More Harm Than Good!

[ohreally]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1978045,00.html

Neat article here which features polling results indicating that many of people in Britain believe religion does more harm than good. Inside the results, 82% say faith causes tension in country where two thirds are not religious.

[ajk]

Without even reading the article, I can't say I'm surprised considering the source. I mean what do you expect when two-thirds of the country isn't religious?

[who897]

They need to do something like that here.....I'd like to know how many religious degenerates we got in this country.

[ajk]

They need to do something like that here.....I'd like to know how many religious degenerates we got in this country.

I'd be interested in seeing some results myself, just to see how big the difference is between the two.

[theicidal maniac]

Without even reading the article, I can't say I'm surprised considering the source. I mean what do you expect when two-thirds of the country isn't religious?

...Progress!

[ajk]

Regress is more like it to me.

[Ausinus]

Look at history. The renaissance. It was caused by an increase in the power of secular society, which lead to societal progress.

Religion creates tradition. Tradition is anathema to progress.

[ajk]

Look at history. The renaissance. It was caused by an increase in the power of secular society, which lead to societal progress.

Religion creates tradition. Tradition is anathema to progress.

That's not quite accurate. Technology has advanced in good ways too. However, at the same time we have abused it.

[Ausinus]

No no no. Im referring of course to the humanist and secularist movements, science and to a lesser extent the reformation.

So, people abuse technology? Everything can be abused. Look at how the church has demonstrably abused its power through history; inquisition, the crusades, malleus maleficarum.

Now the internet, that is one of the crowning glories of humankind, next to the written word and the printing press.

I do belive Christianity had its purpose once; to carry over helleno-roman knowledge from antiquity into the renaissance, as did the Byzantines and Muslims. Since that purpose has long since expired I agree the christian religion is doing more harm than good. As for other religions, look at Israel and the Middle East.

[theicidal maniac]

That's not quite accurate. Technology has advanced in good ways too. However, at the same time we have abused it.

such as?

whatever answer you give I am sure you can find a religious motive behind your attitude on the matter.

[General Septem]

The Guardian is a piece of shit. Every time there's shit like this, it's always the Guardian.

Besides, that's what the people think. But if two-third of the country isn't religious, and there's still tension, what the fuck is causing it?

[ajk]

Probably has something to do with the fact that they don't want to hear the truth.

[Ausinus]

The religious part has tensions with the irreligious parts.

[ajk]

The religious part has tensions with the irreligious parts.

I would say the opposite is true.

[General Septem]

The religious part has tensions with the irreligious parts.
So, Christians aren't any more of an "offender" than atheists are. Both sides have problems with each other.

[Ausinus]

There will always be tensions between opposing groups, your right.

However, I do believe that christianity is responsible for many current societal conflicts, such as the attacks on gays, wiccans, blacks and muslims.

[General Septem]

There will always be tensions between opposing groups, your right.

However, I do believe that christianity is responsible for many current societal conflicts, such as the attacks on gays, wiccans, blacks and muslims.

As opposed to atheists who can't keep their mouths shut either?

Muslims? I thought America hated Muslims because they thought they were the ones responsible for the World Trade Center attack. In which case it'd be the government that's responsible for the attacks on them.

[Ausinus]

Sorry I revise that statement; patriotism is the cause of the attacks on muslims.:D

Name an attack on a minority group caused by atheists.

[General Septem]

Name an attack on a minority group caused by atheists.

All the prejudice against Christianity?

[Ausinus]

Has it resulted in any violence in this country? Or groups like the KKK?

[General Septem]

Has it resulted in any violence in this country? Or groups like the KKK?

Violence against Christians and Catholics is commonplace. As is just random hatred towards religion in general. Just about everything atheists hate about Christians, they're guilty of themselves.

[Ausinus]

So we're guilty of deriding women, gays, and blacks, helping the spread of AIDS, and encouraging slavery?

[who897]

Yep, cuz the athiest have their own crusades where they fucking kill every fucking one.

[General Septem]

So we're guilty of deriding women,

The Bible actually says that men should treat their wives with respect and love, in the same way women should treat their husbands with respect and love. That passage is not actually about assigning gender roles but rather explaining what people would just do naturally if they were in a truly loving relationship.


gays,

You don't think atheists refer to people and things as "gay" in the derogatory sense? I've even heard Christians refered to as gay, and if that's not ignorant I don't know what is.


and blacks,

Skinheads are not religious affiliated. Although technically skinheadism itself is not a racist afiliation in and of itself, it still stands to remain that because of certain sects they are widely considered to be racist, but they are not affiliated with any religion except on an individual level.


helping the spread of AIDS,

We're not the ones screwing hundreds of people and spreading it around. We're not the ones having sex with monkies or with other men. There is strong evidence the government is behind the HIV virus anyway.


and encouraging slavery?

As I remember, it was Christians who fought against the American slavery. And I seem to remember something about Martin Luther King, Jr. saying something like "mine eyes have seen the power of the coming of the LORD". If he was not religious he wouldn't have brought that quote up.

[who897]

We're not the ones screwing hundreds of people and spreading it around. We're not the ones having sex with monkies or with other men. There is strong evidence the government is behind the HIV virus anyway.

Are you serious.....I have nothing better to say then...wow, you are an inteligent being.




As I remember, it was Christians who fought against the American slavery. And I seem to remember something about Martin Luther King, Jr. saying something like "mine eyes have seen the power of the coming of the LORD". If he was not religious he wouldn't have brought that quote up.

It was also southern christians that wanted to keep slavery but that war wasn't really about slavery, at least not to begin with.

[twisted_screams]

Yep, cuz the athiest have their own crusades where they fucking kill every fucking one.
THat if your athiest your not raciest because they hate only the invisible people;)

[theicidal maniac]

The Bible actually says that men should treat their wives with respect and love, in the same way women should treat their husbands with respect and love. That passage is not actually about assigning gender roles but rather explaining what people would just do naturally if they were in a truly loving relationship.

note the plural "WIVES"




You don't think atheists refer to people and things as "gay" in the derogatory sense? I've even heard Christians refered to as gay, and if that's not ignorant I don't know what is.

that's different than voting against gay rights and treating people as second class citizens because of your own suprstitions and insecurities


Skinheads are not religious affiliated. Although technically skinheadism itself is not a racist afiliation in and of itself, it still stands to remain that because of certain sects they are widely considered to be racist, but they are not affiliated with any religion except on an individual level.

But Hitler has many quotes revealing himself as a christian


We're not the ones screwing hundreds of people and spreading it around. We're not the ones having sex with monkies or with other men. There is strong evidence the government is behind the HIV virus anyway.

WOW....what an intelligent person, indeed


As I remember, it was Christians who fought against the American slavery. And I seem to remember something about Martin Luther King, Jr. saying something like "mine eyes have seen the power of the coming of the LORD". If he was not religious he wouldn't have brought that quote up.

As I remember, THE BIBLE BELT is the part of the country who would not let go of slavery

[Ausinus]

The Bible actually says that men should treat their wives with respect and love, in the same way women should treat their husbands with respect and love. That passage is not actually about assigning gender roles but rather explaining what people would just do naturally if they were in a truly loving relationship.

Ehem, what do you call the witch trials, and the fact women cant be ordained, and explain these biblical quotes.

Deuteronomy 22:20
Zachariah 14:1
Genesis 3:16
Romans 7:2
1 Corinthians 7:4<----- I really dont like this one
1 Peter 3:1
1 Corinthians, 11:8
Ephesians 5:22
Timothy 2:11

You religion preaches women are inferior.


You don't think atheists refer to people and things as "gay" in the derogatory sense? I've even heard Christians refered to as gay, and if that's not ignorant I don't know what is.

Fine, you deride LGBT then.


Skinheads are not religious affiliated. Although technically skinheadism itself is not a racist afiliation in and of itself, it still stands to remain that because of certain sects they are widely considered to be racist, but they are not affiliated with any religion except on an individual level.

How do you explain the KKK then? Or all those people who use christianity as an excuse to be racist?


We're not the ones screwing hundreds of people and spreading it around. We're not the ones having sex with monkies or with other men. There is strong evidence the government is behind the HIV virus anyway.

On the contrary, you are spreading it by teaching that protection is bad. Abstinence is impractical, you are trying to strip us of our rights based on your eschatology.

You are very sad if you think the govt. is behind the AIDS virus.


As I remember, it was Christians who fought against the American slavery. And I seem to remember something about Martin Luther King, Jr. saying something like "mine eyes have seen the power of the coming of the LORD". If he was not religious he wouldn't have brought that quote up.

As I remember, Lincoln used religion as a means to get the unioners fight the war. People were more interested in a Holy War to end slavery than a secular one to preserve the Union. As for Martin Luther King Jr., he was quoting from the bible as part of his rhetoric.

Btw, how do explain the confederate states views on slavery then? And all those passages in the bible about "thou shalt be submissive to thy master" blah blah.

[twisted_screams]

note the plural "WIVES"





that's different than voting against gay rights and treating people as second class citizens because of your own suprstitions and insecurities



But Hitler has many quotes revealing himself as a christian



WOW....what an intelligent person, indeed



As I remember, THE BIBLE BELT is the part of the country who would not let go of slavery

Thats totally correct and more so they are still a raciest bunch of asses down there i ended up down in Louisiana for 12 years thanks to the x husband and i wouldnt go back to that state if you paid me. They still go on about the North and the South and my Landlord used to hire ( his nigger man) his exact words and pay him basically a 1.00 and hour to work hard the man was in his 80tys and still worked his ass off. I asked him once why did he keep working for my landlord he smiled at me and said because in the long run He'll get his in the end. Long story short the man working ended up busting his leg on the land lords property and sueing the shit out of the landlord. Not only did the man make a good penny he also got the land lord in trouble for raceism turns out the old man used to send his family over when he new the land lord had a space come open his family was turned down because they were black but the land lord always came up with an excuse. Finally the city caught on and he was fined somthing like 25000.00. It was priceless to see

[General Septem]

note the plural "WIVES"

Go back and learn English you fuck.


that's different than voting against gay rights and treating people as second class citizens because of your own suprstitions and insecurities

We don't do that, with the exception of voting against same sex marriage. If it's in a poll, don't bitch because we voted for "the wrong one". That's what made our country great.


But Hitler has many quotes revealing himself as a christian

Then allow me to direct your attention to "Thou shall not kill" and "love thy neighbour as yourself".


As I remember, THE BIBLE BELT is the part of the country who would not let go of slavery

I've never heard of the "Bible belt", but nowadays it's really the rednecks who won't let go of slavery.

[theicidal maniac]

Go back and learn English you fuck.

I'm a linguistics student, dumbass. And I was referring to the fact that the bible allows men to have multiple wives, but not vice versa.


We don't do that, with the exception of voting against same sex marriage. If it's in a poll, don't bitch because we voted for "the wrong one". That's what made our country great.

Well that exception was MY EXACT POINT, so THANK YOU!


Then allow me to direct your attention to "Thou shall not kill" and "love thy neighbour as yourself".

Don't tell ME, I don't need the bible to tell me not to kill. Tell your fellow Christian, Adolf Hitler...actually, he probably already heard it, so I guess some archaic reference isn't effective to stay the hand of man...


I've never heard of the "Bible belt", but nowadays it's really the rednecks who won't let go of slavery.

That's cuz you are a shut-in. The bible belt is the South...THE MOST RELIGOUSLY DENSE population in the U.S. And rednecks are predominantly Christian, by the way.

[Ausinus]

And some more things.

Wiccan soldiers arent allowed to wear pentagrams or put the pentagram on thier tombstones should they be KIA.

The Virginian Govt. wants to prevent muslims from taking govt. posts, indeed, to keep the out of the country PERIOD.

All those christian terrorist attacks; bombing gay nightclubs and abortion clinics, shooting abortion doctors, assaulting wiccans and gays.

Oh, and not to mention the christian ourtcry about the HPV vaccine. Talk about irresponsible.

[theicidal maniac]

and...
at least 7 U.S. states REQUIRE you to believe in God in order to hold public office.

[General Septem]

Ehem, what do you call the witch trials,

Memory lapse, leading to the temporary forgetting of "thou shall not kill," "love they neighbour as thyself", and "judge not, lest you be judged".


and the fact women cant be ordained,

Because the Presider of the Eucharist must represent Christ as the bridegroom of the Church.


Deuteronomy 22:20

It has little to do with her being a woman. All premarital sexual relations were disproved of, whether you were male or female. The only reason the quote singles out women in particular is because it's easier to tell if a woman is a virgin, and because only women were prostitutes in a society such as that, and a woman not being a virgin was a sign that she was most likely a prostitute. If you read on, there are harsh punishments for the men, too, if it was found he was lying about his wife not being a virgin.


Zachariah 14:1

What about it?


Genesis 3:16

That's not so much of a commandment as it is just an explanation as to why psychology between men and women is the way it is. It's not in some way evil for the woman to be in control, it just doesn't work. You can say it does all you want, but I have never once in my entire life seen a successful relationship where the woman was the one in control. It has to do with our hormones.


Romans 7:2

Again. Yes, in Jewish law she was legally bound by her husband. But in reality, it's just how things work. A woman can be insecure and unconfident and still have a family and a comfortable life. A man cannot. A man who is insecure, indecisive, unconfident, and unable to be a leader goes nowhere.


1 Corinthians 7:4<----- I really dont like this one

The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

The hell don't you like about it? First off, it's "does not belong to her alone", meaning her body belongs to both her and her husband, not just her husband. Second, the same applies to both the wife and the husband. Don't just read half the verse next time. What St. Paul is saying is that in marriage, the two become one flesh. They belong to each other, and what God has joined, let no man separate.


1 Peter 3:1

Not a commandment but a suggestion to a healthy relationship. Notice verse seven. Husbands are to live in understanding, showing honor to their wives, who like it or not are weaker emotionally. And that's not a bad thing. It's just how it is. The chapter is not a commandment; it is first of all a suggetion to a healthy relationship, and second something that would just come naturally when two people truly love each other.


1 Corinthians, 11:8

1 Corinthians, 11:11-12


Ephesians 5:22

Ephesians 5:25-28


Timothy 2:11

When you get married and your wife starts talking back to you, I think that will make sense. :D


Blah blah blah women are inferior.

You disappoint me. I was expecting you to have shown me some kind of verse that states "women are inferior to men" and that they are not to be loved. Alas, no such quote exists.


Fine, you deride LGBT then.

My argument stands; atheists "deride" all that shit too. And a true follower of Christ doesn't go around beating others up for any reason.


How do you explain the KKK then? Or all those people who use christianity as an excuse to be racist?

That's just what it is, though, an excuse. Anyone can say "I'm doing this to be a good Christian" or "I'm doing this to be a good American", but when it comes down to it, they're the racist fucks. They're just not confident enough in themselves to say that they simply hate [insert random stereotype here], so they look for comfort in the perception that a major group of people shares the same beliefs.


On the contrary, you are spreading it by teaching that protection is bad.

STDs are spread through sexual intercourse. I've never used protection in my entire life and I don't have anything. Obviously the spread of disease is not due to the failure to use protection. On the other hand, condoms fail.


Abstinence is impractical,

I seem to be getting along just fine.


you are trying to strip us of our rights

On the contrary, I just want it to be acknowledged that certain things are wrong. Whether they are legal or not means nothing to me.


based on your eschatology.

No, based on its effect on society. What leads to hell on Earth leads to Hell in the afterlife.


You are very sad if you think the govt. is behind the AIDS virus.

You are very sad if you're naive enough to say this without knowing anything at all about why certain people believe this to be true. Myself, I haven't an opinion, but I do acknowledge the possibility.


As I remember, Lincoln used religion as a means to get the unioners fight the war. People were more interested in a Holy War to end slavery than a secular one to preserve the Union.

The subject was about Christianity and how it pertains to slavery. So Christians were fighting against slavery, by your own admission.


As for Martin Luther King Jr., he was quoting from the bible as part of his rhetoric.

He was also a religious man.


Btw, how do explain the confederate states views on slavery then?

They're fucking rednecks, what's there to explain?


And all those passages in the bible about "thou shalt be submissive to thy master" blah blah.

Slavery as talked about in the Bible wasn't the same as we think of it. They were more like a step up from workers if I remember correctly.

[Ausinus]

Memory lapse, leading to the temporary forgetting of "thou shall not kill," "love they neighbour as thyself", and "judge not, lest you be judged".

If I remember correctly, they used the biblical quote of thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Temporary lapse my ass. Thats just an excuse, the church has always been persecuting people who dont do what they say.


Because the Presider of the Eucharist must represent Christ as the bridegroom of the Church.

No because the bible says that women have to shut up in the church thats why.


It has little to do with her being a woman. All premarital sexual relations were disproved of, whether you were male or female. The only reason the quote singles out women in particular is because it's easier to tell if a woman is a virgin, and because only women were prostitutes in a society such as that, and a woman not being a virgin was a sign that she was most likely a prostitute. If you read on, there are harsh punishments for the men, too, if it was found he was lying about his wife not being a virgin.

So, the men get away scot free with not being virgins? How sexist.


What about it?

The ravishing of women.


That's not so much of a commandment as it is just an explanation as to why psychology between men and women is the way it is. It's not in some way evil for the woman to be in control, it just doesn't work. You can say it does all you want, but I have never once in my entire life seen a successful relationship where the woman was the one in control. It has to do with our hormones.

FUCK YOU. Women can be just as strong and domineering as men.


Again. Yes, in Jewish law she was legally bound by her husband. But in reality, it's just how things work. A woman can be insecure and unconfident and still have a family and a comfortable life. A man cannot. A man who is insecure, indecisive, unconfident, and unable to be a leader goes nowhere.

Men can still have a family if they are insecure.


The hell don't you like about it? First off, it's "does not belong to her alone", meaning her body belongs to both her and her husband, not just her husband. Second, the same applies to both the wife and the husband. Don't just read half the verse next time. What St. Paul is saying is that in marriage, the two become one flesh. They belong to each other, and what God has joined, let no man separate.

A persons body is theirs alone. This particular thing implies ownership.


Not a commandment but a suggestion to a healthy relationship. Notice verse seven. Husbands are to live in understanding, showing honor to their wives, who like it or not are weaker emotionally. And that's not a bad thing. It's just how it is. The chapter is not a commandment; it is first of all a suggetion to a healthy relationship, and second something that would just come naturally when two people truly love each other.

How dare you even suggest that women are weaker emotionally.


My argument stands; atheists "deride" all that shit too. And a true follower of Christ doesn't go around beating others up for any reason.

I havent heard of an atheist who wants to deny gays marriage before.


That's just what it is, though, an excuse. Anyone can say "I'm doing this to be a good Christian" or "I'm doing this to be a good American", but when it comes down to it, they're the racist fucks. They're just not confident enough in themselves to say that they simply hate [insert random stereotype here], so they look for comfort in the perception that a major group of people shares the same beliefs.

The point is your religion leads to those ideas and covers it.


STDs are spread through sexual intercourse. I've never used protection in my entire life and I don't have anything. Obviously the spread of disease is not due to the failure to use protection. On the other hand, condoms fail.

You will probably get something. Herpes, chlamydia, etc. And what do you call the spread of AIDS in africa. Plus, abstinence is more likely to fail, as opposed to the 1% failure rate of condoms.


I seem to be getting along just fine.

You have supressed your base instincts under a cloud of religion. Thats just unnatural.


On the contrary, I just want it to be acknowledged that certain things are wrong. Whether they are legal or not means nothing to me.

These things are pasted as wrong for two reasons 1) Based of obsolete laws 2) Method of control


No, based on its effect on society. What leads to hell on Earth leads to Hell in the afterlife.

I hardly see how allowing extramarital sex has lead to a regression in society.


The subject was about Christianity and how it pertains to slavery. So Christians were fighting against slavery, by your own admission.

Christianity lead to slavery, but secularism lead it to ban slavery. You have had to keep up with our secular advances. Your religion is a deadweight and liability.


They're fucking rednecks, what's there to explain?

Now thats just racist. Bastard, many nice people come from down there.


Slavery as talked about in the Bible wasn't the same as we think of it. They were more like a step up from workers if I remember correctly.

A step up from workers? They people who had no rights at all, in fact they were better treated under pagan rule than christian rule.

[General Septem]

If I remember correctly, they used the biblical quote of thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Temporary lapse my ass. Thats just an excuse, the church has always been persecuting people who dont do what they say.

The Church is firmly against the death penalty unless it is the only way to keep society safe. See Humanae Vitae.


No because the bible says that women have to shut up in the church thats why.

No, it's not. And don't fucking argue. I'm not asking for your opinion on why you think the Church doesn't allow women priests, I'm telling you. This is why. This is very clearly explained.


So, the men get away scot free with not being virgins? How sexist.

Because it can't be proven. Mind you, the hymen examination is not fool-proof but in a society obsessed with cleanliness and preventing infection, they at all costs felt they couldn't let anyone get away with having more than one sexual partner. It was more than the moral reasons behind why fornication is wrong, because they still apply today. Jesus said "let the man who has never sinned cast the first stone" anyway, so it's not like the Bible condones stoning anyone for any reason. Your problem is with the Jews as they don't believe in the Gospel.


The ravishing of women.

Common practice in any war. It's also never really said whether this is a good thing or not, it's just something that goes with the territory of Jerusalem's enemies being destroyed.


FUCK YOU. Women can be just as strong and domineering as men.

No, fuck you. Women and men have different hormones. This is a scientifically proven fact, as is the fact that these hormones affect behaviour, instincts, and a hell of a lot of other things. You politically correct newspeakers/assholes need to get your head out of your ass and realize something: men and women are different. Women are not any better or worse than men. They are just different. This is as much of a fact as you believe evolution to be, in fact moreso since we can examine it. Can women be as strong and domineering as men? Obviously. But on the whole, they aren't and there's a reason for that.


Men can still have a family if they are insecure.

Women are instinctively not attracted to insecure men. In today's society it's easy to survive, but you won't get far. It goes back to our primal self-preservation instincts. Women look for men who can survive a theoretical apocalypse. You can deny it all you want, but it's fact. Scientific fact.

"Freedom is the ability to say two plus two equals four." - George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four


A persons body is theirs alone. This particular thing implies ownership.

Mutual and consentual ownership. See, that's what happens when two people love each other enough to become one flesh and spend the rest of their life together. It's not sexist. They give themselves to each other. You have a problem with that? Then don't fucking do it. You want your body to be yours alone? Then don't give it to anyone. Keep going from girl to girl and never find the one. And when you do find the one, don't bother loving her with all your heart if you don't want to. No, seriously, go ahead. I pity your relationship, but it's not my problem. You'll deserve each other.


How dare you even suggest that women are weaker emotionally.

How dare I speak the truth? Scientifically proven fact? Orwell was right - I can't say two plus two equals four! No, that's unfair to the number two. All numbers are fucking equal to each other! Do women not have estrogen anymore? I never said that was a bad thing, asshole! I even said: that's not a bad thing.


I havent heard of an atheist who wants to deny gays marriage before.

I don't wish to deny gays marriage either. Men marry women. Sexual preference doesn't even play into it. A gay man wants to marry a woman? God bless. It's not my fucking problem if most gay men don't want to marry women.


The point is your religion leads to those ideas and covers it.

No, it does not. The only way you could get that is by reading what you want to read and not what's written.


You will probably get something. Herpes, chlamydia, etc.

I'll probably get something. How scientific of you.


And what do you call the spread of AIDS in africa.

I call it too much casual fucking. People in Africa fuck like we shake hands. They fuck so much that the fear of getting AIDS doesn't even scare them. Obviously your condoms aren't working, because they're being passed out hand over fist in Africa and they still have AIDS. I on the other hand have never and never will use condoms, and I haven't to this day caught anything. Keep in mind I'm much older than the age at which many Africans begin to contract AIDS.


Plus, abstinence is more likely to fail,

Citation needed.


as opposed to the 1% failure rate of condoms.

Only when properly used, which they often aren't. And often times A couple will be making out or whatever and either not be able to find their condoms or can't get the damn package open, so they just say fuck it.


You have supressed your base instincts under a cloud of religion.

No, I haven't. I fully understand my instincts and desires. I also fully understand that if I went out and slept with a random girl, it would mean nothing to me, and that's pointless. I have wet dreams to relieve the tension.


These things are pasted as wrong for two reasons 1) Based of obsolete laws

Is the anti-murder law obsolete? Will it ever become obsolete?


2) Method of control

Did you not read again? I just told you I don't wish to control anyone. I just want it to be acknowledged that certain things are wrong and for people to choose to act accordingly.


I hardly see how allowing extramarital sex has lead to a regression in society.

It is one of many things that cheapens marriage, and in turn destroys the family unit, which is the core of society.


Christianity lead to slavery, but secularism lead it to ban slavery. You have had to keep up with our secular advances. Your religion is a deadweight and liability.

More supposition, unsourced statements, and self-righteous drivel.


Now thats just racist. Bastard, many nice people come from down there.

The ones that condone slavery are rednecks.


A step up from workers? They people who had no rights at all, in fact they were better treated under pagan rule than christian rule.

You don't know that.

[Ausinus]

The Church is firmly against the death penalty unless it is the only way to keep society safe. See Humanae Vitae.

Ok, now lets review the church's history. Hmm, Inquistion, Witch Trials, Crusades, the Catharist Heresy, Those people during the reformation.


No, it's not. And don't fucking argue. I'm not asking for your opinion on why you think the Church doesn't allow women priests, I'm telling you. This is why. This is very clearly explained.

Give me the line in the bible that says women arent allowed to become preists and I may actually believe you.


Because it can't be proven. Mind you, the hymen examination is not fool-proof but in a society obsessed with cleanliness and preventing infection, they at all costs felt they couldn't let anyone get away with having more than one sexual partner. It was more than the moral reasons behind why fornication is wrong, because they still apply today. Jesus said "let the man who has never sinned cast the first stone" anyway, so it's not like the Bible condones stoning anyone for any reason. Your problem is with the Jews as they don't believe in the Gospel.

No, my problem is with prosyletizing religion in general. Equal dispensation, you cant prove that men are not virgins, dont punish women because you can.


No, fuck you. Women and men have different hormones. This is a scientifically proven fact, as is the fact that these hormones affect behaviour, instincts, and a hell of a lot of other things. You politically correct newspeakers/assholes need to get your head out of your ass and realize something: men and women are different. Women are not any better or worse than men. They are just different. This is as much of a fact as you believe evolution to be, in fact moreso since we can examine it. Can women be as strong and domineering as men? Obviously. But on the whole, they aren't and there's a reason for that.

On average, you are right, but there are exceptions.


How dare I speak the truth? Scientifically proven fact? Orwell was right - I can't say two plus two equals four! No, that's unfair to the number two. All numbers are fucking equal to each other! Do women not have estrogen anymore? I never said that was a bad thing, asshole! I even said: that's not a bad thing.

Define emotional weakness.


I don't wish to deny gays marriage either. Men marry women. Sexual preference doesn't even play into it. A gay man wants to marry a woman? God bless. It's not my fucking problem if most gay men don't want to marry women.

I meant same sex marriage.


No, it does not. The only way you could get that is by reading what you want to read and not what's written.

Ever heard of cafeteria christianity?


I call it too much casual fucking. People in Africa fuck like we shake hands. They fuck so much that the fear of getting AIDS doesn't even scare them. Obviously your condoms aren't working, because they're being passed out hand over fist in Africa and they still have AIDS. I on the other hand have never and never will use condoms, and I haven't to this day caught anything. Keep in mind I'm much older than the age at which many Africans begin to contract AIDS.

The reason they do it it because those catholic missonary assholes interfere teach condoms are bad. Sex education, teach them how to use condoms.


Citation needed.

Its simple logic. It is difficult to supress instincts, especially in a society like that. A least with protection you have a physical means of ensuring it.


Only when properly used, which they often aren't. And often times A couple will be making out or whatever and either not be able to find their condoms or can't get the damn package open, so they just say fuck it.

Then more sex education. The courses you have over here really suck shit, at least back home our courses are thorough, and we have less than a quarter of the teen pregnancies you do.


Is the anti-murder law obsolete? Will it ever become obsolete?

I mean the junky peice of shit laws on slavery, sex and homosexuals that were written for a nomadic society and have no place in the modern world.


id you not read again? I just told you I don't wish to control anyone. I just want it to be acknowledged that certain things are wrong and for people to choose to act accordingly.

Yet your religion is forcing homosexuals to stay unmarrried. And btw, wrong is sbujective.


More supposition, unsourced statements, and self-righteous drivel.

Show something that has benefited society that the church has brought, that was not already there.


The ones that condone slavery are rednecks.

Yet they quote the bible.


You don't know that.

In the roman era, slaves could at least buy their freedom, and in many cases recieved wages. In Judea, they were treated little better than dogs.

[General Septem]

Ok, now lets review the church's history. Hmm, Inquistion, Witch Trials, Crusades, the Catharist Heresy, Those people during the reformation.

People do bad things. People do bad things in the name of God. That doesn't make them right.

Big deal about the Crusades, anyway. It was a war like any other. The Muslims stole our land and we were trying to get it back. It was slightly less atrocious than the Hiroshima bomb.


Give me the line in the bible that says women arent allowed to become preists and I may actually believe you.

The Bible is not the only word of God we base our faith off of. We believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church (even if its people don't always follow) in the exact same way He guided the writing of the Bible.

Women not being allowed to speak in Church is obviously not the reason why they can't become Priests, because women frequently give homilies, read the readings, make announcements, Alter serve, Eucharistic minister, lead youth group, and a variety of other things. They just cannot administer the Sacrement of Reconcilliation or Consecration.


No, my problem is with prosyletizing religion in general. Equal dispensation, you cant prove that men are not virgins, dont punish women because you can.

We don't anymore. They were just extremely careful about preventing the spread of infection. This was also before the "let the man who has never sinned cast the first stone" thing.


On average, you are right, but there are exceptions.

Very rare exceptions which often include abnormal hormones and/or childhood trauma. And sometimes they don't. It still stands to reason that confidence and the like are traits all men should have, even if women can have them as well. My point is that women and men are different.


Define emotional weakness.

More likely to get upset about little things. More likely to fall in love even if it means getting hurt. It also means they can be more compassionate in spite of other circumstances that can potentially detract from one's ability to show compassion. Women respond more emotionally to things associated with babies and infancy. Even some of the more domineering women I know say "awwww" when they see something "cute".

Men, on the other hand, or at least men with strong masculine traits, tend to be more emotionally stable, not reacting emotionally to cutesy infant things and less likely to become infatuated with a woman or to fall in love unless he really knows the woman well enough.

Again, one is not worse than the other, just different. And by becoming one flesh, man and woman are rejoined, and their feminine and masculine traits compliment each other.


I meant same sex marriage.

Well that's different, isn't it? And technically it's not "gay rights" since the same rights apply to everyone.


Ever heard of cafeteria christianity?

Yes, people who claim to be Catholics and are at best Catholic once a week at Church, but go about their own way doing whatever-the-hell the rest of the week. What about it?


The reason they do it it because those catholic missonary assholes interfere teach condoms are bad. Sex education, teach them how to use condoms.

That's nonsense. If they didn't use condoms because of the Catholic missionaries, they wouldn't be screwing each other left and right and spreading it around either. No matter how much you try and educate them how to use condoms, they're still never going to be used correctly 100% of the time, and that's on top of the laughable 1% failure rate even in ideal circumstances. When you're talking about massive fuckfests like in Africa, a 1% failure rate means failrue is almost guaranteed to happen. In fact anyone who has sex more than 100 times is on borrowed time if their condom hadn't fucked them yet. (In Soviet Russia, condom fucks YOU!)


Its simple logic. It is difficult to supress instincts, especially in a society like that. A least with protection you have a physical means of ensuring it.

It's not about supressing instincts. It's about not giving in to temptation. That means understanding one's temptation. It's not unnatural, it's just excersizing self-control. In a society where chastity is focused on more, abstinence does not fail nearly as much (hardly at all actually).


Then more sex education. The courses you have over here really suck shit, at least back home our courses are thorough, and we have less than a quarter of the teen pregnancies you do.

1% failure rate, as I said, is ludicrous to begin with. Anyone who has sex more than a hundred times is going to get a failure. If a drive through town had a 1% chance of getting into an accident, I'd have gotten into twenty accidents already, and I've only driven for about a year.

There's nothing wrong with teen pregnancy anyway. Pregnancy, being a mother, and giving birth are beautiful things, even when the situation is not ideal.


I mean the junky peice of shit laws on slavery, sex and homosexuals that were written for a nomadic society and have no place in the modern world.

We've gone through those. You refuse to listen. I'm not getting into it right now.


Yet your religion is forcing homosexuals to stay unmarrried.

No, we're not. We simply do not recognize marriage as being valid between members of the same sex. It has nothing to do with sexual preference.


And btw, wrong is sbujective.

Everything we consider to be wrong can be traced to the depreciation of society.


Show something that has benefited society that the church has brought, that was not already there.

Jesus's message of forgiveness and loving thy neighbor was new to the Jews. So new they called Him a heretic for it. Until then, they were a very judgmental society who believed in getting people back for their transgressions and not letting anyone get away with disobeying the LORD.


Yet they quote the bible.

Anyone can "quote" the Bible and make it say anything. For example "Thou shalt... commit murder". By omitting the "not" and replacing it with the elipsis, the impression is delivered that the Bible really says to commit murder even though it says the opposite. It's a paraphrase and entirely ignorant.

[Ausinus]

Big deal about the Crusades, anyway. It was a war like any other. The Muslims stole our land and we were trying to get it back. It was slightly less atrocious than the Hiroshima bomb.

The crusades were the first time that Palestine had been under Catholic rule. It had never been your land prior to that. And they were far more atrocious than the Hiroshima bomb, the name crusade still strikes fear into the hearts of muslims. The crusaders slaughtered thousands of innocents.

And excuse you, thousands of Greeks, Armenians and Slavs were killed too. The fourth Crusade, where you pillaged the Byzantine Empire.


The Bible is not the only word of God we base our faith off of. We believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church (even if its people don't always follow) in the exact same way He guided the writing of the Bible.

If the church doesnt always follow the Holy Ghost, why do you trust it to make dogma?


Women not being allowed to speak in Church is obviously not the reason why they can't become Priests, because women frequently give homilies, read the readings, make announcements, Alter serve, Eucharistic minister, lead youth group, and a variety of other things. They just cannot administer the Sacrement of Reconcilliation or Consecration.

Sexist Bullshit.


We don't anymore. They were just extremely careful about preventing the spread of infection. This was also before the "let the man who has never sinned cast the first stone" thing.

Seems god is fickle, he changed his mind between the writing of the old and new testaments.


Very rare exceptions which often include abnormal hormones and/or childhood trauma. And sometimes they don't. It still stands to reason that confidence and the like are traits all men should have, even if women can have them as well. My point is that women and men are different.

Very rare, hardly. I love domineering women, it makes me glad to see them take charge.


More likely to get upset about little things. More likely to fall in love even if it means getting hurt. It also means they can be more compassionate in spite of other circumstances that can potentially detract from one's ability to show compassion. Women respond more emotionally to things associated with babies and infancy. Even some of the more domineering women I know say "awwww" when they see something "cute".

They are not necessarily weaker, in fact they are more emotional than men. I admire the empathy many women and some men have.


Men, on the other hand, or at least men with strong masculine traits, tend to be more emotionally stable, not reacting emotionally to cutesy infant things and less likely to become infatuated with a woman or to fall in love unless he really knows the woman well enough.

Men are brash, and more quick to act without thought, while women tend to think more carefully. They represent the ID, whereas women represent the superego.


Well that's different, isn't it? And technically it's not "gay rights" since the same rights apply to everyone.

They dont have the right to adopt, nor to marry who they want to.


Yes, people who claim to be Catholics and are at best Catholic once a week at Church, but go about their own way doing whatever-the-hell the rest of the week. What about it?

Why do you pick and choose which parts of your holy book to follow.


That's nonsense. If they didn't use condoms because of the Catholic missionaries, they wouldn't be screwing each other left and right and spreading it around either. No matter how much you try and educate them how to use condoms, they're still never going to be used correctly 100% of the time, and that's on top of the laughable 1% failure rate even in ideal circumstances. When you're talking about massive fuckfests like in Africa, a 1% failure rate means failrue is almost guaranteed to happen. In fact anyone who has sex more than 100 times is on borrowed time if their condom hadn't fucked them yet. (In Soviet Russia, condom fucks YOU!)

Once again, they are not controlling their urges, but thanks to those missionaries they have the belief that condoms are bad on them.


It's not about supressing instincts. It's about not giving in to temptation. That means understanding one's temptation. It's not unnatural, it's just excersizing self-control. In a society where chastity is focused on more, abstinence does not fail nearly as much (hardly at all actually).

It is about supressing the instinct to have sex. Thats what abstinence is. And, its unnatural. A society where chastity is focused on, that society must be pretty facist then.


1% failure rate, as I said, is ludicrous to begin with. Anyone who has sex more than a hundred times is going to get a failure. If a drive through town had a 1% chance of getting into an accident, I'd have gotten into twenty accidents already, and I've only driven for about a year.

Plus, there are variables in addition to it.


There's nothing wrong with teen pregnancy anyway. Pregnancy, being a mother, and giving birth are beautiful things, even when the situation is not ideal.

Yes there is, as the mother will suffer psychological trauma and additionally, they may not be able to support said child. I cant believe how insensetive to women you are.


No, we're not. We simply do not recognize marriage as being valid between members of the same sex. It has nothing to do with sexual preference.

By we, you mean you. I am of the belief, as many others are, that they are valid. Two men can share as much love as a man and a woman, and they can raise an adopted child too.


Anyone can "quote" the Bible and make it say anything. For example "Thou shalt... commit murder". By omitting the "not" and replacing it with the elipsis, the impression is delivered that the Bible really says to commit murder even though it says the opposite. It's a paraphrase and entirely ignorant.

Exactly. You quote the bible and make it say what you want, whereas other denominations, such as Anglicanism, intepret it in a different (IMO much better way).

[General Septem]

The crusades were the first time that Palestine had been under Catholic rule. It had never been your land prior to that. And they were far more atrocious than the Hiroshima bomb, the name crusade still strikes fear into the hearts of muslims. The crusaders slaughtered thousands of innocents.

And what about the persecution of Christians for years before that? Do you think the Muslims were completely innocent? Hiroshima still strikes fear in the hearts of the Japanese. They were smart though and decided to be our bitches instead of bitching.


If the church doesnt always follow the Holy Ghost, why do you trust it to make dogma?

I said the people don't always follow. The Holy Spirit still leads the Church, even if the people don't follow.


Sexist Bullshit.

It's not sexist. The only reason they cannot Consecreate the Eucharist is because a woman cannot symbolize Christ as the bridegroom of the Church. That doesn't make them inferior to us, just like water is not inferior to wine nor vice versa, but water cannot be used to symbolize the Blood of Christ.


Seems god is fickle, he changed his mind between the writing of the old and new testaments.

Nothing's changed. The methods of preventing the spread of infection still work today. It's just not as important to prevent the spread of infection anymore. It's good for our bodies but does little for the soul. We should take care of our bodies, but when it comes to preventing the spread of infection, that was what was called "rital law", not moral law. The Ritual law was and still is necessary in order to be Jewish, and includes circumcision. It's just not necessary to be Jewish to receive salvation through Christ our Lord.


Very rare, hardly. I love domineering women, it makes me glad to see them take charge.

They don't bother me either, but not when they try and take charge over me and aren't in a position of authority over me. Actually I should word that differently. Unless women are in a position of authority over me, women don't try and boss me around in the domineering sort of a way (playfully they do but that's alright, I just have fun with them). See my personality exudes confidence and leadership, and commands respect. People love me. I also make people feel comfortable around me. Women don't try and be domineering.


They are not necessarily weaker, in fact they are more emotional than men. I admire the empathy many women and some men have.

That's what I mean by emotionally weaker. They get upset easier; it goes with the territory of being more emotional. I admire their empathy too, though. Their weakness is their strength.


Men are brash, and more quick to act without thought, while women tend to think more carefully. They represent the ID, whereas women represent the superego.

See what I'm saying now? But both qualities are not only good but essential. That's what makes the union between a man and a woman so special, because it is the union and compliment between the masculine strengths and feminine strengths.


They dont have the right to adopt, nor to marry who they want to.

Nobody has the right to marry whomever they wish. Beelzebub however does have an adopted son.


Why do you pick and choose which parts of your holy book to follow.

What does this have to do with cafeteria Catholics?


Once again, they are not controlling their urges, but thanks to those missionaries they have the belief that condoms are bad on them.

You can't blame the missionaries then. They are teaching abstinence first and foremost. If they don't listen to that then you can't blame the missionairies for the Africans only listening to part of their message. And I still say the main reason for not using condoms is the inconvenience.


It is about supressing the instinct to have sex. Thats what abstinence is. And, its unnatural. A society where chastity is focused on, that society must be pretty facist then.

Not necessarily. Messages can be prevalent in society without being governmental decrees. For instance, popular conversation, media, and most importantly, family.

I'm not suppressing anything. I fully understand my desires and I choose to follow my love and not my lust. If I had sex it would mean nothing to me. This is my choice and fully my choice.


Plus, there are variables in addition to it.

That's why I said it's shit even in ideal circumstances.


Yes there is, as the mother will suffer psychological trauma and additionally, they may not be able to support said child. I cant believe how insensetive to women you are.

All mothers suffer psychological trauma and can't support their kids? Where do you get this from?

Yes there are hardships that come with it, but it is still a blessing.

You know what? Pardon me for saying the creation of life is a beautiful thing. Excuse me for holding women in the highest regard because of their ability to bear children. Fucking hell.


By we, you mean you. I am of the belief, as many others are, that they are valid. Two men can share as much love as a man and a woman, and they can raise an adopted child too.

We. The Church. The people to whom you were fucking referring when you said "Yet your religion is forcing..." to which I was replying. I was also replying to your statement by stating that we are not forcing anything. We simply do not recognize marriage between two men.

I do not deny that two men can share as much love as a man and a woman. But they are not of a complimentary relationship as a man and a woman are. There is no balance. Love is not wrong, but sexual immorality is.


Exactly. You quote the bible and make it say what you want,

There's really only one way to interpret it if you read the whole thing and don't twist its words around.


whereas other denominations, such as Anglicanism, intepret it in a different (IMO much better way).

Thank you for your criticism of religion, because we all know you're an expert. And I shall retort by stating I believe [insert random bumfuck evolutionist here] interprets Charles Darwin's work in a better way than [insert another random bumfuck evolutionist here].

[theicidal maniac]

the bottom line is that it is TOTALLY acceptable to persecute religious people for their religious convictions, because they chose to believe something stupid without any proof. There is no other category of knowledge where we would allow someone so much intellectual slack. If someone wants to believe that 2 + 2 is 5 (quantities, not symbols), that is thier business, but other people should definitely try to let this person know that there is nothing to support that claim, and if they refuse to listen we are more than justified to tease the living shit out of them ... unless they are retarded, which is why i cut Septem a break.

But when that person starts trying to pass legislation to make sure that our schools "teach the controversy" of the 4 theory versus the 5 theory, we gotta take action for our kids.

People kill eachother all the time, for legit reasons, or out of many motives, but imagine if they thought the cosmic quantity 5 would take your side in a battle against those who believe in 4. Would we respect people's beliefs then?

[Ausinus]

And what about the persecution of Christians for years before that? Do you think the Muslims were completely innocent?

And, again we lead back to the persecution of pagans. The muslims persecuted christians because the Byzantines had a particularly harsh rule over the Levant. Additionally, muslims caliphates often tolerated christians and jews. The same cannot be said of the Church.

[QUOTE]I said the people don't always follow. The Holy Spirit still leads the Church, even if the people don't follow.

Please, answer the question.


Nothing's changed. The methods of preventing the spread of infection still work today. It's just not as important to prevent the spread of infection anymore. It's good for our bodies but does little for the soul. We should take care of our bodies, but when it comes to preventing the spread of infection, that was what was called "rital law", not moral law. The Ritual law was and still is necessary in order to be Jewish, and includes circumcision. It's just not necessary to be Jewish to receive salvation through Christ our Lord.

I was talking about the let he or she who has not sinned cast the first stone.


Nobody has the right to marry whomever they wish. Beelzebub however does have an adopted son.

Great for him^_^. Ok now heterosexual marriage is a union between a consenting male and female of age. I dont see how this shouldnt apply to homosexuals.


What does this have to do with cafeteria Catholics?

I was referring to the fact many christians selectivley interpret the bible.


All mothers suffer psychological trauma and can't support their kids? Where do you get this from?

Teenage mothers may suffer psychological trauma etc.


I do not deny that two men can share as much love as a man and a woman. But they are not of a complimentary relationship as a man and a woman are. There is no balance. Love is not wrong, but sexual immorality is.

Immorality is purely subjective.


There's really only one way to interpret it if you read the whole thing and don't twist its words around.

Ok, so which way is it? The literal or the figurative?

[General Septem]

And, again we lead back to the persecution of pagans. The muslims persecuted christians because the Byzantines had a particularly harsh rule over the Levant. Additionally, muslims caliphates often tolerated christians and jews. The same cannot be said of the Church.

So basically the Muslims killed Christians, the Christians killed Muslims, the Pagans attacked Christians, the Christians fought back, and the line of bullshit continues. Who's to say the Church is more to blame than the Pagans, Muslims, or Jews? If Christianity was the minority then the heat would be on the Muslims or Pagans.


Please, answer the question.

Your question can no more be answered than "why is the sky red?". It isn't. You asked "if the Church doesn't always follow the Holy Ghost...". It does. How can I trust it to create dogma? Because the Church is led by the Holy Ghost. There's your answer. "If the Church doesn't follow..." doesn't play into the question because it implies the existence of a non-existent scenario.


I was talking about the let he or she who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Jesus was adding a privision to the previous laws that state "so and so should be stoned". They still should be stoned, but seeing as how we should all be stoned we cannot be the ones to sentence them to death. Furthermore, stoning people to death is likewise a ritual law that is only necessary in order to be Jewish. Before Jesus died on the cross, we did not receive salvation through Christ our Lord but through following all the rituals associated with being Jewish. Since Christ died for all of us, and not just the Jews, it is not necessary to be Jewish to receive salvation through Christ our Lord.


Great for him^_^. Ok now heterosexual marriage is a union between a consenting male and female of age. I dont see how this shouldnt apply to homosexuals.

More like single, consenting, and unrelated male and female. Saying "we should be able to marry whomever we want" is a fallicy because nobody has the right to marry whomever they wish, whether it's male, female, or whatever, and the reason marriage cannot apply to only single, consenting, and unrelated individuals is the same reason it can't apply to single, consenting, but not necessarily unrelated male and female, or married, consenting, unrelated male and female.

Any of these clauses, namely, that the individuals have to be consenting (and therefore of consenting age), unrelated, unmarried, and male and female are equally important as it pertains to marriage because the very definition of marriage includes it being between a male and female. Notice how sexual orientation does not even come into play.

If two men wanted to have a union as very good friends that included the right to see each other in the Intensive Care Unit and share tax benefits then perhaps there is nothing wrong with that, but it is not even close to being a marriage and never can be. Marriage between two men is a paradox by our definition of marriage.


I was referring to the fact many christians selectivley interpret the bible.

And they are wrong to do so. Your question was "Why do you pick and choose which parts of your holy book to follow.[sic]". My answer: How the hell should I know? I'm not a cafetira Catholic. I don't pick and choose which parts of the Church I follow. I don't know why some do.

Cafeteria Catholicism does not so much apply to following only some parts of Catholicism either as much as it's more being a wishy-washy Catholic. For instance, not going to Church when one feels like it, going by their own moral code based on their own desires, etc. "Picking and choosing Scripture" is not a fair description because Cafeteria Catholics rarely do anything religiously, but rather based on whatever they want.


Teenage mothers may suffer psychological trauma etc.

And again, many things are not in and of themselves bad or are even good even though they bring hardship. Some of the best things in life are not easy. Now the situation of being an unmarried teenage mother is not ideal, and certainly fornication is still wrong (even though the pregnancy is never an indicator of fornication having taken place), but the new life, the pregnancy, the state of being a mother are beautiful things.

I also personally know many single mothers who got pregnant in their teens, some of which are teens themselves, and also a pregnant single 18-year old, and not a single one of them wishes they did not have a baby. Not a single one of them does not love their baby more than you can imagine. It's just a little difficult, but they fight through that and never give up, and I have an incredible deal of respect for them for that. They love their children so much that nothing will get in the way of protecting and raising them.


Immorality is purely subjective.

Immorality by definition is wrong, so technically my assertion that "sexual immorality is wrong" needs no backing up; of course it's wrong, it's immorality.

So getting to your point, that what exactly constitutes sexual immorality is subjective. Immorality is never subjective. It's certainly not subjective when it comes to murdering people.


Ok, so which way is it? The literal or the figurative?

It's not just a matter of "literal or figurative". First off, we're not even talking about literal or figurative in this case, we're talking about people quoting some parts of the Bible and completely ignoring others. Catholics also do not believe in what is called "sola scriptura", which is the notion that the Scriptures include absolutely everything you'd ever need to know (or at least in matters of faith). For instance, the Bible would never discuss a topic that hasn't even come up until relatively recently.

So literal or figurative? Well the answer to that is wherever the meaning lies. In many cases the Word of God can be rightly interpreted a number of ways.

For instance, the Parable of the talents of gold, in which a master goes away and divides his wealth among his servants. He gives one five talents, one three talents, and gives the last one a single talent. The first two servants make more money with these talents and the final servant does absolutely nothing with it.

Now the most popular interpretation of this passage is that we should take what we are given and multiply it, and that is a valid and meaningful interpretation.

Another way of looking at it is to realize that people this rich, back then, did not acuire their money through morally equitable means. The last servant, not wishing to screw people over to get more money, decided to bury the money instead, understanding that just having that much money (a talent of gold is a shitload of bucks) could corrupt him. So in this interpretation, We can see how Jesus calls to mind how the just are often treated poorly and how the injust receieve their earthly reward. It's a message of comfort to the just who are similarly treated unfairly and encouragment for them to continue to do so even when it gets hard.

Which interpretation is right? Perhaps they both are. Both interpretations deliver a valid and meaningful message.

What this has to do with what we're talking about is basically, interpretation of the Bible is not just a black or white thing. It requires wisdom.

[theicidal maniac]

So basically the Muslims killed Christians, the Christians killed Muslims, the Pagans attacked Christians, the Christians fought back, and the line of bullshit continues. Who's to say the Church is more to blame than the Pagans, Muslims, or Jews? If Christianity was the minority then the heat would be on the Muslims or Pagans.

The fact that there is a central church that was driving the attacks, something that the other groups lack.


Your question can no more be answered than "why is the sky red?". It isn't. You asked "if the Church doesn't always follow the Holy Ghost...". It does. How can I trust it to create dogma? Because the Church is led by the Holy Ghost. There's your answer. "If the Church doesn't follow..." doesn't play into the question because it implies the existence of a non-existent scenario.

So the Holy Ghost was leading the crusades...I see!


Jesus was adding a privision to the previous laws that state "so and so should be stoned". They still should be stoned, but seeing as how we should all be stoned we cannot be the ones to sentence them to death. Furthermore, stoning people to death is likewise a ritual law that is only necessary in order to be Jewish. Before Jesus died on the cross, we did not receive salvation through Christ our Lord but through following all the rituals associated with being Jewish. Since Christ died for all of us, and not just the Jews, it is not necessary to be Jewish to receive salvation through Christ our Lord.

Jesus never said "He who is without sin..." that was added in the 5th century.


More like single, consenting, and unrelated male and female. Saying "we should be able to marry whomever we want" is a fallicy because nobody has the right to marry whomever they wish, whether it's male, female, or whatever, and the reason marriage cannot apply to only single, consenting, and unrelated individuals is the same reason it can't apply to single, consenting, but not necessarily unrelated male and female, or married, consenting, unrelated male and female.




Any of these clauses, namely, that the individuals have to be consenting (and therefore of consenting age), unrelated, unmarried, and male and female are equally important as it pertains to marriage because the very definition of marriage includes it being between a male and female. Notice how sexual orientation does not even come into play.

If two men wanted to have a union as very good friends that included the right to see each other in the Intensive Care Unit and share tax benefits then perhaps there is nothing wrong with that, but it is not even close to being a marriage and never can be. Marriage between two men is a paradox by our definition of marriage.

Well if you say it is against God's law to have premarital sex, and two men cannot get married, you are basically trying to ban homosexuality...ya know what, if you think it is wrong, then just don't do it...stay the hell out of Adam & Steve's business, unless it has something to do with you.


And they are wrong to do so. Your question was "Why do you pick and choose which parts of your holy book to follow.[sic]". My answer: How the hell should I know? I'm not a cafetira Catholic. I don't pick and choose which parts of the Church I follow. I don't know why some do.

Well, you don't kill people who try to sway your opinion, so you aren't following Deuteronomy, so you ARE picking and choosing. Do you give 10% of your posessions as a sacrifice to God? If you don't then you are not following the Bible, you are picking and choosing. In fact, cutting pieces out of the Tanakh to slim down the Old Testament is the very definition of "picking and choosing"


And again, many things are not in and of themselves bad or are even good even though they bring hardship.

So, then, this statement is false when I say it, but true when you say it...what a hypocrite


I also personally know many single mothers who got pregnant in their teens, some of which are teens themselves, and also a pregnant single 18-year old, and not a single one of them wishes they did not have a baby. Not a single one of them does not love their baby more than you can imagine. It's just a little difficult, but they fight through that and never give up, and I have an incredible deal of respect for them for that. They love their children so much that nothing will get in the way of protecting and raising them.

And that is commendable, but not REcommendable


Immorality by definition is wrong, so technically my assertion that "sexual immorality is wrong" needs no backing up; of course it's wrong, it's immorality.

immorality changes from culture to culture...so it is not WRONG because it is WRONG, it is wrong because of the social norms of the area, so it is totally subjective


So getting to your point, that what exactly constitutes sexual immorality is subjective. Immorality is never subjective. It's certainly not subjective when it comes to murdering people.

Well as we just saw...this is incorrect. Travel and you'll understand.


It's not just a matter of "literal or figurative". First off, we're not even talking about literal or figurative in this case, we're talking about people quoting some parts of the Bible and completely ignoring others. Catholics also do not believe in what is called "sola scriptura", which is the notion that the Scriptures include absolutely everything you'd ever need to know (or at least in matters of faith). For instance, the Bible would never discuss a topic that hasn't even come up until relatively recently.

Why not?...I thought God's laws were supposed to be eternal and all-encompassing. Why would the Old Testament be filled with laws about how to deal with a man who inadvertantly killed one of your goats?

Oh yeah, cuz HUMANS WROTE IT.


So literal or figurative? Well the answer to that is wherever the meaning lies. In many cases the Word of God can be rightly interpreted a number of ways.

which leaves it in the hands of the beholder. So therefore, we choose the meaning that best fits our lives, so not only are the scriptures themselves being picked and chosen, but also the very MEANINGS as well. Wow, what a flawless system your all-intelligent creator has set up for you. OH LOOK, I DO GET SARCASM!


What this has to do with what we're talking about is basically, interpretation of the Bible is not just a black or white thing. It requires wisdom.

You are a flip-flopper.

[General Septem]

So the Holy Ghost was leading the crusades...I see!

No, the Crusades were led by people within the Church.


Jesus never said "He who is without sin..." that was added in the 5th century.

I love how atheists pull shit like this out of their ass whenever they're proven wrong.


Well if you say it is against God's law to have premarital sex, and two men cannot get married, you are basically trying to ban homosexuality...ya know what, if you think it is wrong, then just don't do it...stay the hell out of Adam & Steve's business, unless it has something to do with you.

I'm not trying to ban it. I just think it's wrong. I'm an anarchist; I believe people should do right for the sake of doing right.


Well, you don't kill people who try to sway your opinion, so you aren't following Deuteronomy, so you ARE picking and choosing. Do you give 10% of your posessions as a sacrifice to God? If you don't then you are not following the Bible, you are picking and choosing. In fact, cutting pieces out of the Tanakh to slim down the Old Testament is the very definition of "picking and choosing"

It's a matter of the difference between ritual law and moral law, not picking and choosing.


So, then, this statement is false when I say it, but true when you say it...what a hypocrite

No, you said right and wrong are subjective and that there is no clear cut difference between them. I'm saying that there are things that are good, even when they bring about hardship and even when they are brought about by bad things. Fornication is wrong, trying to support a kid by yourself is difficult. But having a baby and being a mother is a beautiful thing. That's entirely different from your assertion that morality is subjective.


And that is commendable, but not REcommendable

No, if you have kids it is not only commendable but highly recommendable that you protect and raise them.

Deciding to have kids when you are a single teenage mother is what's not recommendable, or commendable for that matter.

Actually having a child and being a mother on the other hand is a beautiful thing, even when the circumstances are not ideal.

The decision to get pregnant when you are a single teenage mother is not commendable or recommendable.

I'm sure you wouldn't understand since it may be a little too deep for someone whose avatar consists of a drop of piss and a pile of shit with eyes.


Well as we just saw...this is incorrect. Travel and you'll understand.

Laws may change from place to place but morality, which is the core of all just law, never changes. I've traveled a lot actually.


Why not?...I thought God's laws were supposed to be eternal and all-encompassing. Why would the Old Testament be filled with laws about how to deal with a man who inadvertantly killed one of your goats?

God's word is eternal and all-encompassing. It is just not entirely stated in the Bible. It manifests itself through the Church as well.


which leaves it in the hands of the beholder. So therefore, we choose the meaning that best fits our lives, so not only are the scriptures themselves being picked and chosen, but also the very MEANINGS as well.

I said it can rightly be interpreted a number of ways. That doesn't mean it's up to the hands of the beholder to pick and choose which interpretation is right; it means sometimes there are several interpretations and they are all right.

You remind me of a typical politician. Always putting up straw man arguments and accusing people of sending double messages in the hopes that someone will read your posts and not realize it's all bullshit.

[theicidal maniac]

No, the Crusades were led by people within the Church.

But you said: "How can I trust it to create dogma? Because the Church is led by the Holy Ghost. There's your answer. "If the Church doesn't follow..." doesn't play into the question because it implies the existence of a non-existent scenario."
Well the church got pulled into the crusades, so who was leading that...the Holy Ghost or men? If you say it was men, then you can't trust dogma based on this explanation and you can't claim that it is a non-existent scenario.
So what are you trying to pull?


I love how atheists pull shit like this out of their ass whenever they're proven wrong.

First, you have failed to prove me wrong anywhere. But then again "PROOF" isn't really your game, is it? It isn't just atheists friend. Also Bible Scholars and Historians say that this story wasn't in the New Testament until the 5th century. A LOT of stuff wasn't in the Bible until the 5th century C. E., and A LOT of stuff kinda just dissappeared at that time too.


I'm not trying to ban it. I just think it's wrong. I'm an anarchist; I believe people should do right for the sake of doing right.

You aren't an anarchist. You can't claim anarchy AND support the dogma of a zionist religion


It's a matter of the difference between ritual law and moral law, not picking and choosing.

paint it with whatever brush you want, the result is the same; there are portions of the bible that even you do not deem fit for inclusion in your life.


No, you said right and wrong are subjective and that there is no clear cut difference between them. I'm saying that there are things that are good, even when they bring about hardship and even when they are brought about by bad things. Fornication is wrong, trying to support a kid by yourself is difficult. But having a baby and being a mother is a beautiful thing. That's entirely different from your assertion that morality is subjective.

No i didn't say there is no difference between right and wrong. I said there is no clear cut line BETWEEN THEM...there is no clear borderline. Poor, POOR comprehension skills I say! But the very idea of what is right and what is wrong is an arbitrary assignment that societies make. Secular societies base right and wrong on human suffering whereas religious societies base them on archaic texts written by more primitive societies


No, if you have kids it is not only commendable but highly recommendable that you protect and raise them.

Sure. Once they are born. But your jizz is not your kid. There's a big difference. An embryo is not the same as your four month old daughter that you have grown to love more than anything else in the world...a clump of cells is no comparison. Take it from a proud father.


Actually having a child and being a mother on the other hand is a beautiful thing, even when the circumstances are not ideal.

unfortunately this is not always true, i wish it were, but it isn't. There are many scenarios in which white trash bastards who don't give a damn for anything but themselves have babies and treat them like shit and drown one of them in the tub or shake them when they are babies or beat them to death when they are teens.......etc...........etc.........etc


I'm sure you wouldn't understand since it may be a little too deep for someone whose avatar consists of a drop of piss and a pile of shit with eyes.

Don't you dare tell me you didn't laugh when you saw that, you lying LIAR!...besides, what the fuck could you have to say about someone ELSE's avatar...you are a major nerd, dude.


Laws may change from place to place but morality, which is the core of all just law, never changes. I've traveled a lot actually.

New Jersey isn't travelling. And you have the wrong idea about morality. May I syggest Marc D. Hauser's "Moral Minds" for a clearer understanding, since your logic center seems to be failing you.


God's word is eternal and all-encompassing. It is just not entirely stated in the Bible. It manifests itself through the Church as well.

Again....

Well the church got pulled into the crusades, so who was manifesting themselves then?...the God or men? If you say it was men, then you can't trust dogma based on this explanation and you can't claim that it is a non-existent scenario. We have already established that your church's integrity is compromised
what are you trying to pull?


I said it can rightly be interpreted a number of ways. That doesn't mean it's up to the hands of the beholder to pick and choose which interpretation is right; it means sometimes there are several interpretations and they are all right.

That's what interpretation MEANS. It's the definition. The beholder interprets.


You remind me of a typical politician. Always putting up straw man arguments and accusing people of sending double messages in the hopes that someone will read your posts and not realize it's all bullshit.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm....even if you are right about this, which you are not, I am still right about your double messages. ass.

[General Septem]

But you said: "How can I trust it to create dogma? Because the Church is led by the Holy Ghost. There's your answer. "If the Church doesn't follow..." doesn't play into the question because it implies the existence of a non-existent scenario."
Well the church got pulled into the crusades, so who was leading that...the Holy Ghost or men? If you say it was men, then you can't trust dogma based on this explanation and you can't claim that it is a non-existent scenario.
So what are you trying to pull?

Because it wasn't the Church in the Crusades, it was the leaders of the Church.


First, you have failed to prove me wrong anywhere. But then again "PROOF" isn't really your game, is it? It isn't just atheists friend. Also Bible Scholars and Historians say that this story wasn't in the New Testament until the 5th century. A LOT of stuff wasn't in the Bible until the 5th century C. E., and A LOT of stuff kinda just dissappeared at that time too.

And I've yet to see proof of this.


You aren't an anarchist. You can't claim anarchy AND support the dogma of a zionist religion

Catholicism isn't zionist, and I'm a Conservative Anarchist. I believe certain things are wrong, but I think people should do right for the sake of doing right, not because of the government.


paint it with whatever brush you want, the result is the same; there are portions of the bible that even you do not deem fit for inclusion in your life.

I can't believe you don't get it. I think you're just holding onto the only thing you feel like you can hold against us, even though you really can't.


No i didn't say there is no difference between right and wrong. I said there is no clear cut line BETWEEN THEM...there is no clear borderline. Poor, POOR comprehension skills I say! But the very idea of what is right and what is wrong is an arbitrary assignment that societies make. Secular societies base right and wrong on human suffering whereas religious societies base them on archaic texts written by more primitive societies

On the contrary, the Catholic Church recognizes mitigating circumstances in which certain acts can be either right or wrong. For example, killing someone is justified if it is to defend the innocent. Murder is wrong because it is the killing of someone without justifiable cause.


Sure. Once they are born. But your jizz is not your kid. There's a big difference. An embryo is not the same as your four month old daughter that you have grown to love more than anything else in the world...a clump of cells is no comparison. Take it from a proud father.

No, an embryo is not a four month old daughter, an embryo is your four week old daughter.


unfortunately this is not always true, i wish it were, but it isn't. There are many scenarios in which white trash bastards who don't give a damn for anything but themselves have babies and treat them like shit and drown one of them in the tub or shake them when they are babies or beat them to death when they are teens.......etc...........etc.........etc

Beating a child is not a beautiful thing. It is a disgusting thing. But the creation of life is beautiful.


Don't you dare tell me you didn't laugh when you saw that, you lying LIAR!...besides, what the fuck could you have to say about someone ELSE's avatar...you are a major nerd, dude.

Haha, yeah, human excrement, that's great humor. XD

I'm a nerd? The only way you could think I'm a nerd because of my avatar is if you even know what it is. And I'm not the nerd, I didn't initially pick out my avatar. I just carried it over from another forum where avatars are given by the admin. :D


New Jersey isn't travelling. And you have the wrong idea about morality. May I syggest Marc D. Hauser's "Moral Minds" for a clearer understanding, since your logic center seems to be failing you.

No, but Italy is.

[theicidal maniac]

Because it wasn't the Church in the Crusades, it was the leaders of the Church.

ARE YOU FOR REAL? That might be the dumbest fucking thing you have ever said, and you have said some pretty fucking dumb shit. What is the seperation between the church and it's leaders? Jesus titty-fucking Christ that was a stupid thing to say.


And I've yet to see proof of this.

so you don't believe it? There is no proof for any of the God and Jesus shit you believe. None. You are the one making outrageous claims about the nature of the universe...the burden of proof is on you.


Catholicism isn't zionist,

What do you call the fucking Vatican?


and I'm a Conservative Anarchist. I believe certain things are wrong, but I think people should do right for the sake of doing right, not because of the government.

That's not true...you think people should not do CERTAIN things because the Bible SAYS they are wrong. Your idea of right and wrong has nothing to do with human suffering, which is a much better guage of what we should and should not try to do with our lives. And I'm sure you will be thinking, "sin CAUSES human suffering in Hell"...well
A) Hell is just pretend,
B) Being good to avoid punishment is not truly being good at all


I can't believe you don't get it. I think you're just holding onto the only thing you feel like you can hold against us, even though you really can't.

READ IT AGAIN...paint it with whatever brush you want, the result is the same; there are portions of the bible that even you do not deem fit for inclusion in your life.
Try refuting that instead of crying...that'd be a more effective argument.


On the contrary, the Catholic Church recognizes mitigating circumstances in which certain acts can be either right or wrong. For example, killing someone is justified if it is to defend the innocent. Murder is wrong because it is the killing of someone without justifiable cause.

But they didn't exist when the Bible was written, so what the hell do they know?


No, an embryo is not a four month old daughter, an embryo is your four week old daughter.

Actually, here's the problem with that statement ... IT HASN'T EVEN TAKEN ON A SEX YET AT THAT POINT! So it is NOT a daughter.


Beating a child is not a beautiful thing. It is a disgusting thing. But the creation of life is beautiful.

but that isn't what you said. You said "...being a mother on the other hand is a beautiful thing, even when the circumstances are not ideal." Did you forget that we have access to the things you said earlier? Were you hoping I forgot?


Haha, yeah, human excrement, that's great humor. XD

Well that's the basis of your beliefs, really. Human excrement. It's time to flush.


I'm a nerd?

I know, Genny


The only way you could think I'm a nerd because of my avatar is if you even know what it is. And I'm not the nerd, I didn't initially pick out my avatar. I just carried it over from another forum where avatars are given by the admin. :D

I have no idea what it is, but I've seen your greasy-ass myspace photo...you didn't even comb your hair? tisk tisk


No, but Italy is.uh-huh...home of the Vatican right? That's like A muslim going to Mecca and calling it travelling. I'm kidding of course. Seriously though, there are civilizations with "morals" COMPLETELY different than ours...PROVING that it is subjective.

[General Septem]

What is the seperation between the church and it's leaders?

The Church includes the leaders, doctrine, congregation, and the Church as a whole. The Crusades were led by a few people within the Church.


so you don't believe it? There is no proof for any of the God and Jesus shit you believe. None. You are the one making outrageous claims about the nature of the universe...the burden of proof is on you.

Telling someone the burden of proof lies on them is no way to prove a point.


What do you call the fucking Vatican?

A small piece of land owned by the Church?


That's not true...you think people should not do CERTAIN things because the Bible SAYS they are wrong. Your idea of right and wrong has nothing to do with human suffering, which is a much better guage of what we should and should not try to do with our lives. And I'm sure you will be thinking, "sin CAUSES human suffering in Hell"...well
A) Hell is just pretend,
B) Being good to avoid punishment is not truly being good at all

Every recognized sin causes suffering in one form or another. What leads to hell on Earth leads to Hell in the afterlife. There is no such thing as a sin that only hurts people by landing them in Hell.


READ IT AGAIN...paint it with whatever brush you want, the result is the same; there are portions of the bible that even you do not deem fit for inclusion in your life.

Yes, these parts of the Bible are said in the New Testament to not apply to us, when Paul (I think) said "It is by faith that we are saved, not by works of the law". When you read the entire letter you can see he is referring to the old Jewish laws like circumcision. These are ritual laws that are and only have ever been necessary to be Jewish, not to receive salvation. It does not make these words invalid, it means they do not apply to us. Moral laws, like don't fuck other men in the ass are not the same thing.


But they didn't exist when the Bible was written, so what the hell do they know?

We believe the Catholic Church is led by the Holy Spirit, in the same way the writing of the Bible was. The later Old Testament writers didn't exist when the earlier Old Testament was written either.


Actually, here's the problem with that statement ... IT HASN'T EVEN TAKEN ON A SEX YET AT THAT POINT! So it is NOT a daughter.

Yes, she has. She may not have recognizable sexual organs, but her DNA is as it will be her entire life, including all chromosomes associated with gender. Our DNA is determined at the moment the spermatoza meets the egg. You fail.


but that isn't what you said. You said "...being a mother on the other hand is a beautiful thing, even when the circumstances are not ideal." Did you forget that we have access to the things you said earlier? Were you hoping I forgot?

Being a mother is a beautiful thing. Beating your child is not, but you are still his mother. In fact, the fact that one is a mother makes beating one's kid even worse, because she's not only harming her child but betraying one of the greatest gifts given to her, and that is the privilege of being a mother.


I have no idea what it is, but I've seen your greasy-ass myspace photo...you didn't even comb your hair? tisk tisk

My hair is usually in a ponytail so I don't need to comb it, save for when I get out of the shower. As for being greasy, why do you think they call us guinea greaseballs? :D


uh-huh...home of the Vatican right? That's like A muslim going to Mecca and calling it travelling. Seriously though, there are civilizations with "morals COMPLETELY different than ours...PROVING that it is subjective.

Who's to say they've got it right? Iraqi "morals" used to include Sadaam raping his citizens. And no, the Vatican is its own country, completely separate from Italy.

[who897]

Yall are getting way to fucking rediculous w/ this reply to everything that is said for each point someone makes. Pick the best 3 and go w/ it.

[theicidal maniac]

The Church includes the leaders, doctrine, congregation, and the Church as a whole. The Crusades were led by a few people within the Church.

Leaders dispense doctrine, congregation follows it. Leaders LEAD THE CHURCH...that's what a leader does. This statement you made here is just STUPID.


Telling someone the burden of proof lies on them is no way to prove a point.

Because there is no NEED for me to. Again, YOU are the one making outrageous claims about the nature of the universe.


A small piece of land owned by the Church?

mmmm...right....small
It's a CITY. Run by the Catholic Church. That is Zionism.


Every recognized sin causes suffering in one form or another. What leads to hell on Earth leads to Hell in the afterlife. There is no such thing as a sin that only hurts people by landing them in Hell.

Prove this. Hell isn't admissable. It's speculative. Anal sex hurts no one except the catcher, and if the catcher is consenting that is that persons business.

AGAIN (b-cuz you can't defeat this)...
you think people should not do CERTAIN things because the Bible SAYS they are wrong. Your idea of right and wrong has nothing to do with human suffering, which is a much better guage of what we should and should not try to do with our lives. And I'm sure you will be thinking, "sin CAUSES human suffering in Hell"...well
A) Hell is just pretend,
B) Being good to avoid punishment is not truly being good at all


Yes, these parts of the Bible are said in the New Testament to not apply to us, when Paul (I think) said "It is by faith that we are saved, not by works of the law". When you read the entire letter you can see he is referring to the old Jewish laws like circumcision. These are ritual laws that are and only have ever been necessary to be Jewish, not to receive salvation. It does not make these words invalid, it means they do not apply to us. Moral laws, like don't fuck other men in the ass are not the same thing.

Hey wait...when did Paul write that stuff? OH YEAH...I REMEMBER...ya know what's fun...go to google or ask.com and type in "was added centuries after Jesus's time" just for shits and giggles to see all the crap your church has added in. It's Great.


We believe the Catholic Church is led by the Holy Spirit, in the same way the writing of the Bible was. The later Old Testament writers didn't exist when the earlier Old Testament was written either.

That doesn't even address my question.


Yes, she has. She may not have recognizable sexual organs, but her DNA is as it will be her entire life, including all chromosomes associated with gender. Our DNA is determined at the moment the spermatoza meets the egg. You fail.

your liver also carries this DNA...and your fingernail clippings. And your jizz...in fact you can theoretically reconstruct someone using a piece of them...doesn't make that PIECE a HUMAN BEING. If you think an embryo is the same as a human you have very little respect for what it is to be human. The human embryo is not distinguishable from a bat embryo nor does it have any different behavioural characteristics. Ask yourself, "what makes a human distinctly human?" Does an embryonic cell posess those properties?


Being a mother is a beautiful thing. Beating your child is not, but you are still his mother. In fact, the fact that one is a mother makes beating one's kid even worse, because she's not only harming her child but betraying one of the greatest gifts given to her, and that is the privilege of being a mother.

AND YOU HAD SAID "...being a mother on the other hand is a beautiful thing, even when the circumstances are not ideal" to suggest that it is wrong to terminate that non-sentient embryo. So these kids that are born to unloving situations and are drowned by their redneck parents in the tub...they are better off to have been born? Answer that with a YES or a NO please, because either you believe that or you don't.


My hair is usually in a ponytail so I don't need to comb it, save for when I get out of the shower. As for being greasy, why do you think they call us guinea greaseballs? :D

I don't really care about this.


Who's to say they've got it right? Iraqi "morals" used to include Sadaam raping his citizens. And no, the Vatican is its own country, completely separate from Italy.

Nobody is to say ANYONE has it right, although there are certain morals that I think are clearly superior. SUPERIOR, not PERFECT. And rape was NEVER part of the moral code there. That's just silly.

[General Septem]

Yall are getting way to fucking rediculous w/ this reply to everything that is said for each point someone makes. Pick the best 3 and go w/ it.

Eh, I agree, but I've been trying to cut useless replies rather than just picking three. :D

[General Septem]

Leaders dispense doctrine, congregation follows it. Leaders LEAD THE CHURCH...that's what a leader does. This statement you made here is just STUPID.

The Crusades were not an act of the Church but of people within the Church. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit.


Because there is no NEED for me to. Again, YOU are the one making outrageous claims about the nature of the universe.

It's still no way to prove a point, and bad rhetoric. My "outrageous claims" were the popular belief until recently, so maybe you're the one who needs to prove it. So instead of getting caught up on who needs to prove what, why don't we just worry about ourselves and our own arguments?

I mean, it's not like you can make claims like "lol half the Bible wasn't written until 500 AD" and then tell me to prove God exists, knowing full well that from a scientific standpoint, faith is something that can't be proven. That's why it's faith. My faith comes from my wisdom, and I can't prove the existence of God to someone who doesn't have wisdom. Using this situation to your advantage by saying whatever the hell you want and telling me to prove otherwise is no way of arguing.


mmmm...right....small
It's a CITY. Run by the Catholic Church. That is Zionism.

It's owned by the Church, so it's not like they're not justified in running it. Besides, it's not like anyone lives there for them to "rule over" besides the Cardinals and those fruity looking guards. By the way, Zionism is the Jewish political movement supporting the enstatement of a Jewish State in the land of Israel.


Prove this. Hell isn't admissable. It's speculative. Anal sex hurts no one except the catcher, and if the catcher is consenting that is that persons business.

No, but sexual immorality as a whole makes its way into society and demeans our morals. The sacntity of marital relations is highly important to a successful marriage, and a successful marriage is key to the family unit. Most psychological problems stem from family life, and in the same way, most highly acheiving personalities stem from a family environment in which confidence and achievement was prevalent.


AGAIN (b-cuz you can't defeat this)...
[I]you think people should not do CERTAIN things because the Bible SAYS they are wrong. Your idea of right and wrong has nothing to do with human suffering, which is a much better guage of what we should and should not try to do with our lives.

And again, there is no sin that does not cause human suffering.


Hey wait...when did Paul write that stuff? [B]OH YEAH...I REMEMBER...ya know what's fun...go to google or ask.com and type in "was added centuries after Jesus's time" just for shits and giggles to see all the crap your church has added in. It's Great.

And because it's Google.com that information is 100% verified, even though the only results you're bound to get are staunch anti-religion sites, not legitimate history thesises, and even though Google.com also links to The Guardian.

The rest of us will go by historical evidence, that 1 Corinthians was written in the mid to late 50s AD, and the rest of Paul's letters shortly thereafter.

By the way, just because the books of the Bible weren't officially compiled until around 200 AD, doesn't mean they're the ones that wrote it. See until then they just had a bunch of books and letters floating around.


That doesn't even address my question.

You made the assertion that because the Catholic Church didn't exist when the Bible was written, they don't know enough about its intentions to make doctrine of their own. That's just ignorant. And yes, my reply does address the question; we're being led by the same Holy Spirit.


your liver also carries this DNA...and your fingernail clippings. And your jizz...in fact you can theoretically reconstruct someone using a piece of them...doesn't make that PIECE a HUMAN BEING. If you think an embryo is the same as a human you have very little respect for what it is to be human. The human embryo is not distinguishable from a bat embryo nor does it have any different behavioural characteristics. Ask yourself, "what makes a human distinctly human?" Does an embryonic cell posess those properties?

That's not what I'm talking about. I was responding to your claim that an embryo does not have a sex, and it does. I can refute your other claims but this is not an abortion thread.


AND YOU HAD SAID "...being a mother on the other hand is a beautiful thing, even when the circumstances are not ideal" to suggest that it is wrong to terminate that non-sentient embryo.

I never even brought abortion into the equation. It started with an exchange between Ausinus and myself, which you weren't even a part of, regarding teen pregnancies. Something about how Austrailia only has a quarter of the teen pregnancies America does. I was just saying, getting pregnant as an unmarried teen is not advisable, but the creation of life and being a mother are still beautiful things and always will be. You're the one who turned it around and made it about abortion.

By "less than ideal circumstances", I was referring to the mother still being a teenager and having to struggle to raise her child. It's a hard thing to do, but hardship is often part of being a mother. And a father for that matter.

But see, you like to group everything into one big thing. You think that just because someone is born into a life of suffering, that the creation of their very life, a completely different thing altogether, is all of a sudden not a beautiful thing because it led to their suffering. The creation of life does not lead to suffering. Bad shit like getting drunk and beating your kid leads to suffering.


So these kids that are born to unloving situations and are drowned by their redneck parents in the tub...they are better off to have been born? Answer that with a YES or a NO please, because either you believe that or you don't.

Yes, they are better off to have been born. As I said before, the creation of life does not lead to suffering, bad shit like getting drunk and beating your kid leads to suffering. And just how often do scenarios like this come about when we're talking about teen pregnancy anyway?


I don't really care about this.

Then you shouldn't have called me greasy, you communist kraut-mick jewbag. :D


Nobody is to say ANYONE has it right, although there are certain morals that I think are clearly superior. SUPERIOR, not PERFECT. And rape was NEVER part of the moral code there. That's just silly.

Rape was a part of their government. So how do you determine a society's moral code? What, do I really have to point out their other moral codes, like suicide bombing American soldiers?

[theicidal maniac]

The Crusades were not an act of the Church but of people within the Church. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit.

Then what do the leaders do?


I can't prove the existence of God to someone who doesn't have wisdom.

Actually, you can't PROVE it to anyone, can you? You can only hope that they "FEEL" it.




No, but sexual immorality as a whole makes its way into society and demeans our morals.

OUR morals...not a higher morality...things change, usually for the better, you religious types better get used to that.

And again, there is no sin that does not cause human suffering.

It depends on what you call a sin, if you start a church and name a bunch of shit "SINS" that doesn't mean that they hurt anyone. If I stub my toe and say "JESUS TITTY-FUCKING CHRIST!" to myself....who did I hurt?

Those are the three topics I went with
As to the rest of the shit you said it's all garbage anyway, and you just don't want to accept that there is no reason for your belief, so you are, in the literal sense, an ignorant fool.