Slashdot Mirror
Will the Pope Declare Google Evil?
theodp writes "In the next few days, Pope Benedict XVI plans to issue his second encyclical, in which he is expected to denounce the use of tax havens as socially unjust and immoral in that they cheat the greater well-being of society. He is also expected to argue that the globalized economic world needs to be regulated. Prime technology companies playing the offshore 'profit laundering' game include Dell, Google, Microsoft, and Sun, who set up subsidiaries in Ireland, where the corporate tax rate is a low 12.5% and no taxes are charged on royalties (e.g. from patents)."
Sitting on a big pile of gold, and money in swiss banks.
Is the current pope rather stuck on ancient church history, at middle ages when church was actually a state ?
does god levy 'taxes' ? taxes are an earthly thing and have no place in religion. or is the pope trying to appease some circles that have done 'charity' for the church ?
Read radical news here
However, he will proclaim that surfing with anti-spyware technology prevents the natural and Godly transmission of malware-life, so that it can grow on your computer.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
So will the church lead by example? Religion is the biggest tax haven in this country.
Just one more hypocrisy from the church, I am wagering.
Google is always getting singled out in these sorts of things, just because they are the popular media darling of the moment. This is really about corporate America, period.
As Jesus said, "Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's, and unto God what is God's"
All Global Corporations is what I actually meant, since not all the huge corporations are based in the US.
So, let me get this straight - a company like Google sets up an office in Europe to handle its European affairs, gets taxed on this profit at that country's rate, and there's something wrong with that?
I was with you up until the end. Please recall that it's the Roman Catholics who take the heat for NOT basing their teachings on the Bible, and instead trust in the "consensus" of the Roman church as an organization, and on the Pope himself in particular. In short, the Pope's authority isn't based on the Bible as much as it's based on his own infallibility.
A large part of Google operations are in Europe, so is a big part of their R&D. Why should they tax all their income in the US?
Why does the popes opinion have any more weight than the ramblings of any other silly old twat who believes in archaic superstition?
Like George W Bush you mean?
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" -- Matthew 22:21
The only reason this HAS any meaning is because so many "silly twats" as you say take what he has to say seriously. Some guy rambling on the street corners is one thing, someone that millions around the world take as an icon of their spiritual livs is another thing entirely. Even those of us who are non-christians know that when he speaks, people listen regardless of why.
Kinda like the GWB, as the AC who responded to you said heh.
Influence is influence, whether we're talking a pope or other dude who manages to get enough of a following.
Ice Cream has no bones.
"does god levy 'taxes' ?"
Yes. He taxes your free will as a retirement fund.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Most of these companies do have legitimate offices in Ireland, and employ people there.
Can't I declare the catholic church to be evil???
how long until
It's sad to see that people don't understand what 'separation of church and state' means. Tell me, how is the Vatican violating this directive?
Here's a hint: 'separation of church and state' is only to specify that the state cannot endorse a religion or foist one on its citizens. It also, of course, doesn't apply to the Vatican, which knows no such separation. It has also never meant that the church stays out of politics, or that politics stay out of churches. The church can't be granted government power, and the government can't grant the church power. That's it, and it only applies in your own borders.
The Vatican isn't making a law. It's lobbying. That's what the Pope does every time he opens his mouth. Outside of the Catholic Church and the Vatican, he has no authority.
im from ireland, and practically every corporation has an office here
the corporate tax is low (12.5%) and income tax is ok as well (20%) tho EU slaps 20% VAT on everything
a lot of countries look enviously lately it seems at ireland and the low-ish taxes here (the country is doing fairly for last decade)
still i wouldnt call this a tax heaven, compared to Dubai lets say
While Mr. Ratzinger may think that he has come exclusive Hi-Speed Connection to the Magic Man In The Sky, we know better.
I happen to agree with him on this particular matter (ie, tax havening is often immoral), but I fail to see why his opinion should carry any more weight than mine.
yes, and things that are god's are the area of the church, not caesar's.
Read radical news here
As Mark Shea once said, "Deduct 50 IQ points when the media discusses religion. Deduct 75 points when discussing Catholicism." It is surprising (or not) that people are making judgments on a document that even isn't released. Wait until the document is released and read what it actually says before commenting.
The Alternet article mixes up two issues with different rates of taxation.
On one hand we have the way in which company profits can be moved around by changing the rates charged between subsidiaries in different countries. If your research division is in a high tax country and your manufacturing in a low tax country then you can shift profits to the manufacturing division by treating the research as a cost centre. If its the other way around then you can treat the research as a profit centre and charge manufacturing for all the valuable IPR they are using. This is a known bug in international company tax, and needs dealing with.
On the other hand there is generally low taxation on individual earnings and product sales within a country. The Alternet article gets into the politics of envy here by citing highly paid executives who also pay a relatively low rate of tax. But hey, they live and work in that country, so its an entirely local issue. Its up the the voters in a democracy to decide what taxes to charge and what they ought to get for that money. For instance the UK tax rates look much higher than in the US (35% GDP as opposed to around 26% of GDP) until you factor in the extra money paid by US companies for employee health plans. At that point the UK, with its tax-funded NHS, suddenly looks like a much cheaper place to do business.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
"does god levy 'taxes' ? taxes are an earthly thing and have no place in religion. or is the pope trying to appease some circles that have done 'charity' for the church ?"
I suspect you're not interested in knowing, but in fact the God of the Bible has a long history of taxation.
Citizens were required to pay a flat tax of 10% of all earnings.
Citizens were also assessed additional fixed taxes as civic needs arose, and were required to turn over some numbers of livestock on a regular schedule.
These taxes went to the religious state, whose responsibility it was to provide judicial, executive, and legislative services, as well as to provide for the common needs of society, including various primitive safety nets for those who had fallen on hard times.
Further on, according to the Bible, in Christian communities this developed into an entirely socialist system, where resources were jointly held and distributed by a central authority. Failure to comply was punishable by death.
'God' used to levy taxes. They were called tithes. Part of it was religious reasoning, but if I remember my schooling correctly then there was also a degree of taking away some of your worldly possessions so that the church could protect you from their evil influences (since the church members are, of course, stronger in this kind of thing than your normal person).
:D
Hang on, that last bit sounds like something Scientologists and strange cults do - "Here, join us and give up your worldly possessions. No, it's okay, we'll be kind and look after them for you so that you no longer have to burden yourself with them"
Actually, 'god' does levy taxes - tithing is one of the things laid out in Exodus 20 - 23 (along with little things such as proper payment for slaves, and selling ones own daughter etc).
I don't know how many of you have noticed, but the current pope looks and acts like palpatine!!palpatine!!.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Attempting to stay on topic: since you agree that they've strayed from the Bible, you can't conclude that his statements today about taxation are biblical.
Straying further off topic: Once you've "gone quite a far way" from the Bible, it's not your basis anymore; you regard something else as foundational. Also, it was the early, and truly catholic, church which collected and distributed the New Testament and developed the Creeds. Note that the canon was not dogmatized by Rome until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation.
You missed the point completely.
Christ himself said to pay taxes that the government demands. Tax shelters would go against this statement, making them "immoral" from a Christian standpoint.
Where was the church when childern were being abused the the clergy? Hey pope, people in glass houses.... Where is Sinead with another picture?
When the source is open, the possibilities are endless.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Church corruption blowback is helpful in discrediting superstition.
For example, the hundreds of millions spent by the Catholic Church to settle out of court rather than be exposed as a pedo haven is doing useful financial damage. Considering the level of legal representation that money would buy, they must be hiding a far vaster problem than the settlements indicate.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
and i suspect you do not read posts before replying. i have asked that whether this pope is clung up on the historic, now nonexistent role of church state in middle ages.
Read radical news here
Again, some asshole mods down an actually truthful post as "troll", just because it offended their little religion, or they think that the Pope's gonna sue them for not modding down a "satanist" post.
I'm not sure what a Catholic is supposed to do under this system, other than advocate for change, and pursue other endeavors (such as working for privately owned corporations) until U.S. corporate law is changed (including shareholder tort reform).
The crucial detail here being that it was citizens of the ancient theocratic state of Israel. It is pretty clear from the New Testament that God's people are citizens of heaven, rather than of an earthly state and that they should follow the laws of the states they reside in, so long as those laws do not force them to go against the law of God.
Nothing about a central authority distributing possessions in the New Testament. Believers voluntarily shared possessions with those in need and people like Paul would go round from time to time making voluntary collections so that those who were well off could those in need.
You're either misinformed, or have completely misunderstood Ananias and Saphira. They were killed by God for lying about the money they were giving. In fact, the amount they were giving wasn't an issue at all. If they had been honest and said "We got x talents for our field and our giving y talents to the church" rather than "We got y and are giving y," with the subtext that they were great, then everything would have been fine. There were quite a few early Christians who were well off, but were never required to surrender ownership of their possessions to the community. Called to be good stewards and loving neighbours, yes, but never forced to give things up.
so Bill Gates converts to become a Roman Catholic - they do everything nowadays to get followers since their sex rules are so unattractive - well, except in the US, that is...
First and foremost that little Hitler Youth is evil because he still prohibits birth control. How much suffering in how many Catholic countries is caused by over population? That is all the fault of the Pope. Ever poor family of 12 that loses kids to starvation or the side effects of malnutrition can look to the Pope for why they couldn't just have two kids that they were able to take care of. Every treehugger that wonders why Brazil is cutting down rainforest for farm land to feed their ever expanding population can look to the Pope. I know that there are other reasons that impoverished people have large families, but that usually stops as soon as the women there have access to the pill.
Then you can ask him why he thinks that paying taxes is actually contributing to the good of the common man? Hasn't every war in history been started by either those-collecting-taxes or those-who-want-to-collect-taxes ? The Papacy is the epitome of taking power and money from the poor masses and giving it to the elite few.
We are all just people.
I think the pope isn't really wrong here. While it is perfectly understandable and legal to use a tax haven like Ireland, it is still a real problem and not really a fair behaviour. It only works out for Ireland because big companies from all over the world choose to tax their EU earnings in Ireland. If all EU states would lower their tax to 12.5%, it wouldn't work for anyone.
Any state should be free to set their tax rates to any level they like, but please only for money really earned in that state and not for money earned elsewhere.
At the moment it works this way: Most of the money is earned in France, UK and Germany but all tax is paid in Ireland. Often there is nothing but a office in Ireland or the product is packaged.
Jan
It is not that I disagree with the sentiments. In fact I believe the biggest problem we have in this country is people earning great deal of monies in the country, and then refusing to return a share to insure that such opportunities continue. It is like a person driving a big car with a support the troops sticker on it, then complaining that gas it too expensive(even though it is often cheaper than coke or coffee), and demanding that we deserve tax rebates, even though our troops desperately need the money. No, it is merely that people seem to love to do the opposite of what their church says, so often the safest thing for a church to do is just remain silent, expecially when the church does the opposite of what it is proposing.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
He's obviously forgotten that a large chunk of the taxes those corporations pay in Ireland (along with the rest of us taxpayers here) has gone to providing compensation for victims of abuse at the hands of the church.
The Papal authority has (debated) Biblical backing, in the little part where Jesus says something to the effect of "Behold, I give you the keys to the Kingdom of God... whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven" and such. The regular Protestant approach to that is that the passage applies only to Peter specifically, but the Roman Catholic church considers the Pope as the successor to Peter.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
jesus of nazareth said it because otherwise romans would slaughter christians, not because it was ethical and divine.
Read radical news here
And of course, this is exactly equivalent to making a pronouncement that Google specifically is evil. Of course.
Are you adequate?
Other points about Ireland - just to provide the complete picture:
1. The only english speaking (first language) member of the eurozone
2. Pro-US (every soldier that went to Iraq stopped at Shannon for a pint).
3. Consistently one of the most politically right country in Europe - despite Bertie Ahern's declaration of being 'the only socialist in the Dail' (if Bertie's a socialist then George Bush is a communist).
4. Nice to place to live if you're an executive, fishing, horse racing, golf and plenty of high brow parties - (except this year as it's been pissing rain for a solid 8 months).
5. Pro-Microsoft - Charlie McCreevy (of software patent fame) was Finance Minster only 4 years ago - and he's not too good for a visit from BG.
6. Very strong partnership model (like having strong unionisation but where everybody gets along).
I'm not saying these are good points or that I'm happy about them - just that they are.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
It really doesn't matter. Either way, the pope's alleged authority is based on muddled metaphysical nonsense. And if you examine the actions of the church over history -- which ought to be the compelling basis for its authority -- you will most likely find its claiming to speak on "morality" to be a sad joke.
There were no such beings in Jesus' day, sir.
They were all Jews. He was asked by the Jews if it was legal (according to God's law) for Jews to pay taxes to the Romans.
(a) should the Internet move to IPv6 or stick with IPv4? Which one is the lesser evil?
(b) Blue-Ray vs HD-DVD: what would Jesus watch?
Then I am in full support of revoking the all churches' 501(c)(3) status within the USA. Christ said to pay taxes? Then people shouldn't be allowed to use the church as a tax break, and the church itself can pay taxes on its income too.
The Scientologists will be screwed especially hard over that one. Couldn't happen to a more deserving lot, honestly.
=Smidge=
As we all know I have by far the largest penis on this forum. Due to the status this gives me amongst your lowly selves, I don't often lower myself to replying to normal threads and instead spend my time smoking fine cigars, being respected by my fellow man and my enormous wang revered by countless beautiful models. However, on this issue, I feel compelled to comment.
As we all know, provided you aren't already enraptured by the gentle swaying of my enormous beef truncheon, the Pope is Catholic. As we all also know, if you can avert your eyes from my thumping bloodhead for just a few seconds longer, is that Catholicism is a religion founded on the basis that you never show your penis to anyone, except small boys who are unlikely at such a tender age to understand the difference between a tiny flaccid pecker such as your own and an enormous swollen man-wang such as mine. Also, the Pope is the leader of Catholicism, the religion we have just deduced is based around the shrivelled, wizened, narrow pillar of a conspiracy to hide the average man's tiny, insignificant penis from the big, wide, cavernous world. From this, we can establish that the Pope probably has the smallest penis in the world.
Now, let's look at the other party in this debate. Google. Google is run by millionaires. Billionaires in fact. Now successful people - if you know any through association, which I doubt - all have huge wangs. You can tell by the way we have to adjust our gait to cast you a disparaging glance as you walk past in your $2 sneakers, blissfully uninhibited by girlfriends, self-respect or five pounds of swinging cock-beef hidden in your trouser leg. The conclusion is almost as obvious as my package in a speedo: The Pope hates Google, because he has a tiny, insignificant little pecker and the owners of Google, like myself, have huge woman-pleasing spunk-spigots. But it's alright, he can't help it. He just wasn't born with my um... massive 'advantage'.
It's not your fault I'm better than you.
What the hell? Churches are tax exempt.
Typical religious hypocritism.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Being a pope myself, I must both strongly oppose and applaud your opinion.
So we have the Pope thinking in German, writing in Latin, and we're denouncing an English translation of a document that hasn't been published yet? Yes, sounds about right. Of course the document will be logical and well-reasoned, with a focus on protecting the poor who are paying more than they otherwise would have to without the rich evading taxes... but naturally - few will bother to read the always poorly translated English document, and no one will read the Latin. But everyone will be sure in their hearts that it's a scheme and a plot or an overstepping of boundaries. Lovely.
There is constant redefinition of what is considered infallible and what isn't, in order to keep contradictions from being troublesome. The modern definition of having to use particular phrases to declare a teaching to be infallible is simply a way of wiping out the old inconvenient doctrines.
When Boniface VIII wrote Unam Sanctum, declaring that nobody could be saved without being under the authority of the Pope, he certainly understood that to be infallible; but he didn't know the magic words that are required today.
And if it's the case, as is claimed today, that there have only been a handful of invocations of papal infallibility, then why have all these new insights come only after 1850?
Also, I don't believe the other interpretation of the keys to the kingdom is that they applied only to Peter. It's that the whole Church was given the keys, which are the Gospel and the Sacraments, not just one man.
Christ also said "Render unto God what is God's"
You can consider the Church to be doing that, I suppose.
(note: not defending the Church, just sayin... Christ said to pay the government what you owe them)
Given the proven record of the Vatican protecting Nazis, that is not flamebait.
i d=1821
The cooperation between the Vatican and escaping Fascists taints anyone rising to Pope, because those approving him for the position would have either been involved or known of it and kept silent. They would not appoint a "boss of bosses" who would turn on them. Remember the age of the Cardinals when you consider what they do and who they elevate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(history)
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Why do we need to pope to tell us what we already know? Or should know? The entire physical universe by its very nature is "evil". It's the evil of might makes right. So what?
What?
As if it is the responsibility of businesses to make sure governments get a cut of their profits so the church folk and live better off. The Pope should stick with dealing with religion and his particular followers instead of expecting handouts from others.
It's governments responsibility to regulate how businesses operate withing their boundaries. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Sounds like he wants one world government to regulate/tax everyone on the planet regardless it they are a sovereign nation or not.
And i suppose if there is a clash of morality between countries, he gets to choose?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Not Forgetting it wasn't until the early 1990's that the Catholic Church (Pope) exonerated Galileo....
/ mod02/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/index.shtml
There are bigger fish to fry than businesses mentioned..
As in:
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a
On second thought, somebody just send the pope this post and let him slap himself awake with it.
It depends upon who is doing the interpretation. However, what you just wrote goes against the standard interpretation that I've heard from a number of circles--which is that the realm of money and taxation is not an area where the Church would be involved. That is, even though individuals have an obligation to live their lives in the light of Christ and find salvation through Him, they are also obligated as best they can to obey the laws (including tax laws) of the land in which they live.
In other words, Christianity is not an anti-normative religion.
Now if Google and Dell and other companies were breaking the law in order to avoid taxes, then clearly their actions would be a problem: it would be theft. However, Google and Dell and other companies are legally avoiding paying more taxes than they have to--which has more to do with the overly-complicated tax code than it does with cheating Caesar out of what is his.
Any Catholic encyclical that goes against the practice of off-shoring may make mention of Matthews 22:21--but the rational the Holy See will use to oppose off-shoring will undoubtedly not make use of this particular passage--and I would bet would go to great lengths to explain why the Church should comment on tax policy regardless of Christ's original sayings in Matthews.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
In related news, stay tuned for the North Pole summit where Santa Claus announces who's been Naughty and who's been Nice.
...is he a Catholic?
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Dude, seriously, it's a giant gold helmet. You don't *need* to add tinfoil, it's already plenty shielded to prevent the Catholic mind control satellites from getting you. Why do you think the pope wears it?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's. But what belongs to God? Everything! There ain't much room left for rendering unto Caesar.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Fixed that for you.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It is evil to give your tax money to a country whose government is able to manage the country with less tax revenue.
A sig is redundant.
It pains me to defend the church, really it does. But contrary to popular opinion, you don't need sex to survive. If you believe contraception is immoral, then don't stick it in. Pretty simple actually.
Seriously, I think someone needs to remind old Ratzinger what century he is living in. Being the head of the inquisition obviously confused him a bit. He can't bend kings to his will by threatening excommunication anymore.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Seems to me Ireland is competitive. What is wrong with low taxes? In 20 years Ireland went from being one of the poorest countries in Europe to one of the richest following these outrageous policies. Seems to me we should congratulate them and seek to imitate their success. Besides how can these companies launder profits when the Euro exchange rate is so unfavorable?
an ill wind that blows no good
Then you can ask him why he thinks that paying taxes is actually contributing to the good of the common man?
Because most of the tax money is invested in things that further the common good? What else keeps the police, fire fighters, courts, schools, kindergartens, roads and utilities (which are often subsidized by govt money) working?
Hasn't every war in history been started by either those-collecting-taxes or those-who-want-to-collect-taxes ?
I'm fairly sure most of them were also started by people wearing clothes.
Of course the point on birth control is right, the Catholics should stop proclaiming bullshit like "just don't have sex" because they should have noticed by now that "no wanking" and "no sex" is either-or (or neither) but never both, humans want sex and that's something even the Church cannot deny ("be fertile and multiply!", when God wants something done he just puts the urge to do it into his creatures). The population growth in poorer areas is not sustainable. God knows the laws of the nature he made, he knows that populations self-regulate. Now he wants to test if we have enough control over ourselves to prevent the self-regulation from kicking in...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
apparently nearly a billion people on Earth. that's 1/6 of the people that represent humanity... The real question is, are those billion active, devoted, practicing Catholics or just identify with the religion for various other random reasons? I have several "Catholic" friends, and none actively practice, attend mass, etc., but identify as Catholic because of how they were raised. Don't point out the stupidity in this - I know, and they know - but it's the way things are. Their approach to most papal announcements is, "hrm, that's interesting..." and they go on with their life, not altering it one bit due to what a silly git in a gold helmet has to say.
I suspect these people are counted into that billion, but if the pope demanded his followers rise up against protestants/jews/muslims/circus clowns, most would just ignore him as a dumbass.
No, really. This is funny: Evil and good are subjective adjectives given by opinionated pricks..
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
You only have to move to the middle of the Irish Sea for that. I live in the Isle of Man, and we neither have corporation tax nor capital gains tax. HOWEVER, the Isle of Man does cooperate fully with other governments on tax reporting issues, as well as money laundering issues.
Canonical (i.e. company behind Ubuntu) is based in the Isle of Man. Unfortunately, despite the Manx connection to Linux, the government may as well be the Isle of Microsoft government. The head of Government ISD is personal friends with a director of Microsoft UK (so much so that on business trips to see Microsoft, everyone else stays in a hotel, but he stays with his friend) - so with that sort of conflict of interest, even if every single politician criticised the treasury on sneding so much of our taxpayer's money to Redmond instead of keeping it within the island, nothing would happen. Heigh ho.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Maybe you should declare the pope evil for some of nasty things that the church does and supports. In this, he is absolutely right in attacking this corporatism which uses its own myths (many equally as false as those which the Catholic Church is based upon) to create a world in its image. Your "understanding" (whatever that is) of global economics is based on myths just like Christianity. Both myths are based upon some truth and some dogma. The current form of global capitalism creates more misery in the world than the Catholic Church does.
As subject says :)
Oddly enough, Denmark has grown from being a fairly poor agriculture-based economy in the post-war years, to having a GDP per capita in the top ten world-wide, with taxes that start at 48%, and work their way up to over 70% marginal (on income). And all this without having any natural resources to speak of. So yeah, why can't we lower our taxes?
- Frans.
Frankly, I've never seen any passage in the Bible describing the position or, or need for a pope.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You can't take the sky from me...
Not only that but these leaders (who claim to hear these voices) are in a position to assert their views to complex questions which they haven't the slightest expertise in and without regard to people who disagree. And these irrational decisions contribute to human suffering by making blanket decisions about what we should or should not do. It's a shame that even the most progressive and secular of governments feels the need to consult church leaders about anything. If someone wants to believe that the space fairy is talking to them, then fine, but don't expect or demand that anyone else should care or be bound by those beliefs.
Huh?
While the Catholic Church has never been literal about following the Bible, it has always been the primary input into any choice. This is especially true of the Old Testament as it was pretty much stablished by the time the Church was founded. Since the Church predates the Council of Nicea by about three centuries, things aren't as black-and-white with the New Testament.
But tithing is Old Testament, and Jesus said "Give unto Ceaser...", so I don't see much wiggle room here. It is very Biblical, in addition to being part of culture and tradition of the Roman Church. Theoretically both are supposed to reflect the Will of God, which is the ultimate goal. How you get there is a detail.
As for your quit about the early Church being "truly catholic" implying that the modern Church isn't: Are you restricting your view to the Roman Church? The Catholic Church is an umbrella group, not the monolithic organization most people imagine. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53 183 has an article about growth in a non-Latin tradition Church. Just FYI.
personal comment /.ers. In addition to being an old man who has lived a fairly cloistered life, he still has his pet issues too.
- dougWhile the Popes have been involved in all sorts of social issues since the early days of the Church, I'm not sure that I see tax evasion as being important enough to get this much attention: Encyclicals are big deals. But maybe the Pope has a streak of anti-corporatism in him which should sit will with many
No, that was pretty solidly troll/flamebait... and I'm definitely agnostic, not religious at all. Not only was it nothing more than a rant against the pope and religion, there was a good dose of profanity thrown in for good measure. Just because you may agree with those sentiments, doesn't mean that the post wasn't written in an extremely flameish and abrasive manner.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
The point being made is that rich individuals and corporations are setting up a minimal presence in a foreign tax country (tax haven) in order to avoid paying taxes in the countries where they actually live or work. This is "bad" because by not paying local taxes, they're not supporting their local government and social programs. If you live in the [insert your country here] and use the Netherlands as a tax haven, then you're not paying your fair share for your country's universal health care, or 911 services, or military that keeps your democracy free, or whatever.
If you're going to benefit from your local country's laws and services, is it really too much to ask that you pay your fair share? If local taxes are too burdensome or wasteful, then work to improve them instead of hiding from the problem(s). We all complain that money influences politics. If people are allowed to hide money overseas, then they have no motivation to reform existing local laws. If they were forced to resolve the issues locally, they would be subject to local laws and publicity, thus making it difficult to corrupt the reformed laws. By hiding money overseas, there is little legal or public oversight to prevent abuse (such as laundering drug money.)
Thus tax havens create at least two problems: local services, laws, and legal protections are not being paid for, and local laws, morals, mores, and publicity are being evaded. The latter is probably the greater of the two sins.
A third problem that the Pope appears to be concerned about is that local taxes pay for social programs. You know, homeless shelters, health care for the poor, etc.. By turning to a tax haven, you are implicitly turning your back on your fellow man. Do you really think that anyone using a foreign tax shelter is actually using the money they saved back to build up their local community? Granted, the Catholic Church shouldn't be throwing stones, but a Christian who hides tax money isn't much of a Christian. Belittle the Pope all you want, but he is probably the only individual who has the ability to bring worldwide attention to global morality. You don't have to like the guy shining the light on the cockroaches, but do be glad that someone is doing it. (But we do keep a mirror handy to throw some of that light back.)
i hereby declare ALL religions to be evil, anything that professes to know the truth without proper factual evidence to back it up is from henceforth known as evil...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Of course the Pope is concerned about money.
The Roman Catholic Church has been funding schools, hospitals, charitable institutions and enterprises of every sort for 2,000 years.
In 1952 Mother Teresa opened the first Home for the Dying in space made available by the City of Calcutta. With the help of Indian officials she converted an abandoned Hindu temple into the Kalighat Home for the Dying, a free hospice for the poor. She renamed it Kalighat, the Home of the Pure Heart (Nirmal Hriday). Those brought to the home received medical attention and were afforded the opportunity to die with dignity, according to the rituals of their faith; Muslims were read the Quran, Hindus received water from the Ganges, and Catholics received the Last Rites. "A beautiful death," she said, "is for people who lived like animals to die like angels -- loved and wanted." Mother Teresa soon opened a home for those suffering from Hansen's disease, commonly known as leprosy, and called the hospice Shanti Nagar (City of Peace). The Missionaries of Charity also established several leprosy outreach clinics throughout Calcutta, providing medication, bandages and food. Mother Teresa
Tax havens are a predictable market response to a broken tax system. Businesses have a duty to reduce the amount of tax they pay by whatever legal means they find, and individuals are entitled to do so, since it's their money, not the government's.
That being said, if we want to get about ten trillion dollars currently held in offshore accounts repatriated to the USA, all we have to do is enact the fair tax, which will make offshore tax havens a moot point.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Humm, come to think of this, I think the Pope's own book has some advice for situations like this. I think it goes something like "He that is without sin...first cast a stone".
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Agreed. Most certainly reaching for a flame ware with his verbiage. I would say a more subtle way to put it would be to ask, "Has the Pope looked into the Catholic Church's collective mirror lately?" ;-)
> Citizens were required to pay a flat tax of 10% of all earnings.
/ chapter3.html
Actually, it is more like twenty three percent. There were three tithes. http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/tithe-in-bible
10% pa for the levites, 10% pa for festivals, and 10% every three years for the poor.
> These taxes went to the religious state...
No. 10% pa was for the levites, but not all levites could be priests, only the descendants of Aaron. The real reason the levites got 10%pa was because they got no allocation of land when the twelve tribes settled in the promised land.
>...whose responsibility it was to provide judicial, executive, and legislative services
Are you sure you're not reading the American constitution into the OT?
> Further on, according to the Bible, in Christian communities this developed into an entirely socialist system, where resources were jointly held and distributed by a central authority. Failure to comply was punishable by death.
No. Failure to comply was not punishable by death. A husband and wife were punished by death when they voluntarily sold property, voluntarily handed a proportion of the proceeds over to the Apostles, but lied to them by saying they had given the whole proceeds. AFAIK there were no socialist systems in the NT. Socialism implies compulsion. There was no compulsion. Perhaps you mean they were like communes?
Google de-indexes the Pope.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I'm pretty sure that the CoS lost their tax-exempt status during the late 80's, actually.
Given that Ratzinger, formerly of the SS & Nazi Party, while head of the inquisition (office for the purity of the faith, look it up) was instrumental in declaring about 3/4 of the worlds population without hope of "salvation", and more than 1/3 of his own church's congregants as due excommunication for various "horrifying sins" such as birth control, advocating the rights of women & such not to mention his role in justifying the persecution of church members who came forward to reveal paedophile clergy & the church's role in shuffling said clergy about to avoid prosecution, it must be said that he speaks with the moral authority of a nightmare chimera of Josef Göbbels, "Rev." Ted Haggard, & Kenneth Lay of Enron fame. There is great serendipity in the fact that his encyclicals are known as "papal BULL". Anyone on the receiving end of criticism from this ur-hypocrite should direct him to the nearest short (deep water) pier, for a l-o-n-g walk.
And very influential.
Deleted
It doesn't. The Bishops exist as successors to the Apostles, although there are a lot more than 12 of them nowadays. Bishops are described in the New Testament, along with Priests, Deacons, and the Laity.Frankly, I've never seen any passage in the Bible describing the position or, or need for a pope.
Historically disputes between Bishops were resolved by Metropolitan Bishops, a term that I believe is still used by the Orthodox Churches. These are merely Bishops of large cities which were influential, but have no position of spiritual superiority. Rome was one of these, and was the only Metropolitan Bishopric to never fall to a Heresy. (FYI see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm for way too much information about Heresy.) Of course Matthew 13 shows Peter being elevated above the other Apostles when it comes to running the Church (You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.) Remember Peter==Rock, so it is a play on words.
The result is that the Bishop of Rome is just a "first among equals" who handles disputes. Mostly the Pope is juse the permanent tie-breaker if you will, and can only override the rulings of local Bishops in very rare circumstances. There are plenty of topics where US Bishops do things that Rome doesn't like, and there is nothing that the Pope can do about it. The whole infallibility thing only deals with specific points of doctrine, and almost never applies. It is certainly less useful than popular media makes it out to be. Remember that when the church does big shifts (Council of Trent, Vatican II), it is a coming together of large parts of the Church to form consensus, not the Pope making a decree.
And yes, this mechanism of Rome being the arbiter of disputes between Bishops is not Biblical. The Church is an artifact of Mankind, and as such is imperfect. Attempts are made to keep it working well, and somethings change over time. Remember that Bishops were installed due to popular decree (democratically, if you will) until corruption ended that process about a thousand years ago. Likewise the College of Cardinals is an attempt to shield the Papacy from local Roman politics. That hasn't been an issue for several centuries, but it is still the mechanism in use. A bit vestigial, somewhat like the US Electoral College.
I assume you're talking about the account of Ananias and Saphira. If so, you are misrepresenting it. When you read the whole story in Acts 5, it's clear that Ananias and Saphira died not because they didn't give all the profits from selling their land, but because they gave part of the profits and said it was all the profits.
In fact, Peter explicitly says about the land "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?" This obviously means they were not required to sell their land, and even after they did, they were not required to give 100% of the proceeds. It was not their failure to comply with the socialist system but rather their lie that got them killed.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
It's funny business when the Bishop of Rome calls the richest Catholic country a bunch of cheats.
Now I wonder if he's wanting the Irish government to change it's tax laws or those companies that use this tax loophole to become responsible citizen.
I assume him being the de facto leader of the Roman Catholic church can only hope the Irish government will act.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I agree. Separation of church and state should mean that taxes should be done regardless of whether an organization is religious or not. If they want to deduct the charity they give, that's fine, but if they want to collect money for entertainment (which is what services really are), they should be taxed just like the civic center down the street.
Who lives in his own special country that his church set up as a tax dodge.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
IANAC, but I think the biblical justification is that Jesus sorta names Peter as his 'successor' by giving him the 'keys', and Peter (with Paul) proceeded to found the diocese of Rome, so the pope claims to be the direct descendant of John, and hence of Jesus.
.02 etc
Interestingly, in the early middle ages the pope was actually called the bishop of rome, and often invoked this lineage from Peter (& Paul) to claim authority. Since early mediaeval faith was strongly relics-based (the bones of martyrs and saints were often placed in thrones, swords etc as a blessing) the fact that their skeletons were kept in Rome added to his authority. Somewhere in the high/late middle ages the emphasis shifted from being bishop of rome and successor of Peter & Paul to being the representative of God on earth. I don't believe this has any basis in the bible and was a way to place the position of the pope within a faith less based on relics.
Another interesting point is that Rome was no longer the centre of the known world during most of the early days of christianity, and the bishops of Byzantium, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem never really agreed with the special position of the pope. This (with some doctrinal issues) ultimately lead to the schism between Rome and the Eastern ('orthodox') church, which was reduced to Byzantium by the Islamic capture of the 3 other patriarchates.
Sorry for the redundant post; I was using Internet Explorer (at work) with Discussion2 turned on, which is a very confusing experience.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
And this said from the head of an organization that has supported the nazis in Germany, many military dictatorships in Latin America, the inquisition, etc, etc. Yeah, a highly moral and ethical authority, indeed.
To whom or what are corporate taxes unfair or unjust? And how can one punish corporations, or how can corporations (as opposed to its employees) be successful?
What properties can one ascribe to a corporation, as opposed to its employees/officers?
Damn! You sound like you just came over from Digg!!
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
I guess Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are the king of trolls.
I'm an atheist and I still found the post in question to be unreasonably rude. Modding it down was the correct thing to do.
Actually, its mild compared to what a lot of us feel.
"denounce the use of tax havens as socially unjust and immoral"
Says the Pope sitting in his tax haven called Vatican City. "Fucking hypocrite" is mild ...
Says the Pope who signed up with the nazis because "he could get in trouble otherwise, and it didn't mean anything." Sig heil my arse! The only reason we can't call him a dirty nazi is because he (probably) takes a bath once in a while, when not figuring out ways to try to maintain respectability while continuing to demand that his priests remain celibate, thus perpetuating holy buggery and child sexual abuse.
We tolerate religion - that doesn't mean we have to accept pronouncements from somebody who's so busy pointing fingers at everyone else in an effort to keep them from looking at the huge pile of wrongs he continues to promote. Hey, how about that "no birth control" policy? Nice way to doom another generation to overpopulation and starvation. And the "no condoms" bit. The Pope is promoting AIDS, herpes, clamydia, etc. How about the whole "virgins are better, they're pure" so its not so bad to rape a woman who's had sex, because she's a slut anyway, since she's not a virgin. Or the "divorce is wrong" so stay with hubby as he beats the shit out of you and the kids.
The pope is a fucktard.
Its all about money and power, same as always. Look up Banco Ambrosio Pope Murder
...is the whole concept of income taxes in general when all these various nations use fiat currency systems run by central banks, who get to profit enormously for little to no actual productive work. Income taxes exist today (as opposed to in the past when currency was backed by something other than hot air and a gun) as a means of hard handed and totalitarian social control by the elite using the carrot and the stick approach, but they aren't necessary to run governments or economies. An "open accounting" productivity and formula based currency based on the various nation's quantifiable produced wealth in tangibles (I like the top 100 adjusted yearly approach) could be substituted, with only a very few (percentage wise)of already rich folks being out of their "jobs".
If the Pope really wants to open a can of whup ass on large scale economic criminality, let him hit on the scum bag monopolist money changers first..he has historical precedent there.
If you let government tax religion, then you run the risk of taxes being used to suppress religion, or to favor one religion over another.
Not worth the risk, IMO.
Not even close.
They lost the status in the late 60's and they sued the IRS six ways from Sunday. They settled in 1993, paid the IRS some $12M in back taxes (a fraction of what it should have been) and got their tax exempt status back.
To this day they claim tax exemption proves the US accepts it as a religion.
=Smidge=
Moreover, it's basically the biggest fallacy ever that maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood perpetuates child sexual abuse. The decisions that those priests make are THEIRS, and theirs alone... not the Vatican's. Hell, I guess since I'm not getting laid, I should be going and molesting little boys, by your logic. Well, except for the fact that no one's forcing it on me, I guess, so I have no one to blame the molestation on.
Hey, how about that "no birth control" policy? Nice way to doom another generation to overpopulation and starvation. And the "no condoms" bit. The Pope is promoting AIDS, herpes, clamydia, etc. As someone else so succinctly points out in a thread further down the page, that isn't true at all. If you can't use birth control for religious reasons, don't have sex. It's not hard. How about the whole "virgins are better, they're pure" so its not so bad to rape a woman who's had sex, because she's a slut anyway, since she's not a virgin. ...wow. Please, find me actual proof that this is the position of the church. That's not in the Bible, nor is it the church's position in the least, as far as I'm aware. Until you present some evidence or proof, this is an absolutely ludicrous assertion. Or the "divorce is wrong" so stay with hubby as he beats the shit out of you and the kids. My understanding of the position on divorce (which may well vary by denomination, too) isn't that you can't divorce, it's that you shouldn't remarry if you get a divorce, unless it's to your original spouse, who you've somehow magically worked things out with."16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
And why exactly anyone is supposed to care of what pope says?
root of all...
Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
Sounds like Socialism to me. Call me crazy. Also, given Acts 4:32-35, which is literally the pretext of the story of the deaths of Ananias and Saphira, it is clear from the text that the church community had laid claim to an expectation that all the proceeds from any sale of property would go to the community, as Peter himself reminds Ananias right before he drops dead.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
What a great post, and I am an agnostic/apathetic. I learned a lot.
The pope is supposedly god's one true representative on earth ... surely chosen not simply by the votes of the cardinals, but by the will of god slanting that vote to the 'correct' choice.
... an impossibility, or essentially that there is no god.
Therefore you are either saying that god is not infallible
Either way, I like your way of thinking!
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Yes, the Popes are also the successor to St. Peter. My response was long winded as it was. You're absolutely correct that none of the other Metropolitan Bishops thought Rome was superior to them, which is one of the origins of the Great Schism. To add a bit more tension remember that of the seven ancient Metropolitan Bishops, six were in the East (Hellenistic) and only Rome was in the West (Latin). But those issues are political, not theological. The Orthodox can receive communion at a Catholic Church, something no Protestant is allowed to do, and that is because of the theological differences (transubstantiation being a good first example).
As for the shift from successor of St. Peter to God's Point Man on Earth, I consider that to be hubris. For most of the 12th-14th Centuries the Pope was the most powerful individual on Earth, with only the Emperor of China being close. That much power will go to anyone's head. And don't forget that just because some Pope spouts out stuff like that, it doesn't make it right. The Avignon Papacy (and Avignon Anti-Papacy) and the Borgias shows that the Church's history isn't always perfect. Like everything else, we have to try to do our imperfect best.
- doug
Thus began the least-successful marketing campaign in history, which we'll be examining over the next semester...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
... to criticize the business strategy of one of the few remaining countries that toe the line on abortion, eh?
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
I'm going to ask a stupid question: who does follow these teachings, exactly?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Such an uneducated and unintelligent rant as this is a waste of bandwidth, as is any attempt to make sense of and reply to it. However, I have some free time I'm willing to waste on this. A brief investigation will show that each and every attempt at fact in this drivel is not so and the opinions expressed (so elegantly) are of no value whatsoever.
About a billion Roman Catholics care (to one extent or another) what the Pope says.
The assertion that the Pope is merely a "figure head" who nevertheless has undeserved power is, of course, self-contradictory.
As pointed by another poster, the Bible isn't the primary source of the Pope's authority; tradition (supported by scripture and other early Christian writings) is what really gives an apostolic church it's authority.
I find it amusing that you think that "with science, people don't have to believe anything." A lot of philosophical schools would debate that. At minimum, you need to believe that your reality is "real", something not all would immediately affirm.
I too find "religion in deities" to be ridiculous, almost as much as I would actual belief in multiple deities, but I believe in only One. So, too, does the pope, I hear.
Do you have any idea what the Pope is actually paid and actually owns? He doesn't actually have a "salary" as such and personally owns very little. He just lives in a palace, which he doesn't really own. I believe they they had his old car on eBay a while ago - a rather modest VW Golf. He does have access to the "Peter's Pence" collection from around the world, which may be several (maybe hundreds of) millions, but is mostly used for his charitable purposes and just to pay the bills at the Vatican.
Oh, and evil is usually defined in Christian theology as the "absence of good", somewhat like the absence of any sense in your screed.
More to the point, since the Encyclical isn't even released yet, no one knows really what it is actually going to say, so all this is speculation of the most uninformed and useless kind. The old Roman saying is "Those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk." I believe the Holy Father may actually deal with this, as with all ethical issues, in terms of the liceity of both means and ends. It is entirely possible that there are good ends which may be pursued by valid means which result in less taxes being paid. Simple greed isn't one of the approved motives, however, anymore than law-breaking is an approved method.
Frankly, I think the AC poster is either under 15 or has some serious problems that I really hope he gets straightened out.
God bless
The Church is an artifact of Mankind
And so is the Bible.
I am aware of the Christian/Catholic doctrine that the Bible is "divinely inspired," which is commonly taken to mean "written by God" or at least "sufficiently influenced by God so as to be lacking in errors."
I submit that this popular doctrine is itself an artifact of mankind.
These facts are not in dispute:
1) each word in the bible was put to paper by a human hand.
2) each statement about the truth-status of Biblical content is spoken by human lips.
Once God appears before me and says, "The Bible is free of error," I will believe it...however so long as it is only humans saying it I will treat it with the same level of skepticism that I treat any other human statement.
In any event, back on topic, big businesses have demonstrated that they are not concerned with doing what is right, but rather, with doing what they think they can get away with. I don't believe that any statements from an old anachronism like the Pope will change that.
If not for the voice in his head, what reason at all has anyone to pay the slightest attention to him? And if this voice in his head is in doubt, then what is left? There are plenty people smarter and more informed than him on virtually every subject you care to mention.
Or maybe you don't know...you just felt like writing a baseless accusation against someone? Don't you think it's a little bit hypocritical for you to smear all religious people for making stuff up, and then write a post based entirely on some convoluted theory you thought up without evidence?
Religious people do make stuff up. Starting with the supernatural beings they claim as fact. You ask for evidence but I doubt any religious leader could show any evidence that their god exists, let alone that this god speaks to them personally.
And don't you think it's unfair to criticize the Pope for the contents of a document which YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ, since it hasn't even been published yet?
I criticize the pope for being in ANY position to make any kind of pronouncement that people listen to. He claims to speak for a deity yet there is no evidence that this deity exists, or that this deity speaks through the pope, or that in doing so the pope is therefore authoritative in anything he says. Given that, what reason should anybody let alone any government care what this pope person thinks?
You very well could be right, although I certainly hope that you're not.
3 081. While I agree that the Church as screwed up on hiding the pedophiles instead not pro-actively doing something, I am not convinced that the reaction indicates further corruption. Of course this could be simple wishful thinking on my part.
The Church has a long history of policing itself, and it doesn't like secular authorities butting in. Don't forget that even today China is trying to control the Church in China http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=5
If Caesar says he doesn't want to tax the money donated to churches, why should God argue with that?
The Pope does not tell them to have lots of unprotected sex.
In fact that is exactly what the Pope tells them to do. They are not allowed to have safe sex, birth control is prohibited. Recently there was a secession for married couples to use condoms if one of the partners had an STD. So clearly the church expects married people to be having regular sex, yet they forbid the use of contraception. The rhythm method doesn't really work so well. I'm pretty sure oral sex is rather frowned upon by the Pope as well.
We are all just people.
As a general rule I try avoid taking advice on my sex life from octogenarian virgins.
Getting back to the point at issue many companies do take their profits in Ireland and other countries with low corporate tax rates, thus avoiding paying tax and supporting the social infrastructure in countries where the profit is made. In fact that other bastion of dubious morality GWB raised the possibility of punishing companies that took profits in Ireland last year.
PS. I'm Irish and find the fawning attitude of our government to the requests of trans-national corporations reprehensible in the extreme, we have ignored indigenous companies while throwing money at trans-nationals that have no local ties and leave at the drop of a hat.
PPS. I live in Meath and am not at all bitter about the departure of NEC ;)
"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
It's not just a way to hide taxes from the public who ultimately absorb the costs. It's also a way to milk votes from the masses, since so many people subscribe to the "eat the rich" / "stick it to the man" mentality.
It's getting worse all the time. Google is just one company of many companies that are doing more and more outsourcing. The pope would certainly not mention Google specifically. This is a horrible article full of innuendo and breaks a very important quality rule: Never use a question mark in the title of a news item. Question marks are a dead giveaway of hysterics without content.
Has slashdot been bought by Rupert Murdoch?
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
Go ahead. Declare whatever you feel like. It is a (mostly) free country.
But please remember that the Pope doesn't have a blank slate to do anything. Birth Control is restricted specifically because of Onanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onanism, and more generally because of the doctrine that any life is good. Yes, it means that people will be poorer, and worse off materially, but what is the higher truth? The church is far more interested in your spiritual well-being in Heaven than your physical well-being on Earth.
Your tone makes it seem like you are non-believer. Fine. Most secularists disagree with that basic stand.
- doug
PS: As for the deforestation issue, I consider that a failing of Christianity. In Genesis we find we're supposed to take care of the world, and we certainly aren't doing a good job of that. http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v10n3p24.htm is a longer winded statement of the same idea. I haven't looked into this Dr. John E. Silvius fellow, so I don't know if he is spouting nonsense in general or not, but I like this one link.
Want to talk about evil? Taking people's money in the name of God.
But contrary to popular opinion, you don't need sex to survive.
You do need sex for your marriage to survive. The Pope also says no to oral sex and masturbation. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, but part of personal responsibility is personal freedom. To many Catholics, the laws of the church are as binding as the laws of the state. You cannot remove their control of their sex lives without also relocating a large portion of the responsibility. That is why I hold the Pope responsible.
We are all just people.
I'm not calling him a Nazi, he was however in the Hitler youth.
Can't say I blame him for that, but I sure can ridicule him for it.
Papal infalibility...
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
If you don't like the way your nation is run, you may avail yourself to the free market of nations to find one you like better, or you may build your own.
You're not crazy; you're just confusing descriptive with prescriptive and socio-economic policy with the voluntary actions of a community.
Actually, the text says the complete opposite. Verse 3:
But Peter said "Ananias why has Satan filled you heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land'
You presumably would focus on the keeping things back part of that quote, but taken in its entirety and in the context of verse 4...
"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
... that the problem is lying about the about sold. After selling the land, it (or rather, the money gained) was still the property of Ananias an Sapphira. They could have kept all the money, but by pretending they had given it all to the church, they had foolishly attempted to deceive God. There was no expectation that all the money would go to the church.
It is very inappropriate to speculate about the Pope's second encyclical until after we've had a chance to read it. Also, since when does Slashdot delve into Catholicism's policies?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Actually, there's more to it than that.
The Bible was put together by the Roman Catholic Church around 300-400 AD. They looked at a bunch of different writings, decided some should go in, and others shouldn't. This became "The Bible".
So, if you believe that the Bible is "free from error", "divinely inspired", etc., then why would you NOT believe the Roman Catholic Church which assembled it is not also free from error? By that reasoning, the RCC is the only true church, and everything the Pope says is absolutely correct.
You can't have one without the other.
(c) Could Jesus pop so much popcorn that He Himself could not eat it all while watching Disney's Cars in HD?
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
Religion is about control.
The literal word of the bible is only followed when its convenient for those in control. Depending on the denomination passages, hell, even whole books of the bible are ignored. (Apocrypha)
Beyond that the church will, when its helpful to a particular objective, apply outlandish interpretations of parts of the bible, just to forward their own agendas.
You should really listen to church radio sometimes. I do for the comedy value. Some of the conclusions they reach from the passages they read are a riot.
...does he shit in the woods?
Finally, the church will now be paying taxes, yes?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
No argument with me. St. Jerome was divinely inspired when he collated the Vulgate Bible, but even much of that had already been put together by a group of Nuns in the Holy Land (forgive me if I don't look up the reference). But I don't think the divine inspiration was on the facts/history, but on the way it makes you think. The details people argue about are usually not important.
The thing that most people get is that the Bible is not designed to be a literal work. It has to function at way too many levels for that to pan out. It has way too much symbolism in it. This is why people study the thing, not just read it: It is made to make you think. While I don't think it has spiritual errors, I don't trust it for facts either. History and Theology (or Philosophy) are different beasties.
I realized that I'm going off on a tangent, but was the Earth made in seven days? Who cares? There were phases and God was the motivator behind them. Asking if he was done in a week is missing the forest because too many trees are in the way. I've always liked Azimov's creation story http://www.sumware.com/creation.html.
First and foremost that little Hitler Youth
who skipped out on their rallies and only joined because everyone was basically forced to
is evil because he still prohibits birth control. Ever poor family of 12 that loses kids to starvation or the side effects of malnutrition can look to the Pope for why they couldn't just have two kids that they were able to take care of.
No, they can look to their own genitals for that reason. I know plenty of families that don't use birth control and have a reasonable number of kids.
Then you can ask him why he thinks that paying taxes is actually contributing to the good of the common man?
Because the more that the rich ged rid of tax havens, the more money goes into governmental redistribution programs for the poor. Do you seriously think he's asking the poor to pay up their taxes?
Hasn't every war in history been started by either those-collecting-taxes or those-who-want-to-collect-taxes ?
Yeah, this sentence means nothing. The only forces capable of starting actual wars (not rebellions) are governments or proto-government-oids, which need taxes to survive. And to, uh, finance their war.
I guess this makes sense if you presuppose a great deal of freewill, but not even the Church does that (if people had all the freewill they could, it would be possible to never fall into sin). By the Church and by reality, people are flawed and vulnerable to temptation. Not having sex is hard--that's why marriage is sanctioned in the first place, as an acceptable outlet for those urges. (1 Corinthians 7: 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.)
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Exactly the opposite actually. By exempting churches from taxes the government gets to chose what is and isn't a religion. That sounds much more dangerous and risky to me.
Then you should look a bit closer at Matthew 16:18-19, which quotes Christ thus: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Well billions of people keep practicing evil, so I'm not so sure they can tell the difference (or care to).
Well that's the choice that each individual has to make. According to the pope, if you have sex then expect children. I think the pope is a lunatic personally, and I would hope other people can recognize that when they hear him speak about the evils of contraception. I hope he keeps saying it too, it helps validate my opinion of him.
I'm not surprised one bit. The death of John Paul II was a horrible tragedy, although one we knew was coming. This new pope, he sickens me to the core. The more I read about him, the less I like him.
First he uses the homily at John Paul's funeral to decry "radical individualism" and now this? God wants us to give willingly to the poor and down trodden. Taxes are anything but a willing gift to such people (most of the money doesn't even go to them).
For a supposedly intelligent man, he's got a lot to learn about the Bible, government, and economics.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Let's try a google fight:
google evil about 65,900,000
pope evil about 2,080,000
Looks like google has the lead here, folks.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
If you call what the early Christians had "socialism," then you must also think open source software is socialism*.
Repeat after me: "Socialism isn't voluntary. If it's voluntary, it's not socialism."
* (Which, by the way, instantly makes you unpopular around here, which I'm sure is the opposite of what you intended when you publically misinterpreted the Bible here.)
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
"Moreover, it's basically the biggest fallacy ever that maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood perpetuates child sexual abuse. The decisions that those priests make are THEIRS, and theirs alone... not the Vatican's. Hell, I guess since I'm not getting laid, I should be going and molesting little boys, by your logic. Well, except for the fact that no one's forcing it on me, I guess, so I have no one to blame the molestation on. "
The catholic church's own internal studies show that a celibate priesthood attracts the wrong kind of person. 20% struggle with desires to have sex with children, and half with desires to have same-sex partners; these numbers are WAY over the average for the ppulation at large.
The same-sex bit isn't a problem for most people, except that in this case, again, its the whole "sex outside of marriage is wrong" crap.
" > > Hey, how about that "no birth control" policy? Nice way to doom another generation to overpopulation and starvation. And the "no condoms" bit. The Pope is promoting AIDS, herpes, clamydia, etc.
> As someone else so succinctly points out in a thread further down the page, that isn't true at all. If you can't use birth control for religious reasons, don't have sex. It's not hard.
" > > How about the whole "virgins are better, they're pure" so its not so bad to rape a woman who's had sex, because she's a slut anyway, since she's not a virgin.
> ...wow. Please, find me actual proof that this is the position of the church. That's not in the Bible, nor is it the church's position in the least, as far as I'm aware. Until you present some evidence or proof, this is an absolutely ludicrous assertion.
"
While we're at it, where in the bible does it say that priests must be celibate? Oh, it doesn't - it says priests must be MARRIED! Fucktard pope in the middle ages got his underwear in a twist because a priest and a bishop were having a "good time enjoying each other's company", and while the bishop was keeping it all quiet, his lover went on and on to anyone who would listen about how great it was. So the pope declared that, from that point on, priests be celibate.
Your papal "bull" is exactly that - bull. Its contrary to the bible, but that's not a surprise. There's not a single religion that adheres 100% to their own teachings.
" > >> Or the "divorce is wrong" so stay with hubby as he beats the shit out of you and the kids.
> My understanding of the position on divorce (which may well vary by denomination, too) isn't that you can't divorce, it's that you shouldn't remarry if you get a divorce, unless it's to your original spouse, who you've somehow magically worked things out with. "
People get the governments they deserve, because they allow and enable those governments. Explains both Bush and the Nazi Pope. Forgive his past? No - he's still a fascist bastard using the same tactics to regiment people's lives that any other cult uses.
What is it with religion and sex anyway?
Eurozone is only relevant to the last 8 years - prior to that there was no difference compared to say UK on the language/currency benefit score.
Ireland is not pro-US, though the government certainly is.
Ireland doesn't have much in the way of right or left, it's all pretty centerist and the policies are usually whatever gets the policians into power. The exception being the right-wing minor PD party that was allowed by the main party Fianna Fáil to drive some ridiculous nonsense through. Out of self-interest of potential benefits for their friends (FOFF) rather than any real right-wing ideology.
You're not kidding. Best of all if you're a builder though.
We did get maybe two days of sunshine this summer. But screw it, next year I'm getting out of here for the summer.
Partnership is doomed - the "essential" professions can't afford sensible accommodation without major pay increases. Government lack of development planning (i.e. whatever the builders want to build, wherever, they can and sure who needs infrastructure to go with) will ultimately be to blame for the breakdown of union/strike/pay management.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
The Vatican ratlines are well documented by many sources that have nothing to do with evangelicals or Jack Chick.
t m
y /0,6903,1469055,00.html
f aith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexu al-persons_en.html
Nothing _I_ linked is sourced from Bible Thumpers. Google "Vatican ratlines" if you wish.
How about some links documenting YOUR assertions, AC?
Ratzinger can certainly favor Church over flock when expedient. DO note that the settlements of hundreds of millions of dollars were a CHOICE, and essentially an admission of guilt. That much money would have bought lawyers enough to put up quite a fight if there was something viable to fight for instead of more to expose:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Whitney0426.h
Pedophilia Scandal: What of Ratzinger's role in the Vatican's much-delayed response to reports of massive sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, a scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church in the US? In 2002, sounding almost Tom DeLayish, Ratzinger told the Catholic News Service that he thought that the pedophile priest scandal was being driven by a media set on making the Catholic Church look bad:
"I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offences among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower.
"In the United States, there is constant news on this topic, but less than 1% of priests are guilty of acts of this type. The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts.
"Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the Church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion."
So much for secular law:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/stor
"Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.
'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.
Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,' Shea added. "
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/c
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
And Christ's response is the actual reason that the Jewish population refused conversion to Christianity.
> Popes aren't immortal, sir.
No, just immoral. They make their living the same way as other hucksters - preying on people's weaknesses. They promise immortality ("life everlasting") if you believe what they say, and do what they say, but they themselves show by their actions that they neither do nor believe.
Otherwise, the first thing they would do is admit that the imposition of celibacy was a terrible mistake, and has caused a lot of suffering ... but of course, the pope is never wrong. And if you believe that, you'll believe anything under the right circumstances - the right circumstances being "The pope says it."
If the pope declared that it was god's will that you kill your firstborn child, same as Abraham, as a test of your faith, would you do it? Its in the Bible ... and the Pope is telling you to do it ...
Or would you admit that the Pope is wrong, same as popes have been wrong on all sorts of other things, including the pill, same-sex relationships, divorce and remarriage, the Earth being the center of the universe, the stars being fixed in heaven, torture to promote confessions to save people's souls, etc.
Its a cult, same as any other cult, just more followers.
My understanding of Onanism isn't the "wasting of sperm" but the "willful wasting of sperm". There was no "oops" going on here, it was an attempt to have sex without repercussions. It wasn't a 16yo experimenting, but an adult trying to get around the system. Sex is designed to produce kids, the fact that it is pleasurable is only an added bonus. BTW: It is strawman to talk about artificial insemination of all women of child bearing years. Why does everyone forget the role that marriage is supposed to play in this? note: it is more for the kid than the parents.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that there are enough people on Earth to back off from the "Be fruitful and multiply" directive. At face value, you could very well be right. That isn't my call to make. Maybe the directive could be extended to imply we're supposed to colonize space and that will be our outlet for "surplus population". (Please forgive that horrible phrase, but I'm in a hurry to go, so I'm not picking my words as well as I should.)
As for your main point of "there can be too much of a good thing" (close enough?), again you could be right. But who am I (or who are you for that matter) to decide who lives and who doesn't? Wouldn't it be better to find a way for everyone to live? Why should we settle when we haven't tried hard to come up with a solution. Especially when birth control won't fix the problem, just slow down the rate of growth. I acknowledge that I'm being wishful again.
One last comment: I remember reading years ago that the strongest indicators of reduced fertility are (in no particular order): wealth, education (especially that of the mother), and urbanization. I think that wealth and education were related, but I'm not sure. Can I vote to spend any money on birth control for increasing these three factors instead? It would have the same result (perhaps a bit more slowly) and would not required any Dr.Death type choices on anyone's part.
- doug
In some churches, maybe it is just entertainment, but that goes against the official orthodox role of a service.
I'm not quite sure how you made that connection... do you suppose that any "religion" the government deems annoying enough to suppress would be taxed into oblivion? If not, I can't see how taxing the churches would create a situation that can't already be created.
If anything I'd be afraid of the exact opposite. 501(c)(3) status requires that the organization stay politically neutral (no campaigning). Of course the church as a whole is politically bias to the right to put it nicely. If we take away 501(c)(3) status then they are technically free to campaign all they want, and this country just might collapse into a genuine theocracy within a single election cycle. With the tactics politicians use to rake in votes, one could argue we're already on the verge of a theocracy.
No thanks.
=Smidge=
The catholic church's own internal studies show that a celibate priesthood attracts the wrong kind of person. 20% struggle with desires to have sex with children, and half with desires to have same-sex partners; these numbers are WAY over the average for the ppulation at large.
That still doesn't change the fact that the priests themselves are responsible for their own actions. No one else. Don't sit and blame the Vatican for the failings of individuals.
... riiiiiight ... dream on. The urge to have sex is part of human wiring. Why do you think there are so many ugly people? Do you really believe that their ugly parents found it easy to "choose not to have sex"? No - they wanted to get laid, same as everyone else, just their options were limited to other ugly people, or the local sheep.
While we're at it, where in the bible does it say that priests must be celibate? Oh, it doesn't - it says priests must be MARRIED! Fucktard pope in the middle ages got his underwear in a twist because a priest and a bishop were having a "good time enjoying each other's company", and while the bishop was keeping it all quiet, his lover went on and on to anyone who would listen about how great it was. So the pope declared that, from that point on, priests be celibate.
Way to not address my argument at all. I asked for evidence or proof that your ludicrous assertion that it was ok to rape non-virgins was true, either in the Bible or church doctrine. Cough up, or choose to not answer the point, don't give a response that has nothing to do with my point.
Your papal "bull"...
My papal bull? I'm not Catholic, nor of any religious bent. I guess technically I am Catholic, since I was baptized when I was young (my parents were Catholic at the time). Doesn't really mean anything though, I don't consider myself a member.
... and this is reasonable how?
I didn't say it was.
Its fucked up, same as everything else the church pushes.
You're exaggerating, or blind to the truth. Not sure which. The church is fallible, like any other organization. The church has done evil in its history, but also good. Remember: the Crusades and Mother Theresa both came from the same faith which you so despise, and think is completely twisted. Try to keep a balanced view based on the facts, not bigotry.
It results in thinking like this: "You can't get remarried - but if you kill her, you can get remarried." Say hello to Hans Resier next visitors' day.
Anyone who thinks like this has serious issues quite independent of religion, but I never said the position was good (or bad, for that matter), just what it was.
Forgive his past? No - he's still a fascist bastard using the same tactics to regiment people's lives that any other cult uses.
You know, the people in this "cult" that you despise so (my family, for example, is Christian even though I'm not) don't feel their lives are being regimented. They can choose not to follow the rules at any time, with no pressure or repercussions from anyone else. They're not engaging in any of the atrocities typically attributed to cults. Despite the fact that there are some pretty reprehensible Christians out there... most aren't! They're just people trying to live good lives, and they have an organization where they try to support one another in that goal--why do you hate that so much?
Explains both Bush and the Nazi Pope. Forgive his past? No...
You're a soulless bastard. His past isn't that bad, for fuck's sake. He deserves to be forgiven for something that happened so long ago, and isn't that big a deal, in the end (did he kill anyone? Steal? Rape? etc, etc... all he was
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Comparing accusations by abuse made by loyal CATHOLICS to the actions of Chinese authorities is a bit of a stretch.
:)
s e/#background
As for self-policing, do tell us why, when MANY Church members played shuffle-the-pedo for decades, we should regard that idea with anything but scorn?
What's worse, being a pedo or hiding a pedo so he can prey again?
How high did it go without punishment? I'll use the tactical relocation of Cardinal Law as an example.
$660,000,000 bucks isn't an act of desperate damage control?
http://www.americancatholic.org/News/ClergySexAbu
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It's a correlation/causation issue. You are correct; maintaining celibacy does not create a child molester. However, the church pretty much admits itself that the policy induces a disproportionate number of gays into the church. The theory is it is because the Catholic Church is one of the few places a person can go, never get married or date or really talk about sex and not have people ask them why. I read it in an article on Yahoo! news well over a year ago and probably a bit more, it was a conclusion of a study done by catholic priests (bishops? Cardinals?) for the Catholic Church. It was very likely back when the sex abuse scandals were raging.
Now before anybody objects: I am NOT by any means saying that "gay = child molester" or even that gays are more likely to be child molesters. What I am saying is that it is very possible and even likely that would-be child molesters are more inclined to go into the church for similar reasons. I don't think that child molesters want to be child molesters; they are people with abnormal sexual urges who in all likelihood try to control them and fail. Again, I'm not defending it, but it could be a step in the "trying to control them" part.
All in all, while I am certain that there are many priests who are willing to give up sex for their religion and do their very best to adhere (successfully or not), I also do not think it is unreasonable to think that people who have other reasons than pure love of their religion for avoiding sex might find it an appealing option in disproportionate numbers.
At least it would help revent the spread of ignorance and superstition ...
While it is true that some viruses can pass through latex condoms (and a LOT can pass through "natural skin" condoms), a condom does help prevent the spread of AIDS, etc.
http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html
I realize that political scientists are a rare species on /., but since I am a member of that species, I must take exception to your blanket (and unbelievably incorrect) statement that all socialism is coerced. There are three main historically-significant branches of socialism: Utopian or Proto-Socialism, Scientific (Marxist) Socialism, and Christian Socialism. The first was not generally conceived as coercive in its many forms, and the last is not in any sense coercive, since it is an 'opt-in' system, i.e. you choose to be a Christian and belong to a Christian community.
And I do not believe I misrepresented the thrust of the Bible passage quoted above at all. Acts 4:32 literally dismisses the notion of private possession and in the context of the section clearly advocates for communal redistribution of property. The fact that it is voluntary is, as I pointed out above, quite irrelevant to the question as to whether it is socialist.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Anyone else see the irony in this comment when referring to the head of a religion that endorses the concept of original sin?
I wouldn't be so sure about the fallacy of sexual repression not leading to the taking advantage of the easy target of vulnerable and impressionable youth, either. As for your not getting laid, there's a difference between won't and can't. (just a joke, don't take it seriously ;)
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Excuse me, but, tax havens are nothing more than playing by the rules as written. If you don't like that, then change those rules, but don't pretend as if to be handing us rulings from God on this. God has a bigger Universe to worry about.
And it's pretty -- how about completely -- hypocritical of the person at the head of the Biggest Tax Haven on Earth to be telling the rest of us what to do. What's the matter? Too much tax free money going into havens, rather than the Church coffers?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I second that! Where is the "Best of Slashdot" button when you need it?
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
...... A lot of people are stupid.......
Yes, and you and all other anonymous cowards are fountains of knowledge and wisdom. Your knowledge poverty is greater even than you financial wealth. You are Sooooo much smarter and better than the millions of people of faith. You have such knowledge, that you can explain everything except the source of your arrogance.
All theory is gray
This is picking and choosing at its worst. Ananias' sins seem to be, as the passage indicates, both withholding part of the proceeds from the community and bearing false witness as to the money received from the sale. To focus on the second part of Peter's quote and ignoring the first, you are distorting the context in the very manner you accused me of doing. If it was the case that the only problem was the lie, the first part would not have been an issue and thus would not have been mentioned by Peter as a pertinent element of the offense.
Also, and this is the clincher, the last sentence: "You have not lied to men but to God." really throws a hydrospanner in the works as to the argument that Ananias' crime is publicly misrepresenting the amount from the sale so as to keep some for himself. That, in point of fact, would be a "lie to men". The lie to God is his greed, unfaithfulness to the community, while professing to be a faithful and fully contributory member of the community.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Well, the Church hasn't thrown away those other books. I've never looked into this deeply, but I've watched a lot of TV :-) My understanding is that most of the one that didn't make it were a) hard to demonstrate as having ties to its professed author, b) contradicted something of importance (heresy), c) didn't add anything to the discussion (fluff or redundant), or d) were badly written. I can't remember the titles right now (sorry), but I seem to recall that some of the "rejected" are still studied by seminarians. Although you are correct that a few have been lost, and after 17 centuries we only have the titles of some of the rejected books, not the text.
But you're absolutely correct that at some level an arbitrary choice was made. One hopes that Divine Inspiration ensured the correct choice, but there is no way to prove it. In the end certain works were floating around the Christian community and some were selected for the Bible and others weren't.
For what it is worth, the Church at the time of the Council of Nicea (323-325 IIRC) shouldn't be called "Roman Catholic". The Papacy doesn't even become strong in Rome until the fall of the Western Empire a century later. Also the Orthodox had at least as much to say as the Catholics, especially considering it was held in Turkey, in what was basically the Patriarch of Constantinople's back yard. Also since the Orthodox don't have a Pope, I do think you can have one (the Bible) without the other (the Pope).
- doug
PS: As I've said in other postings, I consider the Bible to be spiritually correct, but I don't consider it to be a history text. And I certainly think the Church has flaws.
If you can't use birth control for religious reasons, don't have sex.
/no/ religious problems using it..
What an inane statement.
- It can be hard to use birth control even if you have
- Even if you don't mind using birth control, it may not be easily available
- There may be cultural biases against using certain forms of contraception (e.g. it may not be 'manly'), in such cases you need *active* programmes to encourage condom use.
Damn, even educated, prosperous, long married couples have 'accidents' - surely everyone knows of friends who have a child or sibling that is ten+ years younger than the next oldest...
"Don't have sex" - what a dumb thing to expect humanity to be capable of. You should become a priest.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
In any case, it's not the government's business. It's not like it negatively affects people's ability to live their lives.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Christ himself said to pay taxes that the government demands.
And Ireland demands taxes...
We just demand a smaller percentage, what's wrong with that?
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Oops. Last link should have been this letter:
s ource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/re
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
These people with too many children are too poor to support them.
They're unwilling to use contraceptives because of their religious beliefs.
Thus, the solution is simple! Don't have sex! If you want to have sex that badly, choose to ignore your religious beliefs, then. It really doesn't take much thinking to settle on a course of action here (unless, of course, you think bringing children who'll starve into the world is an ok alternative). It's not like there's some church doctrine which says, "Thou shalt bone regularly and often, and without protection". These people aren't being FORCED to do anything, they have ways out of this situation. That's all my point was, although perhaps I should have worded it more carefully.
And I have no interest in becoming a priest. I didn't suggest (or didn't mean to, I suppose) that no sex is an easy choice, but if you consider your religious beliefs unchangeable, and you can't risk more children... that is the only option.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I don't think I even said that any books were lost; that's news to me. I only said that some were selected and others were rejected.
My point is that the Bible was put together by the Church at the time, which was just a bunch of people. So if some people think the Catholic Church of 325 was acting without error, what makes them think the Catholic Church was acting in error at other points in history, like during the Crusades, during the Inquisition, and now? I realize it's a different bunch of people at these points in history, but still, it's a bunch of people.
Sure, you could draw parallels to other historical changes in large organizations. Many people think the US government was better in older times, when it was truer to its founders' ideals, and that it's been corrupted in the past century. However, this is a point of opinion, and while some people have an almost religious view of our "founding fathers", no one claims that they were acting "without error", or produced texts "without error" that were "divinely inspired". That's a fantastic claim to make, and fantastic claims require fantastic evidence to back them up. Otherwise, they hold no more weight than the Scientologists' claims that we're all infected with Body Thetans because Xenu blew up billions of people with hydrogen bombs on ancient Teegeeak and then made their souls sit in movie theaters.
He's not picking and choosing; you're misinterpreting in several places.
- You say that Acts 4:32 precludes private ownership. But that verse begins with a figurative sentence, so it's reasonable to interpret the rest of the verse as mild hyperbole. It in fact is reasonable to interpret it as mild hyperbole even without the figurative sentence, since it's an ethereal statement about the general state of things meant to convey an atmosphere, not intended to be taken completely literally.
- You say the end of Acts 4 indicates an "expectation" that all proceeds will be offered to the community, but the verses say nothing about such an expectation. They merely say that it happened a lot. Acts 4:34 especially indicates that it was not a requirement, since it says that "From time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them...". If it were a requirement, all the land- and house-selling would happen at once, instead of occasionally.
- You say that we're picking and choosing in focusing on verse 4 rather than verse 3, when in fact we are interpreting verse 3 based on the following context of verse 4. If all you read was verse 3, you would think that the sin was in fact the withholding of funds. But verse 4,
where Peter says "And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?", absolutely precludes this interpretation. If the money was at Ananias's disposal, then it was not required for him to offer all the money, much less sinful for him not to.
- You say " 'You have not lied to men but to God.' really throws a hydrospanner in the works," but this is because of your lack of understanding of figurative speech. There is a very strong, obvious, implied "You think you have lied to men," before that statement. Peter was saying that their lie, which they thought was directed toward men, was in fact directed toward God because of the nature of the thing they were lying about.
The definition of "picking and choosing" is interpreting a single verse or two without considering the other verses that address the same question, whether they're in the immediate context or halfway across the Bible. In narrowly focusing on 5:3, without letting your interpretation of 5:3 be guided by what 5:4 overtly says, you're the one who's picking and choosing.The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
Okay, you got me on the political science*, but I think I'm doing better than you in the semantics department. See above.
* (Although I daresay that when most laymen talk about "socialism" they are talking about something coercive and not something voluntary, and it was that laymen's definition I (thought I) was addressing.)
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
Seriously, that guy was a huge flame. Funny how the anti-religion mods jump all over these comments with insightful.
Especially the birth control concept. No one forces anyone to have 12 kids. Frankly, I think having 12 kids is hugely irresponsible if you are already making a low end income, ANYWHERE in the world. People struggle very very hard just to support 1 child.
Look at this way, According to a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a family with a child born in 2000 can expect to spend about $165,630 ($233,530 when factoring in inflation) for food, shelter and other necessities to raise that child over the next 17 years.
If someone brings 12 people into the united states, they cane expect to pay roughly between $1,987,560 - $2,802,360 to pay for those children. How is any person/religous entity/thing responsible for that cost other than yourself? Its the same thing as someone who maxes out credit cards knowing they cannot pay them back. Personal responsibility.
Then you can ask him why he thinks that paying taxes is actually contributing to the good of the common man?
I see you have never been involved in any form of community service or giving back. If you have been, you would realize the thousands of catholic missionaries who help the poor in other countries just out of their own good will. This costs a lot of money.
Then you have the thousands of local catholic charitable organizations all across the united states, perhaps tens of thousands in the world. Here in my area they consist of catholic charities, the knights of columbus, the local poor box at the church the goes to countless needs of the poor, and many more people who dedicate their time along with the chuch's funding to help the poor, needy, sick, and people who have nothing.
The next time you sit at your terminal thinking your God's gift to the world and thinking you have contributed so much of your personal income and time to needy causes, why don't you ask yourself actuually how much you contributed to society?
I bet $0.00 and the effort of some typing fingers..
Funny, I don't see any words there that indicate a long line of popes with occasional infallibility. I see some words that make Peter the head Apostle, but nothing much more.
To understand the "rock" that Christ is building his church on, you have to look at the preceding verse or two. Yes, "Peter" means "rock," but what made Jesus name him "Rock"? Why, it was Peter's preceding statement that ""You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
That statement is the rock that Peter was named after, and that statement is the rock that Jesus built his church on.
Context FTW!
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
By exempting churches from taxes the government gets to chose what is and isn't a religion.
Change 'government' to 'majority' and you'll see the problem. A Protestant dominated congress would probably have created some nasty tax rates on Catholic, Jewish, Mormons, etc. faiths. And how do you decide how much to tax each faith? By size? Size entails that each faith keep accurate rolls of their members. Instant blacklist. To avoid a large faith breaking itself up into a zillion little flocks/groups to avoid reporting requirements, you would need to set a minimum yearly fee. A _large_ minimum fee that a majority religion could afford to pay , but that the little faiths couldn't afford. And I would speculate that the majority faith's fee money would just find its way back into their coffers. Which brings up the question of how are those tax dollars spent? The majority religion is a majority in Congress which means the non-majority faiths' money would be misspent.
Given how irrational and intense people can be concerning their religion and the non-believers, worst case, it would be like crossing the KKK with the IRS with McCarthyism.
I'm not quite sure how you made that connection... do you suppose that any "religion" the government deems annoying enough to suppress would be taxed into oblivion?
Yes. Look at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/02/121620 9 Increased royalty fees threaten to drive web based radio out of business. If you look at US history, there have been periods where I could easily see Congress as being more than happy to tax unpopular religions into oblivion. More importantly, a faith isn't going to give up just because they can't pay the fees. If they can't pay the fees, then they're breaking the law. Presto! They are now criminals because of their faith.
Now that the Pope says it, it must be true.
Sorry, it just isn't so. The organization of the Roman Catholic does not hold the decision over which human gets "Sainthood" for example- if a person is saved, he's saved. He knows, it, too, he doesn't need a guy in a pointy hat to tell him so; God decides.
Any organization bent so far on worshiping a tradition more than a God, is gonna get into trouble. From Christ's own lips in Matthew, when asked "[If you're going to be gone] how do we pray to you?" He started the sentence with "Don't recite to me..." I know perhaps a million Roman Catholic Priests/Monks/etc has read this, even when trascribing it before the printing press....SO WHY DON'T THEY FOLLOW IT? It's nuts.
And that "Malochai Prophecy"; now THAT is a hoot. Centuries ago a guy claimed to know the sequence of popes. It was right 2-3 times while he was alive, and nowdays the Popes change names to that prophecy so they'll all match. How's that a prophecy?!?!?
Some of the things they do are so egg-headed; I wish they'd actually *read* the Bible sometime, and not just follow tradition.
If the Pope called Google evil, would it actually change your minds, or is this just a chance for the organization to seem more 'hip'? If you'll recall a previous Pope called contraception evil, too.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
...... each statement about the truth-status of Biblical content is spoken by human lips.......
n gelist
If you are accused of crime, say murder, you and the prosecution are dependent on witnesses. If there are say four witnesses whose testimony matches quite well, saying they saw you strangle the victim, and this testimony of ordinary people is generally BELIEVED by the jury, you get punished, as the law decrees. There is no absolute PROOF you did it, but the jury believed the witnesses. In court, it is assumed that witnesses are truthful. Peter, one of the 12 disciples, writes in 2Peter 1:16 that he and the other disciples are eyewitnesses, not some kind of hearsay.
Now if you come up with four witnesses that say the saw you far away from the scene of the crime, then the witnesses on both sides face cross examination. The object thereof is to determine the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony. Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the founders of the Harvard Law School, wrote THE book on the rules of evidence, as it relates to courts of law. Every law student must still study it today. You might want to read a little treatise about evidence he wrote called "Testimony of the Evangelists". It is in the public domain or you can buy it from Amazon. There is a summary of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Eva
His original goal for doing this was to try to discredit the Gospels and especially the Resurrection, by showing that the testimony of these four witnesses is not likely to hold up in court. He became convinced that the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as given in a written deposition about Jesus and His claim to being God was truthful and sincere. He also found them to be of sound mind. As a result He too came to believe their testimony in the same way that a judge or jury might in a court of law.
So, if you are willing, and that's the key, willing, to examine the written evidence of God's human witnesses as any court of law accepts witnesses, you too may come to a different conclusion. As in any court, you must ONLY use the evidence presented, not what you may have heard elsewhere.
All theory is gray
I'm not too much of a believer in the free market, but it's blindingly obvious that corporations don't actually pay any taxes. They just pass those costs on to consumers of their product. What would make more sense than taxing corporate profits is taxing dividends.
Sooner or later most corporations will pay dividends to their shareholders. This money is easily tracked and therefore easily taxed. This elimination of corporate income tax also has the side effect of treating corporations as non-person entities rather than the fictional persons they are under US law.
Is that why Jesus said that?
Can you tell me what I am thinking as well?
The problem is that the church promotes and panders to intolerance. For example, they claim that people "choose" their sexuality, and then condemn those "choices". We know that people don't choose to be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transexual, but their continued, and very vocal, public condemnation of people panders to the basest elements of human nature; they have to take their blame as an enabler of ignorance and hatred.
Its the same with a LOT of other issues, not just today, but over the centuries. And its not just relegated to the Pope or one church ... as its written in Ecclesiastes, there's nothing new under the sun.
The "good works as a reason to avoid taxes" argument doesn't wash, because then everyone else is paying to subsidize one group's use of "good works" to prosyletize for their particular breed of superstition. This sort of behaviour is actually condemned in the Bible - "let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth" and the whole if you do something expecting something in return, you've already gotten all the reward you deserve thing.
It doesn't really matter in the long run, because as education and income levels rise, society in general drops religion. Most catholics use birth control. Most fundies have sex before marriage.
The problem arises when they then go around and hypocritically try to tell others what to do, while pretending their sh*t doesn't stink. If you read the article, you'd have seen that its speculated that the real reason the pope is saying this is to help shore up Italy's tax base, not from any "christian" motive. Politics and business as usual ...
The pope will earn my respect when he stands up to the stupidity of the past and says:
- The pope is not perfect, never has been, and never can be;
- What consenting adults do is their own business;
- "Sin" is solely in the eye of the beholder.
By the way, even Jesus supported #s 1 and 3. Why doesn't the pope?Tell ya what. I won't make up any exquisitely unfalsifiable stories about my imaginary friends, and the Pope can shut the fuck up about politics and economics. Deal?
--
phunctor
Original Sin says that we're all flawed (or "with error"), so how can we tell if anything is with or without error? Maybe the Bible is in better shape than we are?
And for what it is worth, you'll never get your "fantastic evidence", because faith is involved. Either you believe or you don't. In that sense we (Catholics) can't be separated from Scientologists. I think that comparing us to L. Ron's cult-for-profit is insulting, but your point stands. Faith in the unprovable is the basis of every religion that I'm aware of. I think that is the distinction between faith and personal philosophy.
Choices were made for what went into the Bible. Since the purpose of the Bible is to make us think and come to the right conclusion (note: not "any" conclusion), I'm not sure if "without error" really has that much meaning. Since it is designed to make you think, there is a whole lot of wiggle room. BTW: Can you tell that I don't have a lot of respect for fundamentalists who think the Bible is God's "Literal Truth", although they usually do mean well. I've lived just about my whole life in the "Bible Belt", so I've met a few of these literalist Bible thumpers.
As for books being lost, there is History Channel show called "Banned from the Bible" which mentioned it.
Quit taxing hypothetical legal entities (ie, corporations) and just raise taxes on the actual human beings that own them.
Duh.
Why would I want to live in a world without evil? A world without evil would be boring as hell - no unrest, nothing to change, nothing to comment on, no need to work or think or even feel. It would be death.
Which, I think, is the ultimate truth - "heaven" is nothingness. It's a "world" free of evil - no thought, no feeling, no objective. Nothingness.
No thanks.
And I dunno why you think your country is a democracy, but I can assure this one isn't - it wasn't meant to be. The US ideally has laws that restrict behavior in a way that ensures minorities can live a life free of the tyranny of the majority. Of course, that was all much easier before the communications revolution made it so damn easy for washington and the corporations to flood the books with micromanagement legislation.
... where religion is persecuted with religious fervour.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
He didn't do anything BAD while in the Hitler Youth, he was just there. imo, that's pretty forgiveable, but I guess you don't agree.
Sometimes doing nothing is bad enough. While I don't expect the average person to defend his (or her) beliefs with his life, I would expect that the man who became the people might have had the strength of faith to do so.
Who the heck cares what the old man with the pointy hat thinks? All these characters do is make this and that rule and denounce so-and-so or that country for not abiding by some arbitrary rules they think up. Screw them.
Well, we could do a little better than wait for god and the angels to come and make assertions about the bible..if only the tampering with the original texts wasn't so blatantly obvious. Which version of the bible are you talking about? And how can writings that have been translated, fabricated, re-written, hidden, and largely lost be "free of error"? The bible(s) of today have very little in common with the ancient texts that were mostly burned by self-righteous popes early in biblical editorial history. And even THOSE were copied and inked in by people whose names we know very few of, and the whole process is just a non-scholarly and discretionary one. You literally have to trust in the unjustified judgment of a very limited number of people in a very murky historical setting that is not backed by other documentation..all in the name of "faith"..hence the valid historical analysis on the internet and elsewhere that show heavy skepticism of Jesus' existence.
But "divine trust" has it's merits: take the Quran for example. Now the effort in maintaining that was nowhere NEAR the amount of scholarly work put into maintaining the set of early muslim traditions of the prophet et al, where in contrast an entire science of narrative selection based on very fine consideration of the *people* involved, was used (and taught till this day). Funnily enough, Muslims consider the reliability of the Quran to be infinitely higher than any of the other texts, which are not considered divine in any way (as per the instructions of their prophet) and which are STILL usually not perfectly narrated, in that several very similar wordings are used for the same narration or "hadith". And if you know how to read Arabic, you quickly see why.. the hadith are the sayings and actions of men compiled by men, but the "divinely communicated" quran, despite being put on paper by humans, is very-difficult-to-tamper-with poetic prose. The quality of the latter in terms of linguistic expression is undeniably higher, and the text cannot be screwed around with without it starting to sound funny. If you disprove the authenticity of a few good hadith narrations, which are far higher in credibility than both new and old testaments, nobody is too upset about it. If you disprove a single verse in the entire quran, the religion collapses overnight.
I wonder why the EU hasn't interfered intervened with this yet? Ireland joined in 1973. I bet the new European Constitution (that every member state has rejected) will put a stop to it.
I'm totally with you on that one. The real social injustice is the high tax rates those of us who can't offshore our income are subject to. I applaud those who can, and heck, for a 12.5% tax rate I might be willing to move to Ireland myself :) At least people there can spell my last name correctly, something that most Americans seem incapable of, despite the fact that it's not all that uncommon, and shared with at least two famous people.
I disagree. If "willing to examine written evidence of God's human witnesses as any court of law accepts witnesses" someone would have to examine the so-called, at least by the Greek Orthodox Church, heretic gospels. There are many gospels, hence many witness accounts of Christ's life, beside the four acceptable ones. During the first synods these gospels were dismissed and the remaining four ones mirrored the official view of the christian church. And they are really a lot different, see for example the so called "Judas gospel" recently uncovered.
That's one interpretation. I don't want to get into theological discussions or biblical interpretations, but suffice it to say that the Bible can be interpreted to suggest that Christ gave the apostles in general, and Peter in particular, a mandate to establish a church to hold spiritual authority on Earth. To say that's not the best interpretation is reasonable--to say it's not in there at all is a bit overreaching.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I can't remember where I saw it, but I believe the vast majority of Catholics in the US are registered Democrats as well.
Jesus cures the blindness of an absolute nobody.
Who is this pope, and who again is it that he claims to serve?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
...this Pope is the Antichrist.
Thank heavens I'm an athiest.
In related news, Walter Williams wrote a great editorial on El Hefe's condemnation of people trying their damnedest to keep what they fucking earn.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Did you just hold the Crusades & Mother Theresa up as a good example of the faith? The crusades were a bloody holy war that while they did cause some good they were motivated by their desire to recapture some land (the means did not justify the end-game). Which is still the main problem in the Middle East today. On the subject of Mother Theres: She was a horrible individual who setup her hospitals "for the dying" (read the name! they weren't there to HELP anyone) purely for the purpose of watching people die. No attempts to generally make their death easier, not to mention help them get well other than a cot, water, and bread (usually just prolonged their suffering). She felt that watching people die a horrible agonizing death helped her to get closer to god somehow. How she got people to give her money for these places, Nobel Peace Prize, and not to mention nearing sainthood is beyond me.
Watching someone die in agony you could mitigate, or fix is the same as doing harm.
A more interesting question is when will Google reveal the Pope's Evil.
Marriage isn't just sanctioned, it's a sacrament. War is sanctioned under a few very tight conditions. The Catholic Church doesn't make a sacrament out of it. Paul being celibate, thought celibacy was the bees knees. He did a lot to develop the theology of celibacy. That doesn't mean that there weren't other theologians with other, just as valid ideas about the position and importance of marriage, ideas that are accepted from pre-biblical times to today. Try taking a run at John Paul II's theology of the body for a different spin on the same position.
All evil stems initially from and is, at its core, fueled essentially by denial.
All the other factors and causes of evil acts: isolation, anger, retribution, and many others can be tracked back to people who deny reality, to people who live and believe the myths and stories, and use that denial to fuel acts of evil.
The Pope, and more broadly the Christians, purport the biggest myth of them all: that a all-knowing, all-power man in sky is always watching you, and he is vengeful and will send you to burn in Hell if you're bad, but he loves you.
By Myth, I mean a story that is widely believed, but not factual. Broad dissemination of non-factual religious myths allows and supports a society with many other myths and many lies - all popular and all broadly believed. Most people to live in a state of denial about their lives, and a small number, in extreme denial commit evil acts.
Strangely, the all-knowing, all-power creator of the universe needs a lot of donations of money from the mortals. What a gig.
I'm no fan of big businesses. Google is better than most. I'll take tax-evading, corrupt businesses over the Christians any day of the week. At least the businesses are not trying to guilt and manipulate people into parting with their money; they are doing the same corrupt actions as the governments taking the taxes.
Another thing that really blows me away is how they are almost always referring to income taxes. But that means that the Kennedy's, for example, sitting on billions of dollars worth of assets would barley even notice while the while a small business man who busts his ass to create 20 jobs and earn his first million will get his nuts ripped off. Many of the elite love income taxes because it wipes out all their competition. I can't think of a better way to oppress the poor and keep them from getting rich.
Actually, the studies show that the procedures used in recent decades prior to the latest few rounds of reforms, were seriously deficient in priestly formation which is why Rome just went through the US seminaries like a high colonic, because the local hierarchy screwed up and did it more than most. We're past the worst of the scandal, new cases are trailing off, thankfully, as new procedures come into place and have some time to produce a better formed priesthood.
Regarding birth control, formally, the Catholic Church does not condemn contraception. It condemns artificial contraception. What's left is restraint and calendar watching which, while not as effective as chemically scarring a woman's fallopian tubes, does significantly reduce the rate of conception without requiring more than a modicum of self-restraint (ie, about the same level of self-restraint to avoid committing date rape with a drunk girl). That's actually pretty manageable. And since the actual numbers (not the liberal mythology) say we're heading towards birth dearth and depopulation, I'm not too worried about a few extra kids.
Regarding priestly celibacy, the Catholic Church does not say that priests must be celibate, never has. The Catholic Church has always had orders of priests that are married and orders that are celibate. The celibates are incredibly more effective (about 4:1 over the married clergy) and about a thousand years ago, the roman part of the Church decided to phase out its married orders. Other parts of the Church do retain a married clergy. My parish priest is married, has a daughter, and is a grandfather. He's pastor in the parish his father, also a priest, founded. You want a married priest? Go to a part of the Church that supports those orders, donate to a level that will support married priests, and baptize your kids into one of those rites.
On divorce, the actual position is that women (who tend to be smaller and more physically vulnerable) can separate in order to avoid being beaten or otherwise abused while men can't divorce, period. They have to support their family. And of course if you can patch things up, you should. It's about making marriage something you can actually base a life on, something that a lot of today's worried kids would love to have again. But they find out pretty quick that mommy and daddy can get mad at each other and split for incomprehensible reasons and tear the family apart. Now how is that angst ridden childhood supposed to be better?
In the following verses, we see Jesus giving authority to humans. Authority is given to teach and cast out demons (or other evil).
In the next two versus, we see Jesus giving special authority to Peter. Peter is the rock, upon which Jesus will build his Church.
We also learn that Peter (and the other apostles) are not like other Earthly leaders. Even though they have power, power is not their primary purpose. Service is their primary purpose.
The article makes some assumptions on what the pope might say. That is not to be confused with what the pope has done or said already. But I guess guessing about what someone is going to do makes great news. Moving on....
The article focused mostly on tax evasion that is taking place in the Italian Government. So the pope writes about how tax evasion is wrong. Is this news? Since when was tax evasion a good thing??! Maybe... it works like this... since the pope plans to say something is wrong... it must be good!
don't have sex. It's not hard.
I call 'Bullshit'
And thus in one line he perpetuates the "Religious" attitude that our bodies and our desires are bad. In reality-land, sex is good, it is healthy, and we would all be better off be teaching everyone how to have more safe, more healthy sex with each other. Teaching people to be open, honest and get their needs met. People would be healthier and happier and without as much conflict.
Religious organizations artificially create an absurd conflict and make people feel GUILTY for wanting sex and following their natural instincts. At the same time, these same organizations offer the SOLUTION for their false, induced and irrational guilt: prayer and devotion, and giving money to the church!
And people fall for it!
In my opinion, there is NO defense for the position taken by major organized religions.
Actually, the Catholic Church did nothing of the sort (ie they did not pretty much admit "itself that the policy induces a disproportionate number of gays into the church"). They had a policy that said that one should be very careful in admitting gays to the priesthood. The US hierarchy took that little crack and allowed a river of homosexuals to enter and a disproportionate number of the post WW II priests turned out to be pedophiles. The new rules imposed by Rome tightened things up a great deal more and new cases seem to be trailing off (thank God).
There were problems with priestly formation. In some seminaries, there may very well still be problems. The hierarchy seems to be improving the situation and are inclined to stay on top of it going forward.
Sitting on a big pile of gold, and money in swiss banks.
Just as any governor who lives in a mansion surrounded by gardens and administrating all the money of his country at his will *ahem* Bush *ahem*.
By the way, do you have proof for "money in swiss banks"? And don't forget that all the Church's money is obtained by donations. You can't say the same for the taxes the US forces you, and where do they go? Hint: It's a three letter word, starts with W and ends with an R.
At least the Pope submits to the Roman Curia for financial decisions.
The "safe sex" crew says we should reduce the number of bullets in the cylinders of the pistol we're using to play sexual russian roulette. That's fine, as far as it goes. The Catholic Church says don't put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. It is not self-evident to me why the former position is more reasonable than the latter nor why adherents to the first position are so against the promoters of the latter position.
Specifically: Can't the government already do that with everything else? Seems to me, they do already.
Example: They could just decide that, because I read Slashdot, I could be Slashdot-taxed. This would discourage people from reading Slashdot.
If they're not allowed to do that, I'm sure you could take that law, change some of the words, and use it to prevent them from preferring one religion over another, while taxing them all.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Ah yes, the surest way know that the truth has hurt ... the Troll moderation gets used to hide it.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
A lot of saints never read the Bible. A lot of saints were illiterate. A lot of saints lived prior to the Bible's creation. Catholics' Sunday services, Holy Liturgy features a creed, a statement of common belief. If you can say that statement, you're Catholic. It does not include any statement that we believe in the Bible.
We do believe in the Bible, after all, we wrote it. But it's an instruction manual, not a paper fetish. Just like you can run a computer without reading the manual, Mother Theresa could be a saint without reading the Bible.
The Church is the longest running, largest global charity in the history of the world. Unless you believe in taxing nonprofits (and who knows, maybe you're one of the tiny minority that believes in that) consistency demands your favor for the tax exempt status of religious charities as much as secular ones.
Gays, lesbians, etc. are free to be themselves without being labeled sinner just like the rest of us, by acting in accordance with the rules of the Church. Sometimes I don't like the rules either. They can be rather inconvenient for my pleasure's sake. When I break them, I'm labeled a sinner too. One gets over it, usually by reconciling with the Church and trying again.
Paul's views are part of the canon--it's not quite accurate to characterize him as just another theologian.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Gays want to have their cake and eat it too. If homosexuality is inborn, cannot be chosen, then one can test for it and abort the gays in a eugenic fit of madness. Gays, quite rightly, don't want that. But that means that homosexuality is, on some level, chosen. But that means that like every other choice in the world, there are good choices and bad choices and it's reasonable to promote the good and discourage the bad. But gays don't like that because of all that icky moral condemnation. But let's face it, you've got no third choice between scylla and charybdis except demagoguery and a vain hope that nobody's going to notice the BS.
Pick your poison.
It is not self-evident to me why the former position is more reasonable than the latter nor why adherents to the first position are so against the promoters of the latter position.
... but the former has the advantage of being pragmatic, while the latter is more and more falling into the category of "wishful thinking".
The way I see it, the "safe sex" crowd is basically trying acknowledge reality without addressing the morality (or lack of morality) behind the need for such protection, since that's really the purview of religious instruction and good parenting. The Catholic Church is trying to address the morality without addressing the reality that many people are ignorant on the subject of sex and are going to have it regardless of anyone's opinion on the subject. Both positions are valid perspectives on the problem
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What do you expect from a Church that elevated whores (Mary Magdelene), tax collectors, betrayers (Peter), and other disreputable characters into its highest ranks? Do you understand christianity (much less the Catholic brand of christianity) at all?
Peter denied Christ 3 times before the cock crowed thrice. He was the first Pope. People do fail. They reform and can sometimes come back to do amazing things. Pope Benedick XVI obviously is not today the same boy that could not resist joining the Hitler Youth.
You obviously have no idea how priests are supposed to be trained. Priestly formation is supposed to include very intensive examination of one's entire life including personal sexuality. Part of the freaking entrance questionnaire is whether you have ever had same sex attraction. What you're to do at seminary if the answer is yes has changed recently (they significantly tightened up the rules for homosexual seminarians) but they always asked.
And I don't characterize him as just another theologian but rather as someone who said a correct thing with a particular spin, not the only spin. If there were only one valid way to tell the story, there wouldn't be four Gospels. Paul had many merits. He was a genius overall and a very holy man. That doesn't mean that his spin is the only spin or that there aren't other valid ways of looking at things. The Bible is not our paper God as Catholics. It's an extremely good tool to gain a full union with God as He initially intended.
fnord.
In the US at least, the Church's position is actually becoming less and less wishful thinking and more descriptive of reality. The number of virgin marriages are up, premarital sex is down. Practicality is disease avoidance, especially as more treatment resistant strains of STDs arise.
There's a myth that every generation from here on out is going to have more and more premarital sex. That's just not the case.
Catholics don't believe in throwing out the old stuff just because v2.0 came out. Prior to the creation of the Bible, apostolic authority and teaching were fairly well developed. The publication of the Bible does not invalidate any of that. Catholic doctrine is that the Tradition and Scripture are equally valid in describing the Church that Christ wants to be on Earth.
That being said, Peter has a bunch of stuff happen to him that points to a special role for him. A good argument for the Catholic view of things can be found here. Part of the argument is biblical. Other parts are historical.
The one Church of the time was both Catholic and Orthodox. Who left who in 1054 is a very long argument and somewhat superseded by recent events of the past few decades. Hopefully, the Church will soon be, once again, fully Catholic and Orthodox, and the Great Schism will have been healed.
You should note that the Church itself does not refer to itself as Roman Catholic. That's generally an outsider's label.
Jesus has no successor. Peter is the rock upon which His Church shall be built. That's a bit different.
The Pope is still called the Bishop of Rome, always has been since Peter. He's got an awful lot of titles.
The idea that the East never recognized the Pope's special role is very much disputed and, frankly, the historical facts are not on your side. The East was a rough place and plenty of Eastern bishops ran to Rome for dispute resolution over that first millennium.
Actually, the Pope's words carry a lot further than just the adherents to Catholicism. The list of people who actually don't "give a rats ass" about what the Pope says is rather short and neither includes the world's muslims or hindus or jews or protestants or orthodox or buddhists.
Obligatory Monty Python reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Maybe if this sig is witty or clever enough, someone will love me...
I don't mean to be insulting, just to make a point. Most of the time when people say that the Bible is "without error", the "literal truth", etc., they say it as if it's a given.
The scary thing about the fundamentalists you refer to is that their numbers are growing fast. Many, many Slashdotters subscribe to this particular sect of Christianity, even though you'd think this would be the last place you'd see it. Just wait for someone to talk about evolution, or the earth being millions of years old, and you'll see another firestorm of comments about how evolution is bunk and the earth is 6500 years old.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I just knew I'd read a Supreme Court ruling on the matter from ~1988. Thanks again.
Really. Its time to put this medieval theocratic crime organization behind us. The Pope is the big boss. Recognize the Church for what it is. Can't bring it down anytime soon, so just move on.
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
Did you choose to be gay or straight or lesbian or bi? The concept of a straight person "choosing" to be straight is laughable. Ask them, and they'll say "I was born that way." Same for gays and lesbians.
Next you'll be saying that transexuals "choose" to be transexual, rather than that the formation of their brains was governed by the natal hormonal environment.
Here's one for you - do people choose to be Christians? If so, then God is not all-powerful and sovereign. If not, then why blame people for something that isn't their fault, since they had no say in the matter. Or is god a god of injustice? If so, who would want to follow him? Worship an unjust god? Non, merci.
If there is no predestination, you choose to believe or disbelieve, and the pope is just window dressing. Or there is predestination, in which case who needs the pope anyway, since its all predestined?
The only resolution that works is "God doesn't exist, so the concept of a pope is meaningless." And the same can be applied to other choices that the church claims to pronounce on, including sexuality.
So, bottom line - instead of debating predestination, get down to a concrete instance; since the church is so preoccupied in regulating people's sexuality, is your church going to say that a transexual can't marry someone of their former sex? Or does that make the couple gay? Or that their former spouse cannot divorce them, and vice versa? Or is the church going to practice medecine without a license by advising people not to seek medical treatment that has been proven to be safe and effective? Enquiring minds want to know.
Seriously, we tell Google they have to do all that in oder to evade taxes this way.
I want to see a corporate owned freeway system.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Ok, you've decided that it's an inborn trait. Good luck talking to the gene therapy guys because people keep looking for that homosexual gene so they can turn it off and "solve" the "homosexual problem".
Of course people choose to be christians. If God wanted puppets, he would have never invented free will. You don't seem to be entirely clear on the concept of christianity. Baptism (the initiation ceremony of christianity) is a choice and has always clearly been presented as such. A sovereign may permit opposition and a wise one generally does ("the loyal opposition").
Not only was it nothing more than a rant against the pope and religion, there was a good dose of profanity thrown in for good measure.
And why not? This is an organization that used to burn anybody at the stake that challenged their authority, an organization that has been responsible for numerous genocides, and an organization that has been supporting dictators and mass murderers even in the 20th century. And to this very day, they are advocating policies that condemn hundreds of millions to suffering and poverty.
I tolerate and defend the right of Catholics to worship as they please: experience has shown that coercion doesn't work in matters of religion in a democracy. But that does not mean that people can make such choices free of criticism or even flaming.
But why don't you tell us: how many innocent deaths does an organization have to be responsible for before you think it's appropriate to flame them and talk about them in an abrasive manner? One? A hundred? Ten thousand?
Please, can somebody mod this guy down to Flamebait/Troll? I really find such mindless anti-religious prejudice very disturbing. And me with no mod points....
Are you sure you wouldn't just rather have him burned at the stake, in good old Catholic tradition?
I believe the Holy Father may actually deal with this, as with all ethical issues
Oh, don't worry, there are no ethical issues that selling a few indulgences can't fix.
You can't have one without the other.
Sure you can. You don't have to be infallible to produce something correct. I can generate a log or multiplication table which is 100% perfect, and I'm not infallible.
In the debates about the canon at that time, they looked at the documents which had circulated among them since the beginning, and decided which ones "fit" and weeded out the ones that didn't. It's a stretch to call that a creative process. And in any case, Rome didn't formally declare the canon until Trent, after the Reformation.
All this is not considering that the Church in the 4th century was not the same as the RCC we know today.
The last time I checked the numbers the Roman Catholic Church was the largest single denomination in US at 26%. If you add up all various Baptist denominations that was in the low 30%s. And just to be picky, they add up to over 50%. which mean Protestants are less than 50% of the US, a fact that must overjoy any WASPs out there. In case anyone misses the distinction I'm making, technically Protestants are Churches that broke away from Communion with the Pope. This includes Lutherans, Presbyterian, the Anglican Communion (CoE, Episcopalian, etc), Methodists, and so forth. It does not include Orthodox (the difference is political, not spiritual) nor Baptists (who never were in Communion with the Pope to start with).
BTW: If any Baptists are reading this, my main source of Baptist info is a graduate of Bob Jones University. How mainstream are they? I know that they are way right politically, but that doesn't mean that doctrinally they are beyond the pale.
As for the sex-scandals, I read that over the past 50 years the amount of Catholic abuse is proportional to other denominations, just all of it has been uncovered over the past 10 years or so instead of trickling in over the past half century. Dunno if that is still the case (unfortunately more cases seem to pop up every month), but it is food for thought for anyone not afraid of statistics.
I guess letting go of someone's past is foreign to you?
Sure, once the person has repented and changed; I see no evidence of that in either the pope or the Church.
If you can't use birth control for religious reasons, don't have sex. It's not hard.
Of course, it's hard: sex is a normal, healthy part of human nature, and lifelong monogamous relationships are unnatural. Catholic demonization of sex is a social control mechanism, nothing more.
My understanding of the position on divorce (which may well vary by denomination, too) isn't that you can't divorce,
In Catholicism, you can't divorce, period.
nuff said !
In some religions, especially older ones, it's hunger, at least to the point where some part of the diet is regulated by the religion. Most modern religions practice some fasting, for example Lent in Judaic religions. Fasting is an integral part of Hinduism.
Most modern religions have settled on sex. It's a cracker of a drive for manipulating people - for starters, it's something that only starts interesting people at puberty, at which stage it's easy to convince gullible children that their new interest is wrong and sinful. If we're inherently sinful (and humans are inherently sexual, so this is an easy step to push) then that's a powerful and universal way of creating a sense of guilt, which then drives recruitment. Repression of sex leads to the drive being subverted in different directions, for example dedication to the church, or obsessive work habits. That, coupled with the fact that almost invariably there is still some degree of thought about or desire for sex, supplies an ongoing means of control over the adherents of the religion.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Its amusing how many people here attack the Pope for this sort of thing. Now change the headline to "Pope shuns Microsoft's policy of hiding tax money in other countries" and see how well it goes over. Guess who gets to pay for all the lost tax revenues that major corporations hide by playing the loophole game.
That being said... I think it would be more productive for lawmakers to just close the loopholes instead of having the practice defined as "immoral" or "sinful". Corporations do not have morals, however they do know the concept of "illegal" and "lawsuit". Hit them where the wallet hurts, and they will stop.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Gays want to have their cake and eat it too. If homosexuality is inborn, cannot be chosen, then one can test for it and abort the gays in a eugenic fit of madness. Gays, quite rightly, don't want that. But that means that homosexuality is, on some level, chosen. But that means that like every other choice in the world, there are good choices and bad choices and it's reasonable to promote the good and discourage the bad. But gays don't like that because of all that icky moral condemnation. But let's face it, you've got no third choice between scylla and charybdis except demagoguery and a vain hope that nobody's going to notice the BS.
I agree with your logic! I feel exactly the same way about left-handed people! Have you noticed how almost the majority people in the world are right-handed? So it follows that the few that are left-handed people are an abomination against nature! They are evil, I tell you and must repent their sick ways! Nature did not intend for people to be left-handed! Else why would nearly all of the people be right-handed? These left-handed people are vile and just don't want to give up their disgusting habit of preferring to use their left hand instead of right hand! In the interest of natural order and survival of the species, and to keep humanity free from such freaks, I demand that all left handed people be eradicated in a purge! They should be sent to concentrated camps and not be allowed to marry! Their left hand should be chopped off in fact!
"Left-handed people want to have their cake and eat it too. If Left-handedness is inborn, cannot be chosen, then one can test for it and abort the left-handed people in a eugenic fit of madness. Left-handed, quite rightly, don't want that. But that means that Left-handededness is, on some level, chosen. But that means that like every other choice in the world, there are good choices and bad choices and it's reasonable to promote the good and discourage the bad. But left-handed people don't like that because of all that icky moral condemnation. But let's face it, you've got no third choice between left-handedness and right-handedness except ambidexterity and a vain hope that nobody's going to notice the BS."
P.S. You stink, you homophobic dumbass! I am 100% straight(and married) and yet I don't feel threatened by existence of gays and lesbians. It is not like they will convert me into being gay just by existing. I mean I don't see how their bedroom antics harm me or anyone else directly or even indirectly. Your illogical hatred of them points to a definite sexuality-conflict. Are you bothered by their existence, because you feel you might turn into a gay as well? In that case, you quite possibly already are, and are in just denial. And that is what makes you so angry against them!
You do realize that until very recently, people were routinely trained out of left-handedness, right? Also, that's just for the US. There are plenty of places in the world where people are trained out of left handedness as a matter of course to this day. In other words, this is a bad example.
Turning back to homosexuality, I do not favor eugenics in any way, shape, or form. I do my best to love my brothers and sisters despite their sins as I hope they love me despite my own. Do you know what a Catholic calls someone who is not tempted to sin? A saint. I'm not a saint.
Being "born gay", or any other way, is not important. We are all born imperfect (Original Sin). Arrogance and Gluttony are my particular problem areas. It doesn't mean I'm off the hook for controlling them. The Old Testament describes a really tough set of requirements for getting to Heaven. The New Testament presents a replacement approach. In neither scenario do I see much room for "well, I was born different, so I need an exception." Naturally Jesus can show mercy and you might be able to get into Heaven, but there is no way you can know. Following the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the only way to be sure that you will get you into Heaven, provided you mean it and are not just paying lip service. Naturally your spiritual mileage may vary, this is just the doctrine of the Church.
Predestination is a Protestant thing (Calvinistic, I believe). Catholics are into Free-Will. The difference is one of attitude. Older Protestant groups were literally predestined in that God decided before you were born what your fate was, and there wasn't anything you could do to change it. Most modern Protestants believe that if you have faith in Jesus, God will ensure that you make it to Heaven. God decides who believes enough. The Catholic stance is that you have to keep trying to be good enough, and God will ensure that you make it. If you never stop trying, you'll get in.
Geek example: The Lord of the Rings vs. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
For those who don't know Tolkien and Lewis were roommates, and Tolkien fired up Lewis's religious fervor. In the LotR Frodo never stops trying to destroy the ring. In the end, it is just too tough and fate conspires to ensure that it gets done (Gollum bites his finger off). In LWW the kids and the people of Narnia fight the good fight against the Witch, but eventually Aslan shows up and saves the day. Tolkien was Catholic and his story shows the free will of Frodo to never quit, while the Anglican Lewis's Narnia demonstrates God doing the work, not the people. This isn't quite the predestination of old, but it isn't the free will of Catholicism either.
I'm not aware of the Church having any particular decrees on transexuality, but I imagine it would be against it. You were given a gender, and it is not your place to change it. Feeling the urge to change God's plan is pretty much the definition of temptation, and giving into it is Evil. Some of this stuff is black-and-white.
As for the medical thing, what sort of red herring is this? When has the Church ever recommended against medical procedures? I hear about faith healing in non-Catholic denominations, that is it. Down here in the South it seems that Baptists in particular like faith healing. Any Catholic examples? There are rules against abortion, birth control, and euthanasia, all of which because a life is ended (or prevented). The Church is equally against the death penalty and wars (even the Crusades don't live up to St. Aquinas's Just War requirement). But I've never heard of anythign preventing a medical procedure. Note: that until recently organ donating was taboo because of the literalism of "resurection of the body". You'd need those body parts. The Church was equally against cremation for the same reason. Both stances have soften, and my Church is even putting in a columbarium, which was unheard of 20 years ago.
BTW: The prohibition on divorce is that a vow was made to God. You shouldn't be able to walk away from them, should you? That is why there is a movement within the Church to bless "living together" and save the Sacrament of Marriage for those who are ready to take on more commitment. I don't expect this to show up within my lifetime, but the Church moves slowly.
PS: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand Catholicism, and that your not simply a troll. You seem to lump all of Christianity into one box, which is kind like saying "all Chinese look the same".
Newsflash : Except for converts, majority people don't choose to be a christian or hindu or muslim or a budhhist. If you for example were born into a budhhist family, chances are fairly low that you would choose to practice any other religion and rituals instead of what rest of your family is practicing. So please stop talking out of your ass! You have just as much choice in being a certain religion as you have a choice in your nationality/citizenship. If you were born in a british family, you would be an american. If you were born in germany or in Nigeria, you won't have a choice in nationality either. You *might* apply for an australian or canadian citizenship when you grow up, but the percentage is quite small. And baptism is just as much a choice as is a particular citizenship for a newborn i.e. next to none.
*God* may want opposition, but *Christians* apparently don't, based on your own demonstrated intolerance for critics of your religion and your own irrational hatred of gays and lesbians etc.
I thought that Bill Gates bought the Catholic Church?! See Here
Just picking a nit, but you're not supposed to switch rites. I believe that you have to get approval from Rome to change from the rite of your birth, which is the Latin Rite for most of us. I'm not sure if this is for theological reasons, or just to prevent poaching. Interesting because I drive past a Byzantine Rite Church on my way to work. I don't know if I'm up to that much Greek, but it does sound interesting, and I've heard nothing but good stuff about Father Rick.
And you seriously feel that such people must necessarily be trained, even if they are comfortable with the way they are and are not causing you any harm by being left-handed?
I give up. Someone who sees everyone even slightly different in the least manner, as "undesirable", and needing to be "trained" out of it, is ironically abnormal himself and in need of severe psychiatrical therapy.
Yes we get your brand of "Christianity" perfectly : "love all our brothers and sisters ... except homosexuals, muslims, hindus, atheists and people with different skin-tones! The latter need training, operations, skin-grafts and brainwashing to correct their horrible manner of existence!". You know what? you can keep that intolerant, self-righteous philosophy and goto hell that your "merciful" god and religion is so fond of threatening you with, in order to extract compliance. I would stick with the religions and beliefs that are a bit more benevolent and tolerant than Christianity or Islam.
I believe that "Bishop of Rome" is the only title of the Pope, the rest being merely honorifics.
My understanding is that most Bishops went to the nearest Metropolitan Bishop to resolve disputes. There were a half dozen in the East (pre-Muslim conquest), and they rarely had need to come west to Rome. Since Rome was the only Metropolitan Bishop to never side with a Heresy (something that later provided fuel to the infallibility argument), it was undoubtedly in contact with all sorts of eastern Bishops. But as a rule, most eastern Bishops look to eastern Metropolitans for leadership, and eventually became what we call Orthodox, not what we call Catholic. And maybe I should use east vs. west, but should use Hellenistic vs. Latin instead. The Armenian Church has always been in Communion with Rome, and you don't get more east than that in terms of traditional Christian areas, but it isn't Hellenistic.
In the days of the GOP (late 1800s) the Democratic Party was the Party of "Rum, Rome, and Rebels". For the non-US folks out there, that would be lax morals, Catholics, and Southerners (this was just after the war).
OK, then wake me up when PBXVII does something amazing, because in this case it doesn't look to me like things have changed a lot. Hmm, people want me to face off against the evil corporate monsters, so let's decry the activities of some well-known large corporations. Looks like following the popular vote to me, especially when you consider that the church does plenty things itself to avoid paying the piper.
... oh, wait ... not popular enough.
There are plenty of other things that large corporations - and in fact the corporation that have been mentioned - do that would be far more "evil," and moreover in many cases are actually illegal. This one's an easy way to get publicity and possibly public support though... since most people would be happy to feel a little indignation over tax-related issues. Maybe the pope should take a peek at the AT&T wiretapping scandal
The discussion whether good and evil are relative or absolute has been keeping philosophers busy for millennia.
The references section of this wikipedia article is a good starting point if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/his
"After the fall of Rome, European medicine was dominated by the Church, which adopted the ancient belief that illness was punishment from God and treatable only by prayer and penance. The Church regarded the suffering caused by disease to be the will of God and as a requirement for eternal redemption. Anybody who dared to heal people, outside the authority of the Church, was accused of interfering with the will of God. Folk healers were accused of achieving their successes with the help of the Devil and were called witches. And, the cure, itself, was considered evil by the Church. For eight long centuries, from the fifth to the thirteenth, the godly, anti-science stance of the Church had stood in the way of the development of virtually everything, including medicine and any improvements in the living conditions of the peasant population. Then, in the 13th century, there was a revival of learning, touched off by the crusades which brought contact with the Arab world."
For an institution that insists on inflexibility and on authority/infallibility of an event and philosophy that is dated 2000 years back, the church can hardly escape from its action in their full scope and totality. They can hardly claim, oh that happened 1000 years back, those were different people and then proceed to shove ancient practices, rituals and beliefs down the throats of masses claiming that those are still unmodifiable and infallible.
Christianity as a religion may be a good enough philosophy, but the Church and any such "organized religion" is definitely a mere outdated cult.
Absolutely. We managed to get along just fine without income taxes prior to our entry into WW I, when they were instituted as a "temporary" tax to pay for the war. Not only was this a bad idea on the face of it (can't recall any temporary tax that didn't become permanent, which is why I vote against all California propositions that would create any temporary taxes, increases in taxes, or bond issues; there is no good that could come from the tax that is not outweighed by the bad of having yet another tax), but if we hadn't entered WW I, they would have eventually had an armistice anyway, Versailles would never have happened, Hitler would never have happened, the concentration camps would never have happened. It's possible that Pearl Harbor might never have happened, and maybe even the Cold War would never have happend. The development of nukes would have been delayed by at least 10 years, maybe longer, and worldwide nuclear arsenals would probably be much smaller.
You can prove your multiplication table is 100% perfect, because that is the nature of mathematics. There's nothing that says the Bible is 100% correct, except some people who claim it to be so with no proof or evidence whatsoever. That's not a very good analogy.
you want cookies as of this moment. also you want cheese.
Read radical news here
elaborate
Read radical news here
Oh why not? Let us free all the pedophiles, embezzlers, murderers and rapists. Let us let go of all their pasts, no? Or is that foreign to you as well? Or are we being selective about what crimes to punish as per the popular opinion of the day about different terrible crimes of the day i.e. whether practicing witchcraft etc. deserves tortoue and burning alive, or not?
Pope just joined the nazi army and served in the war. He went to serve at a concentration camp, witnessed jewish captives being taken for slaughter and didn't speak out for fear of being arrested and imprisoned himself. You are right... he didn't do anything BAD... in fact he didn't do anything at ALL. He just sold his soul to the devil by not speaking out against evil and even collaborating with evil. But that is okay. We all do that nowadays.
I mean we all know, there is not much higher standard required for being the head of Christianity. It just goes to show that almost *anyone*_(nazi, rapist, and especially pedophiles... that is just a matter of time and probability... stands a chance at becoming the pope. No strength of character or sense of right or wrong is required at all.... isn't that good? It feels so nice to know that your pope is a regular guy, who is not above joining the nazi army in active service to save his skin... cause the other guy who was crucified for sticking to his guns?... who can be like that? Too unrealistic to follow as a role-model. I mean yeah, Christ would have gladly given up his own life to protest and try and stop the slaughter of jews if he was there. But let us get real, we can't follow *his* example. Too hard! So *ofcourse* we need a religious leader who is cowardly and scared like the rest of us normal guys. He makes us feel better about ourselves. Who needs a leader who is better than you and makes you feel uncomfortable and inspiring you to make better choices?
Moreover, it's basically the biggest fallacy ever that maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood perpetuates child sexual abuse. The decisions that those priests make are THEIRS, and theirs alone... not the Vatican's. Hell, I guess since I'm not getting laid, I should be going and molesting little boys, by your logic. Well, except for the fact that no one's forcing it on me, I guess, so I have no one to blame the molestation on.
I agree. Furthermore... all the starving kids in Iraq who steal because they are hungry ...or because they don't have any skills or education to get work in a war-shattered country, it is still *their* choice and theirs alone to make the decision to steal or enlist in a terrorist camp for getting cash to buy food and things for their family. Stealing is a sin, even if you are starving and have no food... or even if you need cash to feed your family or for the operation of your daughter. Hell, I guess since I'm not getting food this morning, and I don't have a job, I should be going and stealing food from shops! Unthinkable! Things exist in only black and white and there are no shades of gray. It is not any government's fault for creation an unstable situation.. people are responsible for their own actions!
As someone else so succinctly points out in a thread further down the page, that isn't true at all. If you can't use birth control for religious reasons, don't have sex. It's not hard.
Yes! If tomorrow the pope declares that priests should sleep for just one hour every day, because sleep is a waste of time, since while you are asleep you are not worshipping... well ofcourse, we will deny our bodily needs and obey the pope blindly. If our prists go slight nuts from the lack of sleep and whip out an uzi at the next sunday sermon and shoot down all the chu
what about bono? imho he's a far more influential champion of Christian morality
Gee, I wonder which side of the fence this guy would be sitting on if only Microsoft and Dell had been mentioned in the summary ...
The Vatican City only became a state in 1929. Learn some history. (And, to rub lemon juice in, it isn't actually ruled by the Holy See -- though, admittedly, it and the Holy See are closely linked.)
Even that's more authority than the Catholic Church actually claims. Papal infallibility has only ever been exercised once ever. In nearly 2000 years. I really don't comprehend why people harp on about it.
Now, you could argue that if you're having sex with your spouse, STDs shouldn't be an issue. Fine. You're still using a Bronze Age text to dictate behavior for people with today's realities and an urge to reproduce as old as time. Good luck. I'm sure it works out as well as telling priests "Don't bugger the kids." You don't have to tell the ones who would listen.
Now that we've gotten your complete bullshit out of the way, I can address the parts of your post which aren't ridiculous.
Oh why not? Let us free all the pedophiles, embezzlers, murderers and rapists. Let us let go of all their pasts, no? Or is that foreign to you as well? Or are we being selective about what crimes to punish as per the popular opinion of the day about different terrible crimes of the day i.e. whether practicing witchcraft etc. deserves tortoue and burning alive, or not? There's a big difference between the two situations here. Pedophiles, embezzlers, etc etc, all directly did something wrong, which (in my sole estimation, granted) is far less of a crime than failing to stand up when perhaps you should have. Not to mention that I find it hard to blame ANYONE (not just the pope) for not standing up to the Nazi regime, as it wouldn't have accomplished a damn thing, except to get themselves killed. Martyrs are a nice symbol to rally to, perhaps, but nothing else. You can accomplish a whole hell of a lot less to help anyone at all when you're dead. I mean we all know, there is not much higher standard required for being the head of Christianity. Catholicism. Very important distinction there, as the Catholic denomination is hardly all of Christianity (it may still be most, but quite frankly I'm too lazy to look it up right now. What matters is that there's more than just Catholicism).I think you also need to get it through your head that just because some people misuse Christianity, doesn't mean that the religion as a whole is worthless. Judge individuals, not the religion, because it has followers (all religions do, really) on the whole damn spectrum: crazy, sane, good, evil. Don't lump them all together.
You can stop the war singlehandedly that way if you want, you know? I don't believe the pope has any real influence on politics, but that's just me. For most of the so-called religious folks, religion is actually simply a luxury for good times and a better-than-thou thing. In modern world, you can either be officially a patriot and free, or you can truly religious. You know the wrong religious folks, then. Example primo is my parents (not that I'm an unbiased source on them, but they're the best I have to work with off the top of my head), who really BELIEVE in their religion. It's not just some excuse to judge people, or something that's convenient to believe in because the times are good, it's something that they believe as firmly as the Slashdot crowd believes Linux is the best OS out there. Oh yeah, and they also are patriots and free, in my estimation, but I don't know how you're defining it. Feel free to elaborate."16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
i would advise you that, as a matter of fact.
church had been doing "charity" work since early 3rd century, with arms even reaching into administrative duties, and when charlemagne established papal states it became a state for the first time in history, not removed from existence until late 19th century. read more here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States
Read radical news here
People are only moral relativists until somebody does something to hurt them, and then they become moral absolutists.
If I claim to be a Jedi, can I buy Star Wars DVDs tax free?
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
I'm all for preventing tax havens, lets start by taxing the church's incoome.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
1. Tithing (Deuteronomy 14:22ff) was not a tax. The best we could probably compare it with is a tribute in the style represented in Hitite (and other Ancient Near East) Suzerain-Vassal treaties. (See Mendenhall's "Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, http://home.earthlink.net/~cadman777/Law_Cov_Mende nhall_TITLE.htm originally printed in Biblical Archeology magazine.
2. Giving outside tithing required? Can you cite this so I can look it up? The only thing I can think of is the offerings taken to build Solomon's temple, and those were strictly voluntary.
3. I would agree that initially Israel had a religious state, and that originally the Levites (among other things) handled the issues you mentioned.
4. Punishable by death? I can only assume you're thinking of Ananias and Sapphira. In the record, God killed them for lying, not for failure to comply to any giving requirements. Peter even told them that their resources were their own, to use as they saw fit. (Acts 5:1-11)
...don't have sex. It's not hard.D'uh. Not having sex isn't a problem when it's not hard.
Cogito, ergo sig.
Protestant Christian here, enjoying the debate.
One remark: if faith is not about predestination but about choice, it might be logical that this is the case because the supreme being chose to give us free will. That also means that it is my responsibility to do with that as I choose, as long as I accept the consequences (which are written out for me). So: no, that is not unjust, but it also doesn't mean that the supreme being in question is not all-powerfull. It just means that he wants us to make our own choices instead of forcing it on us.
Please continue.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
Somewhere in your phrasing I got lost. If gays don't want to be eugenically eliminated then they must have chosen it intentionally?
Of course whenever I hear someone start a paragraph with "gays want" or "women want" or "blacks want" I figure the speaker is about to put their foot in it by speaking for some group they have no authority to speak for, and by lumping them together like so much gray paste.
-josh
Technically correct, you only need sex to not suffer. The difference between not having your survival needs met (like food) and not having your sexual needs met is that not getting food is a mercifully short problem. Not getting sex can prolong your misery indefinitely.
Without sex, existence can't really be called life, its just survival. You suffer emptiness and lack of meaning, wondering why you continue to exist when all you feel is pain. But that's the point, the religions are selling a miracle (literally!) cure for pain and emptiness in your life. It would be much harder to get people to swallow that snake oil if people found a real cure right here on Earth.
Wait wait, having sex is equivalent to firing a gun at your head?
It sure looked like you were trying to communicate, and had worthwhile things to say but at some point you have become so frothy that no one could possibly take you seriously.
-josh
Wow. You watch too much television. That's the only explanation.
Firstly because catholic priests are both unmarried and celibate, it tend to make population of normally sexually orientated priests sub-optimal either in reality or imagination. The extremist protestent evangelicals have had more than their share of sex scandals as well.
On the whole, they think most Christians are Protestants and don't know that the Eastern Orthodox churches even exist
Here's a good one for you and a true one, I was in the National Guard and historically our chaplains have been Catholic Priests in our Battalion. I myself when I'm in a religious mood would probably be described best as an eclectic, so I look out for the Catholics who have lead so sheltered a life as not being allowed into non-catholic houses of worship. well getting to the point one January at drill I passed the Chaplain in the hallway and I looked him dead in the eyes and said "Marry Christmas Sir!", and of course He just looks at me like I'm stupid or something so I add "Today is Orthodox Christmas." well he gets that deer in the headlights look on his face and rushed back into Headquarters. To this dat I still wonder how many AWOL arrest warrants they had to cancel.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Oh yes, I clearly see how these two situations are similar. The children in Iraq, who are stealing to get the food they need to live, are on the same moral level as priests who molest children, who need their sexual gratification to live! I tip my hat to you sir, not many would be able to see how these two situations are so similar.
But since when has religion, especially the church and Islamic clergy, have accepted any excuses or shown any willingness to accept exceptions? Gays must *not* be allowed to be married... forget that it is nowhere terribly important to Christianity *or* the bible... you *must* convert and follow our customs and worship in *our* designed structures and manner. God won't answer to any other name, or unless you bow to his depiction in form of a cross. I am mocking *your* religion. If you find such misplacement of priorities and importance reprehensible, keep in mind that that is exactly what both Christianity and Islam tend to do. It is not important that we respect our parents. It is not important that we show tolerance for others. It is okay to passively collaborate in systematic murder of those that are different from us. To hell with whatever the new testament really says. It is the old testament that is important!
But gays getting married? Priests not being celibate? Pre-marital sex? *That* we totally get worked up on! How dare they? Our religion and way of life will be destroyed if some folks were allowed to do what ever they wanted, in privacy, and if these people who are different were allowed to consider themselves to be our equal! Heaven forbid, if the old testament which Jesus was not even much concerned with, is trifled with, in any manner... because we are still secretly jews you know? How dare they preach about evolution? Jesus may have not said anything to contradict it, but hell with Jesus! Our religion is all about a guy eating an apple offered by a woman made out of a rib, who was incited to do it on advice of a snake in a garden!
"Christians" would readily vote for a government that enforces sanctions that cause the death of million of infants. That is fine... no problem! It is better that they die. It is just far more important that they don't have sex with an older person. Yeah, we know that our granddads married and had sex with 12 year old girls back in old days... but you know... these things are bad now. Okay so the age of consent in US is as low as 13 or 14 in many states... a 14 year old may have sex with a 16 year old... we don't have problem with *that* ... it is terribly important that they don't do it with an older person. And those infants we won't allow medicines and drugs to be supplied to? Well they are in other countries and not of our religion... every one knows christian compassion thing is meant to be applied in case of only *christian* infants, right?
For the record, I do consider pedophilia sick. But I believe it is far more important to first fix your laws. If a kid is too young at 14 to have sex with an older person, he is just too young to have sex with anyone else as well... even in their own age group. Period! But amazingly the age of consent laws in both australia and USA are scandalous for any really civilized country!
And Christianity and Islam, dear sir, are a *joke* in their modern context! Mere cults!
Pedophiles, embezzlers, etc etc, all directly did something wrong, which (in my sole estimation, granted) is far less of a crime than failing to stand up when perhaps you should have.
So this law you have about people not standing up and volunteering info being jailed up for obstructing justice... you guys are repealing it this year and freeing anyone arrested for it? If someone doesn't answers the draft in a war he doesnt agrees with, he is not doing anything wrong and won't get jailed? Let me know, when either of those are put into practice by your fine Christian populace.
You have to admit that the Bible is pretty unreadable; I've tried three times to go cover to cover and only once manage to get past genesis (the first chapter).
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I had no idea there were perfect humans! You never make the wrong choice? Willingly? Virtually everyone I know does on almost a daily basis - myself, I know I am too fat and yet every day I choose again to do nothing about it. A third of the people of this country do the exact same thing, each and every day. If you are a christian moslem or jew, how often do you choose to not go to temple services? How often do parents sit the kids in front of the tv rather than actively involving their kids in something as a family?
You can't make a choice where someone "innocent" will be hurt? I don't know anyone truly innocent except maybe a baby - and kids need choices made for them that often involve them being hurt. You balance the hurt they experience now against the potential for greater pain an suffering - but there is no way around some amount of pain no matter how some may try to pretend. Isn't that what religion is supposed to be there for? To help us weak and feeble creatures cope?
Idiot!
Yeah I'm sick of Ireland getting held up on this one all of the time. Ireland collects taxes like any other country. This criticism of Ireland is usually a complaint of capitalists and free market proponents so you would think they would recognise competition as an essential factor within the free market. Ireland offers cheaper taxes to promote investment and promote growth. What's wrong with that?
I never get used to these constant resurrections
Eh? There are well documented scientifically proven cases that show that courts have got it completely wrong. Similarly with the accuracy of "witnesses" to a staged set of events and jury belief? Hah.
If you want to test your court, take 4 witnesses that state that "God shot him" and see how far you get.
Greenleaf sounds like a buffoon. All his "evidence" is hearsay [and in a language he probably can't even read] unless MML and J turn up to be questioned they haven't given evidence. Cross-examination is the key. How does he determine the sanity of someone who he can't even be sure existed [except from hearsay], let alone examined?
That said, what you've called "written evidence" [ha ha ha] is trivially shown to be inconsistent and untrue.
Yes, but is that because more people are going to church and listening to what they're being told and are becoming more "moral" as a result, or is it simply (as you say) that they're afraid of catching a resistant strain of syphilis (or AIDS, for that matter)? The answer to that is less obvious, but in either case their behavior is motivated by a fear of consequences. The former is fear of God, the latter is fear of a pathogen. Personally, given what's going on in this country today, I'm betting on the pathogen.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That "champion of Christian morality"?
Insert Dermot Morgan's "C.J. Haughey" voice: "You Two? Four tuneless gobshites who couldn't hit a cow's arse with a guitar."
IX CCXLIX XVII II CLVII CXVI CCXXVII XCI CCXVI LXV LXXXVI CXCVII XCIX LXXXVI CXXXVI CXCII
Thus, any sexual relation that is done just for pleasure is a sin. This includes many heterosexual practices: masturbation, adultery, sex before marriage, and any sex inside marriage that's done for pure pleasure (using condoms fit this). In the heterosexual field, only sex made for reproduction inside a marriage is legit.
This is what excludes homosexual relations. Not the fact that a person is born an homosexual, but the fact that no homosexual intercourse can yield a baby. An homosexual that does any kind of sex (since all of them are "for pleasure only") is in the same sinful category as an heterosexual that also does any kind of "for pleasure only" sex. It is the exact same sin: that of not setting your bodily acts as those acts of a sacred temple, which is what the body is according to the Christian faith.
Now, please note that nothing in this prevents an homosexual of being a traditional Christian. He is just forbidden, as every other Christian, of doing "for pleasure only" sex. And if he at some moment indulges in doing it, he must, as every other Christian that also do so (including but not limited to a husband who looks his own wife "with desire"), confess and practice penitence.
"Being successful" in this endeavor is not what counts, else only saints would be true Christians. What actually counts is the continuous pursue of that goal by the Christian, the permanent moving in that direction.
As you see, from this point of view an homosexual Christian's struggle is only barely more difficult than that of an heterosexual Christian's struggle. So small is the difference in fact, that I really don't see why it's even brought into discussion. To be a good Christian is incredible difficult for anyone who try. Homosexuals aren't significantly worse in this by any stretch of imagination.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Being the rock upon which the church is built = being elevated? What if Peter was the Rock, but John was the Spire? I've always wondered if Jesus first started calling Peter "the Rock" after he tried to walk on the water and sank.
If the Peter being the Rock upon which God built the church applies not only to Peter but also to the Bishop of Rome, then doesn't "before the cock crows you will deny me three times" also apply to the Bishop of Rome?
As defined by Rome. Dividing God into three persons is Rome's great heresy.
f you don't like the way your nation is run, you may avail yourself to the free market of nations to find one you like better, or you may build your own.
HELLO MC FLY, KNOCK KNOCK, that's exactly what the Pope is going to say is immoral. He wants you to have lots and lots of babies to pay the taxes and the tithe and to never move or find a different religion without permission; like all collectivists the Holy Sea considers you chattel. Why do you think communists and theists hate each other so much, it's not because they are so different, it's because they are the same and the communists don't want to share you.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Its an inborn trait caused by exposure to testosterone in utero. We can tell the amount of testosterone a fetus is exposed to in the first trimester - it also affects the 2D:4D ratio (the ratio between the index and ring fingers). This has a direct effect on how people's brains develop. There's nothing more "wrong" with it than there is with any other natural development. Its part of who we, as mammals, are.
In other words, its a part of nature, and all-natural. And it exists for many, many mammals, not just humans. Ever have a dog hump your leg? They don't care what sex, or what species ... So when a preacher gets up and says same-sex activity is wrong and unnatural, he's full of shit, wilfully ignorant because he just has to look at nature - its everywhere. And anyone else who parrots the same line has given up their critical judgment and bought into a lie.
Or have you never seen a male dog?
Another way of saying that is that the Church believes that Scripture is a part of Tradition...since Tradition came first and Scripture to some extent just described it.
Advice: on VPS providers
The U.S. debt crisis is finally over! We merely have to send the Pope a tax bill for 9 billion dollars, and he will apparently pay it!
"I'm not aware of the Church having any particular decrees on transexuality, but I imagine it would be against it. You were given a gender, and it is not your place to change it. Feeling the urge to change God's plan is pretty much the definition of temptation, and giving into it is Evil. Some of this stuff is black-and-white.
As for the medical thing, what sort of red herring is this? When has the Church ever recommended against medical procedures? "
You can't have it both ways ... saying that a person who seeks treatment for gender identity dysphora is "giving in to temptation", and claiming that the church would not recommend against medical procedures.
As for the "you were given a gender" bit being black and white - you mistake gender and biological sex. Gender is what's between the ears, sex is what's between the legs. Most of the time, the two match; sometimes they don't. People don't "choose" to be mismatched any more than they "choose" to be straight, or gay, or lesbian, or like chocolate and hate spinach. Its just the way they are.
Your gender identity is controlled by a region of the brain called the BTSc. Its development is controlled by how the fetus' genes express themselves in the first 3 months of development. For example, in a Male-to-Female transexual, the fetus' genes are programmed not to order the gonads to release sufficient testosterone to masculinize the BTSc, and the result is that the child is born with a male anatomy, but a female gender identity. Their true gender identity begins to assert itself as time goes on, despite intense cross-gender socialization (I say cross-gender, because the childs' true gender identity is female, not male, even though their anatomical sex is male).
Forcing them to "fit into" a social scenario where they must deny who they really are is cruel. Religious groups that go around trying to "save" transexuals from "the error of their sin" are mean-spirited. Or do you believe that someone would actually WANT to have to tell their friends and family "I'm getting a sex change."
Modifying the brain is not only impossible - it would be unethical as well, since that would involve changing who they are. So doctors do what they can - they change the body to match the mind.
You can argue that its the body that counts, and not the mind, but you won't get far. If we were to transplant your brain into another body, you would still be you, right?
The same argument goes for same-sex behavior. Its inate, and as long as nobody gets hurt, there is nothing wrong with it. Calling it a sin reveals a lack of understanding of biology, as well as a need to impose your will on others despite the evidence. This is not rational behavior.
Because it is our baby. . . . On second thought it might be to say out of this delusional discussion. Do you people even realize what makes you delusional?
Glad you're enjoying it and realize that its all in good fun :-) Some people take it WAY to seriously. Then again, some people need to get a life [./ducks :-) ]
Seriously, how do you reconcile the concept of a loving god with one who actively punishes his creations for eternity? Even parents only use punishment with the hope of saving their kids from future pain.
When we condemn someone to jail for life, we limit it to 25 years. We still hold out some hope. Plus, we don't want to demean ourselves by sinking to the same level.
If you take the view that I, an atheist, am a flawed person, full of sin and rebellion against god, how does it then appear that I have more of a sense of morality and justice than god? To say "I made you, and I can and will torture you forever because I made you" is no more right than to say that you can torture a cat to death because you own it.
Certainly we are worth as much as a dead cat.
If god existed, then he/she/it would have the power to prevent this sort of wrong. By allowing it, god would be an enabler, and just as guilty of sin as the person actually committing the sin. Even our flawed laws recognize the injustice of someone standling idly by doing nothing when they could act to save a life.
Then there's the question of mercy. "I will have mercy on those who I chose to show mercy." The quality that defines mercy is that you show it to those you would rather not. Otherwise, its just a selfish indulgence - doing your own thing, expressing your own will. But no, there is no mercy for those who are condemned, not in god's heaven and hell.
So, we end up either with an imperfect, unworthy god who is not just or merciful, or no god. Better no god than a god who is so flawed that we have to demean ourselves to follow it.
After all, if YOU were god, wouldn't you DO something? Isn't the whole world full of pain, suffering, injustice? And those poor souls who are condemned to hell by rejecting God - no mercy, but rather, revenge? God can't turn the other cheek?
The god of the bible, ultimately, is a cheap walmart knockoff. A real god could do better.
Your turn :-)
"You have to admit that the Bible is pretty unreadable; I've tried three times to go cover to cover and only once manage to get past genesis (the first chapter)."
I've read it cover to cover about 20 times. My excuse at the time was that I was a believer ... but each time reading it, there were more contradictions, as well as more stuff that I realized was just plain wrong, and no amount of apologetics could change that and still maintain any degree of intellectual honesty.
The final straw was realizing that our own flawed human laws were in many ways more just and merciful than those of the god of the bible. Even if I were still convinced that god existed, I would refuse to follow, simply because the god of the bible is ultimately a cheap wally-world knockoff, not worthy of respect. Better to be an atheist, and reject the whole premise of the existence of any god.
Well, no, actually. That rather went out some time ago. Or hadn't you heard?
Oh, don't worry, there are no ethical issues that selling a few indulgences can't fix.
You really do need to update your arguments. Leaving aside the validity of selling indulgences (which was an abuse, but it's a long argument), this was stopped back in the 16th century.
For a really full analysis of the idea that you can't trust a single word that is written in the bible you should check out The Age of Reason by Tom Paine, you can get it online for free (It's out of copyright now).
The two books together form what I consider to be the fullest argument I've ever seen, and the best, that pretty much all of the bible is a lie - or if not a lie, a silly story. It's well worth a read
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
The tradition in the eastern rites has always been to pray and preach in the language of the congregation. Unless you're in a hotbed of new immigrants, the language is probably english. The problem of the eastern rites in the US is a difficult one with some ugly history. Let's just say that we generally accept JP II's apology to eastern christianity. Orientalis Ecclesiarium is profitable reading as are the 1995 norms for eastern liturgies. You can visit another rite's church any time and at any frequency just as other rite adherents visit latin churches. Transfers can be done for good cause for the benefit of your soul and intergenerationally in families. If you fall in love with another rite, you can baptise your child into that rite and switch that way. You will find that eastern priests will be more reluctant to do such transfers than latin priests are going the other way.
No, picking up a girl in a bar when you have your beer goggles on and having sex with her is like russian roulette. You never know what you're going to wake up next to and what diseases you might have just picked up. That's pretty standard sex ed 101 and the Catholic Church agrees. The sex ed crew wants you to wear a condom so you have less chance (but still a nonzero chance) of catching a disease (waking up to coyote ugly has no cure other than sobriety). The Church says don't play that game at all and reserve your sex for your marriage bed where it's not russian roulette. Now which is the more reasonable position again?
In a country of 300M+, I'd be confident in betting that there's a bit of both going on. But the objective facts are that virginity is becoming more popular and thus the timeless Church teaching is being followed by more people, thus is not becoming more irrelevant.
Let me pick an analogy. Sometimes people don't jaywalk because there's a cop right there writing tickets and sometimes they do it because they don't want to get hit by a car. But in both instances a reduction in jaywalking rates is an increase in respect for the law.
You know, if we assume (I feel this is a fairly safe assumption) that Jesus believed the things that he said in the Bible, then he believed his entire reason for being alive at all was to die. I'd call that a bit of a special case, there, when someone believes their reason for living is to die. In either case, since I don't particularly believe Christian doctrine and believe that Jesus was born to die for our sins, Jesus didn't accomplish anything by his death. Gained a lot o followers, sure, but he didn't accomplish anything practical.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I was trying to get past the "dumbass" portion of your comments and try to seriously answer you. I say I love homosexuals as I love every other sinner, sincerely. I don't think that homosexuals are any worse sinners as a category than rapists, usurers, abusers of their parents or people who are guilty of any of the other serious sins on the Catholic list. All sinners are in danger of losing their souls and suffering everlasting punishment in Hell. I'd like that to befall nobody. The worst thing you can do to someone is set them up for Hell so for a practicing Catholic, preaching repentence and reconciliation is an act of love. You may not understand this alternative lifestyle but that does not make it any less valid or true.
That being said, I agree with you on this one too. What gets taught in schools is also none of their damn business, if they don't like it, they should request to have their child not attend science class and teach it themselves, or enroll their child in a different school entirely, or hell, simply teach their children "That's not what we believe, this is what we believe".
Okay so the age of consent in US is as low as 13 or 14 in many states... a 14 year old may have sex with a 16 year old... we don't have problem with *that*b) Most of the populace isn't Christian any more beyond mere lip service, I'm pretty sure.
And Christianity and Islam, dear sir, are a *joke* in their modern context! Mere cults! While Islam is more questionable in this regard, I find it difficult to call Christianity a cult. The single biggest reason being... the church isn't running around killing its members, and putting undue pressure on them to stay if they even THINK of leaving. Islam is, to my understanding, the same way in the US, although this isn't true in fundamentalist Muslim countries, where people do, unfortunately, have to be afraid of getting killed or tortured if they want to leave the flock. But it doesn't seem to be true here, which is something.You seem to be falling into the trap that many people in our country do when thinking about Muslims: you equate all of them with the radical ones. Just as most Muslims aren't suicide-bombing terrorists, not all Christians are the kind you describe. As far as I'm aware, imposing the Christian morals on others isn't even a part of the Bible, which means that Christians are free to do it or not do it, as they feel appropriate (from the perspective of following doctrine). The things you're taking issue with aren't even required by the religion, much less fundamental.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Hehe... OK, here goes...
;-)
First: you seem to equal "eternity" to "forever". That might be correct in popular speech, but strictly (and in most theological cases) it means: without time. That is a hard thing to grasp, so I dare you to define the experience of eternity for me (does it have spacetime, does it have memories, etc). Queue quantum physics and string theories
Secondly: I do not favor the death-penalty, so let's analyze a maximum punishment of 25 years. That can mean that someone looses his life (figuratively), but besides that: we are still talking about this earthly life. In this earthly life, the Bible teaches us that we have an infinite amount of chances. Please add this to my first point. God is in that respect probably more righteous than most western governments.
Third point coming up: I reckon a God that does not provide me with free will more immoral than a God that does not put an end to evil. Just about the same thing as freedom and privacy vs. Orwell's 1984. Queue anti-terrorism debate here.
4th: When I read the Bible, I get the feeling that mercy is available to everyone, no matter who, as long as he / she abides to a certain set of rules. Those rules aren't that hard, so no biggie there. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Take note, that while the AKJV talks about "everlasting", the word we use in the Dutch translations is "eternal". There, point one is saved (pheew).
Last and fifth point: If I were God, I would mourn this earth and what mankind has done to it. But I wouldn't (yet) intervene, simply because I gave this earth to mankind as a gift. If I give a child a beautiful gift, and I see that the child is destroying it, I will not take the gift away. I know that the earth is more that "just a gift", but then consider this: if God lives outside our known spacetime, and we will live there too, then the time that this earth exists is in consideration so small that the question "when do I intervene" might be still pondered over.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
maternal hormonal imbalance will kill a certain number of unborn children, disfigure others, and cause emotional imbalances in still others and somehow all this is just "a part of nature, and all-natural" and thus should not be avoided if we can? Pray tell me why should we not avoid hormonal shifts that cause miscarriages and why the same logic wouldn't work just as well for homosexuality *if* you're actually correct that it's a hormonal issue?
The bishop of Rome is also the Metropolitan of his Province and until quite recently the Patriarch of the West (there's a reorg brewing at the vatican). Are metropolitan and patriarch also just honorifics? If so you have a funny definition of title and honorific.
While it is true that an eastern prelate could spend an entire lifetime in the East without becoming embroiled in a controversy requiring intervention from Rome, that does not mean that when they cropped up that they did not sometimes skip their local metropolitans and seek intervention from Rome. We know of at least one action as early as AD96 in Corinth (see the link) and there are plenty of others that are pre-1054.
1. Nobody had a clue about quantum physics or string theory when the bible was written. Incidently, quantum physics removes the need for a "creator." (and on that topic, if everything needs a creator, who created the creator???)
2. The bible does not teach that we have an infinty of chances. Quite the contrary, it indicates that past a certain point, forget it. Once you're dead, there are no more chances. And even in life, there are no infinities of chances. There is no portion of the bible that, in context, supports such a notion. To the contrary, it advises that the time for repentence is now, because you may not get another opportunity.
3. You missed the third option - there is no god. This removes the dilemma. one of the other 2 options, as you accidently point out, result in a god who is not consistent, and certainly not one who you would choose to follow; the other not only allows bad shit to happen, but exploits it for his own ends. Evil is as evil does ...
4. As George Carlin said - "Yeah, yeah, I know, he died for my sins 2000 years ago ... but what has he done for me LATELY?" Now, this whole "salvation schtick" assumes that there is a god, that he has the right and power to judge me, and that if I say "no", that I am punished. Having been through it, I'll take my chances as an atheist. Certainly there's nothing in scripture that I fand compelling, since I found the book to not only have too many contradictions, but also some major moral flaws - the first being God ordering the killing of 200,000, including children. This is not right, I found it disturbing the first time I came across it (and it didn't get better with every battle where Israel was commanded to either put the enemies to the sword, or utterly destroy them, or rape their women - "take them as their wives"). Anyone doing that today would be charged with either war crimes or crimes against humanity.
5. If your kid is playing russian roulette with a gun, you take the gun away. If children are without sin, or otherwise are not under judgment, then it is wrong for them to be allowed to suffer for even one instant; that god, whose very presence is incompatible with wrong allows such an injustice shows that, if god existed, he's not so high and mighty and clean and clear of purpose, and certainly not all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing. An all-powerful god would have a way of resolving such ncompatibilities. Think of it as the anthropomorphic principle as applied to disproving the existence of god. Because we can conceive of, as well as see, manifest injustice, there cannot be a god.
If you feel that someone being gay or lesbian or bi is wrong, you're entitled to your opinion. However, you're not entitled to impose that opinion on others. The biggest problem gays and lesbians run into isn't their sexuality, but how others treat them.
On the other hand, as I pointed out elsewhere in this this thread, part of the hormonal balance in utero, that also controls the development and structure of the BSTc (which governs gender identity) is controlled by the fetus' genes expressing themselves, which causes the fetus' gonads to release hormones at specific times. It is the fetus' genes that cause a person to be a transexual, to have a brain structure that, at least in part, is of the opposite sex. Again, their biggest problem isn't how they see themselves, but how others treat them.
For all those involved, who they are is right for them. For some, its probably a hormonal/developmental situation, for others its literally in their genes. Why label it as sin? Why try to "correct" it by trying to eliminate it, when the people who are most concerned don't have a problem with it?
Would you want to prevent gays and lesbians from being who they are? Would you want to prevent transexuals from becoming who they should have been? (The two are completely separate questions, btu - transexualism has nothing to do with mating habits).
This is "bad" because by not paying local taxes, they're not supporting their local government and social programs. If you live in the [insert your country here] and use the Netherlands as a tax haven, then you're not paying your fair share for your country's universal health care, or 911 services, or military that keeps your democracy free, or whatever.
What's your view on government and social programs that hurt us and make us less free? Tax dodge as much as possible? Remember that the tax dollars that fund the things you like, also funds the things that you don't like.I never said it did make sense, since I'm not a Christian.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
1) The mention of quantum physics and string theory was purely humoristic. The fact that the Bible was written millenia ago is, however, totally void, since I believe in God today. Quantum physics removes the need for a creator indeed, but it does not remove the possibility.
;-) ), the anthropomorphic principle is one of the proves of Gods existence (the universe is there, because if it weren't, we would not be here to observe it).
2) I was talking about an infinite amount of chances in this earthly life. On death, this life ends (be there another one or not, unless you believe in reincarnation, which is, by the way, more or less forbidden by the Chinese government). From birth to death, the Bible gives us an infinite amount of chances. It stresses, however, that we do not know when death will arrive. As such, it's better to act now, because you may not get another opportunity.
3) I have no dilemma. Keeping with my analogy, I think no government is more immoral than whichever government. Besides that, it is rubbish to talk about how evil God is when we have to measure it against the option of no God at all. Obviously, any being is as evil or more evil when existing than when it does not exists. As for your last point at 3: see my former point 5.
4) Here should come a major theological debate about the difference between the Old Testament versus the New Testament. See Matthew 5: 38-39 and Acts 10: 9-16 for a notion about the regarding the (often savage) laws. Basically, with the death and resurrection of Christ, the need for a punishing God is abolished (the "flaw" you mentioned is a case of "an eye for an eye"). As for what Jesus has done for me lately: with his death 2000 years ago, He gave me certainty and peace of mind right now.
5) I see God not as all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing but rather as the One with the most wisdom, the most power and the most knowledge. That means there is no other being with more wisdom, power and knowledge. That could indeed mean that God is all-wise and all-knowing, but certainly not that He is all-powerful. He still can't create a stone He himself can't lift. That being said, He promised us this world until judgment day. Upon intervening, He would break his own law, therefore rendering His law (and in my believe: morality as a whole, since that is His law) null and void. Besides that: I think you're using the anthropomorphic principle wrong. In my version of the truth (
6) I purposefully debate on this issue from my set of beliefs. That means that I automatically assume that God exists, and that Jesus died for our sins. I also assume that morality is Gods law, and that without Him, there would be no question of Good and Evil.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
If "the need for a punishing god was abolished" is ruled out by the bible itself.
- - "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent" (Numbers 23:19)
So, God does not change his mind. Except when he does. So its impossible to avoid the conclusion that the bible is wrong abut the essential nature of god.
Besides, the Bible states the God is the creator of everything, including evil. (Isaiah. 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:38). So why the reluctance to put the blame at the doorstep of the creator of all evil, God himself?
Fear? The cracking of a belief system that people have invested too much in psychologically, socially, and economically, so that, when they are finally bereft of the idea of God, they will panic and go "My god, why have you foresaken me?" and flee right back into the mire of superstitious beliefs? Because that's what a lot of people do, when faced with the conclusion that the bible is just a book, and god is not within its pages. They go into denial.
Your knowledge of these so-called "false" gospels could use some education. There was basically two categories. First, some of them where not really heretical to any degree, them didn't make the short list because they weren't terribly popular, but that's pretty much it. Some of these books will still be used from time to time in some churches, nobody really cares.
There were a bunch of books that actually are heretical. These didn't start showing up until after the original gospels had all been written — well after Jesus' death. They're so far removed from the man himself that they end up shedding far more evidence on the heresies than they do on Christ.
That was only true in Ancient Israel, the modern situation is entirely different.
I really should dig into my Bible to respond properly, but here goes:
About Numbers: first, I find the word "should" a keyword there. Secondly, in my opinion, God never did lie or repent throughout the biblical history. Christ took upon Him the punishment meant for mankind. From that day onward, the rules have changed. That means that there was no longer a need for punishment. I did not mean "the need for a punishing god was abolished" as a shift in how we see or describe God. I meant it as a (planned, by the way) change of course by God.
Now, about evil being created. As I gather from the notes about the verses you mentioned, "evil" as in Isaiah and Amos is being interpreted as punishment (language differences are cited, as well as change of meaning in our time. I know that "hatred" used to be a lot softer in the days most translations were done). Genesis 19: 19 is given as reference. As for Lamentations: "evil and good" is also translated as "misfortune and fortune" (this is the best translation I could manage from Dutch to English; an alternative would be: "trouble and blessings").
Those of who you think are in denial might appear in my eyes as folks who were in doubt, but were reassured in their faith. Personally, I'm doubting a lot lately, even this (little) debate is more a strain for me than it would've been a year ago. I don't know where I end up, it's likely that I'll accept that doubt is part of the process of believing. But the thought of loosing my religion (thanks REM) is not scaring me a bit. The thought of being wrong is much more scaring. I rather find out the truth than hold on to something which isn't. So no, fear is not an issue for me. Maybe, just maybe, my views are so different from yours that I see absolutely no need to put the blame at the doorstep of the creator of all.
(One last note: if I say that He is the creator of all, the natural response would be: evil is part of all. That might be true, but that doesn't mean that the creation of evil was intended or initiated by God himself. Made possible, maybe (see my points on free will).
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
The criteria for including a gospel in the Bible was simple really, it had to have been penned by someone who actually knew Jesus. Only 4 gospels met this criteria. This makes sense really, as in a court of law a first hand account is trusted over a second hand account, or "hearsay".
Most of the "gospels" not included were actually written long after the time when Jesus walked the Earth. The "Gospel of Judas", for example, was written around 200 A.D., around 200 years after the fact. While I realize that 200 A.D. was 1800 years ago and seems awfully close to 30 A.D., in reality the author was no closer to Jesus than I am to say, George Washington.
Hey, I wasted 15 years of my life believing before I realized that I had, to a large extent, pulled the wool over my own eyes. It became a question of intellectual integrity.
I'm reminded of the story of how Abraham Lincoln had to argue a case one way in the morning, and the exact opposite way in the afternoon. He won the morning trial, and the judge said "You know you're going to lose this afternoon's case." Abe said "Not at all - I'm going to argue that you were wrong in your decision."
We can argue, but when it comes down to it, its not the arguments that will carry the day. Its the lack of integrity that the bible espouses. David was a man after God's own heart - yeah, right. He had a loyal soldier killed so he could have the guys' wife. Solomon - 300 wives and 700 concubines - sounds like one of those cults we hear so much about. Look at how they treated their enemies - god encouraged them to either kill them all, or kill the men, and rape the women (do you think they went voluntarily to be their wives, after their husbands were slaughtered?). Invoking the new testament doesn't cover up these injustices. This is the god that jesus supposedly wants to reconcile you with. I have no wish to be reconciled with anyone who could order such things.
Flee while you can :-)
The pope is decrying living in a collectivist society and cheating on taxes within it. He's not criticizing actually moving to places with lower tax rates.
If you don't like collectivism, leave your collectivist country.
I think I'll leave the debate with this.
Thanks, it's been fun!
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
Well, no, actually. That rather went out some time ago. Or hadn't you heard? [...] You really do need to update your arguments. Leaving aside the validity of selling indulgences (which was an abuse, but it's a long argument), this was stopped back in the 16th century.
Ah, I see. So, given that the Catholic church supposedly derives its moral authority from God, if they got it wrong back then, was it that God made a mistake, or did the pope merely have a bad connection? And if they got it wrong back then, why should anybody listen to what the Catholic church says about ethics today?
No problemo. Feel free to email me if you want to continue it in a less public fashion.
I'm not really interested in a flame war on this subject. However, this is such a common misperception that I feel the need to respond. You really do need to understand the distinction between inspired teachings (magisterium) on faith and morals vs. church discipline and mere custom (aka small-t tradition). This is not a dodge or a clever way of avoiding responsibility, but fundamental to the Christian understanding of the human person.
First of all, I am well acquainted with the many faults, errors and even enormities committed by those who make up the church. It is an obvious fact that the Church is made up of and run by fallible human beings. Knowing what is true and right is not going to ensure right behavior - we do believe in original sin, you know, aka the defectibility of human nature or "the only doctrine of the church that can be independently verified". Just look around at your fellow humans, or, preferably, at yourself.
If you understood this distinction and the history around the indulgence controversy of the 16th cent, you would know that Tetzel and his crew were wrong to be "selling" indulgences, even by the official teachings of the time. It is probable that pope Julius II at least "winked at" these abuses to raise money to build St. Peter's (or pay for his more or less continuous wars), but still, that can only be added to his fairly long list of likely sins, not ascribed to the Church itself. Any uncertainty on the point was pretty definitively removed at Trent. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm if you really want to know about this.
So the conclusion is that what the Church really teaches about ethics is worth paying attention to. Leaving aside for the moment my belief in the infallible nature of the essential principles (magisterium), there is, after all, some 2000 years of continuous tradition in thinking about this and quite a bit of attention is paid to internal consistency, even on the less formal declarations. A modicum of humility in consideration of this tradition may be worthwhile. Just a thought.
I'm sorry to hear that your libido is that low. You might want to consult a physician; lowered sex drive can have medical implications.
Anyway, the great number of unplanned pregnancies that occur every year, the ever-present sex scandals, the spread of STDs, and so on, show quite strongly that yes, it is in general hard for human beings to refrain from sex. It's evolution in action: your ancestors wouldn't have gotten to become ancestors if they didn't find sex rather compelling.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Paul did more to ruin the wisdom teachings of Jeshua ben Joseph than just about anyone else. He was a fanatic before his conversion; he was a fanatic afterwards. It's sad that this hallucinating misogynist came to have such an influence in early Christianity.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I think you can't support that thesis without coming to the conclusion that Jeshua ben Joseph is not worth following. Jesus' teachings are either those of a liar, a madman, or the Son of God. No other interpretation is sustainable and people have been trying to find a 4th alternative for 2 millenia. If his claims are true, Jesus is worthy of being followed, the Church really is imbued with the Holy Spirit that protects it from error in faith and morals, and Paul, no matter his flaws (and I agree that he had some), was correct in the main in his teachings that are accepted into the canon of the Bible.
True. However, the very existence of hierarchical power structures does promote child sexual abuse within them. And the Pope is at the top of a hierarchical power structure. It's all about power...
"I am become Gerund, Destroyer of Verbs"
Actually, the sin is non-procreative sex not any sense of attraction or love. You can get a hard on looking at your niece. She might be gorgeous. It's a purely heterosexual attraction and your desire might even be procreative. There isn't any sin so long as you don't do anything about that but boffing your niece is a sin.
Homosexuals don't sin because of who they are, who they are attracted to just as some confused teen doesn't sin because he got a hard on looking at a close relative. They sin when they engage in sexual acts that aren't on the narrow approved list, just like everybody else who strays off that list.
Homosexuality, no matter what else it is, is incredibly hard to satisfy because you're a distinct minority and you're going to be facing a lot of rejection even in a perfectly homosexual-friendly environment vis a vis your otherwise identical heterosexual twin. No parent really wants to set their kids up for that sort of pain if they can help it so if homosexuality does end up being determined as biologically determined, a "cure" will be found, and in the vast majority of cases used.
No matter what your sexual desire, the Church has the same rules. It happens that those rules tend to frustrate homosexuals more. Sorry about that but there's divine revelation for you.
We've gone very far afield from the Pope's economic writings (which haven't even been written) so excuse me if I don't open up yet another can of worms with the transsexuals.
It's a truly ridiculous approach to life, though. Risk exists. Manage it. Choose paths that bring happiness, not paths that have zero risk, which is a chimerae anyway. You have chances of getting infections just breathing. Sex is part of a happy life for many. Managing the risk is responsible.
The comparison *is* ridiculous anyway. STDs can be a bummer, they can even bring a long steady decline over many years, which is no fun. They don't splatter your brains across the wall. It's a scare tactic to equate them, which is standard MO for churchies when it comes to sex. Don't masturbate or you'll GO BLIND! Don't have sex or YOU WILL DIE!
These kinds of messages aren't effective because people know they're lies, and then they stop listening to the warnings at all.
-josh
"Homosexuality, no matter what else it is, is incredibly hard to satisfy because you're a distinct minority and you're going to be facing a lot of rejection even in a perfectly homosexual-friendly environment vis a vis your otherwise identical heterosexual twin. No parent really wants to set their kids up for that sort of pain if they can help it so if homosexuality does end up being determined as biologically determined, a "cure" will be found, and in the vast majority of cases used. "
I think that the question of rejection isn't a big issue - after all, if it is, most slashdotters would have slicked their wrists long ago :-)
On the "no parent" thing, when I had "the talk" that every parent has with their children, I told both my daughters that the ONLY criteria I had was whether they were happy, and not being taken advantage of. As far as I was (and am) concerned, who they go out with is their choice - I don't care about ethnicity, nationality, religion, economic, social, gender preference, age, or any other criterion, provided they're happy. Remember the "Its better to have a crust of bread on a rooftop ..."?
By being totally accepting about this sort of thing, I ended up with them both coming to me when they had questions about their boyfriends, guys in general ("yes, almost all men are dickheads"), and other, unrelated stuff.
Why do I hold to this position? Because I really do care more about whether they're happy, than if they "measure up" to "my expectations." I love them, I'm proud of them, and they know it.
As for "cures" - who says its a disease that needs curing? I should imagine that most guys would want as many gay guys around as possible - reduces the potential competition for women ... and with the sex ratio so imbalanced in China, we'd better hope they become a LOT more open about same-sex relationships, or they could very easily go to war to find "war brides".
If you understood this distinction and the history around the indulgence controversy of the 16th cent,
I do, I simply consider this sort of hair splitting irrelevant. What difference did it make to my ancestors whether the pope spoke eloquently about the fine points of Catholic doctrine while his church persecuted and killed many of them?
we do believe in original sin you know, aka the defectibility of human nature
Yes, conveniently for the coffers and membership rolls of your church, your church proclaims a doctrine in which everybody is born sinful and faces eternal damnation, unless they join, in which case they not only avoid that unpleasant fate, but also have a good chance of having their slate wiped clean.
So the conclusion is that what the Church really teaches about ethics is worth paying attention to.
Sure. because any ethical system that tells people that they can avoid facing responsibility for their actions through membership and ritual is dangerous and needs to be watched.
A modicum of humility in consideration of this tradition may be worthwhile. Just a thought.
Maybe a modicum of humility on your part would be worthwhile in consideration of a tradition of two millennia of persecution of, and intolerance of, non-Catholics.
ha, ha, suicide jokes, yeah, that's the ticket. Homosexuals have a high suicide rate. Male homosexuals especially have high disease rates. The "lifestyle" seems to be paired with an awful lot of markers of an unhappy life. That's not propaganda, just CDC data. Just take a look at the stats and say you'd want that for your daughters if mom could take a few pills and avoid the hormonal imbalance in vivo (if that actually is what's causing homosexuality).
Most of what you're conjecturing is contradicted by the CDC data sets. For policy, anecdotes make nice stories but poor guidance.
If you think a christian life is one of risk avoidance, you are woefully undereducated about christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. Risk should be managed which means sometimes it should be embraced, other times avoided. Which formula for risk management is reasonable is what we're discussing, though you don't seem to recognize it.
The sex as russian roulette thing I first got in public school sex ed, not in religion classes. It was the 80s, AIDS was new, scary, and killing lots of people. Before the retrovirals came out, it was a pretty ugly decline and you died in lots of interesting ways. You may find the comparison ridiculous but don't automatically assume that it's coming from the Church because it strikes you as ridiculous.
So according to your way of thinking nobody should become a dentist, because they have high suicide rates, and nobody should be a native american, because they too have high suicide rates, and god forbid ANYONE be a teenage girl, or black ...
So, since girls suicide rates are soaring, are you going to advocate they all start taking testosterone and getting sex changes? I doubt it.
Are you going to claim that, because blacks have a high suicide rate, that they should pull a Michael Jackson?
People are what they are ... its when they don't accept it, or society (and people like you) don't accept it, that stupid things happen. You're part of the problem.
If this were only about suicide rates you might have a point if you were actually correct about dentists being particularly high for suicide. Among medical professionals they're beat out by MDs and psychiatrists apparently.
More on point, happy, well adjusted homosexuals seem to be a lot rarer on the ground than pedophilia and incest victim homosexuals. Of the homosexuals that I've met, the number of reasonably well adjusted homosexuals who are healthy are a distinct minority. And I'm sorry but I'm not part of the problem when it comes to hepatitis and other diseases that run rampant through the homosexual community. You can wave away some of the problems as society induced but certainly not all of them, not unless you have an ideological ax to grind. It's not a happy community, never was, likely never will be.
Hooray for your combination generalization and straw man.
I criticised your typically Catholic views on sex because they are nonsense. You equated the real risk of sex with a ridiculously unacceptable risk, falsely.
Your extrapolation into this being a commentary on all catholic views is a fantasy.
-josh