confused you.

A person that may know more then me is bottle she has a very comprehensive list of information on these sorts of things

Abstinence-only "education" also ignores that fact that pretty much everybody is going to have sex at some point in their life.

It overlooks the fact that plenty of married, monogamous people don't want to have a baby every time they fuck, so even people who are virgins on their wedding night will need to know about contraception.

It overlooks the fact that good sex ed classes will include instructions on how to perform breast and testicle self exams, which can help people detect cancers or other ailments earlier.

It overlooks the fact that rape exists.

And, of course, it overlooks the pure, simple fact that never in all the history of humanity has there been a single human society in which everybody abstained from sex until marriage.
Yeah who cares if a woman gets raped … we cant tell her some of the possible options she has because that might turn her into a slut

Instead we are going to keep her in the dark about her situation and her options as well as lie to her about the statistics!

Some people are such asshats

Ditto.

I'm just saying, native groups are picked out and their downfalls are made so much more obvious. The massive thing in the news here has been a Maori families inability to comply with police over two dead twins. It's just stupid things that could be avoided so easily.
well, news outlets are particularly good at picking on negative points on every group these days, particularly those that aren't the dominant culture... there are exceptions, but they are so few that they become almost invisible.

i was watching a brasillian piece on amazonian indians following the world championship these days. i could not stop laughing of how funny it all was, like their own unique way of celebrating the goals. i kept a smile on my face throughtout. in their small village there is only one tv, so they commune to watch it, while we usually sit 'alone' in our own living rooms. even the girls have their own football teams (talk about being socially progressive). they seemed to be very happy people, despite their subjective "poverty". every end of the day the ancients gather to discuss local issues, something you don't see in modern societies. "we" don't even respect the elderly, never mind letting them make the important decisions. i so envy them... they are surrounded by trees, while i'm surrounded by concrete...

maybe i'll join them one day... somehow, i have a feeling they wouldn't dismiss me outright, just for being white (in brasil i would become brownish very quickly hehehe), as long as i did my share of hard work and learned how to hunt. don't particularly like the idea of having to hunt but - hey - i don't like slaughter houses either....

Yeah who cares if a woman gets raped … we cant tell her some of the possible options she has because that might turn her into a slut

Instead we are going to keep her in the dark about her situation and her options as well as lie to her about the statistics!

Some people are such asshats
Never forget that these are people who feel that it is better for a woman to die of cancer than for her to have consentual sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

These are people who think the best way to protect their children from harm is to ensure that their children are utterly ignorant about their own bodies. This is no different than if they were campaigning to make sure that no child is ever taught how to safely drive a car, but instead that children were simply given driver's licenses on their wedding night.

Never forget that these are people who feel that it is better for a woman to die of cancer than for her to have consentual sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

These are people who think the best way to protect their children from harm is to ensure that their children are utterly ignorant about their own bodies. This is no different than if they were campaigning to make sure that no child is ever taught how to safely drive a car, but instead that children were simply given driver's licenses on their wedding night.
please, please, refrain from slandering and poor generalisations. i've nerver heard "these people" say "it is better for a woman to die of cancer than for her to have consentual sexual intercourse outside of marriage."

maybe you've been listening to the wrong catholics... there are Catholics and there are catholics. there are Atheists and there are atheists. you can apply this to any race, creed or faith...

I think bottle was talking about abstanince only people. this thread is more about sex then catholics now

well, news outlets are particularly good at picking on negative points on every group these days, particularly those that aren't the dominant culture... there are exceptions, but they are so few that they become almost invisible.

i was watching a brasillian piece on amazonian indians following the world championship these days. i could not stop laughing of how funny it all was, like their own unique way of celebrating the goals. i kept a smile on my face throughtout. in their small village there is only one tv, so they commune to watch it, while we usually sit 'alone' in our own living rooms. even the girls have their own football teams (talk about being socially progressive). they seemed to be very happy people, despite their subjective "poverty". every end of the day the ancients gather to discuss local issues, something you don't see in modern societies. "we" don't even respect the elderly, never mind letting them make the important decisions. i so envy them... they are surrounded by trees, while i'm surrounded by concrete...

maybe i'll join them one day... somehow, i have a feeling they wouldn't dismiss me outright, just for being white (in brasil i would become brownish very quickly hehehe), as long as i did my share of hard work and learned how to hunt. don't particularly like the idea of having to hunt but - hey - i don't like slaughter houses either....

Please don't do that, you will damage their environment. I have seem it before, and it doesn't work, you'll become alienated, probably. It could work, as 1 out of 50 cases do, but...

And well, I lived three months with a Yanomami tribe. It is quite different than from TV. The bugs, the heat, and the fact that most aborigines want you just to show them things from your world, and not teach you about theirs. A shame although. It is worthwhile to visit them, aye, but not moving with them.

Some people are such asshats Would that make them bedpans, underwear, or butt plugs?

Please don't do that, you will damage their environment. I have seem it before, and it doesn't work, you'll become alienated, probably. It could work, as 1 out of 50 cases do, but...

And well, I lived three months with a Yanomami tribe. It is quite different than from TV. The bugs, the heat, and the fact that most aborigines want you just to show them things from your world, and not teach you about theirs. A shame although. It is worthwhile to visit them, aye, but not moving with them.
well, thanks for the advice... hehehe... i don't think i'll ever will. i kind of meant it with a bit of irony but it didn't come accross as much as i wanted. i don't think i would survive long in the jungle... hehehe... and if i did pay a visit or spend some time with them i wouldn't want to be talking much about my world either, that is for sure. they certainly don't need an inch of it. i rather learn about their ways and bring a bit ack into our societies...

ironically... the bugs don't seem to like me very much... at least when i have my other half around... hehehehe

are you brasilian? brave move spending 3 months with a tribe in the amazon... why did you do it? what was the overall experience like? more positive or more negative?

well, thanks for the advice... hehehe... i don't think i'll ever will. i kind of meant it with a bit of irony but it didn't come accross as much as i wanted. i don't think i would survive long in the jungle... hehehe... and if i did pay a visit or spend some time with them i wouldn't want to be talking much about my world either, that is for sure. they certainly don't need an inch of it. i rather learn about their ways and bring a bit ack into our societies...

ironically... the bugs don't seem to like me very much... at least when i have my other half around... hehehehe

are you brasilian? brave move spending 3 months with a tribe in the amazon... why did you do it? what was the overall experience like? more positive or more negative?

I'm spanish-venezuela, currently living in Venezuela. Our country shares a quite big chunk of the amazonian jungle to the South, near the frontier with Brazil. My brother, a doctor, went there to make a study over the tuberculosis effects on yanomami people, and trying to help them from suffering an endemic cycle of the disease, I was just graduated of the university, and thought it could be an amazing experience, so I went there with him as an "assistant".

The experience was awesome, I became the storyteller for the group, although as I already said, it was a sad fact than they were too affected by our world, with the hunter chief owning a rifle, the women owning ginsu knifes, and the kids sporting mickey mouse t-shirts. I know it is not a bad thing, as those things improves their life status, but well, it is not what you expect in any case (they still use the traditional "taparrabos", use bows and arrows, and speak in their own language between each other, although). They heard our normal, common stories with amazement and interest, and it was a pleasure to see the reaction of the circles when they heard Shakespearian plots, or the Star Wars story, for example.

It was positive, it was awesome. Also helped me to realize that brazilian "garimpeiros" (illegal miners) had infiltrated in our country and were extracting gold from a nearby river, and they were the ones selling stuff to the tribe, as they told me. The doctor in charge of the operation discovered traces of mercuy-related compounds that were poisonous in the kids that bathed in a pool nearby. Thanks to the cooperation we made an investigation, and discovered that the miners were contaminated the river and had caused several deaths amongst the natives.

I gathered all the information I could, and then redacted a report over it, that ironically became my first article ever published in a newspaper and got me a job in the national press. Luckily the damn miners were arrested by the National Guard. Unluckily, they were liberated a few months after that. Sadly, they probably are poisoning another natural treasure as we speech.

;) Somehow I knew you would not know the difference between teaching abstinence and abstinence only education

Teaching abstinence is absolutely not a problem

But the trend lately in some areas is to teach absence only, meaning their sexual education consists of ONLY teaching about abstinence, rather then also being taught about birth control and condoms and the such.

The stats from those areas where they teach abstinence only are clear. There is a marked RIZE in both pre-marital sex, and children out of wedlock. Also a marked RISE in STD occurrence

Actually there was no misunderstanding. You see, I believe in responsibility, you just misunderstood where I am coming from. I don't choose to sexualize teenagers, maybe you do, that's for you to decide. You blame the church for this, I blame those who commit the acts themselves, you know, where the responsibility lies.
;)

Abstinence-only "education" also ignores that fact that pretty much everybody is going to have sex at some point in their life.

It overlooks the fact that plenty of married, monogamous people don't want to have a baby every time they fuck, so even people who are virgins on their wedding night will need to know about contraception.

It overlooks the fact that good sex ed classes will include instructions on how to perform breast and testicle self exams, which can help people detect cancers or other ailments earlier.

It overlooks the fact that rape exists.

And, of course, it overlooks the pure, simple fact that never in all the history of humanity has there been a single human society in which everybody abstained from sex until marriage.

Rape exists??? How could the Catholic church omit this. Of course it is a reality although one that shouldn't be promoted in any way, shape or form. As well, shouldn't the person who is committing the act of sex without considering abstinence take responsibility for their actions? IE: What would you do if you didn't have your worship of condoms and abortion, would you still have sex? Maybe, maybe not, it would give you pause for thought and indeed this would lessen AIDS and so forth. So far, AIDS isn't lowering much here in N.A. even though its overflowed with condoms. Overall, I would say that your post was indeed humourous. Thanks for the laugh.:D

Never forget that these are people who feel that it is better for a woman to die of cancer than for her to have consentual sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

These are people who think the best way to protect their children from harm is to ensure that their children are utterly ignorant about their own bodies. This is no different than if they were campaigning to make sure that no child is ever taught how to safely drive a car, but instead that children were simply given driver's licenses on their wedding night.

Where the heck does cancer come into this? Isn't this just another use of extremism without having a reasoned argument?

And no, marriage isn't just like buying a car. Ridiculous analogy.:rolleyes:

Where the heck does cancer come into this? Isn't this just another use of extremism without having a reasoned argument?

And no, marriage isn't just like buying a car. Ridiculous analogy.:rolleyes:
women can get cervical cancer from the HPV virus which is passed via unprotected sex, also there are lobbies trying to stop the vaccine that can prevent it on grounds that it will "make people have more sex"

women can get cervical cancer from the HPV virus which is passed via unprotected sex, also there are lobbies trying to stop the vaccine that can prevent it on grounds that it will "make people have more sex"

Well at least you are specific and I appreciate that. I wonder though if its more prevelent with having many men.

Well at least you are specific and I appreciate that. I wonder though if its more prevelent with having many men.
I suppose your odds are higher because you are exposed more, but I don't have any medical or statistical knowledge in the area, I do know it's quite common and you can get it very easily.

I suppose your odds are higher because you are exposed more, but I don't have any medical or statistical knowledge in the area, I do know it's quite common and you can get it very easily.

I had a great aunt who died from it.

My mom was doing a family tree and she asked my grandfather who was her husband. He replied "The US Navy" :eek:

Multiple partners greatly increase the risk.

;)

Actually there was no misunderstanding. You see, I believe in responsibility, you just misunderstood where I am coming from. I don't choose to sexualize teenagers, maybe you do, that's for you to decide. You blame the church for this, I blame those who commit the acts themselves, you know, where the responsibility lies.
;)

Responsibility.

Interesting term.

If you run an experiment and you watch the subjects take a self destructive alternative ...over and over again...and it is established that these observations allow valid predictions to be made...then to talk about "choice" is ludricous.

You have to make provisions to deal with the behaviours that you know will be prevalent. If you have means and the power to deal with these endemic or frequent mistakes....and refuse to do anything....then that is by far a less "Christian" thing to do than your pious abdication so that "responsibility" will be rewarded...and its lack punished.

In fact, I don't think it's unfair to say that you _like_ the idea of all those "immoral" black people in Africa getting HIV and dying of AIDS....because you are speaking in glowing terms of making people "responsible" as though this is the ultimate solution, the panacea for the world's problems.

Yet it is clear to anyone observing matters that humans are _not_ fully capable of being responsible for themselves. That is why paternalistic socialism of varying degrees of intensity has become the standard form of government (even in America where socialism is a swear word) in all the industrial societies.

You cannot endorse the means without endorsing the ends created by those means. To say that responsibility is a good thing because philosophically it is agreeable to you...but to be willfully blind to the _results_ of leaving people to be unhindered in well established folly...is to endorse those results. And when amoral, corrupt G*dless governments are _more humane_ and _more concerned with the welfare of people_ (for whatever ulterior motives) than _you_ are (and you obviously consider yourself to be ethically upstanding)....this should make you stop and reflect on your belief.

Paternalistic socialism isn't perfect but it beats the alternatives so far.

For example we exert considerable force, just short of putting a gun to their head ( that is, we don't throw them in prison for non compliance, but apply a variety of sanctions short of that) to make non-adults attend primary and secondary school.

_All_ industrial governments do this because they know that left to their own devices and a choice, many would refuse to go. But the ill effects of failing to complete the secondary curricula have been so well established that it is judged worthwhile to abridge liberty...and more important _to act on the foreknowledge of people's irresponsibility_ and make it harder for them to suffer fully from it.

It tells you something about how important this margin of mitigation is. Bored, resentful students don't learn much. Yet somehow they pick up enough that they are significantly better off for having been forced to go to school.

(And do _not_ try to bring up the "well, children don't have adult judgement so that's why we do this...." Students by high school age have essentially the same mental abilities as adults. Their decision making tendencies are to be less influenced by risk and to be more sure of their competency than the facts merit....but this is also true of a significant number of adults.)

Intervention in human error doesn't have to be perfect to be warranted. It just has to save more costs than it incurs.

Rape exists??? How could the Catholic church omit this. Of course it is a reality although one that shouldn't be promoted in any way, shape or form.


The Church officially believes that abortion is never justified (with a tiny exception if it is the only medical alternative to save the life of a woman and no other comparably effective action could save her life). (and this is one of the Papal doctrines I hope will eventually be overturned but I am not holding my breath on.)

This is part of their seamless argument on sexual issues. So they partially endorse rape by allowing a rapist to harm their victim with impunity. Even if they _killed_ the rapist, they would not undo the harm that they are party to here: of coercing a woman to bear a child she did not want and had no hand in the decision to create.

Women die in childbirth. The risk is justifiable when undertaken voluntarILy. But in principle, the church says the mother's life is worth less than their law.

Abstinence only education is part of the shield of ignorance that keeps women from exercising autonomy over their bodies. It includes agitating to prevent "the morning after pill" from being available quickly and easily. It includes browbeating the woman into thinking she has no right to use such a thing. It includes spreading lies like "rape makes it impossible for fertilization to happen"....Bottle has a right to be p*ssed. I certainly am.



As well, shouldn't the person who is committing the act of sex without considering abstinence take responsibility for their actions? IE: What would you do if you didn't have your worship of condoms and abortion, would you still have sex? Maybe, maybe not


This is demonstrably false. Study after study has _established_ that premarital and extramarital sex happens even in communities that are "abstinence education only" environemnts. You should know better. you do now. Next argument.


So far, AIDS isn't lowering much here in N.A. even though its overflowed with condoms. Overall, I would say that your post was indeed humourous. Thanks for the laugh.:D

In point of fact, HIV infection rates were checked in the 90's and are now rising again as people's complacency about retroviral drugs' effiacy and anti-sex education campaigns as you support have resurged.

Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering ,as is your lack of empathy. The matter for discussion is one of life and death, and instead of making arguments, you're just trying to say "what do you know ? I laugh at your arguments".

You're laughing because you cannot refute them.

I started this thread because of what was posted in this one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11245775#post11245775

I live in the Baptist Bible Belt of the USA, which is very annoying, because these people think like Selfuria does. That the Roman Catholic Church is "the most corrupt religon on earth" and that we're not real "Christian". Neverminding the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was the FIRST church. Baptist and the other denomination didn't come around till Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis. Hell he wasn't even try to start his own denomination, he was trying to change the Roman Catholic Church itself. I am sick and tired of hearing uneducated idiots like "Selfuria" (or Baptist idiots) talk about how "bad" the Catholic Church is, and yet their knowledge of the actual church is limited by their converstation with one Catholic, or what their preacher told them. Now look, I will be the first to admit that the Roman Catholic Church has some problems, every denomination, every religion that was ever concieved in the span of human history has problems. Why, because humans are falliable. Everything that humans have created, are bounds to have errors and mistakes, it just the way human nature is. Even in the mist of the fault of the Roman Catholic Church, we still manage to produce people like Pope John Paul II, or Mother Theresa. Hell, I can name five Fathers myself that I'm glad I've made friends with.

I think what is important that the people outside the Catholic faith need to look at is what our message is. And no, it's not that it's ok to molest alter servers. :rolleyes: . The message is that Jesus has died for our sins, and that through the power of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) that we may do good things and ask for their guidance. All I am asking for, from the people outside the Catholic faith, is that you actually know what you are talking about. Go to a local Catholic Church, talk to the Father there. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to explain how the church works. By the time you're done I hope you'll realize that the Catholic Church does share the core Christian value that other churches has. We just like to do our mass (church service) diffrently, and we like to honor Mary, and the Saints. So please, next time you want to bash the Catholic Church, please, at least know what you're saying instead of repeating the stuff you hear on The 700 Club.

I'm glad someone is saying something nice about Catholicism on NS, for once... thanks for that.

Would that make them bedpans, underwear, or butt plugs?
The sun never ... rises ... on the republican empire.

Well at least you are specific and I appreciate that. I wonder though if its more prevelent with having many men.
Nice you still managed to hint that people who got cervical cancer (specialy with an hpv factor) are sluts

And you wonder why we doing like religious folks sometimes