| Freddie-B 14.11.2003 09:31 |
Don't worry, I'm not going to get all 'God Squad' on you all, blah blah, but this is more about Mel Gibson's film about a carpenter who made it big. No, not Harrison Ford, fools! Jesus Christ, lord, saviour, hippy (if you believe that kind of thing) and general all round decent fella. Apparently, Gibson's film is anti-semitic, but I don't know because I haven't seen it, but what does anyone think about the whole idea in general and the film, if they've seen it. FBxx |
| Krowa003 16.11.2003 13:28 |
I think you might be a little wrong Fenderek. Gibson is definitely not a radical. He is a Traditionalist Catholic. He renounces the Second Vatican Council, which instituted many radical changes like secular masses instead of Latin. I fail to see how the movie might be anti anything. It goes according to the Gospel of John, and since Catholics have been following for thelast two thousand years, I find it hard to believe it's hurtful. You are right though in the saying that none of us have seen the movie yet, therefore we can't really comment on it that much; whether you think is anti semetic or anything. But I am quite sure that you will all change your mind regarding it once you've seen it. |
| The Real Wizard 18.11.2003 16:43 |
"since Catholics have been following for thelast two thousand years, I find it hard to believe it's hurtful." I beg to differ. Do you want to make this a religious discussion? Give me one post, and I'll show you why this has been especially harmful, more than anything in the world, ever. |
| wstüssyb 18.11.2003 17:29 |
go bob go |
| Sir Archie 'Tiffany' Leach 18.11.2003 18:06 |
Oh great another shitty history piece with Mel Gibson. One thing is for sure it will all be the fault of the English! Somehow the English will kill Jesus! |
| Krowa003 18.11.2003 19:52 |
Ok Guitar hero, lets see what you've got. |
| Virtuoso 18.11.2003 20:51 |
LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLEEEEEEEEE! Ok guys,I want a clean fight.No low blows, no rabbit punches, no head butts and no hitting below the belt. |
| Virtuoso 18.11.2003 20:52 |
*TingTingTing* |
| MexQueenFM 18.11.2003 21:14 |
*taking my seat with a hot chick to my side* |
| Virtuoso 18.11.2003 23:17 |
Yet,the match is a total waste of money...I can't believe I spend 5 $ for this...oh well. |
| Fenderek 19.11.2003 08:52 |
I grew up in Catholic country, in a catholic family, near catholic church... For 20 fucking years... Do you know what this gave me...? "How to hate myself"- that's one thing I've learned; needed three years of serious therapy to change it a lttle bit... Another one was "How to deny myself and claim that therefore I'm almost saint and go to Heaven and blah, blah, blah..."- that's another... I detest this thing with all my heart; it's lies, hypocrisy and- basically- it's anti-human nature approach... |
| The Real Wizard 19.11.2003 12:24 |
Well thanks Fenderek, for giving me a head start! It makes my job that much easier now. The church has indeed been full of lies and manipulation for centuries. It was created as a means of controlling people, and it is the longest-standing method of controlling in the history of mankind. (People-kind, for those of you who are political activists and keeping track. :) More people have been killed in the name of God than any other reason, and history has proven it. World Trade Center Northern Ireland Kashmir Middle East, Isreal in particular Crusades This is not rocket science. Ahh, science... something religion has a major problem with, along with logic. The negatives of religion have caused such a problem between different races of people. It has taught conservative Christians to hate Muslims, and conservative Muslims to hate Christians. The more devout the religion, the more they're taught to selfishly believe they're the chosen ones over all others. Therefore they lead simple and pointless lives, not to mention not being educated about other people and their values. However, there are several things about Religion that I do approve of. It gives some people a certain strength that only their faith can give them. These are the people that keep their religions to themselves, and not preach about them all day long, or try to convert others into their faith, just because they believe their God wants them to. These are the kinds of people who have a smile on their face in even the toughest of times. I have gone to a United Church for years, and I have become educated a great deal about the problems of religion, and what needs to be done about them. Religion should be a learning experience, and used as a means of realizing that we're all one, and that we need to work together to restore this broken world, as opposed to wanting to kill off a race, just because they don't have the same faith that you do. Life is a learning experience. Life is a gift. Use it. That's religion. |
| deleted user 19.11.2003 15:43 |
I agree mostly GH. I am a Christian, and I feel the media among others, have hurt the name of Christians. I never once started a war. Nor have I defamed someone who doesn't believe like me. The majority of Christians these days think they are higher or holier than thou in their collective attitudes, and that is not a good thing to the people who are truly interested. You see people like Benny Hin on t.v. and all the other self proclaimed tele-vangelists out there begging for money while they dress in their silk suits and diamond rings that glare so much when you look at them your blinded. When you mentioned the WTC, and Israel, and the muslums and so on, their need to kill anyone who is not of their kind, is born of hate. I'm not too sure is has to do completly with religion or the person we worship. The Palastinians have hated the Jews for thousands of years, and probably visa-versa. That is more or less because of land issues than religion. (To me) The reason the WTC was attacked, was more because of the political stand the US has in the world. They were rewarded for their actions (so they think), but the idea behind it wasn't religion. Now I haven't seen the movie (yet) and don't know much more about it than you guys do. But I do know one thing. The ones who killed Jesus were the Romans. Not the Jews or anyone else. That in histiory is clear. I think Mel will do this movie topic justice, as he is passionate about it. Too bad more people aren't as passionate in their lives about religion and peace. We could all use some of that. |
| Margo 19.11.2003 17:43 |
II found out about this movie about a month ago. Since then, my family is completely boycotting Mel Gibson and making rude comments about him frequently. I think that explains our views on the whole 'passion of christ' thing. BTW- my family isn't "Anti-Catholic", we simply don't like it when people libel our religion. |
| iron eagle 19.11.2003 21:41 |
'Anti-Catholicism is still the last acceptable prejudice' yea ...ok and I am the pope too... :-)) there are lots more acceptable prejudices then just catholicism... Mel's father is actually the one that is considered the radical in religious views peeps |
| Fenderek 20.11.2003 09:16 |
Guitar Hero!!! Couldn't have said it better!!! Agree 200%!!! |
| Saffron Caribou 20.11.2003 09:24 |
If the Catholic Church has to make a list of apologies for humanity I will bet that it would be a HUGE one. |
| Fenderek 20.11.2003 09:47 |
But they'll never do thet- they think everything is absolutely fine... |
| Saffron Caribou 20.11.2003 09:50 |
You are right. However, Pope John Paul 2 has made some apologies on behalf of the Catholic Church I think. I maybe wrong on the name of the Pope. Zeni! Willy! Help me! |
| Fenderek 20.11.2003 09:54 |
Karol Wojtyla :-) That's his real name...! |
| Saffron Caribou 20.11.2003 10:10 |
I know his name! lol I just want to know if he was the pope who gave the pardons of Galileo and The Crusades to humanity on behalf of the Catholic Church! |
| Maz 20.11.2003 10:25 |
What I recall is that Pope John Paul II has apologized for the actions of the Catholic Church during the Nazi Era in Europe. Apparently, the Pope at that time (strangly enough, I can picture him, but not name him) was an anti-Semitic and took an accomodating stance toward Hitler. I do not recall if Pope John Paul II has apologized for those other things that you mention, but they do sound familiar. The current Pope has come under criticsm for being too conservative in the modern era, but I'm sure we have a few Catholic posters who are more familiar with that than I am. |
| The Real Wizard 20.11.2003 14:50 |
"That is more or less because of land issues than religion" Right. But why are there problems with the land? Religion! They are fighting over the land because they each claim it to be holy ground for reasons described in their separate religions. See the problem? :) |
| deleted user 20.11.2003 15:47 |
Right on GH. I see it now. your right :) |
| iron eagle 20.11.2003 19:58 |
Pius the XII was the pope then |
| Mr.Jingles 20.11.2003 20:16 |
Wasn't there a huge worldwide controversy a lot bigger than this when Martin Scorcese made "The Last Temptation Of Christ". As I heard, it is implied on the film that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene, so imagine the outburst from the catholic church at a time when they still didn't get over "The Thorn Birds". The film has been to this date banned in a lot of countries. |
| Guy 20.11.2003 23:40 |
True, Bob & Matt, but there is still a difference. We got our lands legally in 1947 by the UN while they attempt to get them by violence. And yes, I fully agree, it's all about religion. However, what we Jews call "die for God" isn't what you think it is. I can give an example from both Judaism & Islam: 1. Judaism - Someone, like when the Romans ruled Israel, tries to make you convert your religion. You don't agree and prefer to die. 2. Islam - Someone "takes" something you think is yours. You go and kill him\them and die as well. I am well aware that the Islam isn't in favour of what I just said. Those who die for God the way I pictured it are the extreme religious ones, and you can find examples for them in the Hamas, Hizbollah and ofcourse Al-Qaeda. Yesterday Al-Qaeda killed 27 people in Turkey, on Saturday 20 people, because we "have taken" their lands. The thing is they have hurt many others - Turks, tourists, and yesterday the British embassador in Istanbul. Those extremists don't care who they hurt as long as they "get" their goal. Why do you think there are even Israelis in Turkey, a Muslam country? They didn't like it here so they went there. Living where I live, I am forced to know a lot about this subject. I believe in God and religion is a wonderful thing. It teaches many good things and how to treat others. It only gets tricky when you take it too far. |
| deleted user 21.11.2003 07:08 |
Excellent post Guy. |
| MamaQueen 21.11.2003 11:10 |
It's not religion or God's fault. It is human nature fault. The resposability always falls on people. It all depends what we do with religion and with what God teaches. We were made free to choose. If you blame religion or God is like saying "look at what the devil made me do". Guy, I agree with you. Is not the same to kill for a cause than to die for a cause. |
| Krowa003 21.11.2003 12:18 |
There have een many issues addressed here on this thread, so I will try to refute all of them one at a time. First off, Pope Pius XII was not an anti-semite. He actually hid many of the Jews of Italy, to prevent Nazic from killing them. Before WWII broke out, Pius XII was extremely critical of Hitler and the way his regime created laws that did not value human dignity, but attacked people based on their race and religion. Because of the Pope's high criticism, many Jewish leaders told the Pope to relax his strong criticism because Vatican City remained neutral, and for the fear of Hitler turning on The Vatican, he was advised to relax, otherwise the Jewish wellbeing in Romewould be jeopardized. |
| Fenderek 21.11.2003 12:38 |
There is an excuse for everything, isn't it... Again, the Catholics are those misunderstood ones...!!!! |
| Hank H. 21.11.2003 14:41 |
David Yallop: In the name of god...? (not sure about English title) is the book that teaches you a lot about the catholic church and what's wrong with the Vatican. And there's a lot that's wrong. And I agree with GH. |
| Guy 21.11.2003 14:48 |
Thank you Matt :) |
| Holly2003 21.11.2003 16:53 |
"We got our lands legally in 1947 by the UN while they attempt to get them by violence" That is such a loaded, one-sided argument. Would you care to tell the rest of the story? Like who resided on the land so casually and imperiously "given away" by the UN (or by the British in the Balfour Declaration 30 years previously). Or what size was Israel supposed to be compared to what it is now? Or how you use the UN to justify the existance of Israel and yet you don't mention that Israel is the nation most in violation of UN resolutions! As for violence, I assume you know about the King David Hotel Massacre in 1947 and the lynching of British troops by Israeli terrorists - those same British troops who, along with Americans and Russians, liberated the nazi death camps in 1945. I suppose those Israeli terrorists were "freedom fighters"? There's two sides to every story... |
| Holly2003 21.11.2003 20:09 |
Regarding Northern Ireland, irish and british nationalism is the cause of the conflict, not religion, which was only a factor 300 years ago and not today. None of the terrorists in Ulster kill for religious reasons. It's also misleading to compare my country with Israel, Kosovo, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition etc... for the following reason: there were 4000 people killed in 25 years or so of violence in Northern Ireland. Let's compare that with gun deaths in the usa for any given year. In 1999, for example, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. (Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).) No contest. NI is a much safer place than even the USA. Don't believe everything you see on TV. |
| Krowa003 21.11.2003 23:11 |
Listen all of you wh are attacking the Catholic faith. Over the last 2000 years, there have been three things that have remained the same within the Church. They are Faith, Dogma, and Tradition. Sure there have been instances where the Church might have appeared to be more than living up to the word of God. However, that came from the Church's heirchy, not the three virtues that remain the same. Men are sinners, and this is evident in the Catholic Church as well as other religions. The fact that we all must acknowlege here is that the Church's dogma, faith and tradition have remained true to itself, following the teachings of Christ. ANd becaose of that, the Catholic church is able to recognize its mistakes. Can you saythat about other religions? I don't think so. The bottom line is that if some of you may have had a bad experience with the Church, that't a shame, but don't condemn the entire institution for mistakes of the few. The Catholic faith teaches forgiveness, and that is a lot compared to other religions; I'm sure I don't need to cite examples here. So why don't some of you take a hint from that. Also, I wonder how many of you are Roman Catholics here. It'seems that everyone has a lot of negative things to say. |
| Guy 22.11.2003 03:29 |
You wanna talk about history Holly2003? Let's go. The Israelis were in what we call Israel today before the Palestinians were. For years we were ruled by other people, including the Romans. After a while, we were FORCED to leave Israel and move to Babylon (today's Iraq). Ofcourse there was still a small amount of Jewish population in Israel. So basically, we had those lands before the UN had "given" them to us. All the UN did was giving us international recognition. Now, should I move to the "liberation of the Nazi death camps"? The liberation you talk about took exactly 5 years. More than 6 million Jews were murdered between 1939 to 1944, while the world KNEW (and there are documents that prove that) and did NOTHING. Just for your information, there were special brigades of Jewish soldiers only within the British army, so we helped in World War II as much as we could (we had no army, what did you expect?). About the King David hotel bombing... I just love when people talk about things they know so little about. The King David hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division. On June 29th 1946 British troops invaded the Jewish Agency's and confiscated a large amount of documents. What was the Jewish Agency you ask? It was merely an organization trying to bring as many Jews to Israel as possible. Why? The anti-semitism started long before World War II. There were lots of pogroms (massacres) that murdered Jews mostly in East Europe (Russia & Poland). The Jewish Agency's goal was simply to save as many Jews as possible from death. The British, however, prohibited any entrance of Jews to Israel, simply because it would hurt their interests with the Arabs. And so, because of their stupid immigration policy, thousands of lives were lost throughout Europe. Let's go back to the raid on the Jewish Agency's offices. As a result of that act, 2500 Jews were arrested. The documents that were confiscated, that included Jewish activities in Arab countries, were moved to the King David hotel. A week later 40 Jews were murdered in a pogrom in Poland. That reminded the Jews in Israel what the British are causing. The Jewish underground organization "Etzel" planted explosives in the King David hotel. The purpose was to destroy the confiscated documents without any life loss. On July 22nd 1946 3 telephone calls were placed and warned that explosives are about to be detonated and that the hotel must be evacuated. One call was made to the hotel, one to the French embassy and one to the Palestine Post. When the British soldier at the King David hotel picked up the phone and was told to evacuate he answered "We don't take orders from Jews". A total of 91 people were killed in the explosion, 15 of them Jews. In 1979, after decades of denies they have been warned, a member of the British Parlament introduced a testimony of a British officer who was at the hotel. The officer overheard a conversation between other 2 officers, talking about a Zionist threat. The officer left the hotel immediately and survived. I wouldn't call that bombing a massacre. And I haven't even talked about the Palestinian terror acts against the Jews in those years... I invite you, Holly2003, to live in Israel. I want to see how you deal with 700 dead people in 3 years, as a result of homicide bombers. A person that views from the side can never understand what's going on in the core. |
| Holly2003 22.11.2003 04:17 |
Your version of the King David Hotel Massacre has been stolen shamelessly from this pro-Israeli website: link For someone who has responded to my questioning of your one-sided comments with insults ("I just love when people talk about things they know so little about") it seems you didn't know about this incident until I mentioned it. Contrary to your copied version of events, these Israeli terrorists shot dead a British officer and then a policemen who got in their way. They detonated the bomb knowing full well that many British, Palestinian, and (yes) Jewish lives would be lost. The real facts are there for anyone to look up. In any event, the point I'm making here is that you give a totally one-sided version of events designed to make Israel look innocent. It is absolutely clear to disinterested parties that Israelis used terrorism to establish the Israeli state and they CONTINUE to use it against Palestinians, just as Palestinians use terror against Israelis. Incidentally, your quote ""We don't take orders from Jews" appears to be absolutely untracable (except to pro-Israeli websites perhaps?). So please quote your source, otherwise it can be discarded as propaganda. "The Israelis were in what we call Israel today before the Palestinians were. For years we were ruled by other people, including the Romans. After a while, we were FORCED to leave Israel and move to Babylon (today's Iraq). Ofcourse there was still a small amount of Jewish population in Israel. So basically, we had those lands before the UN has "given" them to us. All the UN did was giving us international recognition." What is interesting here is what is omitted i.e. any mention at all of the Palestinians who also lived on the land. Are you ever going to mention them? "The liberation you talk about took exactly 5 years. More than 6 million Jews were murdered between 1939 to 1944, while the world KNEW (and there are documents that prove that) and did NOTHING." Winston Churchill mentioned the Nazi round up of Jews in his radio addresses as early as 1941. However, few people believed him given the false atrocity stories (rape of Belgian nuns, slaughter of POWs etc) attributed to Germany by the British in WW1. In any event, it may have escaped your attention that Britain was fighting for its existance in WW2 and there was little if anything it could've done to prevent the Holocaust. Should the RAF have bombed Auschwitz, for example? What material steps could Britain have taken to stop the round up of Jews across Europe? Your attitude is unsurprising, given your efforts to excuse and minimize Israeli culpability for terrorism at the King David Hotel and your failure to respond to my comments about Israeli terrorists lynching British troops. "Just for your information, there were special brigades of Jewish soldiers only within the British army, so we helped in World War II as much as we could (we had no army, what did you expect?)" I made no mention of this at all so I have no clue why you bring it up. "What was the Jewish Agency you ask? It was merely an organization trying to bring as many Jews to Israel as possible. Why?" To steal land that Palestinians had resided on for centuries. Do you deny it? "The anti-semitism started long before World War II. There were lots of pogroms (massacres) that murdered Jews mostly in East Europe (Russia & Poland). The Jewish Agency's goal was simply to save as many Jews as possible from death. The British, however, prohibited any entrance of Jews to Israel, simply because it would hurt their interests with the Arabs. And so, because of their stupid immigration policy, thousands of lives were lost throughout Europe." Britain had a responsibily to both sides in Palestine - jews and arabs. There was no reason for Britain to think that mass immigration to Israel before WW2 would benefit anyone except Jews. Looking back, there's no doubt that man |
| Guy 22.11.2003 04:36 |
Have I ever said Israel (which didn't even exist at that time) was innocent? Have I ever said I support the hotel bombing? What I said was not intended to be an insult, merely my point of view. You didn't even know when that bombing took place, or when was the liberation of the Nazi death camps. Claiming I didn't even know of the event - that's an insult. I know a lot more than you on Israel's history, and I do not deny I took some numbers and facts from the above site. Most of what I've written in my last post came from my History lessons in school. In fact, right now we are studying about anti-semitism in Europe, care to join? I'm sure you'll learn a few things. I didn't really understand your statement of the Palestinians killed as Israelis. If you mean Arabs that live in Israel in cities such as Acre, Jaffa & Jerusalem, there have been terrorists from that sector as well. This issue is not something you can understand from the side. You can not argue on French politics with a French, can you? Same here. Like I said, it's easy to be an outsider and claim you're objective. What you see on the BBC isn't what's really happening. I can show you some pictures from homicide bombings that would make you spit out your breakfast. That's what the Palestinians do, they show you pictures of their dead. If we would have done what they do, the whole world would be on our side. We didn't declare the Jihad, they did. It hurt when you lost those 20 people in Turkey, didn't it? Guess how we feel. |
| Guy 22.11.2003 04:42 |
I see you edited your post. Fine, let me reply to the holocaust issue. It is clear to me Britain was fighting for its existence. By the way, I'm sure the soldiers there were in Israel would be more useful in the war, but whatever. You would have lost the war if it wasn't for the US. I never blamed Britain personally. Just in case you didn't notice, I used the words "the world". There were other countries in the Allied Forces and together you could have done something. You started talking about the Nazis, I wouldn't have mentioned the holocaust otherwise. About the hotel bombing, you said the site was pro-Israeli. Fine, here's a british site for you, presenting the same facts about the officer's testimony: link "There was no reason for Britain to think that mass immigration to Israel before WW2 would benefit anyone except Jews." That makes me sick, you know that? It's not like there were 100 pogroms in 1 single day, it was over a period of 60 years, starting in 1881. What you're saying is "so what if Jews could be saved?". That's why the world looks like it does, because everyone only wants to take care of themselves. Oh yeah, and about the Jewish Agency - yes, I deny it. Can you give any proofs Tel-Aviv was a Palestinian land or that Haifa was? I'm waiting. |
| Guy 22.11.2003 05:05 |
And I also think you need to look again at the middle east before you talk on Israel's policy: link |
| Mr.Jingles 22.11.2003 10:26 |
Let's face it... there will never be peace in between Israel & Palestine. Both of them are a disgrace to the world today. Most people from both sides believe there won't be peace until one wipes the other completely out of the "holy land". |
| The Real Wizard 22.11.2003 10:28 |
WARNING: THIS POST IS NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART AND MAY ACTUALLY OPEN MINDS. "It all depends what we do with religion and with what God teaches. We were made free to choose." Absolutely not! In the cases of conservative Christans for example, they are threatened by their preachers (I've seen it with my OWN EYES), and they are told that if they do not do what their "God says", then they will be condemned to hell for eternity. "Over the last 2000 years, there have been three things that have remained the same within the Church." Wow, are you ever wrong! The church has progressed over the past 2000 years, and very little has remained the same! Who's feeding you this hogwash? Your priest? Ahh, a very reliable source. The style of worship hasn't changed much in the past couple hundred years, but 2000 years ago, there was no such thing as Catholicism. That was created much later on from the roots of Judaism. My minister is a religious scholar with a pHD in the philosophy of religion, and perhaps I will get him to post here to set a few people straight about the history and lies of religion. In the meantime, those who are not faint of heart or closed-minded should go to their local book store and purchase a book called "The Dishonest Church". I cannot remember the author's name off the top of my head, but I will edit this post when I find it. This book will set people straight, as long as they open their minds to the abominations of the so-called "church" and what it has been doing to destroy the minds of people for hundreds of years. It offers possible solutions to long-standing religious problems that involve opening the mind, and doing good for others, without condemning them or making them feel unclean; something the Catholic church knows little about. This process can only involve the strongest people we can find, but most are buried in their religions with little hope of freedom. Most people find security in the fact that their God is doing their thinking for them, and has a plan for them. That sounds much easier than thinking for yourself and saying, "hey, this is wrong. Why can't I think for myself?" But nope, you can't say that... the church says you cannot say that with "do not put the Lord your God to the test". The perfect mind control system. "Men are sinners, and this is evident in the Catholic Church as well as other religions." You know, the word "sin" as we know it is a word that was artificially created for the convenience of scaring people within the Christian faith. There is a passage in the NT (the "Prodigal son" story) where the boy says says, "father, I have sinned". Wow, was this ever incorrectly translated. The original Greek writing for this passage is translated as, "father, I have wandered", meaning wandered from the house, as he did something to shame his family. So does this mean that the entire concept of "sin" as we know it is one huge lie? You betcha. You won't find this information in the bible, will you? This may actually require someone to find... another book! *trembles* I know of several other passages which contain such incorrect translations from the original Greek/Latin, but I cannot remember them all off-hand, unfortunately. One I can remember is Mark 15:39, where the quote should be, "truly this is a son of god", not "the son of god". This can be taken as a hint that the original writings did nothing to encourage the trinity as we know it today. Hmm, I wonder who changed that quote????? I can just picture the religious hustlers in the year 200... "Oh wait, we have to change that... otherwise they'll question it. Ahh, there we go. Perfect." Some newer versions of the bible have gone out of their way to correct this issue by saying "truly, this man was God's son". That totally changes the meaning of the quote, seemingly leaving no room for interpretation. How's that for a "dishonest church" ?? Catholics have spent ages basi |
| Guy 22.11.2003 11:18 |
Wrong, Mr. Jingles. I know for a fact that most people in Israel believe there won't be peace until Arafat is dead. |
| deleted user 22.11.2003 11:47 |
I was raised Baptist. Although I don't attend church on a regular basis any longer, I am still steadfast in my faith. There are differences in what I believe, and what I was taught. I believe God is a loving, caring God. Not a hateful, vengful God. He want's us all to come to Him and share what He has for us. I believe the Jews are God's chosen people. One of the reasons they are persecuted, and have been through history. I believe in forgiveness through Christ, who came to save us all. Guy I feel terrible for the way your people have been persecuted through history. And I feel even worse when I turn on CNN to see more senceless death at the hands of the Palestinians. And how sad is it that people are turning away from them? And that includes this country. Hearing people talk about the 'damn' Jews is sickening, and revolting. I have an aquaitence who says the 6 million Jews that were killed at the hands of the Germans is all a falsehood, and faked for the world to see. Some kind of a conspiracy theory. What a bunch of crap. I pray for the Jews, and their country to find peace. And I hope that it will happen wether in my lifetime or not. I hope it does at somepoint. I applaud your stand here Guy. |
| Guy 22.11.2003 11:52 |
Thanks Matt, you have no idea what your support means to me =) |
| deleted user 22.11.2003 11:59 |
Will you please email me Guy? :) Thanks |
| Guy 22.11.2003 12:34 |
Done :) |
| Mr.Jingles 22.11.2003 13:21 |
It is also a fact that there won't be peace as long as Sharon is alive. |
| deleted user 22.11.2003 13:39 |
'It is also a fact that there won't be peace as long as Sharon is alive.' I think you mean Arrafat. He has no more control over his people than you or I do. |
| Holly2003 22.11.2003 14:11 |
"I see you edited your post." No I did not. Is there anything here I need to reply to since you haven't made any effort to reply to my points at all. You simply continue to paint Israel as non-aggressor and victim and I'm not going to let you spread that propaganda unchallenged. Why did you use the UN to say Israel's land grab was "legal" and subsequent Israeli violence justified, and then not mention that Israel is in violation of numerous UN Resolutions? Because you want to paint Israel as "victim." Israel was clearly created through terror (King David Hotel Massacre, lynching of British troops, terrorist attacks against British troops and Arabs, murder of Swedish mediator in 1948 etc) and your claims to the contrary are nothing but propaganda. Why don't you mention, for example, what size the UN envisaged Israel as and what size Israel is now? Why haven't you mentioned the Palestinian victims at all? It's clear that either you are deliberately not giving the whole story or there's a lot about your own history you aren't aware of (the 3-1 ratio of Palestinian victims compared to Israeli, for example). Don't worry though - as long as you continue to tell a one-sided version of events, I'll fill in the gaps for you. |
| deleted user 22.11.2003 14:38 |
So the suicide bombings that are carried out by the Palestinian groups (call them what you will. Uncivilized will do) that kill 10-20-30-50 people at a time (innocent people including children) is warrented? And the stikes that Israel carries out (on the targets that are terrorist targets) is looked down on by the world? I don't understand that. In my opinion Israel has done all it can to try to stop the suicide bombings even with the promis of land givin back to the Palestinians, but nothing works. They keep bringing their cars full of death, and people who are stupid enough to strap explosives to themselves in hopes of getting special treatment in a 'heaven' that doesn't exsist for them is inexscuseable and barbaric. |
| Guy 22.11.2003 14:55 |
There's no doubt there were violent act from both sides, Jewish & British. A certain group of Jews murdered Count Bernadot and planted bombs at the King David hotel, and certain groups of the British army abused innocent Jews. Those are all extremists, and they do not represent the opinion or perception of the entire Jewish settlement in Israel and the entire British army. Do you know about the Altalena case? That's a fine example of what's the official stand of the Jewish settlement and what isn't. There are, however, certain British acts that DO represent the British mandat's stand, like Churchill's White Book. You say we violated several UN resolutions. Guess what? Britain did too (remember Iraq?). If we wouldn't violate some of the UN's resolutions we wouldn't even exist. Would you consider the invasion of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon & Egypt to Israel in 1948 a violation of certain UN resolutions? I would. A few hours after our state has been created we had to face war against 4 countries. What about the Yom Kippur War? Other than the Lebanon War, we didn't start a war with any Arab country. Could you please clarify who started the 2 Intifadas in 1987 & 2000? We sure didn't. The last thing we want is war with them. About the Palestinian victims: Israel does not hurt innocent civilians on purpose. It only hunts down terrorists from terror organizations that are active in the Gaza strip. In some cases innocent people are hurt, yes, I don't deny it. As harsh as it may be, I think I prefer 2 terrorists and 2 civilians dead rather than having 40 Israelis dead. I'm sure you would prefer the same if you would have been an Israeli. The Palestinians actions are not pointed toward soldiers, they are pointed toward everyone, even Israeli-Arabs. That's the difference between us and them - we want terrorists dead, they want everyone dead. Usually when someone is attacked he is considered the victim. Obviously you believe the weak side is the victim, even if it's the one who started the whole thing. |
| wstüssyb 22.11.2003 15:23 |
for me it's always been, I can think for myself, I dont need a church to do that for me. =-) |
| The Real Wizard 22.11.2003 19:36 |
Thanks to all the religious prodigies who replied to my last post. Where are you, Catholics?? |
| Holly2003 22.11.2003 20:39 |
link One of many many incidents where a large amount of Palestinian civilian injuries and deaths have occured because of Israeli military action. This is the equivalent of the US Army bombing an apartment block in a crowded US city because it believes terrorist SUSPECTS may reside there. In other words, it is coldly calculated murder without trial of not only of SUSPECTS, but also of innocent civilians guilty (according to you) only of going about their daily lives in their own communities. What you probably don't know or don't care is that it is also a war crime, since combatants have a legal obligation to ensure civilian casualties are kept to an absolute minimum. (It goes without saying of course that suicide bombings are also war crimes, but at the moment we're still dealing with your argument that Israeli violence is justifed because it is "legal" whereas Palestinian violence is unjustified because "they are trying to take our land.") Firing missiles into streets crowded with women and children, or into civilian apartment buildings, is a clear violation of international law, as is collective punishment of civilian communities for the actions of individuals from within that community. I'm sure you can justify that in your head at least because, as you say, you would rather innocent Palestinians die than innocent Israelis but that doesn't make it right. In fact, a number of respected Israeli military officers have recently spoken out against terror raids like this, saying it disgraces the otherwise good reputation of the IDF. And it is raids like this that have led, in the last 3 years, to 3-4 times as many Palestinian deaths as Israeli. Lucy: please direct me to my quote or comments that led you to accuse me of supporting suicide bombers. And then, when you cannot do that, I wonder if you're grown up enough to apologise. |
| Sir Archie 'Tiffany' Leach 22.11.2003 23:25 |
'It is clear to me Britain was fighting for its existence. By the way, I'm sure the soldiers there were in Israel would be more useful in the war, but whatever. You would have lost the war if it wasn't for the US.' I think you'll find the Russians ability to accept massive losses had a lot more to do with winning the war in Europe than the late entry of the US. |
| The Real Wizard 22.11.2003 23:43 |
"for me it's always been, I can think for myself, I dont need a church to do that for me. =-)" A good philosophy William, but it never hurts to learn. You never know what's out there and inspiring for you unless you try it out. And Guy, I'm sorry I didn't read your posts until now. I got rather caught up in my own posts, which NOBODY HAS REPLIED TO YET. "That's why the world looks like it does, because everyone only wants to take care of themselves." Such a fine statement. :) Too true. (post edited... certain segments were definitely wrong to have been said) |
| Guy 23.11.2003 00:36 |
Since you're such an expert on war on terror, why don't you tell me how can we stop those homicide bombers? It is the Palestinian's authority DUTY to arrest them and prevent them going even near our border. As long as they don't do that Israel has the right to take whatever steps it thinks are right in order to prevent casualties on our side. I never said I prefer dead innocent Palestinians over dead innocent Jews. I said I prefer 2 terrorists killed (which would kill 30-40 innocent Israelis) and 2 innocent civilians killed rather than having 40 Israelis killed. Did I make my point clear? "In fact, a number of respected Israeli military officers have recently spoken out against terror raids like this" Respected in whose eyes, exactly? Israelis have lost any kind of respect for these officers. Maybe you should stop counting on Sky and BBC so much. "And it is raids like this that have led, in the last 3 years, to 3-4 times as many Palestinian deaths as Israeli." Do you feel like supporting this claim, giving me actual numbers? Please note we're talking about innocent civilians here, don't put the terrorists and their families into your list. Again, the BBC has mislead you. The reason that the real missile name was not revealed back then was because of classified material, not because of their claims about injured and killed civilians. While you say it's the same as bombing a city because it has suspects, you are once again wrong. We don't bomb certain buildings in their territory because we say "Hey, maybe there's someone we need in there, let's just drop a few bombs and see who's hurt". NO. Every strike in the Gaza strip is well calculated and designed to assassinate a certain person\persons who are KNOWN to be present at the building at the time. Those missiles are specifically designed for such operations to cause as little side effects as possible. However, they do happen. Do you expect us to sit back and wait for our death while they commit war crimes? We do NOT intend to commit war crimes, it's a side effect that happens sometimes (or frequently). Those terrorists surround themselves with little children and innocent people. "Those who send their children to war, should not be suprised when they die". According to what you say you DO support those bombers, so Matt is right. I think you need a little reminder: link Notice the "Below are SOME". I don't need to mention there are terror attacks involving shooting rather than bombing, or do I? |
| Holly2003 23.11.2003 01:25 |
You're just making up excuses - as I predicted. You don't deserve a reasoned response as there's nothing to respond to once again. I am glad though to hear your shrill, hysterical accusation that my "statement" (which one?) proves that I support suicide bombers. It underlines once again how partisan you are, how low you will stoop to defend the undefendable, and how far removed you are from any effort at rational discussion or reasoned debate. |
| Krowa003 23.11.2003 02:10 |
Guitar Hero, why are you so interested in what others think? Even if people tell you, you will just insult them because of your narrow-mindedness. You seek people's opinion but you don't even respect it. You are in your own world, and you are acting like some immature child who will throw a fit if you don't get what you want. Get a life, and grow up. |
| wstüssyb 23.11.2003 02:42 |
A good philosophy William, but it never hurts to learn. You never know what's out there and inspiring for you unless you try it out. I have many history books as im a history bluff, quite a few are about church and where it start through to present times, I understand most...I even went to church for a while, some things that are tuaght I cannot accept, and there is no run around in it. So I simply accept not being a member of any. |
| Mr.Jingles 23.11.2003 09:14 |
<< Since you're such an expert on war on terror, why don't you tell me how can we stop those homicide bombers? >> By stopping opression over Palestines, and stop killing innocent women and children when you are supossedely "Hunting For Terrorists". It seems to me like Israel is also guilty of terrorism, just that they describe it with a nicer word called "retaliation". Face it Guy, Israel is as guilty of this war as Palestines. Ariel Sharon is no less of a terrorist than Ariel Arafat. |
| Pluto 23.11.2003 09:22 |
my school is going to it when it comes were hoping the whole school but it will probally just be the religion class the movie is very close to what really happend at Jesus death and i can not wait to see it my religon teacher showed us a preview in class and i almost cried during that and i have never vried during a movie or during a preview cant wait till it comes out |
| Guy 23.11.2003 09:56 |
I will not even refer to your comments Mr.Jingles, which I consider as anti-semitic. Saying Israel is a disgrace to today's world, reminds me of a certain moustached person back in the 30s who said Jews are a disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself. |
| The Real Wizard 23.11.2003 09:59 |
Krowa003, I am the exact opposite of narrow-minded! For the past few years of my life, I have been reading books written by religious scholars and have learned all about other religions and moreso, the truths about the Christian faith, and where it is going; which is a hell of a lot more than the Catholic church does to educate people. And it's funny that you didn't reply to that entire post of mine, full of facts about religion that you probably never knew. Afraid of the truth, or would you rather be part of the big group and not think for yourself? I get angry when people don't post in a topic like this, because religion is something that affects almost everybody. When people keep to themselves and don't open their minds on this subject, how can they learn anything? So you're accusing me of not learning and closing my mind? Whatever. Read my posts again, and start learning and accepting. Until then, you and your fellow Catholics will be the narrow-minded ones. I'll have to wait a while for a reply, because it's Sunday morning, and you're busy at your mass, being brainwashed that you're unworthy and that you have to be clean of all the sin you committed over the week. William just made a wonderful post about how he's chosen studying history over religion. I just learned something from him. If I had a closed conservative Christian mind, I would have thought, "William is going to hell because he has chosen not to be saved". Ahh, the beauty of the human mind, and those who choose to use it. |
| Fenderek 23.11.2003 11:22 |
< Simply beautiful...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One of the most disgusting things in Catholic faith is the origin sin or whatever you call it- the fact that we're born unclean... WHAT A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT!!!!! The little person that is born is the cleanest and the most perfect thing on this fuckin' planet!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's absofuckinglutely innocent!!! But no, it has to be cleaned... And then live for the rest of its life feeling guilty about everything, about its thoughts, urges, needs etc... We're all sinners? BOLLOCKS!!! God is everything, right? Isn't it?! Therefore he's also the evil one, isn't he?! He's both: good and bad, blach and white- there is no good without bad!!!!!!! He's everything! He's the light AND the darkness. And so are we!!! I don't think that God is feeling bad about himself because of that. Why should we???? Guitar Hero- your post was one of the best things I've ever read about the subject. And I've read a lot!!! Thanks! BTW Have you read "Conversations with God"? Only part one, the rest is not as good. Give it a try, it's in the same vein. |
| Maz 23.11.2003 14:23 |
GH Perhaps you could define your criticism a bit more clearly. Are you specifically arguing against Catholicism or Christianity in general? I cannot quite tell. Also, could you expand on your discussion of "sin"? Were you referring to sin in general, or how it applies to Catholics? And one observation, you seem to want people to have an open mind, yet your argument comes across as very heavy-handed. Perhaps if you were truly trying to change opinions, you could tone down the rhetoric. |
| Fenderek 23.11.2003 14:27 |
I think GH is mostly annoyed because he sends some posts with many things, many points, and then nobody really feel like replying! The ball is on the other side, I think. That's my opinion anyway... |
| Holly2003 23.11.2003 14:58 |
Guy labeling MrJangles "anti-semetic" because he is critical of Israel is a disgrace and you should be ashamed of yourself. Does it make you "anti-christian" because you disagree with us? |
| Guy 23.11.2003 15:02 |
Have I labeled you anti-semitic because you didn't agree with me? No. What he said is beyond any normal tone of speak. |
| Fenderek 23.11.2003 15:04 |
He just said that both sides are actually guilty of what's happening!!! He's right! |
| Holly2003 23.11.2003 15:13 |
No you haven't called me anti-semetic you just stated that I supported sucicide bombers. You're a real charmer. I'm glad this thread has shown how one-sided and immoral your political views are and I'm sure after this no one will accept at face value anything you say about Israel. |
| deleted user 23.11.2003 15:40 |
'One of the most disgusting things in Catholic faith is the origin sin or whatever you call it- the fact that we're born unclean...' Not true. We come to an age of acountability where we know right from wrong. You don't know much when your born right? '... And then live for the rest of its life feeling guilty about everything, about its thoughts, urges, needs etc' Wrong again. You don't feel 'guilty' unless you have done something wrong. And I assume you know what that is right? Stealing, lying, cheating etc... '... We're all sinners? BOLLOCKS!!!' Acording to the bible we are. No one is excluded from that. Not even if you go to church 50 times a week. We are all still siners. 'God is everything, right? Isn't it?! Therefore he's also the evil one, isn't he?! He's both: good and bad, blach and white- there is no good without bad!!!!!!! He's everything! He's the light AND the darkness. And so are we!!! I don't think that God is feeling bad about himself because of that. Why should we???? ' God isn't everything. He is only pure goodness and light. Satan is the only evil one as you put it. How on earth could you say God is evil? Are you nuts? I'm no preacher, and that isn't what I intended from this post. But you have no idea what your talking about. You should do more research before entering into a topic like this. God is love, and only love. For all of us, no matter who or what you are. |
| Fenderek 23.11.2003 15:51 |
I think we live on two different planets... As a catholic I used to feel guilty because of for instance- masturbation... I was told it's a sin. Is it? Don't really think so. Sex before marriage- what about that? A sin? BOLLOCKS!!! And many, many other things. Only because we're told they're wrong and we're scarred of god- we feel guilty. Some of them aren't sins at all!!! if I don't go to church on Sunday- is it a sin? Does God have complexes and needs my praise to feel better? |
| Mr.Jingles 23.11.2003 15:57 |
I was raised Catholic, but that doesn't mean I that agree with everything that the catholic church does or believes in. I'm sure most people in this board who were raised catholic feel that way. For a fact I believe that... - "Original sin" is a bunch of bullshit. How could you be blamed for a sin you haven't commited? - Abortion is right if it's done at a time when an embryo hasn't developed to become a fetus and be able to feel pain. - A lot of stuff from the Bible is not God's words. Some douche bag wrote it to make us believe that it was God's written word. - I eat beef on Easter whenever I feel like it, and I don't feel like a sinner. |
| Mr.Jingles 23.11.2003 16:10 |
Guy, when I refer to Israel as a disgrace, I refer to today's Israeli government and everyone who supports it. I for once I'm admirer of Yitzak Rabin for all his efforts to achieve peace. After decades of war, he was the first one to say... "Enough blood, enough tears... it's time to find peace". If he was the prime minister today, I'm sure the whole nation of Israel wouldn't be victim of this huge wave of violence that we see today. And whether you hate to admit it, Ariel Sharon is a terrorist... he's not too far from becoming that "moustache guy" from the 1930s you talk about and who you dared to compare to me. |
| deleted user 23.11.2003 18:50 |
- "Original sin" is a bunch of bullshit. How could you be blamed for a sin you haven't commited? Enter Adam and Eve. Their sin in the Garden of Eden gave us "original sin". - Abortion is right if it's done at a time when an embryo hasn't developed to become a fetus and be able to feel pain. Abortion (in my opinion because of my religious beliefs) is indeed killing the baby. Pain or not, it is a life, with a soul that God gave it. - A lot of stuff from the Bible is not God's words. Some douche bag wrote it to make us believe that it was God's written word. Nice. God gave the men he saw fit in His eyes the words to write. They didn't just pull it from the sky, He gave it to them to write. The bible is the infallable word of God. Again in my opinion because of my beliefs. - I eat beef on Easter whenever I feel like it, and I don't feel like a sinner. Who says you cant eat what you want? There are many misconceptions about alot of things that are written in the bible. It all depends on how you interpret what God is saying to you. For example. There is nothing wrong with having a glass or so of wine as long as it is not taken to excess. I smoke grass. It's a natural thing that God gave us. (every fruit bearing tree...) but not doing it overboard. I am glad we are talking about this here. And I hope that more people will say the things they belive in. Not just the Catholics or whatever you would want to call me. I don't have a lable, as I don't think that that is important. What is important is making this world a better place by showing kindness and respect twoard others here and in my life. And if that means telling my story about the love of Christ and what it means to me, then I'll do it. I don't want a fight, or to be berrated. I just want to be able to express my side as well as Guitar Hero has and Guy and others who have respect for other opinions here. |
| Adolf 23.11.2003 20:19 |
Did somebody mention me? I should have finished the job. |
| The Real Wizard 23.11.2003 22:35 |
Zeni, you have always been the level-headed person at QZ. :) "Perhaps you could define your criticism a bit more clearly. Are you specifically arguing against Catholicism or Christianity in general? I cannot quite tell." I am criticizing both. To sum up my complaint in a sentence: I am criticizing conservative Christians in general for refusing to open their minds on certain subjects, and I am criticizing Catholics in specific for having certain elements of their faith which include being born "unclean", and constantly feeling the need to clense themselves of sin. "Also, could you expand on your discussion of "sin"? Were you referring to sin in general, or how it applies to Catholics?" I was talking about the word "sin" as we English-speaking folk understand it, and have interpreted it from biblical writings. Most known documents from biblical times were written in Greek or Latin, and they ended up in the bible in translated form. In so many cases, incorrectly translated, and one example of such incorrect word is the word "sin", and many Christians (Catholics especially) have based their lives on being free and clensed of this sin. There is no mistaking or misinterpreting language. The language is what it is, and the word "sin" in the bible is a complete lie. "And one observation, you seem to want people to have an open mind, yet your argument comes across as very heavy-handed. Perhaps if you were truly trying to change opinions, you could tone down the rhetoric." You're right, I do come across as being very strong with my opinions, and I suppose I do feel like that, as I am very passionate about learning, especially on this subject. I say the things I do, and it's anyone's choice to read what I have to say. It just baffles me that so few people have anything to say when it comes this entire discussion. "Not true. We come to an age of acountability where we know right from wrong. You don't know much when your born right?" Yes, many people do hit that age of reason! But the Catholic faith is based on being born unclean and spending your life becoming suitable for when you meet God after death. Conservative Catholics aren't hurting anyone but themselves. There are millions of them, and they live in fear. If they do not live in fear, then they are not good Catholics, because scripture teaches them to live in fear of God. So it should really come down to assessing who they really are as individuals. But that doesn't happen, as they're taught that God will take care of everything, as scripture says. "Wrong again. You don't feel 'guilty' unless you have done something wrong. And I assume you know what that is right? Stealing, lying, cheating etc..." No, I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Catholics are taught that they will always be unclean and full of sin, no matter how hard they try to be the best they can be. "And many, many other things. Only because we're told they're wrong and we're scarred of god- we feel guilty." Right on. I'm glad you found yourself and realized you were above this kind of brainwashing. "Does God have complexes and needs my praise to feel better?" I'll assume this is a rhetorical question. :) Mr.Jingles79, you are obviously not a Catholic anymore, judging on the individuality you showed in your above post. This in particular: "- A lot of stuff from the Bible is not God's words. Some douche bag wrote it to make us believe that it was God's written word." A good claim, and one that can be totally backed up. Much of the bible is merely a collection of stories to properly suit the religions at hand, but there is plenty of good, wholesome material in the bible that still applies very well today! "Enter Adam and Eve. Their sin in the Garden of Eden gave us "original sin"." Think for yourself for a minute, please. It's just a story, like Humpty Dumpty. Really, who was around to write this story at the time? Literacy wasn't heard of in the su |
| Guy 23.11.2003 23:35 |
Adolf, shut the fuck up. Mr.Jingles, I never compared you to him, I would never do such a thing. I only said your statement is similar to his, and statements like that caused the holocaust. Holly2003, you reply to what you feel comfortable to reply to... You say there is nothing to respond to, however I think there is. You haven't said anything about my last 2 posts, which are far from showing me as one-sided. |
| deleted user 23.11.2003 23:57 |
'When you are 19, experiencing your first labour pains, and trying to raise a child on a minimum-wage salary, then I'd love to hear all you have to say about abortion, my friend.' OK. Then lets not use that exscuse for a method of birth control. I have learned alot in my life. Most of it on my own. What I believe in is my own. I respect you and your opinion, and I am not going to fight with you about it :) But for the record, I'm not Catholic. I'm just a Christian who believes very differently than the 'normal' ones. If you want an explanation, I will be happy to give one :) |
| Guy 24.11.2003 00:04 |
I seriously think those 19 years old women shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. In Israel, and I'm sure all over the world, teens had given birth and then dumped them _alive_ to die. In very few cases the babies were saved. They should overcome their "will" to sleep with someone, especially when they know they could have a baby. |
| Saint Jiub 24.11.2003 00:44 |
"All you need is your faith in yourself, and your faith in God can back you up in along the way, only if you feel you need it. And after you die, don't worry, you and those close to you will be safe." Someone has gone soft, and believes in god only when it is convenient for him, and it seems his belief in God is for insurance purposes only. I believe that there is no god, but on the off chance there is one, I refuse to believe in some egomanical "Ming-like" god. "What plaything do you have for me today? It's a planet called earth. Will you destroy this Earth? Later, I like to play with things awhile ... hahahaha |
| Saint Jiub 24.11.2003 00:46 |
I previously ignored this topic because I thought it was only about a movie, but decided to look into it again after it reached page 4. |
| MamaQueen 24.11.2003 02:01 |
Guitar Hero: much of what you say is true, there is a dishonest church, and you mean to tell me that is not a sin. "Forgive me father for I have wandered" (meaning he disgraced his family). Isn't that a "sin"? I let people believe what they want to believe. I'm free to choose my own way. I have a friend who is a protestant, he is a quadriplegic. If I could have only a grain of faith and joy that this man has, I would be a happier person. I teese him and I say, Puro, if you were catholic they would proclaim you a saint. I am not afraid of God. I believe in a loving, all forgiving God. I am a catholic, but I like to define myself as a daughter of God who believes in Jesus. I don't swallow everything the catholic church wants to feed me. All those priests who have abused children will have to answer to God, just like all who abuse and kill. I rather preach with my example of life than with my words. I'm not perfect, but I try to follow the teaching of God, the teaching of love, caring and forgiveness, and I love God and Jesus not out of fear of condemnation. I'm sorry to say this, but you seem to be an angry person. The words you wrote "cock suckers queenzones" are angry words. I don't understand, are you angry because catholics, christians are not responding to your posts? or are you angry because we catholic "robbot thinkers" do not agree totally with you. Your post is too long. If I was in front of you we could talk about each point, but I'm not a good writer like you. I need time to think each question, that's why sometimes I don't respond right away. I do what your heart and conscience dictates me, that's why God gave it to us. |
| The Real Wizard 24.11.2003 07:52 |
MamaQueen, you are obviously not one of those people that I like to poke fun at. You are a good and honest Catholic who knows what they're talking about. :) I'm sorry I was harsh on people like yourself before. It was totally wrong. I suppose I was just getting frustrated. But I'm certainly not an angry person, and I didn't say all Catholics were "robot thinkers". I was just pointing at those who blindly take in everything the church tells them. Of course that's not all of them! I'm sorry you felt the need to justify your desire to wait until you post. "Someone has gone soft, and believes in god only when it is convenient for him, and it seems his belief in God is for insurance purposes only." Absolutely not. My place in this topic was not to say things like that. I just professed such a thing just to show people that I have a decent and caring side, as opposed to this hard and intellectual side. So I'm done in this topic. P.S. I used the words "cocksucker QZers" because I thought all the honest and intellectual posters were gone from this place. You know, sometimes it's good to be wrong. |
| Krowa003 24.11.2003 12:16 |
Guitar Hero, it's too bad to see you go away because I recently finished my research papers, and I have some time on my hands to debate your issues to the fullest. First off, you said, "Catholics have been doing the same thing for ages and ages, and not one person has ever come forward to question whether or not what they're doing is correct. Mindless, religious robots, scared into believing anything they're told. Fundamentalism at its best." Scared into believing? That is a ridiculous comment! I can say the same thing about you or anybody else. Just because you believe something doesn't mean that fear was instilled in you to do so. Catholicism preaches free will, we have the choice to do good or bad. Second, why do you say that nobody ever speaks up? Does Martin Luther ring a bell? What about the Vatican councils? People have had to be expressing discontent and feel some sort of seperation if the church had agreed to make changes. Fundamentalism? Once again, as a Catholic you have free will. Unlike certain Protestand groups who believe in predestination. THe church allows people to voice their views and express their concerns. Maybe you might see that a bit difficult to beleive, but you must understand that the Catholic Church is a large institution, and there has to be some sort of order. Unlike many Protestant churches in the US, where you have a new sect forming every other day, you have small communities and issues can be addressed quicker on a smaller scale. |
| Mr.Jingles 24.11.2003 13:14 |
< Hey, that was their sin, not mine. LOL Oh, and I don't trust the Bible because it has a lot of contradictions. If God is perfect, then how could he contradict himself. People used the terms "God's word" or "God's wish" to justify their actions. |
| The Real Wizard 24.11.2003 14:03 |
Krowa, I appreciate you going through the effort for this! "Scared into believing? That is a ridiculous comment! I can say the same thing about you or anybody else. Just because you believe something doesn't mean that fear was instilled in you to do so. Catholicism preaches free will, we have the choice to do good or bad." Okay, I'll partially retract what I said, and I'll say that *too many* people are scared into their faith, and do not question anything. I've attended masses at Catholic churches before, and I've seen the priest with my own eyes, threatening his congregation, saying that they'll go to hell if they do not fulfull God's word in its entirety. I was almost sick to my stomach. I was only there because it was my cousin's confirmation. My words are based on not only the literature I have read, but also the three Catholic churches I have been in. They all have used similar methods to the above. The priest told everyone exactly what to do, and how to do it. I don't understand where the freedom part comes in. But I'm glad there are Catholic churches that give that freedom of choice. I hope these places are the future of religion, and not the fundamentalist places that I feel are a waste of space. So with that in mind, I now realize that all Catholic churches are not nearly as right-wing as Protestant and Baptist churches around. :) Those places can be scaaaary. "People used the terms "God's word" or "God's wish" to justify their actions." They do this because it's a lot easier than taking reponsibility for their own actions, good or bad. In this whole discussion, I'm glad I've learned there are open-minded Catholics around who are able to talk to about their faith, and it was quite fulfulling to learn that they're all not robots like at the Catholic and Baptist churches I've been to. Way to go folks. Keep on thinking and learning! However, I will still maintain my views on Fundamentalism and how utterly wrong it is, and how much these people are destroying themselves, and those who they preach their word to. I will also maintain that there are flaws in the bible, and major flaws in the way certain faiths deal with the bible; reading, as opposed to reading and interpreting. In the end, I will always respect those who go on a spiritual journey throughout their lives. I will never respect those who feel they have already reached the pinnacle of the journey, because in your lifetime, you never will. |
| Krowa003 25.11.2003 13:48 |
Guitar Hero, I am not sure I can see you whole argument on fundamentalism very clearly. Can you elaborate further? |
| geeksandgeeks 25.11.2003 16:48 |
'Anti-Catholicism is still the last acceptable prejudice' You're kidding me, right? If a politician says something anti-Catholic, people call for them to be drawn and quartered. But our President drapes an arm around Rick Santorum when he makes disgusting, homophobic comments. But I do agree with you that anti-Catholicism is a problem. People associate Catholics with weird, freakish people who molest little kids. That's wrong. If Mel Gibson wants to make anti-Semitic trash, that's his business. We don't have to watch it. |
| Virtuoso 25.11.2003 16:55 |
"If Mel Gibson wants to make anti-Semitic trash, that's his business. We don't have to watch it." It's that simple |
| Holly2003 25.11.2003 19:39 |
Bearing in mind that NOT ONE of you has seen this movie yet, why are you already labeling it anti-semetic? You have already seen how Guy has labeled MrJangles anti-semetic SOLELY to try to shut him up - couldn't the same thing be happening to Gibson's movie? Make your own mind up and don't let other people do your thinking for you. |
| The Real Wizard 26.11.2003 02:12 |
"Guitar Hero, I am not sure I can see you whole argument on fundamentalism very clearly. Can you elaborate further?" I've really had enough of this topic, to be honest. I've stated all I can state. Fundamentalism is pure brainwash. These people don't think for themselves, and they quote the bible at every opportunity, because they feel that they have to convert people into born-again Christians for a living. I said before, they are only hurting themselves, which is their own problem. It only bugs me when they convert people, and then they become like them... like it's a disease. Religion can be a beautiful thing, but this specfic practice seems like some kind of abuse. |
| Guy 26.11.2003 08:19 |
Ofcourse you know what's going on in my head so you know I said that to shut him up, right? If he wouldn't say anti-semitic statements I wouldn't call him that. |
| Fenderek 26.11.2003 08:55 |
Krowa, make an effort and read the WHOLE thread. Everything is in there. Interesting is that you didn't reply to 90% of what has been said... |
| Mr.Jingles 26.11.2003 09:02 |
<< If he wouldn't say anti-semitic statements I wouldn't call him that. >> Guy, if you want to think they're anti-semitic, then that's your opinion. But that's because you can only see one side of the conflict. |
| Guy 26.11.2003 09:14 |
Umm no, we have plenty of reporters here who report from the Palestinian side. |
| geeksandgeeks 26.11.2003 12:58 |
You're right, Holly, I stand corrected. I have not seen the film, nor do I plan to. But I have heard reports from both sides, and those associated with the making of the film are not very convincing. Of course, I have tried on several different forums, mostly populated by very intelligent (?) people, to defend Mel Gibson's right to make the film as well as their right to call him a yellow-bellied son of a bitch. Each time I am then labeled as an anti-Semitic beast who is encouraging the spread of filth. (I will decline to mention that my best friend is Jewish.) Pretty much everybody involved is acting stupidly. Can we please come up with a way to deal with it that 1) does not involve censorshiop, and 2) does not involve ripping out anyone's throat? I say that we don't go see it if we don't want to. You could do the same thing with "Fatal Attraction". |
| Krowa003 26.11.2003 17:16 |
I would never label Catholicism as fundamentalism clearly because Roman Catholicism relies on two things, scripture and tradition. This is not the case for many Protestant sects here in the United States. Some Protestants, especially the Baptists, are labeled as "Bible thumpers" because they only use scripture to prove their point, and this is obviously wrong to do. |
| Krowa003 26.11.2003 17:22 |
Fenderek,you have made a very interesting comment before: "I detest this thing[Catholicism] with all my heart; it's lies, hypocrisy and- basically- it's anti-human nature approach..." First of all, the last thing you can say that Catholicism uses the anti-human nature approach. After all the Catholic Church is the biggest defender Natural Law, that is why the Church opposes homosexual acts and abortion. Second, hypocrisy and lies? Can you point it out for me? I really have a hard time seeing this, especially the hypocrisy part. |
| Krowa003 26.11.2003 17:39 |
Iron Eagle posted: "there are lots more acceptable prejudices then just [anti]-catholicism... Mel's father is actually the one that is considered the radical in religious views peeps" You are right, other prejudices do exist even bigger than anti-Catholicism. However, other prejudices are not as tolerated as anti-Catholicism. For example when the black race comes into question or is being attacked you have Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, American Civil Liberties union, and Anti Defamation League defending them publicly. Did you ever hear of ACLU defending Catholicism? Of Course not! Let me give you another example. Couple of years back the movie "The Seige" was being filmed in NYC. It is about Arab terrorists in the city. The production company had to hire special professors and consultants of Muslim faith so that the movie does not portray the Arabs as terrorists because after all, their scripture teaches against terrorism. Well, what about movies like "Dogma" and "Stigmata" where the Catholic scripture is parodied and lampooned, and made a total mockary of? What about that? And now, this film by Mel Gibson, do you know what his script was? It was the Gospel according to St. John. I guess the Catholic Church has been reading anti-Semitic literature for the last 2000 years. On top of that, none of us have seen the movie, yet some of you have become the judge, jury and executioners, and have already convicted Gibson and his film. We need to re-evaluate ourselves, and come to a conclusion that if we are going to be bashing one faith, then we have to bash the others just as equally. However, we should never bash religions, rather have respect for eachother, which should also be equal. |
| Fenderek 27.11.2003 12:12 |
< Wow... What's wrong with homosexuals?! Now that's what i mean by anti human-nature approach!!! If you think that being gay is WRONG, you're still in middle ages... Sex is in everyone's nature- is it wrong? Is sex wrong? C'mon, anyone who thinks that- I'm sorry for you, whoever you are... Sex is the most beautiful, spiritual thing that God gave man; yet Catholic church does everything to make it something ugly... C'mon!!! If this is pro human nature, than I'm proud to be an animal . Hipocrisy??? Celibacy thing- that's two in one: anti human nature approach (it is, no one will convince me that it's not!!!) + hipocrisy!!! So many of them do have sex anyway...sometimes by abusing children... (quite a lot of it happening recently...) Isn't it a hipocrisy???!!! Check "Magdalena's Sisters" movie for more examples- this was happening in Ireland IN THIS CENTURY!!! |
| Krowa003 27.11.2003 12:30 |
In regards to homosexuals, the Catholic Church never condemns the individual, however it does condemn the act. You can be gay, but don't take part in unnatural acts that go against the grain of Natural Law. The Catholic Church does not think sex is "ugly". The Church beleives it is important and a beautiful means for a man and a woman to accomplish two things: to unify the couple and to produce a family. In nature, some people are not meant to have children. That is why some have low sperm count or bad fallopian tubes; this is just a product of nature. The reason why priests remain celibate, is because they can serve the community a lot better, and address their issues if they don't have their own personal problems at home tying them down. The priests have made a life long sacrifice to serve the community and the Church 24/7. Also, what about Buddhist monks? Aren't they celibate? How come nobody has a problem with them, Not that anyone should. But if you are going to attack celibacy, address all those involved in it. The entire recent Church scandal, has brought shame and disappointment to the institution, and I believe that as moral leaders it should have never happened in the first place. However, did you ever hear the media address the child abuse issue in NYC public shools? Of course not, even though there are far more cases there then in the Church. Out of all the priests, only less than 2% have been involved in the scandal. So once again, if you are going to address ceratin issues, we should look at the whole spectrum. By the way, this is a bit off topic, are you still living in Poland, Fenderek? |
| The Real Wizard 27.11.2003 14:24 |
"I would never label Catholicism as fundamentalism clearly because Roman Catholicism relies on two things, scripture and tradition." I never once said Catholicism was fundamentalism. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. It can get pretty close though, judging by their desires to continue forbidding homosexuality and abortion. "When you are 19, experiencing your first labour pains, and trying to raise a child on a minimum-wage salary, then I'd love to hear all you have to say about abortion." My view on abortion, copied from the previous page. I think it's ridiculous and completely unfair to judge whether or not abortion is a correct act until you have been in the situation yourself. No, I am not using this as justification for lack of birth control, but I thought everyone knew that no method of birth control is 100%. "Can we please come up with a way to deal with it that 1) does not involve censorshiop, and 2) does not involve ripping out anyone's throat?" No Geeks, not possible. The people whom you will have this conflict with will not reason with such logic. |
| wstüssyb 27.11.2003 15:05 |
even tho some people are getting pissed, I can say I enjoy this topic. |
| Krowa003 27.11.2003 21:21 |
"It can get pretty close though, judging by their desires to continue forbidding homosexuality and abortion." Based on what you have said, one thing is clear, you have to give the Church credit for always having the same stance on these issues, never change. That is what is great, even though our society changes, the Church continues to instll the same moral values. It continues to remain the control. In our society, when we find a hardship or an obstacle we cannot face, we decide to change our morals and compromise our values. The Catholic Church remains to have the same stance on different subject, using Laws of Nature and Reason. Many just cannot face the fact that an institution is willing to remain so strong about different issues. But in fact, in life there needs to be someone who will speak up for the unborn children who have no voice to speak. We value human life so much, that governments would kill those who take life away, we even give criminals lawyers who are payed with tax money to defend their evil actions. Yet unborn babies were still being aborted and have no one to speek for them. In the US, Bush just signed a law recently that would prohibit abortion after the sixth month. Before that, women could have abortion at 8 or 9 months. |
| behind blue eyes 27.11.2003 21:47 |
hey hairy butt guy (not meaning to insult. It's a very nice hairy butt and I think it's rather attractive.) Anyway if you are board with this topic, pleace come post on mine. Rosanna |
| Saffron Caribou 27.11.2003 22:47 |
I must say that this topic is way entertaining. BTW, about Adam and Eve, I do not believe in that story. The story of Adam and Eve has been taken from old oral traditions from other religions. Also, this story is purely symbollic, even the Catholic Church has labeled it symbollic. Born into a Catholic family, I too was raised with the ideals of this faith. However, during my years in Catholic School I saw the hypocritical way nuns and priests, and of course parishoners follow the faith. This led me to abandon the church all together. The faith in Catholicism has failed me. Christianity, as a philosophy, not as a religion, is wonderful. However, us, we bend the rules according to our likeness. We can go back to history to all the atrocities made by the Catholic Church or any Christian demonination, and we will see these crimes against humanity. So if Christianity is about loving your fellow man, love, and forgiveness, do these Christian denominations follow it? IMO, they do not. About God and Satan, good vs evil. I believe that this duality exists for a purpose: to create balance. Still, we do not know if God exists or even Satan. According to the Bible, God was everything before creation. Lucifer was an angel. There was a rebellion in the heavens, and Lucifer was cast down to hell. I still am confused if Lucifer and Satan are the same person, although I think they are two completetly different beings. How do we know that God created evil? I personally don't know, but it isnt a question that keeps me awake at night. I believe in balance, and "good" and "evil" exists. Perhaps man invented evil, we just don't know. For me, The Bible, is a book filled with many contradictions. How can a wrathful God in the Old Testament turned into a God of Mercy in the New Testament. I've even tried to ask that in my Religion Ethics teacher when I was in HS, and I always got a blank stare and the automatic response, "It is just there". It baffles me, not even priests, brothers, or nuns know it! There are TONS of books that arent in The Bible. Why? Ask the Catholic Church. Is there a mystery that they don't want us to know? How come the Church is so rich, while they have to practice poverty and meekness? Like I said, the Church just disappointed me. I left the faith, and now believe in God (she, he, or it) in my own way. About Gibson's film, I really want to see it. I am a fan of these religious films and/or epic films. I really cannot say if it is anti semitic, until I see it. However, it is a historical fact. The Jewish authorities (not the Jewish people) in that time were the ones that plotted Jesus's death. I don't think this is anti semitic at all. It was a historical fact. So pointing the finger at a populace is wrong. Jesus was a threat to the Jewish government. Jesus was a rebel. This is how I believe. You guys on the other hand, should believe in whatever you want, and never debate over something as blind as faith. |
| Saffron Caribou 27.11.2003 22:50 |
One more thing, celibacy wasn't mandatory during the first years of the church. Even the first Pope, Peter, was a married man. Still, he left his family to preach the word of God, according to Jesus. The concept of celibacy was implimited much later on. I think during the Middle Ages, please correct me if I am wrong. BTW, I'm watching Jesus of Nazareth at the moment on the History Channel, excellent film. |
| Krowa003 27.11.2003 23:35 |
There are allways going to be people who go off the original philosophy of any faith. Some of you pointed them out in Catholicism. What about the pyramid scandals of many rabbis here in the States? What about Muslims who kill in the name of God? Like I said before, if you are going to point out hipocrisy within religion, do it across the entire table. Give examples of more than just Roman Catholicism. |
| The Real Wizard 27.11.2003 23:41 |
Shoujo, I must say, I am impressed with your knowledge, and with your post overall. You're a better person than I. :) "The concept of celibacy was implanted much later on. I think during the Middle Ages, please correct me if I am wrong." Yes, celibacy definitely came much later on. It was instilled by the church as a means of molding the priest into more of an authority figure. The logic was (and remains), "if the priest appears to be completely devoted to God, then people will be more willing to believe anything he has to say". "The story of Adam and Eve has been taken from old oral traditions from other religions. Also, this story is purely symbollic, even the Catholic Church has labeled it symbollic." Right on! The same goes for the ark story, and the virgin birth. Several faiths (some obscure, but just as old as Christianity) have such stories in them, and many of the "virgin births" happened on the 25th of December as well. How many Christians know this, do you think? "Perhaps man invented evil, we just don't know. I personally don't know, but it isnt a question that keeps me awake at night." That's right, we don't know. It's a shame that people actually spend many nights, and many years, trying to figure such a thing out. Sad, isn't it? "How can a wrathful God in the Old Testament turned into a God of Mercy in the New Testament?" Never ask a priest this question. You will never get a straight answer. Just smile and nod while reading these sections of the bible, and take it in for the entertainment value. "Is there a mystery that they don't want us to know?" Of course! They won't tell you, but there are definitely books that will. "Jesus was a threat to the Jewish government. Jesus was a rebel." 100% correct. The reason Jesus was killed was because he was an anarchist. If you wanted to preach to the wrong people, you got killed for it. Simple. The Historical Jesus was a good man, and paid the ultimate price for being it. Note that I say "Historical Jesus", and not Jesus as the bible makes him out to be. At least half of the quotes of Jesus in the bible are things he didn't actually say. After reading the Q Gospel (the Gospel that priests and ministers forbid to be seen by faithful Christians), you'll just know that it's not possible for Jesus to have said many of the things that he it says he did. You'll in fact find that Jesus was an ordinary guy, who taught only in parables, not of faith and/or literature. Now, to reply to our beloved faithful Catholic. "Based on what you have said, one thing is clear, you have to give the Church credit for always having the same stance on these issues, never change. That is what is great, even though our society changes, the Church continues to instll the same moral values." This is the exact opposite of what is correct! Because the church never changes, that leaves people NO room for opening their mind to change! This is the problem with the church! 1000-2000 year old morals just may not still work today, with the way society changes. For anything to work in today's culture, you have to change or at least modify yourself with the changes in culture. Otherwise, it crashes and burns. Yes, I'll agree that the church has gone outside of that little rule, but is it the best thing they can be doing? Leaving people closed-minded? "The Catholic Church remains to have the same stance on different subject, using Laws of Nature and Reason." Nature and reason, as opposed to humankind and logic. Good job, folks. "Many just cannot face the fact that an institution is willing to remain so strong about different issues." Paraphrase: When an institution refuses to open its mind on major subjects in the world today, people who actually THINK will not agree with the institution's desire to take the easy way out and not change for the better. "But in fact, in life there needs to be someone who will speak up for the |
| Krowa003 27.11.2003 23:53 |
Shoujo Revolution wrote: "How can a wrathful God in the Old Testament turned into a God of Mercy in the New Testament." Well, Jews rely on the Torah or Old Testament to Christians. THe OT is God's Law, and many Jews back then believed that bad things happen to a person because God is punishing him or her. This was only what the people believed; God never declared this through scripture. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the meaning behind every story that is in the OT can be traced back to the Ten Commandments; therefore the strong reliabilty on God's Law. However, when Christ came about, he showed people that God is merciful, hence he came and sacrificed himself. Just becaus eGod is all knowing and all powerful being, doesn't mean that humans are, and humans need to be shown what is right and what is wrong. |
| Saffron Caribou 27.11.2003 23:58 |
Krowa I see your point, and it is valid. However, I was speaking from my own experience as an ex Catholic living on a Christian island, where the Muslim and Jewish populace are a small percent of the population. I see that every person that follows a particular philosophy or religion interprets the scriptures or religious/philospphical writtings in their own way. Some are lead to believe from a leader or group, while some seek the knowledge in their own way. I believe that scriptures such as The Bible, The Torah, The Koran, and others are open into interpretation. Unfornutatetly, in a world were individuality is a goal not reached, one person, group, religious denomination can sway the masses with a word or/and a turn of a page. That's the way I can best describe Muslims killing others in the name of Allah (God), and the Holocaust for that matter. |
| Guy 28.11.2003 00:00 |
The Koran is just like any other religious book. It contains both good and evil. Different people see different things in it - some see good intentions and some see bad intentions. It's very important to say not ALL Muslims support what the Muslim terrorists are doing - most don't. I hope that should stop all the "all Muslims are..." and "all Christians are..." statements. It's obvious that we all understand our bibles in different ways. |
| The Real Wizard 28.11.2003 00:00 |
"THe OT is God's Law, and many Jews back then believed that bad things happen to a person because God is punishing him or her." OT is God's law, eh? Book of Numbers, chapter 25. God is thrilled with the act of murder, and encouraged it in masses, just because one group of people were persecuted by another. This is God's law? Ahem, you were saying? |
| Saffron Caribou 28.11.2003 00:18 |
"Well, Jews rely on the Torah or Old Testament to Christians. THe OT is God's Law, and many Jews back then believed that bad things happen to a person because God is punishing him or her. This was only what the people believed; God never declared this through scripture. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the meaning behind every story that is in the OT can be traced back to the Ten Commandments; therefore the strong reliabilty on God's Law." As I see it, it can be traced even further before the Ten Commandments. I assume (its horrid to assume btw) that you've read, Krowa, the story of Abraham. The popular version only gives us Abraham and the birth of Issac. Now, the story of Soddom and Gomorra was way before the Ten Commandments. By that time Judaism was not an established faith, it didn't even exist for that matter. The Soddom and Gomorrah story is a perfect example of the wrath of God, implementing punishment for sins. The same can be said for the Noah's Ark story, but that can be open for debate, because that story had been in existence way before The Bible. About God's law, that can be open to debate because that God didn't write the OT. It was written by people that believe God spoke to them. God's word, as far as I believe, was never set in stone. God never wrote it. People did. As we humans are creatures with vivid imaginations, religious leaders never question the validity of what is written. Still, now, it cannot be proven, all we have is the word. "However, when Christ came about, he showed people that God is merciful, hence he came and sacrificed himself. Just becaus eGod is all knowing and all powerful being, doesn't mean that humans are, and humans need to be shown what is right and what is wrong." True. Still the huge question is why the sudden change? Of course The Bible doesnt follow a sequence of events from the OT to the NT. However, Jesus forgave evil and immoral human beings. I believe that the main idea of the NT was that we are all sinners, but we can redeem ourselves if we accept our human faults and follow God's will. But humans, as I believe, are animals with reason. We can repent, and be forgiven lots of times, but sometimes we can fall into the same ditch of sin again and again. Each human being has a notion of what is right, and what is wrong. Humans have the power of reason to discover it, and follow it. |
| Saffron Caribou 28.11.2003 00:19 |
Guitar Hero, thanks for the compliment. However, I'm not any better than you or anyone else. |
| The Real Wizard 28.11.2003 00:20 |
"God's word, as far as I believe, was never set in stone. God never wrote it. People did. As we humans are creatures with vivid imaginations, religious leaders never question the validity of what is written." *applauds loudly* Although this isn't entirely true. I once spoke with a minister of a Presbyterian church, and he told me in confidence that he knows the church is very wrong a lot of the time, but for the sake of his congregation, he has to keep his mouth shut and preach anyway. |
| Saffron Caribou 28.11.2003 00:22 |
Guy, you have a point, and I'm sorry if I had used Muslims instead of some Muslims. You are right, the Koran is just like any holy scripture, I believe that. Still, its open to interpretation to whoever reads it. There is no real universal truth, only the truth in our minds. |
| Saffron Caribou 28.11.2003 00:38 |
Guitar Hero, Virgin births were noticeable in the Greek civilization. Unwedded women (esp. prostitutes) that had children were considered their offspring to be from the seed of Zeus or any Greek god. When it comes to Jesus's birth, that is a whole mystery all together. Some say that he wasn't born on the 25th as Christianity points out. Some say that he wasn't even born on the first day of the first year of this the past 2 milleniums. Again, the Virgin Birth and the day, and even the place when and where Jesus was born is still a hot topic. |
| Krowa003 28.11.2003 00:49 |
Guitar Hero, nice long post filled with false statements for me to refute. Exellent! :-) ""Is there a mystery that they don't want us to know?" Of course! They won't tell you, but there are definitely books that will." I really do not know to what you are refering here to and trying to say. "This is the exact opposite of what is correct! Because the church never changes, that leaves people NO room for opening their mind to change! " Like I said before, the Church relies on Law of Nature and Reason. It uses the Law of Nature to prove its stance on issues like abortion and homosexuality. Those two acts are unnatural, and against the laws of nature. The Church uses the Laws of Reason to address issues that might change as the times change. "Nature and reason, as opposed to humankind and logic." Humankind is part of nature, isn't it? And isn't logic part of reason? The whole idea of logic stems down from Socrates using reason. "When an institution refuses to open its mind on major subjects in the world today, people who actually THINK will not agree with the institution's desire to take the easy way out and not change for the better." The easy way out would be to change, because you cannot address an issue so you mind as well take the side of your opponent; another words, accept defeat. It takes courage to stand up for what you believe, and that is what the Church is doing. But I guess you would like to follow somebody like the blind mice because they have an "open mind". I think you and I agree about abortion then. Because I am aganst it and I find it necessary to defend human life at all of its stages. "You're kidding me, right? So it's okay to kill one group of people, but not another? Please concur." I was making a point saying that it is NOT okay to kill one group but not another. We give tax dollars to provide defenders for criminals, meanwhile innocent babies are dying without a voice. I find this to be WRONG. I thought I made that clear. "Yes, this is indeed a major problem. It's a pity that some Christians use this fact to claim that Islam is a religion based on hate...more on love and doing good for others than almost any Christian division...as opposed to the Christian bible which is full of murder, hate and contradictions." Islam does preach peace. But don't tell me that throughout history the Muslims have been all about peace. Even now in the last fifty years Muslms tried to use religion to justify violence. I am not saying all Muslims do this, I am not making a generalization, but many do try to justify acts of violence using God. Now many Christians and Jews also do that, but you have to become aware that Muslims do it to. So don't say how Christianity is full of hate, because it is not. |
| Krowa003 28.11.2003 00:55 |
"OT is God's law, eh? Book of Numbers, chapter 25. God is thrilled with the act of murder, and encouraged it in masses, just because one group of people were persecuted by another. This is God's law?" I meant to say that many of the stories in OT are there to point out and show the meaning of God's Law. |
| Saffron Caribou 28.11.2003 01:13 |
"Islam does preach peace. But don't tell me that throughout history the Muslims have been all about peace. Even now in the last fifty years Muslms tried to use religion to justify violence. I am not saying all Muslims do this, I am not making a generalization, but many do try to justify acts of violence using God. Now many Christians and Jews also do that, but you have to become aware that Muslims do it to. So don't say how Christianity is full of hate, because it is not." Hate and violence came way before any established religion, faith, and / or philosophy. Krowa, you have a point there. People have used "the word" in the holy writting of any given religion as an excuse for killing, torturing other people. If look back in history, MOST wars were based on religious beliefs. In the OT there was the battles between the jews and the persians, for example. They both followed different faith, as well these battles were territorial. When it comes to Christianity vs Islam, the best example that I can think of is the Crusades. Now, lets admit something here, and it is a fact, as far as I know, that back in the Middle Ages Christianity was a "European only" religion. They killed tons of Muslims in the name of the male, white haired, blue eyed god, to regain control of Jerusalem. While the Muslims tried to defend their properties from the Christians, and killed in the name of Allah. Now see the pattern here? The philosophy might preach peace, but its how humans may use it, and do the opposite. |
| The Real Wizard 28.11.2003 01:52 |
"Virgin births were noticeable in the Greek civilization. Unwedded women (esp. prostitutes) that had children were considered their offspring to be from the seed of Zeus or any Greek god." Yeah, I remember learning this kinda stuff, now that you mention it. Thanks for the refresh. :) "However, I'm not any better than you or anyone else." You're more understanding and accepting of conservative Christians than I am. But maybe that's because I have unfortunately dealt with too many of these people on a personal basis, and I just can't stand even the thought of their religious ways, now that I know all too much about them. "Guitar Hero, nice long post filled with false statements for me to refute." Justify yourself! Which are the false statements? List them out for me, and provide good and educated reasoning as to why you disagree. One rule though, "the Bible said so" and "my priest said so" will not be qualified and acceptable statements of reasoning. "I really do not know to what you are refering here to and trying to say." Of course you don't! In the Catholic church, there is one book, and that is the Bible. In your local library, there are dozens of books you can read that were written by people who are exponentially more knowledgeable than priests. In terms of specific literature, I already mentioned both "The Dishonest Church" and the Q gospel, both of which I'm sure you have copies of in your living room beside your Bible, right? I have been educated by these kinds of books and a misister with his pHD in the philosophy of religion, while you seemingly have been educated only by Catholic priests. We're obviously on completely different levels here. "Those two acts are unnatural, and against the laws of nature." Okay, for the first time in this topic, I am now completely angry. ARE YOU BLIND? Have you totally missed what I said? For the third time, I will say this: "When you are 19, experiencing your first labour pains, and trying to raise a child on a minimum-wage salary, then I'd love to hear all you have to say about abortion." Put your faith in God and the church aside for just ONE MINUTE, and THINK about this statement. And this time, reply to it as it is. "But I guess you would like to follow somebody like the blind mice because they have an 'open mind'." Blind mice? You're saying the ones who accept change and live with open minds are blind mice? Not only is that a horrible contradiction, but it is the English language using an oxymoron! "But don't tell me that throughout history the Muslims have been all about peace." Nope, I'll never say that. Christians and Jews are apparently just about as guilty as that. But this isn't my area of expertise. However, I do know that the Koran has much more positivity in it than the Bible does. "I meant to say that many of the stories in OT are there to point out and show the meaning of God's Law." Once again, you totally IGNORED what I said. Go and read Numbers 25, and come back here saying you whether or not agree with this representation of "God's law", as you put it. "You can be gay, but don't take part in unnatural acts that go against the grain of Natural Law." So I can be a doctor, but I'm not allowed to practice medicine? And who are you to say what is natural? So you have the right to say a gay person is not natural, but he can't tell you that you're unnatural in your belief that their sexuality isn't natural? "I was making a point saying that it is NOT okay to kill one group but not another. We give tax dollars to provide defenders for criminals, meanwhile innocent babies are dying without a voice. I find this to be WRONG. I thought I made that clear." What does stopping/continuing abortion have to do with money? Don't start talking about money. I think this would be a good time to remind everybody that the Catholic church brings in tens of millions of dollars, *untaxed dollars*, annual |
| Saffron Caribou 28.11.2003 02:16 |
Lo and behold... The Apocrypha Please, if any of you are interested in the lost scriptures (the mysteries) that most aren't in either the OT or the NT due to their validity, check this link out. Good read I must say. link |
| Saffron Caribou 28.11.2003 02:21 |
BTW, I found that it was strange that a Mormon is hosting this site. Still, excellent read. |
| Guy 28.11.2003 07:50 |
Religion is all about beliefs! When Bob (Guitar Hero) says he wants proofs other than "the Bible said so", it's impossible to give them! It's just like the old arguement if there is a God or not. Obviously when people say "Prove it!" they don't understand the whole meaning of the word "religion". That's why there are different religions, because people BELIEVE in different things. As I don't know anything about the way churches act I cannot refer to that subject, but I do know that this topic has gone way further than condemning Catholic churches - now it's questioning God's existence, and telling people what to believe is wrong. |
| The Real Wizard 28.11.2003 10:48 |
Guy, how did your post come before mine? :) "When Bob (Guitar Hero) says he wants proofs other than "the Bible said so", it's impossible to give them!" Not true. Look at the things I've been saying. Most of them aren't related to faith. They're about the literature I've read, most of these books being things conservative Christians didn't know existed! "It's just like the old arguement if there is a God or not. Obviously when people say "Prove it!" they don't understand the whole meaning of the word "religion". That's why there are different religions, because people BELIEVE in different things." I appreciate that view Guy, but these issues go a lot further than just faith. They're about educating yourself, and trying to find truth in religious practices that are centuries old. It's just a matter of whether or not people are willing to accept that even the biggest of things may be wrong, and based on stories created just to suit the church. Put this into persepective: When someone is in their 30s or 40s, and they're told there is a book of Jesus' words that reveals says he never once called himself "Christ", it could make their life a lie. What if they were told to even *consider* that the virgin birth and resurrection were not actual events, or that the concept of sin is a total lie? They don't even want to entertain it! If I had that kind of faith for 30 or 40 years, I'd probably be afraid to question it, too! It's all a matter of how brave you are. After so many years of listening to only Catholic priests and hearing no alternative views, no wonder our beloved Catholic doesn't want to reply to all these things. But that's just my guess. Anyone is of course welcome to give an alternative opinion to that. |
| Guy 28.11.2003 11:15 |
I'll tell you the truth, I really don't know what Catholic churches preach or don't preach. I'm just saying that when somebody tells you to prove that something which is written in the Bible really happened you can't. I don't know how to say it in English, but I'll try to give an example anyway: In the Bible there is a story about how when the Egyptians were persuing the people of Israel the sea of Suf was cut in half and allowed the people of Israel to pass through. Logically an act like that can't happen, can it? But I believe in God and I believe that "split" was a miracle and that it really happened. Obviously I can't prove it but it's something I believe in. See what I mean? |
| Fenderek 28.11.2003 11:26 |
< So I am- I think the idea of celibacy is just generally stupid and against human nature; doesn't matter the religion... < Anyone who thinks this way- I just feel sorry for you, whoever you are... < OK, across the table... I detest the INSTITUTION of EVERY religion, not the religion itself. As GH said before for many ppl this is the source of happiness and hope- I've got nothing against them. But the INSTITUTION (church) is all about power, money; growing bigger and stronger. You have to know where God ends and mankind begins... And no, I don't live in Poland anymore; last 3 years I've been living and studying in London |
| Krowa003 28.11.2003 12:21 |
"In the Catholic church, there is one book, and that is the Bible. In your local library, there are dozens of books you can read that were written by people who are exponentially more knowledgeable than priests." When it comes to books, there are authors that write them who support Catholicism and those who do not. Same thing for any other religion. I can sit her and recomend you books that are for the Church and you can reomend some that are against; and this coulg go on forever. "When you are 19, experiencing your first labour pains, and trying to raise a child on a minimum-wage salary, then I'd love to hear all you have to say about abortion." Listen man, you are no doubt very knowledgeable, but the statement above is the most IGNORANT thing you can say! How can you sacrifice a life of an unborn child for your own sake, as a 19 year old, you have a choice of where you want your life to head, the tiny baby does not. We do not live in the middle ages, ok. There are many social programs that can help people. The problem is some people do not take adventage of them because they either don't know or are to embarassed to do so. I can't comprehend how you can justify labour pains with eliminating life. "So I can be a doctor, but I'm not allowed to practice medicine? And who are you to say what is natural? So you have the right to say a gay person is not natural, but he can't tell you that you're unnatural in your belief that their sexuality isn't natural?" Listen, put your beliefs aside for a minute, and tell me, is homosexuality natural? Is that what nature intended? Of course not. The simplest reason for sex is to procreate and to advance the existance of the species. Gay sex does not allow that. The reason why the Church condemns the act because like what I said before which you have IGNORED, there are two reasons for sex. To bring the man and woman together-to unify them, and to produce children. Guitar Hero, I have addressed the issues, ok? Your meaning of open-mindness is to accept everything in our culture. Whether is homosexuality, abortion, or anything else. What if I came and told you I am into beastiality? Do you think that should be accepted? According to your arguments yes, otherwise you are denying me my sexuality, and you won't be open minded. |
| bleeding heart show 28.11.2003 12:30 |
People please I mean u can't be that heartless to deny the right for the Palestainians to defend themsleves those people have been striped from everything that they have they've been living under humiliation for over what 40 years they have obviously lost hope in thier freedom and lets say that juresilam really belongs to the jews!! does that give them the excuse to kill as many Palsetanians as they like and destroy thier houses and take away thier lands and invade thier villages?? the Israli army is armed to the teeth and the Palestainians have nothing beside thier STONES and still they attack them with thier tanks and shoot them with some weapons that are even porhibited to be used in WARS!! and they are daily expermenting and inventing new weapons so for GODS sake tell me does this sound like a country that wants peace???and not to mention all the NUCULAR FACILITES that they have, which haven't and will not be invistgated, i'm waiting for someone to give me a good reason WHY NOT ? and after all that you call Hamas and the other military groups terroriests !! "buy the way they ARE nothing like al-quida 'cause al-quida IS a terroriest group" ...so if Hamas didn't exisit belive me there wouldnt be any palsetanians left on the land!. and i also want to know how does a conflict start !! dosent it start by a side attcking the other?? if yes !! then if u have some free time go and take a look at the videos or the articals that date back to when the state of Isareal was born and you will see who's responsiable for all of this. sorry for my english, hope you all got the idea. |
| bleeding heart show 28.11.2003 12:37 |
and i truley don't believe in the word "Anti-Semetisem" why such a word was invented it's 'cause they can defend every single action that they do when people start to question them!! and to also implement the thought that they are GOD's chosen people...how come there isn't a word called "Anti-Islamic" how come movies are being made in Holly wood that hurt Islam and muslim people and stick the idea to the minds of the people that ALL muslims are terrorists !!! and when we complain we dont even get an apoligy ? but when a movie with true Historical facts is being made about JESUS who happens to be the symbol of Christianty NOT Jeudism...they start a fuss on how this movie must be banned 'cause it's "Anti-Semteic" |
| Guy 28.11.2003 12:48 |
Just for your information, the term "anti-semitism" was first used by the German (and Jew-hater) reporter Wilhelm Marr. Was it more comfortable for you to believe a Jew invented the term, or you just said that with no reason at all? |
| bleeding heart show 28.11.2003 12:49 |
Guitar Hero I respect you . |
| Guy 28.11.2003 12:51 |
Oh, about all the things you said about Israel, it's quite obvious you know nothing about this subject. |
| bleeding heart show 28.11.2003 12:52 |
GUY first of all i want you to be sure that i have nothing against the jewish PEOPLE 'cause they are victims exactly like us caught in this big act. |
| bleeding heart show 28.11.2003 13:05 |
and this is just to clarify that Jerusalem dosen't belong to the jews. Jesus said to the Jews: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (From the KJV Bible, Matthew 21:43)" "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. (From the KJV Bible, Genesis 17:19-21)" Ishmael happens to be the father of the muslims. and we muslims never denied that the jews were GOD Almighty's chosen people: "We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations. (The Noble Quran, 45:16)" |
| Guy 28.11.2003 13:11 |
I have one question for you: Do you think I, or any Jew for this matter, will change my mind about Jerusalem just because Jesus said so? I'm Jew, not Christian. |
| Krowa003 28.11.2003 13:13 |
" In the Catholic church, there is one book, and that is the Bible. In your local library, there are dozens of books you can read that were written by people who are exponentially more knowledgeable than priests." Listen, you cant post here titles of countless of books which attack the Church. I on the other hand can post books that support the Church. There are many books out there by various authors, not just priests, that address various aspects of the Catholic Church. "When you are 19, experiencing your first labour pains, and trying to raise a child on a minimum-wage salary, then I'd love to hear all you have to say about abortion." The statement above is the most IGNORANT thing a person can say. You or anyone else by no means have the right to eliminate life! Who gave people the authority to dispose of unwanted life? One thing you are overlookimg is the fact that there is a plethora of social programs to help young mothers in need. And the Catholic Church is one of the big supporters of those programs. Young people do not want to raise a child because they are either irresponsible ( like they were when they got knocked up), or they dont want to go on social assistance because it emabarassing. If you are 19, you have the ability to make sound choices and decisions. But you are not giving the baby that option. You talk about labour pains. So what? You will kill a baby just so a woman won't go through labour? Labour pains are part of life for a woman. What if she decides to have a child in 10 years? She will still have labour pains. Give me a break dude! "So I can be a doctor, but I'm not allowed to practice medicine? And who are you to say what is natural? So you have the right to say a gay person is not natural, but he can't tell you that you're unnatural in your belief that their sexuality isn't natural?" Are you going to tell me that homosexuality is natural? Putting religion aside, the pasic premise of sex is to procreate and to advance the existance of the species. Having gay sex will not accomplish any of that. Gays cannot tell me that my belief is unatural, because of what I said above. Now you tell me I am not open-minded? Form what you have been telling me, your idea of open mindedness is to accept everything that is part of our culture. What if I said I was into beastiality? According to your argument you would have to accept me because that is my sexual preference, and after all you do not want to deny me my sexuality. A line has to be drawn somewhere. You cannot accept one group of people(gays) and not another( polygamists, those who practic inncest and beastiality). The Church is using the Law of Nature to draw that line. |
| bleeding heart show 28.11.2003 13:17 |
if you thought that this is what i was trying to say then it was worth a shot..but no I was just refering to Jesus since we muslims won't be considerd as muslims if we didn't believe in him along with Moses and Abraham, Joseph....peace be upon them. so then i guess i have the right to qoute him!!and it was just to clear up some thoughts and inlighten more about islam thats all.. |
| bleeding heart show 28.11.2003 13:27 |
"Just for your information, the term "anti-semitism" was first used by the German (and Jew-hater) reporter Wilhelm Marr." and thanx for correcting me GUY about the origin of the word i have to admit that i never knew!! but i'm still sure that i'm right about why they use this word now. |
| deleted user 28.11.2003 13:34 |
'The statement above is the most IGNORANT thing a person can say. You or anyone else by no means have the right to eliminate life! Who gave people the authority to dispose of unwanted life? One thing you are overlookimg is the fact that there is a plethora of social programs to help young mothers in need. And the Catholic Church is one of the big supporters of those programs. Young people do not want to raise a child because they are either irresponsible ( like they were when they got knocked up), or they dont want to go on social assistance because it emabarassing. If you are 19, you have the ability to make sound choices and decisions. But you are not giving the baby that option. You talk about labour pains. So what? You will kill a baby just so a woman won't go through labour? Labour pains are part of life for a woman. What if she decides to have a child in 10 years? She will still have labour pains. Give me a break dude!' BRAVO! Excellently put. |
| Guy 28.11.2003 13:47 |
Matt, come to MSN if you're around :) |
| Saffron Caribou 28.11.2003 17:23 |
Well it seems that the debate dwindled down to abortion. As a woman, I express the desire to not to have children, due to personal experiences. Still, I consider what its inside of a woman's womb is considered a life. However, the abortion is a very touchy subject. One's idea of life inside a woman's body, can be another's idea of a gestating creature inside a woman's womb is not alive until its outside, and breathes in life for the first time. As far as I believe, a woman can do whatever she wants with her body. It's her own body. I and no one else owns it. If she wants to abort it for whatever reason, that's her decision. That's why I cannot grip religion, and their crusades in front of abortion clinics to stop women from getting abortions. One should never drown anyone with their opinions. I used to work in a gyn/ob clinic a few years ago, it used to make me sad and angry to my stomach that young girls, as young as 11 or 12 pregnant. Their cases were either from rape to having sex because they wanted to. Some of them aborted, some of them had the child. They learnt from their mistakes, some of them didn't. Still, I never did judge them for their mistakes or choices. It all comes down to how you were brought up, also how you were educated. We form our opinions based on education, and experience. However, beating up someone because they think that whats inside a woman's belly isnt a life isnt respectful. People should learn to respect other people's opinions, while still voicing your own. Lets all about respect people. Lets learn how to use it. |
| StrangeQuark 28.11.2003 18:34 |
"A line has to be drawn somewhere. You cannot accept one group of people(gays) and not another( polygamists, those who practic inncest and beastiality). The Church is using the Law of Nature to draw that line." Just thought I'd mention that both polygamy and incest both occur frequently in nature. Hardly adds to your argument, does it? While on the subject of what is "natural", are humans not borne of Nature? We are natural beings in the sense that we evolved alongside all other species we see today. So if homosexuality is found that in such a large portion of the human population, obviously natural selection hasn't wiped it out, as might be predicted by various models of population genetics. Knowing this, I don't see how you can say it is not natural. |
| Saffron Caribou 28.11.2003 18:47 |
Last time I checked Polygamist meant having multiple wives, and perhaps it might have something to do with incest, but I dont think beastiality enters into it. |
| Saffron Caribou 28.11.2003 18:52 |
Homosexuality is present in various animal species such as bees if im not mistaken. Again, I'm still baffled that some think that polyamory has to do with beastiality...as if you can marry your dog, although I think it must've happened...ughh. |
| StrangeQuark 28.11.2003 19:08 |
I believe he was listing the three (bestiality, polygamy, and incest) as separate other "natural" no-no's. He just didn't do it very clearly. But of course they have nothing to do with one another. And no species of bee that I know of is homosexual. And btw, polygamy is generally referred to as "polygyny" in other animal species, in case someone was about to leap on me for incorrect use of the word... |
| Holly2003 28.11.2003 19:54 |
What is nature exactly? Is nature equivalent to God? When you talk of something being natural, do you mean to say it is God's will or God's law? The reason I ask is because God created homosexuals. He also created heterosexuals, good and bad, murderers and saints, the mentally handicapped as well as the geniuses etc. Isn't all that part of nature too? If you say homosexuality is unnatural then you're saying God made a mistake. If he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipotent, why did God create homosexuals? The only way for you (and the Catholic Church) to get around this essential contradiction is for you to claim that homosexuality is a choice rather than a product of nature, or a "mistake" of nature, which means that God is fallible. The former is perhaps why you equate homosexuality with bestiality. It is not only insulting, but it is intellectually untenable as you are starting off with dogma/belief and then arranging the facts to suit that dogma. This is why it is almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who uses the Bible or the Church to make sense of his/her surroundings. Everything that we see around us is "nature" or natural - how we interpret or judge that is a product of the culture that exists at any given time. The Bible is a product of culture, or numerous cultures, since it is a translation. The difference between religion and science, or at least the 2000 year unchanging dogma of the Catholic Church you seem to admire, is that science and scientists admit mistakes and learn from them whereas religion and religious dogmatists tend not to change their beliefs even when there is much evidence that contradicts them. You might call it faith, but I call it close minded. You might also argue that you are entitled to your beliefs but my position is that when your beliefs are used as arguments to infringe on other people's rights (such as homosexuals) then you have crossed a line from someone legitimately expressing their opinion to someone who needs to be exposed and opposed. |
| Saint Jiub 28.11.2003 21:28 |
If a woman is shot and survives, but the 1 month old fetus dies as a result, has a murder been committed? |
| The Real Wizard 28.11.2003 22:10 |
"Listen, you cant post here titles of countless of books which attack the Church. I on the other hand can post books that support the Church." And your point is? The ones that support the church are usually written by right-wing Christians, while the ones that tend to veer towards the "thinking" side of things are usually written by religious philosophers. I'll give you two guesses which side I'll choose, and the first guess doesn't count. I said "usually" written by philisophers, because a famous Baptist preacher wrote a book called "Why Christianity Must Change Or Die". By far the most fascinating religious-oriented book I ever picked up and read. Calling all Catholics! Take this message... a message for you. "The statement above is the most IGNORANT thing a person can say. You or anyone else by no means have the right to eliminate life! Young people do not want to raise a child because they are either irresponsible ( like they were when they got knocked up), or they dont want to go on social assistance because it emabarassing." And those are the only situations this can happen in? What if the girl is raped, and forced to have the child of her rapist? I think YOU are the one who is too ignorant to put yourself in that poor girl's shoes to realize that she has the right to do whatever she chooses to do. I cannot believe that people can go so low and use their religious beliefs to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do with your lives. Every person fully against abortion can rot in hell. "You talk about labour pains. So what? You will kill a baby just so a woman won't go through labour?" Well, at least I now know you aren't female. Labour pains are probably the worst pain a woman will experience in her lifetime. God, are you ever a sick human being for looking the other way. If a fetus is killed within the first four or five months of the pregnancy, it has not yet developed nerves, and will not feel any pain. "Are you going to tell me that homosexuality is natural?" Doesn't it strike anyone here as mildly ironic that Krowa is posting at a Queen noticeboard, and he's openly homophobic? As for your question, I'll reply with a question. Why does everything unnatural (according to you Catholics) have to be wrong? Once again, "it is God's will" will not be an acceptable answer. C'mon, let's see what you've got. "Having gay sex will not accomplish any of that." Not everyone wants to procreate. Why should every person on this planet have to fall in the same steps as history and feel obligated to procreate? Those who do it should do it because they want a child of their own to love, not because of obligation! Some people see sex as an art, and do it to the fullest. Respect that they think differently than you, and move on. They have endured persecution from people like you throughout their lives, but you seem to have no problem with that. "What if I said I was into beastiality?" I'd respect that you made that decision. As long as you don't hurt the animals, do whatever you'd like to them. They will become your problem, not mine. "polygamists, those who practic inncest and beastiality" Uhmm, do you even know what polygamy means? Judging by that scatter of words, you do not! "Now you tell me I am not open-minded? Form what you have been telling me, your idea of open mindedness is to accept everything that is part of our culture." I never once said that. Don't twist my words. Again, you're attacking the person, and not the problem! I never automatically except everything in our culture. If I did that, then I would support things like 9/11 and the war in Isreal. What a stupid comment to make, Krowa. I expected much more from you, even as a Catholic. I didn't think you people could stoop that low. You think you're open-minded, but in reality, you're open-minded within the boundaries of your church. Anything that is in contradiction with your |
| Krowa003 29.11.2003 02:57 |
" You may have replied to 5% of the things I've had to say; the 5% which you can use your religious beliefs as your arguments, as you clearly have no other method of argument." Are you kidding me Guitar Hero? Everytime you post something, I always copy it and reply to your argument. Try reading the message bard man. "Uhmm, do you even know what polygamy means? Judging by that scatter of words, you do not!" I will admit, I made an error with my punctuation. All I tried to do was list three things; Polygamy, those who practice incest, and beastiality. By the way, Chantel was kind enough to clear that misunderstanding up a few post ago. Had you been reading what others have to say, other than you, you would have noted the clarification. "Doesn't it strike anyone here as mildly ironic that Krowa is posting at a Queen noticeboard, and he's openly homophobic?" Listen Guitar Hero, now you are personally attacking me. Which is no surprise because that is the only thing you can resort to at this point. Also, me being a fan of Queen and their extrodinay talent and work, goes on to contradict your statement. "And your point is? The ones that support the church are usually written by right-wing Christians, while the ones that tend to veer towards the "thinking" side of things are usually written by religious philosophers. I'll give you two guesses which side I'll choose, and the first guess doesn't count." Now you see Guitar, I thought you were better than that. I can definitely sense desperation in your writing. You don't know all the authors and thier politicl views. And even if I choose one that is "right-winged", you will probably choose some left-wing liberal. This issue about authors and books is relative; what's good for you may not be good for me and vice versa. "What if the girl is raped, and forced to have the child of her rapist? I think YOU are the one who is too ignorant to put yourself in that poor girl's shoes to realize that she has the right to do whatever she chooses to do. I cannot believe that people can go so low and use their religious beliefs to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do with your lives." This goes beyond religious beliefs. I do not think you need to be religious to value human life. And the whole idea of baby not feeling? Now that is beyond RIDICULOUS! If a blind person can't see, do we have the right to laugh at them when they cant find they way around. After all, they won't see whos making fun of them! Just because pain and suffering is not staring at you right in your face, doesn't mean it's not there! "Every person fully against abortion can rot in hell." I thought you were better than this. You want to have a sound argument when you cannot even respect the opinions of others, what ever it may be? You dare to preach tolerance towards others when you can't even tolerate others and their views. Now that's shallow my friend! And by the way, I am open-minded, I'm open-minded to change. But a person has to do more convincing to sway my opinion. After all, we do not know everything, and it is possible that someone in our lives can provide an answer and show us the meaning. But you are obviously not doing that because your way of justifying abortion is because it is painful for the woman. And if the girl gets raped, she has 72 hours to go to hospital, where they provide a rape cleaning kit. Liek you said before in your previous post, "these aren't the middle ages". And I agree. |
| Fenderek 29.11.2003 11:15 |
< As i said- I feel sorry for you... You obviously stuck in middle ages... Haven't it occured to you that sex can be a pleasure...? Just pleasure... Not? Now I know why you're so close-minded... There is a lot of beauty in sex... It's almost an art... There isn't anything more beautiful than ppl enjoying it- two, three, whatever... Gays, straight- whatever!!! Saying it's unnatural or a sin- again, I feel sorry for you; you're missing life... WE'RE NOT JUST ANIMALS!!! MAYBE THEY HAVE SEX ONLY FOR PROCREATION, BUT I'M NOT SURE:-) I'M A HUMAN AND I'M PROUD OF BEING ABLE TO ENJOY SEX, JUST ENJOY IT AS MANY TIMES AS I WANT WITH AS MANY PPL I CAN (LONG LIVE THREESOMES!!!). |
| Fenderek 29.11.2003 11:17 |
< Fully agree!!! |
| The Real Wizard 29.11.2003 11:23 |
"Chantel was kind enough to clear that misunderstanding up a few post ago." Yes, I know. But a little pot-shot was on my mind, so I made it. I just thought I'd follow in your shoes and attack the person and not the problem, just this ONCE! "now you are personally attacking me. Which is no surprise because that is the only thing you can resort to at this point." Yes, you're right. I've spent this entire topic saying educated things about religion, and since you've ignored most of them, I've become rather frustrated with you, and I really don't know what to say anymore! For your convenience, here I've pasted everything you ignored, and now's your chance to properly reply to the following things: 1) (Paraphrased) The more right-wing the Christian, the less they feel they have to be educated about people different than them, because they feel all the more comforable with their faith. 2) "The church has progressed over the past 2000 years, and very little has remained the same! The style of worship hasn't changed much in the past couple hundred years, but 2000 years ago, there was no such thing as Catholicism. That was created much later on from the roots of Judaism." 3) Definition of "sin", and the proper translation. Refer to page 3, and the "prodigal son" story. On page 4, I explain myself a little better. 4) Mark 15:39 and the translation issues leading to questioning the origin of the trinity, page 3. 5) "Catholics believe they are born unclean, and they have to be continually forgiven of this so-called 'sin'." Also, "Catholics are taught that they will always be unclean and full of sin, no matter how hard they try to be the best they can be." I'm just curious of how someone can actually live like this. 6) "In the New Testament, it is said that women are to be subordinate, and not to do anything men do, or have a say in anything, because they do not have the right to. Therefore, any woman who is a true Christian cannot get a job. And any man who marries a woman who gets a job cannot be a true Christian. So technically, by scripture, these people all go to hell because they have forsaken the word." 7) Origin of the word "Christ" and the Q gospel, page 3. 8) "The bible is a collection of writings, from the time, that supposedly represented the best material; the material that would suit the religions. It's a collection of stories where somewhere deep within, there may have been a real event." 9) Re: Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis. "Their kids run off to get married, but who did they marry? Besides their parents, there was nobody else in existence! Unless they married each other, of course. So does that mean that the act of holy matrimony is based on the very first marriage, which was incest?" 10) "Several faiths (some obscure, but just as old as Christianity) have such stories in them, and many of the "virgin births" happened on the 25th of December as well. How many Christians know this, do you think?" 11) The church vs. change: Because the church never changes, that leaves people NO room for opening their mind to change! This is the problem with the church! 1000-2000 year old morals just may not still work today, with the way society changes. For anything to work in today's culture, you have to change or at least modify yourself with the changes in culture. Otherwise, it crashes and burns. Yes, I'll agree that the church has gone outside of that little rule, but is it the best thing they can be doing? Leaving people closed-minded?" 12) Numbers, chapter 25. "God is thrilled with the act of murder, and encouraged it in masses, just because one group of people were persecuted by another. This is God's law?" 13) "What does stopping/continuing abortion have to do with money? Don't start talking about money. I think this would be a good time to remind everybody that the Catholic church brings in tens of millions of dollars, *untaxed dollars*, annually." 14) "No |
| Fenderek 29.11.2003 11:26 |
< Catholicism and relity; catholcism and science... Contradictions!!!!!! |
| Mr.Jingles 29.11.2003 11:53 |
With all the posts by 'Guitar Hero' on this thread, he could have written a book longer than the Biblie. |
| Fenderek 29.11.2003 12:02 |
And a better one...;-) |
| Spisso 29.11.2003 12:24 |
:) |
| behind blue eyes 29.11.2003 13:21 |
Back to the topic of abortion: I posted this during dialog with an unpopular soul on this board so I doubt if it was read so here is my take: "I am for freedom of choice but feel that FOR ME MYSELF abortion would be wrong because I do believe that life begins at the moment of conception. She (a woman) already has the right to choose by being responsible and using prophylactics or a diaphragm or the rhythm method or the damn pill or that shit they stick in your arm. There are plenty of choices and if you boil it all down, Really boil it down, you would be able to see why some men are so pro choice and that would be to get them off the damn fucking hook of being accountable for their fucking part in a conception. All play but no responsibility. Plus no hormonal imbalance because it is not happening to him. It's all going on in her. Don't you get it? It lets the guy totally off the hook. It's not about whether or not a woman has the right to choose what she wants. You see. People have be brilliantly brain washed to believe that." Now on the subject of rape: This is a tough one. I have a friend who has two children who are products of rape from a step uncle. He had been raping her since the age of 11. He held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her if she told. She kept her mouth shut until she was impregnated at the age of 16. She tried to tell her mother at that point and her mom beat her for saying that about her favorite brother. So she was all alone in her world of pain and just continued to live with it. There is so much more to this story but if I keystroke it all, I'd be here all day. The update on her today is that her children have grown into beautiful talented young people and one has graduated with high honors and scholarships. She went back to school, got her GED; then went to college and has a very prestigious occupation. So what I am trying is, These choices are hard to make and you never know what the potential could be if you give up on what you know deep down in your heart to be right vs what society says is acceptable. Rosanna |
| Fenderek 29.11.2003 13:27 |
< All play but no responsibility. Plus no hormonal imbalance because it is not happening to him. It's all going on in her. Don't you get it? It lets the guy totally off the hook. >> ??????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not bloody scarred of responsibility!!! I would NEVER ask anyone to do abortion because I'm not ready or sth!!! I still believe in choice for women, though!! If she wants it- fine. If she doesn't - fine. But she should be able to make this choice!!! Simple as that...! |
| Saffron Caribou 29.11.2003 14:31 |
"As for consentual sex, you have ignored the fact that no method of birth control is 100%" That's true. There is no true method of birth control that is 100% effective. Even scientists have proven that, so it isnt religious rhetoric. |
| Krowa003 29.11.2003 19:13 |
Guitar Hero, I will definitely get to your post and I will address every part. But it will have to wait till Monday. Once the weekend hits I am bombarded with a heavy work load, so please for give me. I will hoever, quickly try to address this issue of abortion while I have a bit of a break. We all have to agree upon one thing, that no one has the right to take the life of an innocent person. I think that is self explanitory. Also, the baby is a separate human being, distinct from his or her mother. Each child has its own unique genetic identity, gender, heartbeat, brain waves, eyes, hands, feet, etc. that make it unique and different. Consider the following question, is our society actually moving backward or forward when it permits its young to be killed as a solution to its problems? The way some of you are trying to justify it, I think we are moving backwards. Now, one issue that some are using to justify it is the fact that women have rights. And I agree, they do have certain rights over their bodies just as men do. However, these rights (of both men and women) are limited when they affect the rights of others. Abortion directly involves the rights of at least two people: the mother and the preborn child. i happen to know some people who were born premeturely, or the mother considered abortion. Ultimately, she gave birth to the child and gave it up for adoption. Some of you make it look llike if you are a premature baby or were given up for adoption, your life ends at birth becasue you will not go anywhere in life. However, this was absolutely not the case of these fe men that I know. They are respected doctors and lawyers who are very well prominent in their communities. It is true, we do not know how a situation will turn out, and each case is a diferent one, but you cannot always assume the worst will occur. We have to hope for the best. |
| StrangeQuark 29.11.2003 20:06 |
"Also, the baby is a separate human being, distinct from his or her mother. Each child has its own unique genetic identity, gender, heartbeat, brain waves, eyes, hands, feet, etc. that make it unique and different." Sure, it's different than the mother, I don't think anyone could argue that. But until it reaches the age where it can survive outside of the mother's body, it's not technically even ALIVE. You can hardly kill something that is not yet alive. That's why abortion is not considered murder. "Some of you make it look like if you are a premature baby or were given up for adoption, your life ends at birth becasue you will not go anywhere in life. However, this was absolutely not the case of these fe men that I know." I was adopted, and I think it's safe to say that my birthmother could have had an abortion if she had chosen to. And of course I do not believe that just because I was adopted, I won't go anywhere in life; I'm in my third year of university, with my sights on graduate school and a career in research. Think about it: I may never have existed had my birthmother chosen abortion instead of adoption. This could have made me extremely biased *against* abortion, yet here I stand defending pro-choice beliefs. |
| Abby Mouser 29.11.2003 20:28 |
You know I have thougth long and hard about pro choice and pro life. And you either for one or the other. But I can't seem to decide, I think that there is a point that no one has brought up yet. A point that hasn't been discovered. I feel for some reason that there is another view out there. People can argue all day long, but the whole world won't ever come to a decision that everyone agrees on. I think the only thing that we can do is pray for the right answer and consult the Bible. Abby |
| Saint Jiub 29.11.2003 23:52 |
"it's not technically even ALIVE" So the definition of life is a rolling target that depends on the advancement of science???? The abortionists are unwilling to concede that abortion is the killing of a human life (46 chromosomes etc) whether it is a few cells or at forty weeks gestation. The abortionists would be better off conceding this point, and focusing on rationalizing the lower value of a fetus. Of course, the anti-abortionists should stop relying on the Bible to justify their opinions and use their minds to plead their case. However, society can establish whether meat eating, vigilante justice, the death penalty, euthenasia and abortion are acceptable pracices if it so desires ... Life can have different values placed on it depending on the circumstances and values of the populice - which brings me back to my original question: If a woman is shot and survives, but the 1 month old fetus dies as a result, has a murder been committed? All I see here in this topic is biased religious mumbo jumbo, which further makes me want to quote that famous degreed philosopher that we all know and love: Religion tend to fuck people up. |
| behind blue eyes 30.11.2003 00:26 |
“Sure, it's different than the mother, I don't think anyone could argue that. But until it reaches the age where it can survive outside of the mother's body, it's not*** technically*** even ALIVE. You can hardly kill something that is not yet alive. That's why abortion is not considered murder.” “technically” has nothing to do with reality. Just another piece of the puzzle of social justifiable brain washing bullshit. Lets all search for an excuse of our self centered desires. It’s totally acceptable after all, right? “This could have made me extremely biased *against* abortion, yet here I stand defending pro-choice beliefs. “ If I were you I would be seriously asking myself why I am thinking in such a format. Dig to the pit of your stomach and ask yourself what has bent the way I rationalize this justification. To whose advantage it this for? I no nothing really. I’m just crazy. No condemnation from me here. Just stuff to consider. Sorry if I have pissed off anyone. ros |
| StrangeQuark 30.11.2003 00:28 |
"So the definition of life is a rolling target that depends on the advancement of science????" You have a point. There's obviously a limit within reason that technology should be allowed play a role in extending the definition of life. But that limit has yet to be established, and I think it is extraordinarily subjective. E.g. A premature baby that cannot even breathe, and requires complete medical intervention to sustain it may not technically be considered alive, but it may still have attained the capacity to feel pain. That obviously complicates things. But hopefully most abortions would occur well before this stage. "The abortionists are unwilling to concede that abortion is the killing of a human life (46 chromosomes etc) ..." So someone with trisomy 21, for example, is not human? Hey, if you're going to be nitpicky about definitions, so will I. :o) "The abortionists would be better off conceding this point, and focusing on rationalizing the lower value of a fetus." Okay, it has a lower value because it's not alive. :o) Alright, alright, seriously... It can't feel pain and it has no consciousness. Sure, it has a circulatory system and rudimentary nervous system, but so do ants. Not many people (Buddhists aside) would argue that stepping on an ant is unethical. "If a woman is shot and survives, but the 1 month old fetus dies as a result, has a murder been committed?" No, absolutely not. "Religion tend to fuck people up." Amen. |
| StrangeQuark 30.11.2003 00:33 |
"If I were you I would be seriously asking myself why I am thinking in such a format. Dig to the pit of your stomach and ask yourself what has bent the way I rationalize this justification. To whose advantage it this for?" Could you possibly edit that for grammar so I could actually understand what you're trying to say? I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you're asking. |
| The Real Wizard 30.11.2003 00:38 |
"Of course, the anti-abortionists should stop relying on the Bible to justify their opinions and use their minds to plead their case." Yeah, but that'd make too much sense. "All I see here in this topic is biased religious mumbo jumbo, which further makes me want to quote that famous degreed philosopher that we all know and love: Religion tend to fuck people up." Go Rog!! |
| Fenderek 30.11.2003 14:48 |
It's not the end of the topic, is it...? I enjoy it so much...! |
| The Real Wizard 01.12.2003 00:13 |
I certainly hope not! I hope Krowa replies to that one post of mine, as he promised. Let's see what it brings. |
| Fenderek 01.12.2003 03:15 |
Let's see... |
| Fenderek 02.12.2003 12:16 |
Promises, promises.... |
| geeksandgeeks 02.12.2003 16:14 |
First of all, my two cents on abortion: It's nobody else's damn business whether a woman aborts her fetus or not and why. That's one of the most personal decisions a woman (with presumably the help of her doctor and hopefully the father) will ever have to make, and it doesn't concern you. Secondly, how did this topic take this monster anti-Catholic twist? Mel Gibson isn't the spokesperson for all Catholics. |
| Krowa003 03.12.2003 00:05 |
"1) (Paraphrased) The more right-wing the Christian, the less they feel they have to be educated about people different than them, because they feel all the more comforable with their faith." I can say the same thing about left wing librals. This is a general statement that can be applied to anybody, not just Christians. "2) "The church has progressed over the past 2000 years, and very little has remained the same! The style of worship hasn't changed much in the past couple hundred years, but 2000 years ago, there was no such thing as Catholicism. That was created much later on from the roots of Judaism." The Catholic Church has existed for over the last 2000 years. It Obviously grew over the ages, and that's a case with any religion. However, the Church's dogma and faith have remained the same even though certain things might have changed. Catholicism was Christianity,untilthe more specific distinction needed to be made when the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant Churches broke away. "3) Definition of "sin", and the proper translation. Refer to page 3, and the "prodigal son" story. On page 4, I explain myself a little better." The way I look at it, in order for something to be considered sinful, it has to be a wrongful act committed in the name of or in God in mind. For example, I think calling your friend a bad name is not really a sinful act. Im going to be posting my response to the other ones over the next few days. I am swamped with work now so I will do my best. Don't automatically assume that I won't do it (Fenderek!) |
| The Real Wizard 03.12.2003 10:45 |
"I can say the same thing about left wing librals. This is a general statement that can be applied to anybody, not just Christians." At least we don't tell people they're unworthy and going to hell for not being on our side. "The Catholic Church has existed for over the last 2000 years." No, it hasn't. :) There wasn't even a such thing as Christianity 2000 years ago. Christianity was built from Judaism, and it really didn't come into being until about the year 300. "The way I look at it, in order for something to be considered sinful, it has to be a wrongful act committed in the name of or in God in mind." My point was, that this entire concept of sin, and how most Catholics spend their lives begging for forgiveness, is an utter lie, as the concept of sin was artificially created out of an incorrect translation of the word. |
| Saint Jiub 03.12.2003 22:33 |
"At least we don't tell people they're unworthy and going to hell for not being on our side." LOL - Are you serious? Listen to yourself ... Either way, religion is often used as a crutch to semi-legitimize their marginal beliefs and inflate their selfworth at the expense of others - particularly for extremists on either side of the political fence. I find Guitar Hero's intolerance of Catholics to be disturbing. Perhaps Bob would like to move to Louisiana and join the homophobic rednecks there for good company as Catholics are not too popular there. Krowa is merely defending his religion from hateful scorn pretending to be scholarly research. Guitar Hero, thank you for confirming my belief that religion is bullshit and dangerous in the hand of liberal OR conservative extremists. I am thankful I do not need the crutch of religion. |
| The Real Wizard 03.12.2003 23:30 |
"At least we don't tell people they're unworthy and going to hell for not being on our side. LOL - Are you serious? Listen to yourself ..." Don't say that it doesn't happen, because it does! I've been to services in Catholic and Baptist churches, and they can get pretty fucking scary. What's scarier is that every other person in the room was believing it. Scripture teaches that those who don't believe will go to hell. The conservative ones believe every word, and condemn those who aren't exactly like them. That's called religious reality. "Perhaps Bob would like to move to Louisiana and join the homophobic rednecks there for good company as Catholics are not too popular there." Where did I say I'd get along with homophobic people? In fact, I stood up for gay people earlier in the topic when our beloved Catholic was saying that their lifestyle was unnatural and undesirable. Pretending to have scholarly research? Where do you get off saying that? It's either you know the stuff or you don't, and I'm glad I've taken an educated direction in terms of religion. I didn't say I hate anyone. I just disagree with many of the practices that the majority of Catholics engage in within their lifetime. Bully, you're clearly an athiest who has done zero research into the history of religion, so who are you to tell me that I'm an extremist, just because I know a few things about the topic? I'm just saying things as they are. And who are you to slag off my knowledge as "hateful scorn pretending to be scholarly research" ?? If you're comfortable being spiritually empty, then fine. But don't rag on someone is taking religion with a pinch of salt, and is actually *thinking* about it, rather than mindlessly going either conservative or athiest. "Guitar Hero, thank you for confirming my belief that religion is bullshit and dangerous in the hand of liberal OR conservative extremists." You say "liberal" as if it's a negative thing like conservatism. If an open mind outside the boundaries of religion is a bad thing too, then I don't know what's good in this world anymore. |
| Saint Jiub 03.12.2003 23:52 |
"LOL - Are you serious? Listen to yourself ..." "If you haven't seen it in action, then don't say that it doesn't happen." Your damning of Catholics is just as hypocritical as the right wing christian's sanctimonious baloney. "You're clearly an athiest who has done no research into the history of religion, so who are you to tell me that I'm an extremist? I'm just saying things as they are." Sure, no bias by you here. Why should I waste time researching religion when I can spend time on Queenzone instead and waste my time here? "Perhaps Bob would like to move to Louisiana and join the homophobic rednecks there for good company as Catholics are not too popular there." "Where did I say I'd get along with homophobic people?" You did not, but you condemned all of the USA (in another thread) for the actions of a few in Louisiana, similarly to how you condemn Catholics. "hateful scorn pretending to be scholarly research" "Pretending? Where do you get off saying that? It's either you know the stuff or you don't. I didn't say I hate anyone. I just disagree with many of the practices that the majority of Catholics do within their lifetime." Still looks like a vendetta to me ... "I am thankful I do not need the crutch of religion." "And being spiritually empty is any better?" Funny, I don't feel empty. Isn't spirituality a myth? |
| The Real Wizard 04.12.2003 00:13 |
Btw, one more paragraph in the last post that I added... "Your damning of Catholics is just as hypocritical as the right wing christian's sanctimonious baloney." In other words, having no opinion on the subject is the only way to be free of criticism from you? "Sure, no bias by you here. Why should I waste time researching religion when I can spend time on Queenzone instead and waste my time here?" Hey, I never said that everyone needs to do research into religion. I just think you have no right cutting mine to shreds, being as you have virtually no knowledge on the subject. To the outsider like yourself, of course it looks like one extreme against another. In reality, it's one extreme merely looking at the other, and trying to show an alternative point of view. "You did not, but you condemned all of the USA (in another thread) for the actions of a few in Louisiana, similarly to how you condemn Catholics." I don't think I've even written the word "Lousiana" on this board before... But I'm sure that whatever you're referring to, you took it out of context, as usual, and put your own little spin on it just for the sake of condemning someone. "Still looks like a vendetta to me ..." And the problem is? What's wrong with being passionate about something, and wanting to chat with people about it? "Funny, I don't feel empty. Isn't spirituality a myth?" Meh, it could be. You're asking the wrong guy. I'm the Agnostic one who loves being educated. If the religious people are right, then I'll experience whatever they say I'm supposed to experience. If not, then I'll continue to learn. Look through this topic; never once have I said that I'm 100% right about something when it comes to faith or spirituality. I can *think* it's wrong all I want, but that's as far as it can go. For anyone who reads this, it's up to them whether or not they want to entertain the alternative view that the liberal and open mind is bringing to the table. |
| Saint Jiub 04.12.2003 01:26 |
link |
| Saint Jiub 04.12.2003 01:35 |
I suppose I should have rechecked that link before I typed. I must have wishfully attributed some of the American bashing post to you. I apologize for that fuck up, but I stand by my other uneducated comments. |
| The Real Wizard 04.12.2003 10:53 |
hehe that was just a joke with Niek... It's rather ridiculous to stereotype an entire country for anything... But taking a dump on the Whitehouse would be a good time, any time, for many, many people. |
| Fenderek 04.12.2003 12:15 |
<< The way I look at it, in order for something to be considered sinful, it has to be a wrongful act committed in the name of or in God in mind. For example, I think calling your friend a bad name is not really a sinful act. >> POINT 1. So why is being a homosexual bad thing...? POINT 2. You're contradicting yourself. IN BIBLE Jesus said sth like "whatever you do untu others, you do unto me..."; sorry can't give you EXACT quote, but that's pretty much what he said... so calling someone bad names would be a crime against... God, wouldn't it? As I said- catholicism contradics itself |
| Fenderek 04.12.2003 12:21 |
Another thing: the whole catholicism began- what, 2000 years ago...17000... The Bible was written then and so were the rules of the church... And maybe- just maybe- 2000 years ago it was good for people and accesible- they could pretty much UNDERSTAND it, because of the way it was all written; the thing is throughout those 2000 years ppl went further with their knowledge and philosophy and... they are now able to see abd undertand more. This is not, however, the case with the institution of church- it simply stuck in middle ages... |
| The Real Wizard 05.12.2003 11:14 |
Thanks for your two cents pal, but I think we're done here, unfortunately. :( And yes, the quote is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a crime against God, but if they're cutting someone else to shreds, then by scripture, they deserve to be cut to shreds by others as well. But isn't that what we're doing, Fenderek? :P |
| Fenderek 07.12.2003 12:36 |
So there was no reply to all of them...:) i knew that! |
| The Real Wizard 07.12.2003 14:08 |
Well, until we get the reply as promised, we can assume that I've proven my point that the average Catholic cannot stand by his intellectual side and actually face constructive criticism or even mere questioning of his religion or faith. |
| Fenderek 07.12.2003 14:08 |
:) |
| The Real Wizard 07.12.2003 14:10 |
Whoa, quick reply, Fenderek! Are you surveying this topic, 24/7? :) |
| Fenderek 07.12.2003 14:13 |
Not, only now :-) |
| Krowa003 08.12.2003 13:01 |
i have been quite busy lately, but just because you dont know and understand why I haven't replied yet, there's no reason for you Guitar Hero and Fenderek to say that I am a Catholic who "cannot stand by his intellectual side and actually face constructive criticism". 5) "Catholics believe they are born unclean, and they have to be continually forgiven of this so-called 'sin'." Also, "Catholics are taught that they will always be unclean and full of sin, no matter how hard they try to be the best they can be." I'm just curious of how someone can actually live like this. This is completely untrue. Catholics beleive that god is forgiving and merciful. Let me give you an example. Some professors in school say that you get an "A" right in the beginning and all you have to do is work hard to maintain that "A". Other professors sau that you get an "F" and your job is to work hard to achieve and "A". Catholicism is like the first case, you have to work hard to maintain your cleanliness, but that does not mean that God is ful of hate. on the contrary, God is merciful acording to Roman Catholic belief. "In the New Testament, it is said that women are to be subordinate, and not to do anything men do, or have a say in anything, because they do not have the right to. Therefore, any woman who is a true Christian cannot get a job. And any man who marries a woman who gets a job cannot be a true Christian. So technically, by scripture, these people all go to hell because they have forsaken the word." Did you also read the part where it saysthat men must love and respect their wives to the fullest? What about the Virgin Mary? She is trully respected and looked up to with great reverence. The New Testament does demonstrate kindness toward women. 7) Origin of the word "Christ" and the Q gospel. The word "Christ" comes from the Greek Cristos(sp?), which mean the annointed one. St. Peter has refered to Jesus as the "annointed One". The whole history of the Q gospel is believed by many scholars that it was an outside source that some of the Apostles referenced when writing their own account of Jesus' life. 8) "The bible is a collection of writings, from the time, that supposedly represented the best material; the material that would suit the religions. It's a collection of stories where somewhere deep within, there may have been a real event." When the Bible was being put together, some books were rejected and some were kept. One book, for example had Jesus as a young boy turning people into lizards and doing all sorts of things. It was sort of like an ancient Harry Potter story, and very unbelievable. 9) Re: Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis. "Their kids run off to get married, but who did they marry? Besides their parents, there was nobody else in existence! Unless they married each other, of course. So does that mean that the act of holy matrimony is based on the very first marriage, which was incest?" Don't tell me that you're going to take the Book of Genesis and consider it factual. These books in the old Testament have to be taken with a grain of salt. They convey a message to the reader, which at that time not meany people read or comprehanded ideas like we do today, so over-exageration was a necessity. 10) "Several faiths (some obscure, but just as old as Christianity) have such stories in them, and many of the "virgin births" happened on the 25th of December as well. How many Christians know this, do you think?" I do not know of the faith you are talking about. But the 25th of December is not the actual date of Jesus' birth. Many scholars believe that he would have been born sometime in September since the shepards were out with the sheep. |
| Guy 08.12.2003 13:10 |
"Don't tell me that you're going to take the Book of Genesis and consider it factual. These books in the old Testament have to be taken with a grain of salt. They convey a message to the reader, which at that time not meany people read or comprehanded ideas like we do today, so over-exageration was a necessity." Then how do you decide what's real and what isn't, what is normal and what is exagerated? |
| iron eagle 08.12.2003 15:39 |
On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism. For the accusation and its answer see "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", I, II, 4; V, 10; III, IX, 25; IV, III. In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time. It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, "The International Critical Commentary: Romans", 134, 137; Hastings, "A Dictionary of the Bible", I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin. That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, "De peccat. meritis", I, xviii). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, "Confiteor unum baptisma in remissiomen peccatorum". They reproached the Pelagians with introducing two baptisms, one for adults to remit sins, the other for children with no such purpose. Catholics argued, too, from the ceremonies of baptism, which suppose the child to be under the power of evil, i.e., exorcisms, abjuration of Satan made by the sponsor in the name of the child [Aug., loc. cit., xxxiv, 63; Denz., n. 140 (96)]. |
| iron eagle 08.12.2003 15:54 |
a little tidbit on sin-- The Church strives continually to impress her children with a sense of the awfulness of sin that they may fear it and avoid it. We are fallen creatures, and our spiritual life on earth is a warfare. Sin is our enemy, and while of our own strength we cannot avoid sin, with God's grace we can. If we but place no obstacle to the workings of grace we can avoid all deliberate sin. If we have the misfortune to sin, and seek God's grace and pardon with a contrite and humble heart, He will not repel us. Sin has its remedy in grace, which is given us by God, through the merits of His only-begotten Son, Who has redeemed us, restoring by His passion and death the order violated by the sin of our first parents, and making us once again children of God and heirs of heaven. Where sin is looked on as a necessary and unavoidable condition of things human, where inability to avoid sin is conceived as necessary, discouragement naturally follows. Where the Catholic doctrine of the creation of man in a superior state, his fall by a wilful transgression, the effects of which fall are by Divine decree transmitted to his posterity, destroying the balance of the human faculties and leaving man inclined to evil; where the dogmas of redemption and grace in reparation of sin are kept in mind, there is no discouragement. Left to ourselves we fall, by keeping close to God and continually seeking His help we can stand and struggle against sin, and if faithful in the battle we must wage shall be crowned in heaven. (See CONSCIENCE; JUSTIFICATION; SCANDAL.) that they may fear and avoid it.....oooooh we are fallen creatures...... brings back the good ole days for me--when we were told we were going to hell cause we were sinners and everything was a sin.... |
| iron eagle 08.12.2003 16:02 |
The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known. Much of the Scripture came to its writers through the channels of ordinary knowledge, but its sacred character and Divine authority are not limited to those parts which contain revelation strictly so termed. The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical "because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church". The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement. It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical". They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. Protestant copies usually lack the seven books (viz: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and I, II Machabees) and parts of books (viz: Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42) which are not found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament. -------- When the Bible was being put together, some books were rejected and some were kept. One book, for example had Jesus as a young boy turning people into lizards and doing all sorts of things. It was sort of like an ancient Harry Potter story, and very unbelievable.-------- being this is written--The primary author is the Holy Ghost,--- ya think maybe that book shouldve stayed in after all..... imagine telling the holy ghost that book was unbelievable....... mortal sin i say a mortal sin....... |
| geeksandgeeks 08.12.2003 18:29 |
First of all, Guitar Hero, I totally sympathize with you. I've never actualy been to a church service (I have been to a synagogue and the people there were very kind and polite, and the rabbi didn't tell those of us who were there for the first time that we were destined for eternal damnation), I have listened to a number of preachers, and there were a few very scary ones. like, for example, the one that effectively said that I wasn't fully human because I'm an atheist AND I believe in gay rights. I'm not saying that the extreme left can't be nutty, but man, there's something i really don't appreciate about being told twice a day that I can't possibly have good morals if I don't believe. |
| The Real Wizard 08.12.2003 23:04 |
"cannot stand by his intellectual side and actually face constructive criticism" -> "or even mere questioning of his religion or faith" Funny how you cut out the latter part. "Catholicism is like the first case, you have to work hard to maintain your cleanliness" And who is to say what is clean and what is unclean? The church? According to scripture, you are born physically intact, but spiritually dead, and you have to spend your life trying to become acceptable to God. Once you sacrifice your mind ("trust not in your own instinct but in your God's", as scripture says), and completely give your life to an invisible being, then you are supposed to feel spiritually full and clean of sin. That's Catholicism in a sentence. They tell you what to experience, and how to experience it. "Did you also read the part where it saysthat men must love and respect their wives to the fullest?" Yes, men could still love and respect their wives, but those words do not negate the fact that the wife still must maintain her silence and unemployment, as the scripture demands. Btw, you *completely* avoided the question, and answered with a question. It is there in black and white; women are to be subordinate. How dare ye go against God's word and plan to give a woman the freedom of speech? "What about the Virgin Mary? She is trully respected and looked up to with great reverence" Only because God apparently chose her to be special over the others. That doesn't excuse the mistreatment the rest of the women of the time endured. "The word "Christ" comes from the Greek Cristos(sp?), which mean the annointed one. St. Peter has refered to Jesus as the "annointed One"." But that doesn't explain who gave Jesus that surname, does it? "The whole history of the Q gospel is believed by many scholars that it was an outside source that some of the Apostles referenced when writing their own account of Jesus' life." That's 100% correct. Pity the Gospel writers have torn the book to shreds and told the stories as they'd like them to be told. "When the Bible was being put together, some books were rejected and some were kept." Well, naturally... it was compiled over the course of about 500 years! I doubt they could even consider including 500 years worth of religious-oriented writings into a single book, could they? :) "One book, for example had Jesus as a young boy turning people into lizards and doing all sorts of things. It was sort of like an ancient Harry Potter story, and very unbelievable." And you're going to tell me the bible isn't already full of stuff just as crazy and unbelievable as this? "Don't tell me that you're going to take the Book of Genesis and consider it factual" In the bible, if sin originated with Adam and Eve, and you don't believe in that story, then why is the word sin in your posts? And if other Catholics do realize this little problem, why do they focus so much on the clensing of sin being part of their lives? The answer: Fear, inflicted by the church. If you're denying this, then clearly you're not going to a Catholic church that runs according to the lectionary. "Then how do you decide what's real and what isn't, what is normal and what is exagerated?" As Guy put it... a great question. Can't wait for this answer! "But the 25th of December is not the actual date of Jesus' birth. Many scholars believe that he would have been born sometime in September since the shepards were out with the sheep." Then why do you celebrate Christmas as the anniversary of the birth of Jesus? Why does the church not see this and question it? I know why... because it's easier not to question things and stick with what's been done for centuries. 4) Mark 15:39 and the translation issues leading to questioning the origin of the trinity, page 3. You missed this one. :) But I'll start if off... Mark really wrote "truly this is a son of god", and not "truly this is the |
| Saffron Caribou 08.12.2003 23:56 |
Oooooh more more arguements! I love theological arguements! |
| Saffron Caribou 09.12.2003 00:01 |
BTW, sticking to the original topic. did anyone hear that the Gibson film has been pulled off from the date of release because of the ACLU confirmed that it is anti semitic? I guess we have to wait a lil bit longer. |
| Freddie-B 09.12.2003 09:21 |
By eck, that ran for a bit didn't it! |
| Fenderek 09.12.2003 12:16 |
< That's not true!!!! You're born unclean, according to Catholics- original sin, ringing the bell? Where's this 'A' you are suppose to maintain...?! If you're not baptised you still live in a sin...Bollocks!!! That's what i meant saying that this religion is based on hipocrisy and lack of knowledge... You're not told- you're gonna have 'A', try to maintain it, work hard to do it; that would be quite fair BTW. All my life bloody catholic priests were telling me that in my nature is sin, that I was born already with a sin and that I have to pray and beg to maybe- just maybe- get that 'A'... That if I do sth wrong- i'll go to hell.... That listening to my heart is bad- I should listen to one true voice being THE CHURCH . That this life is some kind of test... What test...? What the f**** for? Doesn't HE already know the score anyway...? I was also told that HE KNOWS EVERYTHING, so... What's going on... ? Contradictions, contradictions, contradictions.... One thing which is really ridiculous for me is that: it's bloody easy not to sin (to be a good man, whatever) when you're scarred of getting 'E' or whatever you call it... why not being a good person when you know that whatever you do, you'll get this 'A' anyway... It simply means that HE doesn't trust us.... And I thought that HE created us on his own image....Hmmmmmm...... |
| iron eagle 09.12.2003 16:45 |
---Iron Eagle, I like your sense of humour. Much to be said in your posts, but I surely found the good parts (not insinuating there were any bad parts :).----- interesting what you find in the catholic encyclopedia isnt it??? |
| The Real Wizard 09.12.2003 20:29 |
"That listening to my heart is bad" Words cannot describe how much a statement like this angers and deeply saddens me. Saying that is like trying to rip the soul out of someone. It's incredibly unfortunate that people actually believe this kind of statement, and preach it to thousands at a time. :( "interesting what you find in the catholic encyclopedia isnt it???" I shall say no more. ;) (until my next post, of course...) |
| Fenderek 15.12.2003 08:50 |
And so the topic died.... |
| Saffron Caribou 15.12.2003 15:59 |
Bereft of life... Rest in Peace... This is an ex topic... Carry on |
| Saffron Caribou 15.12.2003 16:01 |
Perhaps we should get a priest to sanctify this topic with holy water or maybe raise it from the death. Maybe a pastor to speak in strange tongues and exorcise it. |
| Fenderek 16.12.2003 03:07 |
No, no- it's not dead- IT'S RESTING Or probably just paining... |
| Saffron Caribou 16.12.2003 19:11 |
pining for the fiords!? |
| iron eagle 16.12.2003 20:33 |
dom-a-nay nabisco |
| Saffron Caribou 16.12.2003 20:55 |
romani ite domum |
| iron eagle 16.12.2003 21:42 |
come on SR you got to admit mine is more fun *LOL* a blessing and a Triscuit all in one :) |
| Saffron Caribou 16.12.2003 22:09 |
No no mine is funnier IE :-P because I said Romans Go Home! Although its a line from the film Life of Brian, it is meant towards the Roman Catholics. tee hee heee I'm more of a Fig Newton gal myself. Triscuits are nice with some whippy cream. Well a blessing is a blessing! Also did anyone hear about what Lauren Hill did in a Vatican reception? LOL |
| iron eagle 17.12.2003 22:22 |
from CNN ROME, Italy (CNN) -- Pope John Paul II has seen the controversial Mel Gibson movie, "The Passion of Christ," and he liked it, Vatican sources said Wednesday. "It is as it was," the sources quoted the pope as saying. The National Catholic Reporter, a weekly Catholic magazine, first broke the news. The magazine quoted a senior Vatican official who spoke on condition of anonymity as saying, "The Holy Father watched and enjoyed the film." |
| Fenderek 18.12.2003 03:09 |
....well... |
| iron eagle 18.12.2003 20:08 |
link |
