The Catholics are at it again

[Simster]

i think u said it yourself an extreme example for sure

Indeed, but I am using it to highlight the fact that organised Christianity (and probably other religions) are happy to modify their beliefs in response to public thinking, yet they pretend to be the de-facto moral compass for society. And they only do so in their own self interest.

If you listened to any of them, you'd think it was impossible to be a good person without believing in God.

 

[aolstudios]

It's sad that in this day and age 2000 year old word of mouth and 1500 year old+ books (note the gap between apparent events and writing them down - chinese whispers anyone?) have an active role in political decision making (Bishops in the Lords etc). No one in society should be less equal than any other in terms of rights and freedoms.

As some have already mentioned - what harm does it do anyone if 2 people get married; whether straight, gay or bisexual? It is a private matter for the individuals and their friends and family.

absolutely, this

 

[chimneys]

being against gay marriage makes u homophobic?...eh?...sorry but thats rubbish

To me its not rubbish. Were this about the catholic church being against black people marrying, it would be racist. As it is against gay people marrying, it must surely mean that the catholic church is homophobic. It is discriminating against gay people whichever way you look at it!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

being against gay marriage makes u homophobic?...eh?...sorry but thats rubbish

If you're against marriage in general then fine but if you're against gay people getting married because they are, well, gay - what else can it be other than homophobia ? You would be discriminating against some one based on their sexuality - how is that either right or moral ?

 

[Digweeds Trousers]

This is the second time you've pulled me up for my religious beliefs inside a week. Clearly this is all my own opinion and not fact.

I find it laughable that the church is so riddled with hypocrisy that on the one hand it preaches that it is the one and only moral compass, led by blind faith - yet on the other it will change it's position on many issues so readily, in response to public opinion, but a long time afterwards.

Another example just off the top of my head (and this is obviously a very extreme example) is that the Dutch Reform Church thought apartheid was acceptable, based on the spurious "teachings" of one sentence in a 2,000 year old book. How odd then, that it's position has changed after the 1990 white-only vote to abandon the policy. Why should anyone ever believe what that church says ever again? Yet people still go to Dutch Reform Churches in South Africa don't they?

Firstly I am not pulling you up....I'm questioning your statement - something that both of have done to other posters on numerous times over the years. I can't comment on your comment regarding the Dutch Reform church as I am pretty ignorant on the detail but can certainly believe this to be true.

It depends entirely on your view point as to what relevance the church plays in your life - and which particular church it is, if any, that you make your choice to be a part of. Positions of power that human beings are able to inhabit are open to abuse. The paedophile scandal in the Catholic church is appalling - the links with the Nazi Party and Franco in the 20th century are at face value unpalatable.

But for every example of abuse, collabaration and cohersion that the church as an organisation are culpable of, there are extraordinary examples and thousands of them of self sacrifice, bravery and even the ultimate sacrifice that people representing the church have made over the decades.

It's very dangerouns in my opinion to make sweeping statements about links to NAzi Germany without raising the work the Catholic church undertook in EAstern Europe from 1934-1945 in helping Jews, gypsys, prisoners of war and escapees from concentration camps get out of Germany. At the Simon Wiesenthal Centre there are several letters and communications between the two churches demsontrating another side of faith / religion working in its positive way - transcending petty doctrine and working for the greater good of the human race.

Many would damn the catholic church for not overtly standing up to Hitler - many historians, from Alan Bullock through to Ian Kershaw have pointed out that an overt opposition would have removed the churches infrastrcuture and therefore ability to work underground to carry on its work.

Whether you believe that or not, whether you buy into it or not is not really the point - its the fact that trying to use a few examples and then massage them into fact is dangerous.

Does it mean that the catholic church should be allowed to sweep away the sickening child abuse scandal? No. Utterly not. But here's the irony - the Da Vinci code paints Opus Dei as a bunch of nutters that whil themselves and try and take over the world through dark arts, devlish deeds and is poulated with lunatics.

If you looked into this - and all this is in the public domain - Opus Dei currently are the most vociferous voice in the catholic church demanding senior figures in the church are held to account and made to pay a visibile, public price for their disgusting cover-up.

Instead (and i am not suggesting you are such a person Simster) - many, on the back of the popular book by that crettin Dan Brown, believe that the drivel he dressed up as fact is indeed fact.

That to me is the blind leading the blind with no inclination to demonstrate a resonance to fact. Dangerous and one wonders how many people now believe that Dan Brown speaks the truth.,

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I think the catholic church need to look at some of the other things that have been going on behind closed doors, before questioning someones sexualityl and whether they should be allowed to get married or not. This is what pisses me off about religion in general, it just hypocritical.

I don't believe in anything, I don't have any faith. When I see how people behave because of their beliefs it makes me wonder what hell it all means.

 

[beorhthelm]

That's your opinion and fair enough. What puts in you in a position to be able to pass such a damning indictment and generalisation and pass it off as fact? I'm not questioning your opinion only the use of phrases such as 'It's the main reason why it is frankly laughable that anyone should pay any attention to the teachings of any organised religion. They do it all the time.'

I dont necessarily agree or disagree with your view point - but surely to simply dismiss hundreds of millions of people as being somehow intellectually inferior to you is surely strange.

Religion comes from the Latin meaning 'set of rules' - and therefore the supposition that religion is in fact faith/belief based on typical Christian values is in itself misleading. Secular ways of life or athiest beliefs are themselves religious as they are based on beliefs or ideals.

For an articulate poster I'm simply saying that if you paint yourself as an enlightened one and see those who have faith or beliefs whatever their denomination as 'laughable' it would probably be a good idea to use your language and terminology correctly.

its not about being considering anyone to be intellectually inferior, but the fact that many follow blindly the teachings of an ancient book, and interpretations thereof by a group of people, who hold themself to be morally (and usually intellectually) superior. i think Simisters point, that the church will eventually change its view, its pretty consistant with past record. and your point about the origin of the word "religion" sort of backs that up, those of a particular faith change as the rules of the faith do

as for atheism, will you ever grasp the concept that its non-belief in any deity, it is not the belief in something else?

 

[Simster]

I can't say I disagree with any of your post [MENTION=2159]Digweeds Trousers[/MENTION], but I fail to see it's relevance in questioning my point of view. My one and only point is that organised religion moves it's moral compass to suit it's own agenda and that is why I don't think any of them can be trusted, and I've given two examples of this.

It's why I don't give a tuppenny toss what some Catholic Cardinal thinks about same sex marriages. He is entitled to his own opinion of course, although given his inflammatory use of language, I think his opinion should be treated with contempt.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

All denominations will think condoms and same sex marriages are wonderful ideas in 2063 when we're all eating insect burgers, water is rationed and half of Africa has been wiped out because of Aids. I have no time for any of them.

Why keep spouting that rubbish abbout Africa?

Show me the statistic where AIDs is highest amongst religious people. You've made that statistic up in your own mind because of your own bias. There's no actual statistical proof to back it up.

 

[Simster]

Why keep spouting that rubbish abbout Africa?

Show me the statistic where AIDs is highest amongst religious people. You've made that statistic up in your own mind because of your own bias. There's no actual statistical proof to back it up.

I'll show you the statistic where AIDs is highest amongst religious people when you show me where I've actually said it.

 

[The Large One]

Except for the fact there's gays who don't agree with the concept of gay marriage.

Yup. And...?

So we have intolerant gay people too.

 

[Gazwag]

If you're against marriage in general then fine but if you're against gay people getting married because they are, well, gay - what else can it be other than homophobia ? You would be discriminating against some one based on their sexuality - how is that either right or moral ?

Must really confuse the kids who go to catholic churches/schools who are told one thing and then turn up at the Amex and told another

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I'll show you the statistic where AIDs is highest amongst religious people when you show me where I've actually said it.

Why bring up Africa and AIDs up then unless you're suggesting religion has something to do with it?

It has sod all to do with gay marriage that's for sure and I thought that was what we're talking about?

 

[Gazwag]

Why keep spouting that rubbish abbout Africa?

Show me the statistic where AIDs is highest amongst religious people. You've made that statistic up in your own mind because of your own bias. There's no actual statistical proof to back it up.

I don't think its really the case that religious african people catch AIDs more than others, its the fact that someting which can prevent the transferrence of the illness/disease whatever it is, is banned by a church. Therefore that churches followers are surely more at risk.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Yup. And...?

So we have intolerant gay people too.

How are they intolerant? They are allowed their own opinion on the matter.

There's plenty of things in life you probably don't tolerate given all humans are prone to the condition. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

 

[John Bumlick]

If you looked into this - and all this is in the public domain - Opus Dei currently are the most vociferous voice in the catholic church demanding senior figures in the church are held to account and made to pay a visibile, public price for their disgusting cover-up.

frankly, that's setting the bar pretty low...

 

[Simster]

Why bring up Africa and AIDs up then unless you're suggesting religion has something to do with it?

It has sod all to do with gay marriage that's for sure and I thought that was what we're talking about?

And that's because I do believe that if half of Africa dies, it will be partly because of confused messages from the church and the use of wearing a condom. It is also my belief that when public perception changes, the church eventually follows suit. So in this case, too much obvious human suffering will mean the church will make even bigger noises about circumstances where wearing a condom is the right course of action.

 

[Doc Lynam]

To much to write quicker if i post this.

 

[chimneys]

Why bring up Africa and AIDs up then unless you're suggesting religion has something to do with it?

It has sod all to do with gay marriage that's for sure and I thought that was what we're talking about?

"It has "sod" all to do with gay marriage." I see what you did there!

Back to the main point of your post:

Because its another example of the very irresponsible attitude of the Vatican!

From Wiki: "In 2005, the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches of Africa embraced approximately 135,600,000 members of the 809,105,000 residents in Africa. In 2009, when Pope Benedict XVI visited Africa, it was estimated at 158 million.[1] By 2025, one-sixth (230 million) of the world's Catholics are expected to be African."

Therefore, were the Pope to confirm it is OK to wear condoms, this could have a dramatic effect upon the spread of Aids throughout Africa.

 

[The Large One]

How are they intolerant? They are allowed their own opinion on the matter.

There's plenty of things in life you probably don't tolerate given all humans are prone to the condition. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

Did you think before posting that? Your scattergun approach to shit-spreading does you no favours.

Seeing as you've levelled this accusation at me, perhaps you can highlight which things in life I find intolerable which you would find hypocritical?