|
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 |
Canada13378 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:50 Zandar 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? Not to their religions, but they are humans too you know. I just meant respect goes both ways. Nothing more.
I respect everyone as a person :/ I can disagree with beliefs but that amounts to a semantic disagreement regarding how to say the word "tomato"
In the end people are people and as long as you arent chasing me with a knife I could care less what you believe in. I just don't want to see the thread turn into religion flame wars personally.
No one hates Germany for what Hitler did in the 40s so why do people some people so vehemently hate everything religion stands for because of wars that were started ages and ages ago for example.
You can have a lack of respect for a person who does and says horrible things, not for a lack of respect for a person because they believe X instead of Y. I mean sure the pope has some backwards beliefs regarding contraception for example, but he hasn't gone out of his way to force his beliefs on those who don't follow his religion. And even then at most he can chastise people from his religion for it.
I see people arguing about blasphemy and other such useless things. When really its as simple as the pope is resigning, people can post their thoughts, but no need for "why doesn't he just pray to god to heal him huehuehue" posts  .
IMO.
On February 11 2013 23:52 KwarK wrote:
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.
Yeah I agree. Personally I think that would be a good position for the Vatican to take but who knows what the new pope will do some are much more progressive than others. JPII vs BenedictXVI for example.
|
On February 11 2013 23:51 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
You actually bring up an interesting point about us being European heavy and having a large population of atheists. This is the internet, so it's kind of misleading. If I went by TL I would, wrongfully, assume that Sweden was filled to overflowing with people that were intolerant of other people's ways of living, but Sweden is actually one of the more chill places regarding people's beliefs. Being the internet, and on a fansite for games marketed towards teenagers, it tends to skew things.
Edit: Well said ZeromuS. 
|
On February 11 2013 23:52 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:48 Arevall wrote: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.
Well, I would beg to differ. If anything Jesus was an anarchist putting the jewish traditions up for his test and failing several of them as impractical or immoral. I would argue that the bible is sufficiently vague on most issues as to push for an infinite number of interpretations. Calling anything as "revealed" in the bible is an interpretation in itself. Just as taking a historic look at Council of Jamnia and the later versions, the canonizations of the scriptures included, and especially those excluded, I would argue that the canonization process is rather close to blasphemy!
|
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.
The bolded part is really quite childish and presumptuous. Abdication is a pretty couragous and humble act. The Pope made a conscientious and wise decision.
From what I said earlier:
On February 11 2013 23:37 TerribleTrioJon wrote:
This is actually not too much of a suprise, except for perhaps the timing. He's said repeatedly in his recent writings and interviews that he would consider abdicating if he didn't have the physical stamina to carry out the tasks of Pope, as well as noting the reality that people live much longer than before.
It's amusing that the thread appears to have been given free reign to go off-course.
|
On February 11 2013 23:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:51 Wrath 2.1 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
This. From wikipedia: In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39, 46(51),54, or 57 book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63)
And at several of these synods influential groups of Christians could not be represented and thus the scriptures they believed to be true were omitted from what we now call the New Testament. If you are interested in some of the things the early Christians believed in that are removed from Christianity on account of not being included in the New Testament look up some of the books written by Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. Interesting reads imo no matter what your stand on Christianity is.
|
A guy at the top of an ignorant pyramid is giving way to another; zippidy doo da.
|
i'm a big fan of condoms myself, but yeah, it doesn't solve HIV at its core.
single partner fidelity, HIV screening for high risk individuals, social responsibility...i think these things are in principle more effective
|
I guess he's too old for dat sh!t
|
On February 12 2013 00:00 Zandar 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...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.
Do you really have mutual respect for people that believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster while not agreeing with their beliefs, or do you secretly think they are a little bit silly but in the interests of diplomacy claim to respect them?
Some people prefer honesty.
|
On February 11 2013 23:56 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:51 Wrath 2.1 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Your point...?
|
This pope did not last long, well i am sure they get another puppet soon enough.
|
France9034 Posts
On February 12 2013 00:06 Mortal wrote:
A guy at the top of an ignorant pyramid is giving way to another; zippidy doo da.
Yeah, I wouldn't put Benedict XVI and John Paul II (Or John XXIII) on the same level...
And I would be less insulting, whatever you think of the pope and the christians.
|
On February 11 2013 23:54 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:41 SpeaKEaSY wrote: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:
[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. 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.
You did not answer my question. It's also natural to eat. But does that mean there is no situation where you should probably exercise self control when eating?
Actually, it's more like a doctor telling someone to stay inside their house if they have a contagious, life threatening manbearpig flu. And then the person wants to go outside anyway because they think that if they wear a face mask, they can lower the chance of exposure to other people. But the doctor tells them that even with the mask, they risk exposing people anyway, so they should probably just stay inside. And then the person goes outside without a mask, infects everyone. And then, he goes and blames the doctor.
Yes, it's human nature to want to have sex. But it's not human nature to be infected with HIV. So if you have HIV, you need to be conscious of that and not engage in activities that might harm other people.
|
Austria24416 Posts
On February 12 2013 00:06 shadymmj wrote:
i'm a big fan of condoms myself, but yeah, it doesn't solve HIV at its core.
single partner fidelity, HIV screening for high risk individuals, social responsibility...i think these things are in principle more effective
Yes that is completely true but it's ignoring the fact that there's tons of people in the world who won't even understand why they should follow those rules. A lot of people who have AIDS and have sex have no idea what AIDS is because they're lacking the education. To say that it is "morally wrong" for them to use condoms and they should practice abstinence instead is blatantly ignorant. It would be morally wrong if they were aware of the consequences.
|
United States5162 Posts
See the mod note. Heed the note.
|
Edited for the mod note. <3
|
On February 12 2013 00:11 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:54 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 SpeaKEaSY wrote: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:
[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. 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. You did not answer my question. It's also natural to eat. But does that mean there is no situation where you should probably exercise self control when eating? Actually, it's more like a doctor telling someone to stay inside their house if they have a contagious, life threatening manbearpig flu. And then the person wants to go outside anyway because they think that if they wear a face mask, they can lower the chance of exposure to other people. But the doctor tells them that even with the mask, they risk exposing people anyway, so they should probably just stay inside. And then the person goes outside without a mask, infects everyone. And then, he goes and blames the doctor.
Yes, it's human nature to want to have sex. But it's not human nature to be infected with HIV. So if you have HIV, you need to be conscious of that and not engage in activities that might harm other people.
In a perfect world, Yes but the world isn't perfect. People are idiots and people make mistakes and shit happens :/.
|
I think he is really one of the oldest to be Pope. So his reason seems valid.
|
On February 12 2013 00:09 Wrath 2.1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:56 dUTtrOACh wrote:On February 11 2013 23:51 Wrath 2.1 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Your point...?
"Word of God" is a very misleading way to describe something that isn't.
EDIT: Simply answering something asked of me before the posting of the mod note. With respect to the mod note, and having said what I needed to say regarding Benedict XVI, this will be my last post in this thread.
|
On February 11 2013 23:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:51 Wrath 2.1 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
While the theory that the bible was changed is often proposed by conspiration theorists (not pretending you are one, maybe you just heard the wrong people) there are very old bibles available. There are numerous fragments from the second century on (dated by the C-14 method, a scientific standard method to determine ages) and whole bibles from the 4th century. There are only minor disagreements between versions.
Edit: Started writing this post before the mod note appeared and therefore didn't see it until I posted the comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
