The Vatican urges all Catholic politicians to fight gay marriages. Perhaps the Pope has forgotten that this is the 21st century, and not the Dark Ages.
The church has absolutely no place whatsoever in politics, ESPECIALLY not in politics of foreign countries. Imposing superstitious medieval laws upon people is utterly ridiculous. Why on earth would you want to deny gay couples marriage? If they want to get married and adopt children, they should be able to. Could someone explain to me what the problem is with that?
In my country, gay marriages are legalised. But still, the current conservative government seems to have no problems at all with the Vatican's words. The opposition, however, argues that the Vatican is meddling in our politics and that it is attacking our country in doing so. Not likely that Dutch tanks will roll into the Vatican any time soon, though...
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Perhaps the Pope has forgotten that this is the 21st century, and not the Dark Ages."
To be frank, I doubt the old fart even remembers his own name anymore.
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
It's funny, I actually think the Vatican would issue something like this after the Supreme Court in the US sided with the two gay men who had their privacy invaded in Texas. As much as people will try their hardest to curb gay marriage and rights, it is going to be eventually accepted. It may take another 50 years, but people are patient... I know I am.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Perhaps the Pope has forgotten that this is the 21st century, and not the Dark Ages.
Perhaps the Pope is under the impression that God's law is timeless, and not subject to political correctness.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"Correctness" of any kind, even.
OH YEAH. ZINGO, ZANGO.
Flameboard 2001 style.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Well, its pretty irrelevant in Canada at least. Given that:
quote: Chr�tien and Liberal MP Paul Martin, who is considered the front-runner to succeed him, are both Catholics but have indicated they won't heed the Vatican's call.
A spokesperson says the prime minister respects the church's opinion, but he believes in separation of church and state.
Speaking in Toronto Wednesday, Martin said he must take a wider perspective as a legislator.
IIRC, both the Bloc and Joe Clark speaking for the Progressive Conservatives are in favour of it, the NDP obviously would be, leaving a very isolated Canadian Alliance.
Well, at least there's the good old US to raise havoc Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Ten quatloos that god is both gay and black.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And a single mother?
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Icing on the cake. B)
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
There is talk about some religious right compromising on whether or not the union of two homosexuals should be "legally joined". Their only beef is that it would be called "marriage". They would rather have marriage reserved for men and women, and "civil union" for homosexuals. They also argue that homosexual couples could have the same rights and freedoms as heterosexual couples. They just don't want to call it marriage.
Same spousal rights, different name, what do you think?
[ July 31, 2003, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Saltah'na ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: The church has absolutely no place whatsoever in politics, ESPECIALLY not in politics of foreign countries.
Well, that might be the case today, but for the majority of its history the situation was exactly the opposite. So, I mean, yeah, it's outdated for sure. But I'm not so sure I buy the idea that this is somehow improper by the standards of the Vatican. You don't chart a course of international political dominance for over a millennia and then just change overnight.
Also, nitpick: Which nation _isn't_ foreign from the perspective of the Vatican?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Perhaps the Pope has forgotten that this is the 21st century, and not the Dark Ages.
Perhaps the Pope is under the impression that God's law is timeless, and not subject to political correctness.
So he's okay with stoning, slavery of captured POW's and their children, he's kosher, he believes in "an eye for an eye" and that money exchanges are wrong. That'll all fit really well with today's world.
Oh, yeah: the world is flat, evolution is wrong and earth is the center of the universe with the sun and planets revolving aound it.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:And a single mother?
From what I have seen his children are a bunch of bastards.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, he has only got the one. That we know of. And speaking of that, would he refer to Mary as his "baby' momma"?
"Why on earth would you want to deny gay couples marriage? If they want to get married and adopt children, they should be able to. Could someone explain to me what the problem is with that?"
Well, from JP's point of view, Leviticus 20:13. And, um, something in one of the Paul letters. One of the ones to Corinth, maybe. I don't remember.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Addendum: It's the end of chapter one of the letter to the Romans.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So it's really Paul's problem with gays? Sounds like some apostle has repressed desires....
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I guess the Pope just wants his priests and cardinals to date...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Romans 1:27, is what I believe Tim was refering to.
In less lofty language:
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Heck, while I'm at it. (All taken from the King James, because it sounds the neatest.)
Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
And 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Deuteronomy 23:18
"Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
Which is rendered, in a more modern translation, thusly: "You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The "natural use of women" is certainly not what it was back then though either.... The "natural use of women" was as property, baby making animals and chore-slave. If one's not valid, how can the other be?
How can it be "God's Law" when God never mentioned it? How can it be against God if He made them that way? More to the point, why is line between church and state quickly fading away?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Um, it's pretty clear what that phrase is supposed to mean in context here.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
But the bible is so contradictory from book to book, if we're willing to let someone's interpertation of a verse be the basis for binding legislation then we're on the slippery moral slope indeed.
What about Crab? Pork? will those foods become illeagal because of Old Testament bible verses stating they should not be eaten? Of course not: the majority's religous beliefs must not determine the course of law in our country if we're to remain true to the american dream of "Life, Liberty and the prusuit of happiness".
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet
Best euphemism for "UP TEH BUTT!11!" ever.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
If the church really puts those old words into practical use, they are violating the real laws and should be prosecuted. There is no such thing as "God's law" for people that have different (or no) religions.
And that get's me to my biggest problem. I have no problems with people believing in all sorts of gods and supernatural stuff. If it makes you feel better, if it gives more depth and meaning to your lives, that's a good thing. And I can see that sharing deep religious beliefs with others is a very strong emotion. But WHY do you always want to impose your ideas upon others? If I don't want to believe in your God, your Bible, your Messiah, your Allah, your Satan, than let me be! And this is exactly why state and church should be completely separate. Let people make their own decisions. If you want to be a devout Catholic, go right ahead. If a gay couple wants to marry, let them.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
But Harry, they really care about you! They want to save you, even if they have to kill you to do so! So, try to make allowances. 8)
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I am Satan incarnate. Because the Church says I am.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
So am I, because I love crab and pork and men... Ok, not men. But two out of three ain't bad.
I know my *real* god appreciate me...
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Iia! Iia! Cthulhu! Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
My God is a shallow little bitch trying to make the scene.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet"
"Best euphemism for "UP TEH BUTT!11!" ever."
Certainly gives new meaning to the title "Land Down Under" by Men at Work...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: My God is a shallow little bitch trying to make the scene.
So it's true that we all create God in our own image?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: My God is a shallow little bitch trying to make the scene.
The Allmighty is Courtney Love? ...or mabye Jewel?
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Avril "I AM TEH CNAADIAN QUEEN FO ROCK ADN PARTTIEM SKATAR GRIL!!" Lavigne, of course.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The burns are coming fast and thick now!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Darth vader voice: "All too easy...." Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I have no problem with gays or gay marriage, as long as i never get hit on by one, that creeps me out.
I hate the religion though, they should have done away with it when they got rid of Feudalism.
The pope is wrong to oppose this. what right does he have to try to influence others like that, same with politicians. If two people want to get married then thats fine by me.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So why should it creep you out? Shouldn't you be revelling in your universal attractiveness? Or would it be because no women ever bother to hit on you?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The Allmighty is Courtney Love? ...or mabye Jewel?"
Legend has it that Marilyn Manson was the original target of that particular line. But, then he was in the video. Go figure.
"The pope is wrong to oppose this. what right does he have to try to influence others like that..."
What right does he actually have? None, really. But, try telling that to a man crazy enough to think he speaks for the creator of the universe.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:What right does he actually have? None, really. But, try telling that to a man crazy enough to think he speaks for the creator of the universe. [/QB]
It's that hat that scares the hell out of me. Who knows what he's got stashed up there? A gontz with a hundred rounds of hollowpoints? A popcorn popper? The sybian? Man, what I would'nt do to see airport security make him take off his shoes and any metalic objects to board a plane! The geezer wears more gold than any rapper but supposedly represents Jesus? I missed it when Jesus was sporting a gold sceptre and a 50 carat ruby.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I fucking hate the Catholic Church.
They'll bend over backwards to protect child-molesting priests, but if two people who are in love want to be together, they'll raise the army of the religious righteous to smack 'em down, claiming to be the end and be-all of what is "right" and "moral" and "religious" in the world.
Fuck the Church.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
One of my fondest wishes is that, someday in the enlightened future, the belief in anything which cannot be experimentally observed will result in free, psychologival treatment for the individual.
We'd do it now if someone believed in Santa or the Easter Bunny (unless of course they're a child).
Wait a minute! Maybe we can have pity on them and simply regard them as children in the eyes of the law until their sense of reality matures.
And that goes for the believers of Big JuJu the African God and Jehovah too.
You can be a logical, mature adult, or a child that believes in make-believe, but not both.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
One of my fondest wishes is that, someday in the enlightened future, the belief in anything which cannot be experimentally observed will result in free, psychologival treatment for the individual.
We'd do it now if someone believed in Santa or the Easter Bunny (unless of course they're a child).
Wait a minute! Maybe we can have pity on them and simply regard them as children in the eyes of the law until their sense of reality matures.
And that goes for the believers of Big JuJu the African God and Jehovah too.
You can be a logical, mature adult, or a child that believes in make-believe, but not both.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Hmm... okay, since most people here believe we evolved from small tree-dwelling furry things, something that supposedly happened millions of years ago and thus can't be observed... or that the speed of light is an impassable barrier for anything with matter, which is a negative and thus impossible to prove...
Yeah, you can say such beliefs are logical based on available evidence. But I can say my beliefs are logical based on other evidence, or based on the fact that I have evidence that your evidence is flawed, or simply based on the fact that I make different base assumptions than you do. You'd have a government defining what was absolute truth, and we all know how well that works. Basically, your future would suck.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Soooo...by your utopian vision, I would be committed for the sheer fact that I believe wholeheartedly in the sentient nature of the universe? Man. I do tarot, minor forms of Chinese mysticism, & energy management, too. Plus I have multireality perception.
I'd be locked away in a little white room, wouldn't I?
As far as spirituality, people can & should put stock in what they feel correct with. It's when it turns into religion (that is, a set system with a set of uncompromising rules) that it turns bad. Spirituality doesn't require proselytization; several religions do. The whole concept of demanding to people that they require salvation & that only they (the "righteous") are privy to The One True Way To Live That All People Everywhere Should Live Like is utterly repugnant to me.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Organized religon boils down to two principals:
Their viewpoint is right and all others are wrong.
Anyone not of their viewpoint is damned and should be converted.
Sounds kinda like the Borg does'nt it?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'd be locked away in a little white room, wouldn't I?"
Well, we can always hope, can't we?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I see. Gods forfend that anyone be anything other than atheist or agnostic, then?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Organized religon boils down to two principals:
Their viewpoint is right and all others are wrong.
Anyone not of their viewpoint is damned and should be converted.
Christianity, Islam and MAYBE Judaism could be said to boil down to that, if you care to look at it that cynically. There are a lot of other religions out there. Does Hindu even have a concept of damnation?
Oh, and for what it's worth, Christianity doesn't say "You're damned unless you believe what we believe," at least not as such. It's closer to "Everyone's damned until they believe what we believe." Small but important distinction.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
A pity too. You'd make much better neighbours if it was the first, rather than the second.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega:
Christianity, Islam and MAYBE Judaism could be said to boil down to that, if you care to look at it that cynically. There are a lot of other religions out there. Does Hindu even have a concept of damnation?
Oh, and for what it's worth, Christianity doesn't say "You're damned unless you believe what we believe," at least not as such. It's closer to "Everyone's damned until they believe what we believe." Small but important distinction.
BY "Everyone's damned unless they believe what we believe" they justify two thousand years of violence, political, spiritual and physical oppresion and just being dicks to whoever does'nt pay their dues and bend their knee.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: So why should it creep you out? Shouldn't you be revelling in your universal attractiveness? Or would it be because no women ever bother to hit on you?
No, it's just that when the women see my friend they usually start hitting on him instead. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Solutions: Get ugly freinds Maim your attractive freind. Discreetly imform women intrested in your freind that he is gay.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Gods forfend that anyone be anything other than atheist or agnostic, then?"
Exactly!
Say, wait...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
This is for the episcopal church, but I think it still has some relevance to this topic. It just shows that other churchs are more tolerant and foreward thinking than the catholic church.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:Hmm... okay, since most people here believe we evolved from small tree-dwelling furry things, something that supposedly happened millions of years ago and thus can't be observed...
It's called DNA. And evolution has been observed. OTOH, no Gods have ever been observed. Neither have the effects of any Gods.
quote: or that the speed of light is an impassable barrier for anything with matter, which is a negative and thus impossible to prove...
It's a very likely assumption that c is the universal speed limit. But not 100% sure. Unlike your Church, which accepts the Bible as the absolute Truth. And a mea culpa centuries after murdering innocents isn't going to change that.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
This, unfortunately, is the result of a Pope who is very old, has Parkinson's disease, and is not quite "all there." When a new pope comes around, maybe things will be different.
And, what's all this "join us or be damned" crap? Do you people really believe that all Christians are like Pat Robertson and those evangelists you see on TV? Do you actually believe that? Or do you not know that most Christians preach the fact that you can get salvation no matter what belief you have? You can be a Muslim, a Jew, or a Hindu and all is well, provided you believe in God and you follow the Ten Commandments.
Believe me, the Church is not a society driven by money-loving Bishops and Cardinals and Popes like it was hundreds of years ago. We have become reformed and more intent on preaching the word of God then on converting the "savages" and "Pagans." Conversion still goes on but does not happen at the point of a sword, like it used to. In Yemen last year, three Baptist missionaries were gunned down at their church by an Islamic militant, and one of them was from my home town. The militant thought they were trying to convert the people. They were not. They were running the hospital to help the local people. An unfortunate side affect of the belief that all Christians are trying to convert others.
Unless you study the church, or still go to church, don't ramble about it's flaws. If you haven't ever been to church or listened to a minister or hear everything you complain abut on the news or from some evangelist's mouth, then don't complain about it. The Church is not perfect, but it's not a greedy, always covering-up institution.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
But why does anyone need to be "saved?" Why is there a need for "salvation?"
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
BY "Everyone's damned unless they believe what we believe" they justify two thousand years of violence, political, spiritual and physical oppresion and just being dicks to whoever does'nt pay their dues and bend their knee.
No we don't. I have yet to meet a Christian who wants to justify any of that. Yes, it was used to justify things like the crusades WHEN THEY WERE HAPPENING, but, newsflash: all those people are DEAD! Blaming modern Christians for what their predecessors may have done is like blaming modern white people in America for slavery, i.e. stupid.
And evolution has been observed.
You MIGHT make an argument that speciation has been observed, for very loose definitions of "species", but that's hardly the same as observing that humanity itself evolved all the way from bacteria.
And a mea culpa centuries after murdering innocents isn't going to change that.
Which is why most of us know better than to offer one. I have enough sin of my own to worry about without claiming responsibility for sins committed centuries before I was born by people who happened to call themselves the same thing I call myself. If you've got a problem with what _I_ believe, then point it out.
no Gods have ever been observed. Neither have the effects of any Gods.
Nor did I claim they had. However, I can create a fine logical framework indicating that they must exist given certain basic assumptions. Which was the point of what I said.
Or do you not know that most Christians preach the fact that you can get salvation no matter what belief you have?
Um.... no. What Christians have you been talking to? No one who believes the teachings of Christ as represented in the Bible can possibly claim what you just said most of us do. "No man comes to the father except through me."
The rest of what you said, however, is quite correct. We don't always run around with a Bible yelling at people about how they're damned, because we know that doesn't work all that well. If you ask, yeah, we'll tell ya, but it can be a lot more effective to simply show our love, rather than hitting people over the head with it. And even if we don't think conversion is even possible, well, we'll be Christians anyway.
But why does anyone need to be "saved?" Why is there a need for "salvation?"
Because everyone's sinned. If you sin, you die (however you define spiritual death), because God can not be in the presence of sin. Thus to survive we all need some way for God to overlook our sin.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Sorry? Who says I've sinned? I'm not a sinner. I don't believe in sin.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
I thought speaking for anyone other than yourself was a sin, too...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
God says you've sinned. I consider his word to be a bit more reliable on the matter than yours. As to your not believing it, well, the statement wasn't intended to convince you. It was a statement of Christian beliefs.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
But that's the thing. I haven't sinned. To think so implies that I & the rest of humanity along with me are inherently "bad." This is not so, & the only people who believe in salvation are the totalitarian agriculturists.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega:
And evolution has been observed.
You MIGHT make an argument that speciation has been observed, for very loose definitions of "species", but that's hardly the same as observing that humanity itself evolved all the way from bacteria.
no Gods have ever been observed. Neither have the effects of any Gods.
Nor did I claim they had. However, I can create a fine logical framework indicating that they must exist given certain basic assumptions. Which was the point of what I said.
Well, all of this is rather besides the point. Science is a gradual process. Thats why they still call evolution a "theory." If someone came along with substantial independently verifiable proof that it was wrong, scientists would switch. No burnings at the stake needed, no crucifications, no excommunications. Galileo did not have the same luxury.
That leads us to the second problem, at least for the three major religions of the "Book." No matter how archaic, how out of date, how plain wrong the Bible is, it cannot be changed. That conviction of belief is what leads people to start wars, strip people of their rights, or blow themselves up in the Gaza strip.
People never flew planes into buildings because of evolution. People fly planes into buildings because of organised religion and "the good book."
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No matter how archaic, how out of date, how plain wrong the Bible is, it cannot be changed.
Then it's good that no part of it has been conclusively shown to be incorrect or inapplicable due to age. Unless I missed something somewhere.
People fly planes into buildings because of organised religion and "the good book."
No, people fly planes into buildings because of their own stupidity. They dont' bother to READ the good book. At least not mine. Still can't quite figure out what Islam actually supports.
I haven't sinned. To think so implies that I & the rest of humanity along with me are inherently "bad." This is not so
Says you. I say you're wrong. So there. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yes, but who are YOU to tell ME that I'm a "sinner?"
That "we know best for all" attitude is what's destroying the world as we know it. And no, I'm not just talking about religion.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I simply tell you what the Bible says. Believe it or not, take offense or not, as you please.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Correction: what YOU believe the Bible says.
"Still can't quite figure out what Islam actually supports."
Maybe you should bother to READ the good book.
Posted by leuckinc (Member # 729) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Organized religon boils down to two principals:
Their viewpoint is right and all others are wrong.
Anyone not of their viewpoint is damned and should be converted.
Sounds kinda like the Borg does'nt it?
lol! Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Correction: what YOU believe the Bible says.
Yes, and I believe it because I speak English. Read Romans 3:23, please.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
So, basically what I'm hearing is religion is bad. It would be better if it never existed. Uh-huh. Some people have tried to do away with it. Josef Stalin and Mao--just two people who had no religion. But I guess it still better if there was no religion.
Oh, wait! I forgot! The Ten Commandments! The laws of on which our country was founded. But, I forgot, it would be a better without religion--so, everybody, go ahead and kill! Go commit adultery! Go lie, steal, and dishonor your father and mother! God and the Bible are wrong, so you don't have to listen to those rules! Oh, I forgot! Don't say "Oh My God!" Don't celebrate Christmas, or Easter! Don't watch "It's a Wonderful Life!"
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Yes, and I believe it because I speak English."
Which doesn't mean much, since the text in question was written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (among others?), and the original, untranslated versions probably don't even exist anymore.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Touche. Okay, so I believe it because I trust several indepentent groups of translators who can read Greek. And because I speak English.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Veers: Oh puh-lease. Guilt by association? I could do the same thing with theists if you want.
"So, what you're saying is that you're in favour of religion. Oh wait, I know a few people that also are....Osama Bin Laden, Torquemanda, Hitler
Oh, wait! I forgot! The world is flat! The actual land on which our country was founded doesn't exist! But, I forgot, it would be a better if we all followed religion--so, everybody, go ahead and leave America! Go leave your homes! Abandon your jobs and your loved ones. Don't celebrate Christmas, or Easter because they're based on pagan holidays!"
Seriously
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The world is flat! The actual land on which our country was founded doesn't exist!
Why are we talking about the world being flat, now? And I would point out that under Hitler's reign Naziism was declared the official state religion of Germany.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I would like to live in your parallel universe where that was true.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Welcome Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Look we're not getting anywhere with this. Veers, I don't think (and I may be wrong on this) that any of us are saying that religion is awful and we'd all be better off without it. I think what we're saying is that fundamentalism and political evangelism have historically been perverted by those in power to less than altruistic goals with litterally catastrophic results. As you very rightly point out, the same has been done with atheism.
I and I think several others of different denominations/non-believers, feel that religion and spirituality are an entirely personal affaire, and that so long as your religion is not hurting anyone what does it matter what an individual believes. I'm not saying religions should not recruit, that's how they get new ideas and grow and evolve, etc. I think what people are saying is that this tendency to make generalizations about entire groups of people based solely on their belief structure (or lack thereof) has resulted in hugely violent and vitriolic centuries of human history. Wherein said vain and horrible violence would seem to run counter to the central principles of pretty much every major organized religion.
And but so when the Pope decrees that homosexual marriage is a bad thing (look at that, there's the topic) and that homosexuals are an abomination, I don't care. I don't subscribe to his religion. I don't agree with him in the slightest bit, and I think he's very wrong to use his position of power to make this kind of blanket statement (well, as Cartmaniac has pointed out he probably doesn't realize what he is saying anymore, but his office, the office of the papacy). But it's his religion and unfortunately he didn't (and really, I wouldn't have expected him to) issue this Bull (irony? nah) with a statement saying "Look, the homos are dirty wretched creatures who are yucky and also pass disease (like it says here in this very old book), but seriously dudes, that doesn't mean you should tie them to the bumper of your truck and drag them to death, or beat the living fuck out of them at a party because you thought they were hitting on you or anything. Be confident that you are living a righteous life here upon the earth completely secure in your conventional and church-sanctioned heterosexuality and we'll see who's laughing at the pearly gates (i.e. not those dirty, dirty Soddomites)..." Or something.
And as a final thought, a deceptively wise atheist friend of mine once quipped: "Religious conflict is more or less a bunch of disturbingly zealous people arguing back and forth about who's invisible man in the sky is taller."
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
OK, maybe I'm overreacting...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
There's no maybe about it. You're encroaching on Pat Robertson territory.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I and I think..."
Say, there's one that hasn't come up: Rastafarianism.
"Oh, wait! I forgot! The Ten Commandments! The laws of on which our country was founded. But, I forgot, it would be a better without religion--so, everybody, go ahead and kill! Go commit adultery! Go lie, steal, and dishonor your father and mother! God and the Bible are wrong, so you don't have to listen to those rules!"
Whether it was your intention or not, I hate people like that. People who need an omnipotent being to tell them what to do and not do. I once had someone tell me that, if he didn't believe there was a god out there handing down commandments, he'd probably go out and steal stuff and kill people, because there'd be no reason to think it was wrong.
It's like if you tell a child "don't do this, don't do that" and tell them it's "because I said so". If you don't give them some more valid reason, then, if they ever figure out that you're full of shit, they won't have any more reason to refrain from doing "this" and "that". Maybe we ought to start teaching morals that have more backing than "someone we think is in charge but whom we've never met is said to have once told people...".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Wow, its like Slashdot in here. 1. Veers makes absurd assumptions about what the world would be like without God and the Bible 2. Mucus mocks the argument by showing how absurd that argument is, by reversing it and applying it to how the world would be without scientific advancement. Also see: irony, dramatic 3. Omega points out that the reversed argument is in fact, absurd as planned. 4. ??? 5. Profit!!!
But seriously, Balaam Xumucane is pointing out a critical point.
quote: I think what we're saying is that fundamentalism and political evangelism have historically been perverted by those in power to less than altruistic goals with litterally catastrophic results. As you very rightly point out, the same has been done with atheism.
However, I would like to add an additional point to this. Yes, both runaway atheism and theism is dangerous. Both can be perverted and abused. (Which is probably why I'm agnostic, the ultimate fence-sitter) However, I would argue that the very structure of religion makes it more susceptible to abuse, as the Catholic Church is demonstrating very aptly. In fact, that very informative article Omega linked to explains this very notion.
quote: Author Doug Krueger notes that "so many Germans were religious believers that Hitler, if not religious himself, at least had to pretend to be a believer in order to gain support." He adds, "If the [Christian] message won converts, it would seem that most Nazis were probably [Christians] too. After all, would appeal to divine mandate win more theists or atheists to the cause?" He also points out that "Even if Hitler was not a [Christian], he could still have been a theist. Or a deist"...Remember that being a non-Christian is not equal to being an atheist.
And in the end, as the article points out, it really doesn't matter what he personally thought. What matters is that it is a very good form of control, since it is so very easy to pervert, and so very difficult to speak out against.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Pat Robertson? *Shudder* My point: Religion has its good points, and then its bad points. Hopefully more of the former. But to figure it out, you'd have to count them all, and there's a whole lot on both sides...
About the topic of this thread...has Gene Robinson (the pontentially first openly gay bishop) been confirmed yet?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: So, basically what I'm hearing is religion is bad. It would be better if it never existed. Uh-huh. Some people have tried to do away with it. Josef Stalin and Mao--just two people who had no religion. But I guess it still better if there was no religion.
Oh, wait! I forgot! The Ten Commandments! The laws of on which our country was founded. But, I forgot, it would be a better without religion--so, everybody, go ahead and kill! Go commit adultery! Go lie, steal, and dishonor your father and mother! God and the Bible are wrong, so you don't have to listen to those rules! Oh, I forgot! Don't say "Oh My God!" Don't celebrate Christmas, or Easter! Don't watch "It's a Wonderful Life!"
Laws and morals defining Adultery, stealing, and murder as wrong and punishable far outdate any mono-theistic religous system. By over a thousand of years in fact. Read the epic of Gilgamesh sometime, your Bible plagerized a lot of it, so you'll find it familliar at least. I don't say "Oh My God" I say "Jesus Fuck!". It emphisizes the general point of suprise without being so cliche'. Try it at church some time and see how forgiving they are of their fellow man. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But "Jesus Fuck" is obviously intended merely to agrivate people of a religious persuasion, and therefore is just as silly as anything Tim does to the word "with".
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
FUCK JEBUS !! !!11!!?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
"One interpretation translates his name as Iehobu".
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Don't get Tim started.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: "One interpretation translates his name as Iehobu".
Another interpertation is "Chtuhlu". Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: But "Jesus Fuck" is obviously intended merely to agrivate people of a religious persuasion, and therefore is just as silly as anything Tim does to the word "with".
Not so: I just don't believe in doing anything half-assed. Why not blasphemy and be profane at the same time? Two birds with one stone and all that...
It all stated when one of my fellow co-workers slammed his hand in a printing press and yelled "Jesus!", then seeing the largish cut in his hand yelled "Fuck!" almost right after.... Kinda a reeses peanutbutter cup commercial kinda thing: Y'know, "you got your blasphmey in my profanity" "No, YOU got YOUR profanity in my blasphmey". For no good reason it just stuck and a couple of us non-secular types have been using it every since.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Riiight.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's true: Xerox makes one area on all their heavy-production machines designed to slam down if a harnd is placed inside of it. I have a lovely "C" shaped scar on the top of my hand from the "area 4 deathtrap".
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Science is a gradual process. Thats why they still call evolution a "theory."
Actually, no. It's as much a "theory" as the theory of gravity. Unfortunatly, I've lost the handy "top ten questions about evolution" link I used to have, so I cannot explain it more. But it's a theory for complex, technical reasons, and not simply because "we haven't proved it yet".
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Theories are the highest form of scientific acceptance, actually. They are in no way synonymous with "guesses" or "conjectures". A theory is something which 1) has never been disproved since it was postulated, 2) has consistently remained a valid explanation for the topic it concerns, and 3) stays accepted until a better one comes along.
Now, biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution (genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc) is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact AND a theory.
Theory side is the debate as to weither Darwinian Gradualism is correct, (meanng that evolutionary pressure is always "on" and working at least on some level to adapt a species) or if evolution occurs in spurts as external stimuli changes faster than the traditional theory allows for (Ice Ages kill 99% of mammals but 1% adapts rapidly and changes into nifty stuff like Smiladon and Mammoths within a few hundred years instead of millenia)but is inert untill needed and then lastly, there's the blending of the two that infers that evolution is always occurng in all things on some level but can be ramped up as external pressures require.
Personally I'm leaning toward option #3 with a few reservations as to the degree of changes. For example evolution as maxed-out several creatures to be perfect for their roles (blue sharks for example) and the only change needed in the species has been a gradual decreasing in their size as their prey has changes and (largly because of us jerks) dwindled.
Make sense? ...and what exactly does all this have to do with the damn Xerox machine trying to eat my hand every week?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
PsyLiam: *Shrug* Semantics. For the purposes of this discussion, I do not really care if evolution is a fact or not. There's no real need to get into that debate as well. However, as Cartmaniac said A theory is something which 1) has never been disproved since it was postulated, 2) has consistently remained a valid explanation for the topic it concerns, and 3) stays accepted until a better one comes along. That last part is an important part of what I said. Thats the gradual process of change.
I for one think that evolution IS the best possible explanation that humans have found for the origin of life on this planet. But I am also resigned to the fact that it may be wrong, or not the whole truth. Those statements are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, no, it is not called a theory because it has a "side" that remains unexplained or in doubt. Read Cartmaniac's post again.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
I think I get what you're saying, and I think there's been a miscommunication here. My choice of words in the original quotation was unfortunate. As I said, its semantics. i.e. doubt or uncertainty does not imply theory but theory does imply doubt or uncertainty
Its all too subtle for the actual point anyways.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I was replying to Jason, actually, sorry that wasn't made clear. And even then, it's a minor issue, but important in context, I think.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If there's anything that scientists and doctors will not do, it's confirm anything one way or another. Everybody's soooo afraid of making a stand on a issue and being wrong. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
No, not being wrong, worse than that - being liable. 8)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Simon's right about it being important in context. Creationists often use the "it's only a theory" argument when evolution is bought up, not realising the proper conotations of the word. The best counterargument would be "So is gravity, so why don't you fly away? Eh? Eh? EH?" Actually, that would be a rubbish counterargument, but if it was said in an agrivating tone of voice...
So, theory shouldn't imply doubt. Theory implies people saying "This is the most likely explanation", which is different. It's not that scientists aren't "willing to make a stand". Science doesn't work that way anymore, and hasn't for years. Nothing is ever proved right. Things are failed to be proven wrong, and evolution has failed to be proven wrong for a fair long while now.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
My theory is that Creationists are morons and that has not been proven worng for a long long time now either.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)