|
Alright, enough religious debate. If you want to talk about Pope Benedict and what he specifically did or didn't do, go ahead. But no more general discussion on the merits or ills of the Catholic church or their history.
-page 12 |
On February 11 2013 23:49 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:45 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote:
I just want to add to everyone reading my post.
We should try to remember that a certain amount of respect should be given to those who believe in the catholic church and god and religion etc etc. That goes both ways. Have the same respect for atheists, other religions, gays, women and you get my respect too. Do we have to have respect for Scientologists, 9/11 conspirators, pastafarians, and flat-earth creationists too?
Not to their religions, but they are humans too you know.
I just meant respect goes both ways. Nothing more.
|
On February 11 2013 23:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm really surprised that Pope Benedict XVI stepped down from his position, considering the job is generally until the person dies. The last time a pope resigned was nearly 600 years ago. His "health issues" shouldn't really be a reason for him to quit. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:30 DevilofDeath wrote:I looked up the qualifications to become Pope, turns out I'm eligible and if I were to be elected this would be one badass thing to live up to! I think it's in the best interest for all of us to organize resumes and put together cover letters, and have a healthy TL competition to see if one of us can become the new pope.
Well, with the amount of Atheists and non-Catholics here, it should be a pretty slim competition. Then again, this is a pretty heavily European community. I wouldn't even be surprised if Catholics were a majority here, lol.
|
On February 11 2013 23:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:30 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:23 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
[quote]
Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. you're rude and offensive beyond words He was as well. I don't see a reason to hold back. what you are saying is blasphemic, you are insulting a over 2000 year old tradition that billions of people follow with their heart and soul, because someone asked you to use your brain. LOL, I don't give a fuck about blasphemic. I don't believe in god. I don't feel obligated to respect people who would defend an organisation that has opressed and exploited people for centuries. I'm not insulting the christian belief itself, I'm rightfully calling out the organisation representing it. And if you're actually feeling insulted by that then whatever. Tell me how what I said is wrong and why exactly I should feel bad for it.
You are wrong because you are indeed insulting the christian belief in intself. The holy bible, god's word is the christian belief, so either you decide to insult it or you don't, I am not sure what you are trying right now.
|
On February 11 2013 23:48 Arevall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:37 SiroKO wrote:On February 11 2013 23:15 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2013 23:07 SiroKO wrote:On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. The main vocation of catholicity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence. In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, their AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries. Being a bad Christian does not mean they deserve to die horrible early deaths. How can you be so lacking in compassion? They're dying and your only response is "well they should have been better Christians". Jesus. I just demonstrated that the Catholics message is not the cause of AIDS in Subsaharan Africa. People claiming otherwise are uninformed or dishonest. Besides, the pope never forbade condomns, he never put a catholic seal of approval on it which is quite different. On February 11 2013 23:19 radiatoren wrote:On February 11 2013 23:07 SiroKO wrote:On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. The main vocation of catholocity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence. In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, the AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries. It seems there are things in the human life no church can control? How many US politicians and preachers have called on abstinence and fidelity while not keeping it themself? Being realistic about society is a challenge for religion and you have to ask if society is moving too fast for the religions systems. It is not so much about a need for being consistent as an institution. Since we get new popes as often as others change underwear, it is about the elected popes being open about his opinions on some of the issues and making sense a bigger part of the popal work as opposed to traditional value promotion! 100 years ago abstinence was hot. Today it is not... First of, there's a difference between ideals and realities. You can respect and admire an ideal without sharing it or respecting it. Secondly, Catholicism is a multi-millenial doctrine. It has proved itelf. I doubt our decadent and dying western culture will last as long. Not only that, but I doubt people would find any interest in a religion which basically reiterates the main opinions of the media and don't take any courageous stances. I would also argue that Catholicism has proved itself during all this time, but I'd make the reverse case of it. And holding on to old, outdated views that discriminates are not courageous but cowardly. Being even more compassionate and caring, that is courage. There is a reason almost no one likes to have the old testament cited for example.
This is a religion, not a science. If the Truth, as reveal by the Bible is that condoms are evil and homosexuals should be shunned, then it's not courage to update these views with modernity, it's blasphemy.
|
United States44237 Posts
The single greatest and simplest act of good doable in the world today would be for the Vatican to declare that knowingly exposing another person to HIV is morally equal to murder while using a condom is morally equal to masturbation. Then people can choose their poison.
|
On February 11 2013 23:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:25 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote:
Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not? Not true at all. Do you have a source? This is what they taught in my marriage prep class.
lol, who taught you prep class, laypeople?
I'm pretty sure that goes against what the church teaches. But it seems pretty common in America for people to push their own agenda despite it going against church teaching. This is the official church teaching on that matter.
|
On February 11 2013 23:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm really surprised that Pope Benedict XVI stepped down from his position, considering the job is generally until the person dies. The last time a pope resigned was nearly 600 years ago. His "health issues" shouldn't really be a reason for him to quit. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:30 DevilofDeath wrote:I looked up the qualifications to become Pope, turns out I'm eligible and if I were to be elected this would be one badass thing to live up to! I think it's in the best interest for all of us to organize resumes and put together cover letters, and have a healthy TL competition to see if one of us can become the new pope.
Good idea... hmmm...
|
On February 11 2013 23:49 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:45 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote:
I just want to add to everyone reading my post.
We should try to remember that a certain amount of respect should be given to those who believe in the catholic church and god and religion etc etc. That goes both ways. Have the same respect for atheists, other religions, gays, women and you get my respect too. Do we have to have respect for Scientologists, 9/11 conspirators, pastafarians, and flat-earth creationists too?
This is probably what vexes me the most. This arrogant assumption that we should always give respect to unsubstantiated beliefs because...well just because! No, I judge all claims and all people by the same standard, I don't care who or what they are, if a person is a good person I will respect him/her, if a claim can be supported by scientific evidence, I will believe it. That's it, those are the rules, and you don't get special exemptions because Jesus/Mohammad/Spaghetti Monster.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:41 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:27 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. Condoms tearing is not what's causing the problems african peoples have with AIDS. Neither is anal sex. It's the fact that they don't have condoms. That's the real problem. And by saying that "it might be ok to use condoms in some cases if you're a male prostitute, ...", he's certainly not gonna help that problem. More like it's the fact that people who have AIDS have sex anyway and spread AIDS even when advised not to is the real problem. And the "quote" you provided is not true. I quoted that from the fucking article he posted, WTF. Those are his exact words. Stop replying if you're not gonna bother checking first. But they're humans. Sex is a natural instinct they have. Most of them lack the education to fully understand what AIDS is. Just telling them "well, don't have sex then" isn't gonna solve the fucking problem. Yes it's theoretically correct but it ignores the fucking problem. It's easy to talk from that golden chair of his but he's completely fucking delusional if he thinks that advising abstinence is gonna solve anything. How about you do something practical first that actually helps (like, I dunno... giving them condoms?) and actually teachign them wtf AIDS is so they'll understand why it might not be a good idea for them to have sex. Those are not his exact words. We can't have a productive discussion if you are going to blatantly lie like that. Human beings also have a natural instinct to eat. Do you believe that people should eat until they weigh 600 lbs? And why do you believe they are incapable of practicing self control? Because they're Africans?Practicing abstinence doesn't ignore the problem, it addresses it directly and provides a solution. Using condoms allows the problem to continue.
WTF
It's because the population in which AIDS is most problematic doesn't have proper education to understand what AIDS is. They won't understand why they shouldn't be having sex. It's fucking natural to have sex.
It's like telling people who are standing in the rain without an umbrella to not leave the house when it's raining, meanwhile holding 5 umbrellas in your hands. Are you correct? Yes, you're correct. But you could also fucking give them an umbrella to solve the problem at hand first, which is that they're getting soaked by the rain.
|
On February 11 2013 23:42 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote:
I just want to add to everyone reading my post.
We should try to remember that a certain amount of respect should be given to those who believe in the catholic church and god and religion etc etc. Why?
Because there is no reason not to. Even if you personally are not religious there is absolutely no reason to be completely disrespectful towards the way of life of the vast majority of the world's population. It doesn't matter what religion it is, it doesn't matter that it differs from your own personal beliefs or lack thereof, being that calloused and disrespectful towards your fellow man's way of life makes you look even more silly and childish than you feel their beliefs are.
I'm getting the distinct impression that a lot of people in this thread are very young or just have very little life experience and also haven't read any of Benedict's thoughts on some of the matters they're criticizing him for. You want a pope that's more open to condoms and gay rights? So do I, and he was a step in the right direction, just not enough of one. Whether people want to believe it or not, the Catholic church knows this, and a lot of Catholic (and Protestant) churches are changing their stance on homosexuality. I'm not Catholic, I think the Catholic church has handled a lot of things wrong, but I also know that the Catholic church pumps crazy amounts of money into good causes and helps people without getting anything back from it, and I'd be a total jackass if I condemned them as a whole or ridiculed their beliefs because they, humans, made mistakes.
Good for Benedict for deciding to step down if he feels he isn't healthy enough for the position anymore. That's the responsible thing to do, and I hope they select a new Pope that's another step in the right direction.
|
On February 11 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:39 McBengt wrote:On February 11 2013 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2013 23:25 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote:
Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not? Not true at all. Do you have a source? This is what they taught in my marriage prep class. A marriage what now? If you want to get married within the Church, you're required to attend a marriage preparation course. The one that I went to was absolutely horrific, taught by a French couple (Christian and Christine) who were the wrong kind of Catholics in my opinion. They were the type of Catholic that were previously a-religious until Christine had an abortion, at which point they found God, dropped everything in their lives, and became missionaries. They taught the Bible with a kind of literalism that I previously did not think existed within the Catholic Church anymore.
Is this still always the case in the USA? I think it used to be like this in the Netherlands in the good old days but not for some time now (or perhaps I´m just used to rather liberal churches and it still happens in the more conservative ones). I have several Catholic friends who married last year but none of them had a marriage preparation course. Sure they had a talk with the pastor about why they wanted to marry for the church but that was it.
|
On February 11 2013 23:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2013 23:25 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote:
Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not? Not true at all. Do you have a source? This is what they taught in my marriage prep class. lol, who taught you prep class, laypeople? I'm pretty sure that goes against what the church teaches. But it seems pretty common in America for people to push their own agenda despite it going against church teaching. This is the official church teaching on that matter.
I read it in the news once, by googling it I found:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html
|
what you are saying is blasphemic, you are insulting a over 2000 year old tradition that billions of people follow with their heart and soul, because someone asked you to use your brain.
I know of older traditions that many people back then followed with their heart and soul, that involved cannibalism and human sacrifices. These traditions are gone now but existed longer than Christianity. Would saying something about those traditions be blasphemic too?
|
Austria24422 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:51 Wrath 2.1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:30 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:23 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. you're rude and offensive beyond words He was as well. I don't see a reason to hold back. what you are saying is blasphemic, you are insulting a over 2000 year old tradition that billions of people follow with their heart and soul, because someone asked you to use your brain. LOL, I don't give a fuck about blasphemic. I don't believe in god. I don't feel obligated to respect people who would defend an organisation that has opressed and exploited people for centuries. I'm not insulting the christian belief itself, I'm rightfully calling out the organisation representing it. And if you're actually feeling insulted by that then whatever. Tell me how what I said is wrong and why exactly I should feel bad for it. You are wrong because you are indeed insulting the christian belief in intself. The holy bible, god's word is the christian belief, so either you decide to insult it or you don't, I am not sure what you are trying right now.
No actually it's not. The christian belief is not the version of the bible you're reading today.
Yes, I'm gonna respect people who are Christian. No, I'm not gonna respect people who defend the church as a whole.
|
On February 11 2013 23:51 Wrath 2.1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:30 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:23 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. you're rude and offensive beyond words He was as well. I don't see a reason to hold back. what you are saying is blasphemic, you are insulting a over 2000 year old tradition that billions of people follow with their heart and soul, because someone asked you to use your brain. LOL, I don't give a fuck about blasphemic. I don't believe in god. I don't feel obligated to respect people who would defend an organisation that has opressed and exploited people for centuries. I'm not insulting the christian belief itself, I'm rightfully calling out the organisation representing it. And if you're actually feeling insulted by that then whatever. Tell me how what I said is wrong and why exactly I should feel bad for it. You are wrong because you are indeed insulting the christian belief in intself. The holy bible, god's word is the christian belief, so either you decide to insult it or you don't, I am not sure what you are trying right now.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.... Let's not go crazy here. What separates the Christian faith from the Jewish one is the belief in Christ as the son of God. This is not based upon the words of God at all. It's based upon the words of the authors of the New Testament - supposedly Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, and finally Saul (Paul). None of these men was God, and it is said that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John actually WROTE the books that are named after them.
|
On February 11 2013 23:53 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 11 2013 23:45 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote:
I just want to add to everyone reading my post.
We should try to remember that a certain amount of respect should be given to those who believe in the catholic church and god and religion etc etc. That goes both ways. Have the same respect for atheists, other religions, gays, women and you get my respect too. Do we have to have respect for Scientologists, 9/11 conspirators, pastafarians, and flat-earth creationists too? This is probably what vexes me the most. This arrogant assumption that we should always give respect to unsubstantiated beliefs because...we just because! No, I judge all claims and all people by the same standard, I don't care who or what they are, if a person is a good person I will respect him/her, if a claim can be supported by scientific evidence, I will believe it. That's it, those are the rules, and you don't get special exemptions because Jesus/Mohammad/Spaghetti Monster.
You're the one that acts blind and arrogant in here. If a person is a good person.. hahahaha
|
On February 11 2013 23:53 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 11 2013 23:45 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote:
I just want to add to everyone reading my post.
We should try to remember that a certain amount of respect should be given to those who believe in the catholic church and god and religion etc etc. That goes both ways. Have the same respect for atheists, other religions, gays, women and you get my respect too. Do we have to have respect for Scientologists, 9/11 conspirators, pastafarians, and flat-earth creationists too? This is probably what vexes me the most. This arrogant assumption that we should always give respect to unsubstantiated beliefs because...well just because! No, I judge all claims and all people by the same standard, I don't care who or what they are, if a person is a good person I will respect him/her, if a claim can be supported by scientific evidence, I will believe it. That's it, those are the rules, and you don't get special exemptions because Jesus/Mohammad/Spaghetti Monster.
The thing is, you are not going to change people's believes.
So you can be like "us" and "them" or you can learn to have mutually respect while not agreeing with eachother.
|
I'm glad he stepped down. Maybe there can be a Pope who has more modern thinking. I'm a person who very much feels like holding on to the past too tightly can hurt the organization and it has...
I remember i saw this story on the news how the Pope called "The Sisters" (nuns who dressed normally, owned their own hospitals and did AIDS work in Africa etc) heretics just because he was threatened of them. Just because you don't dress as a traditional nun, work outside the convent, and don't care if you are helping gay or straight people you should be called out as heathens by the church? You got to the kidding me. Little things like that pissed me off greatly. I respect the Catholic traditions but they really need to move on and develop some tolerance. This is a time where churches should be promoting peace, love and understanding not the complete opposite.
Guess it's wishful thinking right?
|
On February 11 2013 23:57 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:53 McBengt wrote:On February 11 2013 23:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 11 2013 23:45 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote:
I just want to add to everyone reading my post.
We should try to remember that a certain amount of respect should be given to those who believe in the catholic church and god and religion etc etc. That goes both ways. Have the same respect for atheists, other religions, gays, women and you get my respect too. Do we have to have respect for Scientologists, 9/11 conspirators, pastafarians, and flat-earth creationists too? This is probably what vexes me the most. This arrogant assumption that we should always give respect to unsubstantiated beliefs because...we just because! No, I judge all claims and all people by the same standard, I don't care who or what they are, if a person is a good person I will respect him/her, if a claim can be supported by scientific evidence, I will believe it. That's it, those are the rules, and you don't get special exemptions because Jesus/Mohammad/Spaghetti Monster. You're the one that acts blind, arrogant and utterly retarded in here. If a person is a good person.. hahahaha
No he's not. He's pointing out that people should not get respect for believing in things based not on evidence, but rather on faith. This is widely accepted as reasonable for all types of beliefs, and it should apply to religious belief too.
|
On February 11 2013 23:55 Sandermatt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2013 23:25 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote:
Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not? Not true at all. Do you have a source? This is what they taught in my marriage prep class. lol, who taught you prep class, laypeople? I'm pretty sure that goes against what the church teaches. But it seems pretty common in America for people to push their own agenda despite it going against church teaching. This is the official church teaching on that matter. I read it in the news once, by googling it I found: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html
Like a lot of news headlines that are written when then the pope so much as farts, the headline was written to sell newspaper rather than to reflect the truth.
How can the writer come up with that headline when the guy clearly states "It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution" and “it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection” ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
