What would most benefit Catholics?

[Gemma Therese]

I'm interested in atheists' opinions.

[openeyes]

I said other. What would benefit most Catholics in my opinion is the freedom to question their church and decide it's not for them with no guilt attached. (I'm an ex-Catholic).

[Mageth]

I voted "Other", as in "all of the above, and then some."

[Fenton Mulley]

I also voted other,as in "walking away quickly and not looking back".

I would have voted for the birth control if there wasn`t an "other" option.

<not very serious mode on>
Their views on birth control seem utterly ridiculous at first,but start to make sense if you really think about it.
Birth control = no babies. No babies = no kids. No kids = priests not having any sex. <not very serious mode off>

[Rhea]

I put birth control, but I also think female clergy would benefit Catholics highly. Both are about subjugation. Both would benefit Catholic very much by their absence. But between the two, the subjugation of women's bodies and lives is by far the greater need to end.

[hezekiah jones]

Other: For them to see the light, and convert to Christianity.

[Sephiroth]

Other: Freedom and encouragement to question the church (it still ticks me off that I was forced into Confirmation against my will)+all of the above.

[Amos]

I voted "others" because I would like to see them protected from protestant "Christian" influences.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Sephiroth
Other: Freedom and encouragement to question the church (it still ticks me off that I was forced into Confirmation against my will)+all of the above.

Don't be silly, you don't really it (the HS) "caught" do you? So if it didn't what the hell do you care? I mean, it was just sacramental and that is just there for you to discover and you don't have to if you don't want to.

[notMichaelJackson]

I had a friend who went to a Catholic school (for very secular reasons), and he said that they constantly bashed America over there, so maybe a little less anti-americanism would help.

[Amie]

Hi Gemma
I think all that you listed would benefit catholics to some extent, but I would go with getting rid of that pesky "no birth control" stance...
I think we'll see married clergy in the church before we see female priests, what do you think? I would like to see both happen, but not under this pope it seems...

[Thanatoast]

I voted for abolishing the ban on birth control, but perhaps I should have chosen "other". In this case, I would chose "eliminate Papal infallibility", since this is largely the reason for the b.c. ban. That and so many other silly decisions produced by a single man are supposed to be written in stone for eternity?

Truly daft.

[Sephiroth]

Originally posted by Amos
Don't be silly, you don't really it (the HS) "caught" do you? So if it didn't what the hell do you care? I mean, it was just sacramental and that is just there for you to discover and you don't have to if you don't want to. It took me a minute to figure out what you typed. Presuming I interpreted your post correctly here are the answers;

a)My parents forced me to get confirmed or I would get kicked out of home. Nice religious tolerance, eh?

b)I care because I'm counted as a confirmed Catholic by the church and there's no way to get my name off their list of members as I understand. Why does this tick me off? Because (no offense to Catholics) I despise the Vatican for reasons that can be found in other posts.

[Triple Six]

Other

As in become an atheist and discard the mind numbing rot and doctrines of this (and any other) religion.

Trust me, its better to make your own decisions based on current data than to rely on the thoughts of uninformed ancients and old men who have never had sex (with a woman that is;) )

[Godless Sodomite]

Other! I'm not at all interested in helping the Catholic church do anything but march towards extinction.

No more fucking popes!

-Jerry

[Mediancat]

Originally posted by Sephiroth

I care because I'm counted as a confirmed Catholic by the church and there's no way to get my name off their list of members as I understand. Why does this tick me off? Because (no offense to Catholics) I despise the Vatican for reasons that can be found in other posts.

-- Well, if you want to get yourself excommunicated, it sounds like a bit of a job of work, but here's what Cecil Adams suggests:

Straight Dope on getting excommunicated (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_242.html)

"If you're already out--that is, if you don't partake of the sacraments or otherwise participate in Catholic activities (I assume this describes your situation)--excommunication is likely to strike church authorities as a waste of good holy water."



Rob aka Mediancat

[Vorkosigan]

Deconversion.

[Rhea]

Note - from what I can tell, ex-communication does not make you NOT CATHOLIC. It makes you a Catholic who may not practice sacrements. You are still a Catholic, according to the Catholics. Just an eternally bad one. According to what I have read on Catholic catechism sites. (i.e. translations of the pope's rules)

[Infinity Lover]

...though of the above the birthcontroll one would be on the top of the list.

[Godless Dave]

I voted for a more democratic system because I think with that in place most of the rest would follow. One of the sadder aspects of the Catholic Church is its authoritarianism. The pope, cardinals, bishops, and many priests are more interested in preserving the institution and the power and money that comes with it than in the welfare of the Catholic laity. What's sad is that Catholics go along with it. I can't imagine willingly giving another man that kind of authority over me.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Sephiroth
It
b)I care because I'm counted as a confirmed Catholic by the church and there's no way to get my name off their list of members as I understand. .

Sorry about the word I missed.

Yes I understand now and you make a good point. I would say that you are wrong in your opinion but agree that you do have the right to an opinion of your own. Were you not a minor when you were Confirmed?

[Shake]

Originally posted by Mageth
I voted "Other", as in "all of the above, and then some." Exactly my thoughts.

[Proxima Centauri]

I think what would most benefit the Roman Catholic Church would be if its members all ceased to be Roman Catholics and became free thinkers.

;)

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Other-

Not being allowed to bring children to church, thus ensuring that they would only be exposed to the crazy church at an age when they had critical thinking skills, and only if they chose to do so, would be the thing that would benefit catholics the most, because they might stop believing their superstitions.

I would have said 'abolishing the church entirely' but at least the option I picked could be defended from a catholic perspective by saying the catholic position is ironclad and by waiting and letting people make informed decisions, it will strengthen their faith.

On a slightly more serious note, I'd probably think something like losing the ridiculous wasteful hierarchy from the church. This would in turn eliminate things like the harmful BC ban for some people, because individual churches could choose not to follow that sort of shit.

-B

[Sephiroth]

Originally posted by Amos
Yes I understand now and you make a good point. I would say that you are wrong in your opinion but agree that you do have the right to an opinion of your own.That's all I ask for.Were you not a minor when you were Confirmed? Yes.

[Sephiroth]

Originally posted by Mediancat
-- Well, if you want to get yourself excommunicated, it sounds like a bit of a job of work, but here's what Cecil Adams suggests:

Straight Dope on getting excommunicated (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_242.html)

"If you're already out--that is, if you don't partake of the sacraments or otherwise participate in Catholic activities (I assume this describes your situation)--excommunication is likely to strike church authorities as a waste of good holy water."



Rob aka Mediancat Since, excommunication only causes the church to see you as a bad Catholic rather than not one at all (they're too arrogant to think anyone would ever want to leave the church), I just don't have the motivation currently. Of course, I probably will do it someday as being seen as a bad Catholic by the church is the next best thing:D.

[Ronin]

Peace for a humanity free from suffering.

You would then no longer need any religious system that brutally preys on the hopes of the despondent.

Of course, this would not only benefit 'Catholics'...but all beings.

[Hedwig]

I went with the abolition of the ban on birth control. A sister of my late grandmother pumped out twelve kids in thirteen years and then (shockingly enough) died of several complications related to her reproductive system before she even got to see all of her children grow up. My family knows how effective the whole Catholic sanctioned methods of birth control are.

[themistocles]

I don't think the ban on birth control effects the Catholic Church much. I went to a pretty liberal Catholic school and the prevailing thought was that Papal doctrine wasn't much different than what you're parents might dictate to you as a teen. Sure, they'll say "don't do this, don't do that", but they can't control you all the time and you still love 'em 'cause they're your parents. In other words, they were rather selective in following their religion. There isn't much of a rift between Catholics about it, either any given Catholic supports it or they ignore it and that's that.

Personally, I think marriage of priests is the big deal. By not allowing marriage, they automatically cut out a massive demographic (anyone who wants to get married) from their clergy. Really, shortage of priests is the overwhelming percieved problem in the Catholic Church and it apparently is reaching pretty critical levels.

(editted for spelling errors)

[Godless Sodomite]

Originally posted by themistocles
I don't think the ban on birth control effects the Catholic Church much. I went to a pretty liberal Catholic school and the prevailing thought was that Papal doctrine wasn't much different than what you're parents might dictate to you as a teen. Sure, they'll say "don't do this, don't do that", but they can't control you all the time and you still love 'em 'cause they're your parents. In other words, they were rather selective in following their religion. There isn't much of a rift between Catholics about it, either any given Catholic supports it or they ignore it and that's that.

I'm sure you're right that American Catholics generally don't care what the official Curch position is regarding birth control. However, in other parts of the world with active Catholic missionaries and less money than the USA, it's a very big deal.

-Jerry

[Mageth]

I don't think the ban on birth control effects the Catholic Church much..... In other words, they were rather selective in following their religion.

That may be true here in the U.S., but in many other places where overpopulation is a potential problem, e.g. Central and South America, the Catholic taboo on birth control is a big concern, especially for the very poor.

[themistocles]

True, true, I hadn't thought about that. I've been ex-Catholic for, I don't know, 12 years now, I'm kind of out of the loop.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Godless Sodomite
I'm sure you're right that American Catholics generally don't care what the official Curch position is regarding birth control. However, in other parts of the world with active Catholic missionaries and less money than the USA, it's a very big deal.

-Jerry

That's not exactly true and if you handed them out for free most of them would still not use it. I think the same is true for the local natives but perhaps less now then it was some time ago when abortions were 'unthinkable.'

[Starboy]

If Catholics would give up their theism none of the listed issues would matter.

[beoba]

Originally posted by Mageth
I voted "Other", as in "all of the above, and then some."

Same.

[joedad]

I'll have to go with "other" as well, because it includes all the rest.

For starters, what exactly are Catholics trying to do by being Catholics? Some kind of mission statement is in order. I'll start:

"We The Catholics of the planet Earth in order to..."

Take it away, Amie. :)

joe

[DMB]

I voted "other" because like others I think "all of the above". The best thing that could happen for the catholic church would be for the Vatican, and its pope and cardinals, to disappear from the face of the earth.

For those who are ex-catholics and can't get their status recognised by the church, I have just learnt from the National Secular Society (http://www.secularism.org.uk) newsletter that in Italy now it is possible for people to demand to be "unchristened" by the church, so that they can no longer be counted among the faithful.

For those catholics who want to reform the church from within, I would commend Catholics for a Free Choice (http://www.cath4choice.org/), a small but very effective pressure group.

[Rousseau_CHN]

a brain

[Amos]

Originally posted by Rousseau_CHN
a brain

That's interesting. Without a brain and still the envy of the world?

[sullster]

I think that a total purging of the ruling hierachies would benefit them. They have to get rid of this present generation of authoritarian leaders who have put their allegiance to eachother as a higher value than protecting children and women from sexual deviant priests.

The catholic church is going to be utterly ruined unless a new generation of upper-level clergy takes over and brings with them a sense of repulsion at sexual crimes by priests and a desire to dismantle a closed-in esoteric priesthood which treats the people with condescension.

They should allow priests to be married. They would attract more "normal" men. I am not naive enough to think that all married men would behave themselves, but men with wives would not be as wild as men without wives. Let us remember, that marriage serves the purpose of the control of male behavior. Single men cause the most problems in society as a whole and this seems to be true with unmarried priests in the church.

[8of9]

enlightenment.

[Rousseau_CHN]

That's interesting. Without a brain and still the envy of the world?

I don't envy them, do you? The only person or institution I know that envy them are the fundies.


boohoohoo, they make more money than we.

[abe smith]

Catholics would benefit most (in the long run) from the total destruction & disappearance of "the Catholic Church"(that human fiction) including all its offices , documents, buildings, history.... you name it. This total disappearance of their "thumb-you-love-to-suck" would oblige the (former = present) adherents (those not curled-up whaddyecall in the foetal position) to look about them at the physical world including the human & other "creatures" in it , and try to adapt to those "realities".

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Priestesses.

The Tridentine Mass in Latin.

More Allegri and Monteverdi.

A massive purge in the Vatican which deletes the old geezers including the present Pope.

[Shake]

Originally posted by Amos
That's interesting. Without a brain and still the envy of the world? Envy of what world? Mars?

I'm certainly not envious of the Catholic Church or its followers!

[atheist_in_foxhole]

Yeah, I'm sure that everyone is so envious of a church that has been rocked by literally hundreds of child abuse scandals in the last two years alone. And I bet everyone is really impressed by the fact that Catholicism is practically dead in Western Europe, a place that was once known as the heart of Christendom. Not to mention the fact that your leader sits on a balcony for hours and, in the words of Pastor Deacon Fred, waves like a palsied drunk hailing a cab before mumbling some gibberish about Jebus in a dead language. What an inspiration! What a glorious institution! :rolleyes:

[Fenton Mulley]

Originally posted by Shake
Envy of what world? Mars?

I'm certainly not envious of the Catholic Church or its followers!

I`m not envious of them either. I think Amos is referring to a special world that exists only in his mind.

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by Fenton Mulley
I`m not envious of them either. I think Amos is referring to a special world that exists only in his mind.

Why not be envious? The Church has saints who, as a sum total, have done more good for the world than any other organization.

The two pillars of Western culture and thought are Scripture and Greek philosophy -- tough, atheists, we're influenced by Scripture. We would still be in the Dark Ages if it wasn't for the Catholic monks who copied the works of the great Greek philosophers and the Scriptures.

Think about it.

It's funny how atheists are blind to the good in the Church ... and then they ask theists to see only the good in athiests.

By the by, name an institution more universal than the Roman Catholic Church of 2003. I'm still waiting.

Gemma Therese

[Radorth]

Amos, this is one of those rare occasions I agree with that *&^%$#@&*&^ cutie, Fenton Mulley.

Some of us have wondered if you have both oars in the water, but calling the Catholic church the "envy of the world" (as I said before) is going to convince all but Gemma. I do envy all the good Catholics smoking enormou cigars after the service, but that's about it.

So I take it you disagree with this joint declaration:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/jddj.htm

BTW, your subliminal messages aren't having any effect on me, brother.

Rad

[christ-on-a-stick]

Why not be envious? The Church has saints who, as a sum total, have done more good for the world than any other organization. (blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah...)

Gemma Therese
(blahs mine, technically)

Please.

[Rhea]

We would still be in the Dark Ages if it wasn't for the Catholic monks who copied the works of the great Greek philosophers and the Scriptures.
What makes you say that? Weren't "The Dark Ages" the time when the christian church was in charge? I don't understand a reference to the church bringing "us" out of it.

Nor do I understand the "argument by organization". What do you mean by "more universal" You mean, like Islam? What do you mean by "organization"? You mean, like, the UN?

The catholic church is just one of many Big organizations with lots of "followers". It's not the biggest, nor are it's followers the most uniform.

But I would be interested in your answer to the question, "Who was in charge during the Dark Ages"?

[christ-on-a-stick]

Hi Rhea -

Good points all, but as far as this goes But I would be interested in your answer to the question, "Who was in charge during the Dark Ages"? ... I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[The Naked Mage]

Originally posted by Gemma (yawn) Therese:

Why not be envious? The Church has saints who, as a sum total, have done more good for the world than any other organization.

This is true. The world needed laughter, and the saints delivered.


The two pillars of Western culture and thought are Scripture and Greek philosophy -- tough, atheists, we're influenced by Scripture.

I didn't hear anyone here bitching over how you're not influenced by Greek philosophy, Gemma. But don't try to insult our intelligence by telling us that you wacky Catholics are influenced by the Bible. We know that what really influences you are UFO rays from space.


We would still be in the Dark Ages if it wasn't for the Catholic monks who copied the works of the great Greek philosophers and the Scriptures.

Really. This is a very hypocri-...uh, interesting thing to attribute to the Catholic monks, Gemma, seeing as how they were the ones who INITIATED the Dark Ages by burning the library of Alexandria. Have you gone to the newspapers this amazing tidbit of information?

[Gemma Therese]

You haven't even addressed the points of my post -- maybe because you can't.

Gemma Therese

[Fenton Mulley]

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
You haven't even addressed the points of my post -- maybe because you can't.

Gemma Therese

What about what Rhea asked you? Did you not see it or are you just ignoring it?

[sullster]

Yo! Gemma,

You did this poll, so how about some reactions to the ideas expressed on what would benefit your church? A lot less of this whiney and pissy defense of your religion would be appreciated.

What about my idea of purging the present clergy and bringing in some new blood? What about what others have suggested in line with your poll?

We know you are a bloody catholic fanatic. For crying out loud.

I hate smiley faces, too, no matter who uses them.

[Infinity Lover]

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
Why not be envious? The Church has saints who, as a sum total, have done more good for the world than any other organization.

When you say something like that, it would be nice if you could at least profide sufficient examples, to give a compelling impression that the saints of the RC church could at least top (let's say) the red cross in that respect. You can hardly expect people to just take your word for it, with a claim that bold. And off course I wouldn't automaticly asume you're exaggerating, unless you completely failed to even remotely back up your statement. (You were given the oportunity some time ago in another thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25898&perpage=25&highlight=catholic%20church&pagenumber=1) by the way, and unfortunately didn't get around to really knocking anyone off their socks.)

The two pillars of Western culture and thought are Scripture and Greek philosophy -- tough, atheists, we're influenced by Scripture.
I hope you realize by far the majority of people here would say scripture is the product of man, rather than the other way around.

We would still be in the Dark Ages if it wasn't for the Catholic monks who copied the works of the great Greek philosophers and the Scriptures.
Btw, why do you think those monks were pretty much the only ones capable of reading and writing? And could you honestly say that human devolpment benefitted more from the bible, than the other way around (the bible benifitting from this particular human devolpment called book printing)?

Just curious G.T.; do you think the RC church would benefit from any of those options you placed in your poll?

[christ-on-a-stick]

You haven't even addressed the points of my post -- maybe because you can't.

Gemma Therese

Gemma, can I take this to mean that you can't address the points of the posts in the "Theistic position you disagree with most" thread (re: the Catholic Church's implicit contribution to worldwide suffering through the ban on birth control), since you have failed to respond to direct requests for clarification of your one-word reply?

In any case, with respect to *this* thread, I too would appreciate some sufficient evidence or examples to support your blanket and heretofore unsupported assertions. Exactly how do you expect anyone to "address the points" of your post when you haven't MADE any points - just unsubstantiated
claims ?

[The Naked Mage]

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:

You haven't even addressed the points of my post -- maybe because you can't.

<stunned silence>

[Rhea]

You haven't even addressed the points of my post -- maybe because you can't.

Gemma Therese



Aaah, but I did.
Rebuttal?

By the way, I am curious (is it fruitless for me to ask another direct question to you?)....

What emotion goes through your mind when you choose the "cool" icon to put above a post like that?

The one that occured to me was "smug". But that's so unflattering. What _were_ you feeling when you chose that icon? I'm intensely curious. And as a corollary, I wonder whether the Jesus that you describe would ever choose to preface his comments with that icon. I am continually struck by these disconnects, and they make me so curious.

Will you answer me? Will you answer anyone?

[Shake]

No, part of getting out of the Dark Ages® was due to people like Guttenberg (printing press) and *hold on here* Martin Luther (translating Bibbble into his vernacular, German). That these events occured right around the same time was what helped the Reformation come to fruition.

Again, back to the whole "envious" comment: Envious of an organization that sought to suppress science for centuries and has only begun to relent under overwhelming evidence (i.e. heliocentric solar system, evolution, etc.)? Finally, as an American, I am most definitely not envious of a monarchical system like the Catholic Church.

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
Why not be envious? The Church has saints who, as a sum total, have done more good for the world than any other organization.

The $100 I gave to the United Way last year did more good for the world than all the saints put together.

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
The two pillars of Western culture and thought are Scripture and Greek philosophy -- tough, atheists, we're influenced by Scripture. We would still be in the Dark Ages if it wasn't for the Catholic monks who copied the works of the great Greek philosophers and the Scriptures.

If Catholics hadn't destroyed the works of pagan Greek philosophers they wouldn't have to work to restore them. Good thing the Muslims saved some for us!

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
By the by, name an institution more universal than the Roman Catholic Church of 2003.
The Walt Disney Corporation.

[Ojuice5001]

Originally posted by Shake
Envy of what world? Mars?

I'm certainly not envious of the Catholic Church or its followers!

Actually, I'm envious of the Catholics. After all, they're the ones who ended the golden age of Jupiter's rule. So I resent them for it, and yet at the same time I'm glad it was them rather than some nuts like Muslims, atheists, or Protestants. Catholics really have a more far-thinking belief system than any of those other three.

I have faith that the Roman pantheon will rule again. In the meantime, though, the other Roman religion is a better belief than most.

I think Gemma Therese makes good points about why the Catholic Church is great. The atheists also make good points about all the evil that it has done, but that just means it has great potential for good and evil. What do you expect from a religion that is located in the best city in the world, but its god is a usurper?

[Gemma Therese]

[i] Finally, as an American, I am most definitely not envious of a monarchical system like the Catholic Church. [/B]

Give me that old-time, American anti-Catholicism!

Gemma Therese

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
The $100 I gave to the United Way last year did more good for the world than all the saints put together.



Thankfully, Catholicism doesn't cater to idiocy.

Gemma Therese

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
Give me that old-time, American anti-Catholicism!

Gemma Therese

Please point out for me what part of Shake's statement was false.

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
Thankfully, Catholicism doesn't cater to idiocy.

Gemma Therese

Name just one thing a saint has done to make the world better. Just one.

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by Godless Dave

Name just one thing a saint has done to make the world better. Just one. [/B]

St. Catherine of Siena took care of plague victims.

Maximilian Kolbe gave his life for someone in a German concentration camp he had not met.

Katharine Drexel (http://breaux.senate.gov/columns/001010.html)

The countless sisters who toil their whole lives in hospitals and classrooms and never see a dime.

I don't want to overwhelm you.

Gemma Therese

[Rhea]

Gemma, I'm looking forward to your answers to my posts.

[Rhea]

Thankfully, Catholicism doesn't cater to idiocy.


What's that? what's that you say? I can hardly hear you. You said what? You're whispering... what was that? You said
Cardinal Law?


aaaah. That's what I thought you said.

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
St. Catherine of Siena took care of plague victims.

Maximilian Kolbe gave his life for someone in a German concentration camp he had not met.

Katharine Drexel (http://breaux.senate.gov/columns/001010.html)

The countless sisters who toil their whole lives in hospitals and classrooms and never see a dime.

I don't want to overwhelm you.

Gemma Therese

Now, what makes them more special than the millions of non-Catholics who have made the world a better place?

BTW, on the sisters who teach, I don't consider telling children lies about masturbation and sexuality as being beneficial to the world.

Also, I see you have accepted that the Disney Corporation is a more universal institution than the Catholic Church in 2003.

[sullster]

Dear Gemma,

Your Saint Catherine of Siena probably did take care of plague victims. So what? Taking care of sick people is a worthy thing to do, but one doesn't need be sainted. At the same time your catholic church was blaming the plague on the Jews. Nice guys.


Your Maximiian Kolbe was most likely a selfless man who went to the camps in place of another. How does this even begin to balance the silence and collaboration of the Vatican with the genocide of the Nazi regime?

I am beginning to see your saints as being individuals who are put up before the world in order to obscure the nasty deeds of the hierarchy.

[Amos]

Originally posted by sullster
I am beginning to see your saints as being individuals who are put up before the world in order to obscure the nasty deeds of the hierarchy.

Jeepers sullster, you must have an evil mind to see things like that! I wouldn't dream of it and I don't think the church has ever come close to entertaining such thoughts.

I kind of like this tread but it really isn't mine. What I like about it most is that Gemma is much like the good shepherd now feeding the wolves, or lions rather, who are ready to devour each tidbit she throws at them (from across the fence, in case you haven't noticed).

Godless Dave: Disney is much closer to evil and has probably done more harm than any other corporation I know. My reason for this is that his empire caters to the flesh and while this is not evil in itself (or pornography would be intrinsically evil), Disney uses existing paradigms (fairy tales) to mislead our imagination into a non-existing fairy land. He's the real pervert, in my view, and is about ready to peddle anything so as to survive in France. The point here is that fairy tales are foreshadows of truth and after Disney has perverted them they forshadow evil and despair because he just misses the mark.

[Ensign Steve]

Other: deconversion. I think that would benefit a lot of theists, Catholic or otherwise.

[sullster]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amos
[B]Jeepers sullster, you must have an evil mind to see things like that! I wouldn't dream of it and I don't think the church has ever come close to entertaining such thoughts.

I kind of like this tread but it really isn't mine. What I like about it most is that Gemma is much like the good shepherd now feeding the wolves, or lions rather, who are ready to devour each tidbit she throws at them (from across the fence, in case you haven't noticed).

No, Amos, the evil comes from the church not me.

Actually, Amos, I thought that you might have found Gemma to be too strident and whiney for your taste. I am surprised that you find her such an attractive spokesgirl for your religion. She is more the wolf and the lion, than are the others. She seems like she would like to burn us atheists at the stake. ( Of course, killing in the name of a loving god is always morally fine with you religious types).


Oh yeah, Disney. Unlike the catholic church, Disney has never had an Inquisition where it killed and tortured people for not liking Mickey Mouse or attending Disneyland once a year. Disney never rounded up and killed a town full of people who go to other amusement parks. You are just wrong, that Disney is more evil than the Catholic church.

Domini domini Nihilism

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by sullster
[QUOTE][i]
Actually, Amos, I thought that you might have found Gemma to be too strident and whiney for your taste. I am surprised that you find her such an attractive spokesgirl for your religion. She is more the wolf and the lion, than are the others. ***She seems like she would like to burn us atheists at the stake. ( Of course, killing in the name of a loving god is always morally fine with you religious types).***


Wow. I have never read anything dripping with more hypocrisy in my life.

Save the cracks like, "Well, then, I guess Gemma never read the Bible!"

Geesh, atheists are more predictable than the soap opera Passions.

Gemma Therese

[Amie]

Originally posted by JenniferD
Other: deconversion. I think that would benefit a lot of theists, Catholic or otherwise. Hi Jennifer
I can see how you would draw that conclusion seeing how that works for you, I myself think many atheists would benefit greatly by converting.

[Amie]

Hi sullster
I agree with Gemma, the saints have accomplished a great many things.

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by sullster


Your Maximiian Kolbe was most likely a selfless man who went to the camps in place of another. How does this even begin to balance the silence and collaboration of the Vatican with the genocide of the Nazi regime?



Gee, I'm sure it meant something to the one whose life he saved. Consequently, what about the convents that hid Jews during the War? Read some balanced history.

Gemma Therese

[atheist_in_foxhole]

What about the altar boys who were subjected to anal rape at the hands of your "holy" priests?

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by Godless Dave


BTW, on the sisters who teach, I don't consider telling children lies about masturbation and sexuality as being beneficial to the world.



So, something is only beneficial if it conveys your personal beliefs? Just because you despise the moral message of the sisters does not make their work worthless.

I am friends with a sister who has her Ph.D. in analytic number theory. I am sure you consider her work in the field of mathematics beneficial.

Gemma Therese

[atheist_in_foxhole]

the moral message of the sisters

LOL! Funniest thing I've read all day.

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
LOL! Funniest thing I've read all day.

Dare I ask why? (I'm apparently a little dense.)

Gemma Therese

[Amie]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
What about the altar boys who were subjected to anal rape at the hands of your "holy" priests? I see that you have familiarized yourself with the negative events involving some people within the church but can you honestly say you have become familiar with all of the Good as well?

[Rhea]

Gemma Therese, I look forward to your getting around to answering my posts. There were two. I can copy the text here if you have trouble finding them. I know it's tempting to answer the easy ones with easy one-liners, but I'm really looking forward to your considered reply, complete with thoughtful and supported substance.

:)

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by Rhea
Gemma Therese, I look forward to your getting around to answering my posts. There were two. I can copy the text here if you have trouble finding them. I know it's tempting to answer the easy ones with easy one-liners, but I'm really looking forward to your considered reply, complete with thoughtful and supported substance.



:)

Shoot.

Gemma Therese

[atheist_in_foxhole]

There can't be much good in an institution that's built on a foundation of lies.

[Amie]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
There can't be much good in an institution that's built on a foundation of lies. Hi atheist,
there is good, I suggest you open yourself up to learning about it.

[atheist_in_foxhole]

There is NOTHING good about a group that says that non-believers or "sinners" will be burned and tortured for eternity.

NOTHING.

[Amie]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
There is NOTHING good about a group that says that non-believers or "sinners" will be burned and tortured for eternity.

NOTHING. Wrong dear atheist. very wrong. besides you dont even believe in that place, how harmful is it really? sure maybe an asinine thing to say to an atheist however that does not mean there is "Nothing Good"
open your mind to the beauty that is there.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally posted by Amie
Hi Jennifer
I can see how you would draw that conclusion seeing how that works for you, I myself think many atheists would benefit greatly by converting.

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
I'm interested in atheists' opinions.


Just kidding you, Amie. I'm interested in everybody's opinions. ;)

Jen

[Rhea]

Originally by Gemma Therese:
Shoot.

"shoot AGAIN" you mean, right? These were on page three. I've copied them here so that you can address them.

Originally posted by Rhea
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We would still be in the Dark Ages if it wasn't for the Catholic monks who copied the works of the great Greek philosophers and the Scriptures.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes you say that? Weren't "The Dark Ages" the time when the christian church was in charge? I don't understand a reference to the church bringing "us" out of it.

Nor do I understand the "argument by organization". What do you mean by "more universal" You mean, like Islam? What do you mean by "organization"? You mean, like, the UN?

The catholic church is just one of many Big organizations with lots of "followers". It's not the biggest, nor are it's followers the most uniform.

But I would be interested in your answer to the question, "Who was in charge during the Dark Ages"?

and


Originally posted by Rhea
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't even addressed the points of my post -- maybe because you can't.

Gemma Therese


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Aaah, but I did.
Rebuttal?

By the way, I am curious (is it fruitless for me to ask another direct question to you?)....

What emotion goes through your mind when you choose the "cool" icon to put above a post like that?

The one that occured to me was "smug". But that's so unflattering. What _were_ you feeling when you chose that icon? I'm intensely curious. And as a corollary, I wonder whether the Jesus that you describe would ever choose to preface his comments with that icon. I am continually struck by these disconnects, and they make me so curious.

Will you answer me? Will you answer anyone?

[Rhea]

Originally by Amie:
Wrong dear atheist. very wrong. besides you dont even believe in that place, how harmful is it really? sure maybe an asinine thing to say to an atheist however that does not mean there is "Nothing Good"
open your mind to the beauty that is there.

Did you understand what he wrote?
Do you understand what we mean?

It is not hell that we find bad.
It is people who believe hell is a good idea and a fitting end for whole groups of people who have done no harm to them.

Do you get that?

"How Harmful is is really?" Do we have to spell that out? A doctrine that teaches that torture is a Good Thing. Do you really not get that?


"See the good in it" you say.

Well shoot. Beating children makes them obedient. Isn't that Good™? See how it negates what possible harm it might do? There's "some good" in it, after all! Praise God!

Amie, what you don't seem to hear is that we don't have to take the church as a whole. Not like you. We can discard the shitty parts, call them shitty. And take all those out and you're left with people who behave much like every other people. Whether you agree or not, don't you see what we're saying? The Catholic Church not only doesn't have a corner on goodness, you can't gloss over the badness. It just isn't forgettable.

And you may need to know that the fact that you find the bad stuff forgettable disturbs us deeply, on a level that you cannot comprehend.

It is the ability to gloss over bad stuff that has lead to the pedophile scandal in the church. Maybe it is not obvious to you, but the scandal is not that pedophilia happens. Pedophiles exist. The scandal is people in power, guided by the church's teachings, are hiding it because that is better than admitting bad stuff.

Do you see that?

The scandal is not that pedophilia happens in the church. It is an atmosphere of acceptance that people who are not pedophiles exhibit. Dozens of them. Scores of them. Amie - hundreds of cases in just two years. This is THE COST of sweeping bad stuff under the rug to focus on the good.

That, Amie, is ONE EXAMPLE of the lifestyle of WRONG that the catholic church (among other churches) promotes.

And you tell us to see the good.
Well, Amie, I see the good in the secular world. And at similar rates of goodness, I see church people being good despite the church.

Because, Amie, if it was the church causing good, don't you think they'd be gooder than the rest of us, instead of "human just like everyone"?

[Amie]

Originally posted by Rhea
It is not hell that we find bad.
It is people who believe hell is a good idea and a fitting end for whole groups of people who have done no harm to them.Tell me where it says we believe hell is a "good idea"
A doctrine that teaches that torture is a Good Thing. Do you really not get that? please show me where the doctrine says torture is a "good thing" thank you for your cooperation.
Well shoot. Beating children makes them obedient. Isn't that Good™? See how it negates what possible harm it might do? There's "some good" in it, after all! Praise God!sounds like you choose not to see the good, you are blind to it then.
Amie, what you don't seem to hear is that we don't have to take the church as a whole. Not like you. We can discard the shitty parts, call them shitty. And take all those out and you're left with people who behave much like every other people. Whether you agree or not, don't you see what we're saying? The Catholic Church not only doesn't have a corner on goodness, you can't gloss over the badness. It just isn't forgettable.What you dont seem to hear and what you are not getting is there are both good and bad aspects. Do I have to spell that out for you?? Its not about glossing anything...
And you may need to know that the fact that you find the bad stuff forgettable disturbs us deeply, on a level that you cannot comprehend.When the hell did I say anything about "forgetting"? now you are just speculating. how typical.
And you tell us to see the good.and you choose not to.
[b]Because, Amie, if it was the church causing good, don't you think they'd be gooder than the rest of us, instead of "human just like everyone"? No they would not be more good. organized religion itself does not necessarily make some one more good or cause goodness, I never claimed any different...

[Rhea]

how typical.
I beg your pardon?

[Rhea]

Tell me where it says we believe hell is a "good idea"
I am speculating, I guess, that since Hell was part of God's Plan that you think God's Plan is a good one. Was I wrong?

please show me where the doctrine says torture is a "good thing" thank you for your cooperation. You're welcome. Same asnswer as above. God is meting out the turture. Is it your belief that God is doing something "bad"?

sounds like you choose not to see the good, you are blind to it then. No. I specifically said otherwise. I said that I see Christians being good at an identical rate to non-Christians. I see plenty of good. (I don't see it as doctrinally driven, though)

What you dont seem to hear and what you are not getting is there are both good and bad aspects. Do I have to spell that out for you?? Its not about glossing anything... see above - and read my post. You'll note that I already noted that Christians do good at the same rate as non Christians.


When the hell did I say anything about "forgetting"? now you are just speculating. how typical. I'm confused about the "typical" jab, but your lack of addressing the "bad" parts while at the same time repeatedly asserting that we need to "see the beauty" is where I get that you are forgetting the bad parts. Did I miss a post of yours where you address the bad parts? I apologize. If you could quote it, I'd address that directly.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b]Because, Amie, if it was the church causing good, don't you think they'd be gooder than the rest of us, instead of "human just like everyone"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No they would not be more good. organized religion itself does not necessarily make some one more good or cause goodness, I never claimed any different... Hence, there is NOTHING GOOD to be gained from organized religion, is there? If religionists are just as good as the rest of us, what has the religion done for them? Nada. It has done bad for them, though, as has been shown by examples here.

[Amie]

Originally posted by Rhea
I am speculating, I guess, that since Hell was part of God's Plan that you think God's Plan is a good one. Was I wrong?I don't believe in hell.
Is it your belief that God is doing something "bad"?I think God is good and loving and forgiving. Just my take though...
I'm confused about the "typical" jab, but your lack of addressing the "bad" parts while at the same time repeatedly asserting that we need to "see the beauty" is where I get that you are forgetting the bad parts. Did I miss a post of yours where you address the bad parts? I apologize. If you could quote it, I'd address that directly.Because it seems to me to be a pretty typical thing around here that all believers believe the same thing. Thats not the case. Now if all atheists believe differently than surely you must know believers do as well. Ultimately it all comes down to personal perceptions and subjective interpretations.
Hence, there is NOTHING GOOD to be gained from organized religion, is there? If religionists are just as good as the rest of us, what has the religion done for them? Nada. It has done bad for them, though, as has been shown by examples here. Yes there is good to be gained from organized religion, I think it benefits many people. Sure maybe it is not for you but it fills a need for many people and not only that I do not believe the church itself to be "bad" there are some sick people within the church who have done bad things but the church itself seems to have good intentions, I don't think that catholic church itself tries to hurt people. I am surprised at how easily many think of all the creepy priests but yet try to refute the good and make the goodness lessened that the saints and others have achieved...

[Rhea]

I'm always taken a little off-guard by Christians who don't believe in hell. I apologize for mischaracterizing you. I assumed since it was biblical it was a general belief of Christians. It always throws me when some Christians decide to not follow those particular passages.

The priests thing... again it is NOT the pedophiles that trouble us. Well, me. It is the systemic hiding of hundreds of cases.

The reason I pick that is that it is AN example and it happens to be current. But again, it is not the example of pedophilia that disturbs me (that is an individual crime) it is the systemic cover up of this and so many other things like it.

You want me to pick somehing else? Sure. I'll take the vast wealth of the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that people think it's okay to hoarde material wealth while millions of people die yet call themselves charitable is so vastly disturbing that it is hard to comprehend. Almost every single churchgoing Catholic is weekly treated to one or more of: Stained Glass windows, gold chalices, gold candlesticks, embroidered vestments, crystal sconces, valuable paintings, life-sized carved images, Silk altar linens, carved confessionals...

Billions of dollars. Billions spent and hoarded on things. Fancy things. Frilly, fancy, shiny, pretty things. All the while Catholic Charities are not able to "do enough" and need more money.

Something different? Let's go after reproductive enslavement. Servitude of women. Vessels, every one.

No? How about the perversion of sex from a healthy and beautiful function.

I can stay away from priestly scandals. It's not a lack of alternative material.

[The Naked Mage]

Originally posted by Amie:

I don't believe in hell.

Of course you don't. Sorting through the mess of the Bible, picking the stuff you like, and tossing the stuff that makes you feel icky is, dare I say, typical of Christians.


I think God is good and loving and forgiving. Just my take though...

Where you got this notion, we'll never know. Certainly there is no such god described in any monotheistic text that I'm aware of.

[Amos]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
There is NOTHING good about a group that says that non-believers or "sinners" will be burned and tortured for eternity.

NOTHING.

According to the Catholic Church heaven is religion specific or it could not be for Catholics only. So what are you worried about if you are not a Catholic?

[Amos]

Originally posted by Rhea

It is not hell that we find bad.
It is people who believe hell is a good idea and a fitting end for whole groups of people who have done no harm to them.



But Rhea, we didn't invent hell and we don't condemn anybody to hell. I think we just barely make hell known as the opposite to heaven because you simply can't have one without the other.

Actually to prevent people from thinking that they may end up in hell (those who like to boast about their lust for sin), we have invented Confession with free (no charge) forgiveness of sin. If you don't like the concept sin you just don't become a Catholic.

[Fiach]

Answer is OTHER.

It may be the hardest to accomplish but the best thing for catholics would be to educated them in a series of scholarly refutation of the idiotic Genesis stories, the terrible immorality of the many books of the O.T. where and evil God commands the murder of women, children, babies and the taking of youg virgin girls as sex slaves. They should be taught that Original Sin is pure rubbish and a weird sting operation designed to make Adam sin. Discuss the injustice of inherited guilt. Discuss the absurd notion that God having his half -human, half-god son born of a human girl, only to be killed and buried, so that God can show off by resurrecting him.


It is all so unnecessary and psychotic. They need to fact that all of the guilt, oppression, irrationality of Christianity/Catholicism is damaging to the brain. The more the mind stays in the Universe of Magical Thinking the harder its is to returen to the Matter-energy Universe. Eventually many "flip out" and are stranded in the magic universe. We call that psychosis. Relgion (Islam and Christianity) are major predictive factors for mental illness.

Fiach

[Amos]

Originally posted by Fiach
. Eventually many "flip out" and are stranded in the magic universe. We call that psychosis. Relgion (Islam and Christianity) are major predictive factors for mental illness.

Fiach

Good point but if you take a close look at this it excludes at least all Traditional Catholics.

[Amie]

Originally posted by The Naked Mage
Of course you don't. Sorting through the mess of the Bible, picking the stuff you like, and tossing the stuff that makes you feel icky is, dare I say, typical of Christians.Hello heathen
I disagree since I think most Christians here and certainly most catholics believe in hell so the "Of course you don't" response to my "I dont believe in hell" statement really makes no sense. sorry to burst your little atheistic bubble...
Where you got this notion, we'll never know. Certainly there is no such god described in any monotheistic text that I'm aware of. you sure about that? how many texts are you familiar with?

[Amie]

Originally posted by Rhea
I'm always taken a little off-guard by Christians who don't believe in hell. I apologize for mischaracterizing you. I assumed since it was biblical it was a general belief of Christians. It always throws me when some Christians decide to not follow those particular passages.Hi Rhea
yeah I think I am in the minority on this particular belief of mine...
The reason I pick that is that it is AN example and it happens to be current. But again, it is not the example of pedophilia that disturbs me (that is an individual crime) it is the systemic cover up of this and so many other things like it.I agree that the cover up is very disturbing. I would have preffered for them to take responsibility for their actions instead of hiding it. Its done far more harm than good by trying to keep it concealed.
You want me to pick somehing else? Sure. I'll take the vast wealth of the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that people think it's okay to hoarde material wealth while millions of people die yet call themselves charitable is so vastly disturbing that it is hard to comprehend. Almost every single churchgoing Catholic is weekly treated to one or more of: Stained Glass windows, gold chalices, gold candlesticks, embroidered vestments, crystal sconces, valuable paintings, life-sized carved images, Silk altar linens, carved confessionals...I had a friend once tell me that the reason they feel the churches are built the way they are is to make people feel small and insignificant, would you agree with that?
Something different? Let's go after reproductive enslavement. Servitude of women. Vessels, every one.I think birth control is a personal issue and I would feel happy if the church took no stand on it...
No? How about the perversion of sex from a healthy and beautiful function.do you think deprivation may lead to obsession?
I can stay away from priestly scandals. It's not a lack of alternative material. What about the good of the missionaries, the good of all of the saints? I can certainly see how Gemma Therese holds both St. Gemma and St. Therese in high esteem, they are beautiful assets to the church...
I am especially fond of Padre Pio myself, he gave his life to God and helping people...

[openeyes]

Amie said:Ultimately it all comes down to personal perceptions and subjective interpretations.

I don't think that's what the Catholic Church preaches. Seems to me I remember sermons many years ago that preached against this very thing. I do find it is interesting that even the Catholics on this thread have quite a variance of views concerning "their" church.

Amie also said:
I can see how you would draw that conclusion seeing how that works for you, I myself think many atheists would benefit greatly by converting.

How would we benefit? Do you see our lives lacking because we don't believe as you do? You have to remember, many of us were raised Catholic or in some other religion, and certainly here in the US, it would be easier to "belong" on a social level. But once it dawns on us that it is so much nonsense, we can't make ourselves "follow" and instead go on leading happy, productive lives with our brains free from the contortions it would have to make to continue to follow the religion of our upbringing (or any of the others the world has to offer.)

Would our converting just make you feel better about your views? What if we converted but our "personal perceptions and subjective interpretations" didn't match yours anyway? Not a problem, you may say, but what if we were out trying to make laws based on our "personal perceptions ...." with which you didn't agree? (For example, let's say birth control pills should be outlawed because they may be causing "mini" abortions.)

Of course if people didn't do this, we'd not have such a beef about organized religion like Catholicism, but we all know shaky religious "interpretation" influences our law-making bodies daily.

[Rhea]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Naked Mage
Of course you don't. Sorting through the mess of the Bible, picking the stuff you like, and tossing the stuff that makes you feel icky is, dare I say, typical of Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello heathen
I disagree since I think most Christians here and certainly most catholics believe in hell so the "Of course you don't" response to my "I dont believe in hell" statement really makes no sense. sorry to burst your little atheistic bubble...

Amie, I think you missed the point of the sentence. He did not mention hell, just "icky parts" which are different for different Christians. Your icky part happens to be hell. Other christians, "typically", toss something different.

So his bubble remains intact.

Amie, you used to be so kind & unassuming. What happened? Why did you start to adopt a Radorth-style insulting spree? It's sooo unbecoming. It doesn't look good on you. Just a kind tip from someone who used to enjoy your posts much more often than I currently do.

[hezekiah jones]

Suspected by the Vatican of being a psychotic, self-flagellating fraudster, Padre Pio purportedly porked perfumed maidens in the (confessional) box.
12" bust - $55.00 US + S&H

http://imagesofheaven.org/tem20b0.jpg

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

[Fenton Mulley]

Originally posted by Rhea

Amie, you used to be so kind & unassuming. What happened? Why did you start to adopt a Radorth-style insulting spree?

You nailed it Rhea!
I was going to say the same thing yesterday,but figured I should just keep my mouth shut (for once).

[Infinity Lover]

Originally posted by The Naked Mage
Of course you don't. Sorting through the mess of the Bible, picking the stuff you like, and tossing the stuff that makes you feel icky is, dare I say, typical of Christians.



And I find it ironic you can make that "tipical of Christians" statement, while most probably swapping from one perspective to it's oposite (a belief in hell is to be critisized/ not believing in hell is to be critisized) at your convenience yourself at the same time.

My guess is you'll complain if they do accept, and you'll complain if they don't accept it. My guess is "I can't complain" would be a complaint coming from you.

[Rhea]

My guess is you'll complain if they do accept, and you'll complain if they don't accept it. My guess is "I can't complain" would be a complaint coming from you.

Is that so odd, when you think about it? Accepting or not accepting generates complaints on completely different topics.

Accepting everything generates a complaint about cruelty.
Not accepting certain parts generates a complaint about hypocrisy.

What's wrong with that? Are the arguments invalid because they address different problems? Isn't that the bible's fault and not ours?

I guess I don't understand why it is bad to have a problem with more than one aspect of Christianity. Doesn't that only serve to make our/my position less kooky and closer to reasonable? Doesn't it indicate that serious contemplation has occurred in advance and we're not just discarding the idea without thought?

[Infinity Lover]

Originally posted by Rhea
Is that so odd, when you think about it? Accepting or not accepting generates complaints on completely different topics.

Accepting everything generates a complaint about cruelty.
Not accepting certain parts generates a complaint about hypocrisy.

What's wrong with that? Are the arguments invalid because they address different problems? Isn't that the bible's fault and not ours?

I guess I don't understand why it is bad to have a problem with more than one aspect of Christianity. Doesn't that only serve to make our/my position less kooky and closer to reasonable? Doesn't it indicate that serious contemplation has occurred in advance and we're not just discarding the idea without thought?

I'll have to disagree there. The latter (discarding parts of the bible) would only constitute as hypocricy if it were combined with the assertion that one does accept the whole bible cover to cover.

You make a nice attempt at giving it a nobele twist, but it ultimately boils down to first complaining about someone upholding too many beliefs, only to subsequently start complaining someone doesn't uphold enough beliefs. It's so stupid; would you PREFER someone believed in hell, or that homosexuals are evil, or that women are inferior?

You can try and play the "hypocricy card" because some beliefs are still upheld, but then you're also critizising the abandoning of those very notions that made you deem religion harmfull to begin with. And there would be no hypocricy in that?

Amie, I think you missed the point of the sentence.

Let's look at that sentence again...

Of course you don't. Sorting through the mess of the Bible, picking the stuff you like, and tossing the stuff that makes you feel icky is, dare I say, typical of Christians. (emphasys mine)

The Naked Mage was clearly referring to Amie's personal beliefs

He did not mention hell, just "icky parts" which are different for different Christians.

Note the word "you" highlighted in bold? TNM was referring to Amie's lack of beliefs in specific first, and inflicting a generalization on her after that. And it was NOT Amie wrongfully taking a generalization personal. That's just you twisting the picture around.
The consecutive order of formulation of TNM's statement IS 'you do this and you do that and THAT is so typical such and so'. Specification first, generalisation next. (As much as I hate having to go, as we say in Holland, 'antfucking'; you appearantly need to have it spelled out why someone isn't being anywhere near as overly assumptious as you try to make them look.)

And his "typical of Christians" statement was nonsense t.m.h.o. There are parts of the bible I actually like (feel free to feel shocked there) and stuff I choose to disregard. And I'm sure there's plenty of atheists to whom the same applies. So where does that leave the "typical of Christians" assertion? Nowhere to be precise. It's a "human" thing; plain and simple.

If you find free interpretation to suit your needs objectable or hypocritical, then don't do it Rhea.

Amie, you used to be so kind & unassuming. What happened? Why did you start to adopt a Radorth-style insulting spree? It's sooo unbecoming. It doesn't look good on you. Just a kind tip from someone who used to enjoy your posts much more often than I currently do.

Kindly point out where Amie made any far-fetched misinterpretations Rhea.

Kindly quote the ad-hom remarks that make up the insultingspree you're referring too.

And explain how your attempt at negative characterisation, competely besides any point addressed in this thread, is not unbecomming while you're at it.

(And Felton; blow it out your ear. You couldn't find a single insult in Amie's posts if your life depended on it either.)

[Gemma Therese]

Something is only beneficial if it conveys your personal beliefs? Just because you despise the moral message of the sisters does not make their work worthless.

I am friends with a sister who has her Ph.D. in analytic number theory. I am sure you consider her work in the field of mathematics beneficial.

Gemma Therese

[Rhea]

I'll have to disagree there. The latter (discarding parts of the bible) would only constitute as hypocricy if it were combined with the assertion that one does accept the whole bible cover to cover.
That assertion is most definitely made every time it is argued that the parts chosen by one should be applied to another. Any assertion Amie or any other Christian makes about how I should follow _any_ part of the bible because it is in the bible is the assertion that it is true. Any discarding of any part juxtaposed to the claim that I am not allowed to discard the parts I don't like, is the hypocrisy. She can discard Hell and I can't discard Jesus? That's the implied "all true" when it is claimed I can't discard parts like the ressurection.

Hence it boils down to they act as if the Bible must be _all_true_ until it suits them otherwise.


Let's look at that sentence again...

quote:

Of course you don't. Sorting through the mess of the Bible, picking the stuff you like, and tossing the stuff that makes you feel icky is, dare I say, typical of Christians.

(emphasys mine)

The Naked Mage was clearly referring to Amie's personal beliefs
Yeeeeeessss, and he's saying that she picks and chooses hers, just as other Christians pick & choose theirs. I'm not sure what you're arguing here...

I'll rewrite it so you can see what I mean...
Sorting through the mess of the Bible, picking the stuff Amie likes, and tossing the stuff that makes Amie feel icky is, dare I say, typical of Christians. WHO... Sort through the mess of the Bible, picking the stuff they like, and tossing the stuff that makes them feel icky.

See how it brings what she is doing into the "typical" phrase while not requiring the icky parts to be the same in all cases?



And his statement was nonsense t.m.h.o. There are parts of the bible I actually like (feel free to feel shocked there) and stuff I choose to disregard. And I'm sure there's plenty of atheists to whom the same applies. So where does that leave the "typical of Christians" assertion? Nowhere to be precise. It's a "human" thing; plain and simple.
Uuummmm, so you just agreed it's typical behavior for people to pick and choose things out of the Bible, right?

If you find free interpretation to suit your needs objectable or hypocritical, then don't do it Rhea. I only find it hypocritical when it is coupled with assertions that I should follow certain bits that appeal to someone else and not me. See what I mean?


Kindly quote the ad-hom remarks that make up the insultingspree you're referring too.
Uuuummm, okay, whatever it means to _you_... Although I didn't limit it to Ad-homs, that was your addition. Just a couple of jabs. It's a new way of speaking for her here. Clearly it struck others as a change as well. She didn't use to sound as though she dislikedpeople so.
now you are just speculating. how typical.
sorry to burst your little atheistic bubble


And explain how your attempt at negative characterisation, competely besides any point addressed in this thread, is not unbecomming while you're at it. Well IL, if your fly was down, I'd tell you. I'm that kind of gal. I suppose I could have started a new thread addressed to Amie asking how things are going for her and expressing my concern about her change. But it seemed to fit here in context.

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
Something is only beneficial if it conveys your personal beliefs? Just because you despise the moral message of the sisters does not make their work worthless.

I'm not talking about their moral message. I'm talking about the lies they teach as factual information, such as fictional harmful effects of masturbation and non-existent side effects of birth-control pills.

[atheist_in_foxhole]

Don't forget the abortion/breast cancer "connection" they're always bleating about.

[Infinity Lover]

Originally posted by Rhea
That assertion is most definitely made every time it is argued that the parts chosen by one should be applied to another. Any assertion Amie or any other Christian makes about how I should follow _any_ part of the bible because it is in the bible is the assertion that it is true. Any discarding of any part juxtaposed to the claim that I am not allowed to discard the parts I don't like, is the hypocrisy. She can discard Hell and I can't discard Jesus? That's the implied "all true" when it is claimed I can't discard parts like the ressurection.
Not everytime, but only if someone insists you share their beliefs. I'm sure Amie could care less whether you regard or discard Jesus.

Hence it boils down to they act as if the Bible must be _all_true_ until it suits them otherwise.

Isn't it cute how you keep on shoving a generalization on an individuals plate, and then consider it assumptious for that individual to take it personal and deem it unjustified.

Yeeeeeessss, and he's saying that she picks and chooses hers, just as other Christians pick & choose theirs. I'm not sure what you're arguing here...
That it's bullshit to call that a typical Christian thing. I'd be selective in accepting/rejecting aspects of the bible all the same, same as would anyone else.
It's turning an individual choice into a group related generalization that doesn't even purely aply to that group. It's shit from a bull; bullshit.

I only find it hypocritical when it is coupled with assertions that I should follow certain bits that appeal to someone else and not me. See what I mean?
Considering we're still discussing Amie being accused of some kind of group-related stereotypical behaviour, and you're also linking that with somehow insisting you share someone's beliefs (Something that doesn't aply to her either); I'd say you're taking the expresstrain to bigot central.

And calling her assumptious while you're at it.

Uuuummm, okay, whatever it means to _you_... Although I didn't limit it to Ad-homs, that was your addition. Just a couple of jabs. It's a new way of speaking for her here. Clearly it struck others as a change as well. She didn't use to sound as though she dislikedpeople so.

now you are just speculating. how typical.
sorry to burst your little atheistic bubble

Nonono.... we were talking about a insulting spree here Rhea... you're going to have to do better than that I'm affraid.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
I'm not talking about their moral message. I'm talking about the lies they teach as factual information, such as fictional harmful effects of masturbation and non-existent side effects of birth-control pills.

Do you think it is better to fuck your brains out and kill your own kids? Perhaps you don't but the Church (capital C) must withstand the slippry slope argument if she stands for truth. From there she can pardon its violators.

[Sabine Grant]

As an " outside observer" who read the entire thread, I could not find anything insulting or demeaning in Amie's mode of expression or communication. I did find though that she expresses her convictions and does not allow generalization and characterization directed to her to silence her thoughts.

[Amos]

Hello Sabine we missed you.

[The Naked Mage]

Originally posted by Amie:

Hello heathen
I disagree since I think most Christians here and certainly most catholics believe in hell so the "Of course you don't" response to my "I dont believe in hell" statement really makes no sense. sorry to burst your little atheistic bubble...

Hello invertebrate,
I was fully aware that you did not believe in Hell before you stated such in this thread, Amie. My "picking and choosing" gripe references my hypothesis on how you came to disbelieve, or rather, disregard, such a key tenet of your faith.

BTW: Thanks, Rhea, for breaking this down into simple, bite-sized pieces for Amie earlier. ;)


you sure about that? how many texts are you familiar with?

All three of them, and many of the older texts from which they were plagiarized.


Originally posted by Infinity Lover:

And I find it ironic you can make that "tipical of Christians" statement, while most probably swapping from one perspective to it's oposite (a belief in hell is to be critisized/ not believing in hell is to be critisized) at your convenience yourself at the same time.

I was turning her own nonsensical "how typical" jab against Rhea back on her, genius. Next time try reading the thread from the beginning.

And his "typical of Christians" statement was nonsense t.m.h.o. There are parts of the bible I actually like (feel free to feel shocked there) and stuff I choose to disregard. And I'm sure there's plenty of atheists to whom the same applies.

News flash, I.L.: atheists, as our title should have suggested, typically disregard the whole thing.

Just so I know, which part's your favorite? The she-bear maulings, perhaps?

[The Naked Mage]

Originally posted by Amos:

Do you think it is better to fuck your brains out and kill your own kids?

Better to fuck out your own brains than the brains of a nine-year-old, like your priests are always getting indicted for doing. And if anyone around here was killing KIDS, they would have been breaking laws.

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
I'm not talking about their moral message. I'm talking about the lies they teach as factual information, such as fictional harmful effects of masturbation.

Morally, Catholics consider masturbation harmful.

Yes, you are talking about their moral message.

Gemma Therese

[Rhea]

Hi Gemma, welcome back! Are you going to respond to my questions today? Back on page 4, I copied them from page 3 so you could address them (after you said you were ready to). Now we're on another page, would you like me to copy them up here again or can you find them from earlier to address?

[Gemma Therese]

Rhea,

First, about the Catholic Church. The Church exists on all the continants. A number of countries are predominately Catholic. Look around the US. Look at the schools, universities, hospitals, homeless shelters, agencies, etc., that are Catholic. Catholic means universal.

And, I put the smilely to see people's reaction.

Gemma Therese

[Rhea]

I had a friend once tell me that the reason they feel the churches are built the way they are is to make people feel small and insignificant, would you agree with that? As in psychological manipulation to make them stick to the beliefs? Scaring them into obeying? I don't know. It's possible that some felt that motive, but I don't imagine it was anyone's only motive. But you never know. I guess I don't have enough info to speculate.

Rhea: No? How about the perversion of sex from a healthy and beautiful function.
Amie: do you think deprivation may lead to obsession?
Very definitely. And not just deprivation of, but a perversion of. The church teaches that sex outside of their very narrow and unnatural definition is BAD. And that perversion of hormonal and emotional reality can also lead to obsession.

What about the good of the missionaries, the good of all of the saints? Amie, I don't feel they were all good! I stated earlier and I still maintain there is NOTHING that the "Saints" have done that non catholics and non christians have not done also. The saints DO NOT have a corner on any good deed. And there are a number of deeds done by saints, glorified by the church that I find HORRIFYING. Take the actions of a pope who is to be sainted (or already is?) Who STOLE A CHILD from his parents so that the pope could be sure to raise him in Jesus instead of his family's Judaism. Can you IMAGINE the pain of the parents to lose their 6 year old son? Have him stolen from their house? Can you imagine the horror of that boy, taken from his home and family? And this is someone the Catholics will hold up as a SAINT?

You ask, "what of the good". I answer, simply, "what good?" What good that everyone else isn't already doing? What's so great about the saints that no one else can claim? Nothing. Simply nothing. They are not doing any GOOD that is not also being done by millions of others. You give an example of someone dying for thier faith. There are 58,229 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. And that was only 1959-1975. So the big deal about the saints is what.

You and I disagree with whether what the Saints did was "good". Some of it was, but a great deal of it is, in my opinion, not. ~shrug~ That's my opinion.

[Gemma Therese]

Hey Rhea,

The saints are not saints for altruism alone. They reached a level of sanctity most of us can only dream of and few of us can understand.

Gemma Therese

[Rhea]

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
Rhea,

First, about the Catholic Church. The Church exists on all the continants. A number of countries are predominately Catholic. Look around the US. Look at the schools, universities, hospitals, homeless shelters, agencies, etc., that are Catholic. Catholic means universal.

And, I put the smilely to see people's reaction.

Gemma Therese

The questions were:
What makes you say that? Weren't "The Dark Ages" the time when the christian church was in charge? I don't understand a reference to the church bringing "us" out of it.

Nor do I understand the "argument by organization". What do you mean by "more universal" You mean, like Islam? What do you mean by "organization"? You mean, like, the UN?

The catholic church is just one of many Big organizations with lots of "followers". It's not the biggest, nor are it's followers the most uniform.

But I would be interested in your answer to the question, "Who was in charge during the Dark Ages"?

LOL, so that's what makes the Catholic church universal? That the word means universal?

Let's see, I am looking around at agencies which are Catholic - and, I find them to be Catholic!

You said name something more universal than the Catholic Church. You say look around. Weeeelllll, I look around and see as many Hindus as Catholics. As many Muslims as Catholics. I look around and see more caucasians than Catholics. I look around and see more communists than Catholics. I look around and see as many Mosques as Churches. I look around and I see that as many people recognize the Coca Cola label as recognize Jesus on the Cross. I look around and see Mickey Mouse in more places than the Crucifix.

So I'd like your rebuttal to my answer. You claim the Church as universal. I say, by any definition it's no big whoop.

Furthermore, do you care to address the direct question of my rebuttal to your argument that the Catholic Church "brought us out" of the Dark Ages?

Gemma - who was in charge of the western world during the dark ages? Where is that empire now? Has somebody lost a bunch of power and universality without you noticing? Oops!

[Rhea]

The saints are not saints for altruism alone. They reached a level of sanctity most of us can only dream of and few of us can understand.
Well, true that. Sanctity is pretty meaningless and substantially useless.

[Proxima Centauri]

One thing which would benefit the Roman Catholics would be if we spent less time discussing them here and concentrated more on dealing with the crazy Protestant Fundies, Cretionist Cretins etc. In most English speaking countries the different types of Protestants are far more numerous than the Roman Catholics. The only exception to this I know is Southern Ireland.
Why are we so much focussed on the Roman Catholics? Because Gemma Therese keeps us that way with the Catholics cr*p she keeps spouting. You say you love the Roman Catholic Church Gemma Therese?

:banghead::confused:

[Ojuice5001]

If sanctity is meaningless, why are the people who posess it so happy?

Catholicism is a powerful spiritual force that is often used for good. I think it will probably rule South America for centuries after other gods have taken over the other continents, and will last far longer than the Protestants and Jews. You can't just write devout Catholics off as people who waste their time.

(I am not saying Catholicism is true, but I admire it greatly. I'm also getting tired of the arrogance of atheists, not all of them of course, but too many. That's another reason why I'm sticking up for the Catholics.)

[Rhea]

Arrogance? For disagreeing? How so, I'm interested in more on that.

If sanctity is meaningless, why are the people who posess it so happy?

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. "
George Bernard Shaw


Seriously, what does their happiness have to do with the goodness or not of their actions?
Can we think of other happy people whose actions we do not admire?

[Ojuice5001]

I think it's arrogant to look at all the people who have dedicated their lives to the gods, whether it's the Roman gods, or Yahweh, or the Hindu gods, and think of them as having wasted their life. (However, Allah is so tyrannical that Muslims are wasting their lives. But the other gods aren't like that.)

It doesn't make sense that something bad would consistently make people satisfied. If a lifestyle is bad, then its effects on happiness will on average be bad as well. Yes, some people are happy even though they drink too much, or steal, etc., but the majority of the people who do those things are not happy in the long run.

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by B.Shack
One thing which would benefit the Roman Catholics would be if we spent less time discussing them here and concentrated more on dealing with the crazy Protestant Fundies, Cretionist Cretins etc. In most English speaking countries the different types of Protestants are far more numerous than the Roman Catholics. The only exception to this I know is Southern Ireland.
Why are we so much focussed on the Roman Catholics? Because Gemma Therese keeps us that way with the Catholics cr*p she keeps spouting. You say you love the Roman Catholic Church Gemma Therese?

:banghead::confused:

B. Shack,

You consistently respond to my posts.

Gemma Therese

[Spaz]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
I think it's arrogant to look at all the people who have dedicated their lives to the gods, whether it's the Roman gods, or Yahweh, or the Hindu gods, and think of them as having wasted their life. (However, Allah is so tyrannical that Muslims are wasting their lives. But the other gods aren't like that.)

Aw c'mon man, you were doin ok until you counted out Allah, I was always under the impression that Allah was the same as Yahweh (ie Gabriel with Muhammed), only in a different book with a different prophet and a different interpretation, no?

[Ojuice5001]

That's just what he wants people to think. I think that since the Christian world and the Islamic world are so different and always have been, they must be ruled by different gods. Before the seventh century, Allah was an Arabian moon god. IMO, of course.

[Infinity Lover]

Originally posted by The Naked Mage
News flash, I.L.: atheists, as our title should have suggested, typically disregard the whole thing.

You're not making my list of preferred news rescources there. Atheism means a lack of god belief, (theos is greek for god) which by definition means you don't accept the existence of the god the bible mentions, but nothing more.

Being an atheist does not mean that I can't recognize the story of the fall of man as an ancient, supernaturally charged though insightfull, reflection on human nature. It does not mean that I can't enjoy some of the passages in Song of Solomon (8:6:"Set me as a seal upon your arm; for love is strong as death, jealousy is cruel as the grave"), or that I can't find any encouragement in the story of David and Goliath, or that I wish to dismiss the message of 'the new commandment' (...that we love one another...) as objectable.

If you wish to belittle me, take your best shot. You'll only end up belitteling yourself in the process.

[The Naked Mage]

Originally posted by Infinity Lover:

You're not making my list of preferred news rescources there.

Uh-oh.


Being an atheist does not mean that I can't recognize the story of the fall of man as an ancient, supernaturally charged though insightfull, reflection on human nature.

You're technically correct, but you'd have to be an idiot all the same, because Genesis is neither insightful nor coherent. A deity killing his creations because they stuck their fingers in a metaphorical wall outlet he failed to cover - I fail to see how that relates to anything at all, let alone relates in an enlightened manner.

Perhaps the reason we atheists usually disregard that nonsense is because we're typically not idiotic.


If you wish to belittle me, take your best shot. You'll only end up belitteling yourself in the process.

No need. I think you already belittle yourself sufficiently.

[Gemma Therese]

Hey Mage,

What's your problem with Infinity?

He made legitimate points. Try refuting them rather than insulting him.

Gemma Therese

[Fenton Mulley]

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
Hey Mage,

What's your problem with Infinity?

He made legitimate points. Try refuting them rather than insulting him.

Gemma Therese

Hey Gamera,

How about trying to refute the legitamate points people have addressed to you rather than ignoring them?

[Gemma Therese]

Originally posted by Fenton Mulley
Hey Gamera,

How about trying to refute the legitamate points people have addressed to you rather than ignoring them?

Like ....?

Gemma Therese

[Sabine Grant]

Originally posted by Spaz
Aw c'mon man, you were doin ok until you counted out Allah, I was always under the impression that Allah was the same as Yahweh (ie Gabriel with Muhammed), only in a different book with a different prophet and a different interpretation, no?
Hello Spaz... I do not know if you were using irony or you actualy meant your statement. So I will respond for now as if you meant it just in case.
Mummamed was never elevated in Qr'am to the status of a divinity. He remains a prophet. Whereas the Bible is very clear as to Christ being God Himself. So quite different theologies. As far as the character of Allah and the character of the God of Abraham, the first made no provision to secure the salvation of mankind. The second ( and again reflected both in the OT and NT) offers a plan of salvation thru the coming of a Messiah. One could argue that the " mehdi" ( 12 th descendant of Muhammed who mysteriously disappeared and is to come back) may be a representation of the christian Messiah. However, the belief on the " mehdi" is not generalized to all muslims. ( mostly in Iran I think). It is clear that we are dealing with two different divinities with two different characters and two different books carrying out different messages.

[Mageth]

It is clear that we are dealing with two different divinities with two different characters and two different books carrying out different messages.

Not so clearly, actually. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all share one book - what is commonly called the Old Testament. All three claim belief in the god and the messages (though often interpreted differently) described there. Each has additional texts which describe the further actions and words of, and their particular interpretations of, that god.

[Sabine Grant]

Hello Gemma !

I can understand how you would describe the Catholic Church as " universal". It is a fact that catholicism exists throughout the entire world. Most of the leprosy treating centers I encountered in my childhood in Africa were catholic missions. Catholic presence and interaction with the natives were definitly predominant in Africa between 1956 and 1970.
Mercantilism was promoted by catholic nations. Most explorers were financed and encouraged by catholic nations. It makes sense that catholicism would have deeper roots in parts of the world other religions did not have access to.

[Sabine Grant]

Originally posted by Mageth
It is clear that we are dealing with two different divinities with two different characters and two different books carrying out different messages.

Not so clearly, actually. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all share one book - what is commonly called the Old Testament. All three claim belief in the god and the messages (though often interpreted differently) described there. Each has additional texts which describe the further actions and words of, and their particular interpretations of, that god.
Hello Mageth...
The OT already mentions the notion of a Messiah( as early as Genesis... if not described as the Messiah... the concept of a savior who will " crush the head of the serpent after the serpent bit his heal". However, Qu'ram does not aknowledge God as providing means to rescue mankind from sin. If you have a reference from coranic verses which implies a plan of salvation relying on the sacrifice of a messiah, I am really interested in seeing them. Jesus is refered to and respected as a prophet in Qu'ram. Whereas references from the OT points to the messiah to be divine. The difference is already pre existing in the oldest manuscripts. ( granted of course one believes that Jesus of Nazareth was that messiah which is the most common belief in christianity).
I would agree with you though that both Christians and Jews worship the same God. Simply " The God of Abraham". The separation occurs not thru the character of God but through the identity of the real Messiah.
As a personal note, never as a christian, have I found that identity issue to be an actual separation as the Jews still await for their Messiah and christians believe in the second Glorious Coming of Christ where He is depicted as rescuing Israel. As a believer, I optimisticaly see the reunification of Jews and Christians under the same Messiah. But keep in mind please that I am expressing here what I believe personaly and other christians may have a different belief on that topic.
On the separation between Jews and Muslims it is possible that the story of the exclusion of Ishmael by his father Abraham to favor only his seed thru Isaac could support your argument that originaly they were both under the same God. Indeed, Ishmael's mother was egyptian and probably as a slave had retained the religious culture of egypt ( not monotheistic ).
Nomadic tribes which were not related to the 12 tribes of Israel had various religious beliefs not inspired by the God of Abraham. I mention those nomadic tribes as their wandering lifestyle promoted in them the absorbtion of other cultures. It is only when Muhammed ( who himself was raised as the son of a nomadic caravan merchant) that the word islam appeared which sealed the unification of various religious tendencies under the same God.
Sorry I went in such a long tyrade...comparing Islam and Christianity is one of those endless subjects for me.:)

[Infinity Lover]

Originally posted by The Naked Mage
You're technically correct, but you'd have to be an idiot all the same, because Genesis is neither insightful nor coherent. A deity killing his creations because they stuck their fingers in a metaphorical wall outlet he failed to cover - I fail to see how that relates to anything at all, let alone relates in an enlightened manner.

I could say it takes one to know one, but that would be entirely too tempting.

That's the crux of the story of the fall of man b.t.w.; succumbing to temptation. There's also the element of doing something you know you shouldn't, under the assumption you can get away with it (something that's unfortunately way too often the motivation for many people's actions). Eve passing on the apple can easily be seen as an analogy for our tendancy to find 'partners in crime', so we won't have to feel any worse than the other people that are doing the same thing. Adam all of a sudden being aware of having done something wrong, becomes appearant when he hides in the bushes. Shame is our telltale sign we aren't being entirely truthfull to oursel...*

...(I.L. slaps himself.) What am I doing? I'm trying to have a rational discussion with The Naked Mage. Why am I wasting my time like this?:confused:

[The Naked Mage]

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:

Hey Mage,

What's your problem with Infinity?

Hey Gemma,

Concentrate on yourself. Lord knows, you have enough of your own problems to worry about.


He made legitimate points.

<snort> <gasp> <wheeze>


Try refuting them rather than insulting him.

I did both already. Weren't you paying attention?

[The Naked Mage]

Originally posted by Infinity Lover:

I could say it takes one to know one, but that would be entirely too tempting.

That WOULD explain how you got involved with Amie, actually.


That's the crux of the story of the fall of man b.t.w.; succumbing to temptation. There's also the element of doing something you know you shouldn't, under the assumption you can get away with it (something that's unfortunately way too often the motivation for many people's actions).

The story examines only the NEGATIVE side of human nature, which severely inhibits your claim as to its value. And its credibility is even worse, what with the talking farm animals.


Eve passing on the apple can easily be seen as an analogy for our tendancy to find 'partners in crime', so we won't have to feel any worse than the other people that are doing the same thing.

Uh-huh...and it could just as easily be seen as the sexism of the Bronze Age goat herders who wrote it influencing the peyote visions that inspired it.


Adam all of a sudden being aware of having done something wrong, becomes appearant when he hides in the bushes.

Are you sure? I thought he hid in the bushes because he realized that God failed to give him clothes, not because he thought he did something wrong.


...(I.L. slaps himself.) What am I doing? I'm trying to have a rational discussion with The Naked Mage. Why am I wasting my time like this?

Oh, don't give up now! You were doing so well for yourself, what with the many correctly-spelled words you used!

[Mike Rosoft]

Gemma Therese:
Like ....?

Like this:
Furthermore, do you care to address the direct question of my rebuttal to your argument that the Catholic Church "brought us out" of the Dark Ages?

Gemma - who was in charge of the western world during the dark ages? Where is that empire now? Has somebody lost a bunch of power and universality without you noticing? Oops!


Mike Rosoft

[Mike Rosoft]

I am another one whose answer is "All of the above, and more". Among the "more" part the Catholic church should immediately stop persecution of its members for their opinions. And this includes abolition of the "Congregation of the doctrine of faith", f.k.a. the Inquisition. (It is my opinion that the greatest villain in the church is the chief inquisitor cardinal Ratzinger, and not the pope.)


Mike Rosoft

[AJ113]

Other: Freedom and encouragement to question the church (it still ticks me off that I was forced into Confirmation against my will)+all of the above.
Confirmation is now optional. (Well it is around these parts anyway.)

[AJ113]

Actually, the Catholic Church is not against birth control, in fact the church endorses it. Surprised? It's true!

It's the methods of birth control that are the issue. The only two methods that are endorsed by the Catholic Curch are a)abstinence and b)Natural Family Planning. NFP is actually very efficient, equal in effectiveness to that of the birth control pill.

Oh, I forgot: c)Make sure the male adult only has sex with young boys. This one is not endorsed though. In fact it's not accepted as existing in the first place.

What has always pissed me off about this endorsing of birth control through NFP is the sheer hypocrisy of it. NFP stops the egg being fertilised through the timing of the woman's menstrual cycle, whilst condoms stop the egg being fertilised by means of a rubber barrier. WTF does it matter? Either birth control is ok or it isn't! Make your fucking minds up!

As an ex-catholic, I voted 'other' as in 'run like shit and don't even think about going back.'

[MsPuma]

OTHER! I know in this country, (USA), when you say catholic church, we tend to automatically think Roman Catholic. But the Orthodox catholic church does permit marriage of priests, female priests (they're called Mother), aren't totally dependent on the church for financial support (they're req