[Closed] Catholic church and child abuse.

....I would be baiting, and that would be bullying.
Now, since ad hominem 'arguments' seem to be the order of the day on this thread, I find your position, together with the positions of such obvious intellectual heavyweights as Lifer and GW, hideous for their vitriol and lack of understanding.
Your collective misappropriation of history, psychology, and sociology - not to mention theology - is unbecoming of a rational species.

I couldn't agree more.

For being born into a Western Catholic Family I pretty much seem to be responsible for every evil in the world. Oh well Im not going to worry about it too much.

Is this a new form of the Nuremburg Defence..... I was only follwing Gods order as given on Earth by his appointed representative Der Pope?

Get real man, the simple fact is that the CC is a morally bankrupt organsiation, and to choose to continue to passively support its unbelievable evils is to actively engage in the commission of those self same evils. Or do you think millions of Catholics turning their back on the religion publically stating their reasons would have no impact on the way the franchise is run?

It's a lot easier to prosecute paedophiles and take steps to minimise their operation than it is to stop global warming.

Yes or no? If no - why?

roper - Member

....I would be baiting, and that would be bullying.
Now, since ad hominem 'arguments' seem to be the order of the day on this thread, I find your position, together with the positions of such obvious intellectual heavyweights as Lifer and GW, hideous for their vitriol and lack of understanding.
Your collective misappropriation of history, psychology, and sociology - not to mention theology - is unbecoming of a rational species.

I couldn't agree more.

Perhaps you could explain what I don't understand then?

"Demonstrate to me that I am wrong. That's all you have to do and you can continue to be as vituperative about it as you like - it doesn't bother me. Is your position so weak that all you have is expressions of hurt?"
Where exactly did I say I was hurt? you're obviously determined to make a point here, but what that point is, I'm not really sure. You're far more rabid in your condemnation of my religion (and yes, I'm being careful to say 'mine' rather than 'others') than I am of your belief system - do you really feel that I'm going to be brought round to your way of thinking? You're perfectly entitled to think and believe in whatever you want. I'll even stand by your right to critisise my faith / beliefs, if that's what you want to do - as I said before, live and let live.

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

I think I'm going to become a Gary Glitterist..... its less distasteful!

Mr Woppit, stop being such a cock please. Your hectoring stance does no-one any favours.

barnsleymitch - do you not feel it calls into question the legitimacy of the entire catholic church when the spiritual/moral leader and many other senior figures have been shown to be complicit in child abuse?

you're obviously determined to make a point here, but what that point is, I'm not really sure.

Religion proagates itself by the brainwashing and indoctrination of children, placed there by the parents.

ou're far more rabid in your condemnation of my religion (and yes, I'm being careful to say 'mine' rather than 'others') than I am of your belief system

Atheism is not a "belief system".

- do you really feel that I'm going to be brought round to your way of thinking?

Not unless you become de-programmed from the indoctrination that has chained you to your belief. The first step in this is to deal with the argument rather than engage in avoidance.

I'll even stand by your right to critisise my faith / beliefs, if that's what you want to do

I do not need your permission.

Religion propagates itself by the brainwashing of children, placed there by the parents.

Yes or no? If no - why?

I think a splinter-church is long overdue. Surely certain Catholics must be thinking its leadership is rotten. How many HAVENT been uncovered?

Mr Woppit, stop being such a cock please. Your hectoring stance does no-one any favours.

The usual word is "strident". I'm just typing words. Would you prefer it if I plastered little smiley faces over everything or obscured the text with "please don't be offended but" or "I'm only saying this" or other such fluffy reassurances?

Look - 😆 😆 😆 8) 😀

Try to imagine that I'm speaking in a polite, sotto voce tone with a friendly smile on my face.

O.K now?

Mr Woppit - I'm not 'indoctrinated', thanks all the same. You know nothing about my life, let alone the lives of my parents. My dad is dead now, but I'm sure he'd be pissing himself laughing about all your talk of 'brainwashing', especially as you're so insistent on quoting Richard Dawkins at every opportunity. Now, I cant carry on voicing my disgust at Ratzinger and his pals, can I? And I'm not about to recant my faith based purely on your repetitive arguments, am I? So where do we go from here?

Dear dear me. Some fine closed-mindedness on this thread.. Mr Woppit I am looking at you!

You seem to think that the search for answers in life is simply about what created the world or what happens when we die. An embarassing and intellectually feeble position for a thinking adult I would say, something I would expect from an emerging adolescent.

The reason I say that it because the existence or otherwise of God is largely academic, since it's unprovable either way. Religion is *really* about a doctrine and morals, and a code by which to live one's life. Now most people need this; you either get it from a religion or from the generally accepted ideals of your society. In your case those are basically the same as religious ideas anyway for historical reasons. The only difference is the idea of critical scientific thought, but that in many ways only tries to answer the most basic questions.

Other people are just as intelligent as you but they see the world differently. Maybe isntead of ranting at them to change their minds, you might actually take the time to learn about their point of view. And you have to be open minded about it...

Or, to put it another way, your juvenile rantings give atheists a bad name, so take it easy!

Would you prefer it if I plastered little smiley faces over everything or obscured the text with "please don't be offended but" or "I'm only saying this" or other such fluffy reassurances?

Hehehe.. human communication is a very subtle thing, I guess taht's something else you need to learn about 🙂

I have quoted Richard Dawkins once.

You may express your disgust at Ratzinger and his gang of abusers as much as you like - you don't need my permission.

Please deal with my proposal - Religion propagates itself by the indoctrination of children, placed there by the parents.

On your more specific point - if this general point does not apply to you - perhaps you would like to tell me how you bacame a cultist?

Smiley face, moderate voice, friendly smile, etc etc etc.

[i]I'm not about to recant my faith based purely on your repetitive arguments, am I? So where do we go from here? [/i]

I think he ties you to a tree, and shoots you repeatedly with a crossbow while you look towards heaven with a beatific expression playing across your faintly effeminate countenance and little rivulets of blood trickle over your well-toned torso. 😉

[img] [/img]

I was brought up (or brainwashed) a Catholic. Then once I was old enough to think for myself, I kinda made up m mind that there "might" be a god (all this brainwashing takes a while to unindoctrinate) and then after another few years decided it was all bollocks and that I was then an atheist.

However, the likes of Mr. Woppit, who, despite being told he is sounding like the the most enormous cock (you have to imagine me saying that...how do you put it...how do you justify sounding like a cock...oh yes, there it is...strident!!...yes, stridently) on the thread today, is convincing me that maybe Catholicism might be a good idea after all...

STFU dude...you're giving atheists a bad name.

whoppity why the pleasure in being so offensive it does just make you look like a c0ck even to those of us who are aetheists want to put some distance between your view and our own.

Religion proagates itself by the brainwashing and indoctrination of children, placed there by the parents.

I suspect further discussion of this with you would be like discussing matters of faith with a devout person. Utterly pointless you are both beyond persuassion and at times you also appear incapable of rational discourse due to your hatred. Shame that no point holding on to hate according ot the Buddha 😉

I've been a member of this forum for about three years now. Today is the first time I've ever mentioned the fact that I'm a catholic, and I only did so in order to say that (a) I disagree with the churches apparent lack of concern regarding the actions of some of its priests, and (b) that not all catholics blindly accept it's doctrine. To say I wish I'd have kept my mouth shut would be an understatement.
BigDummy - if you replace the phrase 'well-toned' with the phrase 'well-rounded', you'd be much nearer the mark!

"Every Catholic is responsible."
How does that make any sense? I've already stated my position on this, and I will not accept that simply by being a member of the catholic church I am in some way condoning the acts and omissions of other members. By that argument, would you also state that all muslims are responsible for 911, etc? This is a long standing problem that has long been ignored /condoned by the vatican, which desperately needs addressing, now.

I think the problem a lot of non-Catholics have is that the Roman Catholic Church has such a rigid heirachy, with the infallible Pope at the head. I find it a bit odd that a Catholic can be excommunicated or put under interdict for supporting a woman's right to abortion, or engaging in pre-marital sex, but not for repeatedly and systematically covering up paedophile priests.

I think that's why people brand the Catholic Church as a whole, because the top layers are rotten. The question is, if you're on the bottom level of the heirachy and you question the moral authority of the Church leaders, are you still really a Catholic?

It's a shame - when I was little, I used to be taken to Catholic Church by my best friend's family when I stayed over for the weekend. I wasn't a Catholic, so I found it a bit overwhelming - why are they wearing those outfits? Why are half of the hymns and readings in Latin? Oooh, and what's with all the sparkly gold stuff? But everyone was incredibly welcoming, but not in a JOIN US sort of way. And my friend's parents remain to this day some of the most awesome people I know - whether that's because of their religion or despite of it, I don't know.

It must be incredibly difficult for Catholics to try and reconcile their faith and their dedication to their church with the shadier aspects of the organisation. I guess they can't win - if they do question it, they get people like me saying, "But doesn't that make you a rubbish Catholic if you don't have blind faith in the Pope?", and if they don't then they get labelled mindless indoctrinated drones. And sometimes both! 😛

Possibly the only solution is for Catholics to go on strike/wee in the Pope's shoes/own the Church's leaders with some bombers.

[i]To say I wish I'd have kept my mouth shut would be an understatement. [/i]

If I may say so, your decency and patience on this thread is remarkable.

You seem to think that the search for answers in life is simply about what created the world or what happens when we die.

That is your perception and of course, you're welcome to it. I'm not searching for answers however, merely asking for a response to a proposal.

what happens when we die

We die.

The reason I say that it because the existence or otherwise of God is largely academic

No, it's simply a matter of evidence. There being none, however, puts the weight of responsibility on the shoulders of those who propose god's existence. I am quite happy to stop being an atheist and accept that a god exists. All anyone has to do is demonstrate it.

Religion is *really* about a doctrine and morals, and a code by which to live one's life.

Not so. Religion is founded on a belief in a god. Or gods. Without this, it wouldn't be a religion.

Maybe isntead of ranting at them to change their minds, you might actually take the time to learn about their point of view.

I fail to see how anything I have written is a "rant". I think this is a projection on your part. I am actually trying to learn the point of view. I have done nothing but ask for it for some time now, but all I get back are either confused critiques like yours, or expressions of hurt feelings and accusations of bullying.

Shall I repeat the proposition again, and would you and other religious apologists care to actually deal with it in a meaningful exchange? At all?

 

Religion proagates itself by the brainwashing and indoctrination of children, placed there by the parents.

ah another of your open and genuine questions again again it reads like you would listen to the answer it really does.

It is not a question, it's a proposition.

Which nobody has yet dealt with - I am incapable of "listening" to something that has not been "said"!

Would it be any easier for you if I preceded it with "Do you think that..."?

I think he ties you to a tree, and shoots you repeatedly with a crossbow while you look towards heaven with a beatific expression playing across your faintly effeminate countenance and little rivulets of blood trickle over your well-toned torso.

That made me chuckle. Brilliant. 😆

On your more specific point - if this general point does not apply to you - perhaps you would like to tell me how you bacame a cultist?

Smiley face, moderate voice, friendly smile, etc etc etc.

You know Mr Woppit, you really are an objectionable tw*t, but as youre so insistent, here goes. My Dad came over from Ireland when he was in his twenties - he never spoke about it, but I got the impression it had something to do with the troubles. He had been raised a catholic, but was non-practising and was often (especially when he was pissed) quite outspoken in his condemnation of organised religion. He then met and married my Mam, who was a devout and practising catholic. Cue a lifetime of 'interesting' debate. None of my siblings were brought up as catholics, it was something we never really gave much time to, to be honest. When I was born, I was premature, weighed two pounds and wasnt expected to survive, which allowed my mam the excuse to have me baptised as a catholic - you can imagine how delighted my dad was! This may not fit in with your theory of brainwashing and indoctrination, for which I can only apologise. I keep my beliefs very much to myself, I dont follow doctrine blindly, and I dont judge others according to my own faith. You can call your own way of thinking whatever you want to call it, but you should perhaps try exercising a little less eagerness in condemning others. 😉 (that smiley was supposed to be ironic)

Religion propagates itself by the indoctrination of children, placed there by the parents.

To an extent I suppose it does, although it isn't a simple "yes" or "no" question. I'm sure many relegious folk have been converted later in life. My parents weren't Christians until their mid-thirties, so they can't have been indoctrinated. I was a Christian until my late teens (10+ years ago now I hasten to add!), I think some may say I was indoctrinated, but I reckon that word is a bit loaded. Although I can't remember being given a choice of relegions (or atheisim for that matter) so maybe...

What is certain is that in the case of my parents and me the above asertion is incorrect. Interesting debate argument though!

barnsleymitch - Member

On your more specific point - if this general point does not apply to you - perhaps you would like to tell me how you bacame a cultist?

Smiley face, moderate voice, friendly smile, etc etc etc.

You know Mr Woppit, you really are an objectionable tw*t, but as youre so insistent, here goes. My Dad came over from Ireland when he was in his twenties - he never spoke about it, but I got the impression it had something to do with the troubles. He had been raised a catholic, but was non-practising and was often (especially when he was pissed) quite outspoken in his condemnation of organised religion. He then met and married my Mam, who was a devout and practising catholic. Cue a lifetime of 'interesting' debate. None of my siblings were brought up as catholics, it was something we never really gave much time to, to be honest. When I was born, I was premature, weighed two pounds and wasnt expected to survive, which allowed my mam the excuse to have me baptised as a catholic - you can imagine how delighted my dad was! This may not fit in with your theory of brainwashing and indoctrination, for which I can only apologise. I keep my beliefs very much to myself, I dont follow doctrine blindly, and I dont judge others according to my own faith.

Interesting. So, if you don't mind me asking (see what I did there?) if your own induction into cultism wasn't from the result of parental subduction, why did you become a catholic in particular and a christian in general?

Lynch mob mentality at its best. You can always rely on STW for the righteous few to shoot down anyone who dares voice an opinion slightly awry from their own!

It's O.K., I can take it. I'm a big boy... 😉

Catholicism wasnt something I chose, as my last post clearly stated. My christianity, faith, whatever you want to call it, is my own business, which appears to be of more interest to you than it does to myself - why is that, exactly?
I believe there are other aspects of my life (twenty odd years as a psychiatric nurse, the adoption of two brilliant kids from a less than ideal background, an extensive period of work in orphanages in Romania, for example) that are far more interesting and worthy of discussion. Religion - why is that more important?

I wouldn't worry Barnsleymitch. You're onto a loser here I reckon.

Go to say Woppit, you're vitriol does you no favours. Do you have similar issues with Germans and Japanese of a similar age? Or those raised behind the Iron Curtain?

You preach (and that is the correct word) intolerance of those who you accuse of intolerance.

barnsleymitch - Member

Catholicism wasnt something I chose, as my last post clearly stated. My christianity, faith, whatever you want to call it, is my own business, which appears to be of more interest to you than it does to myself - why is that, exactly?
I believe there are other aspects of my life (twenty odd years as a psychiatric nurse, the adoption of two brilliant kids from a less than ideal background, an extensive period of work in orphanages in Romania, for example) that are far more interesting and worthy of discussion. Religion - why is that more important?

If you don't want to talk about it that's fine. There's no rule that says you have to.

As a psychiatric nurse however, what do you make of my general point regarding the indoctrination of children? Bearing in mind that you don't have to join in that discussion if you don't want to, although I'd be interested to hear why you would not want to put me in MY place with a convincing argument, given the opportunity...

I thank Jesus for bank holidays.

Why is contraception evil BTW. Where in the Bible does it say this?

Probably because he knows he doesn't have to reason with someone who is unable to take on board a viewpoint different to his?! I'm sure that would put me off wanting to argue. Seems pointless does it not?!

"As a psychiatric nurse however, what do you make of my general point regarding the indoctrination of children? Bearing in mind that you don't have to join in that discussion if you don't want to, although I'd be interested to hear why you would not want to put me in MY place with a convincing argument, given the opportunity..."
Because, as you've already inferred with that last statement, there cannot be a 'convincing argument' based purely on faith, as well you know. You've already placed yourself in the position of my intellectual superior, so please, be happy with that, and leave me the **** alone.

vinnyeh - Member

Go to say Woppit, you're vitriol does you no favours. Do you have similar issues with Germans and Japanese of a similar age? Or those raised behind the Iron Curtain?

You preach (and that is the correct word) intolerance of those who you accuse of intolerance.

Not at all. I have never preached intolerance of religion. Quote me, I dare you. I do however, uphold my right to argue against it. I am perfectly happy to support the right of anyone to believe in whatever they want. I don't see however, why a conversation about religion shouldn't be as robust as a conversation about anything else. You don't find such a touchy level of sensitivity being demanded in conversations about football, or the weather, or favourite pop groups for instance. I can't see why religion has to be put in a special category, frankly.

And hora - stop bloody trolling, you whey faced poltroon.

vinnyeh - Member
Go to say Woppit, you're vitriol does you no favours. Do you have similar issues with Germans and Japanese of a similar age? Or those raised behind the Iron Curtain?

You preach (and that is the correct word) intolerance of those who you accuse of intolerance.

Another straw man - you can't choose your nationality.

You've already placed yourself in the position of my intellectual superior, so please, be happy with that

Well, if I had and am, I might be if I was in an ego-polishing mood. However I think it would be more accurate to say that I placed my argument in a superior position to yours - assuming that it was following the usual reason/faith arc, as you seem to imply:

Because, as you've already inferred with that last statement, there cannot be a 'convincing argument' based purely on faith

IRMC.

PS:

leave me the **** alone

By all means.

For being born into a Western Catholic Family I pretty much seem to be responsible for every evil in the world. Oh well Im not going to worry about it too much.

Is this a new form of the Nuremburg Defence..... I was only follwing Gods order as given on Earth by his appointed representative Der Pope?

You've totally missed my point here one of the key words was "Western" which am I meant to be fixing first the horrors of colonialism ? The situation on the Middle East ? The problems with the catholic church ?

Get real man, the simple fact is that the all western nations* are morally bankrupt organsiations, and to choose to continue to passively support their unbelievable evils is to actively engage in the commission of those self same evils. Or do you think millions of Europeans/Americans turning their back on their nation publically stating their reasons would have no impact on the way the franchise is run ?

Or would they just go to war with who ever they fancied because there was oil there ? Which is what they did despite all the protests.

* or put in which ever organisation/nation you fancy because none is perfect.

Nick the child molesting clergy and get them on the sex offenders register.

Should keep them from abusing any more vunerable kids that are dragged along to a place of worship

Unfortunately like all paedophiles they are very devious and no doubt use fear to keep their victims from reporting them

Tijuana Taxi - Member

Nick the child molesting clergy and get them on the sex offenders register.

Should keep them from abusing any more vunerable kids that are dragged along to a place of worship

Staring with Ratzinger the second he steps off the plane in September.

* or put in which ever organisation/nation you fancy because none is perfect.

But no sovereign nation claims to be infallible.

I have never preached intolerance of religion. Quote me, I dare you.

"The indoctrination of children into religious dogma, is a form of child abuse" - Richard Dawkins.
Religion is filth.
I find your equating of a free and balanced upbringing where children are allowed to see all sides of the argument and are allowed to make up their own minds, with the sort of disgusting brainwashing that happens in religious cults like yours, to be an exact product of the indoctrination that I am talking about.

If you accept the Dawkins quote, then unless you're advocating child abuse, it follows that you're being intolerant.

FWIW, Catholicism is one of the most passive Christian faiths- it seems to demand little of it's followers, and makes little impact on their lives, in comparison to say, one of the Pentacostal churches. Certainly, followers seem less excited by it than your average football fan does about their team.
Brainwashing is a term more applicable to some of the more extreme, fundamentalist offshoots.

*I was raised a Catholic, dabbled with 'born again Christianity as a pubescent teenager, then came out the other side as a staunch atheist. There are fairly reasonable arguments for the existence of God, the historical existence of Jesus, and the veracity of the Bible as a historical document, but any stance beyond neutral will always require a leap of faith. 8)

whether that's because of their religion or despite of it

It's not because of religion. Nice people are nice, bad people are bad, it's got nothing (in my experience) to do with what religion they are 🙂

As for Mr Woppit - your tone has been very confrontational. You are rubbishing other people's very personal beliefs (and pressing your own) quite agressively. This really is't on, from a social point of view. The Christians on this thread have behaved far more decently than you.

From a philosophical one though, your position seems no different to me to that of the catholics. So you are no different to a Christian Evangelist in many ways. After all, you can no more prove that there is no supreme being watching all this with a big smirk on his face than Christans can prove there is one with an expression of divine love. We might all be lab rats in a cage on drugs, for all we know.

When my daughter asks me if God exists, I won't say "No". I'll say "well it's hard to say, some folk believe so and some don't". Then when she goes on to ask more questions I'll answer them honestly and she can make her own mind up.

What would you say to your kids Wopster?

When my daughter asks me if God exists, I won't say "No". I'll say "well it's hard to say, some folk believe so and some don't". Then when she goes on to ask more questions I'll answer them honestly and she can make her own mind up.

Quite right too!

Brainwashing is a term more applicable to some of the more extreme, fundamentalist offshoots.

Interesting view. The inquisition. The murder of african followers by denying them contraception to prevent aids. The support of the execrable "Mother" Theresa. The support of Hitler. Anti-semitism. and so on and so on... Ending up with the protection, through a worldwide network, of paedophile child torturers. This is not extreme?

it seems to demand little of it's followers, and makes little impact on their lives

It demands that they belive that a ridiculous and stupid numbskull in a silly hat is the earthly representative of the will of an allegedly all powerful "god".

Who would not wish for it's followers to be free of that particular psychological choking entramellment?

There are fairly reasonable arguments for the existence of God,

Name one.

he historical existence of Jesus

Disputed. No evidence.

the veracity of the Bible as a historical document

A huge misrepresentation. You will few other documents of such internal innacuracies, impossibilities and self-contradictions. One example:

If "jesus" was alone in the garden of gethsemane during his conversation with his "god", who was able to report it?

There are many others, geographical, historical and just plain impossible.

the sort of disgusting brainwashing that happens in religious cults like yours, to be an exact product of the indoctrination that I am talking about.

Any type of upbringing is brainwashing. Surely you could argue any ideas you put in the mind of a child could be viewed as evil ?

Personally I could see labeling a child as an english child would evil, both the first and second world wars were partially caused by nationalism and this was encouraged in the 19th century during the raising of children. It is still something which is encouraged to a more or lesser extent in most countries in the world.

If you raised a child with out any influence you would nt be raising them at all.

The inquisition. The murder of african followers by denying them contraception to prevent aids. The support of the execrable "Mother" Theresa. The support of Hitler. Anti-semitism. and so on and so on... Ending up with the protection, through a worldwide network, of paedophile child torturers. This is not extreme?

It's not because of religion. Nice people are nice, bad people are bad, it's got nothing (in my experience) to do with what religion they are

9/11. Good people will usually do good things. Bad people will usually do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

As for Mr Woppit - your tone has been very confrontational.

Value judgement based, as far as I can tell, on projection.

You are rubbishing other people's very personal beliefs (and pressing your own) quite agressively.

I disagree, I feel "assertive" would be more accurate. As to rubbishing - if you mean treating them as rubbish then yes, but so what? Would you complain if I was discussing the merits of various football teams? Of course not. Why should religion demand special consideration?

The Christians on this thread have behaved far more decently than you.

On the contrary, they are generally obfuscatory, snide, resentful, misrepresentative and sneeringly rude. But that really doesn't bother me.

After all, you can no more prove that there is no supreme being watching all this with a big smirk on his face than Christans can prove there is one with an expression of divine love

The burden of proof rests with the proposer, not the opposer. I am constantly surprised at how this needs to be reiterated, it's simple enough to understand. I can certainly say that there remains not the slightest bit of evidence that such a thing as a god exists - fact. Otherwise, why would the argument always end up with the religious saying "Oh well, it needs a leap of faith"? Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If I were to say that an invisible giant green snail lives on the roof of the National Gallery, would it be reasonable to suggest that someone who disagrees (for obvious reasons) should "prove" that it does not? Of course not.

What would you say to your kids Wopster?

If I had any - having explained a selection of the supposed natures of some of these gods - that many people propose the existence of a god, or gods. That there is no agreement between different groups of proposers as to what form or forms this "god" or these "gods" take, but when the universe is examined, no evidence can be found to support the assertions of these widely different and contradictory groups of believers in these non-evidential things.

If you raised a child with out any influence you would nt be raising them at all.

I refer you to my previous response.

Yes this is an extreme version of what the Church stands for and is as accurate a decription of them as Genesis is of how the world was created.

Not so. The catholic church has been documented as being responsible, through it's "theology", for all the events that I describe.

The book of genesis is a myth tale written by ignorant Bronze-age sheepherders.

No thanks i dont want to discuss facts with you like those you oppose you do not appear to need these to hold your view as infallible

I haven't the slightest idea what this is supposed to mean.

The Pope is never going to say; "Sorry, it was all our collective fault" for one very simple and very Secular reason...If he does, it opens up a whole bunch of lawsuits aimed at the Vatican, and there goes the Church, and all it's money...

Brainwashing is a term more applicable to some of the more extreme, fundamentalist offshoots.

Interesting view. The inquisition. The murder of african followers by denying them contraception to prevent aids. The support of the execrable "Mother" Theresa. The support of Hitler. Anti-semitism. and so on and so on... Ending up with the protection, through a worldwide network, of paedophile child torturers. This is not extreme?

'Extreme' is taken out of context by yourself. As I'm sure you're aware. Though like you, I find all these things deplorable. The aids argument has of course been discussed endlessly, and proves my point regarding the impact of Catholicism on it's followers' lives- the Pope advocated abstinence, which would have been at least as effective as condoms at controlling the spread of the disease.
Why do you find Mother T execrable, out of curiosity. Surely she did a lot of good for people?

Arguments for and against the existence of god, jesus, and the accuracy of the Bible as a historical document aren't difficult to find, if you choose to look for them. I'm surprised you haven't tried, if only to refute them.

it means your view is so extreme that you will not be persuaded from it by rational discourse. What you say about the Catholic church has some truth to it but it is hardly their raison d'être. Take your stance of murdering it's followers in Africa via the condom message. I could suggest that they told them not to have sex out of wedlock and have sex with only their wifes and not with men. Had they followed this and married as virgins then they would have been fine re AIDS. Given this I could equally argue that it was the inability of Africans to follow the Churchs teaching that led to the AIDS epideimc not the Catholic message per se. However my alternative view to your polemic and argument would be pointless as you are beyond persuassion hence the quote of
[b]i dont want to discuss facts with you like those you oppose you do not appear to need these to hold your view as infallible [/b]
NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND OR REDUCE YOUR CONTEMPT/HATRED OF RELIGOUS PEOPLE
EDIT: must type faster not get distracted by works now looks like i plagarised poster above 😳

Why do you find Mother T execrable, out of curiosity. Surely she did a lot of good for people?

The argument put far more eloquently than I could manage here:

I reccommend you watch all 3 sections.

the Pope advocated abstinence

As Stephen Fry described him - one of a "bunch of sinister, hysterical virgins". Where is the need for abstinence. Just use condoms. It's that simple. Given that it's that simple - why doesn't Ratzinger want people to have sex with each other - as if it's any of his business anyway to say "do this, don't do that"...

Arguments for and against the existence of god, jesus, and the accuracy of the Bible as a historical document aren't difficult to find, if you choose to look for them. I'm surprised you haven't tried, if only to refute them.

Again - more detail than I can bring to hand from memory:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Well worth a read - for the glaringly obvious evidence for the "gospels" themselves being fictional, also.

Enjoy.

 

the Pope advocated abstinence, which would have been at least as effective as condoms at controlling the spread of the disease.

ironic given the priesthood's reaction to exactly the same strictures 🙁 Abstinence is effective, however people are not designed, either by god(s) or nature, to practice it.

Just use condoms. It's that simple.

As is dont have sex outside marriage

why doesn't Ratzinger want people to have sex with each other

I am fairly content that a jewish prophet called Jesus existed. That does not give any credence to the existence of a god. That one religious maniac persuaded others to follow him is no proof of the existence of god at all - especially given that Mohammed came along later and split a bunch of people off that faith.

Jesus however would more than likely been short, dark skinned and looking rather like the Arab he was - not a tall nordic blond as he is usually depicted

What does the Bible say about poverty?

Also:

Any type of upbringing is brainwashing. Surely you could argue any ideas you put in the mind of a child could be viewed as evil ?

Only if you assert that any idea is the absolute truth.

Junkyard - Member

it means your view is so extreme blah blah blah...
NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND OR REDUCE YOUR CONTEMPT/HATRED OF RELIGOUS PEOPLE

A fine example of the misrepresentation I mentioned from the hysterical religious types on here.

Nowhere have I said that I hold religious people in contempt. That is simply not true and I request that you acknowledge this and retract your accusation.

It is true that I hold religion in contempt. So what? I repeat - if I am a Chelsea fan who holds Manchester United in contempt, would you be raising such a fuss? Of course not. Why should religion be any different? Although at least footbal is about something real...

I could suggest that they told them not to have sex out of wedlock and have sex with only their wifes and not with men. Had they followed this and married as virgins then they would have been fine re AIDS.

Oh well, of course THAT'S going to work. How very practical. Exactly what planet are you on?

However my alternative view to your polemic and argument would be pointless as you are beyond persuassion

Not so. I am always persuaded by cogent argument. Evidence: the recent thread re: Israel.

i dont want to discuss facts with you like those you oppose you do not appear to need these to hold your view as infallible

Despite your attempt to correct what you think may be my poor eyesight, this still does not make any sense. Perhaps you need to learn punctuation?

however people are not designed, either by god(s) or nature,

Or by anything else.

It's a crane, not a skyhook.

I could suggest that they told them not to have sex out of wedlock and have sex with only their wifes and not with men. Had they followed this and married as virgins then they would have been fine re AIDS.

Oh well, of course THAT'S going to work. How very practical. Exactly what planet are you on?

But the catholic church was formed before condoms, are you suggesting the problem is they have nt moved on with the times ? Or the original teaching was wrong ? Are you suggesting before contraception their teaching was correct ?

I love these ones, round and round we go.

It's not true, the god thing.

What I don't get is when the victim of some catastrophe says "with gods help we will get through this", the same god who caused the catastrophe in the first place one assumes..

FFS...

9/11. Good people will usually do good things. Bad people will usually do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

WTF makes you think these people were "good"?

His book says it is a sin outside of marriage he does want you to do it but only with your spouse who is the opposite sex to you to make babies for the glory of god...

The one written by "ignorant sheepherds"?
I have nothing against people with religion, I hope that it helps them with their lives I just find some of the teachings a bit well, dogsh1t. I never knew that all catholics are homophobic. But as Barnsleymitch said, live and let live hey?

Thread summary:

But the catholic church was formed before condoms

And Aids

WTF makes you think these people were "good"?

The perpetrators of 9/11 became the people they were, who did the things they did, by the influence of Wahabbi-ist Islam.

EDIT: must type faster not get distracted by works now looks like i plagarised poster above

"His book says it is a sin outside of marriage he does want you to do it but only with your spouse who is the opposite sex to you to make babies for the glory of god... "

I dont know why people find this teaching so strange. Say you were not religious but you were a 6th BC official at a court of a small kingdom. You want to create a stable society you might suggest people should get married, only have sex inside of marriage and then raise their offspring together.

Now say you were a twenty first century politician you might come up with something like this
http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Family.aspx
Which is not far off the same thing.

People cant seems to remember that only 50 ish years ago sex was directly linked to child birth + sexually transmitted diseases.

Well I don't see why we need 'marriage' anyway.

but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion

Rubbish. All it takes is someone more persuasive. History should tell you that.

Value judgement based, as far as I can tell, on projection.

You ARE coming over aggressive and confrontational, regardless of whether or not you want to. Textual communication is a delicate skill that is hard to master; you need practice. Unless you WANT to hack people off. Cos you are.

Would you complain if I was discussing the merits of various football teams? Of course not. Why should religion demand special consideration?

Comparing football to religion is fatuous in the extreme mate. Seriously, that is fairly obvious. How many people would die for their team? How many wars are fought over football? Stupid argument, stop using it please.

On the contrary, they are generally obfuscatory, snide, resentful, misrepresentative and sneeringly rude. But that really doesn't bother me.

Barnsleymitch is coming over as a decent bloke, he's really not trying to tear your belief system to pieces like you [i]seem[/i] to be doing to him.

The burden of proof rests with the proposer, not the opposer

In law, yes. In this - no. Neither is provable; the only possible conclusion is that you are allowed to believe what you want.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

That is sheer bullcrap of the highest order. Absolutely not true at all, in any way. And you should know it. There's no evidence collected so far of life on other planets. You gonna tell me that conclusively proves that it's not there?

Listen - I am not trying to persuade you to be a Christian. I am an atheist. I am however trying to persuade you to understand that your world view is no different to that of a religious person. They follow the ideas of a group of people interpreted through their own personalities - so do you. So you are being as bad as any religious fundamentalist. You believe you are right and that everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot.

As is dont have sex outside marriage

Hahaha.. yeah right. Hormones, what are they then?

Two people who want to have sex together are pefectly entitled to do so, in whatever way they want, and also to use contraception to prevent 1: childbirth as a result and 2: sexually transmitted diseases. Which would be wise.

Progress beyond Victoria.

[i]The book of genesis is a myth tale written by ignorant Bronze-age sheepherders.[/i]

In fairness, they must have been pretty bright Bronze-age sheepherders as they could write a whole book.
I've seen plenty of Internet-age people who can't even write an ebay ad.

Two people who want to have sex together are pefectly entitled to do so

Says you...

I've just had this funny imagine of Mr Whoppit and BarnsleyMitch being born in the late Roman Empire.

I could imagine "Mr Whoppit" becoming a Christian after he realised the ignorant Pagans MUST be wrong I mean HOW can there be more than ONE god ???? I mean all the latest cleverest people are Christian its just stupid old timers who are Pagan cant they see they are doing soo much damage allowing people to get divorced think of the children !

While BarnsleyMitch would probably stay a Pagan saying the old ways also have value. He'd then probably get burned to death by Mr Whoppit for being a heretic !

Now that would be ironic 🙂

Oi! The ironic thing is, I dont even think of myself as being that religious - I do lots of stuff that Ratzinger would dissaprove of, as do many supposedly religious people. I just wanted to point out that not all catholics blindly accept what the vatican tells them to, and then it all went a bit fundamentalist - It doesnt take much on here, does it?

The perpetrators of 9/11 became the people they were, who did the things they did, by the influence of Wahabbi-ist Islam.

Just spotted this.

It obviously was NOT Islam that made them do what they did. They presumably felt upset about something and interpreted Islamic ideas through their anger and resentment. Or more likely, they were used by some more persuasive person to do their bidding. Through Islam.

The only difference between Islamic terrorism and non-islamic is that in the non-islamic case the perpetrators often don't end up killing themselves.

And there is a lot of non-islamic terrorism about. What does that tell you?