Jump to content

Defence Of Catholic Teaching


Clydeside_Sheep

Recommended Posts


9 hours ago, Poodler said:

Not a catholic defence, but just looked for a religion thread. This just came through the door. What kind of psychopath produces something like this?

Some type of protestant chap, I imagine.

This is what happens when people rebel against the divinely instituted Catholic Church - intended as an authoritative teaching body (a job it has done very poorly this last half century) - and instead invent their own systems of belief (invariably based on their own circumstances and opinions) which they falsely present as Christianity.

When you see some of the stuff, its no surprise that nations which abandoned the Catholic faith at the reformation are now largely Godless place, their replacement man-made religions quickly failing (Scotland being a prime example).

Some of his numbered points (pgs 2/3) are not actually not terrible (!), others are total rubbish.  But that is the most dangerous kind of falsehood, one which mixes truth with error.

So, yeah, a nutter really.

9 hours ago, Poodler said:

Check out his debunking of evolution.

I didn't read what he had to say, but its certainly fair to question evolution (or Christianity, or anything) and be skeptical about it.

I'm not heavily invested in the topic either way, but there are enough reasonable points of doubt: for example, Darwin himself noted that the fossil record does not support evolution and that this should naturally give us pause regarding this ideas.  This remains the case.  Indeed I understand the fossil record actually shows species all appearing at the same time, a conclusion the researchers involved admitted that they tried hard to avoid (showing "science" is far from being impartial).

Even contemporary scientists regularly question the theory in a variety of ways; but most of us don't get to hear about that.

I think evolution has become dominant not only because the media controls what most people know, but also because many people are frightened to question it, for fear of being made to look stupid.  These notions find fertile ground in post-Christian societies - because the desire to know our origins is innate in all of us - and indeed can be raised to something akin to a religious belief in themselves.  We see this with environmentalism, as well as evolution.  As the writings of Chesterton indicate, when man stops believing in God, he will believe in anything: Its a common belief today that a man can turn into a woman.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Some type of protestant chap, I imagine.

This is what happens when people rebel against the divinely instituted Catholic Church - intended as an authoritative teaching body (a job it has done very poorly this last half century) - and instead invent their own systems of belief (invariably based on their own circumstances and opinions) which they falsely present as Christianity.

When you see some of the stuff, its no surprise that nations which abandoned the Catholic faith at the reformation are now largely Godless place, their replacement man-made religions quickly failing (Scotland being a prime example).

Some of his numbered points (pgs 2/3) are not actually not terrible (!), others are total rubbish.  But that is the most dangerous kind of falsehood, one which mixes truth with error.

So, yeah, a nutter really.

I didn't read what he had to say, but its certainly fair to question evolution (or Christianity, or anything) and be skeptical about it.

I'm not heavily invested in the topic either way, but there are enough reasonable points of doubt: for example, Darwin himself noted that the fossil record does not support evolution and that this should naturally give us pause regarding this ideas.  This remains the case.  Indeed I understand the fossil record actually shows species all appearing at the same time, a conclusion the researchers involved admitted that they tried hard to avoid (showing "science" is far from being impartial).

Even contemporary scientists regularly question the theory in a variety of ways; but most of us don't get to hear about that.

I think evolution has become dominant not only because the media controls what most people know, but also because many people are frightened to question it, for fear of being made to look stupid.  These notions find fertile ground in post-Christian societies - because the desire to know our origins is innate in all of us - and indeed can be raised to something akin to a religious belief in themselves.  We see this with environmentalism, as well as evolution.  As the writings of Chesterton indicate, when man stops believing in God, he will believe in anything: Its a common belief today that a man can turn into a woman.

Mair chance of folk reading the leaflet than than min. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Some type of protestant chap, I imagine.

This is what happens when people rebel against the divinely instituted Catholic Church - intended as an authoritative teaching body (a job it has done very poorly this last half century) - and instead invent their own systems of belief (invariably based on their own circumstances and opinions) which they falsely present as Christianity.

When you see some of the stuff, its no surprise that nations which abandoned the Catholic faith at the reformation are now largely Godless place, their replacement man-made religions quickly failing (Scotland being a prime example).

Some of his numbered points (pgs 2/3) are not actually not terrible (!), others are total rubbish.  But that is the most dangerous kind of falsehood, one which mixes truth with error.

So, yeah, a nutter really.

I didn't read what he had to say, but its certainly fair to question evolution (or Christianity, or anything) and be skeptical about it.

I'm not heavily invested in the topic either way, but there are enough reasonable points of doubt: for example, Darwin himself noted that the fossil record does not support evolution and that this should naturally give us pause regarding this ideas.  This remains the case.  Indeed I understand the fossil record actually shows species all appearing at the same time, a conclusion the researchers involved admitted that they tried hard to avoid (showing "science" is far from being impartial).

Even contemporary scientists regularly question the theory in a variety of ways; but most of us don't get to hear about that.

I think evolution has become dominant not only because the media controls what most people know, but also because many people are frightened to question it, for fear of being made to look stupid.  These notions find fertile ground in post-Christian societies - because the desire to know our origins is innate in all of us - and indeed can be raised to something akin to a religious belief in themselves.  We see this with environmentalism, as well as evolution.  As the writings of Chesterton indicate, when man stops believing in God, he will believe in anything: Its a common belief today that a man can turn into a woman.

You're not wired up right CS.  No offence. 

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Betty Swallicks said:

Haha! 

Anyone who is not agnostic is slightly crazy imo. 

Possibly correct.

We're basically smart meat. There's a whole spectrum of things we don't and can't know, observe, or comprehend, because we're evolved from slime, and our species' high tide mark was arguably when we were swinging from trees and wanking into bananas.

 Maybe there is a god. Maybe there's a trillion gods. We clearly can't see the fuckers, so anyone saying they know anything about god or gods is a fucking liar or fucking delusional. But there might be. It would also depend on what criteria you have for 'god'.

Greek and Norse gods are basically drunken rapists, so if that's a criteria then fine. Rape and alcoholism seems like  fairy easy superpowers. Clearly the christian god is a contradictory and impossible creation, though, but if it keeps them happy then let them fill their boots. So long as they're not bothering me. Unfortunately, too often they are bothering me. 

Not to get all fancy-dan, but the closest you could get me to believing in gods is via Kant and Nietzsche's speculation on the noumenal vs phenomenal, and that is, in fact, why I could possibly agree that Agnosticism is the 'one true faith'. Love New Order. 

Having said that, I choose to be an atheist, because philosophical exercises aside, there's no more evidence that 'gods' created anything than flying spaghetti monsters or invisible pink unicorns did. 

Link to comment
Just now, frankie_mac's_4 said:

TBF my question was more aimed at expanding the scope of the discussion on Catholic teachings, rather than at the gentleman himself.

That canna be great for the middle aged Catholic wife, heading into her tena years

 

If you listen to CS surely it would be an unnatural act as sex is for the purpose of making a child.

Somehow priests managed to make it ok for them, although they seem to have altered slightly from the age and gender we're talking about.

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
Quote

The French Catholic church has expressed “shame” and pleaded for forgiveness, after a devastating report found that at least 330,000 children were victims of sexual abuse by clergy and lay members of church institutions over the past 70 years.

The publication of the landmark report on Thursday, France’s first major reckoning with what the Catholic church accepted was “appalling” abuse, has shaken the country with its horrific findings of a “massive phenomenon” of sexual abusers of children operating for decades within the church and its associated institutions.

The two-and-a-half-year independent inquiry found that staggering numbers of children were subjected to sexual violence by priests and clergy while the crimes were covered up in a “systemic way” by a deliberate “veil of silence” in the church.

The president of the investigative committee, Jean-Marc Sauvé, told a press conference: “Until the early 2000s the Catholic church showed a profound and even cruel indifference towards the victims.”

The report found an estimated 216,000 children were victims of sexual violence by French Catholic priests, deacons and other clergy from 1950 to 2020. When lay members of the Church, such as teachers and catechism supervisors, were included, the figure rose to at least 330,000 children sexually abused over 70 years.

It said the “vast majority” of victims were boys, who came from a wide variety of social backgrounds and who were attacked at a young age before reaching adolescence. Some sex offenders inside the church were “predators” on a vast scale who targeted extremely high numbers of children over long periods, with some attacking more than 150 victims

 

That's a lot of those pesky gay bairns!

Link to comment
  • 4 months later...
  • 3 months later...

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...