Jump to content

Defence Of Catholic Teaching


Clydeside_Sheep

Recommended Posts


There have been a couple of posts I've wanted to respond to you CS, however my quote function no longer seems to work, and without the context of the original point alongside my own text the entire post becomes incoherent.

 

That aside, explain to me why Catholicism preaches the contradictory notion of 'Original Sin', and why it's defensible.

Link to comment

What's the Catholic Church's stance on the over population of the planet? And the long term effects this will have on future generations?

 

Hi there

 

The world is not over-populated, nor anywhere near it.

 

The poverty and hunger we see in parts of the world are the results of western waste and greed, not over-population.

 

Look at the amount of food (in 100s of tonnes) the west wastes each year. In financial terms it completely dwarves the titchy amounts we give in aid.

 

"Americans are throwing away 40 percent of food in the U.S., the equivalent of $165 billion in uneaten food each year"

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2012/120821.asp

 

"The United States fiscal year 2013 foreign aid budget is projected to total $56.1 billion."

http://ivn.us/2012/08/05/united-states-foreign-aid-and-budget/

 

The rich countries cannot say they make a genuine effort to tackle poverty and hunger - to share the resources fairly - when (in this case) they waste about three times what they give it aid. It is quite repugnant really.

 

The Catholic Church advocates that couples only have as many children as they can properly care for (I.e house / feed / educate / love etc)

 

Women can control the number of children they have naturally, with the same effectiveness as artificial methods.

 

"These results make the Billings Ovulation Method™ as effective as the Pill, and more effective than IUDs, condoms and diaphragms."

 

http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/how-effective-is-the-billings-ovulation-method%E2%84%A2/effectiveness-in-preventing-pregnancy.html

 

Billings is what the Chinese use for their one-child policy.

 

However, Billings requires more awareness & responsibility from women, than does just taking a pill. And, of course, capitalists make billions from the manufacture and sale of all these condoms and pills.

 

In any case, many populations are falling - look at Russia and Japan especially. And the western birth-rate is generally very low. The global population is expected to peak around 2050 and then be in decline by the end of the century.

Link to comment

 

We pretend that we have managed to separate the pleasure of sex from the natural results of sex (new life).

 

But we have not. Our methods work most of the time, but not all of the time. No method of contraception is 100% effective and even layered contraception (eg condom and pill) can fail.

 

It is impossible to have sex without some small chance of pregnancy occurring. This important fact is generally absent in any discussion about contraception.

 

Of course I agree non-Catholics are to follow their own conscience on this and every matter, but they are confronted by the same facts as Catholics.

 

The large human cost of widespread promiscuity - in terms of lives permanently blighted by sexual disease like HIV, or unwanted life being destroyed in the womb on a vast scale - clearly indicates that it is a selfish / irresponsible choice for society.

 

Cheers!

 

You're right, there's no contraception that's 100% safe.

 

In your opinion, which is worse, having unprotected sex outside marriage or having protected sex outside marriage?? According to the Catholic church in the first option you're committing 1 sin but in the second option you're committing 2 sins. :checkit::zoomer:

 

And in your opinion (and this time this is a serious question) would sex, purely for enjoyment, be acceptable if man created contraception that was 100% safe?

 

I'll tell you my theory on why the Catholic church (and other religions) are backwards and I'm sorry if it offends you cause that's not my intention... I think that around the time when Catholicism was created and the rules were made, no effective method of contraception existed and some methods that people were using may even have been harmful so the church discouraged it. Today we have effective methods of contraception but religious leaders tend to be very stubborn types and don't want to adapt their religions to evolve with the times. Islam's the most backwards of all the mainstream religions because the religion is based on a book that Muslims believe was written by God so nothing in that religion can ever change regardless of how much human's evolve and advance.

 

Link to comment

The state shouldn't be funding religious schools because the state ought to be neutral in matters of religion.

 

I agree the State should be neutral in religious matters.

 

But I don't agree there should be no religious schools.

 

For a start they only exist because there is demand for them - they are popular. The people who choose to send their kids to them, actively desire this form of education.

 

They pay tax too, why should they be denied a choice, as long as it doesn't affect anyone who doesn't want it? We already have state schools, public schools, local schools, boarding schools, co-ed schools, single-sex schools, faith schools etc etc. I don't see that education is "one size fits all" , surely diversity of choice for everyone is better than bland conformity?

 

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human rights allows that parents have a right to have their child educated in accordance with their religious or other views.

 

Catholic schools in Scotland have often been contentious, but when you consider the Church introduced the first schools in Scotland (13-1400s) and also founded the first three universities in Scotland, (at Glasgow, Aberdeen, St Andrews),you can see how bizarre it seems to Scottish Catholics that anyone should question or even resent their presence in the educational sector.

 

Cheers!

CS

Link to comment

There have been a couple of posts I've wanted to respond to you CS, however my quote function no longer seems to work, and without the context of the original point alongside my own text the entire post becomes incoherent.

 

That aside, explain to me why Catholicism preaches the contradictory notion of 'Original Sin', and why it's defensible.

 

"Original Sin" refers to the tendency to do evil inherent in all human beings.

 

To "do evil" is simply the absence of good in a persons actions, from vicious gossip to mass genocide, and all in-between.

 

Christianity recognises that all of us have this capacity to do wrong within us, quite naturally. Humans are not perfect creatures. We are prone to selfishness, jealousy, spite, anger, greed, lust and these can even come to influence our actions, suppressing reason.

 

I think it is good to reflect on our nature and choices; I think it is good to recognise and accept we are not perfect.

 

I would say the undoubted truth of this concept regarding flawed human nature is why it is defensible.

Link to comment

 

"Original Sin" refers to the tendency to do evil inherent in all human beings.

 

To "do evil" is simply the absence of good in a persons actions, from vicious gossip to mass genocide, and all in-between.

 

Christianity recognises that all of us have this capacity to do wrong within us, quite naturally. Humans are not perfect creatures. We are prone to selfishness, jealousy, spite, anger, greed, lust and these can even come to influence our actions, suppressing reason.

 

I think it is good to reflect on our nature and choices; I think it is good to recognise and accept we are not perfect.

 

I would say the undoubted truth of this concept regarding flawed human nature is why it is defensible.

 

Original Sin pertains literally to the 'Original Sin', of Adam and Eve defying 'God's' word and eating the forbidden fruit, hence the 'Original' Sin.

 

To then claim that all are therefore born into sin as a direct result of the Original Sin, the 'Sin of the father' in other words, is in direct contradiction to Jesus' teaching that the sins of the father are NOT inherited by the offspring,

 

This is what I'm asking for an explanation of, and a defence of why Catholic doctrine is in direct contravention of Jesus' own words, assuming Catholicism also purports to follow and promote the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Link to comment

Hi CS, I'll try and keep this to one post for ease of reading and number my points:

 

1) I provided 2 scientific studies that showed that condoms reduce the spread of HIV by 80%, I'm unclear what in your early posts rebut that by way of actual scientific evidence to the contrary, simply saying "the experts say they've been a failure" is not a rebuttal to actual scientific papers even if you wish it were.

 

 

2) re the Pope's comments you state that it was a misunderstanding by the public and bias and inaccurate reporting but I directed you towards the proclamation of the African Bishops who incorrectly it would appear misinterpreted the Pope's message. You state there should be no need to clarify matters but when his own Bishops have picked him up wrong is there not a duty for such an important matter to be corrected~?

 

3) Archbishop Francisco Chimoio head of the Catholic church in Mozambique from 2003 until I presume he was removed by the Church for being "a paranoid idiot and certainly made a fool of himself with those outrageous comments", Oh no hang on a minute, he remains head of the catholic church in Mozambique to this day. One would assume that someone leading the Church in a country would not be allowed to preach such falsehoods about condoms in support of the Churches policy without the church stepping in and rectifying his errors, or releasing a rebuttal or at least doing something instead of remaining quiet and allowing him to continue with his "teachings". Nope, nothing done as far as I can see, obviously some logic in allowing him to do that.

 

 

4) Cardinal Trujillo, is right on some types of condoms, only he didn't qualify his statement by saying "natural condoms......., you know the ones that are popular in the West due to their higher cost, yeh, those ones, that say on the box, "does not prevent spread of STDs"

 

Had he done so his statement would not be a half truth and so misleading.

 

It's like someone saying

 

Catholic Priests are child abusers.

 

 

I mean that's right, in relation to some types of Priests, those that have admitted abusing children.

 

 

Presenting a half truth as a truth is no defence to what was said.

 

 

5) Moving the debate out of Africa, as you accept the importance of background infection rates, are you saying the Church's position is not detrimental to the spread of HIV in other parts of the world, given the experts findings on the importance and success of condom use elsewhere?

 

You seem to always fall back to blaming homosexuals but it doesn't only affect them, HIV is the biggest cause of death in black women in America between the ages of 25 - 34, are you suggesting that condom use would be ineffective in relation to them, bearing in mind studies show only about 56% disclose their infection to their partners?

 

6) Abortion? Really? Whole different debate there, but what has 5 million abortions in the last 35 years in the UK got to do with condom use?

How many of those women were using condoms? How many were using natural contraception? The issue is irrelevant to this argument without such information.

 

7) You ask "Why aren't condoms working to protect homosexual men in the west from HIV, where condoms are freely available and promoted, have been for decades?"

 

The answer is simple, condom use has fallen amongst these groups and as a result infection has increased, that kind of proves the efficiency of condoms don't you think? If they all used condoms the rates would fall. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21474066

 

8) You reject out of hand the catholic church's responsibility, to do so shows a blindness to the issue, you should consider the evidence before rejecting things, anyway, you will be aware that vaginal and anal sex are only two of the possible ways to catch HIV, there is also those that caught it through needle use or blood transfusions or those that were born with the condition so to state that "enjoy sex with a single exclusive partner within a marriage" means neither will catch HIV is factually wrong.

 

In your ideal catholic world everyone remains a virgin until they marry and never have sex with anyone else apart from their disease free spouse, unfortunately the world isn't like that and the Church can't act like it is in it's anti condom stance.

 

9) You state that Dr Green is clear and he is, although you chose to ignore his statements so I'll repeat them and highlight the bits for you again..

 

 

 

I believe condoms should be made available to everyone

 

 

 

 

 

I have said that I am not a Catholic, and I am not talking about condoms in any sort of moral-ethical sense. I am talking about what has been found to work and not work. So, yes, the article I mentioned by Hearst and Chen is very clear that condoms work in certain types of situations and certain sub-populations and condoms have had a positive national impact in certain concentrated epidemics. So, yes, I don't agree with the Pope across the board.

 

 

 

Cheers

Link to comment

 

It was Africans having sex with Monkeys that created it, a fat bloke in the pub told me so it must be true.

How many people actually believe that ? Once , i decided to check oot the real cause of aids , I said to my mate " reading between the lines is important min , it's the only wye ye get te the truth " . Anyroads i googled it , one theory is that hunters in africa would butcher monkys and eat the meat raw , the monkys were carrying SIV ( simean Immunodeficiency Virus) the virus mutated and the hunters were the first to contract aids . Now reading between the lines it's evident that some darkie cunt fucked a monkey !

Link to comment

Hi monkey - im replying in 2 posts again as it wont let me quote all your lines in just one post.

 

 

I provided 2 scientific studies that showed that condoms reduce the spread of HIV by 80%,

To give an analogy my argument is saying dont drink drive to avoid crashes.

 

Your argument is saying drink drive, but wear a crash helmet, as they reduce deaths in crashes by 80%.

 

What is better, no crashes or some crashes?

 

The whole way you look at the issue is flawed and starting from the wrong point.

 

The thread origin is in response to the notion that Catholic teaching is responsible for HIV being spread.

What do you think spreads HIV? Is it people sleeping around, even with condoms, or it is people keeping sexual affairs to within marriage alone?

 

Its clear to see that it is the secular attitude to sex that its a mere toy, with no consequences -which spreads HIV.

 

 

 

re the Pope's comments you state that it was a misunderstanding by the public and bias and inaccurate reporting but I directed you towards the proclamation of the African Bishops who incorrectly it would appear misinterpreted the Pope's message.

The bishop didnt misinterpret the Popes comments (do you really think that?).

 

He said a stupid thing which may even, remarkably, have been reflective of his own opinion.

 

Do you really believe that this Popes message could be misinterpreted as being Europeans are poisoning condoms to kill africans?

 

I dont think you really believe that, I think you are clutching at straws.

 

 

Archbishop Francisco Chimoio..One would assume that someone leading the Church in a country would not be allowed to preach such falsehoods about condoms in support of the Churches policy without the church stepping in and rectifying his errors, or releasing a rebuttal or at least doing something instead of remaining quiet and allowing him to continue with his "teachings". Nope, nothing done as far as I can see, obviously some logic in allowing him to do that.

More speculation, do you know things can happen out-with as far as you can see.

 

You are simply assuming nothing has been done and assuming that he is allowed to keep saying the same thing.

 

I would expect the reality is the complete opposite. But as many people get all their info from the media, you will be unaware of whatever they have not chosen to tell you.

 

I personally dont think someone should lose their job over one mistake or example of incompetence.

 

 

Cardinal Trujillo, is right on some types of condoms, only he didn't qualify his statement by saying "natural condoms. Had he done so his statement would not be a half truth and so misleading.[/

His statement is right. You took it out of context and tried to portray it as applying to something else.

 

You probably dont even know what he was talking about, because all you gave us is the one-line out-of-context media quote.

If you had wanted clarification, you could have done a 2 minute google search, like I did.

 

Do you really think that Cardinal Trujillo was really making a demonstrably false statement in public, to deliberately misinform people (or perhaps even through ignorance), or do you think he was talking about the types of condoms which can indeed allow infections to pass?

 

You have not shown that his statement was a half-truth and misleading.

 

You gave a one sentence quote devoid of wider context, with no references or links.

 

Most of your arguments are not facts, but rather conjecture, accusations and suspicions which you attempt to mould onto the back of the limited, unsourced info you present.

 

You have also changed your position markedly here, at first Trujillo was an outrageous liar, now he tells half truths.

 

And re priests abusing children - that isnt even a half truth, as it was not children who were abused, it was overwhelmingly teenage boys past the age of puberty. (see the John Jay Report etc).

 

The media report children because that helps hide the predatory nature of homosexuality. After all, after teenage girls, who else do you think finds teenage boys /. adolescent males sexy?

 

I quite agree the Church deserves (or deserved) criticism on this issue, but I will always insist that it is accurate criticism.

 

 

are you saying the Church's position is not detrimental to the spread of HIV in other parts of the world

Of course I am saying that.

 

Advising people to have sex with a single partner, within a committed relationship, could NEVER be detrimental to peoples sexual health.

 

Only a fuck-wit would believe that it was harmful.

I mean that's right, in relation to some types of Priests, those that have admitted abusing children.

That isnt even a half truth, as it was not children who were abused, it was overwhelmingly teenage boys past the age of puberty.

 

The media report children because that helps hide the predatory nature of homosexuality. After all, after teenage girls, who else do you think finds teenage boys sexy?

 

I quite agree the Church deserves (or deserved) criticism on this issue, but I will awlays insist that criticism is accurate.

Link to comment

 

You seem to always fall back to blaming homosexuals but it doesn't only affect them,HIV is the biggest cause of death in black women in America between the ages of 25 - 34,

 

Earlier you claimed I was misleading people by saying its mostly homosexuals – and you were categorically wrong, as I showed with evidence.

 

 

I think condom use to control infections is less effective in EVERYONEs case, than is having sex with a single partner in a committed relationship. Only a fool would refute that obvious truth.

 

 

If someone has HIV, they shouldn’t be having sex with anyone, much less doing so using imperfect “protection”.

 

 

Abortion? Really? Whole different debate there, but what has 5 million abortions in the last 35 years in the UK got to do with condom use?

 

Well, you are the condom lover, these miraculous products which are supposed to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

Yet – demonstrably, they don’t.

 

 

Yes we could talk about how often are condoms used, are they used correctly etc - these are the human factors which pro-condom arguments are happy to quietly ignore when evangelising about how good and highly-effective they are.

 

 

 

If they all used condoms the rates would fall

 

Now we might be getting somewhere, I think I can see a light coming on in your eyes lol.

 

 

What does it suggest about the usefulness of condoms at controlling HIV, if – after decades of advertising and education, after billions of expenditure – people still choose not to wear them?

 

When exactly will they start to use condoms? Do we need to ask them a set number of times? Do we need to spend a certain amount? Do we need to say pretty please? What more can be done exactly?

 

 

You are like a guy trying to flog me a Betamax. If all the movie companies used Betamax format, Betamax would be f*cking brilliant.

 

But they don’t use it – and so Betamax is shit. Just like condoms.

 

 

What contributes more to the HIV rate? Promiscuity, or the Church advising monogamy?

 

 

Why do you criticise the Church for advising monogamy, but not promiscuous people, some of whom even choose not to wear condoms?

 

It’s easy to see how absurd your position is.

 

 

And this point also shows up that which the pro-condom argument likes to ignore – that no-one likes condoms, or wants to wear them. What you are promoting is not a solution at all.

 

 

 

 

You reject out of hand the catholic church's responsibility, to do so shows a blindness to the issue, you should consider the evidence before rejecting things

 

"empirical data supported the Pope, and condoms have not worked as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa" – Dr Edward Green

 

 

It’s frightening how resilient you are to facts and data!

 

 

Again, your opinion here is anti-scientific and at direct loggerheads with empirical data and expert opinion.

 

 

You should take your own advice. I am the only one who has provided any conclusive, scientifically backed evidence from experts themselves.

 

 

You are wrong.

 

 

 

you will be aware that vaginal and anal sex are only two of the possible ways to catch HIV, there is also those that caught it through needle use or blood transfusions or those that were born with the condition so to state that "enjoy sex with a single exclusive partner within a marriage" means neither will catch HIV is factually wrong.

 

Oh FFS. I thought it was fair enough not to have to say “and as long as neither of them become a junkie, or have a dodgy blood transfusion”, given – you know – most people don’t.

 

 

 

In your ideal catholic world everyone remains a virgin until they marry and never have sex with anyone else apart from their disease free spouse, unfortunately the world isn't like that and the Church can't act like it is in it's anti condom stance.

 

That’s how the world was for all time, up to and including my grandfathers generation. We know it is realistic.

 

 

Unsurprisingly, they never had HIV pandemics and millions of unwanted babies before.

 

 

The Church has to advocate the best way, at all times, which is sexual responsibility. Promiscuity, even with the semi-protection of condoms, is not responsible.

 

 

What would be so wrong exactly about the situation you describe?

 

 

Is a few, cheap, meaningless drunken shags with some fat bird harpooned at the disco really worth all of the illness, death and suffering?

 

 

 

You state that Dr Green is clear and he is, although you chose to ignore his statements so I'll repeat them and highlight the bits for you again “I believe condoms should be made available to everyone”

 

I didn’t say Green was for the abolition of condoms, I showed that he had stated they were a failure in Africa and that empirical data bears out Catholic teaching.

 

 

 

the article I mentioned by Hearst and Chen is very clear that condoms work in certain types of situations and certain sub-populations and condoms have had a positive national impact in certain concentrated epidemics. So, yes, I don't agree with the Pope across the board.

 

This thread was started in response to the accusation that Catholic teaching is responsible for the HIV pandemic. I have shown that accusation to be wholly false.

 

 

And some other names claim condoms work in “certain types of situations”.

 

 

What “types of situations” exactly? They are failing to protect the #1 HIV group (homosexuals) in the west, they are failing to prevent unwanted pregnancy in heterosexuals.

 

 

Why don’t they just name these “certain situations” or “certain epidemicss”???

 

 

Condoms can never work as effectively as the simple measure of being sexually responsible.

 

 

 

 

Cheers dude!

CS

Link to comment

I heard that God planted Dinosaur bones to test our faith? is this correct?

 

I prayed that Aberdeen would win the last 3 semi finals and not a single one was answered, why?

 

Putting 2 of every animal onto a boat. Explain.

 

Why would God create a tree that bears fruit that is "unforbidden"? That says to me that a) God is a wee bit of a dick b) He didn't give her a second chance, therefore he's a bit of a dick and c) God see's everything...why did he allow her to get coaxed by a serpent and why didn't he just go"no worries Eve, wasn't your fault...it was that prick Lucifer".

 

Why did Jesus kill a fig tree for not bearing a Fig, even though it was out of season? That was a bit harsh...not someone i'd follow.

 

Is it possible that none of the above happened and it was all made up?

Link to comment

Original Sin pertains literally to the 'Original Sin', of Adam and Eve defying 'God's' word and eating the forbidden fruit, hence the 'Original' Sin.

To then claim that all are therefore born into sin as a direct result of the Original Sin, the 'Sin of the father' in other words, is in direct contradiction to Jesus' teaching that the sins of the father are NOT inherited by the offspring,

 

This is what I'm asking for an explanation of, and a defence of why Catholic doctrine is in direct contravention of Jesus' own words, assuming Catholicism also purports to follow and promote the teachings of Jesus Christ

Hi Kelt,

 

I am not sure what statement of Jesus you are referring to, sorry – do you have a verse/book number or similar?

 

On the face of it, I would answer:

 

When we talking about “original sin” the word sin is purely analogous – we are really talking about a state or a condition, (of being flawed people), not an act.

 

What JC is saying is that a person is accountable for their own sins, no-one else.

 

If a Father does wrong, he then alone has the guilt for that, his offspring do not possess any guilt for his actions.

 

We inherit our flawed nature, but we do not inherit guilt from anyone. (Protestants say humans can inherit guilt, but I would never advise you to listen to them lol).

 

So I don’t think there is any contradiction here.

 

Cheers

CS

Link to comment

Hi Kelt,

 

I am not sure what statement of Jesus you are referring to, sorry – do you have a verse/book number or similar?

 

On the face of it, I would answer:

 

When we talking about “original sin” the word sin is purely analogous – we are really talking about a state or a condition, (of being flawed people), not an act.

 

What JC is saying is that a person is accountable for their own sins, no-one else.

 

If a Father does wrong, he then alone has the guilt for that, his offspring do not possess any guilt for his actions.

 

We inherit our flawed nature, but we do not inherit guilt from anyone. (Protestants say humans can inherit guilt, but I would never advise you to listen to them lol).

 

So I don’t think there is any contradiction here.

 

Cheers

CS

 

 

 

Ezekiel 18:20: The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity. Nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity The righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

 

If the offspring does not bear the guilt of the father, then Original Sin cannot be valid, since the entire premise is that the Original Sin of Adam passes down through each generation.

 

This is a clear contradiction, though to be fair the Bible contradicts itself on the matter too.

 

Whether or not Original Sin can also be applied to "man's inherent nature" is moot, given the basis of that inherent flaw has its genesis in the sin of Adam, ergo we're back to the original point.., that being there can't be original sin without transferring that guilt and punishment to subsequent generations. But, given the Bible says that does not occur, there cannot be Original Sin.

Link to comment

Not been on here for a while, but this thread is really starting to grip my shit. C_S, your car analogy a few posts up likening condom use to driving with a crash helmet is not a good one. It would be more accurate to say...

 

Catholic Church says: You should only drive to the end of your street and back and you shouldn't exceed 20 miles per hour

 

Condom use is more like: Drive around a bit, enjoy your car and the driving experience, just make sure you wear a seat belt, because seat belts save lives. Please note we don't recommend you exceed the speed limit or take unnecessary risks

 

Do you deny seat belts and safe driving save lives?

 

And as for only driving to the end of the street and back, it doesn't matter becase at any time the crazy bitch in the passenger seat could grab the stearing wheel and send you in front of a bus.

 

What next, only drive by yourself? I thought the Catholic Church wasn't keen on that either

 

Don't drive at all? That really works for priests, doesn't it?

 

You also make reference to women be able to control there fertility and "decide" when to get pregnant. These are not biological facts.

 

You seem to be quite homophobic in your arguements and make constant reference to the individuals who were interfered with against there will by Catholic priests as pubescents, not children. What? So because they had some hair on their balls that makes it ok? What would be your defence against racism? I didn't call him a "f***ing n****r", just a "n****r"?

 

Now how about we debate some more Catholic teachings. Where do you stand on evolution?

 

Why am I even bothering to debate you? You don't even need evidence, you just need faith :clangers2:

 

 

 

Link to comment

Not been on here for a while, but this thread is really starting to grip my shit.

Is that good or bad? ;)

C_S, your car analogy a few posts up likening condom use to driving with a crash helmet is not a good one.

 

On the contrary, it was an excellent one.

 

Both examples are exactly the same, in that they do not seek to avoid risky behaviour, but only to try to mitigate the negative effects of it.

Don't drive at all? That really works for priests, doesn't it?

It works for the vast majority of priests, its unfortunate that a small number of homosexual priests (including our own Cardinal O'Brien)have caused hurt and scandal via being unable to control their urges towards younger males.

 

But then, that would have been the the case regardless of their occupation. Its the disordered urges which are the problem, not the persons occupation.

You also make reference to women be able to control there fertility and "decide" when to get pregnant. These are not biological facts.

I beg your pardon?

 

Are you claiming that women are not able to control their fertility naturally, with the same effectiveness as artifical contraception?

 

If so, you are either a liar or badly informed!

You seem to be quite homophobic in your arguements and make constant reference to the individuals who were interfered with against there will by Catholic priests as pubescents, not children. What? So because they had some hair on their balls that makes it ok?

In what way am I "quite homophobic" in my arguments?

 

I havent claimed the abuse was OK, because the people were older - I am pointing out that these cases were not cases of child abuse, but rather cases of homosexual rape, given the victims were not children but sexually mature males.

 

Accuracy is important - if you are going to solve a problem, you really need to properly know what the problem is, dont you?

 

I find it remarkable that your interpret my attempts to better inform people as an attempt to justify or play-down abuse.

 

Are you not more interested to know why the media chose to lie to the public, via falsely distorting the picture so much?

Now how about we debate some more Catholic teachings. Where do you stand on evolution?

 

Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity, as the Vatican has acknowledged.

 

I personally am unsure about Evolution but its not something I think about much - its not a topic which particularly interests me, or one upon which my outlook depends on.

 

I do find it interesting that the theory is widely accepted whilst not backed by physical evidence, ie the fossil record.

 

Darwin himself said that if physical evidence was not found to support the theory, then the theory would be falsified.

 

Perhaps we will yet find the evidence, or discover a reason why it is not extant, who knows?

 

But as I say, its not something I am especially interested in, as I perceive it as one of those topics where each argument has (in part) proponents who are heavily ideologised.

 

One interesting argument I saw about it was: someone claimed that the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicted evolution.

 

The response was that this law only applies to a closed system and the earth is not a closed system (it gets energy input from the sun).

 

But it seems to me that the system we should be talking about is really the Universe - which is a closed system - not the Earth.

Link to comment

Why am I even bothering to debate you? You don't even need evidence, you just need faith :clangers2:

Ergo, the problem with all Religions.

 

Look at it this way:

 

If all memory and references to Religon was wiped from existence, we would be none the wiser! It's not like we'd stumble upon God! There would be no parents brainwashing "if you don't believe in God you go to HELL" their kids to believe in something that they have absolutely no proof of existing other than being brainwashed "if you don't believe in God you go to HELL" by their parents...and the cycle continues.

 

If the same happened to Science then we'd end up back in the dark ages, but eventually we'd get to the stage we are at now where less and less people are believing in God.

Link to comment

Is that good or bad? ;)

 

On the contrary, it was an excellent one.

 

Both examples are exactly the same, in that they do not seek to avoid risky behaviour, but only to try to mitigate the negative effects of it.It works for the vast majority of priests, its unfortunate that a small number of homosexual priests (including our own Cardinal O'Brien)have caused hurt and scandal via being unable to control their urges towards younger males.

 

But then, that would have been the the case regardless of their occupation. Its the disordered urges which are the problem, not the persons occupation.

I beg your pardon?

 

Are you claiming that women are not able to control their fertility naturally, with the same effectiveness as artifical contraception?

 

If so, you are either a liar or badly informed!

In what way am I "quite homophobic" in my arguments?

 

I havent claimed the abuse was OK, because the people were older - I am pointing out that these cases were not cases of child abuse, but rather cases of homosexual rape, given the victims were not children but sexually mature males.

 

Accuracy is important - if you are going to solve a problem, you really need to properly know what the problem is, dont you?

 

I find it remarkable that your interpret my attempts to better inform people as an attempt to justify or play-down abuse.

 

Are you not more interested to know why the media chose to lie to the public, via falsely distorting the picture so much?

 

Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity, as the Vatican has acknowledged.

 

I personally am unsure about Evolution but its not something I think about much - its not a topic which particularly interests me, or one upon which my outlook depends on.

 

I do find it interesting that the theory is widely accepted whilst not backed by physical evidence, ie the fossil record.

 

Darwin himself said that if physical evidence was not found to support the theory, then the theory would be falsified.

 

Perhaps we will yet find the evidence, or discover a reason why it is not extant, who knows?

 

But as I say, its not something I am especially interested in, as I perceive it as one of those topics where each argument has (in part) proponents who are heavily ideologised.

 

One interesting argument I saw about it was: someone claimed that the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicted evolution.

 

The response was that this law only applies to a closed system and the earth is not a closed system (it gets energy input from the sun).

 

But it seems to me that the system we should be talking about is really the Universe - which is a closed system - not the Earth.

There has been plenty of evidence to support evolution.

 

Christians believe that the world is only 6000 years old, which has been proven to be bollocks.

 

The bible fails to mention anything prior to humans, despite us only being on the Earth for a very short period of time. What was God doing prior to this? Was he sitting up there answering dinosaur prayers? I can just see the T Rex with it's really short front paws praying for a few dead stegasauruses for tea.

 

Not sure why i'm even arguing this, the whole thing is just pointless. The only reason any of us have even heard of this God fella was through word of mouth. Which is basically Chinese Whispers started thousands of years ago by folk who knew nothing about the world.

Link to comment

Christianity/Catholicism was invented to unite, and keep under control, the plebeian masses in a declining Roman Empire, the remnants of which we still see as the brainwashed masses descend upon in the Vatican City and huddle together in our state-funded schools especially in west central Scotland.

 

I find it ironic that a church containing followers who cannot tolerate mental urges of individuals (whether hetero- or homosexual) is full of people that actually adopt the literal belief that a man was born of immaculate conception and then rose from the dead, among other stories, and that it is considered heretic or blasphemous to proclaim otherwise.

 

Christianity is just a Jewish sect, a moral belief system in a none-too-dissimilar way that Protestantism is a sect of Christianity insofar that it picked and chose the elements it wished to follow. The Roman Catholic church, while it would like to think otherwise, does not have the monopoly over any kind of teaching at all and recent history (views on sexuality, homosexuality and its own internal scandals with child abuse) has alluded to just how outdated it is in modern society.

Link to comment

 

What humanity inherits is a fallen condition, not guilt.

 

That's incorrect, or possibly an attempt circumvent the contradiction via semantics, either way that's not a satisfactory answer.

 

We are absolutely "Born into sin", according to Catholicism, as a result of Adam's sin.

 

The only people NOT "Born into sin" were Adam, Eve, and allegedly Mary, mother of the Christ.

 

Therefore we still have the contradiction that "The sins of the father" are inherited.

Link to comment

There has been plenty of evidence to support evolution.

 

Yes, the theory is very convincing. But its quite compelling that the physical evidence does not tie-up with what the theory predicts, eh? After all, that is the greatest criticism Darwin raised against his own work.

 

Christians believe that the world is only 6000 years old, which has been proven to be bollocks.

 

Your understanding is wrong.

 

Mainstream Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox - same thing really) do not think the world is only 6000 years old.

 

Irrelevant, small numbers of America Protestants think that.

 

You really have to critique Christianity in its proper / original / mainstream form, for a credible analysis.

 

If you base your understanding on protestantism, there are 10s of 1000s of different types, all saying different things, each as wacky as the next.

 

It was a Catholic priest (and Physics Professor) who first postulated the big bang theory. I reckon he must have had a vague idea as to how long ago all this happened.

 

The bible fails to mention anything prior to humans, despite us only being on the Earth for a very short period of time. What was God doing prior to this? Was he sitting up there answering dinosaur prayers? I can just see the T Rex with it's really short front paws praying for a few dead stegasauruses for tea.

 

God does not exist within time. The passing of time is something we mortals experience, not God.

 

Not sure why i'm even arguing this, the whole thing is just pointless. The only reason any of us have even heard of this God fella was through word of mouth. Which is basically Chinese Whispers started thousands of years ago by folk who knew nothing about the world.

 

Re the bold - and yet you do argue, interesting no?

 

Your chinese whispers analogy is humorous :)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...