Killing babies, rape, genocide and murder are all things your god approved of, ordered or actively participated in.rkwittem wrote:the problem with your answer is that an objective morality cannot exist if God does not exist. It says that clear violations of any basic moral code, like torturing a baby for kicks, or rape, or murder are simply matters of opinion and not objectively wrong.kalm wrote:
Nature and the evolution of human nature. Things like cooperation and democracy are present in many animals. We just happen to be smart enough to wonder about it all.
But you could also call that god.
So...do you think an act such as those (or similar ones) aren't wrong some times? Or are they objective?
If you agree that they are in fact objectively wrong, then it's fair to ask where this sense of right/wrong comes from. You can't backtrack and say "common human experience and nature" because that will simply re-raise my point that there are in fact objective moral truths...unless you really honestly believe that all actions can be moral depending on the scenario in which they occur. Frankly, I struggle with accepting that rape or torture for fun or murder or any other heinous act can be moral. They can't.
A purely scientific, logic-based society ought to be morally indifferent if it really was so. Since you already claimed to be moral, I can see that's not the case. This leads me to the concept that God does in fact exist.
If God does not exist, how can there be an objective foundation for morality? If you claim God does not exist, you cannot also claim that humans are not objectively valuable in and of themselves. We would just be accidents, walking bags of chemicals and meat that can think. If that is the case, why bother thinking that our morality is objectively binding?
I see you also claimed "evolution." If morality developed because of survival benefits, there would not be objective morality. If this was the case, and our own moral response to incidents of rape was just a basic biological response honed over millions of years, then we have no real reason to believe rape is objectively wrong.
However, since we know that objective morals do exist, and since they cannot exist without God, it follows logically that God does in fact exist. If God exists as he is understood today, then a basis for morality also exists. His nature becomes the good and holy and objective standard.
Religion......
Re: Religion......
-
YoUDeeMan
- Level5

- Posts: 12088
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:48 am
- I am a fan of: Fleecing the Stupid
- A.K.A.: Delaware Homie
Re: Religion......
What a load of crap...for centuries religious leaders have told people that they are incapable of doing things without God...now you believe man can't reason out what is "right" or 'wrong". Geez, you people really are helpless, aren't you?rkwittem wrote: the problem with your answer is that an objective morality cannot exist if God does not exist. It says that clear violations of any basic moral code, like torturing a baby for kicks, or rape, or murder are simply matters of opinion and not objectively wrong.
So...do you think an act such as those (or similar ones) aren't wrong some times? Or are they objective?
If you agree that they are in fact objectively wrong, then it's fair to ask where this sense of right/wrong comes from.
Frankly, if I my people are being slaughtered by another group, then I am going to murder their women and children without mercy. In an all out war, I'd take little kids and bash their heads in so that they would not be a threat to my children when they grow up. And if my wife had perished at their hands, then I'd rape their women before I'd kill them....my hand can only take care of me so often.
Ooops! That's wrong. But wait, it's survival, so it's right. But wait, if I die respecting others then I go to heaven and God will love me so what happens here doesn't really matter so I would be selfish to take another person's life, so it would be wrong again.
Do unto others...it's not God's rule...Joe Biden wasn't the first plagiarist...it's a way for humans to live in relative harmony. It is an entirely selfish motivation that allows one to place themselves in another person's position and realize that if you agree to not fvck with each other, you both might be able to survive and get along. Self-preservation at its best.
Morals...
HOW THE HELL IS THAT RIGHT? This world doesn't matter...the flesh doesn't matter. If you are going to a better place, then just let the heathen kill you (poor bastard will rot in Hell for his actions) and you'll get to meet God sooner.
Wait, defending oneself is good. Why? Uhhh...saving oneself is an entirely selfish motivation...one which even the Church knows they can't fight...which brings us back to self-preservation.
God based morality.
These signatures have a 500 character limit?
What if I have more personalities than that?
What if I have more personalities than that?
Re: Religion......
I can't understand your insistence that Jesus never existed, when the fact of his existence is overwhelmingly established and accepted by historians.D1B wrote:FixedJoltinJoe wrote:
Jesus' existence is a historical fact accepted by predominantly christian historians without any serious question.
We can now doubt Jesus' existence because the church won't kill us, at least in this country.
One of many non-divine Jesuses = Fact. It is not even worth discussing.
Not even worth discussing? Spoken like someone who has been programmed.
You should stick to the point that Jesus was not divine, because that is an article of faith which, at least on a surface level, defies reason. But when you say Jesus did not exist, you begin to sound like an internet atheist fanatic.
- rkwittem
- Level2

- Posts: 889
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:08 am
- I am a fan of: North Dakota State
- Location: Fargo, ND
Re: Religion......
Nice try. Catholicism has never supported abortion, genocide, or murder. Sure, there have been individuals within Catholicism who screwed up, but the core beliefs of the church have changed very little over the past 2000 years. Hence the term, "Catholic"...aka universal. It is the same now as it will be in future from a theological standpoint.D1B wrote:Killing babies, rape, genocide and murder are all things your god approved of, ordered or actively participated in.rkwittem wrote: the problem with your answer is that an objective morality cannot exist if God does not exist. It says that clear violations of any basic moral code, like torturing a baby for kicks, or rape, or murder are simply matters of opinion and not objectively wrong.
So...do you think an act such as those (or similar ones) aren't wrong some times? Or are they objective?
If you agree that they are in fact objectively wrong, then it's fair to ask where this sense of right/wrong comes from. You can't backtrack and say "common human experience and nature" because that will simply re-raise my point that there are in fact objective moral truths...unless you really honestly believe that all actions can be moral depending on the scenario in which they occur. Frankly, I struggle with accepting that rape or torture for fun or murder or any other heinous act can be moral. They can't.
A purely scientific, logic-based society ought to be morally indifferent if it really was so. Since you already claimed to be moral, I can see that's not the case. This leads me to the concept that God does in fact exist.
If God does not exist, how can there be an objective foundation for morality? If you claim God does not exist, you cannot also claim that humans are not objectively valuable in and of themselves. We would just be accidents, walking bags of chemicals and meat that can think. If that is the case, why bother thinking that our morality is objectively binding?
I see you also claimed "evolution." If morality developed because of survival benefits, there would not be objective morality. If this was the case, and our own moral response to incidents of rape was just a basic biological response honed over millions of years, then we have no real reason to believe rape is objectively wrong.
However, since we know that objective morals do exist, and since they cannot exist without God, it follows logically that God does in fact exist. If God exists as he is understood today, then a basis for morality also exists. His nature becomes the good and holy and objective standard.
Quit skirting the question like a two-faced coward. Sure, you're Mr. In-Everyone's-Face-If-They-Don't-Agree-With-You Guy but when the tables are turned you wuss out and go for the old stand-by of taking potshots at people because you can't disprove the original point.
Go sit in a corner for a few years and sort your thoughts out next time.

- rkwittem
- Level2

- Posts: 889
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:08 am
- I am a fan of: North Dakota State
- Location: Fargo, ND
Re: Religion......
Just war does exist. Unfortunately your example does not meet the standards since it does not provide a reason for why the war started, or who started it. An eye for an eye is not justice. It just repeats the cycle, Hammurabi. It does nothing to rectify the situation, like true justice ought to.Cluck U wrote:What a load of crap...for centuries religious leaders have told people that they are incapable of doing things without God...now you believe man can't reason out what is "right" or 'wrong". Geez, you people really are helpless, aren't you?rkwittem wrote: the problem with your answer is that an objective morality cannot exist if God does not exist. It says that clear violations of any basic moral code, like torturing a baby for kicks, or rape, or murder are simply matters of opinion and not objectively wrong.
So...do you think an act such as those (or similar ones) aren't wrong some times? Or are they objective?
If you agree that they are in fact objectively wrong, then it's fair to ask where this sense of right/wrong comes from.![]()
Frankly, if I my people are being slaughtered by another group, then I am going to murder their women and children without mercy. In an all out war, I'd take little kids and bash their heads in so that they would not be a threat to my children when they grow up. And if my wife had perished at their hands, then I'd rape their women before I'd kill them....my hand can only take care of me so often.
Ooops! That's wrong. But wait, it's survival, so it's right. But wait, if I die respecting others then I go to heaven and God will love me so what happens here doesn't really matter so I would be selfish to take another person's life, so it would be wrong again.![]()
Do unto others...it's not God's rule...Joe Biden wasn't the first plagiarist...it's a way for humans to live in relative harmony. It is an entirely selfish motivation that allows one to place themselves in another person's position and realize that if you agree to not fvck with each other, you both might be able to survive and get along. Self-preservation at its best.
Morals...![]()
![]()
LOVE the Christian morals. JSO says, if a woman is pregnant from a rape, an abortion is still wrong...because killing is wrong. But wait, killing is right when defending oneself.
![]()
HOW THE HELL IS THAT RIGHT? This world doesn't matter...the flesh doesn't matter. If you are going to a better place, then just let the heathen kill you (poor bastard will rot in Hell for his actions) and you'll get to meet God sooner.
Wait, defending oneself is good. Why? Uhhh...saving oneself is an entirely selfish motivation...one which even the Church knows they can't fight...which brings us back to self-preservation.
God based morality.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The golden rule is inherently unselfish because it places the comfort/peace of another ahead of your own. Nice try at spinning it as selfish.
As for the abortion/self defense killing question...killing an unborn child is much more heinous than killing someone who would kill you. Not attempting to defend yourself shows careless disregard for your own life and well-being, another kind of error. You as a person have a role in society and the lives of other people and to throw away your life because you want to go to heaven early amounts to suicide, basically. And suicide is of course, another evil- provided it is done willfully and knowing that is in fact wrong.
Killing an innocent, defenseless child is obviously the greater of the two evils.
The basic fact of the matter is that there are shades of gray when it comes to morality and immorality. Self-defense is less wrong than abortion. And they are both wrong. One is inherently worse due to its nature. And that is hard for secular humanists like you to figure out because you live in as much a world that is as black-and-white as you claim religious people are.

-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69192
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Religion......
Fair reply. And if we've moved off the Jesus-is-the-way stuff than I can certainly see your point. God is not Jesus or any of the aforementioned, God is compassion, God is love. Many religions - especially christianity and islam - have proven time and again to be extremely amoral.rkwittem wrote:the problem with your answer is that an objective morality cannot exist if God does not exist. It says that clear violations of any basic moral code, like torturing a baby for kicks, or rape, or murder are simply matters of opinion and not objectively wrong.kalm wrote:
Nature and the evolution of human nature. Things like cooperation and democracy are present in many animals. We just happen to be smart enough to wonder about it all.
But you could also call that god.
So...do you think an act such as those (or similar ones) aren't wrong some times? Or are they objective?
If you agree that they are in fact objectively wrong, then it's fair to ask where this sense of right/wrong comes from. You can't backtrack and say "common human experience and nature" because that will simply re-raise my point that there are in fact objective moral truths...unless you really honestly believe that all actions can be moral depending on the scenario in which they occur. Frankly, I struggle with accepting that rape or torture for fun or murder or any other heinous act can be moral. They can't.
A purely scientific, logic-based society ought to be morally indifferent if it really was so. Since you already claimed to be moral, I can see that's not the case. This leads me to the concept that God does in fact exist.
If God does not exist, how can there be an objective foundation for morality? If you claim God does not exist, you cannot also claim that humans are not objectively valuable in and of themselves. We would just be accidents, walking bags of chemicals and meat that can think. If that is the case, why bother thinking that our morality is objectively binding?
I see you also claimed "evolution." If morality developed because of survival benefits, there would not be objective morality. If this was the case, and our own moral response to incidents of rape was just a basic biological response honed over millions of years, then we have no real reason to believe rape is objectively wrong.
However, since we know that objective morals do exist, and since they cannot exist without God, it follows logically that God does in fact exist. If God exists as he is understood today, then a basis for morality also exists. His nature becomes the good and holy and objective standard.
"My one true religion is kindness"
- Dalai Lama
Re: Religion......
rkwittem wrote:Nice try. Catholicism has never supported abortion, genocide, or murder. Sure, there have been individuals within Catholicism who screwed up, but the core beliefs of the church have changed very little over the past 2000 years. Hence the term, "Catholic"...aka universal. It is the same now as it will be in future from a theological standpoint.D1B wrote:
Killing babies, rape, genocide and murder are all things your god approved of, ordered or actively participated in.
Quit skirting the question like a two-faced coward. Sure, you're Mr. In-Everyone's-Face-If-They-Don't-Agree-With-You Guy but when the tables are turned you wuss out and go for the old stand-by of taking potshots at people because you can't disprove the original point.![]()
Go sit in a corner for a few years and sort your thoughts out next time.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: Religion......
Humans, like all animals, embrace order and don't like the balance of peace to be messed with. Animals know what is acceptable and what isn't in their socities. Humans have learned that murder, adultry, rape, etc... lead to bad social events and therefore are wrong. Human evolution. No god is needed. Morals exist because for centries before God, humans kept social order amongst their tribes and small civilizations.rkwittem wrote:the problem with your answer is that an objective morality cannot exist if God does not exist. It says that clear violations of any basic moral code, like torturing a baby for kicks, or rape, or murder are simply matters of opinion and not objectively wrong.kalm wrote:
Nature and the evolution of human nature. Things like cooperation and democracy are present in many animals. We just happen to be smart enough to wonder about it all.
But you could also call that god.
So...do you think an act such as those (or similar ones) aren't wrong some times? Or are they objective?
If you agree that they are in fact objectively wrong, then it's fair to ask where this sense of right/wrong comes from. You can't backtrack and say "common human experience and nature" because that will simply re-raise my point that there are in fact objective moral truths...unless you really honestly believe that all actions can be moral depending on the scenario in which they occur. Frankly, I struggle with accepting that rape or torture for fun or murder or any other heinous act can be moral. They can't.
A purely scientific, logic-based society ought to be morally indifferent if it really was so. Since you already claimed to be moral, I can see that's not the case. This leads me to the concept that God does in fact exist.
If God does not exist, how can there be an objective foundation for morality? If you claim God does not exist, you cannot also claim that humans are not objectively valuable in and of themselves. We would just be accidents, walking bags of chemicals and meat that can think. If that is the case, why bother thinking that our morality is objectively binding?
I see you also claimed "evolution." If morality developed because of survival benefits, there would not be objective morality. If this was the case, and our own moral response to incidents of rape was just a basic biological response honed over millions of years, then we have no real reason to believe rape is objectively wrong.
However, since we know that objective morals do exist, and since they cannot exist without God, it follows logically that God does in fact exist. If God exists as he is understood today, then a basis for morality also exists. His nature becomes the good and holy and objective standard.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69192
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Religion......
And in some respects, those heathens had a greater sense of morality than the churches who replaced/displaced them.Ibanez wrote:Humans, like all animals, embrace order and don't like the balance of peace to be messed with. Animals know what is acceptable and what isn't in their socities. Humans have learned that murder, adultry, rape, etc... lead to bad social events and therefore are wrong. Human evolution. No god is needed. Morals exist because for centries before God, humans kept social order amongst their tribes and small civilizations.rkwittem wrote: the problem with your answer is that an objective morality cannot exist if God does not exist. It says that clear violations of any basic moral code, like torturing a baby for kicks, or rape, or murder are simply matters of opinion and not objectively wrong.
So...do you think an act such as those (or similar ones) aren't wrong some times? Or are they objective?
If you agree that they are in fact objectively wrong, then it's fair to ask where this sense of right/wrong comes from. You can't backtrack and say "common human experience and nature" because that will simply re-raise my point that there are in fact objective moral truths...unless you really honestly believe that all actions can be moral depending on the scenario in which they occur. Frankly, I struggle with accepting that rape or torture for fun or murder or any other heinous act can be moral. They can't.
A purely scientific, logic-based society ought to be morally indifferent if it really was so. Since you already claimed to be moral, I can see that's not the case. This leads me to the concept that God does in fact exist.
If God does not exist, how can there be an objective foundation for morality? If you claim God does not exist, you cannot also claim that humans are not objectively valuable in and of themselves. We would just be accidents, walking bags of chemicals and meat that can think. If that is the case, why bother thinking that our morality is objectively binding?
I see you also claimed "evolution." If morality developed because of survival benefits, there would not be objective morality. If this was the case, and our own moral response to incidents of rape was just a basic biological response honed over millions of years, then we have no real reason to believe rape is objectively wrong.
However, since we know that objective morals do exist, and since they cannot exist without God, it follows logically that God does in fact exist. If God exists as he is understood today, then a basis for morality also exists. His nature becomes the good and holy and objective standard.
Re: Religion......
Joe, it basically comes down the fact that there no eyewitnesses. No living contemporary ever wrote anything about jesus, the savior and son of god. Historical Jesus - Ehhhh Mythological Jesus - absolutely.JoltinJoe wrote:I can't understand your insistence that Jesus never existed, when the fact of his existence is overwhelmingly established and accepted by historians.D1B wrote:
Fixed
Not even worth discussing? Spoken like someone who has been programmed.
You should stick to the point that Jesus was not divine, because that is an article of faith which, at least on a surface level, defies reason. But when you say Jesus did not exist, you begin to sound like an internet atheist fanatic.
This type of fabrication has been done since day one. Jesus is no different than Hercules.
nobeliefs.comSome people actually believe that just because so much voice and ink has spread the word of a character named Jesus throughout history, that this must mean that he actually lived. This argument simply does not hold. The number of people who believe or write about something or the professional degrees they hold say nothing at all about fact. Facts derive out of evidence, not from hearsay, not from hubris scholars, and certainly not from faithful believers. Regardless of the position or admiration held by a scholar, believer, or priest, if he or she cannot support a hypothesis with good evidence, then it can only remain a hypothesis.
While a likely possibility exists that an actual Jesus lived, another likely possibility reveals that a mythology could have derived out of earlier mythologies or possibly independent archetypal hero worship. Although we have no evidence for a historical Jesus, we certainly have many accounts of mythologies from the Middle East during the first century and before. Many of these stories appear similar to the Christ saviour story.
Just before and during the first century, the Jews had prophesied about an upcoming Messiah based on Jewish scripture. Their beliefs influenced many of their followers. We know that powerful beliefs can create self-fulfilling prophesies, and surely this proved just as true in ancient times. It served as a popular dream expressed in Hebrew Scripture for the promise of an "end-time" with a savior to lead them to the promised land. Indeed, Roman records show executions of several would-be Messiahs, (but not a single record mentions a Jesus). Many ancients believed that there could come a final war against the "Sons of Darkness"-- the Romans.
This then could very well have served as the ignition and flame for the future growth of Christianity. Biblical scholars tell us that the early Christians lived within pagan communities. Jewish scriptural beliefs coupled with the pagan myths of the time give sufficient information about how such a religion could have formed. Many of the Hellenistic and pagan myths parallel so closely to the alleged Jesus that to ignore its similarities means to ignore the mythological beliefs of history. Dozens of similar savior stories propagated the minds of humans long before the alleged life of Jesus. Virtually nothing about Jesus "the Christ" came to the Christians as original or new.
For example, the religion of Zoroaster, founded circa 628-551 B.C.E. in ancient Persia, roused mankind in the need for hating a devil, the belief of a paradise, last judgment and resurrection of the dead. Mithraism, an offshoot of Zoroastrianism probably influenced early Christianity. The Magi described in the New Testament appears as Zoroastrian priests. Note the word "paradise" came from the Persian pairidaeza.
Osiris, Hercules, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus, Romulus, and others compare to the Christian myth. According to Patrick Campbell of The Mythical Jesus, all served as pre-Christian sun gods, yet all allegedly had gods for fathers, virgins for mothers; had their births announced by stars; got born on the solstice around December 25th; had tyrants who tried to kill them in their infancy; met violent deaths; rose from the dead; and nearly all got worshiped by "wise men" and had allegedly fasted for forty days. [McKinsey, Chapter 5]
Even Justin Martyr recognized the analogies between Christianity and Paganism. To the Pagans, he wrote: "When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." [First Apology, ch. xxi]
Virtually all of the mythical accounts of a savior Jesus have parallels to past pagan mythologies which existed long before Christianity and from the Jewish scriptures that we now call the Old Testament. The accounts of these myths say nothing about historical reality, but they do say a lot about believers, how they believed, and how their beliefs spread.
In the book The Jesus Puzzle, the biblical scholar, Earl Doherty, presents not only a challenge to the existence of an historical Jesus but reveals that early pre-Gospel Christian documents show that the concept of Jesus sprang from non-historical spiritual beliefs of a Christ derived from Jewish scripture and Hellenized myths of savior gods. Nowhere do any of the New Testament epistle writers describe a human Jesus, including Paul. None of the epistles mention a Jesus from Nazareth, an earthly teacher, or as a human miracle worker. Nowhere do we find these writers quoting Jesus. Nowhere do we find them describing any details of Jesus' life on earth or his followers. Nowhere do we find the epistle writers even using the word "disciple" (they of course use the term "apostle" but the word simply means messenger, as Paul saw himself). Except for a few well known interpolations, Jesus always gets presented as a spiritual being that existed before all time with God, and that knowledge of Christ came directly from God or as a revelation from the word of scripture. Doherty writes, "Christian documents outside the Gospels, even at the end of the first century and beyond, show no evidence that any tradition about an earthly life and ministry of Jesus were in circulation."
Furthermore, the epistle to the Hebrews (8:4), makes it explicitly clear that the epistle writer did not believe in a historical Jesus: "If He [Jesus] had been on earth, He would not be a priest."
Did the Christians copy (or steal) the pagan ideas directly into their own faith? Not necessarily. They may have gotten many of their beliefs through syncretism or through independent hero archetype worship, innate to human story telling. If gotten through syncretism, Jews and pagans could very well have influenced the first Christians, especially the ideas of salvation and beliefs about good and evil. Later, at the time of the gospels, other myths may entered Christian beliefs such a the virgin birth and miracles. In the 4th century, we know that Christians derived the birthday of Jesus from the pagans. If gotten through independent means, it still says nothing about Christian originality because we know that pagans had beliefs about incarnated gods, long before Christianity existed. The hero archetypes still exist in our story telling today. As one personal example, as a boy I used to read and collect Superman comics. It never occurred to me at the time to see Superman as a Christ-figure. Yet, if you analyze Superman and Jesus stories, they have uncanny similarities. In fact the movie Superman Returns explicitly tells the Superman story through a savior's point of view without once mentioning Jesus, yet Christians would innately know the connection. Other movies like Star Wars, Phenomenon, K-PAX, The Matrix, etc. also covertly tell savior stories. So whether the first Christians borrowed or independently came up with a savior story makes no difference whatsoever. The point here only aims to illustrate that Christians did not originate the savior story.
The early historical documents can prove nothing about an actual Jesus but they do show an evolution of belief derived from varied and diverse concepts of Christianity, starting from a purely spiritual form of Christ to a human figure who embodied that spirit, as portrayed in the Gospels. The New Testament stories appears as an eclectic hodgepodge of Jewish, Hellenized and pagan stories compiled by pietistic believers to appeal to an audience for their particular religious times.
Re: Religion......
I'm done with that asshole. I think he's a grade school kid just fucking around. Thank god school is starting next week.Ibanez wrote:rkwittem wrote: Nice try. Catholicism has never supported abortion, genocide, or murder. Sure, there have been individuals within Catholicism who screwed up, but the core beliefs of the church have changed very little over the past 2000 years. Hence the term, "Catholic"...aka universal. It is the same now as it will be in future from a theological standpoint.
Quit skirting the question like a two-faced coward. Sure, you're Mr. In-Everyone's-Face-If-They-Don't-Agree-With-You Guy but when the tables are turned you wuss out and go for the old stand-by of taking potshots at people because you can't disprove the original point.![]()
Go sit in a corner for a few years and sort your thoughts out next time.![]()
Someone needs to learn about their religion.
Re: Religion......
Spanish Inquisitionrkwittem wrote:Nice try. Catholicism has never supported abortion, genocide, or murder. Sure, there have been individuals within Catholicism who screwed up, but the core beliefs of the church have changed very little over the past 2000 years. Hence the term, "Catholic"...aka universal. It is the same now as it will be in future from a theological standpoint.D1B wrote:
Killing babies, rape, genocide and murder are all things your god approved of, ordered or actively participated in.
Quit skirting the question like a two-faced coward. Sure, you're Mr. In-Everyone's-Face-If-They-Don't-Agree-With-You Guy but when the tables are turned you wuss out and go for the old stand-by of taking potshots at people because you can't disprove the original point.![]()
Go sit in a corner for a few years and sort your thoughts out next time.
Joan of Arc
Spanish conquistadors killing Native Americans (this includes South and Central Americans)
Wheras these were not done by some decree of the RCC, they were in fact done in the name of the RCC and were conducted under the authority of the RCC. The Vatican never denounced them(at the time).
I also submit to you the genocide of aborginal Canadians in the late 19th Century. Get a book on the Canadian Holocaust. The Catholic and Protestant churches have plenty to be ashamed about. AFter you see the evidence and court documents of the religious schools killing people, come back and tell me the church has never murdered.
How about the burning of heretics, by order of the Church? How about Pope Pius' failure to help Jews in the 1930's and 1940's. Hell, the church acknowledges the Pius knew of the atrocities and failed in his moral obligation. This is a sin of omission.
Next.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: Religion......
School began this week for us. I live down the street from three and the traffic has been horrible.D1B wrote:I'm done with that asshole. I think he's a grade school kid just fucking around. Thank god school is starting next week.Ibanez wrote:
![]()
Someone needs to learn about their religion.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: Religion......
You're absolutley right. The church is not innocent. They allowed the Borgia family to function...case closed.kalm wrote:And in some respects, those heathens had a greater sense of morality than the churches who replaced/displaced them.Ibanez wrote:
Humans, like all animals, embrace order and don't like the balance of peace to be messed with. Animals know what is acceptable and what isn't in their socities. Humans have learned that murder, adultry, rape, etc... lead to bad social events and therefore are wrong. Human evolution. No god is needed. Morals exist because for centries before God, humans kept social order amongst their tribes and small civilizations.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: Religion......
They tortured, raped and molested a shitload of boys - hundreds of thousands (at least) over the years. Just like the existence of jesus, no one questioned them or investigated them till now. Worse is the brutally callous way they've handled themselves - lying, threatening witnesses, hiding from accountability, treating victims horribly.Ibanez wrote:Spanish Inquisitionrkwittem wrote: Nice try. Catholicism has never supported abortion, genocide, or murder. Sure, there have been individuals within Catholicism who screwed up, but the core beliefs of the church have changed very little over the past 2000 years. Hence the term, "Catholic"...aka universal. It is the same now as it will be in future from a theological standpoint.
Quit skirting the question like a two-faced coward. Sure, you're Mr. In-Everyone's-Face-If-They-Don't-Agree-With-You Guy but when the tables are turned you wuss out and go for the old stand-by of taking potshots at people because you can't disprove the original point.![]()
Go sit in a corner for a few years and sort your thoughts out next time.
Joan of Arc
Spanish conquistadors killing Native Americans (this includes South and Central Americans)
Wheras these were not done by some decree of the RCC, they were in fact done in the name of the RCC and were conducted under the authority of the RCC. The Vatican never denounced them(at the time).
I also submit to you the genocide of aborginal Canadians in the late 19th Century. Get a book on the Canadian Holocaust. The Catholic and Protestant churches have plenty to be ashamed about. AFter you see the evidence and court documents of the religious schools killing people, come back and tell me the church has never murdered.
How about the burning of heretics, by order of the Church? How about Pope Pius' failure to help Jews in the 1930's and 1940's. Hell, the church acknowledges the Pius knew of the atrocities and failed in his moral obligation. This is a sin of omission.
Next.
How bout all the people they've fleeced? The trillions upon trillions of dollars they stole from the poor to enrich themselves. They kept people poor and stupid for 1400 years. This, perhaps the greatest crime ever perpetrated on humanity.




- rkwittem
- Level2

- Posts: 889
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:08 am
- I am a fan of: North Dakota State
- Location: Fargo, ND
Re: Religion......
Doing in the name of is not the same as "doing under order of". I wish you amoral nut-jobs would actually read my posts and not put words in my mouth. I never once said that Catholic Church was blameless, only that individuals within it were in fact guilty of atrocities. If you're going to get all high-and-mighty (like you did in the South Africa thread) about stuff that happened in the past and tell people to move on, I'm going to dole out your own medicine and tell you to get over it. Last time I checked, those offenses you listed were done well over 400 years ago.Ibanez wrote:Spanish Inquisitionrkwittem wrote: Nice try. Catholicism has never supported abortion, genocide, or murder. Sure, there have been individuals within Catholicism who screwed up, but the core beliefs of the church have changed very little over the past 2000 years. Hence the term, "Catholic"...aka universal. It is the same now as it will be in future from a theological standpoint.
Quit skirting the question like a two-faced coward. Sure, you're Mr. In-Everyone's-Face-If-They-Don't-Agree-With-You Guy but when the tables are turned you wuss out and go for the old stand-by of taking potshots at people because you can't disprove the original point.![]()
Go sit in a corner for a few years and sort your thoughts out next time.
Joan of Arc
Spanish conquistadors killing Native Americans (this includes South and Central Americans)
Wheras these were not done by some decree of the RCC, they were in fact done in the name of the RCC and were conducted under the authority of the RCC. The Vatican never denounced them(at the time).
I also submit to you the genocide of aborginal Canadians in the late 19th Century. Get a book on the Canadian Holocaust. The Catholic and Protestant churches have plenty to be ashamed about. AFter you see the evidence and court documents of the religious schools killing people, come back and tell me the church has never murdered.
How about the burning of heretics, by order of the Church? How about Pope Pius' failure to help Jews in the 1930's and 1940's. Hell, the church acknowledges the Pius knew of the atrocities and failed in his moral obligation. This is a sin of omission.
Next.
I challenge you to find theological texts by Catholic authors that support these activities. One bad egg does not render the entirety of a religion obsolete. The Catholic Church has always taught that those acts are in fact wrong. This should clear up any concerns D1B had about "mind control" and brainwashing since it's pretty clear some Catholics have acted well outside the realm Catholic teaching and morality confines them to.
It's pretty clear you're reading what you want to read and seeing what you want to see. As such, it is impossible to use reason. How ironic, that people who preach tenets of "logic" and "reason" are as incapable of using it as the people they hate and discriminate against. It's a hilarious joke. Well done!

-
YoUDeeMan
- Level5

- Posts: 12088
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:48 am
- I am a fan of: Fleecing the Stupid
- A.K.A.: Delaware Homie
Re: Religion......
rkwittem wrote: Just war does exist.
The golden rule is inherently unselfish because it places the comfort/peace of another ahead of your own. Nice try at spinning it as selfish.
The basic fact of the matter is that there are shades of gray when it comes to morality and immorality. Self-defense is less wrong than abortion. And they are both wrong. One is inherently worse due to its nature. And that is hard for secular humanists like you to figure out because you live in as much a world that is as black-and-white as you claim religious people are.
The golden rule certainly does not put the comfort of others ahead of oneself. The very measure that it used is based upon how YOU want to be treated, not them. You don't really give a shvt about how he/she wants to be treated, you just hope they want to be treated as you want to be treated.
Everything comes down to situational ethics...including the interpretation of the Bible.
"Just war".
All wars start the same...someone wants something that someone else has. Animals and humans live in peace until a resource (food, a woman, power, whatever) is coveted by someone else or a threat to that resource is identified. Once that threat is identified, threats and skirmishes begin. If resistance continues, one has to measure the risk versus gain of escalating the situation, and of course, the issue ends with the elimination of one party or when the remaining parties involved decide it is time to go back to normal relations. What is "just" and "unjust" is in the eye of the beholder, whether it be defending some "Holy Land", defending a wife's honor, killing abortion doctors, or desiring an Oreo cookie. Your Holy version of what is just and unjust simply doesn't exist.
These signatures have a 500 character limit?
What if I have more personalities than that?
What if I have more personalities than that?
Re: Religion......
You aren't a good steward of Christ. I'm not a moral less nut job. You have no clue who I am so you call me names. That's very Christ like.rkwittem wrote:Doing in the name of is not the same as "doing under order of". I wish you amoral nut-jobs would actually read my posts and not put words in my mouth. I never once said that Catholic Church was blameless, only that individuals within it were in fact guilty of atrocities. If you're going to get all high-and-mighty (like you did in the South Africa thread) about stuff that happened in the past and tell people to move on, I'm going to dole out your own medicine and tell you to get over it. Last time I checked, those offenses you listed were done well over 400 years ago.Ibanez wrote:
Spanish Inquisition
Joan of Arc
Spanish conquistadors killing Native Americans (this includes South and Central Americans)
Wheras these were not done by some decree of the RCC, they were in fact done in the name of the RCC and were conducted under the authority of the RCC. The Vatican never denounced them(at the time).
I also submit to you the genocide of aborginal Canadians in the late 19th Century. Get a book on the Canadian Holocaust. The Catholic and Protestant churches have plenty to be ashamed about. AFter you see the evidence and court documents of the religious schools killing people, come back and tell me the church has never murdered.
How about the burning of heretics, by order of the Church? How about Pope Pius' failure to help Jews in the 1930's and 1940's. Hell, the church acknowledges the Pius knew of the atrocities and failed in his moral obligation. This is a sin of omission.
Next.
I challenge you to find theological texts by Catholic authors that support these activities. One bad egg does not render the entirety of a religion obsolete. The Catholic Church has always taught that those acts are in fact wrong. This should clear up any concerns D1B had about "mind control" and brainwashing since it's pretty clear some Catholics have acted well outside the realm Catholic teaching and morality confines them to.
It's pretty clear you're reading what you want to read and seeing what you want to see. As such, it is impossible to use reason. How ironic, that people who preach tenets of "logic" and "reason" are as incapable of using it as the people they hate and discriminate against. It's a hilarious joke. Well done!
I can provide you with papal bulls that allowed territory to be siezed without question (Pope Alexander III.) People in history and today have acted under the authority of the Church to do harm and that is undeniable. There is a pattern of the Church being evil and today it is evident in the coverup of the sexual molestation of young boys. As a Catholic, I find it appalling that you choose to ignore the contradictions of the bible and the church. They tell you to be honest and moral when they and people in their ranks act the opposite. How can I sit in Church and listen to a person tell me to be honorable when he represents an oppressive/sexist organization that fails in it's duty to protect those that can't protect themselves. They've villified women for using birth control, reading, etc.. They allowed the oppression of blacks and jews. The fault isn't soley on the Catholic church, but all churches. The Catholic church has never condmened many of the actions which were done under it's authority. Any wrongful act that is perpetrated by a parish priest or diocese is inexusable. If the Vatican was pious and responsible, then by their authority many crimes(commission or omission) would never have happened.
So forget everything that happened 100 years ago. The Church has failed it's sheep by failing to protect young boys against known pedophiles. If there was no cover up, then molestors would not have been relocated like that had been.
Don't get all high and mighty on me, just because you go to church once a week and read sections of the Bible, doesn't make you a scholar. By no means am I a Biblical scholar, but after 12-13 years of Christian and religious studies, I have a good understanding, greater than most people.
It is very clear that you have clue what you are talking about and am trying to talk over someone that does, in hopes that they quit. I know you won't be persuaded and have rolled your eyes plenty of times while muttering that i'm an athiest who has no clue what he is talking about. I've used plenty of logic and reason and you unfairly accuse me of hate and discrimination because I don't agree with you? Wow, that is some a shame and childish.
Religion is supposed to be about peace, love, tolerance and understand.
Last edited by Ibanez on Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: Religion......
Cluck U wrote:rkwittem wrote: Just war does exist.
The golden rule is inherently unselfish because it places the comfort/peace of another ahead of your own. Nice try at spinning it as selfish.
The basic fact of the matter is that there are shades of gray when it comes to morality and immorality. Self-defense is less wrong than abortion. And they are both wrong. One is inherently worse due to its nature. And that is hard for secular humanists like you to figure out because you live in as much a world that is as black-and-white as you claim religious people are.![]()
The golden rule certainly does not put the comfort of others ahead of oneself. The very measure that it used is based upon how YOU want to be treated, not them. You don't really give a shvt about how he/she wants to be treated, you just hope they want to be treated as you want to be treated.
Everything comes down to situational ethics...including the interpretation of the Bible.Don't like to Old Testament...don't worry, version 2.0, or maybe 2.1, will ease your mind. After all, God is revealing himself over time. He once was a vengeful god, but that was a mistake.
![]()
"Just war".![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
All wars start the same...someone wants something that someone else has. Animals and humans live in peace until a resource (food, a woman, power, whatever) is coveted by someone else or a threat to that resource is identified. Once that threat is identified, threats and skirmishes begin. If resistance continues, one has to measure the risk versus gain of escalating the situation, and of course, the issue ends with the elimination of one party or when the remaining parties involved decide it is time to go back to normal relations. What is "just" and "unjust" is in the eye of the beholder, whether it be defending some "Holy Land", defending a wife's honor, killing abortion doctors, or desiring an Oreo cookie. Your Holy version of what is just and unjust simply doesn't exist.
That another problem I have with Christianity. The Old Testament is the Jewish book, was written for Jews yet Christians will follow the Jewish book however they won't partake in the jewish customs and say Jews won't enter heaven.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: Religion......
Ad extirpanda, papal bull that allowed torture during the Inquistion. You know what is interesting, the committe or department (whatever you want to call it) that oversaw the Inquistion still exists.
The past is the past, however you are the person that stated the RCC never committied genocide, murder or abortion. I'm sure you would extend this to torture and other crimes.
Never say never.
The past is the past, however you are the person that stated the RCC never committied genocide, murder or abortion. I'm sure you would extend this to torture and other crimes.
Never say never.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: Religion......
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topic ... efault.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Before you call me out, I know this is not the Vatican. However, it shows logic and progression that is needed in the Church.You can progressive and amend your rules without comprimising your integrity or beliefs.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
- rkwittem
- Level2

- Posts: 889
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:08 am
- I am a fan of: North Dakota State
- Location: Fargo, ND
Re: Religion......
No, I accuse you of hate and discrimination because you have focused solely on ripping Catholicism and myself in particular. It has nothing to do with your meaningless opinion or your pathetic ad hominem arguments. Regardless of the the sins of individual church members, the church's dogma and moral authority still holds firm, even in today's secular society. They can ignore and hate it all they want, but it's not going away.Ibanez wrote:You aren't a good steward of Christ. I'm not a moral less nut job. You have no clue who I am so you call me names. That's very Christ like.rkwittem wrote: Doing in the name of is not the same as "doing under order of". I wish you amoral nut-jobs would actually read my posts and not put words in my mouth. I never once said that Catholic Church was blameless, only that individuals within it were in fact guilty of atrocities. If you're going to get all high-and-mighty (like you did in the South Africa thread) about stuff that happened in the past and tell people to move on, I'm going to dole out your own medicine and tell you to get over it. Last time I checked, those offenses you listed were done well over 400 years ago.
I challenge you to find theological texts by Catholic authors that support these activities. One bad egg does not render the entirety of a religion obsolete. The Catholic Church has always taught that those acts are in fact wrong. This should clear up any concerns D1B had about "mind control" and brainwashing since it's pretty clear some Catholics have acted well outside the realm Catholic teaching and morality confines them to.
It's pretty clear you're reading what you want to read and seeing what you want to see. As such, it is impossible to use reason. How ironic, that people who preach tenets of "logic" and "reason" are as incapable of using it as the people they hate and discriminate against. It's a hilarious joke. Well done!
I can provide you with papal bulls that allowed territory to be siezed without question (Pope Alexander III.) People in history and today have acted under the authority of the Church to do harm and that is undeniable. There is a pattern of the Church being evil and today it is evident in the coverup of the sexual molestation of young boys. As a Catholic, I find it appalling that you choose to ignore the contradictions of the bible and the church. They tell you to be honest and moral when they and people in their ranks act the opposite. How can I sit in Church and listen to a person tell me to be honorable when he represents an oppressive/sexist organization that fails in it's duty to protect those that can't protect themselves. They've villified women for using birth control, reading, etc.. They allowed the oppression of blacks and jews. The fault isn't soley on the Catholic church, but all churches. The Catholic church has never condmened many of the actions which were done under it's authority. Any wrongful act that is perpetrated by a parish priest or diocese is inexusable. If the Vatican was pious and responsible, then by their authority many crimes(commission or omission) would never have happened.
So forget everything that happened 100 years ago. The Church has failed it's sheep by failing to protect young boys against known pedophiles. If there was no cover up, then molestors would not have been relocated like that had been.
Don't get all high and mighty on me, just because you go to church once a week and read sections of the Bible, doesn't make you a scholar. By no means am I a Biblical scholar, but after 12-13 years of Christian and religious studies, I have a good understanding, greater than most people.
It is very clear that you have clue what you are talking about and am trying to talk over someone that does, in hopes that they quit. I know you won't be persuaded and have rolled your eyes plenty of times while muttering that i'm an athiest who has no clue what he is talking about. I've used plenty of logic and reason and you unfairly accuse me of hate and discrimination because I don't agree with you? Wow, that is some a shame and childish.
Religion is supposed to be about peace, love, tolerance and understand.
I do not "ignore" the evils of the church as you put it. I know you aren't Catholic, so you really are in no position to judge the Church, seeing as you probably don't know many priests or bishops as I do. Progressive "buffet" Catholics who think they can pick and choose what they like and leave what they don't are another part of the Church's problems today. Even worse are the non-Catholic Christians who presume to tell Catholics what to do. Considering their churches have no claim to apostolic succession and are in fact off-shoots of Catholicism, ultimately tracing all the way back to the reformation. The Church has taught from day 1 that it is "catholic," i.e. 'universal'. It's not going to change with the times.
Yes, some leadership has been weak...but again, you're in no place to judge the Church. You aren't a Catholic. Leave it to the Catholics to sort it out, as we have done for 2,000 years. Amazing that despite all these evils throughout its history, the Catholic Church is somehow still standing. Before you say it's money/corruption...consider that the Church has not always been wealthy and powerful. I know this doesn't fit your narrative, but you can stick your narrative where the sun don't shine. It doesn't affect my view of the Roman Catholic Church. I am considerably better suited, well-positioned and therefore better equipped to judge it than someone who only sees what the media sticks under his nose...or what he chooses to see.
Now, back to the main debate...before we got sidetracked by Ibanez's red herring.
I'm still waiting for someone to disprove that there is no objective morality. Oh wait, you can't. I forgot. I hereby retire from this thread. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Re: Religion......
rkwittem wrote:No, I accuse you of hate and discrimination because you have focused solely on ripping Catholicism and myself in particular. It has nothing to do with your meaningless opinion or your pathetic ad hominem arguments. Regardless of the the sins of individual church members, the church's dogma and moral authority still holds firm, even in today's secular society. They can ignore and hate it all they want, but it's not going away.Ibanez wrote:
You aren't a good steward of Christ. I'm not a moral less nut job. You have no clue who I am so you call me names. That's very Christ like.
I can provide you with papal bulls that allowed territory to be siezed without question (Pope Alexander III.) People in history and today have acted under the authority of the Church to do harm and that is undeniable. There is a pattern of the Church being evil and today it is evident in the coverup of the sexual molestation of young boys. As a Catholic, I find it appalling that you choose to ignore the contradictions of the bible and the church. They tell you to be honest and moral when they and people in their ranks act the opposite. How can I sit in Church and listen to a person tell me to be honorable when he represents an oppressive/sexist organization that fails in it's duty to protect those that can't protect themselves. They've villified women for using birth control, reading, etc.. They allowed the oppression of blacks and jews. The fault isn't soley on the Catholic church, but all churches. The Catholic church has never condmened many of the actions which were done under it's authority. Any wrongful act that is perpetrated by a parish priest or diocese is inexusable. If the Vatican was pious and responsible, then by their authority many crimes(commission or omission) would never have happened.
So forget everything that happened 100 years ago. The Church has failed it's sheep by failing to protect young boys against known pedophiles. If there was no cover up, then molestors would not have been relocated like that had been.
Don't get all high and mighty on me, just because you go to church once a week and read sections of the Bible, doesn't make you a scholar. By no means am I a Biblical scholar, but after 12-13 years of Christian and religious studies, I have a good understanding, greater than most people.
It is very clear that you have clue what you are talking about and am trying to talk over someone that does, in hopes that they quit. I know you won't be persuaded and have rolled your eyes plenty of times while muttering that i'm an athiest who has no clue what he is talking about. I've used plenty of logic and reason and you unfairly accuse me of hate and discrimination because I don't agree with you? Wow, that is some a shame and childish.
Religion is supposed to be about peace, love, tolerance and understand.
I do not "ignore" the evils of the church as you put it. I know you aren't Catholic, so you really are in no position to judge the Church, seeing as you probably don't know many priests or bishops as I do. Progressive "buffet" Catholics who think they can pick and choose what they like and leave what they don't are another part of the Church's problems today. Even worse are the non-Catholic Christians who presume to tell Catholics what to do. Considering their churches have no claim to apostolic succession and are in fact off-shoots of Catholicism, ultimately tracing all the way back to the reformation. The Church has taught from day 1 that it is "catholic," i.e. 'universal'. It's not going to change with the times.
Yes, some leadership has been weak...but again, you're in no place to judge the Church. You aren't a Catholic. Leave it to the Catholics to sort it out, as we have done for 2,000 years. Amazing that despite all these evils throughout its history, the Catholic Church is somehow still standing. Before you say it's money/corruption...consider that the Church has not always been wealthy and powerful. I know this doesn't fit your narrative, but you can stick your narrative where the sun don't shine. It doesn't affect my view of the Roman Catholic Church. I am considerably better suited, well-positioned and therefore better equipped to judge it than someone who only sees what the media sticks under his nose...or what he chooses to see.
Now, back to the main debate...before we got sidetracked by Ibanez's red herring.![]()
I'm still waiting for someone to disprove that there is no objective morality. Oh wait, you can't. I forgot. I hereby retire from this thread. Enjoy the rest of your day.
RKwittless. You are one of the dumbest motherfuckers yet. Typical shithead catholic so deep in the cult he has no idea how fucking ridiculous he is.
I hereby order you to 6 months hard labor training with Joltin Joe. Although wrong most of the time, Joe at least knows what he's talking about - catholic wise.
Re: Religion......
rkwittem wrote:No, I accuse you of hate and discrimination because you have focused solely on ripping Catholicism and myself in particular. It has nothing to do with your meaningless opinion or your pathetic ad hominem arguments. Regardless of the the sins of individual church members, the church's dogma and moral authority still holds firm, even in today's secular society. They can ignore and hate it all they want, but it's not going away.Ibanez wrote:
You aren't a good steward of Christ. I'm not a moral less nut job. You have no clue who I am so you call me names. That's very Christ like.
I can provide you with papal bulls that allowed territory to be siezed without question (Pope Alexander III.) People in history and today have acted under the authority of the Church to do harm and that is undeniable. There is a pattern of the Church being evil and today it is evident in the coverup of the sexual molestation of young boys. As a Catholic, I find it appalling that you choose to ignore the contradictions of the bible and the church. They tell you to be honest and moral when they and people in their ranks act the opposite. How can I sit in Church and listen to a person tell me to be honorable when he represents an oppressive/sexist organization that fails in it's duty to protect those that can't protect themselves. They've villified women for using birth control, reading, etc.. They allowed the oppression of blacks and jews. The fault isn't soley on the Catholic church, but all churches. The Catholic church has never condmened many of the actions which were done under it's authority. Any wrongful act that is perpetrated by a parish priest or diocese is inexusable. If the Vatican was pious and responsible, then by their authority many crimes(commission or omission) would never have happened.
So forget everything that happened 100 years ago. The Church has failed it's sheep by failing to protect young boys against known pedophiles. If there was no cover up, then molestors would not have been relocated like that had been.
Don't get all high and mighty on me, just because you go to church once a week and read sections of the Bible, doesn't make you a scholar. By no means am I a Biblical scholar, but after 12-13 years of Christian and religious studies, I have a good understanding, greater than most people.
It is very clear that you have clue what you are talking about and am trying to talk over someone that does, in hopes that they quit. I know you won't be persuaded and have rolled your eyes plenty of times while muttering that i'm an athiest who has no clue what he is talking about. I've used plenty of logic and reason and you unfairly accuse me of hate and discrimination because I don't agree with you? Wow, that is some a shame and childish.
Religion is supposed to be about peace, love, tolerance and understand.
I do not "ignore" the evils of the church as you put it. I know you aren't Catholic, so you really are in no position to judge the Church, seeing as you probably don't know many priests or bishops as I do. Progressive "buffet" Catholics who think they can pick and choose what they like and leave what they don't are another part of the Church's problems today. Even worse are the non-Catholic Christians who presume to tell Catholics what to do. Considering their churches have no claim to apostolic succession and are in fact off-shoots of Catholicism, ultimately tracing all the way back to the reformation. The Church has taught from day 1 that it is "catholic," i.e. 'universal'. It's not going to change with the times.
Yes, some leadership has been weak...but again, you're in no place to judge the Church. You aren't a Catholic. Leave it to the Catholics to sort it out, as we have done for 2,000 years. Amazing that despite all these evils throughout its history, the Catholic Church is somehow still standing. Before you say it's money/corruption...consider that the Church has not always been wealthy and powerful. I know this doesn't fit your narrative, but you can stick your narrative where the sun don't shine. It doesn't affect my view of the Roman Catholic Church. I am considerably better suited, well-positioned and therefore better equipped to judge it than someone who only sees what the media sticks under his nose...or what he chooses to see.
Now, back to the main debate...before we got sidetracked by Ibanez's red herring.![]()
I'm still waiting for someone to disprove that there is no objective morality. Oh wait, you can't. I forgot. I hereby retire from this thread. Enjoy the rest of your day.
I've been Catholic for 30 years. Blessed Sacrament Church, Charleston, SC (built by my grandfather.) I've attened Catholic schools (which my family financed in 1920 and again in 1998). I was a 4th degree member of the Knights of Columbus, Council 704. I have independently studied religions for my own enjoyment since 2001(does not include all the Catholic Education from 6th grade to 12th) and routinely discuss religion and morality with a group of young priests, rabbis, ministers and lay people at a local coffee shop (they are some enlighten guys and a good mix of a priest from Senegal, a local and a NY rabbi and a European Lutheran minister). I was a a youth minister with my youth group from 1999-2001.
Yet, you seem to know me intimately. Tell me again how I'm not Catholic?
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: Religion......
Oh, snap.Ibanez wrote:rkwittem wrote: No, I accuse you of hate and discrimination because you have focused solely on ripping Catholicism and myself in particular. It has nothing to do with your meaningless opinion or your pathetic ad hominem arguments. Regardless of the the sins of individual church members, the church's dogma and moral authority still holds firm, even in today's secular society. They can ignore and hate it all they want, but it's not going away.
I do not "ignore" the evils of the church as you put it. I know you aren't Catholic, so you really are in no position to judge the Church, seeing as you probably don't know many priests or bishops as I do. Progressive "buffet" Catholics who think they can pick and choose what they like and leave what they don't are another part of the Church's problems today. Even worse are the non-Catholic Christians who presume to tell Catholics what to do. Considering their churches have no claim to apostolic succession and are in fact off-shoots of Catholicism, ultimately tracing all the way back to the reformation. The Church has taught from day 1 that it is "catholic," i.e. 'universal'. It's not going to change with the times.
Yes, some leadership has been weak...but again, you're in no place to judge the Church. You aren't a Catholic. Leave it to the Catholics to sort it out, as we have done for 2,000 years. Amazing that despite all these evils throughout its history, the Catholic Church is somehow still standing. Before you say it's money/corruption...consider that the Church has not always been wealthy and powerful. I know this doesn't fit your narrative, but you can stick your narrative where the sun don't shine. It doesn't affect my view of the Roman Catholic Church. I am considerably better suited, well-positioned and therefore better equipped to judge it than someone who only sees what the media sticks under his nose...or what he chooses to see.
Now, back to the main debate...before we got sidetracked by Ibanez's red herring.![]()
I'm still waiting for someone to disprove that there is no objective morality. Oh wait, you can't. I forgot. I hereby retire from this thread. Enjoy the rest of your day.Oh brother. You are clearly an angry person that cannot have an adult conversation about religion or anything. I spewed no hate or discrimination. You've come on here, attacked me for having a difference of opinion and basing my opinion off of facts. You go to church and listen to a sermon without knowing who wrote the story, what event it is based off, how it mistranslated and how it may or may not apply to a realistic ideal. There is no discussing anything with you because you seem to know all the answers and everyone else is a moron. With an attitude like this, you will not do well in life.
I've been Catholic for 30 years. Blessed Sacrament Church, Charleston, SC (built by my grandfather.) I've attened Catholic schools (which my family financed in 1920 and again in 1998). I was a 4th degree member of the Knights of Columbus, Council 704. I have independently studied religions for my own enjoyment since 2001(does not include all the Catholic Education from 6th grade to 12th) and routinely discuss religion and morality with a group of young priests, rabbis, ministers and lay people at a local coffee shop (they are some enlighten guys and a good mix of a priest from Senegal, a local and a NY rabbi and a European Lutheran minister). I was a a youth minister with my youth group from 1999-2001.
Yet, you seem to know me intimately. Tell me again how I'm not Catholic?




