View Full Version : Question for the boards Catholics
Not sure if there are many (if any) but if there are...what are your thoughts on papal infallibility?
Sweetchuck
09-19-2010, 06:06 PM
I'm Catholic. 12 years of Catholic schooling.
I think the Catholic church is one of the largest, most corrupt organizations in existence. I do go to church but it's random, not always Catholic churches. My beliefs are with God and myself only - not with any specific institution. I have no confidence in organized religion.
I'm Catholic. 12 years of Catholic schooling.
I think the Catholic church is one of the largest, most corrupt organizations in existence. I do go to church but it's random, not always Catholic churches. My beliefs are with God and myself only - not with any specific institution. I have no confidence in organized religion.
Fqirplay, though as a bit of a digression, if you have no affinity with the Church why do you specify that you are a Catholic?
Sweetchuck
09-19-2010, 06:14 PM
Yeah, sorry for the tangent but you get the point.
I'm Polish also, I can't not be Polish.
But I can do the chicken dance like a motherfucking riot.
Yeah, sorry for the tangent but you get the point.
I'm Polish also, I can't not be Polish.
But I can do the chicken dance like a motherfucking riot.
Well you can change nationality, and your chosen label to your religion is much less hassle than that, just sayin,
Sweetchuck
09-19-2010, 06:27 PM
Yes and no.
I'm baptized, confirmed a Catholic. I can deny all that, but it is what it is - that's my point.
My stance on my nationality is much like my stance on the term African Americans. All that is fine - be Polish, African American or whatever, but just be an American first. Otherwise, get the fuck out.
KarlMarx
09-20-2010, 04:37 AM
Not sure if there are many (if any) but if there are...what are your thoughts on papal infallibility?
Papal infallibility only applies when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra". The last time that happened was over a hundred years ago and about the Virginity of Mary.
As you can see, it is very rarely used.
Papal infallibility only applies when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra". The last time that happened was over a hundred years ago and about the Virginity of Mary.
As you can see, it is very rarely used.
I know that, I'm asking what you think about the concept, no matter the rarity of it's use.
KarlMarx
09-20-2010, 05:47 AM
I know that, I'm asking what you think about the concept, no matter the rarity of it's use.
If someone speaks from the Scripture then, no matter who they are, they speak infallibally because it is not they who speak but God.
If someone speaks from the Scripture then, no matter who they are, they speak infallibally because it is not they who speak but God.
Mkay, can you define scripture for me to make sure we are on the same page? (ie. The whole bible? only parts? ect)
KarlMarx
09-20-2010, 06:48 AM
Mkay, can you define scripture for me to make sure we are on the same page? (ie. The whole bible? only parts? ect)
I think there is disagreement on what "Scripture" is. That is, are the apocryphal books inspired Scripture or not.
However, one has to start with the notion that Scripture (whether it is the Catholic version of the Bible or the Protestant) is the inspired word of God. You also have to accept that there must be, at least to a very large part, the acceptance that the word is literal.
If you do neither, first you lose the authority and secondly, any interpretation of the Bible will be considered valid.
So you think all scripture is infallible, but can't define scripture with any certainty?
KarlMarx
09-20-2010, 08:03 AM
So you think all scripture is infallible, but can't define scripture with any certainty?
I think I said that there is disagreement over whether the apocryphal books are considered inspired or not. The Catholics say they are, the Protestants say they are not.
"any" certainty - seems to mean that I can't define Scriptures at all which is not the case... Genesis, Exodus, etc in the Old testament, and the New Testament.
I can also define what the beliefs of the Christian Religion are.... that Jesus is the third person in the Trinity, that He was born of a virgin, that He died and was resurrected on the Third day, that He ascended into Heaven, that He will one day return to judge both the Living and the Dead.
I think I said that there is disagreement over whether the apocryphal books are considered inspired or not. The Catholics say they are, the Protestants say they are not.
"any" certainty - seems to mean that I can't define Scriptures at all which is not the case... Genesis, Exodus, etc in the Old testament, and the New Testament.
I can also define what the beliefs of the Christian Religion are.... that Jesus is the third person in the Trinity, that He was born of a virgin, that He died and was resurrected on the Third day, that He ascended into Heaven, that He will one day return to judge both the Living and the Dead.
Okay, well for the sake of it let's start with Genesis, if I read something from that them it is an undeniable and infallible truth?
KarlMarx
09-20-2010, 10:03 AM
Okay, well for the sake of it let's start with Genesis, if I read something from that them it is an undeniable and infallible truth?
OK... I think that the creation account in Genesis happened. Personally, I think that the word "day" in Genesis can be interpreted to mean "age", since Hebrew uses the same word for "day" as it does for "age". Personally, I think that humans were created, not evolved, and in God's image and likeness.
The other events in Genesis also happened. The flooding of the Earth as accounted in Genesis was very likely the result of a comet collision with the Earth around 7,000 BC.
OK... I think that the creation account in Genesis happened. Personally, I think that the word "day" in Genesis can be interpreted to mean "age", since Hebrew uses the same word for "day" as it does for "age". Personally, I think that humans were created, not evolved, and in God's image and likeness.
The other events in Genesis also happened. The flooding of the Earth as accounted in Genesis was very likely the result of a comet collision with the Earth around 7,000 BC.
If I may interject before we get I this discussion, if it is provable that an event that is reffered to in Genesis did not take place, would that convince you the bible is not infallible, or are you blinded to that belief regardless of any evidence that shows otherwise?
Pagan
09-20-2010, 10:35 AM
OK... I think that the creation account in Genesis happened. Personally, I think that the word "day" in Genesis can be interpreted to mean "age", since Hebrew uses the same word for "day" as it does for "age". Personally, I think that humans were created, not evolved, and in God's image and likeness.
The other events in Genesis also happened. The flooding of the Earth as accounted in Genesis was very likely the result of a comet collision with the Earth around 7,000 BC.
Personally IMO any logical person wouldn't take a book about talking snakes, a man living inside of a big fish seriously. So how could one believe in a flood 7,000 BC when there's archeological digs that show thriving civilizations before, during and after that period
KarlMarx
09-20-2010, 11:52 AM
If I may interject before we get I this discussion, if it is provable that an event that is reffered to in Genesis did not take place, would that convince you the bible is not infallible, or are you blinded to that belief regardless of any evidence that shows otherwise?
I could state that you, too, are blinded by your unswerving faith in human understanding.
Faith is not based on proof. I think that is where you fail to understand.
I could state that you, too, are blinded by your unswerving faith in human understanding.
Faith is not based on proof. I think that is where you fail to understand.
Or you could just answer my question.
KarlMarx
09-20-2010, 12:50 PM
Or you could just answer my question.
If I answered "yes" to your question, then you'd ask me what good my faith is.
If I answered "no" to your question, then you'd say I was being blind.
Let's say I'm wrong.. then I'm being deluded into attempting to lead a life based on love for my fellow Man.
Let's say you're wrong..... then what? The Wrath of God?
If I answered "yes" to your question, then you'd ask me what good my faith is.
If I answered "no" to your question, then you'd say I was being blind.
Let's say I'm wrong.. then I'm being deluded into attempting to lead a life based on love for my fellow Man.
Let's say you're wrong..... then what? The Wrath of God?
Can you not answer a question directly?
If you say yes then we can have a discussion over the historyography of biblical events.
If you say no then you are amitting that you are blinded by your faith, inwhich case a discussion is pointless.
KarlMarx
09-20-2010, 01:18 PM
Can you not answer a question directly?
If you say yes then we can have a discussion over the historyography of biblical events.
If you say no then you are amitting that you are blinded by your faith, inwhich case a discussion is pointless.
I did answer the question, but not to your liking, it seems.
Am I correct in assuming that you expect me to say that just because I believe in a book that I say is God's word, that, on your say so, I'm supposed to throw it all away to have a discussion?
I did answer the question, but not to your liking, it seems.
Am I correct in assuming that you expect me to say that just because I believe in a book that I say is God's word, that, on your say so, I'm supposed to throw it all away to have a discussion?
Just answer with a yes or no to my question please >,>
DragonStryk72
09-20-2010, 08:31 PM
Not sure if there are many (if any) but if there are...what are your thoughts on papal infallibility?
It's not possible, because it would mean the pope IS God, as opposed to being a representative of God.
Actually, if you really look at the Bible, the ones that God chose to do his special tasks were almost always flawed in a big way.
It's not possible, because it would mean the pope IS God, as opposed to being a representative of God.
Actually, if you really look at the Bible, the ones that God chose to do his special tasks were almost always flawed in a big way.
That is basicly exactly what I thought, to claim infalliblity the pope himself would have to be god like, and would that not be (at the very least) sinful, if not blasphemy?
DragonStryk72
09-20-2010, 08:50 PM
That is basicly exactly what I thought, to claim infalliblity the pope himself would have to be god like, and would that not be (at the very least) sinful, if not blasphemy?
Yeah, it sort of comes out of a portion in the bible that got used as fodder for the movie Dogma (which I love), "As you hold it true on earth, so shall I hold it true in Heaven". It gets misinterpreted to mean that the pope is somehow infallible, but that's not really correct. It's sort of a responsibility, to hold true to the Word.
PostmodernProphet
09-21-2010, 06:49 AM
Just answer with a yes or no to my question please >,>
don't be obtuse, Noir....he did answer your question, and in a way which was dang near prophetic, since you've proceeded to act exactly the way he said you would.....
don't be obtuse, Noir....he did answer your question, and in a way which was dang near prophetic, since you've proceeded to act exactly the way he said you would.....
No, he didn't answer he said 'if this then that' or 'if this then that' I then responded by stating exactly the 'ifs' and 'thats'
Now if he could just answer the question then we can either have a decent discussion or decide that a discussion is quite pointless.
PostmodernProphet
09-21-2010, 08:33 AM
No, he didn't answer he said 'if this then that' or 'if this then that' I then responded by stating exactly the 'ifs' and 'thats'
Now if he could just answer the question then we can either have a decent discussion or decide that a discussion is quite pointless.
he answered the question....it's just that he didn't jump into your silly "gotcha" trap.....let's be honest, you weren't looking for a decent discussion, that's what he offered you.....
he answered the question....it's just that he didn't jump into your silly "gotcha" trap.....let's be honest, you weren't looking for a decent discussion, that's what he offered you.....
What are you talking about?
Before we started into a discussion about, say, a worldwide flood, I wanted to make sure he didn't turn around after a bunch of posts and say 'btw it doesn't matter how conclusive the science may be against me, the bible says it happened so it happened, period' because their is no point in having a discussion with someone like that on an issue like this.
KarlMarx
09-21-2010, 09:41 AM
Q: Is it true that you're damned to hell or a person who will not accept the Salvation of Christ, please answer yes or no
Think about the logic of this question.. If I insist on a simple "yes" or "no"... for an atheist, there is no winning...
if you answer YES then you admit that you're damned to Hell or not willing to accept the salvation of Christ
if you answer NO then you admit that you're not damed to Hell and willing to accept to accept the Salvation of Christ....
see?
Q: Is it true that you're damned to hell or a person who will not accept the Salvation of Christ, please answer yes or no
Think about the logic of this question.. If I insist on a simple "yes" or "no"... for an atheist, there is no winning...
if you answer YES then you admit that you're damned to Hell or not willing to accept the salvation of Christ
if you answer NO then you admit that you're not damed to Hell and willing to accept to accept the Salvation of Christ....
see?
That's because your question is loaded, with the presupposition that Jesus was the son of god.
My question is in no way loaded and really rather simple. If the bible told you something happened, and modern science showed otherwise, would you accept the science?
KarlMarx
09-21-2010, 11:50 AM
That's because your question is loaded, with the presupposition that Jesus was the son of god.
My question is in no way loaded and really rather simple. If the bible told you something happened, and modern science showed otherwise, would you accept the science?
I would not because I believe that human understanding is fallible. Science has also made mistakes over the years (as an example, the Laws of Relativity negate some aspects of Newtonian physics). Theories change as more evidence comes to light.
Whether that is more "blind" than your trust in Science is a matter of opinion.
You choose not to believe in a God as a person, you choose to believe in a system that you feel gives you all of the answers. I will submit that it does not.
Science will not give you comfort in your time of need, belief in a God will. Science will not tell you that you are special, a belief in a God will. Science does not have a humanity to it, a belief in the Judeo-Christian God does.
Perhaps I'm a weakling, well, so be it. But then, my faith in God has gotten me through some pretty dark days, of which, these are amongst the darkest.
I doubt that Einstein's theories, or belief in evolution will get me through these days... belief in God is sometimes the only reason I have for continuing...
P.S. I should add that your question to me was loaded, too. It presupposed that your point of view was the correct one. That's why I posed the "loaded" question that I did.. I meant to illustrate a point.. perhaps you saw it, perhaps you did not.
No discussion is nessessery, you judge private prejudice to be above publicly verifiable edvidence in the form of science. In this respect you revel in living in ignorence, as the ignorance is testament to your faith.
Thanks for your time.
PostmodernProphet
09-21-2010, 12:27 PM
What are you talking about?
Before we started into a discussion about, say, a worldwide flood, I wanted to make sure he didn't turn around after a bunch of posts and say 'btw it doesn't matter how conclusive the science may be against me, the bible says it happened so it happened, period' because their is no point in having a discussion with someone like that on an issue like this.
your scenario offered only two options.....either every single word of scripture has to be taken as literal truth, or none of it......
obviously there are other, more logical alternatives.....
your scenario offered only two options.....either every single word of scripture has to be taken as literal truth, or none of it......
obviously there are other, more logical alternatives.....
I was not the one who said that gensis was infallible, he was, thus he reduced his options.
KarlMarx
09-21-2010, 12:37 PM
No discussion is nessessery, you judge private prejudice to be above publicly verifiable edvidence in the form of science. In this respect you revel in living in ignorence, as the ignorance is testament to your faith.
Thanks for your time.
You're welcome.. unfortunately, you seem to have already made up your mind before the conversation started... perhaps someday, someone may help you find what I obviously have not been able to show you....
You're welcome.. unfortunately, you seem to have already made up your mind before the conversation started... perhaps someday, someone may help you find what I obviously have not been able to show you....
No sir, it is you that had made your mind up. I am quite happy to believe that there either was or was not a worldwide flood etc, aslong as evidence can be produced that makes the conclusion acceptable.
You on the other hand have decided that you are right, and that no amount of science can prove you wrong (which ofocurse carries the corollary that no amount of science can ever prove you right.)
KarlMarx
09-21-2010, 12:49 PM
No sir, it is you that had made your mind up. I am quite happy to believe that there either was or was not a worldwide flood etc, aslong as evidence can be produced that makes the conclusion acceptable.
You on the other hand have decided that you are right, and that no amount of science can prove you wrong (which ofocurse carries the corollary that no amount of science can ever prove you right.)
Ah... so you are trying to convert me... this is an interesting twist...
Ah... so you are trying to convert me... this is an interesting twist...
Convert you?
Look, you said Genesis was infallible, so I was going to present you with evidence that runs counter to it. However, you've already stated that you don't care about evidence so that would be a waste of both our times.
KarlMarx
09-21-2010, 01:11 PM
Convert you?
Look, you said Genesis was infallible, so I was going to present you with evidence that runs counter to it. However, you've already stated that you don't care about evidence so that would be a waste of both our times.
Go ahead...
Go ahead...
No. You've already made your stance clear, I'm not going to waste my time given you've said that you don't care for science and evidence.
KarlMarx
09-21-2010, 01:40 PM
No. You've already made your stance clear, I'm not going to waste my time given you've said that you don't care for science and evidence.
OK... the door's always open
PostmodernProphet
09-21-2010, 04:13 PM
No. You've already made your stance clear, I'm not going to waste my time given you've said that you don't care for science and evidence.
hence the problem....it's one thing to say the Bible is true in what it presents.....it's another to say it's true in what you claim it presents....
for example, Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....that is something that science and "evidence" cannot disprove.....
that is followed by a poetic description of the process by which he did it.....one can choose to accept that as an understanding of creation without denying science...
it is only when YOU demand it only be understood as six 24 hour days that it becomes problematic.....I'll bet Sandburg was pissed when you demanded he show you the claws on Fog's feet.......
Kathianne
09-21-2010, 04:39 PM
No sir, it is you that had made your mind up. I am quite happy to believe that there either was or was not a worldwide flood etc, aslong as evidence can be produced that makes the conclusion acceptable.
You on the other hand have decided that you are right, and that no amount of science can prove you wrong (which ofocurse carries the corollary that no amount of science can ever prove you right.)
Disingenuous Noir, you are not saying 'no amount of science', you are saying that one bit of science should be enough to cancel out faith. Actually you are trying to force people to agree with just that. Problem with faith is that it's not in the purview of science.
There are two main reasons I abhor posting in religion forum. One is the Christians that hate other Christians. They know 'the way.' I'm not one of them. Second are the secularists, they too 'know the way' and it sure as hell isn't religious.
I believe that literal interpretation of Bible is not a workable point of view. The basis is from prehistoric times and grounded at the points of time and place. The message though, eternal.
hence the problem....it's one thing to say the Bible is true in what it presents.....it's another to say it's true in what you claim it presents....
for example, Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....that is something that science and "evidence" cannot disprove.....
that is followed by a poetic description of the process by which he did it.....one can choose to accept that as an understanding of creation without denying science...
it is only when YOU demand it only be understood as six 24 hour days that it becomes problematic.....I'll bet Sandburg was pissed when you demanded he show you the claws on Fog's feet.......
Erm, when did I suggest (never mind demand) anything about 6 24hour days?
Also, he said genesis is infallible. Some of it can be put to scientific test (for example the flood) would you not agree?
Disingenuous Noir, you are not saying 'no amount of science', you are saying that one bit of science should be enough to cancel out faith. Actually you are trying to force people to agree with just that. Problem with faith is that it's not in the purview of science.
There are two main reasons I abhor posting in religion forum. One is the Christians that hate other Christians. They know 'the way.' I'm not one of them. Second are the secularists, they too 'know the way' and it sure as hell isn't religious.
I believe that literal interpretation of Bible is not a workable point of view. The basis is from prehistoric times and grounded at the points of time and place. The message though, eternal.
Only in this case. The guy is clearly on the extreme edge of the spectrum. If the bible told him the world was flat it seems that would be enough for him. I'm not saying all faith can be disproved by science or anything, but when someone makes claims of infallibility then they must accept that you will reject science, which sadly KM has.
PostmodernProphet
09-22-2010, 06:46 AM
Erm, when did I suggest (never mind demand) anything about 6 24hour days?
Also, he said genesis is infallible. Some of it can be put to scientific test (for example the flood) would you not agree?
the issue of days was merely a suggestion....it was obvious you were attempting to negate faith by some application of science to a non scientific statement in scripture.....and by saying "non scientific" I am not implying it is wrong, merely that you are misusing it.....
and no, I don't think it valid to do so, anymore than you would accept the existence of a miracle to negate your atheism......
one chooses to believe in infallibility.....it isn't a matter of being drawn to that conclusion by a logical path...
I can honestly say that I accept God's communication of a six day creation or a world changing flood, not because I believe it to be a history of God's act of creation, but because I believe it to be an accurate portrayal of the power of God and a beautiful explanation of the process by which he used it.....
so. is the Bible infallible when it describes God having the power to create everything that has been, is and will be?......yes........is the Bible infallible when it tells us that first God created time, followed by the natural laws, matter, shape, life?......yes, it is.....and there is nothing you can show me in science that could possibly change that......
the issue of days was merely a suggestion....it was obvious you were attempting to negate faith by some application of science to a non scientific statement in scripture.....
and no, I don't think it valid to do so, anymore than you would accept the existence of a miracle to negate your atheism......
Indeed, well it was an awful example lol, but ni matter.
And can you read what you're typing? This guy thinks the scriptures are infailable. Meanig if there was a worldwide flood we would have to be able to find evidence of it, no?
Now I'm not saying that if we don't find evidence of it then KM or anyone else should lose all their faith, that would be a daft proposal, however, they would either have to accept that the bible is not infallible or that no matter what science shows they will never be convinced of it if it's not in their little book.
KarlMarx
09-22-2010, 07:39 AM
For over 30 years, every discussion about the Bible between believers and non-believers I've heard focuses on the first several chapters of Genesis.
It's as if the rest of the Bible did not exist. And it is by those few chapters that non-believers judge the rest of the book.
That's the problem.
No matter that the Bible is full of good wisdom that transcends the ages. No matter that the Bible has been the most influential document in all history.
Those who have an ax to grind with God Himself will burrow into the creation story and, as a cross examining prosecuting attorney, judge, and jury, pronounce Him "guilty" of non-existence.
I suppose that believers should apply the same logic to the books of Science. After all, theories regarding evolution and cosmology have changed.
Well, fine, perhaps I am wrong... but I should feel sorry for you if I am right.
The worst atrocities against humanity have been committed by atheists... that alone is reason enough to believe.
PostmodernProphet
09-22-2010, 09:12 AM
And can you read what you're typing? This guy thinks the scriptures are infailable. Meanig if there was a worldwide flood we would have to be able to find evidence of it, no?
only if he were attempting to convince you to believe in it.....
they would either have to accept that the bible is not infallible
no, they would merely have to accept the Bible does not infallibly state what you believe it to state.....take the flood for example......you consider the Bible to be false if there was not sufficient water to submerge the Himalyas......I consider the Bible to be true if all humans besides Noah's family drowned.....can you then prove the Bible is not infallible?.....
only if he were attempting to convince you to believe in it.....
It wouldn't matter if he was fruit to convince me or not, the evidence would be there.
no, they would merely have to accept the Bible does not infallibly state what you believe it to state.....take the flood for example......you consider the Bible to be false if there was not sufficient water to submerge the Himalyas......I consider the Bible to be true if all humans besides Noah's family drowned.....can you then prove the Bible is not infallible?.....
if you want you could twist it anyway you like, however if you still want to stick with a mass drowing then there should be a fossil record and a geological record to back it up, right?
KarlMarx
09-24-2010, 06:10 PM
It wouldn't matter if he was fruit to convince me or not, the evidence would be there.
if you want you could twist it anyway you like, however if you still want to stick with a mass drowing then there should be a fossil record and a geological record to back it up, right?
As I said before, there was a comet impact in the Indian Ocean around 7000 BC. That would have caused megatsunamis (tsunamis that can be several hundred or more high)... and had far reaching, even global effects... (I'm not going to say that the Himalayas were submerged... but likely small hills as are prevelant in the Middle East may have been temporarily swallowed up by the megatsunamis that may have engulfed large parts of land surrounding the Indian Ocean)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html
That may account for the Flood story...
what is even more astounding is that other cultures also have similar stories (a world wide flood, a handful of people getting in a boat and repopulating the earth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
Kathianne
09-24-2010, 06:19 PM
As I said before, there was a comet impact in the Indian Ocean around 7000 BC. That would have caused megatsunamis (tsunamis that can be several hundred or more high)... and had far reaching, even global effects... (I'm not going to say that the Himalayas were submerged... but likely small hills as are prevelant in the Middle East may have been temporarily swallowed up by the megatsunamis that may have engulfed large parts of land surrounding the Indian Ocean)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html
That may account for the Flood story...
what is even more astounding is that other cultures also have similar stories (a world wide flood, a handful of people getting in a boat and repopulating the earth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
Karl, I'm a Catholic and agree with Papal infallibility by the terms decreed. None of it will matter to one like Noir, do not engage. Truth is, for him it's all about making faith false. Which it isn't.
I've no problem reconciling my faith with evolution or big bang or what may lie ahead. None.
KarlMarx
09-24-2010, 07:20 PM
Let's say for the sake of argument that there is no God. What then?
First of all, there probably is no afterlife, so there is no need to worry about going to Hell or anywhere unpleasant. Of course, there is no Heaven, either.
Second, we can eliminate the notion that Man is somehow a special being. So there is no need to treat people any better than, say, an amoeba or a pig.
How can Man be made in God's image if there is no God? And if Man is not made in God's image, why treat him with any dignity?
Well then, why bother worrying about others? After all, they're just organisms and we are all here just trying to survive.. why have any sort of compassion? Why worry about children dying, they are just another bunch of mouths to feed....
And, while we're at it... what about morality? If there is no God, there is no absolute right or wrong... if we are to have morality, then whose morality shall it be? And if we chose a particular system of morality, who is to say that particular system of morality is better than the others? The fact is, there is no absolute, everything is relative, no moral code can have any more authority than any other.... and....
if we were to chose a system of morality... when the going got tough because we chose a particular system of morality... why... we'll just switch to something else that suits us at the moment...
No God, no absolutes, why bother? Atheism leads to nihilism (the belief that everything is pointless, and hopeless)... and so....
The Holocaust was an amoral event... it was neither good nor evil, because good and evil are relative! So what? Genocide? What of it?
The Manson murders were neither good nor evil because people are no better than cattle and... so what? Those people would have died anyway...
Aborting babies, euthanizing the elderly, the lame, the retarded... so what? Good and Evil are just constructs that we no longer need....
A notion of good and evil just stands in the way of progress! Whatever that progress leads to.. the ends justifies the means
After all, just because you say that murder is wrong, why should I submit myself to your system of right and wrong?
And history bears this out... the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, all are or were atheistic regimes and between the lot of them, over 100 million people lost their lives in the space of 70 years.... more than all of the religious violence that took place during the same time...
and it wasn't all politically motivated... people were imprisoned, tortured, and killed for attending church services, for having a Bible in their possession, or being a member of the clergy... religious buildings were appropriated or destroyed...
that is what atheism gets you in the end....
As I said before and this bears repeating... Human nature's bent towards evil is reason enough for the need to believe in God... otherwise, who will save us from ourselves?
As I said before, there was a comet impact in the Indian Ocean around 7000 BC. That would have caused megatsunamis (tsunamis that can be several hundred or more high)... and had far reaching, even global effects... (I'm not going to say that the Himalayas were submerged... but likely small hills as are prevelant in the Middle East may have been temporarily swallowed up by the megatsunamis that may have engulfed large parts of land surrounding the Indian Ocean)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html
That may account for the Flood story...
what is even more astounding is that other cultures also have similar stories (a world wide flood, a handful of people getting in a boat and repopulating the earth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
As a minor note it could not of been a comet, it would be either an asteroid or a meteorite, but no matter.
What I find astonishing is that you think that every corner of the earth was repopulated in 7000 years, given that the early Chinese civilizations were taking shape before that!
Karl, I'm a Catholic and agree with Papal infallibility by the terms decreed. None of it will matter to one like Noir, do not engage. Truth is, for him it's all about making faith false. Which it isn't.
I've no problem reconciling my faith with evolution or big bang or what may lie ahead. None.
So you think there is a man alive that can decree something by 'reveled truth' that is undeniably correct? Fair enough.
Let's say for the sake of argument that there is no God. What then?
First of all, there probably is no afterlife, so there is no need to worry about going to Hell or anywhere unpleasant. Of course, there is no Heaven, either.
Second, we can eliminate the notion that Man is somehow a special being. So there is no need to treat people any better than, say, an amoeba or a pig.
How can Man be made in God's image if there is no God? And if Man is not made in God's image, why treat him with any dignity?
Well then, why bother worrying about others? After all, they're just organisms and we are all here just trying to survive.. why have any sort of compassion? Why worry about children dying, they are just another bunch of mouths to feed....
And, while we're at it... what about morality? If there is no God, there is no absolute right or wrong... if we are to have morality, then whose morality shall it be? And if we chose a particular system of morality, who is to say that particular system of morality is better than the others? The fact is, there is no absolute, everything is relative, no moral code can have any more authority than any other.... and....
if we were to chose a system of morality... when the going got tough because we chose a particular system of morality... why... we'll just switch to something else that suits us at the moment...
No God, no absolutes, why bother? Atheism leads to nihilism (the belief that everything is pointless, and hopeless)... and so....
The Holocaust was an amoral event... it was neither good nor evil, because good and evil are relative! So what? Genocide? What of it?
The Manson murders were neither good nor evil because people are no better than cattle and... so what? Those people would have died anyway...
Aborting babies, euthanizing the elderly, the lame, the retarded... so what? Good and Evil are just constructs that we no longer need....
A notion of good and evil just stands in the way of progress! Whatever that progress leads to.. the ends justifies the means
After all, just because you say that murder is wrong, why should I submit myself to your system of right and wrong?
And history bears this out... the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, all are or were atheistic regimes and between the lot of them, over 100 million people lost their lives in the space of 70 years.... more than all of the religious violence that took place during the same time...
and it wasn't all politically motivated... people were imprisoned, tortured, and killed for attending church services, for having a Bible in their possession, or being a member of the clergy... religious buildings were appropriated or destroyed...
that is what atheism gets you in the end....
As I said before and this bears repeating... Human nature's bent towards evil is reason enough for the need to believe in God... otherwise, who will save us from ourselves?
I'm not going to go through all of this, as it strikes me as amazingly ordinary in it's claims, but to take one point to ponder...
You explicitly say that if there is no god we may swell treat eachother as good as pigs. Are you seriously saying the only reason you don't murder and rape at will is because you think there is a god?
As an aside I don't believe in god, nor do I murder and rape, and infect I treat pigs allot better than most humans by not wanting them slaughtered, but hey, given I lie a godless life, that makes no sense, right? >,>
PostmodernProphet
09-25-2010, 07:07 AM
It wouldn't matter if he was fruit to convince me or not, the evidence would be there.
I haven't the slightest idea what this means.....
if you want you could twist it anyway you like, however if you still want to stick with a mass drowing then there should be a fossil record and a geological record to back it up, right?
/shrugs.....I apologize if I haven't twisted it in the same way you've twisted it........and no, there doesn't have to be a geological record.....what are you looking for, a limestone bed that developed from forty days worth of "ocean".......
KarlMarx
09-25-2010, 09:29 AM
I'm not going to go through all of this, as it strikes me as amazingly ordinary in it's claims, but to take one point to ponder...
You explicitly say that if there is no god we may swell treat eachother as good as pigs. Are you seriously saying the only reason you don't murder and rape at will is because you think there is a god?
As an aside I don't believe in god, nor do I murder and rape, and infect I treat pigs allot better than most humans by not wanting them slaughtered, but hey, given I lie a godless life, that makes no sense, right? >,>
Not every atheist is going to rape or murder because they don't believe in God, nor is every believer going to rape or murder because they do... the point is when atheism becomes institutionalized, it leads to horrific crimes against humanity.
Not every atheist is going to rape or murder because they don't believe in God, nor is every believer going to rape or murder because they do... the point is when atheism becomes institutionalized, it leads to horrific crimes against humanity.
And when theism is institutionalized it leads to candy clouds and irrepressible love :laugh:
Also there is no logical pathway between atheism and evil deeds, there is from theism.
Btw, I don't want atheism isnitutionalized, but rather for secularism to be upheld.
KarlMarx
09-25-2010, 11:38 AM
Also there is no logical pathway between atheism and evil deeds, there is from theism.
Why is it when you are given evidence, you simply dismiss it out of hand?
No matter.
You cannot change history, the purges of Stalin, the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, etc happened, they killed millions. Regardless of what you say, those were atheistic regimes... whether there is a logical pathway or not, those things happened.
Pagan
09-25-2010, 12:48 PM
Not every atheist is going to rape or murder because they don't believe in God, nor is every believer going to rape or murder because they do... the point is when atheism becomes institutionalized, it leads to horrific crimes against humanity.
Like religious wars and terrorism?
“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”
-- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
http://raycastle.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cfb9553ef0133f3d8ce59970b-800wi
PostmodernProphet
09-25-2010, 01:38 PM
Also there is no logical pathway between atheism and evil deeds, there is from theism.
sorry, Noir...that was a stupid comment...
sorry, Noir...that was a stupid comment...
Please tell me of an evil deed committed in the name of Atheism?
Why is it when you are given evidence, you simply dismiss it out of hand?
No matter.
You cannot change history, the purges of Stalin, the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, etc happened, they killed millions. Regardless of what you say, those were atheistic regimes... whether there is a logical pathway or not, those things happened.
Again to keep it short I'll take one example, Stalin. Stalin trained in his youth to be part of the church, and it served him well later in life. When he became the surpreme leader he had before him an entire country, of People that fir centuries been brought up to believe that their leaders, the Tzars, where a little bit more than human. Stalin would of been an idiot if he had not used such gullibility to his advantage, and so he was worshiped as a little bit more than human, and there where 'miracles' promised like crops will harvest several times a year ect.
Dictatorships are just another form of theocratic rule, in Stalins case he was the god, and communism the religion. Over in North Korea at the minute the gave the same thing,
And again I'd like to state, I'm not in favor of an atheist state, but rather a secular one.
PostmodernProphet
09-25-2010, 04:45 PM
Please tell me of an evil deed committed in the name of Atheism?
the stupid comment I am referring to is "there is from theism"......so, I expect it's your job to do the telling.....
PostmodernProphet
09-25-2010, 04:47 PM
Dictatorships are just another form of theocratic rule, in Stalins case he was the god, and communism the religion.
I am speechless.....so any atheist who attains sufficient power to kill someone for what he believes, could no longer be an atheist?........
the stupid comment I am referring to is "there is from theism"......so, I expect it's your job to do the telling.....
Well there are countless examples, Islam is a target of choice for this one, womens rights. There is a logic behind 'i believe in a 'god' 'i believe this book was inspired by my god and should be followed' 'this book says women are not equal to men' you follow that, yes? It is but one of thousands of examples of people doing/committing evil because as far as they are concerned they have their god on their side.
I am speechless.....so any atheist who attains sufficient power to kill someone for what he believes, could no longer be an atheist?........
No, but anyone who makes a god of themselves, for example Stalin, it can hardly be said to be atheist (or more importantly secular)
PostmodernProphet
09-27-2010, 07:20 AM
No, but anyone who makes a god of themselves, for example Stalin, it can hardly be said to be atheist (or more importantly secular)
I don't know whether to laugh or take your claim seriously.....are you arguing that Stalin wasn't an atheist because he believed himself to be "deity"?.....are you sure he didn't just believe himself to be a mean-assed, mutha-fuka with enough soldiers to get what he wanted?.......
never mind, I made up my mind.....I'm going to laugh......
I don't know whether to laugh or take your claim seriously.....are you arguing that Stalin wasn't an atheist because he believed himself to be "deity"?.....are you sure he didn't just believe himself to be a mean-assed, mutha-fuka with enough soldiers to get what he wanted?.......
never mind, I made up my mind.....I'm going to laugh......
I'm sure he was an atheist, however, if you where to ask the Joe Blogs in the streets at the time I'll bet they talked about Stalin with reverence.
If you look at a more modern day example, North Korea, I one sense it is an athiest state, with religious books and freedom of worship outlawed.
However, they worship their leaders as gods, and again there are 'miracles' like when Kim Il Sung was born birds started singing songs of praise in Korean and so in that sense they are religious.
Nice to see you skipped the other post about the line of logic from belief to evil deeds, am I to take your silence as acceptence?
PostmodernProphet
09-27-2010, 02:40 PM
I'm sure he was an atheist, however, if you where to ask the Joe Blogs in the streets at the time I'll bet they talked about Stalin with reverence.
If you look at a more modern day example, North Korea, I one sense it is an athiest state, with religious books and freedom of worship outlawed.
However, they worship their leaders as gods, and again there are 'miracles' like when Kim Il Sung was born birds started singing songs of praise in Korean and so in that sense they are religious.
Nice to see you skipped the other post about the line of logic from belief to evil deeds, am I to take your silence as acceptence?
first, I can't find your claims about atheist dictators to be even slightly credible....
second, Muslim terrorism is a difficult proposition.....on one hand, the motives of those directing it are not religious, on the other it's hard to imagine people being persuaded to suicide terrorism without imagining their motivation to be other-worldly.....be that as it may, it remains an anomaly distinct to Islam.....not theism in general....
first, I can't find your claims about atheist dictators to be even slightly credible....
second, Muslim terrorism is a difficult proposition.....on one hand, the motives of those directing it are not religious, on the other it's hard to imagine people being persuaded to suicide terrorism without imagining their motivation to be other-worldly.....be that as it may, it remains an anomaly distinct to Islam.....not theism in general....
Why not? The whole point is that at some point you have someone who is right, and their belief is unquestionable. Be he an atheist or a theist, a dictator is that.
As for 'Islam is unique' you miss the point. ANYONE who believes they are doing Devine work will do evil deeds. Let's take another, Christian this time. 'Condoms spread aids'. How about a Jewish one? 'We should mutilate a child's penis
PostmodernProphet
09-28-2010, 07:35 AM
Why not? The whole point is that at some point you have someone who is right, and their belief is unquestionable. Be he an atheist or a theist, a dictator is that.
because there's a difference between a deity and a human who's apt to kill me if I don't avoid his attention.....
As for 'Islam is unique' you miss the point. ANYONE who believes they are doing Devine work will do evil deeds. Let's take another, Christian this time. 'Condoms spread aids'. How about a Jewish one? 'We should mutilate a child's penis
or an atheist? posting the crap you post?....
okay, I'll bite.....where does Christianity teach that condoms spread AIDS......and if I'm not mistaken, modern science still teaches that circumcision is the preferred alternative, whether you are Jewish or not......amazing how advanced the Jews were without a single medical research hospital to their name....
because there's a difference between a deity and a human who's apt to kill me if I don't avoid his attention.....
Not if your indoctrinated to the point where you believe the human is a deity, again I'd sight North Korea as an example.
or an atheist? posting the crap you post?....
You ink my posts are evil? Lawl.
okay, I'll bite.....where does Christianity teach that condoms spread AIDS......and if I'm not mistaken, modern science still teaches that circumcision is the preferred alternative, whether you are Jewish or not......amazing how advanced the Jews were without a single medical research hospital to their name....
Some little known wing of Christianity called The Catholic chruch preach it as doctrine.
Oh yes, and no doubt sucking blood out of the still bleeding penis is also medically advisable, no?
PostmodernProphet
09-28-2010, 09:03 AM
Not if your indoctrinated to the point where you believe the human is a deity, again I'd sight North Korea as an example.
????....I wonder what the ratio is between parents who tell their children as they are growing up "Kim is a god, do what he says" and those who say "Keep your mouth shut if you want to live till suppertime".........
You ink my posts are evil? Lawl.
come on, it isn't a far stretch to argue that ignorance is evil....
Some little known wing of Christianity called The Catholic chruch preach it as doctrine.
that condoms spread AIDS?.....that was a uniquely ignorant post....unless of course you can find a source to back it up?.....
Oh yes, and no doubt sucking blood out of the still bleeding penis is also medically advisable, no?
is that some unique practice of a Yiddish vampire community?....never heard of it.....again, if it's in the Scriptures, feel free to provide a source....
????....I wonder what the ratio is between parents who tell their children as they are growing up "Kim is a god, do what he says" and those who say "Keep your mouth shut if you want to live till suppertime".........
Well we'll never know, but it is undeniable that from they are children they are indoctrinated into the belief that their leaders are gods via schooling.
come on, it isn't a far stretch to argue that ignorance is evil....
Oh right, I dont think like you, and so am ignorant and evil, you know you'd sit well with John Kerry.
that condoms spread AIDS?.....that was a uniquely ignorant post....unless of course you can find a source to back it up?.....
That's what the pope says...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5005357/Pope-Benedict-XVI-condoms-make-Aids-crisis-worse.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1465326.stm
http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSLH936617._CH_.2400?ca=rdt
Hope those are enough links for ya.
is that some unique practice of a Yiddish vampire community?....never heard of it.....again, if it's in the Scriptures, feel free to provide a source....
It's part of the ritual, thankfully many have discarded it as a relic of the past and now *only* mutilate the pensis, but ther was a story not too long ago about a Rabbi who had given herpes to several children in New York because of this practice.
Pagan
09-28-2010, 04:02 PM
Well we'll never know, but it is undeniable that from they are children they are indoctrinated into the belief that their leaders are gods via schooling.
Oh right, I dont think like you, and so am ignorant and evil, you know you'd sit well with John Kerry.
That's what the pope says...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5005357/Pope-Benedict-XVI-condoms-make-Aids-crisis-worse.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1465326.stm
http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSLH936617._CH_.2400?ca=rdt
Hope those are enough links for ya.
It's part of the ritual, thankfully many have discarded it as a relic of the past and now *only* mutilate the pensis, but ther was a story not too long ago about a Rabbi who had given herpes to several children in New York because of this practice.
http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/popes_empire.jpg
PostmodernProphet
09-28-2010, 05:55 PM
Well we'll never know, but it is undeniable that from they are children they are indoctrinated into the belief that their leaders are gods via schooling.
why would you say it is undeniable....l'm standing right here denying it....
Oh right, I dont think like you, and so am ignorant and evil,
well, I agree I'm not nearly as ignorant as you, but it's really just a matter of you being you, not you not being me......
That's what the pope says...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5005357/Pope-Benedict-XVI-condoms-make-Aids-crisis-worse.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1465326.stm
http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSLH936617._CH_.2400?ca=rdt
Hope those are enough links for ya.
lol....enough for me to see that my previous comment is indeed accurate.....trying to twist what he actually said into "condoms spread aids" is either extremely ignorant or intentionally dishonest....
It's part of the ritual, thankfully many have discarded it as a relic of the past and now *only* mutilate the pensis, but ther was a story not too long ago about a Rabbi who had given herpes to several children in New York because of this practice.
it certainly isn't part of the ritual described in scriptures....and circumcision is hardly "mutilating the penis"....as I indicated earlier, it's the preferred medical procedure......are you a science hater?.....
why would you say it is undeniable....l'm standing right here denying it....
Well, someone could deny that the earth goes around the Sun, even though that would be said to be undeniable, no?
well, I agree I'm not nearly as ignorant as you, but it's really just a matter of you being you, not you not being me......
Sounds to me like you're just making stuff up.
lol....enough for me to see that my previous comment is indeed accurate.....trying to twist what he actually said into "condoms spread aids" is either extremely ignorant or intentionally dishonest....
From a source povided..."
In a statement at the end of their week-long conference in Pretoria, the bishops argued that the battle against HIV/Aids should be fought on moral grounds and said condoms helped spread the disease."
See how I twisted it to make it look like they say Condoms help spread the disease? :laugh:
it certainly isn't part of the ritual described in scriptures....and circumcision is hardly "mutilating the penis"....as I indicated earlier, it's the preferred medical procedure......are you a science hater?.....
Well I was taking the word of the bloke who was doing the blood sucking that's it's part of the ritual, though not as common as it use to be. And ofcourse I'm not a science hater, if it's proven to have medical benefits then fair enough, but, whether t is or isn't it will not stop the Jews doing it, because they don't do it because of the science.
Gaffer
09-28-2010, 08:24 PM
Condoms are a form of birth control, which the catholic church doesn't condone. That's the reason the church is blamed for the spreading of aids. They won't accept using condoms and the true believers won't use them. Thus causing the spread of aids. It's all to do with the catholic churches ban on birth control.
Condoms are a form of birth control, which the catholic church doesn't condone. That's the reason the church is blamed for the spreading of aids. They won't accept using condoms and the true believers won't use them. Thus causing the spread of aids. It's all to do with the catholic churches ban on birth control.
Exactly, they see AIDs as bad, but not quite as bad (or atleast not bad in the same way) as birth control is bad. How do they get this message across to the bog standard African peasant? 'Condoms help spread AIDs'
PostmodernProphet
09-28-2010, 08:56 PM
Well, someone could deny that the earth goes around the Sun, even though that would be said to be undeniable, no?
hey, I've met orbital velocity, and you're argument is no orbital velocity......
Sounds to me like you're just making stuff up.
you mean like you do with Catholic doctrine...
From a source povided..."
In a statement at the end of their week-long conference in Pretoria, the bishops argued that the battle against HIV/Aids should be fought on moral grounds and said condoms helped spread the disease."
See how I twisted it to make it look like they say Condoms help spread the disease? :laugh:
oh don't be ridiculous...your quoting some reporters spin on their statements....get real....
Well I was taking the word of the bloke who was doing the blood sucking that's it's part of the ritual, though not as common as it use to be. And ofcourse I'm not a science hater, if it's proven to have medical benefits then fair enough, but, whether t is or isn't it will not stop the Jews doing it, because they don't do it because of the science.
debating real issues with you seems to be turning into a waste of time.....
PostmodernProphet
09-28-2010, 08:59 PM
Exactly, they see AIDs as bad, but not quite as bad (or atleast not bad in the same way) as birth control is bad. How do they get this message across to the bog standard African peasant? 'Condoms help spread AIDs'
in real life, the Catholic argument is, "having sex spreads aids....using condoms isn't enough to stop the spread of aids"......listening to you hurts my ears.....
you mean like you do with Catholic doctrine...
oh don't be ridiculous...your quoting some reporters spin on their statements....get real....
Okay, how about a direct quite from the pope while on a recent trip to Africa?
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Real enough for ya?
in real life, the Catholic argument is, "having sex spreads aids....using condoms isn't enough to stop the spread of aids"......listening to you hurts my ears.....
So why doesn't the Catholic church adopt the humanist aproch ABC?
In order of priority and effectiveness teach Abstinance from sex as far as possible, Be faithful and try and limit the number of sexual partners you have. Contraceptives should be used especially if you are with a new partner.
Ofocurse condoms arent the only answer, but they are part of it Would that not be better for the church to project ABC rather than saying condoms make the problem worse by helping spread the disease?
Sweetchuck
09-28-2010, 09:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8
PostmodernProphet
09-29-2010, 07:09 AM
Okay, how about a direct quite from the pope while on a recent trip to Africa?
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Real enough for ya?
and accurate as well.....but that is far different than saying "condoms cause AIDS"......which would be akin to the local witch doctor telling his patients they can get rid of their AIDS infection by giving him two chickens and having sex with a virgin......
PostmodernProphet
09-29-2010, 07:11 AM
So why doesn't the Catholic church adopt the humanist aproch ABC?
In order of priority and effectiveness teach Abstinance from sex as far as possible, Be faithful and try and limit the number of sexual partners you have. Contraceptives should be used especially if you are with a new partner.
Ofocurse condoms arent the only answer, but they are part of it Would that not be better for the church to project ABC rather than saying condoms make the problem worse by helping spread the disease?
sounds identical to me.....abstinence from sex as far as possible........you do realize how far it's possible, right?.......
I have to admit the second one is a bit amusing......"Be faithful"......"try and limit"......they say that as if you are doing both......how can you "be faithful" if you haven't succeeded in limiting?.....
sounds identical to me.....abstinence from sex as far as possible........you do realize how far it's possible, right?.......
I know it's almost useless, but it can't be ignored for the few that will chose to live that way.
I have to admit the second one is a bit amusing......"Be faithful"......"try and limit"......they say that as if you are doing both......how can you "be faithful" if you haven't succeeded in limiting?.....
Because you can have more than one sexual partner in your life and at no point be unfaithful to any of them. Obviously being in Africa this step is mainly aimed towards not only not having an affair with the lady down the road, but more precisely the hooker down the road.
And tere is a big difference, there is not C as far as Catholic teachings go, inca t they actively encourage against C because of religious reasons. Now, do you think the Cathloic church making statements about condoms helping to spread the disease is a) helpful in fighting the spread or the disease b) the moral thing to do?
PostmodernProphet
09-29-2010, 01:55 PM
I know it's almost useless, but it can't be ignored for the few that will chose to live that way.
not when you consider that "abstaining" does not prohibit a monogamous relationship through marriage once you meet someone to "be faithful" to....
Because you can have more than one sexual partner in your life and at no point be unfaithful to any of them. Obviously being in Africa this step is mainly aimed towards not only not having an affair with the lady down the road, but more precisely the hooker down the road.
dodge....the humanist approach is to teach "be faithful" with a snicker (yeah, as if we really believe THAT is going to happen, so at least try and limit the number of people you cheat on your spouse with!).....I prefer the Catholic approach...."its wrong to fuck around!".....if I can paraphrase Paul "if you can't stop cheating on your wife, cut your balls off"......
And tere is a big difference, there is not C as far as Catholic teachings go, inca t they actively encourage against C because of religious reasons. Now, do you think the Cathloic church making statements about condoms helping to spread the disease is a) helpful in fighting the spread or the disease b) the moral thing to do?
yes....if people did what the Catholics teach "stop having sex with people other than your spouse" it would help fight the spread of the disease and it would be the moral thing to do......pretending that its okay to have sex with multiple partners, even if you use a condom is neither the best way to stop the spread of AIDS or the best moral option......
not when you consider that "abstaining" does not prohibit a monogamous relationship through marriage once you meet someone to "be faithful" to....
dodge....the humanist approach is to teach "be faithful" with a snicker (yeah, as if we really believe THAT is going to happen, so at least try and limit the number of people you cheat on your spouse with!).....I prefer the Catholic approach...."its wrong to fuck around!".....if I can paraphrase Paul "if you can't stop cheating on your wife, cut your balls off"......
yes....if people did what the Catholics teach "stop having sex with people other than your spouse" it would help fight the spread of the disease and it would be the moral thing to do......pretending that its okay to have sex with multiple partners, even if you use a condom is neither the best way to stop the spread of AIDS or the best moral option......
So do you think it is advisable that all sects of society (religious or not) should teach that condoms help spread AIDs?
PostmodernProphet
09-29-2010, 06:15 PM
So do you think it is advisable that all sects of society (religious or not) should teach that condoms help spread AIDs?
again, that isn't what they said....I think what they did actually say is advisable....which is that relying on condoms is not going to stop spreading aids....
again, that isn't what they said....I think what they did actually say is advisable....which is that relying on condoms is not going to stop spreading aids....
I don't think we should really on condoms, and condoms alone to stop the spread, but that doesn't mean we should say they help it spread.
And let me repeat what the pope said..."You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Now, do you think it's advisable to say that condoms make the problem worse?
PostmodernProphet
09-29-2010, 09:30 PM
I don't think we should really on condoms, and condoms alone to stop the spread, but that doesn't mean we should say they help it spread.
And let me repeat what the pope said..."You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Now, do you think it's advisable to say that condoms make the problem worse?
relying on condoms to solve the problem and thus feel free to engage in sex with multiple strangers?......yes, in that sense condoms would make the problem worse.....
relying on condoms to solve the problem and thus feel free to engage in sex with multiple strangers?......yes, in that sense condoms would make the problem worse.....
As I've already said you do t rely only on condoms. Only an idiot would forward that approach.
But to suggest that usig condoms helps spread AIDs (infact they do more than suggest it, they state it as fact) and in doing so fail to provide adequate sex education is wrong, no?
PostmodernProphet
09-30-2010, 08:16 AM
As I've already said you do t rely only on condoms. Only an idiot would forward that approach.
But to suggest that usig condoms helps spread AIDs (infact they do more than suggest it, they state it as fact) and in doing so fail to provide adequate sex education is wrong, no?
I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding my answer.....is it because you aren't bothering to read it?......nobody is suggesting that using condoms spreads AIDS....you aren't quoting a Catholic bishop, you're quoting a secular reporter intent on criticizing the bishop.....they aren't failing to provide an adequate sex education, they are providing a superior sex education......so get over it and talk about something with some merit.......
I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding my answer.....is it because you aren't bothering to read it?......nobody is suggesting that using condoms spreads AIDS....you aren't quoting a Catholic bishop, you're quoting a secular reporter intent on criticizing the bishop.....they aren't failing to provide an adequate sex education, they are providing a superior sex education......so get over it and talk about something with some merit.......
Erm, I have quoted the Pope twice, he seems pretty clear that condoms make it worse.
Do you not think that as well as teaching abstinence, faithfulness and the dangers of multiple sexual partners they should also teaching that wearing a condom reduces the risk of the virus being transphered?
PostmodernProphet
09-30-2010, 11:14 AM
Erm, I have quoted the Pope twice, he seems pretty clear that condoms make it worse.
no, he's made it clear that relying on condoms makes it worse.....as for the rest, they ARE teaching about condoms....why pretend they aren't?.....shucks, we even spent $800k of taxpayer money to make sure they were getting the message to wash their balls....what more do you want?......
no, he's made it clear that relying on condoms makes it worse.....as for the rest, they ARE teaching about condoms....why pretend they aren't?.....shucks, we even spent $800k of taxpayer money to make sure they were getting the message to wash their balls....what more do you want?......
I don't see the words 'relying only' anywhere in what he said, do you?
And why should he? The catholic Church is very clear on the status of contraceptives...
The Catholic Church's position on contraception was formally explained and expressed by Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae in 1968. Artificial contraception is considered a mortal sin,
Why would the church tell it's sheep that if they commit a mortal sin they will be less likely to contract the disease, that would make no sense from the churches perspective, which is why they don't.
Again I do not (and no one I know of) say condoms are the only answer, but they do help, that the catholic church will not concede.
PostmodernProphet
09-30-2010, 06:34 PM
I don't see the words 'relying only' anywhere in what he said, do you?
I see this, you even quoted it...."You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms"......
its obvious you're only going to hear what you want to hear.....
I see this, you even quoted it...."You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms"......
its obvious you're only going to hear what you want to hear.....
I know, and I agree with that, condoms can't solve the problem, but they do help.
What I don't agree with is what the pope says after that, that thy help spread te disease.
PostmodernProphet
10-01-2010, 06:12 PM
I know, and I agree with that, condoms can't solve the problem, but they do help.
What I don't agree with is what the pope says after that, that thy help spread te disease.
but he didn't say that.....he said it increases the problem.......why do you want to make it sound like he said there were AIDS germs infecting condoms?.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.