Slashdot Mirror

We may have to agree to disagree.

Although I've been doing a bit of digging, and found a document on the Vatican's website, that states that all Christians become a holy and royal priesthood.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu...

I haven't read the entire thing, but it's got some interesting bits....

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html

This is a classic of a theologian disproving certain supernatural elements based on the idea that they aren't reasonable.

Of course, even suggesting to the Islamic world that God is reasonable, that the world is ordered, and that science exists, caused a rather violent reaction.

Anyone who believe that the 'end times' somehow releaves them of there moral obligation should read there bible. As 'no one knows the time and hour' Mathew 24

Certainly caring for God's creation is one of the prime obligation placed on those who are supposed to be doing all good until his return.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/f...

This some it up well.

I am justified in killing those who are terrorists and who increase violence through radical racism and hate. Look up the catechism of the 5th commandment. There is such a thing as Just War and it does require action from the righteous. Actually, read here.

Sieg heil! Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ein Fuhrer.

You are so completely unaware of your own self that you have become that which you profess to hate. Except you are willing to murder for thought crime instead of ethnicity.

I am justified in killing those who are terrorists and who increase violence through radical racism and hate. Look up the catechism of the 5th commandment. There is such a thing as Just War and it does require action from the righteous. Actually, read here.

Depends on the pope. Pope Leo wrote an encyclical about the virtues of capitalism and the evils of socialism.

Jewish Law? Begins in Exodus. More in Leviticus. Ongoing tradition of interpretation through your local rabbi.

Christian law? Begins with acknowledgement of Jewish law and extracts the Great Commandment (Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind) and Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. From there has always been a diversity of practice in interpretation by various Christian religious communities, Christian religious leaders, and Christian rulers (where you will find it blended with civil law).

If you want something specific the best bet for codified Christian law is probably the Code of Canon Law -- perhaps starting with The Obligations and Rights of All the Christian Faithful.

If you want to talk about how a particular United States midwestern Protestant group with a sola scriptura mindset goes about it, that's another matter, and a bit harder.

Jewish Law? Begins in Exodus. More in Leviticus. Ongoing tradition of interpretation through your local rabbi.

Christian law? Begins with acknowledgement of Jewish law and extracts the Great Commandment (Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind) and Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. From there has always been a diversity of practice in interpretation by various Christian religious communities, Christian religious leaders, and Christian rulers (where you will find it blended with civil law).

If you want something specific the best bet for codified Christian law is probably the Code of Canon Law -- perhaps starting with The Obligations and Rights of All the Christian Faithful.

If you want to talk about how a particular United States midwestern Protestant group with a sola scriptura mindset goes about it, that's another matter, and a bit harder.

As a catholic it is still more complex. You need to famliarize yourself with the concept of Just War. Lots of soldiers, probably even most soldiers world-wide are Catholic if they are not Muslim, and have been throughout history since the establishment of Christianity.

There's been a really cool 3D visualization of the Sistine Chapel out for some time now. It's a great way to appreciate it.

The groundwork is already laid:http://www.vatican.va/. He's just looking to make it better.

And yet, http://www.vatican.va/ has to stay online somehow.....

You're entirely wrong on that. 5th commandment is accurately translated as "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous" - this means war against evil is justified as a last resort. See http://www.vatican.va/archive/...

If you want to argue about religions you should know the basics.

Perhaps it's you that needs to learn the basics. Here's something from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that should help make it clear to you:

THE DEFINITION OF SIN
Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/...

Sin: An Offense Against God
http://www.sermoncentral.com/s...
Scriptures: Revelations 13:3-8; 16-18; 20:12-15; 12:10; 1 Corinthians 5

CHRISTIAN MORAL PRINCIPLES
Question C:In what sense is sin an offense against God?

1.Certain sins, such as idolatry, obviously infringe upon religion, but it is not so clear what bearing most immoral acts have upon the relationship with God. How do immoral acts which do not directly involve religion nevertheless offend God?
2.St. Augustine defines sin as “anything done, said, or desired against the eternal law”
"...In fact, however, sinners generally do not advert to the fact that their sins are offenses against God or, if they are believers, only reluctantly accept this implication of their sinning."
http://www.twotlj.org/G-1-13-C...

Seems pretty fuckin' clear to me. Sin is defined as "an offense against god".

Couldn't agree with you more. Have you read Laborem exercens? It perfectly conveys the argument that you're making.

Monogamy is not actually in the standard Catholic marriage vows or its derivatives.

No, it doesn't need to be, because it's a stipulation that defines marital behavior in the Sixth Commandment, as well as numerous other places in both Old and New Testaments. (See official Catholic catechism.) To someone who assents to a Christian "marriage," they are inherently agreeing to the basic definition of that word, which precludes adultery. I don't think this is a secret.

Even if it were implied, marriage is a civil contract, many non-religious people get married, and there is no legal requirement for monogamy.

False. Adultery is still officially a criminal offense in roughly 20 states. Prosecutions are exceedingly rare these days, but they used to happen. States are repealing these laws, but they're still on the books many places. And even if adultery isn't prosecuted, in almost all states divorce law allows adultery to be considered as part of "bad behavior" which can either be cause for a divorce (in states that still allow grounds for cause) or at a minimum it is something that judges can explicitly use as evidence against a spouse in making a determination about how to split assets.

The expectation is culturally-specific, and lots of cultures have completely divergent expectations (including polygamy, as among some Mormons, Muslims, etc.)

That's true, of course. But we're talking here about one specific dude who signed up on Ashley Madison, and clearly lied to his wife because he thought it was wrong. So whether someone else may have different expectations about marriage, this guy is clear that the "no adultery" clause is pretty relevant to his own marriage.

Furthermore: Is it even feasible to promise a "forever" thing like that at a young age? I would argue "no"; people don't really have a capacity or right to make such an oath, time and variations are deeper than the young person can digest, and the demographic statistics bear that out.

There are two options for such people. Divorce and "open marriage." Both involve talking to your spouse. Choosing instead to continue to benefit from the marriage while lying to your spouse and breaking your vows is definitely not adhering to spirit of the marriage agreement.

To the extent that young people are deluded, tricked, or forced into a commitment of implied eternal monogamy, it's not entirely their fault, and they should be given some sympathy and charity as they try to naturally relieve or find their way out of the situation.

"Oops, my penis just accidentally fell into the lady parts of another woman. It isn't entirely my fault!"

Seriously, owning your decisions is part of being an adult. You don't want to be married anymore? Fine. Get divorced. At a minimum, be honest with your spouse about what you need and what's wrong -- you might be surprised that many people who make an effort can find that they actually can be happy in their marriage... but when you make unilateral decisions about that relationship and lie about them, that's not going to be good for anyone.

I am happy to give honest people "sympathy and charity." I understand that many young people make mistakes in getting married. But that doesn't mean you get to reap the benefits of a "happily married life" (as TFS puts it) while lying and cheating on the person who's giving that life to you.

Hopefully the long arc of history will continue to degrade this unrealistic expectation and allow people to be happy and connected without being condemned on by uptight, moralizing craphats.

Look -- I think marriage is pretty much a stupid idea for many folks, too. I never said otherwise. But it is a thing, a

Except God didn't; man did.

Pope Leo XIII, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis would disagree with you. But you would probably know more about God than those losers, right?

http://w2.vatican.va/content/l...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://www.usccb.org/upload/Pr...

And labor unions would not necessarily make things much better. Many nurses work for under a union, and it tends to create the "well, it's not my job to do X" mentality, because if you're in a union and you do your job but could have done X that is Jane's or Joe's job then you get penalized despite it being faster for you to do it than calling Joe or Jane to do so.

You've never been in a labor union have you?

It's also why it costs $19 to get an aspirin in the hospital.

I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit. You think the hospital's markup on drugs is because of the unions?

https://web.williams.edu/Econo...

It's a tenet of the Church actually.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/... :

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

Anyone who deserves execution does not deserve a quick, painless termination, they deserve to suffer as much as possible. The only way to make it better is to make them suffer like their victims, and their victims are NOT JUST THE PEOPLE THEY KILLED, but also all the people left behind.

The point of the judicial system is not to exact revenge, but to protect society. I stand with the teachings (CCC 2267) of the Catholic Church on this issue.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

>*all of which were surrounded by religious fervour.* //

That's absolute crap. The IRA weren't battling to spread Christianity in any way shape or form; some of them may have been Christians however. The Provisional IRA are probably the group most associated with terrorist activity (at least in my lifetime), the Manchester Bombings are probably the event that I most remember from "the troubles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

If you can find any reference to them considering they were waging a war to promote Christianity I'd be very interested; they're mostly associated with Marxism from what I can tell. Here's the Papal view on what you're calling Catholic terrorism (if it contradicts the pope it ain't [Roman] Catholic):

>'9. Secondly, peace cannot be established by violence, peace can never flourish in a climate of terror, intimidation and death. It is Jesus himself who said : "All who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Mt 26 :52). This is the word of God, and it commands this generation of violent men to desist from hatred and violence and to repent.'

>'I join my voice today to the voice of Paul VI and my other predecessors, to the voices of your religious leaders, to the voices of all men and women of reason, and I proclaim, with the conviction of my faith in Christ and with an awareness of my mission, that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society. I pray with you that the moral sense and Christian conviction of Irish men and women may never become obscured and blunted by the lie of violence, that nobody may ever call murder by any other name than murder, that the spiral of violence may never be given the distinction of unavoidable logic or necessary retaliation. Let us remember that the word remains for ever : "All who take the sword will perish by the sword". '

(Pope John Paul II, 1979 visit to Ireland, http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat...)

I was talking about -actual- Catholic doctrine.

Then cite it. From the Vatican's own words in the CCC:

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. the inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

How in the hell could that be interpreted otherwise?

Nothing new since the 1950 Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII that defined the relationship between evolution, immortal souls and faith. And that was just final infallible confirmation of what the Vatican Biblical Commission determined in 1909 in its On The Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis.

Nothing new since the 1950 Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII that defined the relationship between evolution, immortal souls and faith. And that was just final infallible confirmation of what the Vatican Biblical Commission determined in 1909 in its On The Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis.

I see your Bill Nye, and your Ken Ham, and raise you a John Paul The Great:
Faith and Reason, for we must have BOTH, not either

Individual priests are a varied lot. It's church leadership that has been obsessed, and rank-and-file catholics, led by right-wing media. Dolan and other extremists.

I live in Brazil. I sometimes browse the CNBB (Conferência Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil) website and it rarely deals with abortion, almost never with homosexuality, and never contraception.

I'll just bet that unadulterated Catholic teaching doesn't mean what you think it means.

I admit my Bible knowledge is poor, but at least I have read the first 8 books of the New Testament and some parts of other Bible books.

Jesus was a chastity radical. He said that if you even fantasize about another woman, you are guilty of adultery. He said you need to be pure to see God. He said there is no divorce.

I am not saying that this should be repeated every week. I am complaining that priests don't say this at all , or say it once in a lifetime.

Just look at what Pope Francis has been adding to Church teaching over the past month.

He has emphasized old Catholic teaching.

Even he sees the institutional obsession with gays, abortion and free markets

Institutional obsession? Some tiny minority of priests can be obsessed with those subjects, but not the institution. For example, the Pope emeritus was certainly not obsessed. He had a broad preoccupation with the world's problems. Besides, read Caritas in Veritate, which was written by the Pope emeritus and had significant progressive elements wich led George Weigel (an otherwise reliable Catholic commentator, but with a right-wing bias) to create a conspiracy theory saying that the Pope was forced to write the encyclical because of a leftist Vatican plot against him.

Don't be misled by the ridiculous political categorization which pervades the media. The Pope emeritus is not "conservative" and Pope Francis is not leftist.
If you have a couple of hours, I advise the following reading:

* http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
* http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

The right-wing reaction to the Pope emeritus:
* http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227839/i-caritas-veritate-i-gold-and-red/george-weigel/page/0/1
And no, I am not a libertarian just because I linked to one page hosted in lewrockwell.com.

I did go there last december and had to pay an admission fee. I cannot remember what the fee were, but now the full admission ticket is 16 euro. http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/z-Info/MV_Info_Orari.html

I'm curious where this actually comes up in Catholic dogma.

It's in the catechism itself (look for item 2389, halfway down the page) :

"Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing."

Also, consider that even without that specific prohibition, child marriage is (and has pretty much always been) prohibited, as is sex outside of marriage. Combined, it covers things neatly.

Err, what extortion?

The majority of catholics online just go to vatican.va for anything out of the Vatican, and studiously ignore the rest, if they even bother to go at all.

Seriously - even if every one of those squatted domain names pointed to lemonparty, it would make exactly zero difference to the laity. QED, no financial gain to be had. Overall, it's sort of like saying that the Vatican should have somehow snapped up any and all variations of @Pontifex on Twitter, when there's really no need.

I guess the confusion comes from thinking that the Catholic Church is like some sort of commercial entity, where brand recognition and trademark protection online trumps all. Fact is, it doesn't - the Church has been around administratively since Constantinople was a living human being, and has had to put up with a hell of a lot more defamation and disparagement over the millennia than a bunch of wannabe blackmailers holding GoDaddy accounts can muster.

The last pope's virtual dedication was done in comic sans as seen here.

This made me laugh and think about this defense of comic sans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUCcObwIsOs

Although the newly appointed Pope Francis I has proven himself technologically savvy enough to use Twitter, the Vatican dropped the ball when it came to quickly registering a domain name for the pontiff after his appointment earlier this month

Well, you've put me in the awkward position of defending papal technology. None of this really matters considering Vatican City has its own TLD of .va so it would be a waste of money and resources to try to accumulate every other TLD. I believe .va is tightly regulated to include only 1990s era website technology. The last pope's virtual dedication was done in comic sans as seen here.

Funny, if the pope was more like the humble carpenter Jesus of Nazareth and less like an enshrined emperor he wouldn't have this problem as there'd be no financial gain to drive extortion. Keep paying your tithes so the Vatican has deep pockets ... or would that be a Louis Vuitton to match his Prada shoes?

Well it seems that they at least use it:

curl -I -L -A 'Mozilla' http://www.vatican.va/ | grep 'Server'

gives Server: Apache

The html source uses tons of functions from Lytebox, a CC 3.0 license. So it looks like they use it.

Given that the church accepts evolution from single cell organisms your primordial parent interpretation seems flawed.

Evolution as a whole does not undermine the narrative, does it? It does undermine a very specific belief, that Adam was the father of all humankind. That is a crucial point, because that is where the whole Fall/Redemption belief system starts. If Adam is symbolic or metaphorical, then the whole later part of a human blood sacrifice to atone for that Fall or to perfect the relationship or whatever is rendered unintelligible. That is why this church is willing to admit that evolution is true in general while clinging to a completely incorrect idea of Christian monogenism.

As another poster pointed out "Y-chromosome Adam" would not be biblical Adam, rather it would be biblical Noah. According to biblical accounts Noah and his sons were the only male survivors of the "flood".

Then why are you bringing it up in a discussion about the belief in a biblical Adam? And do I need to point out that the Flood myth is also a scientifically invalid idea that has been refuted? There was never a global flood, and there was never just two human beings.

No one is proposing a literal match between biblical Eve and mitochondrial Eve, not even the church. Again, the church clearly states that genesis contains figurative language. Again, my original statement was that I think genetic science and the figurative language of genesis are not far off from each other.

Certainly, once you strip all of the details away and squint hard, they appear similar. This is true for virtually all religions with metaphorical language. Not a vote of confidence.

That is a quite gratuitous interpretations of "figurative language".

It is my own belief that it is rank mythology. Take it however you like.

What I seem to mostly disagreeing with is your interpretation of the vatican statements. You seem to be reading in things that are not there at times.

What I find funny is that I have to explain basic Catholic theology to someone who is at some level defending it. You can go to any Catholic apologetics website and find that out. I can point you to cathechism after catechism. They will all point you to a simple belief: Adam and Eve were literal people who are the parents of all other humans. Any other view is considered heretical by the Catholic church. This was true the entire time I was a Catholic, and it hasn't changed in the intervening time.

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own"

Humani Generis 37

The Catechism you reference explicitly says that genesis uses figurative language. The difference between science and faith seems to only be with respect to a "soul" not the material body.

"390 The account of the fall in Genesis uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1C.HTM

"Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
...
Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. Indeed, Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, astronomer and physics professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was the first to propose the theory of expansion of the universe, often incorrectly credited to Edwin Hubble. Under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the International Theological Commission published a paper accepting the big bang of 15 billion years ago and the evolution of all life including humans from the microorganisms that formed approximately 4 billion years ago. The Vatican has no official teaching on this matter except for the special creation of the human soul"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

How many other churches have, in the modern era, tried to infiltrate the government and destroy evidence against them (Operation Snow White)?

The Scientologists are bumbling amateurs in this area. The serious religions effectively take over the state. In some cases, the takeover of state by religion was accomplished so long ago that the religion is even considered a state itself. Once a state is under the control of a monomaniacal cult, all shenanigans committed therein simply don't exist.

If Dawkins truly believes that religion will quietly tolerate being told it is wrong, he is an idiot.
Well, he's not an idiot. He's trying to point out the absurdity of holding a point of view that takes offense at any question, challenge, or outright dispute. And that this type "offense" is fabricated to manipulate polite society and should be ignored.

There are such things as boundaries in human society, and while they're never absolute, there comes a point when one group extends the boundaries of its own propriety so far that there is no room for anyone else to exist--let alone coexist with a similarly absurdly broad set of boundaries. We can't all be pope.

Affected outrage is worn like a mask and used like a weapon to cow the rest of society to the will of an aggressive and dangerous few.
It's not the responsibility of the rest of the world to tiptoe around a group of people who have subverted the natural human desire for social harmony. Nobody offended you; you chose to "take offense". Well, now you've taken it; you have it; enjoy it. This is your offense, not ours.

To cite examples from the religion into which I have been indoctrinated:
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea

You don't get to "opt out" and believe something else on your own time. You're either with or you're against. The domain of God and His representatives on earth is absolute. "Heresy" is ANY teaching inconsistent with dogma. It doesn't matter who teaches it or to whom. Church member or not, challenging dogma is not only an insult, it's a crime.

In modern times, the power of the Church to prosecute heresy has decreased significantly. They grudgingly acknowledge the existence of other views, but VCII, Ecumenism, etc. are still controversial with a lot of people. "OK, sure, we don't have to convert all the ignorant savages. We tend get a lot of really dirty looks from folks when we do that, and besides, we can't enforce it anyway. So, in the spirit of God's love for all His children, we accept that all..." But make no mistake if the Church had the power to enforce canon law everywhere, they would. Manipulation of the secular law where canon law has lost dominion is an effective and efficient tool.

One can only imagine that another's religion, especially offshoots of the one into which one has been indoctrinated has similarly totalitarian views of dissention--by members of the church or by people in general. I invite their own apostates to speak for their religion's tolerance to heresy.

If Dawkins truly believes that religion will quietly tolerate being told it is wrong, he is an idiot.
Well, he's not an idiot. He's trying to point out the absurdity of holding a point of view that takes offense at any question, challenge, or outright dispute. And that this type "offense" is fabricated to manipulate polite society and should be ignored.

There are such things as boundaries in human society, and while they're never absolute, there comes a point when one group extends the boundaries of its own propriety so far that there is no room for anyone else to exist--let alone coexist with a similarly absurdly broad set of boundaries. We can't all be pope.

Affected outrage is worn like a mask and used like a weapon to cow the rest of society to the will of an aggressive and dangerous few.
It's not the responsibility of the rest of the world to tiptoe around a group of people who have subverted the natural human desire for social harmony. Nobody offended you; you chose to "take offense". Well, now you've taken it; you have it; enjoy it. This is your offense, not ours.

To cite examples from the religion into which I have been indoctrinated:
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea

You don't get to "opt out" and believe something else on your own time. You're either with or you're against. The domain of God and His representatives on earth is absolute. "Heresy" is ANY teaching inconsistent with dogma. It doesn't matter who teaches it or to whom. Church member or not, challenging dogma is not only an insult, it's a crime.

In modern times, the power of the Church to prosecute heresy has decreased significantly. They grudgingly acknowledge the existence of other views, but VCII, Ecumenism, etc. are still controversial with a lot of people. "OK, sure, we don't have to convert all the ignorant savages. We tend get a lot of really dirty looks from folks when we do that, and besides, we can't enforce it anyway. So, in the spirit of God's love for all His children, we accept that all..." But make no mistake if the Church had the power to enforce canon law everywhere, they would. Manipulation of the secular law where canon law has lost dominion is an effective and efficient tool.

One can only imagine that another's religion, especially offshoots of the one into which one has been indoctrinated has similarly totalitarian views of dissention--by members of the church or by people in general. I invite their own apostates to speak for their religion's tolerance to heresy.

And, again, the whole point zooms past you. There were never two human beings on the planet. Never. Not once. Ever.

You keep repeating this like a creed. For you, it is an act of faith, and you seem convinced that just repeating that like a broken record will make it more true. But since that "fact" is the core of the discussion, that's precisely what you need to prove.

I claim that this "fact"of yours is patently false, because it is so easily falsified with myriads of counter examples. There was a time where a single person on Earth knew relativity, and then he taught others and relativity became part of humanity.There was a time where a single person on Earth knew how to do fire, and then he taught others and fire became part of humanity. There was a time when a single person on Earth knew how to send an e-mail, and then he taught others and e-mail became part of humanity. There was a first blue rose. And so on.

On the other hand, I cannot think of a single part of our human heritage that appeared all over the place at once. Whether it's physical like skin color or cultural like cave painting, we always observe a starting point followed by contamination.

So what is there really behind your statement that there were never two human beings on the planet? The fact that proto-humans lived in tribes? The fact that the hypothetical first human had to mate with non-humans, and was therefore not so different from them? Or the fact that you don't know how to define "human" precisely enough to be able to pinpoint that first human?

The Catholic church claims that there were only two people at one point,

It's not the Catholic church, it's the Bible, so it's all Muslims, all Jews, all Christians including non-Catholic.

though they claim that these could have been drawn from a group of proto-humans.

I, not the church, claimed in this thread that based on modern science, we know the first human was drawn from a group of proto-humans, and then taught the second human to be human (because what makes us human is largely social and not genetic). And I find it reasonable to believe that the second "human" in this transmission chain was the mate of the first one. I am not sure that this hypothesis is true, but it's definitely the most plausible scientific hypothesis that I can derive from the theory of evolution and observation of knowledge transmission. It's not derived from the Bible, however, it does match the account in the Bible relatively well.

If you want to claim that there were always multiple humans, you need to blur the definition of human. With a blurred definition, you blur the boundary in space and time. With a crisp definition, the first human becomes unique. The Bible chose a crisp definition, the knowledge of good and evil.

the Catholic church requires that this bit of Genesis be interpreted LITERALLY. And this point is LITERALLY false.

Again, you seem to think that by repeating and SHOUTING your creed, you will make it more credible.

But no, the Catholic church does not require literal interpretation of Genesis, on the contrary.

And no, the existence of a first human is not false, if we define humanity based on any kind of knowledge or sapience, as I tried to demonstrate time and time again. It is highly likely to be true because all our experience with science, knowledge, genetics or epidemics is that there is always a "patient zero". At that point, I am tempted myself to say that is't my own point that zooms past you, and I'm very sorry that I can't get it across. If there are "patient zero" or "inventor zero" for everything we know, then logically there has to be a "human zero". Claiming that we "know" otherwise in all caps is not going to address this argument.

And, again, the whole point zooms past you. There were never two human beings on the planet. Never. Not once. Ever.

You keep repeating this like a creed. For you, it is an act of faith, and you seem convinced that just repeating that like a broken record will make it more true. But since that "fact" is the core of the discussion, that's precisely what you need to prove.

I claim that this "fact"of yours is patently false, because it is so easily falsified with myriads of counter examples. There was a time where a single person on Earth knew relativity, and then he taught others and relativity became part of humanity.There was a time where a single person on Earth knew how to do fire, and then he taught others and fire became part of humanity. There was a time when a single person on Earth knew how to send an e-mail, and then he taught others and e-mail became part of humanity. There was a first blue rose. And so on.

On the other hand, I cannot think of a single part of our human heritage that appeared all over the place at once. Whether it's physical like skin color or cultural like cave painting, we always observe a starting point followed by contamination.

So what is there really behind your statement that there were never two human beings on the planet? The fact that proto-humans lived in tribes? The fact that the hypothetical first human had to mate with non-humans, and was therefore not so different from them? Or the fact that you don't know how to define "human" precisely enough to be able to pinpoint that first human?

The Catholic church claims that there were only two people at one point,

It's not the Catholic church, it's the Bible, so it's all Muslims, all Jews, all Christians including non-Catholic.

though they claim that these could have been drawn from a group of proto-humans.

I, not the church, claimed in this thread that based on modern science, we know the first human was drawn from a group of proto-humans, and then taught the second human to be human (because what makes us human is largely social and not genetic). And I find it reasonable to believe that the second "human" in this transmission chain was the mate of the first one. I am not sure that this hypothesis is true, but it's definitely the most plausible scientific hypothesis that I can derive from the theory of evolution and observation of knowledge transmission. It's not derived from the Bible, however, it does match the account in the Bible relatively well.

If you want to claim that there were always multiple humans, you need to blur the definition of human. With a blurred definition, you blur the boundary in space and time. With a crisp definition, the first human becomes unique. The Bible chose a crisp definition, the knowledge of good and evil.

the Catholic church requires that this bit of Genesis be interpreted LITERALLY. And this point is LITERALLY false.

Again, you seem to think that by repeating and SHOUTING your creed, you will make it more credible.

But no, the Catholic church does not require literal interpretation of Genesis, on the contrary.

And no, the existence of a first human is not false, if we define humanity based on any kind of knowledge or sapience, as I tried to demonstrate time and time again. It is highly likely to be true because all our experience with science, knowledge, genetics or epidemics is that there is always a "patient zero". At that point, I am tempted myself to say that is't my own point that zooms past you, and I'm very sorry that I can't get it across. If there are "patient zero" or "inventor zero" for everything we know, then logically there has to be a "human zero". Claiming that we "know" otherwise in all caps is not going to address this argument.

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

Why do you see a contradiction? If I say "when the ancestors of dolphins returned to sea, there must have been one animal, among all ancestors of all dolphins today, that was the first one to return to the water," do you find this logically shocking? What if I say: "of all our ancestors, one of them lit the very first fire, and we then passed the knowledge from generation to generation"? Maybe fire was invented at multiple locations, maybe it was invented then lost, then invented again. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a single event that we can call "first fire" that we can use to illustrate what fire is.

Sin assumes a certain dose of humanity, enough mental agility to have both an understanding that you are doing something wrong and a will to do it anyway. That's what the text you quoted calls being a "true man". Just like for fire, it's only logical to think that, among all our ancestors, there was one who committed the very first sin. And just like the first fire can be used to reason about fire for all humanity (as in "we believe that from the very first fire, fire has been used to provide heat, cook food and as a defense against wildlife"), the very first sin has a very strong explanatory power (as in "we believe that from the very first sin, sin has caused us to lie, deceive, put the blame on others, attempt to hide what we did...")

And the Catholics, which are number one, don’t. Ergo your arguments fails, and we can concluded that Christian don’t believe the bible is the literal truth.

How depressing that I have to lead you through this. The parent of my post said:

But who on earth is silly enough to take the bible literally?

AND

I've also not met a single Christian who takes the bible literally (and I even went to Sunday school).

To which I replied with links to a large group of Christians who, in fact, take that very stance. I also added that most Christian groups, including the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, have sections of the bible, including the Old Testament, which they claim have to be interpreted literally. In Catholic theology, for example, it is a tenet of the faith that Adam and Eve were actual people, and not metaphors:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own.

That is from the papal encyclical "Humani Generis," linked from the Vatican website. And what was my claim, from my post? Let's revisit that, shall we?

The Eastern Orthodox and Catholics also have sections of the bible which they believe MUST be interpreted literally, including pieces of the Old Testament.

Well, hell, unless the Vatican is hosting fake documents on their website, then my point stands exactly as I said. As for the Eastern Orthodox, they haven't had an ecumenical council to deal the issue, so there is no single official stance on it. However, when researching the issue, I have found no Eastern Orthodox teachings which deviate strongly from this position, either. Feel free to find some contradictory information on that point. I'd find it interesting.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

See number 312. "What are indulgences?"

More details in http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4G.HTM

And indulgences are not sold. Indulgences are granted to people who help the poor, accept suffering with dignity, etc.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

See number 312. "What are indulgences?"

More details in http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4G.HTM

And indulgences are not sold. Indulgences are granted to people who help the poor, accept suffering with dignity, etc.

Apparently you have not heard of China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Equador and Bolivia.

China embraced capitalism.
Viet Nam is mixing Capitalism with Marxism.
Cuba is embracing capitalism.
Venezuela is failing at constructing a Communist economy.
Brazil has prospered by not governing from hard left principals.

That leaves you with Ecuador(a mix of capitalism and communism) and North Korea(a completely failed state). That doesn't seem to match up with your paranoid narrative, though, does it?

And you have not heard of the latest developments in Marxism, created by Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno.

The latest deveopments? From a series of authors who have been dead for decades? Care to elucidate what makes these particular dead men so dangerous to your worldview?

Cultural Marxism is alive and kicking in the West. Just go to an average university and see what books the philosophy/geography students read.

That's funny. I had enough philosophy for a minor, and I never once had a philosophy professor mention Marxism more than in passing. And geography? Care to list out the horrible things students are learning?

Check out what "moderate socialism" did to the economy of Europe.

Oh, you mean the debt based economic problems? How is that different from the US? How is it the fault of socialism?

The Bible says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" What happened in the Middle Ages was a perversion of Christianity. AND IT HAPPENED 400 YEARS AGO.

WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about the Dark Ages.

Saying that "bin Laden is religious" is as relevant as saying "bin Laden has a long beard".

If you think that bin Laden's actions were due to something other than his religion, then you are so wildly misinformed that I'm not sure where to start.

The probability of a Christian commiting terrorism is the same as a long-bearded man commiting terrorism. Being "similar" to bin Laden in one aspect does mean one is a terrorist.

Holding an irrational belief as your core philosophy is always dangerous.

Pat Robertson is more a politician then a pastor; and he is a televangelist.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

You don't find this kind of rhetoric in Catholic churches.

You are wrong. Moreover, the Catholic church is quite comfortable in claiming that homosexual marriage will result in the destruction of the fabric of society.

The crimes primarily happened 30 YEARS AGO, during the ecclesial chaos that followed the revolution of 1968.

The crimes were horrific. The cover up by the entire Vatican heirarchy was arguably worse. And that cover up and and denial persists to this day. The Catholic church still wants to brush this under the rug.

On average, a Catholic priest less likely to comit such a crime then a publich school teacher, and a Catholic bishop is less likely to cover it up than a public school principal. But you conveniently focus on priests.

And those priests and bishops claim to speak with t

Marriage has been redefined often throughout history.

But the "lifelong convenant between man and woman for starting a family and begetting children" has remained for millennia.
The Latin "matrimonium" is derived from mater (mother). The other part of matrimony comes from monium, an action, state or condition. The implication is clear: Matrimony is the action, state or condition within which motherhood rightly occurs

I have to admit, I have no idea what's wrong with polygamous marriage. It's prominently featured in the Bible (not negatively either--I hope you don't bring up Leah/Rachel, where the fault clearly wasn't polygamy but dishonesty) and has been legal or encouraged in many societies through the years. Forcing a young bride to marry an old man is certainly wrong, but why would I want to prevent eg. four loving adults from pooling resources? It's not for me, but that's irrelevant. Incestuous (straight) marriage has a good chance of producing genetically disabled children, which is a bad enough thing that society has an interest in preventing it, so I am provisionally alright with banning incestuous marriage on those grounds--though making incestuous child-making illegal is more direct and preferable.

So you have nothing against a man "marrying" his own father, because they have no chance to beget genetically defective children?

who am I to deny them when I have no real reason to do so? "Ick" doesn't count.

Your "denying" language is wrong. When the government recognizes a "marriage" that most people do not want to recognize, the government is not merely "allowing" something, it is actually forcing people to act against their will. For example, suppose that a Christian bread&breakfast only allows married people to sleep together. Most likely, such a bread&breakfast does not want a man to sodomize his own father in their room. By forcefully instituting homosexual incestuous "marriage", coupled with anti-discrimination laws, the government is forcing the bread&breakfast to do something against their will.

I want to reiterate how poor your arguments have been

I don't remember offering any positive arguments; I merely applied reductio ad absurdum to the pro-same-sex-marriage argument that "marriage is a civil right", and then I complained that that side very rarely offers argumentation, and 98% of the time they simply shout down their opponents with "SHUT UP YOU ******* BIGOT!" screams.

As for positive argumentation, see
http://frexpression.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/a-gay-man-decries-gay-rights/
and
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

``Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.''

I guess he's just another one of those liberalist pantywaists that would like to see communism take over the world.

Or not.

The way that many in the US conflate unions with communism baffles me. It was, to a large extent, a trade union (Solidarity) that brought down the communist regime in Poland. And it was this event that signaled the coming down of the entire iron curtain.

Actually they are charging admission for anyone to view Sistine Chapel http://biglietteriamusei.vatican.va/musei/tickets/do?action=booking&codiceLivelloVisita=9&step=1

Simple example

From the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

It's well documented that priests rape babies.

Oh please. Are you really that gullible that your believe everything the mass media spoon feeds you? (I suspect you're not.)

the church blames satan/antichrist instead of the priests for the baby rape, for which the church prescribes exorcism.

Really? My copy of the Catholic Catechism states that "[i]llness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science." (para. 1673) Would you dispute the fact that pedophilia (which is present in all segments of society, BTW) is a mental illness? If not, then I'd say it's safe to say that we both can agree that the Church does not consider exorcism as a way to "cure" priests who are pedophiles. In fact, the Church's position on pedophilia is that "[c]ivil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed."

Don't believe everything you read in the media. They can't get nuclear science right; do you really think they can get religion right too?

It's well documented that priests rape babies.

Oh please. Are you really that gullible that your believe everything the mass media spoon feeds you? (I suspect you're not.)

the church blames satan/antichrist instead of the priests for the baby rape, for which the church prescribes exorcism.

Really? My copy of the Catholic Catechism states that "[i]llness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science." (para. 1673) Would you dispute the fact that pedophilia (which is present in all segments of society, BTW) is a mental illness? If not, then I'd say it's safe to say that we both can agree that the Church does not consider exorcism as a way to "cure" priests who are pedophiles. In fact, the Church's position on pedophilia is that "[c]ivil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed."

Don't believe everything you read in the media. They can't get nuclear science right; do you really think they can get religion right too?