Critical Miss: The Cardinal's Corner

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Therumancer:
Snip

Sorry for the late response, I went away for a couple of days.

1: The Pope protected child molesters and his apologies are guiltless spin. He protected them knowing full well what they did, because he wanted to protect them, end of story- so no, he's not just a good old man of the cloth sticking to what he believes in; he's an evil old bastard who lies to the impoverished about condoms *increasing* the likelihood of AIDS and cleans up after child abusers.

2: What does it take to stick to religion other than a willingness to take as fact things which are not evidenced whatsoever? The basic tenets of religion with regard to morality are common sense to most of us, and the detailed scriptures regarding moral conduct, in the Bible and Quran at least, are barbarous nonsense!

We certainly don't owe morality to religion; while you say religion has done a lot of good, the behaviours you point at (which are welfare and charity basically) are goals common to those of no faith as well. Take religion out of the picture, and you'll have all the advancements and all the good we've achieved as a species still intact- only 'holy' war, religiously motivated hatred and religious ignorance would be removed.

3: Finally, on the issue of sex before marriage... A man who abstains into his twenties is more than twice as likely to suffer erectile dysfunction than his sexually active counterpart. So I guess the notion that abstainence "works" for people has its own demons. We experience sexual drive as a primary impulse, and prolonged suppression causes problems; so much should be obvious without a demonstration.

Abstaining isn't moral, it isn't natural, it doesn't make sense, and it isn't realistic either. It isn't moral because sex isn't immoral. It isn't natural because sexual experimentation is scheduled for between about 14 and 16 years old biologically. It doesn't make sense because you want to know whether a potential partner is compatible with you in the bedroom before you make any vows you might later have to break due to sexual dissatisfaction and finally, it isn't realistic because no law which is contrary to human nature is realistic.

Grey Carter:
I've known about the whole condom/water thing since Scouts but FMP did come to mind when I was writing it. Man that series was awesome.

Same Here, FullMetalPanic 4TW! (^_^)b
...
Although, I've always wondered ...wouldn't you Faint if you needed to pump a whole litre of blood into it O.o!?

Life that never began is life that never ended.
Get over it, Benedict.

Candidus:

Snip ->All that which you have said rings of Truth

I second that! The Red Cross for instance is a charitable humanitarian aid organization which despite it's namesake has absolutely no Religious affiliations whatsoever. So clearly good-will and morality is not the monopoly of Religion.

Also, have you read the linked interview?
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," --WTF!? Is that really the issue in question O.o?

Candidus:

Therumancer:
Snip

Sorry for the late response, I went away for a couple of days.

1: The Pope protected child molesters and his apologies are guiltless spin. He protected them knowing full well what they did, because he wanted to protect them, end of story- so no, he's not just a good old man of the cloth sticking to what he believes in; he's an evil old bastard who lies to the impoverished about condoms *increasing* the likelihood of AIDS and cleans up after child abusers.

2: What does it take to stick to religion other than a willingness to take as fact things which are not evidenced whatsoever? The basic tenets of religion with regard to morality are common sense to most of us, and the detailed scriptures regarding moral conduct, in the Bible and Quran at least, are barbarous nonsense!

We certainly don't owe morality to religion; while you say religion has done a lot of good, the behaviours you point at (which are welfare and charity basically) are goals common to those of no faith as well. Take religion out of the picture, and you'll have all the advancements and all the good we've achieved as a species still intact- only 'holy' war, religiously motivated hatred and religious ignorance would be removed.

3: Finally, on the issue of sex before marriage... A man who abstains into his twenties is more than twice as likely to suffer erectile dysfunction than his sexually active counterpart. So I guess the notion that abstainence "works" for people has its own demons. We experience sexual drive as a primary impulse, and prolonged suppression causes problems; so much should be obvious without a demonstration.

Abstaining isn't moral, it isn't natural, it doesn't make sense, and it isn't realistic either. It isn't moral because sex isn't immoral. It isn't natural because sexual experimentation is scheduled for between about 14 and 16 years old biologically. It doesn't make sense because you want to know whether a potential partner is compatible with you in the bedroom before you make any vows you might later have to break due to sexual dissatisfaction and finally, it isn't realistic because no law which is contrary to human nature is realistic.

First off, I just want to say, always been a fan of Escapist, and I thought this issue of Critical Miss was awesome. I am fairly religious (but I believe ultimately, religion is all about what is in your heart, not your actions) and I don't have any problem with premarital sex. I don't want to do that, but then that is also a cultural choice, and I'd rather save it for someone who I know I want to spend my life with (I'm 16). I've no problem with secularism or atheism (Hell, I'm an Islamic socialist, which promotes democracy, equal rights, and secularism, go figure). What I do have a problem with, though, is people who criticize religion by saying it is intolerant or whatever, and do the exact same thing. I recognize everyone has an opinion, and that is good, but what most fail to realize is that to many (or even, I dare say, MOST) theists, religion is not like any other philosophy or spiritual ideology. It is part of your culture, your being, in a way. It is very personal. So taking jabs at it, to some (not me though, I'll debate against it but not overreact) is like taking a jab at an ethnicity, or any other PERSONAL aspect. Don't even get me started on people like Dawkins. "Religion breeds hate and ignorance, so I'm going to do the exact same thing against it". So I'm just going to address your points here, in a proper manner :)

1. I might have agreed with this, but I'm not sure as to the legitimacy of your claims and I wouldn't put it so harshly. However, most Catholics don't like the current Pope either.

2. Religion is built on faith and spirituality. We'll never get solid evidence as to whether God exists or not, but I can assure you, there will always be people, even intellectuals, that do adhere to a certain religion, no matter how few. The basic tenets of religion were not always common sense. In fact, I'd argue that if there was a society that existed today where there were no such tenets at all, a sort of anarchical do whatever the hell you want society where people are taught to adhere to a different set of rules (i.e, incest is alright, murder is justifiable), they would adhere to that. Like it or not, society has been influenced by religion. At this point, Western society is secular, but even a few US politicians have maintained that their country was founded on the 10 commandments. Hell, even most historians, when determining whether something qualifies as a civilization or not, use the following anagram:

P.E.R.S.I.A: Politics, Economy, RELIGION, Society, Intellect, Arts. If a society had all of those things, they would be considered a proper civilization.

If religion did NOT exist, and its tenets were not enforced on society previously, do you think that people would readily believe that other such vices in society today would be wrong? And tbh, if you take out religion from the picture, the bad stuff would still remain. Countries that went to war by using religion as an excuse (even if there were obvious ulterior motives) would have still went to war. The Persians would have still invaded India, to gain more land and resources. The German princes still would have fought each other for dominance, just without the whole 'Protestant vs. Catholic' bit. Pope Urban would have still encouraged the West to take back Jerusalem, because he wanted to increase his own political influence.

Hell, when our resources get short, I'm certain that a country would go to war with another under the guise of disarming a country with WOMDs, even though they just wanted oil. Oh wait.

Ignorance would still remain. Do you think all atheists agree that homosexuals are normal people btw? (I do, for example, and most religious people I know do as well, so...) Take out religion, something will take its place. Voltaire was right in that "Barbarism lasts for centuries; it seems that it is our natural element". Humans will be bigots, ignorant bastards, and go to war whenever they want. That will never stop. Religion is just an excuse.

The Crusades? All political. Jerusalem was a fairly crucial point from a tactical and economic point of view, and the papacy wanted to extend its influence.

The current terrorist actions? Again, mostly political. They are afraid of Western society, because they know that once people realize how much more Islamic it is in comparison to most Muslim countries' societies, they'll lose everything they have. So they try and downplay the West, and attack it.

I won't say religion hasn't caused problems. But anything that was done in religion's name had ulterior motives, and if it didn't exist, probably would have happened anyway.

And btw, to your comments about how the detailed scriptures in the Quran and Bible are just barbarous knowledge, well, I guess "You have your beliefs and I have mine" (Lakum deenakum wa liya deen) is pretty barbarous.

3. I know quite a few atheists who abstain from sex as well. They don't want to just shag any girl they meet. They want to have it special. They want it to be a passionate moment (not necessarily till they are married, just till they have met a person they enjoy the company of). Are you implying that perhaps if you don't have sex you are not human, or that passion is not natural? Watch the 40 Year Old Virgin. Has very little to do with religion, but it definitely highlights just how much sex centric our society is becoming. Are you soon going to start saying that "Everyone belongs to everyone" ala Brave New World?

I have no problem with anyone. Or anyone's believes. I am not ignorant. I am not a bigot. I am not filled with hate. I question religion, and test it. And I would bet you that most that adhere to a religion ARE like me, they are just not nearly as loud as the bigots. Can't we just all get along? :)

And as to the Red Cross thing, yes, religion no longer has a monopoly on morality (it was a heavily influence, though). Plus, the inspiration for its creation was Henry Durant. He was a very religious man.

So I mean just to reiterate: I don't think religion controls morality now days. But historically, it had an impact on society, and I think it ultimately shaped how humans started to view what was right and wrong. Compare, for example, pre-Islamic Arabia and Islamic Arabia. Pre-Islamic Arabia was populated by nomads who buried their first daughter, constantly warred with each other and murdered, thieved, whatever you can imagine. In fact, the Romans viewed them as intensely barbaric. Islamic Arabia? Made massive scientific advances (hell,the original concept of evolution, at least in plants, was made by an Muslim scholar in the 1300s I believe. They knew the world was round by the 800s, adhered to the heliocentric model by what, the 11th century I think and not to mention the advances in medicine and math), gave women more rights, and was far more religiously tolerant then any other place at that time (The Ottomans for example, in comparison to 17th century Europe, were very religiously tolerant).

Heck, Petrach, father of humanism, was very Catholic, but viewed religion as something from the heart. All I'm saying is that people are sometimes too critical of religion, and downplay it. Tolerance works both ways.

Zhukov:
Grammer

Lolol, irony.

Jinxey:
Atheists are quite possibly the most butthurt religion out there (and yes, you're a religion).

This was a funny comic, no need to get your knickers in a twist about throwing jabs at the pope. If I'm Catholic and can chuckle at it why can't you? lol

image

Assuming stupid, rather than troll:
Yo.

Jinxey:

How is Atheism a religion exactly? I mean I know you're wrong but I just want to see you try and explain that statement.

How are they a religion? same way anarchy is a form of government if you really think about it.

My definition of religion falls in line with "philosophy + zealotry/evangelism." Philosophy meaning a way of belief, behavior, life, principal. Zealotry/Evangelism meaning "you're better with us", "we know better", "you're wrong", etc.

Atheism has a philosophy plus on hell of a superiority complex bent towards decrying religion; therefore, they have philosophy, zealotry and evangelism. Hell there is even a church of atheism! (a church dedicated to the belief in no god; but man/science).

Just look at the responses Atheists have made on this thread and, with a few word replacements, you've got yourself a "tried and true bible thumper". Examples follow -

This is why the pope really pisses me off.

to

This is why the homosexuals really pisses me off.

and

Except that the asswipe Benedict didn't say it "could be morally justifiable". Not until after the backlash he and his cult received for saying initially that "the use of condoms actually increases the incidents of HIV AIDS

to

Except that the asswipe Liberals didn't say it "could be morally justifiable". Not until after the backlash he and their cult received for saying initially that "the use of condoms actually increases the incidents of HIV AIDS

If it smells like a pig, looks like a pig, sounds like a pig....it's a pig.

And how are they butthurt?

How is Atheism a religion exactly? I mean I know you're wrong but I just want to see you try and explain that statement.

Underlined makes you butthurt :)

No, just no. A religion is a collective belief in a sentient higher power. All Atheism means is that you lack the belief in a god, that's it. If all you know about someone is that they're an Atheist all you can say for certain is that they dont believe in god and nothing more, you can't judge a single other aspect of their psyche accurately.

Here, read this: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm
It will cure your ignorance

Candidus:
Except that the asswipe Benedict didn't say it "could be morally justifiable". Not until after the backlash he and his cult received for saying initially that "the use of condoms actually increases the incidents of HIV AIDS".

One of the most quantifiably destructive lies of all time (because Catholicism is a big thing in many
countries with a chronic rate of AIDS and, obviously with so much fantasy worship going on, a poor track record for national standards of education). What a paragon.

Do you have any records for that or are you just a retard with a big fucking mouth without anything to back up your claims.

As a counterexample to your premise that "the lie" by the catholic church increases the AIDS epidemic I have to tell you that only 7.1% of the population of southafrica is catholic. And, OMFGWTFBUBBLES, here is an actual reference to back that up:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sf.html

Got it.

Looked into this, because I got interested in this.

First, the Church's methods of HIV prevention are abstinence in non-marriage, fidelity in marriage, and proper poverty education to teach about HIV. Basically, if you don't try it, you can't get it.

However, in 1988 condom controversy came up in the Church. By the 1968 Humanae Vitae, condoms were declared an unacceptable method to prevent unwanted pregnancy. So why did they come up again? In 1987, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops suggested condoms could be used to curb the spread of AIDS.

So, basically, there are people in the Catholic Church who approve and even encourage condom use. So, why is it that the Pope denys their usefulness?

Probably a shift in ideals. Age and region come immediately to mind: The pope is 83. Most bishops anare under that. MOST, not all. Then the region: The Pope comes from Germany; before that, Poland.
So, the US Bishops have a different upbringing than those from a war-torn Europe of the 40's.

Basically, you can't fault him because he comes from a different era. That's like saying caveman is stupid because he proud of fire.

The god from old bible would rather sleep with your daughter than waste a good sperm ;)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here