Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on July 17, 2007 By Dr Guy In Religion

One of our esteemed members decided to post an article concerning a religion where he stated:

I should comment that I am pretty much against the Catholic Church

Some of the reasons he stated are historical, if somewhat prejudicial, and are ones that the Church in the modern era has had to deal with in their quest to return to its roots - that of being a faith based, and not a political based organization. And some are an attempt to bestow upon an fallible organization a measure of perfection that does not exist in this world.  And still others are a gross mis-interpretation of a teaching that many do not understand, yet continue to decry and denounce in their ignorance.

Let us look at these three different aspects of these accusations.

The first is easy enough to identify.  They deal with Historical facts.  The inquisition, the heresy of Galileo, and the Crusades.  All of these are historical facts, that are undeniable.  And to deny them would be akin to denying the holocaust.  But they are historical.  The implication in the linked article is that since these were done in the name of the Church, then all descendants must bear the shame of those forefathers.  That those descendants must renounce their faith, because the Church (not the faith) is imperfect and has done evil.  They are guilty, because their ancestors are guilty.  And not even necessarily their ancestors, but the acquaintances of some of their ancestors.

It matters not that the descendants have apologized for those deeds. It matters not that the descendants have repudiated the deeds.  It matters only that those deeds were committed by the fathers, and thus the sins must be visited upon the children.

Now we come to the point where this faith based organization must know not only all that has been, but all that will be.  In 1933, the Church signed a concordat with a sovereign nation stating they would get out of Politics.  Something they had been in since Constantine back during the Roman Empire.  Something they were never meant to be.  And something they should never have been.  And yet, into the 20th century, they were still involved with the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire.  So they got out.  By signing an agreement with the government of Germany.  At the time, a democratically elected government whose primary concerns were not with ruling the world (that would come later), but in getting the country out of the worst depression they had ever seen.

While this was a mistake, at the time, no one knew the evil that was to occur under the new leadership of Germany.  But we are to believe, again, that this is a heinous crime.  And the crime was in not being omniscient.  They should have known that the evil was to come, and never signed the agreement, and that they did sign it before the evil was perpetrated upon the world, is irrelevant.  For they must be omniscient.  Because people say they are.

And because they signed this agreement, then all the works of the Catholics throughout Europe,  those who sacrificed their lives for the persecuted, was just a dog and pony show.  Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  hey!  They must have been pretending.

Finally we come to modern day deeds.  Yes, what WE do today WE are responsible for.  At least in most circles.  But what did the Church do in the current day?  There are 2 charges.

One: The participation in the genocide in Rwanda by priests and nuns,

Two: Hundreds of years (no kidding or exaggeration) of tacitly permitting the sexual abuse of parishioners, specifically including children, by priests

That is right.  The church and all 1.1 billion members participated in the genocide in Rwanda.  And not another soul in the world did so.  Nope, none of the other 5 billion people participated, just the 1 billion Catholics.  And how did they participate?  How many people were killed by Catholics?  Well, that gets kind of murky, since even the author does not indicate that a single Catholic raised up arms against the Hutus and Tutsis.  NO, the only allegation is that they did nothing.  But the other 5 billion people sure did a lot, right?  They sure stopped the massacre from happening!  I remember well, the brigades of Americans (non-catholic of course), Israelis, English, French, and Germans marching in there to stop this slaughter.  I remember it very well.  Maybe you do as well?

But not the Catholics.  Not a single Catholic sacrificed their lives for that massacre.

And the pedophilia?  Yep!  A crime that did not exist prior to it being discovered in the church, and what is even better, would not exist were it not for the church.  And its 1 billion members!  That is right!  You heard it here first!  The Church, and its 1 billion members are all pedophiles, or so we are to believe.  Because only Catholics are pedophiles, and they must all be because we have found some priests that are.

Forget those men behind the curtain: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

Forget the hundreds of instances where headlines have blared that "This teacher and that teacher" is convicted of it (they must all be Catholics too). Forget all the felons rotting in jail (they are all Catholics too).  Just concentrate on the 13,000 charges (not all proven yet - except the fact they are Catholics) in the last 50 odd years against those evil Catholics.  Do away with those Catholics, and problem solved!  You do not need to worry about any one else!

No way is it possible that perhaps those inclined to pedophilia are attracted to occupations that put them in contact with children.  No, all those teachers are Catholics, all those Felons are Catholics, and all those Protestant ministers, Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Imams are really Catholics in disguise.  Problem solved.  The final solution is to kill all the Catholics.

Then we have this statement: When Ratzinger was a Cardinal, he helped conceal the severity of the problem. And this is the man that has the audacity to say that you are "wounded" in your beliefs if you do not acknowledge him?

Yes, the author now is an expert on theology, and knows more about interfaith dialog than any one else.  So he can now state the intent and reason for the claim of "wounded" irregardless of its context: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288976,00.html

Let just pretend again that the Pope (who is all Catholics after all), is again saying that, now not only all Muslims are evil (Exact quote from Manuel Il Paleologus, a Byzantine Emperor, not a pope):

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

Since he quotes a historical text to a CLASS on theology, he must have originated the quote, and firmly believes in it.  Just like the statement he re-released recently that the experts in the media took to be a slam on protestant churches, instead of what it was.  A re-statement of a working paper for the reconciliation of all Christian faiths. "The wound" that is talked about is reflected in the Popes belief that his faith is the right one.  But as we can guess from these wanna-bee Theological experts in the mainstream media and elsewhere, ONLY Catholics believe that.  All other people of faith must then believe that their faith is not the right one, and they are just waiting on a street corner for a bus to come along with a better one.

I guess we have 5 billion people that just cant wait to find a better creed and faith.

And finally we get to the last item.  One corrected so many times, it truly boggles the mind that people would continue to perpetrate it.  I guess some just love to revel in their ignorance instead of trying to discern the truth, or even seeking it.  Even worse, when presented with the truth, they chose to ignore it, because ignorance is so much more fun.  But for the record:

Pope ... ....always correct and infallible...

Is incorrect.  The pope is only infallible when he goes Ex-cathedra, which means speaking for the faithful, and that has occurred only twice in the last 500 years.  All the other times, he is speaking as the leader of the faithful - much like Bush speaks for all Americans (ha ha).  He is the head teacher, as the role of priest has its roots in the Jewish faith, and that of the Rabbi - which means teacher, his words carry more weight than the other teachers and the students.  But last I checked, no teacher is right all the time, and no man is either.  And the Pope, outside of his role as head teacher, is just that.  A man.

So please, slam those 1 billion plus Catholics for all these sins.  We can even make a special place for them, since they are all evil and do only evil.  But at least get your facts right when you are marching them to the gallows.


Comments (Page 8)
8 PagesFirst 6 7 8 
on Aug 23, 2007
Calling humans "totally distinctive" is complete and total bogus bull. I wouldn't be surprised if it was entirely routed in a religious belief.

Before you start trying to make scientific arguments. Maybe you should know what science thinks of your idea that we are totally distinctive and exceedingly intricate.

"The scientific name for the Bonobo is Pan paniscus. Initial genetic studies have characterised their DNA as more than 98% identical to that of Homo sapiens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

The human has 46 chromosomes right?

You might be surprised to learn the fact, that plants and some animals, have more "exceedingly intricate" complexity than we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#DNA_packaging

What exactly is the argument here? Are animals different from humans, yes. Are humans different from animals not so much. Every animal is different from the others but the similarities are much greater and much more meaningful.

I find your categorization that we are similar in slight ways to be totally made up. We are more like the animals than any omnipotent God.

We are violent, rather than, with our ability to communicate and trade ideas and resources, work together for everyones interest, we accept war and destruction, which benefits nobody, as a fact of life.

We are quick to judge because of the need to distinguish between threats and no danger. That wasn't given to us by God but by living in the jungles like the animals and warding off danger.

We fight or flee just like animals, we grow hungry like animals, we bleed like animals, we do many more things like animals than we do not do.

The ability to think, and use tools to solve problems, to teach each other, to communicate, these are abilities we have created and passed down in order to stay ahead of the competition, which is the other animals on the planet.

In every religion, every man made attempt at explaining our purpose, we have rules for how to rule the animals. Would it not be ethical, to not kill animals? If the animals were humans and we were animal, would it be ethical for them to kill us? I find religions teaching to be creatively influenced by man to ensure man has every confidence in whatever decision he or she makes regardless of ethics or facts.

Regarding the catholic church's ethical decision not to disembark the enablers of the offenses committed against society I can see how morally that might be right but ethically it is not.

Clearly, people will not always agree but the idea of the "story" the retelling of ideas, between people, came with us out of the jungles where we had to survive, where we had to dominate and adapt to the rest of the animals, some stronger, lots faster, all less intelligent, but none of them any less entitled to respect and existence here. Religion itself was a creation of leaders to guide people, we can see that in the development of religions today, or political movements which act like religions, adapting peoples way of life to conform to the movement.

In our country, which is supposed to be a country where people can practice their religion freely, that is acceptable in so much as it doesn't infringe on others rights. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Infringing on these is a recipe for disaster. Homosexuals will come to be accepted if not embraced rather than stigmatized. Society has already come a long way from segregation, enslavement, castes, monarchies, tyrannies of so many historical kinds.

on Aug 23, 2007
Calling humans "totally distinctive" is complete and total bogus bull. I wouldn't be surprised if it was entirely routed in a religious belief.


The fact that humans are totally distinctive is both scientific and religious...but that shouldn't be surprising at all given the fact that God is the Creator of nature, of animals and of humans.

It downright cool! or better yet, "awesome". The human body fills us with awe "for it was You who formed my inward parts; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works; that I know very well." Psalm 139, verses 13 and 14 do paint a "totally distinctive" picture of how unique we are, isn't that true Dan?

"The scientific name for the Bonobo is Pan paniscus. Initial genetic studies have characterised their DNA as more than 98% identical to that of Homo sapiens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human


Man's DNA code may be similiar to that of chimpanzees, plants and turtle doves, but so what? A little observation and common sense go a long way in understanding the differences between humans and animals. Bottom line: we are superior in every way and have complete dominion over them...end of story. (Granted, in some cases, we aren't doing a good job of it, but that is another discussion.)


What exactly is the argument here? Are animals different from humans, yes. Are humans different from animals not so much.


Where is the common sense and logic?


What exactly is the argument here? .



The argument is that we mustn't be so stupid and look to animal sexual behavior to make judgments upon laws that govern us in these areas or to excuse homosexuality as just another harmless lifestyle. Studying animals to get insights into human sexuality is a waste of time, IMHO. Studying them may be fun, and useful in husbandry and animal science, but animals have nothing, zip, nada, to teach us about how to run our lives, especially the sexual part...end of story.


We are more like the animals than any omnipotent God.


If you truly believe this assertion of yours, then it's OK with me, but you should know that you will never be able to convince me that you are in possession of the truth.

No one in Lulapilgrim's family tree descended from apes and mine goes back to Adam and this is what I am teaching to my children. Like I said above we were all fearfully and wonderfully made. I know this from reading Sacred Scripture and the constant teachings of the Catholic Church.

Almighty God made us humans in His "image and likeness" just as He did Adam and Eve "in the beginning". How does this set us infinitely apart from animals, fishes and plants? Simple. This "image and likeness" of God in mankind, is not in the body, but in the soul which is the spiritual substance endued with understanding (intellect) and free will.

Good people can debate all day whether or not they believe that humans have eternal souls and all the rest that is implied with that as the question of the existence of God...and again, that's material for another discussion. I only bring it up here in this context of our debate over homosexuality to show that those who are pushing the homosexual agenda forward have been successful and influential to the point that many people like you have bought into the lie that homosexuality is a "natural good" that must be extended to politics, religion, sociology and other fields such as education, marriage, etc.

And that for me is where the rub is....for accepting homosexuality as a natural, even good thing that will settle for no less than to be codified in laws and in the Church as acceptable and respectable, is none other than the triumpth of the philosophy of Evolution theory which is getting rid of God and undermining Sacred Scripture.

You see, if God created man, then He gets to make the rules about right and wrong in how we live and what we believe. The ideas that man is equal or no better than animals tell me that God is out and secular and atheistic humanism rules and that people can make up their own rules about right and wrong. In life today, we see how both concepts affect how people act and what they believe about the value of human life.





on Aug 23, 2007
"the fact that God is the Creator of nature, of animals and of humans."

Which is not a provable fact whatsoever, scientifically or otherwise.

"It downright cool! or better yet, "awesome". The human body fills us with awe "for it was You who formed my inward parts; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works; that I know very well." Psalm 139, verses 13 and 14 do paint a "totally distinctive" picture of how unique we are, isn't that true Dan?"

Psalm 139 versus 13 + 14 are passages written by a man. Whether God exists or was involved in the writing is speculative and debatable, but none the less not provable as fact at all. So you can cite whatever "bible babble" you want. (No disrespect intended) People claim, you are adding to it, that the bible is the word of God. Nobody has yet been able to show me conclusive proof of the existence of God, though the contrary is also true.

"Where is the common sense and logic?" Animals avoid fire, and avoid predators, that's common sense. Common sense is a developed skill and learned skill as well, humans and animals alike are not born with it. Why do you protect babies from stairs or teach them to look both ways before crossing a street. Animals can develop logic, in fact dolphins and chimps, some birds, can perform logical associations such as if A=B, and B=C then what must be true of A and C, answer A=C. Fifty percent of three year old children can make this logical connection and the rest not, at the age of four almost all human children of normal development make it.

"The argument is that we mustn't be so stupid and look to animal sexual behavior to make judgments upon laws that govern us in these areas or to excuse homosexuality as just another harmless lifestyle."

No it is not and that is not the argument I was making. What I was defending, is the idea that sexuality is not a learned trait, it is instinctive, both homosexually and heterosexually. It occurs in nature in social animals, and in humans, in approximately the same percentages of the population. Your assertion was that it is a learned or environmental factor that is the dominate decision factor for sexuality but if that were true, then I can see no reason homosexuality would occur in mammals and animals of the animal kingdom that are not human, and not subject to the environmental factors that we are.

Clearly animal sex is instinctive to a very large degree, so why not in humans? If the your best argument is primarily because God created us to be heterosexual and that the parts fit that way, well I reject that, on the basis that sometimes people are born, with a strong aversion to be male in a female form and vice versa, for whatever reason. I also note that religion has little if any explanation for people born with both sex organs. So good luck with finding God answering that one.

The other reason is that it is my conclusion thus far, that religion is created by man in every instance, and that if there is a God, and God created us, it was purely to create, not to dictate terms of our existence. The jury is still out on that, and will continue to be for me as I continue to search for evidence proving or disproving my knowledge and understanding thus far.

"Studying them may be fun, and useful in husbandry and animal science, but animals have nothing, zip, nada, to teach us about how to run our lives, especially the sexual part...end of story."

This is your opinion, but if you come to that conclusion, you disregard a large segment of study that can be beneficial to understanding yourself. Do as you wish though.

"If you truly believe this assertion of yours, then it's OK with me, but you should know that you will never be able to convince me that you are in possession of the truth."

I think the odds are as good as you convincing me that God exists. So lets meet in the middle and agree to disagree.

"No one in Lulapilgrim's family tree descended from apes and mine goes back to Adam and this is what I am teaching to my children."

You are free to believe that you came about however you wish, and free to teach your children how you see fit. I'm not asking you to change just be open minded. I have recently studying creationism and exploring the faults and inaccuracies in that theory. However it can make sense in certain areas as well.

"I only bring it up here in this context of our debate over homosexuality to show that those who are pushing the homosexual agenda forward have been successful and influential to the point that many people like you have bought into the lie that homosexuality is a "natural good" that must be extended to politics, religion, sociology and other fields such as education, marriage, etc."

Consider for a moment how skeptical I am about the existence of God. Now tell me which is easier to believe in? Homosexuality being natural and not a choice or the existence of God? I don't know if homosexuality is a natural good or not, I suspect that is it natural, that is occurs in nature for a reason, and that we didn't invent it. I can tell you that we did invent religion, just like we invented the lie, the story and the tools we utilize to advance culture.

It is my belief that denying people who have committed no crime ought not be denied life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. I also think that if one person wants to be partnered with another of the same sex, that that does not harm anyone else or society. I believe that because I don't see where the harm comes into play. Show me how that is harmful in any way.

The only way that you have done thus far is suggest a "recruitment" of straight people into gay, which is totally bogus and silly. You could no more recruit a homosexual person into the realm of heterosexuality but only a religion could make you feel moral for attempting to do so. Agreed?

"And that for me is where the rub is....for accepting homosexuality as a natural, even good thing that will settle for no less than to be codified in laws and in the Church as acceptable and respectable, is none other than the triumph of the philosophy of Evolution theory which is getting rid of God and undermining Sacred Scripture.

I don't think homosexuals want to change any of the teaching of the religion, they only wish to not be discriminated against in society, stigmatized, mistreated and denied rights. Just like other minorities, I could be wrong but thats how I assess the situation. The catholic church doesn't have to change at all, but the church is all about welcoming people and treating them as you would have others treat you. That is the teaching of Jesus correct?

As for evolution that is a separate argument. Evolution is a theory, but it acknowledges that, because it is based on evidence gathered and refined though the scientific method, not the teachings and story telling of ancient past lore or tradition. The scientific method is what helps us believe that the Earth is round rather than flat, and that the Earth orbits the sun rather than the sun and planets orbiting the Earth. There is room for both evolution and for the teachings of religion, however religion oftentimes dictates that it is the one and only true story, and that anything else must be wrong, consider how strongly you are defending your argument against animals being closer to us than you said, or about homosexuality occurring in nature.

Answer me this, if God didn't want homosexuals, and he created the animals, why are some of them Gay? LOL. You can't tell me that animals are both with and without the ability to choose (free will) their instinctive sexual attraction.

I don't want you to feel that I am picking you Lula Pilgrim, but these are question I ask myself too when the grand questions of religion and evolution and creation come up.

"You see, if God created man, then He gets to make the rules about right and wrong in how we live and what we believe."

I agree, it's an "if". I think a necessary first step is, Prove God exists. Or prove God does not exist. To my knowledge every God communication is through people, claiming they speak or spoke to God or know and are doing God's will. Well I need more than that in order to come to that conclusion.
on Aug 24, 2007
Lula posts:
"the fact that God is the Creator of nature, of animals and of humans."


Dan Greene posts:
Which is not a provable fact whatsoever, scientifically or otherwise.



Dan,

After reading your lastest post, I've come to the conclusion that, on the subjects of homosexuality, animals, humans, and Almighty God, you and I have reached an impasse that doesn't hold any hope, at least that I can tell, of agreement.

Right up and down the line, our opinions are sort of like that old Beatle's song that goes, I say Yes and you say No, I say stop and you say, go, go, go...in other words---are diametrically opposite.

This is the point that I think we have to (finally) agree to disagree and move on.
on Aug 24, 2007
I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello!

Dan Greene, you can't expect Lula to be open to anything contrary to the Bible and/or God when she already knows that it is the absolute truth, because it was proven to her.
on Aug 25, 2007
"This is the point that I think we have to (finally) agree to disagree and move on."

I agree with your assessment Lula, that we cannot agree. I do wish to explore the religious explanation and views, and I am open minded to the teachings, however I have found that people often use them to replace facts, though as I stated, there is lots to religion that cannot, or is not provable. Science on the other hand, is entirely proven or falls back to theory. Theories are updated or scrapped when they become proven or disproven.

For example, there was a theory that the world was flat, and for a long time, it was believed and purported as fact. This is because ships would sail out from port and get caught in storms or attacked and sunk and never return, the assumption was that they had gone too far and fallen "off the edge of the world".

Such an idea today sounds as silly as some guy called Zeus slapping lightning bolts at the ground when it thunders. But this was also "a fact" until it was no longer believed.

Today we know from people traveling in only one general direction and arriving at that same point that the world is in fact round, and from the way it spins, from it's magnetic field, from the view from space, we have lots of supporting evidence and theories that are proven and supporting evidence.

Religion on the other hand, has people saying it's so, and devoting their lives to that without question. I accept that some or all of what is spoken to be true to some people but for me facts have to be more provable then that. I am sorry that we could not reach agreement on more, I hope it has been worth your time to explain your position to me, I have found your arguments and comments informative and your perspective interesting.

"Dan Greene, you can't expect Lula to be open to anything contrary to the Bible and/or God when she already knows that it is the absolute truth, because it was proven to her."

How was it proven? I have attempted to be "proven" down a few different avenues of religion, too as well without success.
8 PagesFirst 6 7 8