Major Admin Announcement
. . . but that is the problem. The ones who need to understand [Catholics] refuse to jumpstart their brains.
[11/1/2002 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Mirror mirror on the wall...
9/3/2009 10:45:15 PM
Who is the most deluded of them all?
9/3/2009 11:16:44 PM
9/4/2009 5:27:04 AM
Tell me, do you preen in that mirror you are looking at?
9/4/2009 6:11:16 AM
Dunno, we are the ones with the Pope saying that reason and faith should go hand in hand.
9/4/2009 6:13:51 AM
"The ones who need to understand refuse to jumpstart their brains."
We all know how frustrating that is
9/4/2009 6:14:00 AM
"The ones who need to understand [Catholics] refuse to jumpstart their brains."
So sayeth someone who is part of a forum full of wingnuts, tinfoil hat-wearers, racists & potential Kool-Aid drinkers who believe in a delusion that has nothing to do with the Bible they're supposed to have read (because if they had, they'd know the concept of belief in a 'Rapture' is adding to the Bible, according to Revelations, which is heresy).
Admittedly I need a cup of tea to jumpstart my brain in the morning, but at least we Atheists accept reality. You should try it sometime, Raptards. It won't kill you. We're living proof it doesn't.
9/4/2009 7:22:33 AM
, the only reason the pope's gang concede the validity of 'reason' is that they couldn't stifle it.
They still try to put the Kat-holic spin on it, though.
9/4/2009 7:30:38 AM
"@ Masker, the only reason the pope's gang concede the validity of 'reason' is that they couldn't stifle it."
Not really, you know? no trying to derail the thread, but catholics at least try to defend our faith with more than just the verbatim Bible. A common fundie lie is that catholics do not study the Bible, but the fact is that we are encouraged to do so, we simply do not accept every word of it as literal truth. We are quite happy to use or God-given brain when it comes to understanding God.
"They still try to put the Kat-holic spin on it, though."
Well, I DID say that reason and faith go "hand in hand", not that one excludes the other. We use reason AND faith. It is not as weird or illogical as it sounds.
9/4/2009 7:54:05 AM
Fair enough, but how does the pope's stance on condoms and AIDS jibe with rationality?
9/4/2009 8:18:11 AM
"Fair enough, but how does the pope's stance on condoms and AIDS jibe with rationality? "
I admit I'm not aware of the current stance of the Church about AIDS. However, the Pope has been misquoted into saying that all form of contraception beyond abstinence should forbbiden, wich evidently is unpractical in the current AIDS pandemia. What he actually said in his recent visit to Africa is that it would be good for goverments to not base their whole anti-AIDS campaign in condom use, but to try to teach abstinence, in addition to that.
About condoms, the church stance is oppossed to them, but not just because it is a contraceptive. The main beef against them is that they take out the responsibility of having sex. The belief is that if you want to have sex, you should be willing to accept the consequences of it. If you don't want consequence, you shouldn't have sex in the first place. The Church, for example, approves natural birth control (as in, waiting for the woman's infertile days)because is a method that puts the responsability of having sex into the concious choice of the couple, not just a piece of rubber. The fact that there is not any single 100% effective anticonception system is also an important point: even if the couple used contraconception methods, they still must recognize that the woman might get pregnant or that they could catch a disease.The fact is, the only 100% sure chance you have of not getting the woman pregnant or catch a STD is not to have sex.
There is a common misunderstanding that christians hate sex. That is a lie. We consider it a gift from God and a way to participate in the Creation. We just think that is too much of a gift and it brings enough consequences that it should not been done lightly or carelessly. Ideally, it should only be done between a married couple, committd to each other and open to the possibility of having kids. Since we don't live in an ideal world, we simply try to do our best and try to control ourselves and not cheapen sex.
9/4/2009 9:09:21 AM
I've read within the Catholic apologia that the "Law" trumps compassion. IOW, the sin of unlicensed sex should be punished by any and all available consequences. Advocating abstinence is quite ludicrous in cultures where sex is a form of entertainment.
As a Gnostic, I say that Compassion is the only law... and I say further, any mortal who claims spiritual authority over others is a fucking liar.
9/4/2009 9:36:17 AM
"I've read within the Catholic apologia that the "Law" trumps compassion."
I've never seen that one. When did you got it? We are teached to always stay open to sinners, "hate the sin, not the sinner" and not judging, lest we are judged in turn. Compassion goes first. In fact, the whole point of Jesus is about how we came to deliver us from our due punishment, by dying. By Church dogma, the only sin that can not be forgiven is the belief that God will not forgive you if you are truly repentant.
"IOW, the sin of unlicensed sex should be punished by any and all available consequences."
Unlicensed sex is, by catholic belief, bad by itself. We believe that going around having sex carelessly it is demeaning for both parties and, sadly, brings consequences such as unwanted pregnacies and STDs (what does it means IOW? "in our own words"? sorry,I'm not a native english speaker)
"Advocating abstinence is quite ludicrous in cultures where sex is a form of entertainment."
That's why we believe it has been cheapened. Sex is suposed to be more important than just any other form of entretainment. We are sad that we live in a society when it has been reduced to just that.
"As a Gnostic, I say that Compassion is the only law... "
We believe the same. Deus Charitas Est.God is love and mercy above everything else.
"and I say further, any mortal who claims spiritual authority over others is a fucking liar."
We recognize the spiritual authority of the clergy on the base that they have studied and meditated more on God's nature and plan than the average believer, since they have dedicated their lives to doing so. That is also the reason for Church Tradition. We simply do not want to change what it works unless we have a reason for it.
A fun fact. Do you know how catholics define Hell? is not a lake of fire and brimstone. It is simply a permanent separation from God. C.S. Lewis said it best. Eventually, you say to God "Thy will be done" or God says to you "thy will be done". Going to Hell is strictly a matter of choice and an action between Creator and Created. That's why the fundies that go around yelling "you're gonna burn" piss me off so much. They have absolutely no way of knowing if someone is in Hell or not. We also do not know, but at least, we don't claim knowing.
9/4/2009 10:44:27 AM
IOW = 'in other words'.
I will only accept the 'spiritual authority' of a person who was legally proven dead for two nights and a day [at least] and came back without any medical intervention. Other than that,
can prove any mythical afterlife beyond reasonable doubt. Even in that case, I seriously doubt that person is going to claim any authority, but that's just my opinion.
It amuses me that you played the hell card. Try the guilt trip, and the shame trip, and the doubt trip, they don't work either.
I didn't imagine the 'Law trumps compassion' statement, but there may be some question as to whether it is 'official' Catholic apologia. In any case, the exercise of compassion doesn't need a hierarchy of spiritual advisors.
9/4/2009 11:49:19 AM
"IOW = 'in other words'."
"I will only accept the 'spiritual authority' of a person who was legally proven dead for two nights and a day [at least] and came back without any medical intervention. Other than that, nobody can prove any mythical afterlife beyond reasonable doubt. Even in that case, I seriously doubt that person is going to claim any authority, but that's just my opinion."
Well, is your choice to believe so. If you do not want to accept spiritual authority, no one can force you. Freedom of choice. However, legally proving the actual ressurrection of Jesus is impossible, since it happened almost two thousand years ago. Is a matter of faith.
There is a phylosophical way of proving the inmortaity of the soul and the existance of God (mainly from greek phylosophers and Church doctors, such as St. Agustin and Thomas Aquinas) but I admit that I do not have an unbiased point of view about them, since I haven't met much people who have studied them without being already catholic. I also don't believe I can properly explain them in English.
"It amuses me that you played the hell card. Try the guilt trip, and the shame trip, and the doubt trip, they don't work either."
Not any card, just an explanation. You already told me you are not a believer, I'm nobody to say you otherwise or guilt, shame or doubt trip you into anything. I just want my religion to be understood and clear any missconceptions I can. If you took offense on anything, I'm sorry.
9/4/2009 12:06:01 PM
Please, there's no need to apologise. You've been quite civil under the circumstances.
P.S. As a Gnostic, it behooves me to invite your attention to the gospel of Thomas.
9/4/2009 12:17:58 PM
And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
"The ones who need to understand refuse to jumpstart their brains."
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Oh, the irony...
4/4/2012 7:12:14 AM
So, how's things going for you kissers of the arse of (P)Rick 'Frothy Mixture' Rantsorbum, Ruptured Retards...?
...oh yes, that's right. He FAILED.
...still, at least you won't have to worry about
[Catholic] who didn't even have a brain to start with, never mind jumpstart, [b]you're now gonna have to rely upon a
for all your 'ABO' ('Anyone But Obama') needs. So how's that 'Sticking to your
Principles' feeling now eh, RR? To vote, or
That is the question...!
Meanwhile, Obama has that 2nd term all but in the bag...!
4/4/2012 9:00:08 AM