Vatican calls Creationism a form of paganism

[losman]

Well its about time.....

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006

quote:BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.

Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies...

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."

[Pauliesonne]

You really believe he would say that if evolution was'nt around?

[Huntster]

Well its about time.....

That all depends on who you've been paying attention to.

...quote:BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday....

You're talking about words written thousands of years ago, long before "science".

Tribal humans wrote those words. What do you expect?

....Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies...

That should be clear to all.

..."Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god....

God is a nature God.

He's also a God of the spirit, and He has bestowed that spirit on Man.

...And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."

"Spirit", "Knowledge of Good and Evil", etc., is "conscience".

So, in your opinion, how do we rate?

[ReFLeX]

The Vatican has already officially accepted evolution as fact.

[Pauliesonne]

.....and you believe an organisation with an obvious cause to promote/myth to perpetuate?

[Huntster]

.....and you believe an organisation with an obvious cause to promote/myth to perpetuate?

Is that question for me?

I don't believe "an obvious cause to promote/myth to perpetuate" describes the Church.

Nevertheless, no. The Roman Catholic Church will not "perpetuate". It's days are numbered, just like yours and mine.

[geni]

You really believe he would say that if evolution was'nt around?

Yup. Even before Darwin the geologists knew the world was a lot older than the bible suggested.

[Morrigan]

Hehe, even the Vatican aren't as stuck in the Middle Ages as the American christians...

[geni]

Hehe, even the Vatican aren't as stuck in the Middle Ages as the American christians...

The vatican has always been happy to move with the times when no reasonable alturnative presented itself

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Pauliesonne :
You really believe he would say that if evolution was'nt around?
Yup. Even before Darwin the geologists knew the world was a lot older than the bible suggested.

No s**t?

[Huntster]

Hehe, even the Vatican aren't as stuck in the Middle Ages as the American christians...

Skeptics, too.

[Huntster]

The vatican has always been happy to move with the times when no reasonable alturnative presented itself

Eh.....

Isn't that what science does?

[geni]

Eh.....

Isn't that what science does?

Historicaly no. Lakatos's ideas don't really hold up. Science generaly has a tendancy to stay the same the only when no reasonable alturnative presents itself.

[Huntster]

The vatican has always been happy to move with the times when no reasonable alturnative presented itself

Eh.....

Isn't that what science does?

Historicaly no. Lakatos's ideas don't really hold up. Science generaly has a tendancy to stay the same the only when no reasonable alturnative presents itself.

Science doesn't change with discovery?

Well, I disagree, not to mention my contention that science actually opposes discovery (in certain cases/scenarios).

......The vatican has always been happy to move with the times when no reasonable alturnative presented itself....

That's what science is all about, isn't it?

When no "reasonalble alturnative" presents itself, something is proven, isn't it?

Actually, the Church still advocates miracles, so even that statement isn't true. The Church will stand behind something that doesn't provide a "reasonable alternative".

You won't, will you?

[Jorghnassen]

Hehe, even the Vatican aren't as stuck in the Middle Ages as the American christians...

Creationism (in the sense of literal interpretation of the Bible) was rejected in ancient times by Origen (in the second century CE). Calling modern day fundamentalists medieval is giving them about a thousand years of philosophical advancement they do not have.

[wollery]

Science doesn't change with discovery?

Well, I disagree, not to mention my contention that science actually opposes discovery (in certain cases/scenarios).

That's what science is all about, isn't it?

When no "reasonalble alturnative" presents itself, something is proven, isn't it?

Actually, the Church still advocates miracles, so even that statement isn't true. The Church will stand behind something that doesn't provide a "reasonable alternative".Congratulations Huntster, you've just managed to argue your opponents position for him!

In science, when there are no alternatives something is proven, and science therefore stays where it is.
When there are alternatives scientists explore them which is how science moves forwards.

No alternative, no change.

[andyandy]

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."

well....if they started applying that same rationale to their anti-contraceptive stance in Africa then i might dislike them less....the catholic church is implicitly responsible for the death of millions....next to that, statements about creationism rather pail into insignificance.....

[Jimbo07]

well....if they started applying that same rationale to their anti-contraceptive stance in Africa then i might dislike them less...

Something like this?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1979145,00.html

[Jekyll]

Something like this?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1979145,00.html
Great. Now all they have to do admit is that people don't always know when they're HIV+ and sanction condom use regardless.

[andyandy]

well....it's a step in the right direction - a couple of decades late but hey....

We need to do everything possible to combat AIDS. Under certain conditions, the use of condoms is necessary. Those who are afflicted have an obligation to protect the other partner," he told the Italian weekly newsmagazine L'Espresso. At the same time, he emphasized that this was not a green light for the church to actively start distributing condoms.

i think im going to wait until the pope expressly gives that green light for the church to distribute condoms in africa til i revise my opinion of the Catholic church.... there's a lot of blood on the hands of the catholic church from their high ground-moralising over such a life or death issue....i'd regard their contraceptive policies in Africa as one of the most rugnant human acts of the 20th century.... and i'll be happy to back that up if anyone wants to quibble :) :) :)

[Ryokan]

well....if they started applying that same rationale to their anti-contraceptive stance in Africa then i might dislike them less....the catholic church is implicitly responsible for the death of millions....next to that, statements about creationism rather pail into insignificance.....

I never understood why people think the Catholic Church is to be blamed for this.

If people don't listen to the church when they say not to have sex outside marriage, why would they listen when the church says to use a condom?

[I less than three logic]

Following what the church says when it is something one might prefer (no condom feels better argument) is easier than following something you might not prefer as much (no sex until married). You're right, however, even if the church said to use condoms, many people still wouldn’t. Just like premarital sex.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Science doesn't change with discovery?

Well, I disagree, not to mention my contention that science actually opposes discovery (in certain cases/scenarios).

That's what science is all about, isn't it?

When no "reasonalble alturnative" presents itself, something is proven, isn't it?

Actually, the Church still advocates miracles, so even that statement isn't true. The Church will stand behind something that doesn't provide a "reasonable alternative".

Congratulations Huntster, you've just managed to argue your opponents position for him!....

Why, thank you, but I think you may be confused:

...In science, when there are no alternatives something is proven, and science therefore stays where it is.
When there are alternatives scientists explore them which is how science moves forwards....

That's a position I agree with. If my "opponent" (and you) holds it too, then we are in agreement.

[andyandy]

surprise surprise....someone quibbled.....

Ok - let’s start with some facts…..

Sub-Saharan Africa is the region of the world that is most affected by HIV & AIDS. An estimated 25.8 million people were living with HIV at the end of 2005 and approximately 3.1 million new infections occurred during that year. In just the past year the epidemic has claimed the lives of an estimated 2.4 million people in this region. More than twelve million children have been orphaned by AIDS

Pope John Paul II during his life was vehemently anti-contraception. At an International Congress in 1988 he decreed that an even an AIDS sufferer cannot use condoms to have intercourse with his wife. He stated that the condom is a method of contraception and "no reason, however grave" will allow its use. This viewpoint is still held amongst many African catholic bishops - and is not challenged by the Vatican. The Archbishop of Uganda, Christophe Pierre, has called on the country's youth to resist the use condoms and Roman Catholic bishops in southern Africa last year condemned the use of condoms to fight Aids- arguing that the battle against HIV/Aids should be fought on moral grounds and saying that condoms help spread the disease.

The catholic church have also been guilty of a campaign of misinformation with regards to the safety of contraception. In 2003, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, speaking on behalf of the Vatican's "Council for the Family" announced that "scientific studies" have shown that the latex of the condom is permeable to the HIV virus. However this interpretation was drawn a report by Dr. Lyttle who had concluded in his report that condoms are "essentially impermeable" to the HIV virus. The World Health Organization have also confirmed the findings of Dr. Lyttle and other experts, that condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection by 90%.

The president of the international council for MSF (Doctors Without Borders), has stated that the Church's position on condoms " was totally unacceptable from a moral, ethical, and medical perspective ...the ban was helping the spread of the deadly disease." He added that the Catholic Church is now part of the problem.

It was reported in 2001, that the overall provision of condoms to sub-Saharan Africa is only 4.6 per man per year. So another 1.9 billion condoms need to be provided if all countries are to have the same amount as the highest six countries in Africa. Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Togo, Congo and Kenya are supplied with about 17 condoms per man aged 15 to 59 years. It would cost an estimated $47.5 million (£34m) a year to fill the 1.9 billion condom gap excluding service delivery costs and production. Relative to the enormity of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa, providing condoms is cheap and cost effective.

So it’s pretty clear that the catholic church anti-contraceptive stance is not helping tackle AIDS….the only question that remains is to what extent it is culpable? Africa as a continent is poor - the education system for Sub-Sahara is massively under funded - and education often stops at junior school level. The Catholic Church is an important focal point for many local communities and a important source of education. It’s incomparable to the position of Catholics in the US. The Catholic church does not have the same power over the country. The use of contraception has been stigmatised by the church - as “a sin” - and telling people that a possibly life saving action is “a sin” purely for dogmatic purposes is pretty reprehensible. Besides which, in the US you can go out to your local store, and buy a pack of jonnies….no problem. It not quite that simple in Africa - Sub-Saharans have on average 4.6 condoms a year…..so it’s no wonder that they often have unprotected sex. Again the Church is culpable in refusing (along with the Bush admin) to fund, or work with organisations who advocate, promote or provide condoms as a first line of defence against the virus. Despite this position of authority - and ability to have a positive influence on the fight against AIDS, the Catholic church actively discourage the use of contraception - because of out-dated religious arguments made by an old man in Italy…...like I said previously, it pretty reprehensible.

[Huntster]

....So it’s pretty clear that the catholic church anti-contraceptive stance is not helping tackle AIDS….the only question that remains is to what extent it is culpable?.....

I would speculate the the AIDS problem in Africa has little to do with Catholic moral teaching regarding contraception, especially considering events like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4879822.stm) are going on:

...Mr Zuma said in court on Wednesday he had left his bedroom after having sex with the woman and taken a shower because this "would minimise the risk of contracting the disease [HIV]"....

...Mr Zuma's testimony that he did not use a condom during the encounter, despite knowing the woman was HIV-positive, caused dismay among local Aids activists. Before being sacked as deputy president last year, Mr Zuma headed the government's National Aids Council and the Moral Regeneration Campaign.....

[Jon.]

CCalling modern day fundamentalists medieval is giving them about a thousand years of philosophical advancement they do not have.

Excellent! Permission to use in sig?

[andyandy]

I would speculate the the AIDS problem in Africa has little to do with Catholic moral teaching regarding contraception, especially considering events like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4879822.stm) are going on:

what's ur argument? That because there's rape in Africa that that's the primary reason for AIDS? Well...i'd like to see some stats on that to back it up because it's a pretty huge claim....hardly done justice with a one case anecdote.....i can find you an article about a rape case in the Uk....does that mean we should have a 10%+ AIDS rate too?

[Huntster]

what's ur argument? That because there's rape in Africa that that's the primary reason for AIDS?....

Did you read the article? How could you miss it?

Mr. Zuma, who formerly headed the South African government's National AIDS Council, had unprotected sex with a woman he knew had HIV, then he testified in court that he took a shower after the sex act "because this "would minimise the risk of contracting the disease".

Get it now?

With beliefs and attitudes like that, from such people who should know better, you still say the Roman Catholic Church has some culpability regarding the AIDS epidemic in Africa?

[I less than three logic]

Despite the smug attitude I detect within his response, I think Huntster has a valid point that one can’t blame the AIDS epidemic in Africa on the RCC. Although, I’m not sure that anyone was trying too.

Now, you ask if the RCC has some culpability regarding the AIDS epidemic. That is a incredibly broad question. How much would you require in order to reach the qualification of some culpability? If one couple didn’t use a condom because of the church teaching and resulted in the infection of a new person, would that be some culpability? A hundred couples? A thousand?

[bobcarp]

[quote]"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."[QUOTE]


bla, bla, bla...

[andyandy]

Did you read the article? How could you miss it?

Mr. Zuma, who formerly headed the South African government's National AIDS Council, had unprotected sex with a woman he knew had HIV, then he testified in court that he took a shower after the sex act "because this "would minimise the risk of contracting the disease".

Get it now?

With beliefs and attitudes like that, from such people who should know better, you still say the Roman Catholic Church has some culpability regarding the AIDS epidemic in Africa?



you're arguing that AIDS is largely spread because of ignorance....i agree. Did you not read my post? The catholic church deliberately spread false information about contraception....that makes them at least partly culpable for the lack of awareness of how to prevent the transmission of AIDS ....the catholic church is also culpable in so far as it does not use its powerful position in the community to act as a positve force in the fight against AIDS - through the education of the societies they work in. Foremost in that education should included explanation of how sexual diseases can be transmited through bodily fluids -and that if you're going to have sex, then contraception is the best way to protect yourself against this. The fact that the Church's moral stance on contraception precludes it from doing this is inexcuseable.....

[drkitten]

If one couple didn’t use a condom because of the church teaching and resulted in the infection of a new person, would that be some culpability?

Yes.

Are you any less of a murderer because you only killed one person?

[Huntster]

Despite the smug attitude I detect within his response, I think Huntster has a valid point that one can’t blame the AIDS epidemic in Africa on the RCC. Although, I’m not sure that anyone was trying too.....

Not on this particular thread, but there have been others where people openly declared Church contraceptive teaching as a direct threat to Africans.

The simple truth is that the Church teaches that moral sex takes place between one man and his wife, and it should be open to the possibility of conception.

The AIDS epidemic (whether in Africa, Asia, or North America) has primarily been spread by promiscuous sexual activity.

Trying to turn culpability back at the Church because of it's position on condoms is hollow.

If you can't live up to morality, that's your problem, not those who point the morality out.


...No one experiencing temptation should say, "I am being tempted by God"; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death....

James 1:13-15

...For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord....

Romans 6:23

..."Death is swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

1 Corinthians 15:54-56

[andyandy]

The simple truth is that the Church teaches that moral sex takes place between one man and his wife, and it should be open to the possibility of conception.

The AIDS epidemic (whether in Africa, Asia, or North America) has primarily been spread by promiscuous sexual activity.

Trying to turn culpability back at the Church because of it's position on condoms is hollow.

If you can't live up to morality, that's your problem, not those who point the morality out.

wow.....its amazing how those who hold themselves to the highest moral ground often end up looking so cold......

"If you can't live up to morality, that's your problem, not those who point the morality out."

That's such a cold and callous statement. I would define morality as doing everything one could to do the right thing....and in Africa the right thing is to help prevent the spread of AIDS though any means possible...and that should definitity include the use of condoms on the "front line."
If your morals place higher value on abstinance than helping save lives then I feel sorry for you....because the bible has really twisted your notions of right and wrong.

[Huntster]

wow.....its amazing how those who hold themselves to the highest moral ground often end up looking so cold......

"If you can't live up to morality, that's your problem, not those who point the morality out."

That's such a cold and callous statement....

Yup. It's the cold, hard truth.

....I would define morality as doing everything one could to do the right thing....and in Africa the right thing is to help prevent the spread of AIDS though any means possible...and that should definitity include the use of condoms on the "front line."...

I wouldn't disagree with that.

...If your morals place higher value on abstinance than helping save lives then I feel sorry for you....because the bible has really twisted your notions of right and wrong...

My morals place truth at the top. The truth is that sexual promiscuity leads to disasters of many kinds, including STDs. Many people seek that special pill or tool that will make it safe, fun, and free.

It ain't gonna happen.

If you feel moved to save the world with condoms, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.

But as far as the Church goes, I don't want to see them compromise truth in order to be acceptable in your eyes, or anyone elses.

[andyandy]

Yup. It's the cold, hard truth.



I wouldn't disagree with that.



My morals place truth at the top. The truth is that sexual promiscuity leads to disasters of many kinds, including STDs. Many people seek that special pill or tool that will make it safe, fun, and free.

It ain't gonna happen.

If you feel moved to save the world with condoms, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.

But as far as the Church goes, I don't want to see them compromise truth in order to be acceptable in your eyes, or anyone elses.

man....the bible's got a lot to answer for.....:(

[Huntster]

man....the bible's got a lot to answer for.....:(

Not as much as people like Zuma.

[chriswl]

Yup. It's the cold, hard truth.
But we are talking about a self-styled religion of love and compassion. This is largely nonsense of course, but you'd think they'd try a little harder to maintain the illusion. What would Jesus* do?

* I mean the literary character Jesus, as featured in the bestselling book "The Bible".

[blutoski]

The Vatican has already officially accepted evolution as fact.

My understanding was that the Vatican has accepted evolution as a plausible explanation, but not necessarily the best or only explanation. They were really just saying that belief in evolution does is not grounds for excommunication. There was a time when this was the case.

I have noticed that there's a developing rift between catholics and protestants over this issue, more so in the UK.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

[geni]

I would define morality as doing everything one could to do the right thing....and in Africa the right thing is to help prevent the spread of AIDS though any means possible..

Most people do not accept genocide as moral.

[ceo_esq]

My understanding was that the Vatican has accepted evolution as a plausible explanation, but not necessarily the best or only explanation. They were really just saying that belief in evolution does is not grounds for excommunication. There was a time when this was the case.

So far as I know, belief in evolution has never been grounds for excommunication. And apropos of that, I think it's worth pointing out that while the Vatican has obviously accepted the scientific plausibility of evolution, the position it has taken is not a doctrinal position. Catholics, it would seem, are doctrinally free to believe or disbelieve any explanation of a strictly scientific nature because the truth of any given explanation is not relevant to the articles of the faith.

[geni]

They were really just saying that belief in evolution does is not grounds for excommunication. There was a time when this was the case.


When?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by andyandy :
I would define morality as doing everything one could to do the right thing....and in Africa the right thing is to help prevent the spread of AIDS though any means possible..
Most people do not accept genocide as moral.

I suppose it was just a matter of time before someone tried to whip the Church with the "G" word (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide):

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Do you openly state that the Vatican is engaging in genocide, or are you just like the politicians and journalists who bandy such words around irresponsibly?

Catholic doctrine on contraceptives was considered and published before AIDS was even identified.

It is a religious position, the Church is a religious organization, and it is proper and fitting for the Church to rule on the act on a religious basis.

As I have pointed out, with regard to dealing with the AIDS epidemic, the former head of the South African National Aids Council has failed miserably. The United Nations has also failed miserably.

And you want to accuse the Roman Catholic Church of genocide?

The Church has outlined it's position on contraceptives. It doesn't mesh with your idea of battling AIDS.

So why don't you or the appropriate government agencies distribute condoms if you think it is the be-all, end-all instead of condemning the Church for it's religious rulings?

You can even put them on the irresponsible men who won't voluntarily use them if you supply them for free.

I believe that the use of condoms offers false security. Mr. Zuma illustrates that opinion quite well.

I will be quite delighted and most impressed if you would prove me wrong.

[geni]

I suppose it was just a matter of time before someone tried to whip the Church with the "G" word (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide):



You've missed the point. Genocide is could be an effective way of control aids.

[a_unique_person]

The Vatican has already officially accepted evolution as fact.

But not unwanted pregnancy.

[Huntster]

...Genocide is could be an effective way of control aids.

That's brilliant.

Kill them so they won't die of AIDS?

You've missed the point....

I think I got it.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by ReFLeX :
The Vatican has already officially accepted evolution as fact.
But not unwanted pregnancy.

If Church advise on marraige and sex were followed, there would be no unwanted pregnancies.

[geni]

That's brilliant.

Kill them so they won't die of AIDS?

Well if you are prepared to do anything to stop aids....

[ReFLeX]

Did you read the article? How could you miss it?

Mr. Zuma, who formerly headed the South African government's National AIDS Council, had unprotected sex with a woman he knew had HIV, then he testified in court that he took a shower after the sex act "because this "would minimise the risk of contracting the disease".Well, I think South Africa has a president that denies HIV even causes AIDS, so that isn't even the worst example of ignorance.

If Church advise on marraige and sex were followed, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. If the Church were willing to balance idealism and pragmatism the same way it was with the concept of "limbo" then it could stop pretending fetuses are really homunculi. The council of Vienne (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum15.htm#can1) decreed: In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic. The RCC began to attack abortion only after scientists with early microscopes thought they saw little fully formed men at the cellular level. When this turned out to be incorrect, they kept that stance anyway.

As per the Catholic encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm):the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism -- later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas's teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.Now if you can tell us the evidence for the modern theologians' objections, we might understand your argument.

[Jekyll]

If Church advise on marraige and sex were followed, there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
Because everyone who gets married wants more babies all the time.

[This Guy]

Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said ...

Has the Vatican released an opinion on this? With all due respect to Bro. Consolmagno, his duties don't sound like he's in a position to speak for the Pope.

I've looked a bit, and plan to look more, but has anyone found the official stance on this?

I believe I've read that the church has stated Evolution is cool (you can believe that, and not go to hell;-) But what about the creation issue?

"BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism"

That's pretty strong words to come from an organization that depends on it's members belief in God.

They have given up the Earth is the center of the universe. Admitted that we may have evolved. Now they are saying God didn't create everything?

What's next? Admitting that the gospels conflict, and may not be trustworthy?

Seems to me that at some point, the church is going to run out of fairy tails. Then what do they do? Say give us your money because we're cool, and the Pope wears a great big hat?

[Jorghnassen]

Seems to me that at some point, the church is going to run out of fairy tails. Then what do they do? Say give us your money because we're cool, and the Pope wears a great big hat?

You don't know the purpose of religion do you (or the purpose of fairy tales for that matter)?

[Huntster]

....They have given up the Earth is the center of the universe. Admitted that we may have evolved....[QUOTE]

So have most folks. You, too (it appears). That's "intellectual evolution". It's also called "science". As evidence is discovered, truth becomes known.

So? What's your beef? I can imagine the howling if they didn't.

[QUOTE]....Now they are saying God didn't create everything?....

No. It's just being recognized that it didn't occur like those tribal people symbolically wrote thousands of years ago, that it took 144 hours.

Of course, there are plenty of folks who take it literally. They seem to consist of fundamentalists and Church-haters.

...What's next?...

Who knows? Depends on what we discover.

[strathmeyer]

Not as much as people like Zuma.

Listen, Zuma is stupid because the Roman Catholic Church refuses to allow him to learn the truth. This is why we are the RCC's actions are immoral.

[andyandy]

Listen, Zuma is stupid because the Roman Catholic Church refuses to allow him to learn the truth. This is why we are the RCC's actions are immoral.

lol....i agree....:)

let's try an analogy....

I'm a teacher in charge of a group of children....i'm a respected authority figure in a position of power. Now I am a "dirty earth" fundamentalist. This means that I do not believe that we should in any way try to innoculise our children the the evils of the world - we should let them discover things for themselves - so that they can learn to teach themselves.....
Now....I let the group of children play on a field by our school that I know to be used by junkies...there are often dirty needles lying around. I know this but I don't tell my children this - because it goes against my beliefs....they should learn dangers for themselves - and not be told of them....
As a result of my actions some of the children in my care deveop hepetitis...a couple even develop HIV - of which they die some years later. However, this does not make me change my opinions that "dirty earth" should continue to be the way I deal with the children.
Now am I culpable for the deaths of these children? I was a trusted authority figure who stood by and did nothing rather than do something that would have compromised my personal religious beliefs....even though this compromised the safety of others.....

Now this is of course an analogy - and none of those are ever perfect - so no...i'm not suggesting that Africans are like "children" - merely that amoungst the poor and poorly educated many look towards the church as a source of learning, and as a source of authority. And like the teacher in the analogy, the church would rather see others suffer than compromise their beliefs....

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Not as much as people like Zuma.
Listen, Zuma is stupid because the Roman Catholic Church refuses to allow him to learn the truth. This is why we are the RCC's actions are immoral.

Please, try not to be stupid.

Zuma has "several wives", he was screwing around with the daughter of a family friend who he knew was HIV positive, and he was the former head of the very agency in South Africa who was responsible for dealing with the AIDS epidemic.

This is cultural or individual stupidity, and is not a reflection on the Church's religious position on marraige, sex within marraige, or the openness to conception.

[Huntster]

....amoungst the poor and poorly educated many look towards the church as a source of learning, and as a source of authority. And like the teacher in the analogy, the church would rather see others suffer than compromise their beliefs....

The Church is a religious authority. The government is the authority on public safety, epidemiology, and civil law.

Are you advocating that the Church become the authority for public safety, epidemiology, and civil law?

[andyandy]

The Church is a religious authority. The government is the authority on public safety, epidemiology, and civil law.

Are you advocating that the Church become the authority for public safety, epidemiology, and civil law?

lol
you're saying that the church exists in a cultural and social vacuum....come on.....you can't really believe that......:) The Church is a powerful force within Africa - its reach can't be dismissed as applying only in the religious sphere. Its teachings permeate social and cultural beliefs....it holds a strong authoritative postion within the region, and it even influences government policy - because many of the local, regional and national leaders have been brought up with Catholic dogma.....

I'm advocating that the church should ditch its high morality, and use its authority to become a positive force in the fight against AIDS....not a negative one.....

that's hardly much to expect from supposedly "good" people.....

[Huntster]

lol
you're saying that the church exists in a cultural and social vacuum....come on.....you can't really believe that......:)...

That's not what I wrote. The Church is among the largest social assistance organizations on Earth, but it operates in each nation in accordance with that nation's laws and regs, and is meant to supplement that nation's social services, not replace it.

...I'm advocating that the church should ditch its high morality, and use its authority to become a positive force in the fight against AIDS....not a negative one.....

It's happening (http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn042506.htm), and it apparently happens faster than African governments can act.

What are you gonna do when you don't have the Church to kick around anymore?

...that's hardly much to expect from supposedly "good" people.....

When are you going to be willing to hold "bad" people like Zuma accountable for his actions/inactions? Do we only hold the "good" accountable?

[AWPrime]

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality
Atleast he got that right, and that relation goes one way.

to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god.
Fuzzy reasoning.

And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."
Actually we have ethics for that.

[andyandy]

That's not what I wrote. The Church is among the largest social assistance organizations on Earth, but it operates in each nation in accordance with that nation's laws and regs, and is meant to supplement that nation's social services, not replace it.



It's happening (http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn042506.htm), and it apparently happens faster than African governments can act.

What are you gonna do when you don't have the Church to kick around anymore?



When are you going to be willing to hold "bad" people like Zuma accountable for his actions/inactions? Do we only hold the "good" accountable?

sometimes....arguing with christians feels like banging your head against a brick wall :) I'm open to persuasion that the church isnt as bad as i paint them....you're not open to persuasion that they are.....that's the fundamental problem.

"operates in each nation in accordance with that nation's laws and regs, and is meant to supplement that nation's social services, not replace it."

there's nothing in that sentence that i disagree with - being pro-condom or anti-condom does not violate any laws as far as i know....and if there are laws in place over the use of condoms then they exist as a result of Catholic church teachings :) And yes, the church should supplement the nations social services - but do so by putting people and not dogma first.

The link you posted only illustrates how far behind the times the church really is - its taken until 2006 to propose a draft to allow married couples with AIDS to use condoms? wow....that's only 20 years behind the times....and still only addresses married couples - so still continues to impose Catholic values on issues of life or death.....so you'll have to do better than that to convince me of your argument. But rest assured if you can provide me with real facts to back up your position, then I'm open to persuasion....can you say the same?

[Huntster]

...I'm open to persuasion that the church isnt as bad as i paint them....you're not open to persuasion that they are.....that's the fundamental problem....

I fully recognize that the Church is made up of humans, who are fallible, and who sin.

"operates in each nation in accordance with that nation's laws and regs, and is meant to supplement that nation's social services, not replace it."

there's nothing in that sentence that i disagree with - being pro-condom or anti-condom does not violate any laws as far as i know....and if there are laws in place over the use of condoms then they exist as a result of Catholic church teachings :)...

They are the results of the political lawmaking procedures of that government, not the Church.

...And yes, the church should supplement the nations social services - but do so by putting people and not dogma first.

That "dogma' is the best and most moral advice available. That it is disregarded does not require or compel the Church to violate the truth.

Despite that dogma being largely disregarded, the Church still acts to help socially and medically.

...The link you posted only illustrates how far behind the times the church really is - its taken until 2006 to propose a draft to allow married couples with AIDS to use condoms? wow....that's only 20 years behind the times....

And yet light years ahead of government officials like Zuma, who can't control his sexual urges or disregard for the dangers of the disease.

...and still only addresses married couples - so still continues to impose Catholic values on issues of life or death.....

The Church will likely never advocate the use of condoms for fornication, and since fornication is a clear violation of Christian morals, it should not be compelled to do so.

If you or government advocate fornication, go right ahead and deal with the results.

...so you'll have to do better than that to convince me of your argument....

I have no duty or illusion that I will convince you of anything. You appear to have no problem with sex outside of marraige, and that will never be advocated or morally justifiable for the Church. Nor should it be.

...But rest assured if you can provide me with real facts to back up your position, then I'm open to persuasion....can you say the same?

That all depends on what you're trying to persuade.

[andyandy]

That "dogma' is the best and most moral advice available. That it is disregarded does not require or compel the Church to violate the truth.

Despite that dogma being largely disregarded, the Church still acts to help socially and medically.



And yet light years ahead of government officials like Zuma, who can't control his sexual urges or disregard for the dangers of the disease.



The Church will likely never advocate the use of condoms for fornication, and since fornication is a clear violation of Christian morals, it should not be compelled to do so.

If you or government advocate fornication, go right ahead and deal with the results.



I have no duty or illusion that I will convince you of anything. You appear to have no problem with sex outside of marraige, and that will never be advocated or morally justifiable for the Church. Nor should it be.



That all depends on what you're trying to persuade.


im tired of going round in circles arguing with someone so closed minded......

"And yet light years ahead of government officials like Zuma, who can't control his sexual urges or disregard for the dangers of the disease." is justification for that fact that its taken over twenty years for the catholic church to even consider a decree to allow married couples with AIDS to use a condom? lol.....is that really the best you do? The church's position is better than this persons - therefore the church's position OK lol.....

analogy....
two guys, mr A a rapist, and Mr B a murderer who first raped his victim.....
statement in defence of Mr A "he's miles better than Mr B"
do you really believe what you say? I find it hard to believe that you do.....

"If you or government advocate fornication, go right ahead and deal with the results."
You're getting dangerously close to implying that those who suffer from AIDS are being punished by God for their sins.....
if that's what you are implying, and there really is a god....
1) either that's what god does.....so god in my eyes is an evil ********** and he can go to hell.....
2) or you're going to hell for being such a nasty person.....:)

lol.....i'm tired of this argument....:) :) :)

[Huntster]

...lol.....i'm tired of this argument....:) :) :)

Me, too.

Which brings on the question:

What are you doing about the AIDS epidemic in Africa, if it is so important to you?

Is the extent of your position simple condemnation of the Church for being "behind the times"?

[andyandy]

Me, too.

Which brings on the question:

What are you doing about the AIDS epidemic in Africa, if it is so important to you?

Is the extent of your position simple condemnation of the Church for being "behind the times"?

well....i spent 3 months in tanzania working for an aid organisation - part of the job involved running sexual health clinics and distributing contraception and advice.....

there's a brief description of GSC here.....
http://www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/magazine/0409/volunteer_in_tanzania_with_global_service_corps.sh tml

that's why i feel so strongly about the issue - i've seen how many lives have been destroyed by AIDS children born with HIV because of their mother's infection, children left orphaned, 20, 30, 40 year olds who should be in the prime of their lives....wasting away....it's truly heartbreaking.....

im not for one second holding myself up as some kind of moral yardstick to whom others should be judged - i could do a lot more - go back and stay there for 1 year, 2 years, the rest of my life, i could give more to AIDS charities....but i don't - im selfish like most people....

but i find it pretty offensive that you talk with authority on a subject you're obviously so ignorant about....and imply that i can't criticise what i see as morally bankrupt catholic policy....when can i criticise? What's the "gold standard" i need to reach? If I can't criticise, how about the MSF (doctors without borders) president....i quoted him earlier slamming the catholic policy on contraception.....is he qualified enough?

the more you post....the more you reveal about yourself....and it's pretty repulsive.....:(

[Huntster]

well....i spent 3 months in tanzania working for an aid organisation - part of the job involved running sexual health clinics and distributing contraception and advice.....

...that's why i feel so strongly about the issue - i've seen how many lives have been destroyed by AIDS children born with HIV because of their mother's infection, children left orphaned, 20, 30, 40 year olds who should be in the prime of their lives....wasting away....it's truly heartbreaking.....

im not for one second holding myself up as some kind of moral yardstick to whom others should be judged - i could do a lot more - go back and stay there for 1 year, 2 years, the rest of my life, i could give more to AIDS charities....but i don't - im selfish like most people....

I think that's laudable, and I congratulate you on your sacrifice and work. Charity work is the best way to help, and even if it's like a finger in the dike, it's honorable, moral, and absolutely wonderful.

...but i find it pretty offensive that you talk with authority on a subject you're obviously so ignorant about....and imply that i can't criticise what i see as morally bankrupt catholic policy....when can i criticise?...

You can criticize when it's appropriate.

This entire forum is rife with absolute BS regarding the Church. I even get people repeatedly telling me things about RCC doctrine which is incorrect, and when I correct them with citations from the Catechism, all I get in return is the merry-go-round or pure venom. This forum is filled with Church and religion haters.

As a former aid worker in Africa, you should well know of the cultural situations regarding sex which is the primary driver in the AIDS/HIV infection rate. Church doctrine on marriage and sex within marriage is precisely what those people need from the Church. Still, Catholic Relief Services assist in caring for the sick.

Surely, you can't expect the Church to take up and broadcast a position which advocates or closes it's eyes to fornication, can you?

...What's the "gold standard" i need to reach? If I can't criticise, how about the MSF (doctors without borders) president....i quoted him earlier slamming the catholic policy on contraception.....is he qualified enough?...

He is eminently qualified to deal with medical issues, but no, if he insists that the RCC weakens it's position on fornication, than he is being too demanding, unrealistic, and is throwing blame in the wrong direction.

...the more you post....the more you reveal about yourself....and it's pretty repulsive.....:(

You have no duty to be "repulsed" any longer. You are quite free to tune me out electronically, or simply not read my posts.

[This Guy]

You don't know the purpose of religion do you (or the purpose of fairy tales for that matter)?

Please enlighten me.

[Jorghnassen]

Please enlighten me.

The important thing is the moral of the story (which is independent of whether the events in the tale are real or fictitious).

[This Guy]

[QUOTE=This Guy;1626785]....They have given up the Earth is the center of the universe. Admitted that we may have evolved....[QUOTE]

So have most folks. You, too (it appears). That's "intellectual evolution". It's also called "science". As evidence is discovered, truth becomes known.

So? What's your beef? I can imagine the howling if they didn't.

No. It's just being recognized that it didn't occur like those tribal people symbolically wrote thousands of years ago, that it took 144 hours.

Of course, there are plenty of folks who take it literally. They seem to consist of fundamentalists and Church-haters.

Who knows? Depends on what we discover.

No beef! I think it's great that the Vatican has finally accepted what science pointed out years ago.

My question is what happens when the remaining "facts" that the church is based on are disproved? What reason will the masses have to follow and support the church when the remaining beliefs are admitted to be false. Or should I say when the remaining facts from the bible are shown to be symbolic, and not factual?

Of course none of us alive today are likely to see that. It's taken nearly 2000 years for the few admissions that have come about. I would guess there are another few hundred years left before the evidence will be so overwhelming that the church will have to admit that other than providing some benefit as a source of ancient history, the bible provides nothing more than a convenient object for collecting dust.

[Morrigan]

Creationism (in the sense of literal interpretation of the Bible) was rejected in ancient times by Origen (in the second century CE). Calling modern day fundamentalists medieval is giving them about a thousand years of philosophical advancement they do not have.
Touché.


If Church advise on marraige and sex were followed, there would be no unwanted pregnancies.
Hahahaha... you can't be serious.
The only method of "birth control" the church advocates is the "calendar method". And it's well known that the users of this method all have one thing in common.... they're parents! :P
What you say might be true about STDs, but not pregnancies. Unless, of course, you think it's realistic to expect couples, even married couples, to have sex ONLY for the purposes of procreation? :rolleyes:

In any case, the church's morals are outdated and bankrupt, and the results in the AIDS crisis in Africa amply demonstrate that.

[ceo_esq]

....They have given up the Earth is the center of the universe. Admitted that we may have evolved....

...

No beef! I think it's great that the Vatican has finally accepted what science pointed out years ago.

Particularly as large institutions go whose main activity is not directly related to the scientific enterprise - institutions whose business does not involve taking an official stance as to the acceptance or rejection of this or that scientific theory - I think it must be said in fairness that Church is actually rather responsive to these things. It's not a matter of "finally accepted" or "admitted at last".

It's worth pointing out that for the first several centuries of the history of what we moderns would recognize as science (beginning in the days of the Scholastic proto-scientists onward), the Church was the most scientifically engaged of institutions, and it arguably remains among the most scientifically engaged of international institutions (whether or not secular) without a specifically science-related mission.


My question is what happens when the remaining "facts" that the church is based on are disproved?

As I recently mentioned in the "full frontal assault" thread, so far as I am aware, none of the facts on which the Church purports to be based have ever been disproven. This seems to me to be partly a function of some very canny theological choices as to the facts upon which the faith is formally staked - yet, to be fair, those choices were by and large already made by the time modern science was founded. In my view, this goes a long way toward explaining not only why the Church was able to play such a crucial role in laying that foundation, but also why the better part of a millennium later - though reduced to one denomination among many - the Church is sitting pretty, relatively speaking, in the face of an explosion of scientific knowledge and awareness.

[I less than three logic]

That "dogma' is the best and most moral advice available. That it is disregarded does not require or compel the Church to violate the truth.
That’s definitely a depressing thought. If that dogma is the best and most moral advice available then I’d have to conclude that the standards of our morality are severely deficient.

Also, hope you don’t mind me failing to accepting your Church’s view as the truth. We all know they’ve never been wrong on anything before so why would we have any reason to think they might be incorrect about their opinions on universal truths, but I still think I’ll choose not accept their position anyway.

[Huntster]

....My question is what happens when the remaining "facts" that the church is based on are disproved?...

We all (religion and science) evolve as knowledge becomes available.

....What reason will the masses have to follow and support the church when the remaining beliefs are admitted to be false....

Again, we continue to evolve.

...Or should I say when the remaining facts from the bible are shown to be symbolic, and not factual?...

I fail to see how science will prove or disprove the spirit, or those phenomenon that go beyond the physical. If that does occur, it will be way beyond our time, and I doubt we can speculate on what will be learned. It may bolster religious theory.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
If Church advise on marraige and sex were followed, there would be no unwanted pregnancies.

Hahahaha... you can't be serious....

I'm as serious as the subject itself.

...The only method of "birth control" the church advocates is the "calendar method". And it's well known that the users of this method all have one thing in common.... they're parents! :P
What you say might be true about STDs, but not pregnancies. Unless, of course, you think it's realistic to expect couples, even married couples, to have sex ONLY for the purposes of procreation? :rolleyes:...

Absolutely not, however Church doctrine dictates that married couples engaging in sex must be open to the possibility of conception.

That said, there "shouldn't be unwanted pregnancies" if the couple is open to the possibility.

...In any case, the church's morals are outdated and bankrupt, and the results in the AIDS crisis in Africa amply demonstrate that.

You say "outdated and bankrupt". I say overwhelmed with selfishness by a world that refuses to accept morality.

In either case, that does not mandate an organization based in morality and centered on what is believed to be the will of God to bend to "moral modernity".

The reality is that social morals evolve back and forth. It's also true that social morals are regularly tied to the rise and fall of societies and cultures.

You choose your morals and social norms. I'll choose mine.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That "dogma' is the best and most moral advice available. That it is disregarded does not require or compel the Church to violate the truth.
That’s definitely a depressing thought. If that dogma is the best and most moral advice available then I’d have to conclude that the standards of our morality are severely deficient....

That is my view exactly.

...Also, hope you don’t mind me failing to accepting your Church’s view as the truth. We all know they’ve never been wrong on anything before so why would we have any reason to think they might be incorrect about their opinions on universal truths, but I still think I’ll choose not accept their position anyway.

I don't mind your choice at all. It's yours to make.

Granted, the Church is made up of humans, who are prone to failure like all others. The Church makes mistakes like any other institution, and individuals within the Church do so as well.

However, with regard to the moral theories that I am aware of, the RCC is as viable as any other, and stands above many.

[ceo_esq]

We all know they’ve never been wrong on anything before ...

Are you using wrong in the sense we usually use in "a wrong answer"? In the sense of "knowing right from wrong"? In the sense of "being in the wrong place at the wrong time"? Or in some other sense?

[I less than three logic]

That is my view exactly.



I don't mind your choice at all. It's yours to make.

Granted, the Church is made up of humans, who are prone to failure like all others. The Church makes mistakes like any other institution, and individuals within the Church do so as well.

However, with regard to the moral theories that I am aware of, the RCC is as viable as any other, and stands above many.
No, I doubt we share the same view here.

There’s a heavy emphasis on the “if” in that sentence. In my personal opinion, organized religions are nearly the very antithesis of morality. They prey upon the uncertainties and fears of people in order to steal their money and prop the religious leaders into positions of power. This is especially true of the RCC.

In fact, I find things like original sin to be particularly despicable. It seeks to strip people of their concepts of the inherent moral character of not only themselves, but of everyone. It is nothing more than an appalling tool used to create a dependence upon the Church, and it also works quite nicely to fuel ideas of prejudice and intolerance for those that do not follow the Church’s teachings.

IF this is the best and most moral advice available, then I’d say morality essentially doesn’t exist.

Are you using wrong in the sense we usually use in "a wrong answer"? In the sense of "knowing right from wrong"? In the sense of "being in the wrong place at the wrong time"? Or in some other sense?
Hopefully, the statements above help illustrate what I meant. It was quite sarcastic in the sense that the Church is, of course, always right.

[Huntster]

...No, I doubt we share the same view here....

...I’d have to conclude that the standards of our morality are severely deficient....

Well, then, let me make it clear that I agree wholeheartedly with that phrase.

...There’s a heavy emphasis on the “if” in that sentence. In my personal opinion, organized religions are nearly the very antithesis of morality. They prey upon the uncertainties and fears of people in order to steal their money and prop the religious leaders into positions of power. This is especially true of the RCC....

Well, then, you were correct in saying that we don't share the same view.

...In fact, I find things like original sin to be particularly despicable. It seeks to strip people of their concepts of the inherent moral character of not only themselves, but of everyone. It is nothing more than an appalling tool used to create a dependence upon the Church, and it also works quite nicely to fuel ideas of prejudice and intolerance for those that do not follow the Church’s teachings....

Original Sin (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#o):

The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God's will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the "new Adam," came to redeem us (396-412).

No mention of Church there. It's all about God, and the very attitudes which permeate this forum, isn't it?

...IF this is the best and most moral advice available, then I’d say morality essentially doesn’t exist....

Oh, it still exists, but it is getting to be rare.

[I less than three logic]

Original Sin (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#o):



No mention of Church there. It's all about God, and the very attitudes which permeate this forum, isn't it?

Yes, no mention of the Church. Wouldn’t make sense to incriminate itself within its writings, now would it? However, what is the Church’s policy regarding the repentance for sin, and the consequences for not doing so?

Oh, it still exists, but it is getting to be rare.
Perhaps the concept of “if” escapes you. Of course I think morality still exist, just not within the practices of organized religion and its leaders.

[Morrigan]

Absolutely not, however Church doctrine dictates that married couples engaging in sex must be open to the possibility of conception.

That said, there "shouldn't be unwanted pregnancies" if the couple is open to the possibility.

Eh, no, that's not how it works. You either want a baby or you don't. If you are "open to the possibility of conception", it just means that you realize sex can result in conception... which is a big DUH. That doesn't mean you'll still want whatever baby can result from it.


You say "outdated and bankrupt". I say overwhelmed with selfishness by a world that refuses to accept morality.
Don't make me laugh. If people reject the church's so-called morality, it doesn't mean they reject morality altogether.
The church's morality comes from an imaginary external source, and is based on fear, guilt and self-loathing, instead of compassion and empathy. There is nothing "moral" about arbitrary limits on sexual intercourse, nor is there anything immoral about two consenting adults giving each other pleasure just because they don't have a piece of paper saying they're married.

In either case, that does not mandate an organization based in morality and centered on what is believed to be the will of God to bend to "moral modernity".
Unfortunately, their bankrupt morality is being forced down the throats of ignorant people, and is used to spread lies and disinformation that results is more ignorance, and ultimately, more diseases and death. They have a responsibility with those "morals".

If my "morals", which I think come from the Great Weasel in the Sky, make me teach people that playing in a field full of syringes (to re-use a previous example), consequences related to that are partly my responsibility.

[AWPrime]

to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god.

I still want to hear the reasoning/logic behind this. It sounds like a cheap dodge.

[ceo_esq]

Eh, no, that's not how it works. You either want a baby or you don't. If you are "open to the possibility of conception", it just means that you realize sex can result in conception... which is a big DUH. That doesn't mean you'll still want whatever baby can result from it.

Actually, I think from the Catholic point of view "open to the possibility of conception" doesn't just mean acknowledging the existence of that possibility; it means that the prospect of the actualization of that possibility must not be an unwelcome prospect.

[Huntster]

....what is the Church’s policy regarding the repentance for sin, and the consequences for not doing so?...

From the Catechism (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm):

RECONCILIATION, SACRAMENT OF: The sacramental celebration in which, through God's mercy and forgiveness, the sinner is reconciled with God and also with the Church, Christ's Body, which is wounded by sin (1422, 1442-1445, 1468). See Penance.

REMISSION OF SINS: The forgiveness of sins, which is accomplished in us through faith and Baptism, as the fruit of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ on the cross (976, 1263). Christ gave the power to remit sins to his Apostles, and through them to the ministers of the Church (981). The remission of sins committed after Baptism is effected sacramentally through the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (1446).

REPARATION: Making amends for a wrong done or for an offense, especially for sin, which is an offense against God. By his death on the cross, the Son of God offered his life out of love for the Father to make reparation for our sinful disobedience (614). We are obliged to make reparation for personal sins against justice and truth, either through restitution of stolen goods or correcting the harm done to the other's good name. (2412, 2487). See Satisfaction (for sin).

REPENTANCE: See Contrition; Penance.

PENANCE: Interior penance: a conversion of heart toward God and away from sin, which implies the intention to change one's life because of hope in divine mercy (1431). External acts of penance include fasting, prayer, and almsgiving (1434). The observance of certain penitential practices is obliged by the fourth precept of the Church (2043).

PENANCE, SACRAMENT OF: The liturgical celebration of God's forgiveness of the sins of the penitent, who is thus reconciled with God and with the Church. The acts of the penitent--contrition, the confession of sins, and satisfaction or reparation--together with the prayer of absolution by the priest, constitute the essential elements of the Sacrament of Penance (980, 1422, 1440, 1448).

PENITENT/PENITENTIAL: The sinner who repents of sin and seeks forgiveness (1451). In the early Church, public sinners belonged to an "order of penitents," who did public penance for their sins, often for years (1447). Penitential acts or practices refer to those which dispose one for or flows from interior penance or conversion; such acts lead to and follow upon the celebration of the Sacrament of Penance (1434). See Satisfaction (for sin).

PUNISHMENT, ETERNAL: The penalty for unrepented mortal sin, separating the sinner from communion with God for all eternity; the condemnation of the unrepentant sinner to hell (1035).

PUNISHMENT, TEMPORAL: Purification of the unhealthy attachment to creatures, which is a consequence of sin that perdures even after death. We must be purified either during our earthly life through prayer and a conversion which comes from fervent charity, or after death in purgatory (1472).

PURGATORY: A state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God's friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven (1031; cf. 1472).

...Perhaps the concept of “if” escapes you....

Not at all. The problem is that I stopped using the word on this forum some time back. It didn't seem to be comprehended by others, or they just didn't give a damn, because they used it against me. Sorry. Now that I know you understand the concept, I'll try to recognize it when you use it.

That would be reciprocal, won't it?

[Huntster]

Eh, no, that's not how it works. You either want a baby or you don't. If you are "open to the possibility of conception", it just means that you realize sex can result in conception... which is a big DUH....

Tell that to the advocates of condoms.

Being "open the the possibility of conception" has no bearing on understanding biology. It means being "open".

...That doesn't mean you'll still want whatever baby can result from it....

"Wanting" and "accepting" are two different things.

...Don't make me laugh...

If you find my posts funny, and you don't want to laugh, stop reading them. That should be easy enough, shouldn't it?; certainly easier than understanding "openness" and "acceptance".

...If people reject the church's so-called morality, it doesn't mean they reject morality altogether...

That's correct. Conversely, if some people reject the Church's beliefs, it doesn't mean the Church must change to fit those people's beliefs.

...The church's morality comes from an imaginary external source, and is based on fear, guilt and self-loathing, instead of compassion and empathy...

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I simply disagree.

...There is nothing "moral" about arbitrary limits on sexual intercourse, nor is there anything immoral about two consenting adults giving each other pleasure just because they don't have a piece of paper saying they're married...

There are consequences, though, aren't there?

If that's your opinion, better wear the condom, and pray it works.

I prefer to accept the wisdom of the Church, and not bother with the false security a thin film of latex can offer.

...Unfortunately, their bankrupt morality is being forced down the throats of ignorant people, and is used to spread lies and disinformation that results is more ignorance, and ultimately, more diseases and death...

That's a lie.

...They have a responsibility with those "morals"....

You should be responsible for your words.

[ceo_esq]

The church's morality comes from an imaginary external source, and is based on fear, guilt and self-loathing, instead of compassion and empathy. There is nothing "moral" about arbitrary limits on sexual intercourse, nor is there anything immoral about two consenting adults giving each other pleasure just because they don't have a piece of paper saying they're married.

I have to say that after skimming through the relevant catechetical materials, "fear, guilt and self-loathing" do not seem apparent in them; maybe a more in-depth study is required to discern those things. Still: I ask you more or less the same questions I'd ask the Church: how do you know whether particular limits (or lack thereof) on sexual activity are arbitrary or non-arbitrary? By reference to what standards do you say that sexual acts are "moral" or "immoral", and what is your basis for believing those standards are objectively correct?

[Morrigan]

Tell that to the advocates of condoms.
Tell them what? That sex can result in conception? Um, that's like, the very reason they advocate the condoms...


Being "open the the possibility of conception" has no bearing on understanding biology. It means being "open".

"Wanting" and "accepting" are two different things.

Indeed, they are. You can accept an unwanted pregnancy, you resign yourself to it. That doesn't mean it was wanted. You claimed that in a catholic marriage, there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy, which is ridiculous.


If you find my posts funny, and you don't want to laugh, stop reading them. That should be easy enough, shouldn't it?; certainly easier than understanding "openness" and "acceptance".

Oh look, the sage christian is being flippant, how cute... Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with figures of speech.


That's correct. Conversely, if some people reject the Church's beliefs, it doesn't mean the Church must change to fit those people's beliefs.

Oh, they're free to believe in whatever bollocks they want. I was merely refuting your implication that people who reject the church are "selfish and rejecting morality".



There are consequences, though, aren't there?

They are no different than the consequences of sex between a couple with said piece of paper.

If that's your opinion, better wear the condom, and pray it works.
The fool prays, the wise does.


I prefer to accept the wisdom of the Church, and not bother with the false security a thin film of latex can offer.

Holy crap... false security. Yeah, so you even buy in the misinformation they feed you. That explains all.


That's a lie.

Your saying so doesn't make it true.


You should be responsible for your words.
But not the church. Gotcha.

[Morrigan]

I have to say that after skimming through the relevant catechetical materials, "fear, guilt and self-loathing" do not seem apparent in them; maybe a more in-depth study is required to discern those things.

Are you serious...? The Fear of god is a predominent biblical teaching. The guilt is what every man and woman suffers due to the original sin. Why do you think the words "penitence", "repentance", "penance", "forgiveness" are all over the place in christian dogma? Every human being is a sinner, because of what our ancestors allegedly did in the beginning. We are all dirty sinners and we all must repent and beg forgiveness to some petty, jealous, childish deity.


Still: I ask you more or less the same questions I'd ask the Church: how do you know whether particular limits (or lack thereof) on sexual activity are arbitrary or non-arbitrary? By reference to what standards do you say that sexual acts are "moral" or "immoral", and what is your basis for believing those standards are objectively correct?
You can use a framework based in empathy, compassion and common sense. Morality is, after all, a guide for humans to live better together in a society. That is why most laws are meant to protect the people.
In sexuality, it's the same thing: restrictions should apply for the protection of vulnerable individuals. Forcing the consent of the individuals involved is logical, because without consent, there is the violation of one person's well-being (to put it mildly). Banning sexual acts in public is reasonable, because it can create a disturbance in society, can violate the innocence of young bystanders, and so on.

They are non-arbitrary restrictions, because each of these restriction has a reason behind them that is based in reality, in real consequences. Forcing the couples to have a ceremony, or a piece of paper, for their sexual activity to become "moral", is completely arbitrary. They'll argue that you need to be in holy communion with god or whatever other nonsense they'll bring up, but this has no real consequence. Likewise with masturbation: it hurts no one (when done in the privacy of one's home, of course), it feels good, it poses no danger to others or even the self... why would it be wrong? Again, "because god doesn't like it".

Basically, everytime the reason of a restriction is "god doesn't like it", it's safe to say it's arbitrary. ;)

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Tell that to the advocates of condoms.

Tell them what? That sex can result in conception? Um, that's like, the very reason they advocate the condoms...

Yet they continue to fornicate. If they don't have a condom on hand, well, hell, they'll just take the chance, right?

Happens all the time. Ask Mr. Zuma (he'll probably advise you to just take a shower afterward....)

Being "open the the possibility of conception" has no bearing on understanding biology. It means being "open".

"Wanting" and "accepting" are two different things.

Indeed, they are. You can accept an unwanted pregnancy, you resign yourself to it. That doesn't mean it was wanted. You claimed that in a catholic marriage, there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy, which is ridiculous.

Let me rephrase:

There is no "unwanted", if the couple is truly "open to the possibility of conception", but there are "surprises" on occasion.

If you find my posts funny, and you don't want to laugh, stop reading them. That should be easy enough, shouldn't it?; certainly easier than understanding "openness" and "acceptance".

Oh look, the sage christian is being flippant, how cute... Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with figures of speech.

Oh, I am. I'm often called a "smart ass". I always respond with "Yeah, but it's better than being a dumb ass, but you wouldn't know about that, would you?"

There are consequences, though, aren't there?

They are no different than the consequences of sex between a couple with said piece of paper.

From the 1960's sexual revolution, are ye?

Me, too, but I knew better.

Do you claim that children out of wedlock are an ideal, and offer the same blessings as children within wedlock?

If that's your opinion, better wear the condom, and pray it works.

The fool prays, the wise does.

Ever hear the adage "Fools Rush In"?

I prefer to accept the wisdom of the Church, and not bother with the false security a thin film of latex can offer.

Holy crap... false security. Yeah, so you even buy in the misinformation they feed you. That explains all.

No, lad. Experience.

My first daughter was conceived when I was under the bullet-proof protection of a condom

That's a lie.

Your saying so doesn't make it true.

And your denial doesn't make it false.

[I less than three logic]

From the Catechism (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm):



Quite a long list you produced for me, but I believe you forgot a very important one.

OBEDIENCE: (1) The submission to the authority of God which requires everyone to obey the divine law. Obedience to the Church is required in those things which pertain to our salvation; and obedience is due to legitimate civil authority, which has its origin in God for the sake of the common good and the order of society (1897). The fourth commandment obliges children to obey their parents (2216). (2) Obedience of faith: The first obedience is that of faith: to listen and freely submit to the word of God (144). (3) Obedience of Christ: Jesus Christ substituted his obedience to the will of his Father, even unto death, for the disobedience of sin, in order to bring us the grace of justification and to satisfy for our sins (615). (4) Vow of obedience: In imitation of this obedience of Jesus, as an evangelical counsel, the faithful may profess a vow of obedience; a public vow of obedience, accepted by Church authority, is one element that characterizes the consecrated life (915).
If every person is born already with sin and obedience to the Church is a requirement for all things that pertain to salvation, then everyone must obey the Church or face the consequences you’ve described. Hence, what I said earlier, “It is nothing more than an appalling tool used to create a dependence upon the Church”. Threatening people with some eternal punishment in order to force their obedience to the Church is something I’d consider immoral.

[Morrigan]

Yet they continue to fornicate. If they don't have a condom on hand, well, hell, they'll just take the chance, right?

Happens all the time. Ask Mr. Zuma (he'll probably advise you to just take a shower afterward....)

Zuma is an ignorant fool, and he's irrelevant. Yeah, there are morons who'll still screw without protection. That doesn't change the fact that a sensible, responsible person can still have all the sex s/he wants without problems if s/he is careful.


Let me rephrase:

There is no "unwanted", if the couple is truly "open to the possibility of conception", but there are "surprises" on occasion.

A married couple can still refuse to have more children. Or does being catholic suddenly change everything?


Oh, I am. I'm often called a "smart ass". I always respond with "Yeah, but it's better than being a dumb ass, but you wouldn't know about that, would you?"

You're so cute when you think you're being clever.


From the 1960's sexual revolution, are ye?

Me, too, but I knew better.

I am much younger than that. We have not only the pill now, but other methods as well. Educated people use them properly.


Do you claim that children out of wedlock are an ideal, and offer the same blessings as children within wedlock?

Why the hell not? What is the difference between the children of an unmarried couple, living together as de facto spouses, than a couple with a piece of paper that says they're married?


Ever hear the adage "Fools Rush In"?

No, but no one's saying anything about rushing anything. Nice try.


No, lad. Experience.

My first daughter was conceived when I was under the bullet-proof protection of a condom

I am not a lad, and it's not the condom's fault you didn't put it on properly. I guess not everyone's competent. :P Besides, it's known that there are more efficient birth control methods than the condom. It shouldn't be used alone, condoms are especially efficient against STDs.

I can see why you're so bitter about them, though. Explains why you buy into the church's crap.

And your denial doesn't make it false.
No, but it's still not a lie. The church has abused its power to feed disinformation and propaganda that only created harm.

[fuelair]

Just a quick note to say although I disagree with religion gigantically (and therefore with most support of it), I think you (Huntster) are doing a great job of defending your points! Keeps these postings interesting!!! And forces clarification!!

[andyandy]

My first daughter was conceived when I was under the bullet-proof protection of a condom



just a drive by snipe....


no-one should use condoms......but you can?.....
.....seeing as how the pope's only getting around to thinking of allowing the use of condoms for married couples - and then only for partners with HIV.....all your previous posts seem a little hypocritical - especially due to the high moral ground you claimed for yourself....
guess you're gonna join the rest of us in hell....i'll save you a place :) :) :)

[Belz...]

You're talking about words written thousands of years ago, long before "science".

Tribal humans wrote those words. What do you expect?


Well at least you're not a litteralist.

[Belz...]

no-one should use condoms......but you can?.....
.....seeing as how the pope's only getting around to thinking of allowing the use of condoms for married couples - and then only for partners with HIV.....all your previous posts seem a little hypocritical - especially due to the high moral ground you claimed for yourself....
guess you're gonna join the rest of us in hell....i'll save you a place :) :) :)

Since when do YOU have any authority in Hell ? I'll have to have a talk with those useless minions, down there.

[Huntster]

...Threatening people with some eternal punishment in order to force their obedience to the Church is something I’d consider immoral....

I'm impressed. Here's someone who can perform basic research.

Yes, obedience is a virtue. Fortunately, I learned that lesson young, and as a result, it has served me magnificently. However, I can understand how many in today's world never learned that lesson, and as a result, hold it in distain.

My obedience to my parents was tested during my adolescent years. Fortunately my parents were patient and faithful.

My obedience to the Church was tested during my young adult years. Fortunately the responsibility of raising my small children like my parents raised me brought me out of that.

It was the United States Army that fixed my obedience problems. And they have rewarded me with loyalty ever since I learned the lesson.

Like abstinence, self-discipline isn't achievable for all. There are no guarantees that all will be saved when free choice is considered:

..."Hear this! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky ground where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep. And when the sun rose, it was scorched and it withered for lack of roots. Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it and it produced no grain. And some seed fell on rich soil and produced fruit. It came up and grew and yielded thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold." He added, "Whoever has ears to hear ought to hear."

And when he was alone, those present along with the Twelve questioned him about the parables. He answered them, "The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables, so that they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.'" Jesus said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand any of the parables?

The sower sows the word. These are the ones on the path where the word is sown. As soon as they hear, Satan comes at once and takes away the word sown in them. And these are the ones sown on rocky ground who, when they hear the word, receive it at once with joy. But they have no root; they last only for a time. Then when tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. Those sown among thorns are another sort. They are the people who hear the word, but worldly anxiety, the lure of riches, and the craving for other things intrude and choke the word, and it bears no fruit. But those sown on rich soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit thirty and sixty and a hundredfold."...

Mark 4:4-20

[Huntster]

Zuma is an ignorant fool, and he's irrelevant....

As the former head of the very government agency charged with dealing with the AIDS epidemic in South Africa, and right in line for the presidency, Zuma is anything but irrelevant.

...Yeah, there are morons who'll still screw without protection. That doesn't change the fact that a sensible, responsible person can still have all the sex s/he wants without problems if s/he is careful....

Who's the fool?

...A married couple can still refuse to have more children. Or does being catholic suddenly change everything?...

Yes, indeed. Being a faithful Catholic does change everything.

...Why the hell not? What is the difference between the children of an unmarried couple, living together as de facto spouses, than a couple with a piece of paper that says they're married?...

If you don't know by now, I can't help you.

...it's not the condom's fault you didn't put it on properly....

It broke.

...I guess not everyone's competent. :P Besides, it's known that there are more efficient birth control methods than the condom....

Do they hinder HIV infection, too?

...It shouldn't be used alone, condoms are especially efficient against STDs...

Even when they break?

...I can see why you're so bitter about them, though. Explains why you buy into the church's crap....

I'm not bitter at all. I was "open to the possibility of conception". I now have a very beautiful and successful daughter, of whom I am well pleased and proud.

[andyandy]

but hunter.....condoms are EVIL....

or is it OK for you to wear them but not for anyone else?

[Pauliesonne]

Hey, come on.....

I may not know Huntster personally, but I doubt he's that big a self-rightous git!

[andyandy]

Hey, come on.....

I may not know Huntster personally, but I doubt he's that big a self-rightous git!

lol :D

come on hunter....i'm trying to get a rise from you.....preferably latex free....:)

[Checkmite]

Actually there is a pretty good point. The Catholic church doesn't just say "condoms are immoral", it also says "unmarried sex is immoral". Yet the millions of people who are allegedly "forced" by the Catholic church to not use condoms don't seem "forced" to follow that same church's rules against extramarital sex.

So, I don't think the Catholic church is to blame for AIDS deaths. Overpopulation, maybe.

[I less than three logic]

I'm impressed. Here's someone who can perform basic research.

Yes, obedience is a virtue. Fortunately, I learned that lesson young, and as a result, it has served me magnificently. However, I can understand how many in today's world never learned that lesson, and as a result, hold it in distain.

My obedience to my parents was tested during my adolescent years. Fortunately my parents were patient and faithful.

My obedience to the Church was tested during my young adult years. Fortunately the responsibility of raising my small children like my parents raised me brought me out of that.

It was the United States Army that fixed my obedience problems. And they have rewarded me with loyalty ever since I learned the lesson.

Like abstinence, self-discipline isn't achievable for all. There are no guarantees that all will be saved when free choice is considered:
Obedience can, of course, be a virtue. It is how that obedience is obtained that is within question here.

There are many things I have chosen to obey. I obey my parents, not because a commandment requires me to, but because I have chosen to out of my respect for them. I obey the law, even more trivial ones such as the speed limit, not for the fear of being punished, but because I recognize the necessity to do so for social order. Also, I agree with many of the laws from an ethical perspective.

It appears like you’ve chosen to offer your obedience to others as well. You stated that the US Army fixed your obedience problems. However, you freely chose to offer your obedience to the Army. Perhaps you remember this part:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
In fixing your obedience problems, the Army was merely forcing you to honor your oath. Also, from reading your posts, I’d conclude that you obey the Church as well. If you’ve chosen to do so freely, that is fine, as it is your choice to make.

Perhaps you’ve noticed something in common within these examples? The choice to be obedient must be offered freely in order to be considered a virtue. Obedience is not something that can be, by moral means, forcefully extracted from a person. However, the doctrine of the Church seeks to do just that. By taking advantage of the uncertainties and fears many people have concerning death, the Church, through it’s concept of original sin, seeks to force their obedience to the Church by threats of some eternal punishment if they do not comply. Obedience submitted in this fashion is in no way a virtue, and the act of procuring obedience through threats is immoral.

[andyandy]

Actually there is a pretty good point. The Catholic church doesn't just say "condoms are immoral", it also says "unmarried sex is immoral". Yet the millions of people who are allegedly "forced" by the Catholic church to not use condoms don't seem "forced" to follow that same church's rules against extramarital sex.

So, I don't think the Catholic church is to blame for AIDS deaths. Overpopulation, maybe.

well....that's a more sensible argument than any hunter's put forward....but it isnt really that simple....
millions of people are dont use condoms - and the catholic anti-contraceptive stance is a major factor in this......so if anything the catholic stance on contraception is "forced upon" people....(i've posted at length on this earlier in the thread) as an example, the average sub-saharan has less than 5 condoms a year on average....so it's hardly surprising that people have sex without contraception.

You make a good point about - how if everyone followed church doctrine then there would be no rapid spread of STDs....but it ignores societal and physical realities....young women in the sub sahara are generally in a very vulnerable position - and there is often great pressure to have sex in order to secure a marriage...this isnt simply about "morals" - but socio-ecconomic realities....from a physical perspective, men and women have sex, they desire sex, they will have sex - it's a natural urge - and all the christian "moral teaching" in the world is not going to stop this....it's naive to think it could.

There should be nothing to stop the catholic church to say
"we believe that sex should only take place between a man and his wife....but if you do have sex outside marriage then you should use contraception."
but they don't....and as a result they must bear some responsiblity for the AIDS crisis in Africa and elsewhere. We can quibble as to what extent they are culpable....but the fact that they must share some responsibility is pretty irrefutable....

[Huntster]

but hunter.....condoms are EVIL....

That's H-U-N-T-S-T-E-R to you, sir.

And that's your opinion regarding whether a piece of latex is "evil". I've never written that.

I've written that they're not as reliable as they are made out to be by condom advocates, and they're just as often not on hand when they are needed, therefore they are no guarantee of anything.

...or is it OK for you to wear them but not for anyone else?

Anyone can wear them if they'd like. They can even blow them up as balloons, if they'd like.

That's what free choice is all about.

[andyandy]

John Paul II condemned the use of condoms as a "culture of death" ......so for me to characterise condoms as evil whilst glib is not too far from what the old pope believed....and he was appointed by god you know....

[Huntster]

...There are many things I have chosen to obey. I obey my parents, not because a commandment requires me to, but because I have chosen to out of my respect for them. I obey the law, even more trivial ones such as the speed limit, not for the fear of being punished, but because I recognize the necessity to do so for social order. Also, I agree with many of the laws from an ethical perspective....

You are clearly a responsible, thoughtful person. Not all of us are like that. Some of us need more guidance, and even need discipline drilled into us.

Some of us don't make it.

That's the free choice part.

...It appears like you’ve chosen to offer your obedience to others as well. You stated that the US Army fixed your obedience problems. However, you freely chose to offer your obedience to the Army. Perhaps you remember this part:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Yup. Still under oath, too.

I'm faithful to another vow I took:

I,________, take you ___________, to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; until death do us part.

I don't remember the obedience part of that vow, but Mrs. Huntster insists it was there................

And I'd damn sure better obey...........

...In fixing your obedience problems, the Army was merely forcing you to honor your oath....

Yup.

Same with Mrs. Huntster.

...Also, from reading your posts, I’d conclude that you obey the Church as well...

Not nearly as well as I obey the Army and Mrs. Huntster.

The Church (and God) is much more forgiving than both the Army and Mrs. Huntster.

...If you’ve chosen to do so freely, that is fine, as it is your choice to make....

I do, but with the Army and Mrs. Huntster, the possibility of the courts come into play if I blow it.

...Perhaps you’ve noticed something in common within these examples? The choice to be obedient must be offered freely in order to be considered a virtue....

Most definately.

...Obedience is not something that can be, by moral means, forcefully extracted from a person. However, the doctrine of the Church seeks to do just that...

I disagree. Unlike the Army and Mrs. Huntster, I can leave the Church anytime I please, and no Earthly force can do anything about it. I'm as free as a bird.

....By taking advantage of the uncertainties and fears many people have concerning death, the Church, through it’s concept of original sin, seeks to force their obedience to the Church by threats of some eternal punishment if they do not comply....

The Old Testament was around with God and the Ten Commandments a long, long time before the RCC came into existence.

...Obedience submitted in this fashion is in no way a virtue, and the act of procuring obedience through threats is immoral....

So, would you extend that opinion to say that the courts are immoral to force me to live up to my government oath or marriage vows?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi :
Actually there is a pretty good point. The Catholic church doesn't just say "condoms are immoral", it also says "unmarried sex is immoral". Yet the millions of people who are allegedly "forced" by the Catholic church to not use condoms don't seem "forced" to follow that same church's rules against extramarital sex.

well....that's a more sensible argument than any hunter's put forward........

Ummmmm............that is the point I was making.........:confused:

[andyandy]

no....you got sidetracked onto pious preaching.....:)

re. condoms are evil....

John Paul II condemned the use of condoms as a "culture of death" ......so for me to characterise condoms as evil whilst glib is not too far from what the old pope believed....and he was appointed by god you know....

so....hell for you too? :D

[Pauliesonne]

Huntster, If you were a protestant, I'd swear you were the real-life version of Hank Hill!

[Huntster]

..re. condoms are evil....

How can an inanimate object be evil?

...John Paul II condemned the use of condoms as a "culture of death" ......so for me to characterise condoms as evil whilst glib is not too far from what the old pope believed....and he was appointed by god you know....

so....hell for you too? :D

Maybe. I've been an evil, evil man.

But I stopped using condoms long before John Paul II became Pope.

[ceo_esq]

Are you serious...? The Fear of god is a predominent biblical teaching. The guilt is what every man and woman suffers due to the original sin. Why do you think the words "penitence", "repentance", "penance", "forgiveness" are all over the place in christian dogma? Every human being is a sinner, because of what our ancestors allegedly did in the beginning. We are all dirty sinners and we all must repent and beg forgiveness to some petty, jealous, childish deity.

Hmm. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. The history of Christian belief in our culture would not seem to reflect predominantly that particular spin on the forgiveness/atonement themes, however. I find it very difficult to think of the Mass in B minor, Chartres Cathedral, the death of Maximilian Kolbe, etc. and believe that such things were inspired by a philosophy characterized largely by "fear, guilt and self-loathing". At any rate, I don't think your interpretation enjoys much currency among the Catholics themselves, which I suppose is more relevant.


You can use a framework based in empathy, compassion and common sense.

Of course you can - and no doubt the Church would argue that its view of morality is more consistent with these principles than any alternative. I'm not sure reference to these principles really answers my question.


Morality is, after all, a guide for humans to live better together in a society.

That's one way of approaching morality, but it strikes me as a reductive one. Like most everyone, I have my own view on morality and believe that that view greatly facilitates the ability of human beings to live together in society. I do not consider, however, that a thing is moral solely in proportion to its ability to facilitate social cohesion and harmony.


That is why most laws are meant to protect the people.

I wouldn't draw too close an identification between those concepts, though. Many laws adopted for the public good are not generally deemed to be required by morality (consider the distinction between an offense malum in se and one malum prohibitum), and many acts not prohibited by law are generally deemed morally repugnant.


In sexuality, it's the same thing: restrictions should apply for the protection of vulnerable individuals. Forcing the consent of the individuals involved is logical, because without consent, there is the violation of one person's well-being (to put it mildly). Banning sexual acts in public is reasonable, because it can create a disturbance in society, can violate the innocence of young bystanders, and so on.

They are non-arbitrary restrictions, because each of these restriction has a reason behind them that is based in reality, in real consequences. Forcing the couples to have a ceremony, or a piece of paper, for their sexual activity to become "moral", is completely arbitrary. They'll argue that you need to be in holy communion with god or whatever other nonsense they'll bring up, but this has no real consequence. Likewise with masturbation: it hurts no one (when done in the privacy of one's home, of course), it feels good, it poses no danger to others or even the self... why would it be wrong? Again, "because god doesn't like it".

Basically, everytime the reason of a restriction is "god doesn't like it", it's safe to say it's arbitrary. ;)

Although I favor your position personally, I think we must fairly concede that it is perhaps ultimately no more defensible than the Church's. To judge from your post, you might term immoral, say, the molestation of an unconscious person because it violates an abstract notion of their "well-being". You might deem immoral an act of "indecent exposure" at a playground because it would violate an abstract notion of "innocence". (I'd agree with you.) The Church, for its part, entertains the notion of an immaterial-yet-real "immortal soul", and it believes that the acts its teachings proscribe are not compatible with the welfare of that soul. That might be wrong - I certainly hope so - but it doesn't seem to me that the resulting teachings are thereby arbitrary, any more than moral teachings depending upon other abstractions.

[Huntster]

Huntster, If you were a protestant, I'd swear you were the real-life version of Hank Hill!

I like Protestants. I go to Protestant church services sometimes.

Who's Hank Hill?

[andyandy]

How can an inanimate object be evil?



Maybe. I've been an evil, evil man.

But I stopped using condoms long before John Paul II became Pope.

well....i was being slightly facetious....though i'm not surprised you didnt pick it up...."the use of condoms is evil" - how about that - even the pope agrees :D

and as far as i'm aware of catholic nonsense, the pope is the spokesman for god....so if john paul says something then that means it's god's words.....and unless god often changes his mind then the use of condoms must have been evil even when you used them..... :)

if you've been an evil evil man then why the sanctimonious moralising? religion just gives people a moral platform to climb so they can look down on others...we're all human, we're all fallible, let's forget all this dogmatic nonsense that divides nations, splits families and starts wars, and just be friends :) :) :)

[Huntster]

...if you've been an evil evil man then why the sanctimonious moralising?...

I've simply been citing Catholic doctrine from the Catechism (especially because there appears to be a lot of erroneous opinions of what that doctrine is), and offering my interpretation and understanding of it. I've also been offering my experiences with condoms, and how I don't think they're the answer to the problem of AIDS. I'm sorry if you consider it "moralizing".

...religion just gives people a moral platform to climb so they can look down on others...

Do you feel "looked down on"? Why is that?

...we're all human, we're all fallible, let's forget all this dogmatic nonsense that divides nations, splits families and starts wars, and just be friends...

I believe I've written that here somewhere; we're all human, we're all sinners, and we all have the choice. I have no intention of starting a war, split a family, or divide a nation. I want to worship as I see fit, and wish the same for others (including those who don't wish to worship at all).

Again, that's the "free choice" thing.

[Pauliesonne]

Do you feel "looked down on"? Why is that?





To quote Mitch Benn;

" I believe in anything the preacher tells me to
And I believe this makes me morally superior to you "

[Huntster]

To quote Mitch Benn;

" I believe in anything the preacher tells me to
And I believe this makes me morally superior to you "

I would disagree with Mr. Benn.

I don't believe in everything the preacher tells me to,
and even if I did, I don't think that makes me morally superior to anyone.

[Pauliesonne]

I would disagree with Mr. Benn.

I don't believe in everything the preacher tells me to,


Aren't you supposed to?

[Morrigan]

As the former head of the very government agency charged with dealing with the AIDS epidemic in South Africa, and right in line for the presidency, Zuma is anything but irrelevant.

He is irrelevant to the responsibilities of the catholic church, and to the fact that condoms are efficient against AIDS.


Yes, indeed. Being a faithful Catholic does change everything.

Ah, so if they are not "open enough" to conception, then they're not really catholic... The no true scotsman fallacy. Was only a matter of time before it came up.


If you don't know by now, I can't help you.

By now? You have explained nothing. You have not demonstrated why a couple with a ceremony + piece of paper is better (or their children are better off), than a couple of de facto spouses who live together.


It broke.

Of course it did. And most breakages occur from misuse (and in rarer cases, sabotage).

Do they hinder HIV infection, too?
They prevent the infection from spreading...


Even when they break?

*sigh* Nobody says they are foolproof, but it's foolishness to say it's a "false security". It's pretty damn obvious that AIDS rates would drop if people stopped screwing without protection. Obviously, promiscuity is also a factor, but even married couples can be affected (if a raped but married woman carries HIV, for example), and condoms would be the best way to protect themselves.

A 85% reduction of risk is better than nothing at all. And I suspect the rates would be much higher with proper use.

[Morrigan]

Actually there is a pretty good point. The Catholic church doesn't just say "condoms are immoral", it also says "unmarried sex is immoral". Yet the millions of people who are allegedly "forced" by the Catholic church to not use condoms don't seem "forced" to follow that same church's rules against extramarital sex.

So, I don't think the Catholic church is to blame for AIDS deaths. Overpopulation, maybe.
Actually, it's not about "forcing" the people. Nobody says the church points a gun at these people and tell them "no condoms!".
It's about education (and lack thereof) and disinformation. They will tell those people that condoms aren't really effective. The problem isn't in telling them that it's immoral, after all, as you said, they'd also say promiscuity is immoral and that doesn't stop many people. But if they spread lies about its supposed inefficiency, then they are, at least partly, responsible for what happens.

The church's propaganda have little power in North America, but it's not like the AIDS crisis here is in any way close to the crisis where the people are vulnerable to their "teachings"...

[I less than three logic]

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I have to respond to a few of your remarks.

First, I noticed you highlighted God within the enlistment oath. You do realize that last sentence is not required. Although, I suspect that many Atheist would rather just say it in order to not break tradition or cause a scene perhaps. Also, the constitution you swore to protect, contrary to popular belief, was influenced far more by the religious views of Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism), than by Christian beliefs. You may find that many Deist and Atheist views of organized religion have a lot in common. You can read one such Deist’s opinions here (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm).

You are clearly a responsible, thoughtful person. Not all of us are like that. Some of us need more guidance, and even need discipline drilled into us.

Some of us don't make it.

That's the free choice part.
Thank you, however, I don’t consider myself any different from most people. I think most people are inherently good; those that are not are the exception. This reminds me of something written by another Deist.
The Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist, had he intended man for a social animal, without planting in him social dispositions. It is true they are not planted in every man, because there is no rule without exceptions; but it is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general rule. Some men are born without the organs of sight, or of hearing, or without hands. Yet it would be wrong to say that man is born without these faculties, and sight, hearing, and hands may with truth enter into the general definition of man. The want or imperfection of the moral sense in some men, like the want or imperfection of the senses of sight and hearing in others, is no proof that it is a general characteristic of the species. When it is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education, by appeals to reason and calculation, by presenting to the being so unhappily conformed, other motives to do good and to eschew evil, such as the love, or the hatred, or rejection of those among whom he lives, and whose society is necessary to his happiness and even existence; demonstrations by sound calculation that honesty promotes interest in the long run; the rewards and penalties established by the laws; and ultimately the prospects of a future state of retribution for the evil as well as the good done while here… I think it the brightest gem with which the human character is studded, and the want of it as more degrading than the most hideous of the bodily deformities.
This is from a letter entitled “Moral Sense” written by Thomas Jefferson, whom you’d probably agree was quite influential in the creation of the document you swore to defend, the full letter can be read here (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=228&division=div1).

....By taking advantage of the uncertainties and fears many people have concerning death, the Church, through it’s concept of original sin, seeks to force their obedience to the Church by threats of some eternal punishment if they do not comply....
The Old Testament was around with God and the Ten Commandments a long, long time before the RCC came into existence.
You’re right, this immoral principle is common throughout all Christianity, but the RCC is just as guilty of using this towards the gain of the Church and its religious leaders as any other.

...Obedience submitted in this fashion is in no way a virtue, and the act of procuring obedience through threats is immoral....
So, would you extend that opinion to say that the courts are immoral to force me to live up to my government oath or marriage vows?
No. For starters, you freely chose to take on those oaths. You were not manipulated through fear into the position of obedience. (Well, perhaps this is the case with your wife. :D) Also, the courts are only concerned with things you have actually done. If the court was threatening to punish you for your father’s crime unless you did what they told you to do, then of course I’d consider that immoral. That is the entire reasoning behind original sin. Christianity preaches we are all destined to face eternal punishment, for the mere crime of being born, unless you do what they tell you to. I consider that completely immoral.

[Morrigan]

Hmm. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. The history of Christian belief in our culture would not seem to reflect predominantly that particular spin on the forgiveness/atonement themes, however. I find it very difficult to think of the Mass in B minor, Chartres Cathedral, the death of Maximilian Kolbe, etc. and believe that such things were inspired by a philosophy characterized largely by "fear, guilt and self-loathing". At any rate, I don't think your interpretation enjoys much currency among the Catholics themselves, which I suppose is more relevant.

Oh, they'll never admit it, but this is what the bible says, after all. And I forgot martyrdom, of course - the sacrificing of the self is greatly valorized
(because, after all, this fleshly existence is meaningless, only the afterlife is truly important).

Funny example about the cathedral. It's actually not very christian when you think about it. What is christian about opulent, rich architecture? Where is the humbleness, the serene humility and glorification of austerity represented by christ? I'd say it's more a corruption of dogma than anything else. Not that I don't like it, I prefer pride and glory to meekness myself. ;)



That's one way of approaching morality, but it strikes me as a reductive one. Like most everyone, I have my own view on morality and believe that that view greatly facilitates the ability of human beings to live together in society. I do not consider, however, that a thing is moral solely in proportion to its ability to facilitate social cohesion and harmony.

I was oversimplifying, to be sure. I don't disagree with you, I just said that to put the rest in context.


I wouldn't draw too close an identification between those concepts, though. Many laws adopted for the public good are not generally deemed to be required by morality (consider the distinction between an offense malum in se and one malum prohibitum), and many acts not prohibited by law are generally deemed morally repugnant.

Again, no disagreement, but I don't think there are as many legal acts considered morally repugnant as you say.


Although I favor your position personally, I think we must fairly concede that it is perhaps ultimately no more defensible than the Church's. To judge from your post, you might term immoral, say, the molestation of an unconscious person because it violates an abstract notion of their "well-being". You might deem immoral an act of "indecent exposure" at a playground because it would violate an abstract notion of "innocence". (I'd agree with you.) The Church, for its part, entertains the notion of an immaterial-yet-real "immortal soul", and it believes that the acts its teachings proscribe are not compatible with the welfare of that soul. That might be wrong - I certainly hope so - but it doesn't seem to me that the resulting teachings are thereby arbitrary, any more than moral teachings depending upon other abstractions.
Just because innocence and well-being are abstract concepts, does not make them less real. The "immortal soul" is not just abstract, it's purely based on faith. The concept of a child's innocence is easily defined, and observed in reality. Same with the well-being. They are words that describe ideas on an abstract level, to be sure, but we can observe concrete events and behaviours in relation to them (especially when they are lost, unfortunately). They are no less real than emotions like fear, hate, love, or concepts like empathy, suffering, and so on - and those are all "abstract definitions", after all.

[Morrigan]

That is the entire reasoning behind original sin. Christianity preaches we are all destined to face eternal punishment, for the mere crime of being born, unless you do what they tell you to. I consider that completely immoral.
Exactly, and that's why their entire morality is a joke. And why I consider it to be a form of self-loathing, if perhaps unconscious.

[ceo_esq]

Also, the constitution you swore to protect, contrary to popular belief, was influenced far more by the religious views of Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism), than by Christian beliefs. You may find that many Deist and Atheist views of organized religion have a lot in common.

I have to register something of a professional disagreement here about this characterization of the Constitution. First, the strands of Enlightenment thought most inimical to organized religion (e.g., the philosophes) are not the ones which had the most direct influence on late 18th-century political and juridical philosophy in America. And to the extent the political thought of Voltaire or other deists finds itself reflected in the original Constitution, it is chiefly in respects that align with rather than depart from content drawn from fundamental sources such as Locke which pretty clearly fall into the admittedly diverse tradition of Christian political philosophy.


If the court was threatening to punish you for your father’s crime unless you did what they told you to do, then of course I’d consider that immoral. That is the entire reasoning behind original sin. Christianity preaches we are all destined to face eternal punishment, for the mere crime of being born, unless you do what they tell you to.

Are you sure this is an accurate depiction of the doctrine? From a rapid review of the relevant article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia, a couple of points emerge that your characterization does not seem adequately to account for (or else downright contradicts). First, original "sin" is not sin in the customary sense of an act or a crime; it is a "moral deformity" (perhaps some kind of ingrained penchant to commit "sin" in the ordinary usage of that term, but not an evil nature per se). The term "original sin" is thus used only a loose analogical sense, but sufficiently distinct from the ordinary sense to make your analogy to a father's criminal act seem somewhat inapposite. Second, the article clearly indicates that there is no punishment inflicted solely for original sin. That is, someone who died in the condition of original sin, but without having committed any actual sins, would be deprived of the reward the Catholics call the "beatific vision" but would not actually be consigned to pain or suffering.


Funny example about the cathedral. It's actually not very christian when you think about it.

Personally, from my perspective as an outsider, I find Chartres Cathedral to be quintessentially Christian (at least quintessentially 13th-century Christian). I highly recommend the historian Henry Adams (http://bartelby.org/65/ad/Adams-He.html)' famous treatment of this very subject in his classic study Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres. In his discussion of the religious faith of culture that produced these monuments, Adams argues persuasively that:

... the great Gothic cathedrals were its most complete expression.

Perhaps the best proof of it is their apparent instability. Of all the elaborate symbolism which has been suggested for the Gothic cathedral, the most vital and most perfect may be that the slender nervure, the springing motion of the broken arch, the leap downwards of the flying buttress - the visible effort to throw off a visible strain - never let us forget that Faith alone supports it, and that, if Faith fails, Heaven is lost. The equilibrium is visibly delicate beyond the line of safety; danger lurks in every stone. The peril of the heavy tower, of the restless vault, of the vagrant buttress; the uncertainty of logic, the inequalities of the syllogism, the irregularities of the mental mirror - all these haunting nightmares of the Church are expressed as strongly by the Gothic cathedral as though it had been the cry of human suffering, and as no emotion had ever been expressed before or is likely to find expression again. The delight of its aspirations is flung up to the sky. The pathos of its self-distrust and anguish of doubt is buried in the earth as its last secret.


(Pathos and self-distrust, which are among the various emotional notes struck by the physical aspect of the cathedral, are not, in my reading of Adams, to be identified with the general "fear, guilt, and self-loathing" you attach to Christianity.)

[ceo_esq]

Just a quick note to say although I disagree with religion gigantically (and therefore with most support of it), I think you (Huntster) are doing a great job of defending your points! Keeps these postings interesting!!! And forces clarification!!

He does appear to be getting the hang of it more these days.

[Huntster]

Aren't you supposed to?

Supposed to has nothing to do with it.

Aren't you "supposed to" believe everything the news media tells you?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
As the former head of the very government agency charged with dealing with the AIDS epidemic in South Africa, and right in line for the presidency, Zuma is anything but irrelevant.

He is irrelevant to the responsibilities of the catholic church, and to the fact that condoms are efficient against AIDS.

He is most relevant to the "government" response to AIDS.

If you choose to violate the Church position on fornication, you'd better adhere to the government (and Morrigan) position on condoms.

If you've got 'em, you'd better wear 'em. If you don't, you'd better consider the Church's position.

And if you believe (like Mr. Zuma) that a shower is gonna do the trick, you're "screwed".

Yes, indeed. Being a faithful Catholic does change everything.

Ah, so if they are not "open enough" to conception, then they're not really catholic... The no true scotsman fallacy. Was only a matter of time before it came up.

I wasn't "open enough" to conception in my youth. I learned that I have no power over destiny.

I learned that lesson over and over over and over over and over over and over, and in many more ways than just reproduction.

If you don't know by now, I can't help you.

By now? You have explained nothing. You have not demonstrated why a couple with a ceremony + piece of paper is better (or their children are better off), than a couple of de facto spouses who live together.

That's right, I haven't.

And I again write that if you don't know by now, I can't help you.

Some things you just have to figure out for yourself.


It broke.

Of course it did. And most breakages occur from misuse (and in rarer cases, sabotage).

Misuse?

How does one "misuse" a condom?

Do they hinder HIV infection, too?

They prevent the infection from spreading...

Birth control devices other than condoms prevent infections from spreading?

How so?

Even when they break?

*sigh* Nobody says they are foolproof, but it's foolishness to say it's a "false security". It's pretty damn obvious that AIDS rates would drop if people stopped screwing without protection....

It's not "foolish" to say that it's a false sense of security. It's a scientific fact. However, I freely agree that condoms would be very helpful if used to fornicate.

The problem is that those people who fornicate aren't likely to be responsible enough to use condoms.

...Obviously, promiscuity is also a factor, but even married couples can be affected (if a raped but married woman carries HIV, for example), and condoms would be the best way to protect themselves...

I agree, and the Church is presently drafting a position that recognizes that.

...A 85% reduction of risk is better than nothing at all. And I suspect the rates would be much higher with proper use...

Again, agreed.

Now, is it your position that the Church (who opposes fornication) is responsible for those who don't use condoms?

I think your assignment of blame is faulty. The Church openly opposes fornication. You have no obligation to toe that line.

Yet, if you choose to fornicate, it's the Church's fault that you get AIDS or HIV?

Please..............

[Huntster]

Actually, it's not about "forcing" the people. Nobody says the church points a gun at these people and tell them "no condoms!".
It's about education (and lack thereof) and disinformation....

Yup. The Church doesn't force people to do anything. Governments do.

The last I heard, governments "educate", too.

With regard to education, the Church does educate. If you refuse to accept that education, should the Church be held responsible?

...They will tell those people that condoms aren't really effective. The problem isn't in telling them that it's immoral, after all, as you said, they'd also say promiscuity is immoral and that doesn't stop many people. But if they spread lies about its supposed inefficiency, then they are, at least partly, responsible for what happens....

Please educate us on what "lies" the Church "spread" regarding condoms.

[Pauliesonne]

Supposed to has nothing to do with it.

Aren't you "supposed to" believe everything the news media tells you?

Nope.

But the curch and the media are'nt excatly the same thing.

How's my linguistics?

[Huntster]

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I have to respond to a few of your remarks....

....Also, the constitution you swore to protect, contrary to popular belief, was influenced far more by the religious views of Deism, than by Christian beliefs. You may find that many Deist and Atheist views of organized religion have a lot in common....

Although Catholic by birth, baptism, confirmation, and informed, reasoned, adult choice, I have no problem whatsoever with Deism, and appreciate the reasoned consideration of God that Deists hold.

In fact, I consider my religious faith as much Deist as Catholic, and find no reason why it cannot be both.

...This reminds me of something written by another Deist.

The Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist, had he intended man for a social animal, without planting in him social dispositions. It is true they are not planted in every man, because there is no rule without exceptions; but it is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general rule. Some men are born without the organs of sight, or of hearing, or without hands. Yet it would be wrong to say that man is born without these faculties, and sight, hearing, and hands may with truth enter into the general definition of man. The want or imperfection of the moral sense in some men, like the want or imperfection of the senses of sight and hearing in others, is no proof that it is a general characteristic of the species. When it is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education, by appeals to reason and calculation, by presenting to the being so unhappily conformed, other motives to do good and to eschew evil, such as the love, or the hatred, or rejection of those among whom he lives, and whose society is necessary to his happiness and even existence; demonstrations by sound calculation that honesty promotes interest in the long run; the rewards and penalties established by the laws; and ultimately the prospects of a future state of retribution for the evil as well as the good done while here… I think it the brightest gem with which the human character is studded, and the want of it as more degrading than the most hideous of the bodily deformities.

This is from a letter entitled “Moral Sense” written by Thomas Jefferson...

I believe the portions of your Jefferson quote illustrates the "free choice" that the RCC recognizes, and that such free choice dashes any hope for "peace", "stability", the proverbial "bowl of cherries", etc., that so many blame God for not providing them.

....By taking advantage of the uncertainties and fears many people have concerning death, the Church, through it’s concept of original sin, seeks to force their obedience to the Church by threats of some eternal punishment if they do not comply....

There is no "eternal punishment" even advocated by RCC doctrine for original sin.

The Old Testament was around with God and the Ten Commandments a long, long time before the RCC came into existence.

You’re right, this immoral principle is common throughout all Christianity, but the RCC is just as guilty of using this towards the gain of the Church and its religious leaders as any other.

Christ came not to challenge the Romans (as many Jews at the time thought would occur), but to challenge his own people's religious authority, and thier teachings on God.

The Roman Catholic Church, as the "U.N." of the "Dark Ages", and run by men, has been as guilty as the Pharisees and Sadducees of abuses. So are secular governments.

The universal tie is that these organizations are run by men, who are as capable of sin as you and I.

Should I throw the baby out with the bathwater? Should I disregard all that comes from the Vatican because some Pope "Innocent" in the distant past was more concerned with money and power than God?

Maybe, then. This is now.

...Obedience submitted in this fashion is in no way a virtue, and the act of procuring obedience through threats is immoral....

So, would you extend that opinion to say that the courts are immoral to force me to live up to my government oath or marriage vows?

No. For starters, you freely chose to take on those oaths. You were not manipulated through fear into the position of obedience. (Well, perhaps this is the case with your wife. )

You must be married. You recognize the incredible power and supremacy of a spouse.

Yes, I freely chose to take on those oaths, and I never regretted them.

...Also, the courts are only concerned with things you have actually done....

If I violate my official oath or my marriage vows, the courts will definately be concerned.

I will not, and not because of the legal ramifications.

...If the court was threatening to punish you for your father’s crime unless you did what they told you to do, then of course I’d consider that immoral. That is the entire reasoning behind original sin. Christianity preaches we are all destined to face eternal punishment, for the mere crime of being born, unless you do what they tell you to. I consider that completely immoral....

The Church doesn't preach that "we are all destined to face eternal punishment, for the mere crime of being born, unless you do what they tell you to", and I'm truly sorry that you believe that.

Original Sin (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#o):

The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God's will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the "new Adam," came to redeem us (396-412).

[Huntster]

...Oh, they'll never admit it, but this is what the bible says, after all. And I forgot martyrdom, of course - the sacrificing of the self is greatly valorized
(because, after all, this fleshly existence is meaningless, only the afterlife is truly important)....

It's not just the afterlife that inspires sacrifice.

Ever been to a National Cemetary? Arlington? Gettysburg? Cherborg? Meuse-Argonne? Normandy?

Awe inspiring sacrifice there. It rips my heart apart. I'd call it martyrdom.

It ain't just about religion, and it ain't just about "afterlife".

Memorial Day is right around the corner. Just thought I'd mention it.

...Funny example about the cathedral. It's actually not very christian when you think about it. What is christian about opulent, rich architecture?...

Thank God it was there. After the fall of Rome, there would have been none of it for a thousand years if it wasn't for the Church.

...Where is the humbleness, the serene humility and glorification of austerity represented by christ?...

In the hearts and souls of believers.

...I'd say it's more a corruption of dogma than anything else. Not that I don't like it, I prefer pride and glory to meekness myself...

No doubt. Maybe that's why I discount your words.

...Like most everyone, I have my own view on morality and believe that that view greatly facilitates the ability of human beings to live together in society....

That's why I adhere to the RCC doctrine. Those people live and work on morality. Been doing it for 2,000 years, and their foundation goes long before that.

Do I live up to their doctrine? No. I'm an evil, evil man.

But I clearly cannot individually determine theologic positions. It's just like science. I'm just not qualified.

[Huntster]

Exactly, and that's why their entire morality is a joke. And why I consider it to be a form of self-loathing, if perhaps unconscious.

It's not "self-loathing".

It's the loathing of sin, of which we are all capable.

That's what "original sin" is all about.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by fuelair :
Just a quick note to say although I disagree with religion gigantically (and therefore with most support of it), I think you (Huntster) are doing a great job of defending your points! Keeps these postings interesting!!! And forces clarification!!
He does appear to be getting the hang of it more these days.

I'm slow, but I try to keep along.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Supposed to has nothing to do with it.

Aren't you "supposed to" believe everything the news media tells you?

Nope.

But the curch and the media are'nt excatly the same thing....

All information are from the same source:

Other people.

That's why we reason: to determine what should be retained, and what should be rejected.

That's exactly what Christ said.

...But the curch and the media are'nt excatly the same thing.

How's my linguistics?...

Your "linguistics" are fine, but your spelling is horrible.

That's okay. I understand you perfectly. I wish I could hear your Irish accent!

[Pauliesonne]

Trust me when I say my accent is as far from irish that you could ever imagine.

[Huntster]

Trust me when I say my accent is as far from irish that you could ever imagine.

Texan?

[Pauliesonne]

Nope.

Or maybe I just don't hear it.

[Huntster]

Nope.

Or maybe I just don't hear it.

One never hears one's own accent. But others do.

I love the Irish accent. I guess that comes from the Irish church pastor who founded our parish, and played with us on the playground. Michael Collins.

My next door neighbor is Michael O'Brien (he goes by "Murphy", or "Murph").

Both big guys, and both as gentle and loving as lambs (until you piss them off).

Great folks. I wouldn't trade them for the world.

[Morrigan]

Personally, from my perspective as an outsider, I find Chartres Cathedral to be quintessentially Christian (at least quintessentially 13th-century Christian). I highly recommend the historian Henry Adams (http://bartelby.org/65/ad/Adams-He.html)' famous treatment of this very subject in his classic study Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres. In his discussion of the religious faith of culture that produced these monuments, Adams argues persuasively that:
*snip*

That was very poetic rhetoric you quoted, but it doesn't change the fact that they are hardly representing the meekness, humbleness, chastity and poverty that christ advocated. Plus, the whole idolatry thing... I'll bet there are many statues of christ, angels, etc in it. I think protestants are dumb when they say catholicism isn't real christianity, but it's true that catholics are the most idolatrous bunch, and cathedrals, or at least what's inside of them, are a good example of that.

[Morrigan]

He is most relevant to the "government" response to AIDS.

Except that I wasn't talking about government at all. Oops.

If you choose to violate the Church position on fornication, you'd better adhere to the government (and Morrigan) position on condoms.

Thanks for the false dichotomies...

And if you believe (like Mr. Zuma) that a shower is gonna do the trick, you're "screwed".

Yeah, I believe that. :rolleyes: I repeat, Zuma is irrelevant to anything I said. I don't know why you keep bringing up. I have nothing to say about him except to agree he's an irresponsible, ignorant fool, and have made that quite clear.


I wasn't "open enough" to conception in my youth. I learned that I have no power over destiny.

I learned that lesson over and over over and over over and over over and over, and in many more ways than just reproduction.

Good for you...?


That's right, I haven't.

And I again write that if you don't know by now, I can't help you.

Some things you just have to figure out for yourself.
Ah, the patronizing starts in full force, no longer thinly veiled this time. Good job.


Misuse?

How does one "misuse" a condom?

:jaw-dropp You're not serious, are you? You don't know that there's a proper way to use it, and that if you are not careful it can break?
*laughs* Well, I shouldn't be surprised, considering how you've shown you swallow the church's propaganda completely... But still.


Birth control devices other than condoms prevent infections from spreading?

How so?

Sorry, I had originally misread the comment, and thought you asked about condoms. Disregard.


It's not "foolish" to say that it's a false sense of security. It's a scientific fact.

Er, no, it's not a scientific fact, it's an opinion. Condoms are very effective, but not perfect. This imperfection, to you, is completely unsafe, thus the "false security", but that's just your opinion.


The problem is that those people who fornicate aren't likely to be responsible enough to use condoms.

True, that's why in educated countries like in the West, those "fornicators" never use condoms, and have such high rates of AIDS and pregnancy like in Afri... oh wait.



Now, is it your position that the Church (who opposes fornication) is responsible for those who don't use condoms?

*sigh* I don't understand what was unclear about my position. Let me repeat it what is hopefully one last time, then: the church is to blame for whatever infectiosn occur that are caused by their spread of disinformation regarding the condom's efficiency against AIDS. Their intellectual dishonesty have had a real impact, and is far more morally repugnant than a couple in love using methods to avoid pregnancy.

[Morrigan]

It's not just the afterlife that inspires sacrifice.
I never said otherwise.

Memorial Day is right around the corner. Just thought I'd mention it.

Memo-what? :P Sorry, not American, don't care.


In the hearts and souls of believers.

And thus they need those grandiose cathedrals to... what. Validate their beliefs? I guess the whole meekness and prayer at home thingies Jesus mentioned aren't hip anymore. ;)


No doubt. Maybe that's why I discount your words.

Because I don't share your ideology? How telling. I'd suggest to discount the words of people who make fallacious arguments instead, but then again, you'll discount that too, because I don't love Jesus. ;)


Those people live and work on morality. Been doing it for 2,000 years, and their foundation goes long before that.

They live and work on the fears and guilts of the gullible.

[Pauliesonne]

One never hears one's own accent. But others do.

I love the Irish accent. I guess that comes from the Irish church pastor who founded our parish, and played with us on the playground. Michael Collins.

My next door neighbor is Michael O'Brien (he goes by "Murphy", or "Murph").

Both big guys, and both as gentle and loving as lambs (until you piss them off).

Great folks. I wouldn't trade them for the world.

I knew a Michael O'Brien in high school who took advantage of my extreme shyness and bullied me.

But if I ever saw his face today.....

Let's just say, I would'nt piss on him if his head was on fire.

How's my linguistics?

[I less than three logic]

The Church doesn't preach that "we are all destined to face eternal punishment, for the mere crime of being born, unless you do what they tell you to", and I'm truly sorry that you believe that.

Original Sin (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#o):
You highlighted the wrong part.

The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God's will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the "new Adam," came to redeem us (396-412).
What exactly is Christ redeeming us from? If we were not destined for punishment, why would we need Christ to save us? What is the purpose of infant baptism, if they are not, in some way or another, considered guilty of some sin? The “good” folks at catholic.com seem to disagree with you a bit.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp
We are born with a fallen nature, a nature that is separated from God as a result of Adam’s sin. We have to be born again to become joined to God, to be in Christ, to become a member of the body of Christ, to be saved. We are born of Adam’s body into condemnation. We are born of Christ’s body unto salvation.
Born into condemnation seem to say it all to me.

[Huntster]

...it doesn't change the fact that they are hardly representing the meekness, humbleness, chastity and poverty that christ advocated. Plus, the whole idolatry thing... I'll bet there are many statues of christ, angels, etc in it....

The bastards!

...I think protestants are dumb when they say catholicism isn't real christianity, but it's true that catholics are the most idolatrous bunch, and cathedrals, or at least what's inside of them, are a good example of that.

And tell us of your purity.

You don't "worship false idols", but do you worship at all?

Actually, what is your position?

[Huntster]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Huntster :
He is most relevant to the "government" response to AIDS.
Except that I wasn't talking about government at all. Oops.

Quite correct. You were bad-mouthing the RCC. You really don't give a damn about the problem, or about government's responsibility.

You just want to put the mouth on the Church.

If you choose to violate the Church position on fornication, you'd better adhere to the government (and Morrigan) position on condoms.

Thanks for the false dichotomies...

They're not false, and you're quite welcome.

Any time.

And if you believe (like Mr. Zuma) that a shower is gonna do the trick, you're "screwed".

Yeah, I believe that. I repeat, Zuma is irrelevant to anything I said. I don't know why you keep bringing up.

No, you don't.

And it's likely that you never will.

It's like a joke that goes right over your head. It's just that the joke is on you.

...I have nothing to say about him except to agree he's an irresponsible, ignorant fool, and have made that quite clear....

Really?

I wasn't "open enough" to conception in my youth. I learned that I have no power over destiny.

I learned that lesson over and over over and over over and over over and over, and in many more ways than just reproduction.


Good for you...?

Yes. Damned good for me.

That's right, I haven't.

And I again write that if you don't know by now, I can't help you.

Some things you just have to figure out for yourself.

Ah, the patronizing starts in full force, no longer thinly veiled this time. Good job.

Get a clue. I'm probably not the first to point the way.

Misuse?

How does one "misuse" a condom?
You're not serious, are you? You don't know that there's a proper way to use it, and that if you are not careful it can break?

Frankly, no. I guess I was stupid (I was only 23, and hated the damned things). Never had a use for them since.

...*laughs* Well, I shouldn't be surprised, considering how you've shown you swallow the church's propaganda completely... But still....

"Still"?

Maybe you're the guy to get Africa straight. Ever thought of that?

Africa is full of idiots like me. You have a moral duty to save them, don't you?

Zuma be damned. He's an idiot (by both yours and my statements). You have a responsibility to save Africa!

Stop condemning the RCC for it's stance on fornication, and get out there!


It's not "foolish" to say that it's a false sense of security. It's a scientific fact.
Er, no, it's not a scientific fact, it's an opinion. Condoms are very effective, but not perfect.

By the fact that they're "not perfect", isn't it a "false sense of security"?

Do you have a regular problem with the English language, or is it just when you want to debate the position of failure?

...This imperfection, to you, is completely unsafe, thus the "false security", but that's just your opinion....

It's not "opinion". I used condoms to prevent childbirth, not AIDS (AIDS wasn't identified at that time). They failed.

I ended up with a wonderful, beautiful daughter. Like the Church advocates, I should have been "open to conception", but I wasn't. The conception (and birth, which "we" could have prevented) happened anyway.

Lessons (many) learned.

Clearly, you have much to learn.

The problem is that those people who fornicate aren't likely to be responsible enough to use condoms.

True, that's why in educated countries like in the West, those "fornicators" never use condoms, and have such high rates of AIDS and pregnancy like in Afri... oh wait.

Are you indicating that AIDS is defeated in "educated countries"?

Ha.

And, if so, why isn't Africa "educated"? Because of the Church?

Weak. In fact, BS.

Now, is it your position that the Church (who opposes fornication) is responsible for those who don't use condoms?

*sigh* I don't understand what was unclear about my position...

Why should it be clear? You've never stated it.

...Let me repeat it what is hopefully one last time, then: the church is to blame for whatever infectiosn occur that are caused by their spread of disinformation regarding the condom's efficiency against AIDS....

Please inform us what "disinformation regarding the condom's efficiency against AIDS" that the RCC publishes.

...Their intellectual dishonesty have had a real impact, and is far more morally repugnant than a couple in love using methods to avoid pregnancy....

It's my opinion that you have given us all a great example of "intellectual dishonesty".

I agree that such is "morally repugnant".

[Huntster]

]...Memorial Day is right around the corner. Just thought I'd mention it. Memo-what? :P Sorry, not American, don't care.

Yeah. I noticed. Too bad more Americans don't.

I care. To hell with you. The sacrifice is real to me.

In the hearts and souls of believers.

And thus they need those grandiose cathedrals to... what. Validate their beliefs?

They are a place of worship, worthy of God and the people of God. Anchors of community. Centers of social life. Monuments of man's faith.

Clearly, you wouldn't understand.

...I guess the whole meekness and prayer at home thingies Jesus mentioned aren't hip anymore....

Nothing is "hip" anymore. You sound as old as me.

"Meekness and prayer at home", not to mention prayer in the car or worship i the woods, are very much "hip".

Give it a try.

...I'd suggest to discount the words of people who make fallacious arguments instead, but then again, you'll discount that too, because I don't love Jesus....

That's your problem. I don't know why it happened, and I hope you get it squared away, but I doubt there's anything I can write to fix it.

It's up to you.

Those people live and work on morality. Been doing it for 2,000 years, and their foundation goes long before that.

They live and work on the fears and guilts of the gullible.

That's your opinion. I find it lacking.

[Just Me]

Huntster,
Quote: You're talking about words written thousands of years ago, long before "science". Tribal humans wrote those words. What do you expect?
I will be adding that to my sig line.

Quote post 105: I'm as free as a bird.
Quote post 125:I learned that I have no power over destiny.
Pls explain the discrepincy.

Quote post 116:I don't believe in everything the preacher tells me to,
and even if I did, I don't think that makes me morally superior to anyone.
Quote post 132:That's why we reason: to determine what should be retained, and what should be rejected. That's exactly what Christ said.

It seems reasonable to reject Christ and His miracles forthwith due to lack of evidence.

Quote post 125:Misuse?
How does one "misuse" a condom?

Sigh, if the condom has a receptacle on the end, the receptacle should be squeezed while putting the condom on to keep air out of the end. Also if the condom is the wrong size that would qualify as misuse. Condoms should not be kept in warm places (wallet in jeans). The warmth weakens the latex. Condoms should not be used past the expiration date.

Quote post 143: By the fact that they're "not perfect", isn't it a "false sense of security"?

If I were in currently in a math and wished to cheat, I would sit by the smartest in the classroom. Even if the 2 of us got 99% (ie-not perfect) it would not be a false sense of security to sit next to the other student.

[Huntster]

...Quote post 105: I'm as free as a bird.
Quote post 125:I learned that I have no power over destiny.
Pls explain the discrepincy...

There's no discrepancy. I have no power over destiny.

I've lived a very violent life. Once, on an operating table, a doctor (whom I still don't know) told me, while he was working on my face: "I believe in destiny. Do you believe in destiny, Huntster?"

I was in and out of conscienceness. I awoke with the face of my favorite priest looking into my eyes. I was his altar boy for years, yet (with my grown up face and beard, he didn't recognize me). He was there to administer final rites.

I can go on and on. I've been shot twice. Mrs Huntster says that the only thing left is to be mauled by a bear (since I hunt, and that's about the last thing that hasn't happened.....She has bad vibes.......I sure hope Mr. Grizz doesn't get ahold of me........)

Destiny. It's a big word for me. It's a big word for us all.

You don't have control. God has control.

Quote post 116:I don't believe in everything the preacher tells me to,
and even if I did, I don't think that makes me morally superior to anyone.
Quote post 132:That's why we reason: to determine what should be retained, and what should be rejected. That's exactly what Christ said.

It seems reasonable to reject Christ and His miracles forthwith due to lack of evidence.

Yup. There is evidence, and it's weak. Notice the intense effort to weaken it.

No proof. That's why faith is required, yet faith is not guaranteed:

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Matthew 16: 13-20

Quote post 125:Misuse?
How does one "misuse" a condom?

Sigh, if the condom has a receptacle on the end, the receptacle should be squeezed while putting the condom on to keep air out of the end. Also if the condom is the wrong size that would qualify as misuse. Condoms should not be kept in warm places (wallet in jeans). The warmth weakens the latex. Condoms should not be used past the expiration date.

I guess I didn't read the instructions. I don't even know if there were instructions. This was 1979.

I suppose the RCC should have instructed me?

Quote post 143: By the fact that they're "not perfect", isn't it a "false sense of security"?

If I were in currently in a math and wished to cheat, I would sit by the smartest in the classroom. Even if the 2 of us got 99% (ie-not perfect) it would not be a false sense of security to sit next to the other student.

If I were currently in a math, I wouldn't wish to cheat. I would wish to learn.

I might not be the smartest in the classroom, and I damned sure wouldn't be in charged of the seating arrangement, but if I were, I'd like to sit near a certain girl..............to hell with the "smarties"...........

[AWPrime]

to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god.
I still want to hear the reasoning/logic behind this. It sounds like a cheap dodge.

Huntster can you give it a try?

Or I will have to conclude that the very basis for the vatican's conclusion is false.

[Morrigan]

And tell us of your purity.

Huh? When did I make any claims of purity about myself? And even if I did, what relevance would it have? This isn't about me.


You don't "worship false idols", but do you worship at all?

Actually, what is your position?
I am an atheist. I worship nothing.


... Okay, that's not true. I do worship the Holy Trinity of Black Sabbath, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden. :D

[Morrigan]

Quite correct. You were bad-mouthing the RCC. You really don't give a damn about the problem, or about government's responsibility.

You just want to put the mouth on the Church.

Hahaha, now you're getting hysterical. Try to stay rational for a moment, even if someone criticizes your church, hmm?
This thread was all about the Vatican. Someone brought up their irrational propaganda on condoms, and it went from there. Thus, we were talking about the way the church handles the AIDS crisis, and how their rhetoric about condoms has affected it. Not how the government deals with it. Yes, Zuma is stupid and irresponsible. Yes, the government has a responsibility. No one will deny that. But, that is not what the topic of discussion was. It was specificially at how the church handled it.

Do I give a damn? Truly, I don't care that much. But that's irrelevant. I am disgusted at the way the church spreads misinformation, and I am also disgusted at the governmental failures to educate the population, however, the church's bothers me a bit more because they have this whole moral highground thing.
But I repeat: my own level of caring on the matter are irrelevant to the discussion. :)



No, you don't.

And it's likely that you never will.

It's like a joke that goes right over your head. It's just that the joke is on you.

How petty! Translation: "I am incapable of explaining my point in a coherent and rational matter, so I'll just use the good ol' "you just don't get it, and never will!" cop-out."


Get a clue. I'm probably not the first to point the way.

See above. I'll just add that while some people have tried to explain that an arbitrary ceremony means a better couple life and better life for children, to various people, I have never found them convincing. It is an irrational position, and they have failed to demonstrate otherwise.


Frankly, no. I guess I was stupid (I was only 23, and hated the damned things). Never had a use for them since.

Well, then perhaps you should know that the risk of a condom breaking with proper use is very, very low. I doubt it'd change your stubborn position in any way, since you're so brainwashed and set in your ways, but, there you go.



Maybe you're the guy to get Africa straight. Ever thought of that?

Africa is full of idiots like me. You have a moral duty to save them, don't you?

Zuma be damned. He's an idiot (by both yours and my statements). You have a responsibility to save Africa!

Stop condemning the RCC for it's stance on fornication, and get out there!

This paragraph made absolutely no sense. You posted this by quoting the part where I was amazed at your gullibility, so it's like... a total non-sequitur. But I'll try:
- I already told you I'm not a guy. I guess you have difficulties paying attention.
- I never claimed any moral duty. Truth be told, I think they should all sort themselves out, and the church should mind its own business. Except that they don't, and they're not helping even though they claim to, and it's irritating.
- I have no such responsibility, nor have claimed to it. I have no idea what you're babbling about.
You're incoherent.


By the fact that they're "not perfect", isn't it a "false sense of security"?

Do you have a regular problem with the English language, or is it just when you want to debate the position of failure?

Um, no. Seatbelts are not perfect - you can still die in a car accident wearing one. You can still get robbed or killed even if you have a firearm in your household and know how to use it. You can still get mugged or raped if you carry pepper spray, know how to fight back or even carry a weapon. You can still get sunburnt wearing sunscreen. You can still get robbed with an alarm system. You can still have your house burn down even with a smoke detector.

Would you say that all of those things provide a "false sense of security"? And perhaps that we shouldn't bother using them? They are not perfect.

Clearly, you have much to learn.
Spare me your condescending patronizing.


Are you indicating that AIDS is defeated in "educated countries"?

Ha.

And, if so, why isn't Africa "educated"? Because of the Church?

Weak. In fact, BS.

Strawman. Of course AIDS isn't defeated. Let me turn the question around: are you saying that condoms don't help against AIDS, and that the AIDS crisis is as bad here in North America as it is in Africa?

It's not the church's responsibility to "educate" anyone, certainly not Africa. But if they want to mind the Africa business, and claim to have educating purposes, they better do it right.


Please inform us what "disinformation regarding the condom's efficiency against AIDS" that the RCC publishes.

Er... their claim (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm) that condoms are not effective at preventing AIDS infection, for example? That AIDS can "go through tiny holes in the condom" and the likes?

For crying out loud, it's only what I've been talking about since the beginning... I don't care much if the church claims their use is "evil" or "sinful", that's a matter of opinion. But spreading junk science just to push an agenda is sheer intellectual dishonesty. And THAT is what I find disgusting.


It's my opinion that you have given us all a great example of "intellectual dishonesty".

I agree that such is "morally repugnant".
*lol* I have done no such thing, but if I have, surely you'd have no problem demonstrating it.

[Morrigan]

Yeah. I noticed. Too bad more Americans don't.

I care. To hell with you. The sacrifice is real to me.

Uh, good for you? I'm not sure why I should care about the sacrifices of people in another country. They have nothing to do with me whatsoever.
Do you celebrate the sacrifices of the people of every country in the world? No? "To hell with you!" :rolleyes:
Stop being so petty.


They are a place of worship, worthy of God and the people of God. Anchors of community. Centers of social life. Monuments of man's faith.

Clearly, you wouldn't understand.

Actually, I do understand. (Your patronizing is getting irritating. And childish. I expect more from a grown man with a daughter.)
Nothing here says anything about idolatry or grandiose architecture, though. It's not humble or meek.

Nothing is "hip" anymore. You sound as old as me.

"Meekness and prayer at home", not to mention prayer in the car or worship i the woods, are very much "hip".

Give it a try.

It was a joke. Obviously I'm not as old as you, because I recognize humorous phrasings when I see them, for the most part. ;)


That's your problem. I don't know why it happened, and I hope you get it squared away, but I doubt there's anything I can write to fix it.

It's up to you.

Nothing "happened". I never believed in god and have no reason to accept your prophet as anything other than a potentially historical figure at best, mythological character at worst. And I don't need your "fixing", thank you very much. Keep your guilt-ridden bollocks to yourself. ;)

[ceo_esq]

That was very poetic rhetoric you quoted, ...

It's true; you hardly ever see scholarly historical writing that is such good writing anymore. Besides a staggering body of factual knowledge, Adams possessed a real gift for using the English language. Seriously, if you're interested in history, especially medieval history, you should check out his work.


... but it doesn't change the fact that they are hardly representing the meekness, humbleness, chastity and poverty that christ advocated.

Jesus did advocate those things for people, but that certainly wasn't his sole or even chief preoccupation (which was the glory of the coming Kingdom). Also, it's difficult to see how the existence of a beautiful cathedral (as opposed to, say, a beautiful second home in the Hamptons) actually works against the teachings. And Jesus himself was apparently fond of the great Temple of Jerusalem, reputed to be a magnificent structure at least parts of which (such as the so-called "Beautiful Gate") were said to be ornately decorated.

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1202495#post1202495) from another thread, I critiqued a charge by another poster who was, I believe, under a similar misapprehension (Chartres was specifically mentioned, in fact).


Plus, the whole idolatry thing... I'll bet there are many statues of christ, angels, etc in it. I think protestants are dumb when they say catholicism isn't real christianity, but it's true that catholics are the most idolatrous bunch, and cathedrals, or at least what's inside of them, are a good example of that.

I suppose there's nothing idolatrous about having statues as long as you don't worship them, which the Catholics don't seem to be doing in their cathedrals.

[Just Me]

Uh, good for you? I'm not sure why I should care about the sacrifices of people in another country. They have nothing to do with me whatsoever.
Do you celebrate the sacrifices of the people of every country in the world? No? "To hell with you!" :rolleyes:
Stop being so petty.
snip

I love your posts, but I must disagree strongly w/ you here. I live in the USA and am in awe of the sacrifices of the British during the blitzkrieg.
I am thankful for the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
I am thankful for the French reisitance.
Those are 3 of the top of my head.

[Ossai]

ceo_esq
Second, the article clearly indicates that there is no punishment inflicted solely for original sin. That is, someone who died in the condition of original sin, but without having committed any actual sins, would be deprived of the reward the Catholics call the "beatific vision" but would not actually be consigned to pain or suffering. Check your Catholic history. The church invented purgatory because originally babies that died went to hell. It wasn’t until later that the policy was modified.

Huntster
Christ came not to challenge the Romans (as many Jews at the time thought would occur), but to challenge his own people's religious authority, and thier teachings on God. Nice wiggle you’ve got there, do you do shows?
Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

There is no "eternal punishment" even advocated by RCC doctrine for original sin. Sorry, but there was, go read your catholic history for specifics.

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Exactly, and that's why their entire morality is a joke. And why I consider it to be a form of self-loathing, if perhaps unconscious.

Culled from this link...

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/ORIGSIN.TXT

Could God have sent the whole race to hell for just original sin? By
no means, that would be blasphemy to say it. Pius IX in Quanto
conficiamur moerore of August 10, 1863: "God in His supreme goodness
and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal
punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." But
original sin in us is not voluntary - so no hell for original sin
alone. What of the text of the Council of Florence which said (DS
1306, DB 693): "The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin,
or in original sin only, descend into the realm of the dead
(infernum) however they are to be punished with different penalties."

[Morrigan]

Jesus did advocate those things for people, but that certainly wasn't his sole or even chief preoccupation (which was the glory of the coming Kingdom). Also, it's difficult to see how the existence of a beautiful cathedral (as opposed to, say, a beautiful second home in the Hamptons) actually works against the teachings. And Jesus himself was apparently fond of the great Temple of Jerusalem, reputed to be a magnificent structure at least parts of which (such as the so-called "Beautiful Gate") were said to be ornately decorated.

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1202495#post1202495) from another thread, I critiqued a charge by another poster who was, I believe, under a similar misapprehension (Chartres was specifically mentioned, in fact).

I'll give you the benefit of doubt. I don't care enough about the potential hypocrisy of cathedrals to argue much about it. I just don't think their presence alone nullifies the general sense of guilt and self-loathing found in christian dogma. You just can't get around the "every human is a dirty sinner and will suffer eternally unless they do as I say" dogma, and you will never convince me this isn't a sick ideology. :)
If anything, I'm glad some christians focus more on the glory and beauty of things than the rest, because if every christian were like the self-flagellating monk in the Name of the Rose, it'd be a depressing world. :)


I suppose there's nothing idolatrous about having statues as long as you don't worship them, which the Catholics don't seem to be doing in their cathedrals.
Many muslims would disagree, as even carved images alone are considered idolatrous. Besides, haven't you ever seen how a Mexican behave in front of a statue of Mary crying tears of blood? ;)

[Morrigan]

I love your posts, but I must disagree strongly w/ you here. I live in the USA and am in awe of the sacrifices of the British during the blitzkrieg.
I am thankful for the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
I am thankful for the French reisitance.
Those are 3 of the top of my head.
Ah, but it's because those things affected you and your country. What the American revolutionaries did during their civil war concerns Americans alone, and I believe this is what Memorial Day celebrates. If not, well, it's still not my duty to celebrate it myself. Do you think Hunster celebrates Canada Day, or the St-Jean-Baptiste, or the Bastille Day?

In any case, there is no problem with admiring the sacrifices of anyone at any time. But that doesn't mean I feel compelled to care about every specific case that does not apply to me. I say, Hunster has no right to tell me "to hell with you" if I can't say the same if he doesn't celebrate the Jour des Patriotes.

[This Guy]

Ah, but it's because those things affected you and your country. What the American revolutionaries did during their civil war concerns Americans alone, and I believe this is what Memorial Day celebrates. If not, well, it's still not my duty to celebrate it myself. Do you think Hunster celebrates Canada Day, or the St-Jean-Baptiste, or the Bastille Day?

In any case, there is no problem with admiring the sacrifices of anyone at any time. But that doesn't mean I feel compelled to care about every specific case that does not apply to me. I say, Hunster has no right to tell me "to hell with you" if I can't say the same if he doesn't celebrate the Jour des Patriotes.

Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday that is observed on the last Monday of May (scheduled next for May 29th, 2006). It was formerly known as Decoration Day. This holiday commemorates U.S. men and women who died in military service for their country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Day

If you live in a country affected by World War II, it could apply to you ;)

But it is an American Holiday, and you others have no obligation to care about it.

[I less than three logic]

You are correct that Memorial Day is an American holiday, and other countries have no obligation to celebrate it. However, considering that we are the center of the universe, I expect you celebrate our holidays anyway. Those that thought the earth was the center were incorrect; it is actually the US that is in the center. All those other counties, oceans, and such revolve around us, then the moon, sun, and stars a bit further out. I’m actually working on a detailed diagram of how it all works. It includes time warps and such to create the illusion of the round, continuous surface we appear to have. :D

[ceo_esq]

Check your Catholic history.

Don't I always?


The church invented purgatory because originally babies that died went to hell. It wasn’t until later that the policy was modified.

First of all, Purgatory's for individuals who die in a state of venial sin. You're probably thinking of Limbo (and specifically the limbus infantium) - for individuals who die solely in a state of original sin. The old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Limbo says that "There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision." I doubt whether either of us is in a position to contradict this, but take your best shot. I also note from the article that in the absence of specific revelation on the subject, there never has been a "policy" (by which I assume you mean a doctrine) on the fate of such souls, and Limbo itself is just a non-doctrinal, non-universal theological hypothesis, not formally part of the Catholic faith.

I infer from all this, in the absence of contrary evidence, that virtually every aspect of your comment above is unfounded.


You just can't get around the "every human is a dirty sinner and will suffer eternally unless they do as I say" dogma, and you will never convince me this isn't a sick ideology. :)

Yet both Elliot and myself have cited sources indicating that the substance of the dogma you've articulated is not, and never has been, part of the actual dogma of the Catholic Church. If those sources are correct, there's no need to "get around" it. It's a strawman.

[elliotfc]

First of all, Purgatory's for individuals who die in a state of venial sin. You're probably thinking of Limbo (and specifically the limbus infantium) - for individuals who die solely in a state of original sin. The old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Limbo says that "There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision." I doubt whether either of us is in a position to contradict this, but take your best shot. I also note from the article that in the absence of specific revelation on the subject, there never has been a "policy" (by which I assume you mean a doctrine) on the fate of such souls, and Limbo itself is just a non-doctrinal, non-universal theological hypothesis, not formally part of the Catholic faith.

I think purgatory was specifically articulated, or made into a *word* during the Council of Trent, but it was already vaguely understood. The earliest Christians prayed for the souls of dead believers. Why? If there is only heaven and hell, there is no reason to pray for the dead.

-Elliot

[I less than three logic]

What happens, according to your interpretation of the doctrine, to a person that knows about Christianity and lives a completely sin free life according his/her actions in regards to its dogma? However, is never baptized, has never attended church, does not accept Jesus as his savior, and so on and so forth with the beliefs and rituals aspect Christianity requires. If it is anything less than what a believer receives, then I’d consider this some form of punishment, even if it doesn't consist of pain and such, for not doing what Christians tell you to.

A being that is omnipotent and omniscient should be capable of using reason and logic, and if not, it certainly has the power to make itself capable of doing so. If God, all those years ago, was attempting to provide us with a creed or religion to live by, then he/she/it should have done so in a more effective manner. Any logical, intelligent being could know that someone coming back from mountains alone with a list of commandments; books containing myth-like, self contradictory stories that have been translated multiple times; or pretty much every other means used by religion to convince people wouldn’t be adequate for such a task. If God can see the logical reasons for doubting the doctrines of Christianity, then he/she/it should either use a more adequate method to spread the religion of his choice, or not punish those that merely do not believe. Choosing to punish people based on their belief, and not their actions, when you can clearly understand why they do not believe is immoral.

[Morrigan]

Destiny. It's a big word for me. It's a big word for us all.

You don't have control. God has control.

Er, wow. I hadn't noticed this part. So... whatever happened to the whole free will thing, that renders christianity completely irrelevant if it's not there? :scratches head:

[ceo_esq]

What happens, according to your interpretation of the doctrine, to a person that knows about Christianity and lives a completely sin free life according his/her actions in regards to its dogma? However, is never baptized, has never attended church, does not accept Jesus as his savior, and so on and so forth with the beliefs and rituals aspect Christianity requires.

I have no idea if this query was directed at me or not, but here goes.

As a preliminary aside - a completely sin-free life by the standards of Christian doctrine? Such a person would have no need to accept Jesus as his savior; he'd be Jesus. :D

Anyhow, I think the answer to your question (to the extent the doctrine actually proposes any answer) probably is reflected in these lines from Dominus Iesus:

For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit"; it has a relationship with the Church, which "according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit".

With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God - which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church - comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it "in ways known to himself".

[Ossai]

ceo_esq
First of all, Purgatory's for individuals who die in a state of venial sin. You're probably thinking of Limbo (and specifically thelimbus infantium) Nope.

Check your Catholic history.
Don't I always? Apparently not.

Ossai

[I less than three logic]

With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it "in ways known to himself".
Awfully wordy way for them to say, “I don’t know”. :)

So if God just bestows salvation as he chooses, what would be the point of being Christian? Perhaps it improves one’s odds?

[ceo_esq]

The church invented purgatory because originally babies that died went to hell. It wasn’t until later that the policy was modified.

First of all, Purgatory's for individuals who die in a state of venial sin. You're probably thinking of Limbo (and specifically the limbus infantium)

Nope.

Well, if you're talking about the eternal fate of babies, I can only conclude that you have Limbo in mind, because Purgatory doesn't apply to them. This is clear from the cited sources. What are you talking about, then?


Check your Catholic history.

Don't I always?

...

[proceeds to cite article on history of relevant doctrines]

Apparently not.

What kind of (non-)response is that? To judge solely from our respective posts, it is tempting to conclude that of the two of us, I'm the one who actually bothers to look up the history - and for that matter, what's the history you're talking about, specifically, and what's your source?

[AWPrime]

to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god.
I still want to hear the reasoning/logic behind this. It sounds like a cheap dodge.
Huntster(anyone?) can you give it a try?

Or I will have to conclude that the very basis for the vatican's conclusion is false.
I now claim this conclusion to be true.

[Huntster]

I now claim this conclusion to be true.

Congratulations!

Go with God.

[Ossai]

ceo_esq
Well, if you're talking about the eternal fate of babies, I can only conclude that you have Limbo in mind, because Purgatory doesn't apply to them. I wasn’t talking about the eternal fate of babies.

This is clear from the cited sources. What are you talking about, then? Specifically, purgatory and the history of how it came about.

What kind of (non-)response is that? To judge solely from our respective posts, it is tempting to conclude that of the two of us, I'm the one who actually bothers to look up the history You looked up the history of limbo when I had specifically mentioned purgatory.

Ossai

[ceo_esq]

I wasn’t talking about the eternal fate of babies.

You brought it up. You said "The church invented purgatory because originally babies that died went to hell." So naturally I delved into the history of Catholic belief about what happens to babies that die. It turns out that (1) purgatory has nothing to do with babies that die, and (2) there was never a doctrine to the effect that unbaptized babies that die go to hell.


What are you talking about, then?

Specifically, purgatory and the history of how it came about.

You first mentioned purgatory in response to a statement of mine about what would happen to someone who died in the condition of original sin but without having committed any actual sins. Now, your perception that this is relevant to the situation of unbaptized babies is absolutely correct, but that has nothing to do with purgatory. Purgatory is a place/state of temporary atonement for the commission of actual venial sins by the faithful. In contrast, limbo - at least the limbus infantium - is supposed to be a place/state of permanent natural happiness for those dying in a state of original sin but without actual voluntary sins (though this is not an official belief). Also, as has already been noted elsewhere, the substance (if not the name) of the purgatory doctrine has been around since the earliest days of the Church, so I wonder exactly what you're alluding to when you refer to "how [the doctrine of purgatory] came about". One thing is certain, however: dead babies had nothing to do with it.


You looked up the history of limbo when I had specifically mentioned purgatory.

I looked into the history of limbo because you had specifically mentioned dead babies. Your reference to purgatory was a non sequitur since we'd been discussing the fate of those who die in a state of original sin but without having committed any actual sins.

[This Guy]

Particularly as large institutions go whose main activity is not directly related to the scientific enterprise - institutions whose business does not involve taking an official stance as to the acceptance or rejection of this or that scientific theory - I think it must be said in fairness that Church is actually rather responsive to these things. It's not a matter of "finally accepted" or "admitted at last".

It's worth pointing out that for the first several centuries of the history of what we moderns would recognize as science (beginning in the days of the Scholastic proto-scientists onward), the Church was the most scientifically engaged of institutions, and it arguably remains among the most scientifically engaged of international institutions (whether or not secular) without a specifically science-related mission.

I don't have the knowledge to discuss the early church's science contributions.



As I recently mentioned in the "full frontal assault" thread, so far as I am aware, none of the facts on which the Church purports to be based have ever been disproven. This seems to me to be partly a function of some very canny theological choices as to the facts upon which the faith is formally staked - yet, to be fair, those choices were by and large already made by the time modern science was founded. In my view, this goes a long way toward explaining not only why the Church was able to play such a crucial role in laying that foundation, but also why the better part of a millennium later - though reduced to one denomination among many - the Church is sitting pretty, relatively speaking, in the face of an explosion of scientific knowledge and awareness.

I think this depends on whether you consider the bible to be full of facts, or a history book with fairy tales thrown in. While I would rather not turn this into a debate on the validity of the bible, I think that issue weighs heavy on the facts on which the Church purports to be based.

Of course, when discussing the RC Church, the bible plays a smaller role than the words of the guy on the throne at any given time. So, since the Church's stance on any issue is only valid until another Pope speaks with his(/her, right;-) Divine Inspiration, or Infallibility, or whatever it's called, it's kinda hard to argue a point in that regards.

Nice thing about Fundies is that you know their reference, and you can nail them down. Harder to do that with Catholics.

[ceo_esq]

I don't have the knowledge to discuss the early church's science contributions.

Never fear, the JREF Forum is here to help! :D

The relationship between the Church and the early development of science and technology is one of the subjects discussed in detail in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=7763) thread ("Is religion slowing us down?"). It's a longish thread with a lot of chaff thrown in, so you have to wade through a bit, but there's a great deal of citation to relevant historical sources. One of these days I should work up bibliography from it.

[This Guy]

Never fear, the JREF Forum is here to help! :D

The relationship between the Church and the early development of science and technology is one of the subjects discussed in detail in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=7763) thread ("Is religion slowing us down?"). It's a longish thread with a lot of chaff thrown in, so you have to wade through a bit, but there's a great deal of citation to relevant historical sources. One of these days I should work up bibliography from it.

Thanks! Won't be today, or anytime soon probably, but I'll likely be giving that a go as it were :)

[Huntster]

...Nice thing about Fundies is that you know their reference, and you can nail them down....

On a cross?

...Harder to do that with Catholics.

Darn those Catholics, anyway..............

[This Guy]

On a cross?



Darn those Catholics, anyway..............


:)

[morningstar2651]

Well its about time.....

quote:BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.

Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies...

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."Actually, it's a form of superstitious Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It's superstitious, but it's not Pagan. It may have its roots in a myth from the Bassari tribe in West Africa though. Here is an excerpt:
Unumbotte made a human being. Its name was Man. Unumbotte next made an antelope, named Antelope. Unumbotte made a snake, named Snake. At the time these three were made there were no trees but one, a palm. Nor had the earth been pounded smooth. All three were sitting on the rough ground, and Unumbotte said to them: "The earth has not yet been pounded. You must pound the ground smooth where you are sitting." Unumbotte gave them seeds of all kinds, and said: "Go plant these." Then Unumbotte went away.

Unumbotte came back. He saw that the three had not yet pounded the earth. They had, however, planted the seeds. One of the seeds had sprouted and grown. It was a tree. It had grown tall and was bearing fruit, red fruit. Every seven days Unumbotte would return and pluck one of the red fruits. One day Snake said: "We too should eat these fruits. Why must we go hungry?" Antelope said: "But we do not know anything about this fruit." Then Man and his wife took some of the fruit and ate it. Unumbotte came down from the sky and asked: "Who ate the fruit?" They answered: "We did." Unumbotte asked: Who told you that you could eat that fruit?" They replied: "Snake did."

[Morrigan]

I guess all of my questions shall go unanswered. What a surprise.

[elliotfc]

I guess all of my questions shall go unanswered. What a surprise.

Morrigan! Is there a hint of resignation in this remark? Or triumph? I bite, and I go look for these questions of yours, no doubt they are formidable!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Touché.



Hahahaha... you can't be serious.
The only method of "birth control" the church advocates is the "calendar method". And it's well known that the users of this method all have one thing in common.... they're parents! :P

This is not a question, I recognize the lack of the grammar and the punctuation mark which would indicate the presence of a question.

However...of COURSE they are parents. The vast majority of persons who enroll in classes that the church provides already have children!

Second, I believe the method is centered around the woman taking her own temperature...I believe it's called basal something or other.

Finally, persons who follow this method to the letter have a lower chance of conceiving than do persons who use condoms as instructed. It may even be lower than those who use the pill. Someone else can look up the stats, I'm speaking from looking into this a few years ago, and am too lazy to back up what I say right now. Plus I have to search for Morrigan's questions!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Er, wow. I hadn't noticed this part. So... whatever happened to the whole free will thing, that renders christianity completely irrelevant if it's not there? :scratches head:

I have found a question of Morrigan, and perhaps you should use some medicated shampoo for that irritable head of yours.

The whole free will thing. Well, you see, all humans have free will. You can find this out. Maybe you'll respond to this post. Maybe you won't. You can use your free will to decide!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I guess all of my questions shall go unanswered. What a surprise.

Morrigan, please inform me where I can locate these questions of yours. I have searched this thread. Are you just offering up a sham mythology to compete with that which you hold in such disdain? The mythology of reknowned questions which makes the average man shudder in fear, kinda like the Nephilim?

Or maybe you could just provide a post with several of these questions that have gone unanswered.

-Elliot

[AWPrime]

What about my question?

[elliotfc]

What about my question?

What question? You mean the question "what about my question?" What about it?

I have a question. Would anyone here like to pull my finger?

-Elliot

[AWPrime]

What question?

This

"to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. "

I still want to hear the reasoning/logic behind this. It sounds like a cheap dodge?



Edit: add '?'

[I less than three logic]

Nope. That is not a question. You need a ? at the end or it isn't a question. See:

This is not a question, I recognize the lack of the grammar and the punctuation mark which would indicate the presence of a question.
Also,

Second, I believe the method is centered around the woman taking her own temperature...I believe it's called basal something or other.

Finally, persons who follow this method to the letter have a lower chance of conceiving than do persons who use condoms as instructed. It may even be lower than those who use the pill. Someone else can look up the stats, I'm speaking from looking into this a few years ago, and am too lazy to back up what I say right now.
I'm sure you can find the time provide some proper studies to back up this claim here, as I have a few questions. Such as: What type of condoms? There are multiple varieties, and I don’t mean brands. Also, what “the pill” are you talking about? Again, there are a whole multitude of birth control pills as well. As well as many non-pill forms of birth control, including shots, patches, IUDs, and others that I can’t think of off the top of my head.

If this method is only better than the poorest performance of condoms or “the pill” it isn’t all that great. What about the combination of them, as is suggested. Is the method better at preventing pregnancy than using condoms with “the pill”?

[elliotfc]

I'm sure you can find the time provide some proper studies to back up this claim here, as I have a few questions. Such as: What type of condoms? There are multiple varieties, and I don’t mean brands. Also, what “the pill” are you talking about? Again, there are a whole multitude of birth control pills as well. As well as many non-pill forms of birth control, including shots, patches, IUDs, and others that I can’t think of off the top of my head.

If this method is only better than the poorest performance of condoms or “the pill” it isn’t all that great. What about the combination of them, as is suggested. Is the method better at preventing pregnancy than using condoms with “the pill”?

Fair enough, I did some poking around...

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51269

This is from the Creighton Method, which I think is the method advocated by Natural Family Planners...

http://www.creightonmodel.com/effectiveness.htm

I'm not advocating any particular method. I'm just pointing out that to say that the Catholic Church is promoting a simplistic calendar method, is incorrect. There are claims that the more modern methods of natural family are as "successful" in their ability to not result in pregnancy as any of the so-called artifical methods.

-Elliot

[Morrigan]

This is not a question, I recognize the lack of the grammar and the punctuation mark which would indicate the presence of a question.
What you quoted wasn't a question, indeed... and I wasn't referring to that. :rolleyes: And most of my questions were not even aimed at you, so I'm not sure why you babble on so.

I asked several questions. Questions about whether seatbelts were "false security", and if one should celebrate patriotic holidays of every country in the world, and if condoms were helpful in fighting AIDS or not, and questions free will, too - and a few others. Pretty much all of those were for Hunster, in fact, though anyone is free to provide their own answer if they think it relevant.

So, regarding your free will comment: if you actually bothered to read what I quoted, what Hunster said seems to deny that humans have free will, and rather that humans have no control over destiny, but God does. My question was to Hunster, since I quoted him, you know? I mean, you're free to answer for him (he might not like it though), or give your own answer if you agree with him, but your actual response to the question was utterly devoid of content or insight, so I'm not sure why you bothered. You must like the sound of your own voice (metaphorically speaking).

[elliotfc]

So the question is based on the premise that Creationism turns God into a Nature God.

This, I think is based on the statements of the Vatican astronomer, Guy Consolmagno.

He is correct that the Christian God is a supernatural god, but he seems to be limiting the importance of several things.

***the supernatural God became a natural human being, so clearly the supernatural God is keenly interested in naturalism, so much so to use it for his own purposes.

***the supernatural God is the creator of the natural order.

***we are natural creatures. Of course, part of our thinking will consider God as a nature God, as our experience will direct that. Is he more than that? Sure. Should we reject all notions about his having a role in nature? Of course not. Why should we, to make a singular astronomer happy?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50088

There's the article, forgive me, it is from worldnetdaily but it's just a link!

Now, you ask the question, "it sounds like a cheap dodge". I wouldn't call it a cheap dodge. I call it the very narrow interpretive view of a particular Catholic Christian. As a scientist, he speaks from a position of soms scientific authority. He says that religion *needs* science. I disagree. Religion existed before science. It hardly needs science. As for superstition...you don't need science to free yourself from superstition. I can reject a superstition by using some amount of personal thinking, and not by applying any scientific theory or by conducting a scientific investigation.

Anyhow, whether or not this is a dodge...I dunno. What do you mean by dodge? Dodge from what?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

What you quoted wasn't a question, indeed... and I wasn't referring to that. :rolleyes: And most of my questions were not even aimed at you, so I'm not sure why you babble on so.

You failed to indicate who you were talking to, and I have participated in this thread!

I asked several questions. Questions about whether seatbelts were "false security", and if one should celebrate patriotic holidays of every country in the world, and if condoms were helpful in fighting AIDS or not, and questions free will, too - and a few others. Pretty much all of those were for Hunster, in fact, though anyone is free to provide their own answer if they think it relevant.

I see. Well, apparently Hunster does not feel like answering the questions, or, maybe he is busy with other things.

I think seatbelts can be false security, and can also be real security. I think that whether or not patriotic holidays should be celebrated depends on the individual, and what that holiday means to them. I think that condoms are not helpful in fighting AIDS, but can be of some use in containing AIDS. It can not be *truly* successful in fighting AIDS, because it can not defeat AIDS, and, some percentage of condom users will still experience AIDS transmission with condom use, for whatever reason. I can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that if monogamous relationships are universally established and practiced for the next fifty years, the AIDS crisis will be finished. I can also say with absolute certainty that if condom use is universally established and practiced for the next fifty years, the AIDS crisis will also be finished. But that will have more to do with the absence of people on the planet. :)

So, regarding your free will comment: if you actually bothered to read what I quoted, what Hunster said seems to deny that humans have free will, and rather that humans have no control over destiny, but God does.

Well, then I disagree with Herr Hunster.

My question was to Hunster, since I quoted him, you know? I mean, you're free to answer for him (he might not like it though), or give your own answer if you agree with him, but your actual response to the question was utterly devoid of content or insight, so I'm not sure why you bothered. You must like the sound of your own voice (metaphorically speaking).

It was more of a reaction to post #177. You presented questions to, either someone, or the community at large. You wondered, aloud, whether or not they would ever be answered. Then you expressed surprise, or you were being ironic, about the failure to receive answers. Frankly I found this post compelling. If I ought not to have found it compelling, I retract my responses!

-Elliot

[Huntster]

....I asked several questions. Questions about whether seatbelts were "false security",...

I didn't feel like answering your questions, because I didn't feel like riding the merry-go-round with you. Your questions are arguing points. I don't think I want to argue with you.

Of course seat belts are a "false security", to a degree, just like all methods of birth control. They might "save you", and they might not. It's better to wear them, because the odds that they may prevent greater injury is high.

But you knew that, didn't you?

...and if one should celebrate patriotic holidays of every country in the world,...

Yes, if you have respect for that country, and that holiday.

But, then, you knew that too, didn't you?

...and if condoms were helpful in fighting AIDS or not,...

Yes, they are "helpful", but not as helpful a abstinence from fornication and adultery.

...and questions free will, too - and a few others....

You appeared to want to take objection with the concepts of "free will" and "destiny".

This would be way, way too deep for you. You need to experience it to understand, child.

...So, regarding your free will comment: if you actually bothered to read what I quoted, what Hunster said seems to deny that humans have free will, and rather that humans have no control over destiny, but God does....

Well, well! Maybe there's a chance..................

The decisions you make, as a result of your free will, bring about consequences. Some think that the negative consequences commonly associated with poor decisions are unavoidable, but the help make up your destiny.

Further, some circumstances (who your parents are, where you are born, what your civil society are like, etc., etc.) are not part of your "free choice", and also help make up your destiny.

...My question was to Hunster, since I quoted him, you know? I mean, you're free to answer for him (he might not like it though)...

Elliot is free to input his opinion and thoughts. I find his posts interesting and considerate.

[AWPrime]

So the question is based on the premise that Creationism turns God into a Nature God.

This, I think is based on the statements of the Vatican astronomer, Guy Consolmagno.

He is correct that the Christian God is a supernatural god, but he seems to be limiting the importance of several things.

***the supernatural God became a natural human being, so clearly the supernatural God is keenly interested in naturalism, so much so to use it for his own purposes.

***the supernatural God is the creator of the natural order.

***we are natural creatures. Of course, part of our thinking will consider God as a nature God, as our experience will direct that. Is he more than that? Sure. Should we reject all notions about his having a role in nature? Of course not. Why should we, to make a singular astronomer happy?
Thanks.


Anyhow, whether or not this is a dodge...I dunno. What do you mean by dodge? Dodge from what?
He is trying to make a distinction between pagan gods and his god when that specific distinction doesn't exist.

In so he tries to dodge the fact that his god 'has' acted like a pagan god, and is quite compatible with creationism.

[Morrigan]

I didn't feel like answering your questions, because I didn't feel like riding the merry-go-round with you. Your questions are arguing points. I don't think I want to argue with you.
Yet you did, right here. Ho-hum.

Of course seat belts are a "false security", to a degree, just like all methods of birth control. They might "save you", and they might not. It's better to wear them, because the odds that they may prevent greater injury is high.

Interesting. Fire/smoke detectors too, perhaps?
Shall I interprete this post above as a claim that "providing a false sense of security", by your logic, is not a bad thing despite the obvious pejorative description, and that despite this false security, people should still use them?

But you knew that, didn't you?
I know what condoms can and cannot do. That is not what I asked from you. But don't let that stop you from being a disingenuous jerk...


Yes, if you have respect for that country, and that holiday.

But, then, you knew that too, didn't you?

More condescending tripe. Also, you just admitted either a lack of respect towards many, many countries, or made a claim to celebrate all their national holidays.


You appeared to want to take objection with the concepts of "free will" and "destiny".

This would be way, way too deep for you. You need to experience it to understand, child.

Hmm. Patronizing, condescending, holier-than-thou, AND smug.
Perhaps you're right about one thing at least, we shouldn't argue with you. It's obviously a waste of time as you aren't interested in any honest discussion or debate.
Good bye.

[Huntster]

....He is trying to make a distinction between pagan gods and his god when that specific distinction doesn't exist......

Did it cross your mind that he is trying to discourage otherwise good Christians themselves from treating God like a pagan god?

[Huntster]

Yet you did, right here....

Won't happen again.

...Good bye.

Goodbye!

[AWPrime]

Did it cross your mind that he is trying to discourage otherwise good Christians themselves from treating God like a pagan god?
Which they aren't doing.

[elliotfc]

He is trying to make a distinction between pagan gods and his god when that specific distinction doesn't exist.

Yes. I think the distinction exists, and doesn't exist. It exists in that the Christian God began as the Jewish God who was one god among many gods. It doesn't exist in a very simple way that the astronomer doesn't consider, or, doesn't want to admit. As Christians we only believe there is *one* God. We don't have to have any other distinction. Saying that the Christian God is not a "nature" god is superfluous. There *aren't* any nature gods in Christian belief.

In so he tries to dodge the fact that his god 'has' acted like a pagan god, and is quite compatible with creationism.

You're correct that the Christian God has been, at least, *portrayed* to have acted in a way that pagan gods act.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Did it cross your mind that he is trying to discourage otherwise good Christians themselves from treating God like a pagan god?

This is an interesting question...AWPrime says they aren't actually doing that...and for now I tend to agree with AWPrime. I think the blessed Vatican astronomer is making a rather useless point...not that we can't draw something from that point if we look deeper into it. On the surface he is claiming to understand the intentions and motivations and true beliefs of people who don't think like him...those people can speak for themselves, and they'd probably find his commentary ridiculous and condescending.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Elliot is free to input his opinion and thoughts. I find his posts interesting and considerate.

Aw shucks. Can I buy you dinner sometime Hunster, arf arf. No question mark, so you don't have to answer. I admire your toleration of Morrigan, you've taken him more seriously than I have, which speaks better for you than for me. -Elliot

[morningstar2651]

Yes, they are "helpful", but not as helpful a abstinence from fornication and adultery.Unlike the pill, abstinence doesn't protect from unwanted pregnancies if one is raped.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Did it cross your mind that he is trying to discourage otherwise good Christians themselves from treating God like a pagan god?
Which they aren't doing.

Some aren't. That's why the kind brother was trying to teach. That's what the clergy does, remember?

Also, a good portion of Christianity isn't Catholic. In fact, some of them don't even like the RCC.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yes, they are "helpful", but not as helpful a abstinence from fornication and adultery.
Unlike the pill, abstinence doesn't protect from unwanted pregnancies if one is raped.

Rape is a crime. If you're worried about rape (odds are high that it might happen), you'd better be on the pill.

[I less than three logic]

Fair enough, I did some poking around...

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51269

This is from the Creighton Method, which I think is the method advocated by Natural Family Planners...

http://www.creightonmodel.com/effectiveness.htm

I'm not advocating any particular method. I'm just pointing out that to say that the Catholic Church is promoting a simplistic calendar method, is incorrect. There are claims that the more modern methods of natural family are as "successful" in their ability to not result in pregnancy as any of the so-called artifical methods.

-Elliot
Thanks for the links. They’re still quite vague however. Neither provided much for the comparison against other methods. The closest was this statement within your first link.
Done correctly, it can be highly effective, says Stanford from the University of Utah. Stanford co-authored a study of 1,876 couples using a method of natural family planning that relied upon changes in cervical mucus to chart fertility. The study, published in the June 1998 issue of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, found the technique had an impressive 96% effectiveness rate in preventing pregnancy, comparing favorably to condoms and diaphragms, though still less reliable than the pill or sterilization.
This still doesn’t support such claims as “more modern methods of natural family are as ‘successful’ in their ability to not result in pregnancy as any of the so-called artificial methods.” It’s still less reliable then the pill, even when done correctly according to the article. This is not to mention other forms of birth control that are more successful than the pill, or the combination of using birth control and condoms.

[I less than three logic]

Aw shucks. Can I buy you dinner sometime Hunster, arf arf. No question mark, so you don't have to answer. I admire your toleration of Morrigan, you've taken him more seriously than I have, which speaks better for you than for me. -Elliot
Yes, the fact that you haven’t been taking her serious is self-evident within your post. At least twice, perhaps more, within this thread alone, Morrigan has informed us of her gender. :rolleyes:

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Did it cross your mind that he is trying to discourage otherwise good Christians themselves from treating God like a pagan god?

This is an interesting question...AWPrime says they aren't actually doing that...

Whoops! Not actually doing what: treating God in a paganistic manner?

I think that a strictly literal understanding of Genesis can be seen as paganistic, or at least fundamental.

...I think the blessed Vatican astronomer is making a rather useless point...not that we can't draw something from that point if we look deeper into it. On the surface he is claiming to understand the intentions and motivations and true beliefs of people who don't think like him...those people can speak for themselves, and they'd probably find his commentary ridiculous and condescending....


Perhaps many Christians would see his statement as condescending, or resent his point.

But I think the statements of many of the non-Christians in this thread shows that it's a common belief among them that fundamental Christians who interpret Genesis literally are "woos", "fundies", etc. Meshing Christian faith with scientific discovery is not only good for both science and Christianity, it broadcasts a more mature and thoughtful Christian community to non-Christians.

[elliotfc]

Yes, the fact that you haven’t been taking her serious is self-evident within your post. At least twice, perhaps more, within this thread alone, Morrigan has informed us of her gender. :rolleyes:

What's gender? -Elliot

[elliotfc]

Whoops! Not actually doing what: treating God in a paganistic manner?

I think that a strictly literal understanding of Genesis can be seen as paganistic, or at least fundamental.

I guess I'm not sure what's meant by paganistic. It seems pretty vague. There are parallels between paganistic and non-paganisitc religions, right? Or similarities?

I think *every* fundamentalist believes that God is *outside* of nature. He isn't locked up in a tree or something. To this extent I don't think that even the most ardent fundamentalist is close to being paganistic. To declare that a young-earth fundamentalist is paganistic is a leap, a leap in that I'd like to see the specific reasoning behind that claim. It seems the good astronomer made the declaration and assumes that we'll just happily accept it. I want to see the thinking behind it.

But I think the statements of many of the non-Christians in this thread shows that it's a common belief among them that fundamental Christians who interpret Genesis literally are "woos", "fundies", etc. Meshing Christian faith with scientific discovery is not only good for both science and Christianity, it broadcasts a more mature and thoughtful Christian community to non-Christians.

It could. A fundamentalist might see that as a needless worry, why compromise, why try to satisfy a secularist, the gospels say that the world will reject us, and all that.

I have no problem with meshing religion with scientific discovery. It works for me! If it isn't for everyone, I don't want to belittle those who aren't interested. Nobody has to think in a certain way just to make other people feel better, or, to align themselves with some proclaimed sophistication so that they will be looked on in a better light.

I don't think fundamentalists lose any sleep over how they are perceived. Should they? I don't know.

-Elliot

[I less than three logic]

What's gender? -Elliot
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gender

gen·der
n.

Grammar.

A grammatical category used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms.
One category of such a set.
The classification of a word or grammatical form in such a category.
The distinguishing form or forms used.

Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.


The condition of being female or male; sex.
Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.

[elliotfc]

This still doesn’t support such claims as “more modern methods of natural family are as ‘successful’ in their ability to not result in pregnancy as any of the so-called artificial methods.” It’s still less reliable then the pill, even when done correctly according to the article. This is not to mention other forms of birth control that are more successful than the pill, or the combination of using birth control and condoms.

You're right. This from the Mayo Clinic
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control/BI99999/PAGE=BI00027

Here's a chart:
http://www.womentowomen.com/sexualityandfertility/birthcontrolmethods.asp

If the goal is pregnancy avoidance unhindered by anything else, be it religion or morality or possible risks or whatever, there are definitely better ways to achieve that than with, I guess they are called, "fertility awareness methods". Now that's a nice euphemism!

-Elliot

[I less than three logic]

You're right. This from the Mayo Clinic
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control/BI99999/PAGE=BI00027

Here's a chart:
http://www.womentowomen.com/sexualityandfertility/birthcontrolmethods.asp

If the goal is pregnancy avoidance unhindered by anything else, be it religion or morality or possible risks or whatever, there are definitely better ways to achieve that than with, I guess they are called, "fertility awareness methods". Now that's a nice euphemism!

-Elliot
Thanks again for the links. These were quite informative. While the "fertility awareness methods" (yes, quite a nice euphemism :)) is less effective than the “artificial” methods of birth control, a comparison of FAM to just the calendar method is deceptive as well. If done correctly 88 to 98 percent is quite effective.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Whoops! Not actually doing what: treating God in a paganistic manner?

I think that a strictly literal understanding of Genesis can be seen as paganistic, or at least fundamental.

I guess I'm not sure what's meant by paganistic. It seems pretty vague. There are parallels between paganistic and non-paganisitc religions, right? Or similarities?...

Actually, I'm not sure.

For example, I've considered extreme environmentalism paganistic, in that it comes to the point of worshipping the Earth as an entity, and many such people exclude God from physics.

Fundamental creationism can't really be called pagan.

...I think *every* fundamentalist believes that God is *outside* of nature. He isn't locked up in a tree or something....

I think God is part of nature. He isn't "locked up" in the tree, but His creation includes the tree, and I can see (sense? feel?) God in nature.

...To this extent I don't think that even the most ardent fundamentalist is close to being paganistic. To declare that a young-earth fundamentalist is paganistic is a leap, a leap in that I'd like to see the specific reasoning behind that claim. It seems the good astronomer made the declaration and assumes that we'll just happily accept it. I want to see the thinking behind it....

Yeah, I agree that inclusion of fundamentalist creationists into paganism isn't accurate at all, unless one "locks up" God into the creation of the natural, physical world, and not also within the spiritual realm.


...why compromise, why try to satisfy a secularist, the gospels say that the world will reject us, and all that....

For the sake of peace? Hope?

It may be useless, but coming half way is right and just.

...I have no problem with meshing religion with scientific discovery. It works for me! If it isn't for everyone, I don't want to belittle those who aren't interested....

I agree. Nobody should be belittled. Whoever disagrees with the Brother's statement should be able to respectfully disagree, for whatever reason.

...Nobody has to think in a certain way just to make other people feel better, or, to align themselves with some proclaimed sophistication so that they will be looked on in a better light...

Agree. That's a two way street.

...I don't think fundamentalists lose any sleep over how they are perceived. Should they? I don't know....

I don't know if they should lose sleep, but be concerned enought to reflect fully on their position (like everyone else)?

I don't automatically reject positions opposed to mine. It's the fruit of consideration. If it doesn't convince me, oh well. If it bears fruit, it's time for consideration.

[thaiboxerken]

"many such people exclude God from physics"

So do most scientists. Are scientists paganistic?

[Huntster]

"many such people exclude God from physics"

So do most scientists. Are scientists paganistic?

The ones that worship nature are.

[thaiboxerken]

Worship nature? LOL. That's funny.

[Huntster]

Worship nature? LOL. That's funny.

To you, perhaps it is.

To me or to one who worships nature, perhaps it's not.

To me, you're funny.

(See sig lines below.)

[AWPrime]

edit: this post wasn't needed.

[elliotfc]

edit: this post wasn't needed.

I disagree AWPrime. We need more of these kind of posts.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Actually, I'm not sure.

For example, I've considered extreme environmentalism paganistic, in that it comes to the point of worshipping the Earth as an entity, and many such people exclude God from physics.

Fundamental creationism can't really be called pagan.

Yes! The persons in "western" culture who are closest to either pagans, or, nature-worshipping types, are those who refer to the Earth as a living being. The inability to separate the abiotic from the biotic is a pretty good indicator of animating, or, elevating, matter to something greater than what it is.

As some atheists are freaked out about Jesus talk, I am freaked out by touchy-feely Earth talk. Of course I am concerned about our environment. I don't need to believe that I am *hurting* the Earth with my activities, as if the Earth had feelings or gave a damn what we did to it.

-Elliot

[Huntster]

Yes!....

Exclamation point; looks like I hit a nerve.

I agree.

...As some atheists are freaked out about Jesus talk, I am freaked out by touchy-feely Earth talk. Of course I am concerned about our environment. I don't need to believe that I am *hurting* the Earth with my activities, as if the Earth had feelings or gave a damn what we did to it....

These people don't necessarily "freak me out", but I find them extremely dangerous politically. Unlike Christianity and other monotheistic religions, their spiritual beliefs aren't kept at arms length from political policy, and they wield great power in the halls of government. Many of their positions are downright dangerous.

For example, the current energy crisis is guaranteed to get worse, yet policy hasn't even begun to change (http://www.adn.com/news/government/story/7758507p-7670699c.html), and that's because of a few U.S. Senators, who wield the power of the filibuster to appease the environmental lobby:

...The Republican-dominated House has passed ANWR legislation repeatedly in the last five years, with the help of about 30 Democrats. A majority of senators has also voted to drill in the refuge, but Stevens and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have fallen a few votes short of the 60 they need to block a filibuster, a fatal procedural delay....

After gasoline passes the $5 to $7 per gallon price, and you can't get gas at any price (because it simply isn't available), there may be hell to pay for the unyielding environmental extremists.

[I less than three logic]

After gasoline passes the $5 to $7 per gallon price, and you can't get gas at any price (because it simply isn't available), there may be hell to pay for the unyielding environmental extremists.
Well, sooner or later, even if there were absolutely no restrictions on drilling for oil this will be the case. Oil is a finite resource, and it takes quite a long time to be made.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
After gasoline passes the $5 to $7 per gallon price, and you can't get gas at any price (because it simply isn't available), there may be hell to pay for the unyielding environmental extremists.
Well, sooner or later, even if there were absolutely no restrictions on drilling for oil this will be the case. Oil is a finite resource, and it takes quite a long time to be made.

That's what some folks think, but science is beginning to find out otherwise (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2349.asp).

There's no shortage of crude oil. The problem is politics; oil rich nations playing games, and environmental extremists playing ideology.

[Morrigan]

These people don't necessarily "freak me out", but I find them extremely dangerous politically. Unlike Christianity and other monotheistic religions, their spiritual beliefs aren't kept at arms length from political policy, and they wield great power in the halls of government. Many of their positions are downright dangerous.
Whaaaaaaaaaa?

[I less than three logic]

That's what some folks think, but science is beginning to find out otherwise (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2349.asp).

There's no shortage of crude oil. The problem is politics; oil rich nations playing games, and environmental extremists playing ideology.
Yep, and it will replenish forever and ever at a rate faster than people can burn it up?

Oil isn’t made from magma or energy from within the earth. It is essentially very concentrated solar energy, and the process takes millions of years. I didn’t say that there is any form of crisis, just that sooner or later there will be no oil. Even with this phenomenon I still see no reason not to think that eventually we’ll run out of oil. I not making any points really, just saying. :)

[Huntster]

Eventually, the cost of burning crude oil will meet the cost of burning hydrogen. It will be then that mass conversion will grow.

[AWPrime]

Eventually, the cost of burning crude oil will meet the cost of burning hydrogen. It will be then that mass conversion will grow.
Yes, but hydrogen is a poor energy storage medium.

[Huntster]

Yes, but hydrogen is a poor energy storage medium.

Very dangerous. Seeing how people out there are driving, imagine sharing the freeway with hundreds of thousands of "Hindenburgs".

Even twenty years ago or so, the use of hydrides made hydrogen storage safer, but it was difficult to extract for burning.

Let's face it; gasoline is cheap, easy to transport, relatively safe, and the transportation/storage/refining/retail infrastructure is well in place.

Replacing it must be a long-term conversion, the fule that replaces it must be as energy efficient and safe, or there will be economic hell to pay.

[elliotfc]

Oil isn’t made from magma or energy from within the earth. It is essentially very concentrated solar energy, and the process takes millions of years. I didn’t say that there is any form of crisis, just that sooner or later there will be no oil. Even with this phenomenon I still see no reason not to think that eventually we’ll run out of oil. I not making any points really, just saying. :)

Out of curiosity...I've been gathering that the whole "fossil fuel" concept was something that sounded good, and then everybody kept repeating it for a few decades til it achieved dogmatic truth.

Recently, many people have questioned the ideal of coal/oil being fossil fuel. What's the state of the question? Do most skeptics reject the whole fossil fuel idea...it seems to be a serviceable theory, but what the hell evidence is there to prove that it's correct?

-Elliot

[I less than three logic]

Out of curiosity...I've been gathering that the whole "fossil fuel" concept was something that sounded good, and then everybody kept repeating it for a few decades til it achieved dogmatic truth.

Recently, many people have questioned the ideal of coal/oil being fossil fuel. What's the state of the question? Do most skeptics reject the whole fossil fuel idea...it seems to be a serviceable theory, but what the hell evidence is there to prove that it's correct?

-Elliot
Interesting idea. I’ve been attempting to find some creditable sites offering evidence one way or the other. Most of the ones I’ve found are different conspiracy theorists sites, which I don’t think would offer much in the way of creditable evidence. :)

However, from the sites I did find most geologists don’t seem to take the abiogenic theory for oil all that seriously. The general idea seemed to be that it is possible for hydrocarbons to form in the mantle, but not at rates fast enough to be very usefull.
Barbara Sherwood Lollar, a geologist at the University of Toronto, says the new study provides "excellent scientific evidence" of the formation of abiogenic hydrocarbons in the mantle. However, she's skeptical that these hydrocarbons could accumulate in the mantle in volumes that would be economically important. She also points out that abiogenic hydrocarbons in Earth's crust aren't a significant component of the world's usable oil and gas reserves.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040925/fob7.asp

Also, I couldn’t find any reference of abiogenic oil within any online geology journals, but perhaps my search wasn’t thorough enough.

[I less than three logic]

but what the hell evidence is there to prove that it's correct?
Guess I missed this part. Here are a couple of excerpts from geology journals about this.
Sediments and crude oils contain the same types of hydrocarbons. This analogy indicates that petroleum is derived from sedimentary organic matter. The close resemblances of hydrocarbons in sediments and crude oils to plant and animal products show that most of these hydrocarbons are obtained either directly from the remains of living things or are minor modifications of living matter.
http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/5/925

The bitumen globules, films, and masses are preserved within authigenic pyrite and demonstrate that a separate hydrocarbon phase had developed in the shale matrix during burial, providing compelling evidence for in situ petroleum generation and expulsion. The abundance of bitumen nodules and residual pyrobitumen in black shales across the Pilbara craton suggests that hydrocarbon generation from kerogenous shales was a common phenomenon during the Middle to Late Archean. The petroleum was generated from organic matter that accumulated in marine environments, most probably comprising the remains of photosynthetic and chemosynthetic organisms, pointing to a sizeable biomass as early as 3.2 Ga.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/6/497?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&field_name=fulltext&field_value=petroleum+origin&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=1/1/1973&tdate=5/31/2006&resourcetype=HWCIT

Sorry, but the links only refer to the abstract from the papers. You must subscribe to the journal or order a hard copy to read the full articles.

[elliotfc]

So there are reasons for believing that fossils turned into fossil fuel. Did these reasons come before the theory...or, did the theory come first, and then reasons were found? I can dig into this one myself, thanks for the links!

-Elliot

[AWPrime]

So there are reasons for believing that fossils turned into fossil fuel. Did these reasons come before the theory...or, did the theory come first, and then reasons were found? I can dig into this one myself, thanks for the links!

-Elliot
Consider this. Oil is found in places where the fossile oil theory says it should be. The same can't be said with abiotic oil theory.

[elliotfc]

Consider this. Oil is found in places where the fossile oil theory says it should be. The same can't be said with abiotic oil theory.

I don't know...does the abiotic oil theory tell us where oil should be found?

Maybe oil can be made abiotically and biotically?

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

I'm away for the weekend, I'll delve into the links on this site next week. I guess this is not really religious/philosophy, maybe I'll truck over to a different sub-forum next week to sort it out. -Elliot