The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Pope Benedict's recent mass in Paris, oh gimme a break.

1235

Posts

  • TamTam Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    So basically, you've basically been paying no attention to the Catholic Church since... ever? Also, what the fuck does his statement have to do abut government?

    Really.
    vaticancity21hm1.jpg
    The hypocrisy isn't exactly new.

    To be fair, most of the money for stuff like that sprung alot of souls out of purgatory.

    doesn't anyone go to good old hell anymore?

    Tam on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Mike, you're aware that the Church makes money off of tickets to the Vatican Museum and such, right?

    I don't see how the money they make comes close to what museums would pay for those things, but as for that I must confess ignorance.
    But they will be making money until the end of time, whereas selling them would just be a one time thing with enormous negative backlash. Also, I imagine thousands of people pay a week, if not a day.

    See, this is actually the first argument in this thread that has actually raised a valid counterpoint. Thank you, sir.

    Yu want to sell off relics that, as both FencingSax and at least one other person like 2 pages ago already pointed out, make money being rented to museums and on ticket sales and such.

    Beyond that, these relics have value beyond their monetary worth, as I've already mentioned.

    These aren't complex arguments. But I guess you need your hand held.

    The value beyond their monetary worth is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and your bringing it up indicates you haven't read the thread, or maybe haven't comprehended what you've read.

    Fencing sax pointed it out just now, and it was only brought up one other time in this entire thread, and in the context of the argument that museums do not have access to the materials, not in a monetary context (or not as I read it).

    MikeMan on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    The value beyond their monetary worth is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and your bringing it up indicates you haven't read the thread, or maybe haven't comprehended what you've read.

    Not really.

    If the relics lead to more people converting to Catholicism (or remaining Catholics instead of turning to atheism or other faiths), then that in turn leads to more money, more manpower, and more influence for the Church.

    You might argue that the relics would not appreciably increase the number of people joining the Church, however that is not the same as arguing that they are irrelevant.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Mike, you're aware that the Church makes money off of tickets to the Vatican Museum and such, right?

    I don't see how the money they make comes close to what museums would pay for those things, but as for that I must confess ignorance.
    But they will be making money until the end of time, whereas selling them would just be a one time thing with enormous negative backlash. Also, I imagine thousands of people pay a week, if not a day.

    See, this is actually the first argument in this thread that has actually raised a valid counterpoint. Thank you, sir.

    Yu want to sell off relics that, as both FencingSax and at least one other person like 2 pages ago already pointed out, make money being rented to museums and on ticket sales and such.

    Beyond that, these relics have value beyond their monetary worth, as I've already mentioned.

    These aren't complex arguments. But I guess you need your hand held.

    The value beyond their monetary worth is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and your bringing it up indicates you haven't read the thread, or maybe haven't comprehended what you've read.

    Fencing sax pointed it out just now, and it was only brought up one other time in this entire thread, and in the context of the argument that museums do not have access to the materials, not in a monetary context (or not as I read it).

    People brought up that the were leased to museums on several occassions. You claimed it didn't matter if they were making money off of it, because they still retained ownership.

    Salvation122 on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    The value beyond their monetary worth is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and your bringing it up indicates you haven't read the thread, or maybe haven't comprehended what you've read.

    Not really.

    If the relics lead to more people converting to Catholicism (or remaining Catholics instead of turning to atheism or other faiths), then that in turn leads to more money, more manpower, and more influence for the Church.

    You might argue that the relics would not appreciably increase the number of people joining the Church, however that is not the same as arguing that they are irrelevant.

    Hmm, that's true. I guess I would argue that they don't appreciably increase the number, but I wouldn't be able to back that up because neither side has hard numbers here.

    MikeMan on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    People brought up that the were leased to museums on several occassions. You claimed it didn't matter if they were making money off of it, because they still retained ownership.

    That's because I still don't think the money they make off of it offsets the hypocrisy in keeping those items, nor do I buy the tremendous amount of money they would make selling them is less than the money they make charging to see them. But I am willing to concede that it MAY be possible because I just don't know.

    MikeMan on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    People brought up that the were leased to museums on several occassions. You claimed it didn't matter if they were making money off of it, because they still retained ownership.

    That's because I still don't think the money they make off of it offsets the hypocrisy in keeping those items, nor do I buy the tremendous amount of money they would make selling them is less than the money they make charging to see them. But I am willing to concede that it MAY be possible because I just don't know.

    What hypocrisy?

    shryke on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    People brought up that the were leased to museums on several occassions. You claimed it didn't matter if they were making money off of it, because they still retained ownership.

    That's because I still don't think the money they make off of it offsets the hypocrisy in keeping those items, nor do I buy the tremendous amount of money they would make selling them is less than the money they make charging to see them. But I am willing to concede that it MAY be possible because I just don't know.

    What hypocrisy?

    Well this is something I only touched on briefly and wasn't the main thrust of my original point. But there is certainly something to be said for the fact that Christ's teachings were to give away all of your wealth and live modestly. The Church has pretty much done the exact opposite of that. This is a more general point that is only tangentially related to the utilitarian argument I was making earlier.

    This is also a fairly big objection to Catholicism in general.

    MikeMan on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    By the way, the reason the Catholic Church forbids the sale of holy relics is because during the Middle Ages, before the Reformation, unscrupulous clergy would sell unverified, spurious, or outright fabricated relics to pilgrims and lower clergy. Prohibiting sale was meant to prevent that practice (although, in reality, it didn't, as laypeople typically did not know about that proscription.)

    Also, this is ethically a catch-22. If they sell the relics, they could be accused of greed as it is the Church alone that decides what is and is not a relic. By assigning relic status to an object, if could be argued that they are creating artificial value. However, if they don't sell the relics, they're still accused of greed for sitting on objects of value.

    I'm no fan of the Catholic Church, but I'm uncomfortable with the notion that holding charity as a primary value requires an individual or an institution to liquidate all of their objects of worth.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    People brought up that the were leased to museums on several occassions. You claimed it didn't matter if they were making money off of it, because they still retained ownership.

    That's because I still don't think the money they make off of it offsets the hypocrisy in keeping those items, nor do I buy the tremendous amount of money they would make selling them is less than the money they make charging to see them. But I am willing to concede that it MAY be possible because I just don't know.

    What hypocrisy?

    Well this is something I only touched on briefly and wasn't the main thrust of my original point. But there is certainly something to be said for the fact that Christ's teachings were to give away all of your wealth and live modestly. The Church has pretty much done the exact opposite of that. This is a more general point that is only tangentially related to the utilitarian argument I was making earlier.

    This is also a fairly big objection to Catholicism in general.

    There's a few counter-arguments:

    1) A large orginization is better equipped to help people around the world

    2) Alot of the Church's wealth is in relics, buildings and other historical assets. I mean, St. Peter's was already built. You've got the building, might as well use it. Plus, the ticket sales and such bring in long term money.

    shryke on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, the reason the Catholic Church forbids the sale of holy relics is because during the Middle Ages, before the Reformation, unscrupulous clergy would sell unverified, spurious, or outright fabricated relics to pilgrims and lower clergy. Prohibiting sale was meant to prevent that practice (although, in reality, it didn't, as laypeople typically did not know about that proscription.)

    Also, this is ethically a catch-22. If they sell the relics, they could be accused of greed as it is the Church alone that decides what is and is not a relic. By assigning relic status to an object, if could be argued that they are creating artificial value. However, if they don't sell the relics, they're still accused of greed for sitting on objects of value.

    I'm no fan of the Catholic Church, but I'm uncomfortable with the notion that holding charity as a primary value requires an individual or an institution to liquidate all of their objects of worth.
    Also, the Catholic leadership would get absolutely crucified. If they let some of the more major pieces go, so even if you don't take religious or artistic sentiment into account, you can at least take into account that the Cardinals, ArchBishops and Pope like their jobs.

    Fencingsax on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Also, the Catholic leadership would get absolutely crucified.

    Clearly they should sell off the crosses first, then.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    crucified.

    :lol:

    MikeMan on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I thought you folks might like that.

    Fencingsax on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    People brought up that the were leased to museums on several occassions. You claimed it didn't matter if they were making money off of it, because they still retained ownership.

    That's because I still don't think the money they make off of it offsets the hypocrisy in keeping those items, nor do I buy the tremendous amount of money they would make selling them is less than the money they make charging to see them. But I am willing to concede that it MAY be possible because I just don't know.

    What hypocrisy?

    Well this is something I only touched on briefly and wasn't the main thrust of my original point. But there is certainly something to be said for the fact that Christ's teachings were to give away all of your wealth and live modestly. The Church has pretty much done the exact opposite of that. This is a more general point that is only tangentially related to the utilitarian argument I was making earlier.

    This is also a fairly big objection to Catholicism in general.

    There's a few counter-arguments:

    1) A large orginization is better equipped to help people around the world

    2) Alot of the Church's wealth is in relics, buildings and other historical assets. I mean, St. Peter's was already built. You've got the building, might as well use it. Plus, the ticket sales and such bring in long term money.

    1) I don't see why a large organization is necessary. The church could always collaborate with large charities while remaining small and not excessive.

    2) A lot was also stolen during the Crusades. The ticket sales I've already touched on.

    MikeMan on
  • DagrabbitDagrabbit Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    People brought up that the were leased to museums on several occassions. You claimed it didn't matter if they were making money off of it, because they still retained ownership.

    That's because I still don't think the money they make off of it offsets the hypocrisy in keeping those items, nor do I buy the tremendous amount of money they would make selling them is less than the money they make charging to see them. But I am willing to concede that it MAY be possible because I just don't know.

    What hypocrisy?

    Well this is something I only touched on briefly and wasn't the main thrust of my original point. But there is certainly something to be said for the fact that Christ's teachings were to give away all of your wealth and live modestly. The Church has pretty much done the exact opposite of that. This is a more general point that is only tangentially related to the utilitarian argument I was making earlier.

    This is also a fairly big objection to Catholicism in general.

    There's a few counter-arguments:

    1) A large orginization is better equipped to help people around the world

    2) Alot of the Church's wealth is in relics, buildings and other historical assets. I mean, St. Peter's was already built. You've got the building, might as well use it. Plus, the ticket sales and such bring in long term money.

    1) I don't see why a large organization is necessary. The church could always collaborate with large charities while remaining small and not excessive.

    2) A lot was also stolen during the Crusades. The ticket sales I've already touched on.

    The Church does more than charity work. There is a lot of tight coordination across individual churches, globally, that having a large organization makes possible. Paperwork follows parishoners around, donations get moved through the system from rich areas to needy areas, and classes taught at the curches have standardized content across all parishes, and coordinating missionary work.

    And that's before we get into the weird shit they do like investigate claims of miracles.

    You can argue that they don't need as much as they have, or that they don't need to do any of those things, but keeping track and coordinating a billion people globally, even if less than half are active members, requires a certain high level of organization.

    Dagrabbit on
  • romanqwertyromanqwerty Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »


    The Catholic church's good humanitarian work is offset by the monumental evil they do in Africa in promoting abstinence-only education and discouraging condom use.

    1 million times yes. They reckon that HIV/AIDS would be affecting less than 10% of what it does now, if the had stopped its abstinence only bullshit when it came out.

    romanqwerty on
  • ErgandarErgandar Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Tam wrote: »
    The pope isn't impeding the teaching of evolution, he's warping the perception and essence of evolution to fit his Catholic dogma. It doesn't count for anything. We call this a manipulative tactic, the thing Moms are really good at.

    I didn't say the Pope was teaching evolution. I said it would at least be a step up to get his followers to stop impeding the teaching of it. Accepting evolution even partially is subversive to faith, pushing God further into the background and that is better, much better, than fundies wanting Creationism taught in school.

    "God started the Universe and the mechanisms described by science are his metaphorical invisible hands" is a whole bucket of better in practicality than "Gawd dun currated thar Universe and made me outta mud"
    This will be the last time I say this because it will inevitably become a derailment. The Pope is impeding the teaching of evolution by saying God has a hand in it. There is no variable for an omnipotent, unfalsifiable factor.

    Tell you what. Find me a Catholic (preferably Jesuit, but I'm cool with whatever) school that doesn't teach straight-up Darwinian evolution and I will concede the point. You won't find one, though.

    You absolutely cannot teach "straight-up Darwinian evolution" and involve souls created by God. Sorry.

    Ironically, my biology class in high school was taught by a Xaverian Brother.

    Ergandar on
    RachelSig.jpg
  • Triple BTriple B Bastard of the North MARegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Guys, guys...the important thing is that Jesus loves you.

    Triple B on
    Steam/XBL/PSN: FiveAgainst1
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Triple B wrote: »
    Guys, guys...the important thing is that Jesus loves you.

    Except when you tolerate teh filthy, filthy condoms.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Cantido wrote: »
    Triple B wrote: »
    Guys, guys...the important thing is that Jesus loves you.

    Except when you tolerate teh filthy, filthy condoms.

    Or curse the holy spirit.

    Couscous on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Fuck guys, could we stop with the fucking "lolol Catholics sux" and actually have discourse about the merits and drawbacks to my chosen religion? These assumptions you guys make about the average Catholic as some ignorant fool who despises rational thought besides "God did it" and is intolerant towards the nonreligious or other religions just exposes your hypocrisy more.
    Some of us do believe in Evolution, do believe in contraceptives etc. and some of us are absolutely fine with people choosing other religions. I am one of those people. Yes, the Pope is indeed a direct line to God but he's also (imo) human who makes his own mistakes. It's why God chose a human to express His teachings... he was asking us to discern true teachings from human fallibility.
    I could go on some more but it'll probably make me angry.
    Just stop with the Catholicism-bashing and respect us as people with different viewpoints about religion. It's how I treat my atheist friends. I mean, fuck this level of vitriol just deepens the divide.

    Rent on
  • KonovaKonova Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    These assumptions you guys make about the average Catholic as some ignorant fool who despises rational thought besides "God did it"...
    Rent wrote: »
    Yes, the Pope is indeed a direct line to God.
    Rent wrote: »
    It's why God chose a human to express His teachings... he was asking us to discern true teachings from human fallibility.

    Tee-hee.

    Konova on
    "It's not murder, it's surprise death!"
  • BasarBasar IstanbulRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Konova wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    These assumptions you guys make about the average Catholic as some ignorant fool who despises rational thought besides "God did it"...
    Rent wrote: »
    Yes, the Pope is indeed a direct line to God.
    Rent wrote: »
    It's why God chose a human to express His teachings... he was asking us to discern true teachings from human fallibility.

    Tee-hee.

    :lol:

    Basar on
    i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    Fuck guys, could we stop with the fucking "lolol Catholics sux" and actually have discourse about the merits and drawbacks to my chosen religion? These assumptions you guys make about the average Catholic as some ignorant fool who despises rational thought besides "God did it" and is intolerant towards the nonreligious or other religions just exposes your hypocrisy more.
    Some of us do believe in Evolution, do believe in contraceptives etc. and some of us are absolutely fine with people choosing other religions. I am one of those people. Yes, the Pope is indeed a direct line to God but he's also (imo) human who makes his own mistakes. It's why God chose a human to express His teachings... he was asking us to discern true teachings from human fallibility.
    I could go on some more but it'll probably make me angry.
    Just stop with the Catholicism-bashing and respect us as people with different viewpoints about religion. It's how I treat my atheist friends. I mean, fuck this level of vitriol just deepens the divide.

    ...

    http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-awful/popes-cadaver-synod.php

    ...Way to go, God?

    DarkCrawler on
  • RitchmeisterRitchmeister Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    They really need to make room in that list for Pope John Paul II though. I imagine his and the churches policy on contraception has resulted in far more deaths than the rest of the popes put together.

    Ritchmeister on
  • darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Yeah, how dare he say that lusting after power and money is a bad thing.
    lol?

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • The Big ShingThe Big Shing Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    They really need to make room in that list for Pope John Paul II though. I imagine his and the churches policy on contraception has resulted in far more deaths than the rest of the popes put together.

    How is this possibly the church's fault? Theres a fire, this fire is burning people alive. The church wants to put out the fire, teach people not to step into the fire, and teach them not to start the fire again. other's assume that these people are either too dumb or too fated to change their ways and want to give people fireblankets and call it a day. Despite the obvious consequence that by not telling people that their actions are wrong, they will think there actions are a-ok. If rape and promiscuity are the fuels of this fire, the church is the only one trying to stop them. It's certainly a harder task than throwing condoms at people, but its a task that, once succeeded, can sustain itself over multiple generations. rather than say.. going in and giving africa a booster shoot of condoms every so many years.

    The Big Shing on
    Yeoldemapmaker.com = my sweet flash site where you can design and print DnD maps for free directly from browser.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    They really need to make room in that list for Pope John Paul II though. I imagine his and the churches policy on contraception has resulted in far more deaths than the rest of the popes put together.

    How is this possibly the church's fault? Theres a fire, this fire is burning people alive. The church wants to put out the fire, teach people not to step into the fire, and teach them not to start the fire again. other's assume that these people are either too dumb or too fated to change their ways and want to give people fireblankets and call it a day. Despite the obvious consequence that by not telling people that their actions are wrong, they will think there actions are a-ok. If rape and promiscuity are the fuels of this fire, the church is the only one trying to stop them. It's certainly a harder task than throwing condoms at people, but its a task that, once succeeded, can sustain itself over multiple generations. rather than say.. going in and giving africa a booster shoot of condoms every so many years.
    Please stop helping.

    Fencingsax on
  • The Big ShingThe Big Shing Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    They really need to make room in that list for Pope John Paul II though. I imagine his and the churches policy on contraception has resulted in far more deaths than the rest of the popes put together.

    How is this possibly the church's fault? Theres a fire, this fire is burning people alive. The church wants to put out the fire, teach people not to step into the fire, and teach them not to start the fire again. other's assume that these people are either too dumb or too fated to change their ways and want to give people fireblankets and call it a day. Despite the obvious consequence that by not telling people that their actions are wrong, they will think there actions are a-ok. If rape and promiscuity are the fuels of this fire, the church is the only one trying to stop them. It's certainly a harder task than throwing condoms at people, but its a task that, once succeeded, can sustain itself over multiple generations. rather than say.. going in and giving africa a booster shoot of condoms every so many years.
    Please stop helping.


    no u


    edit: speaking of points to make. about the relics issue. should all organizations who in one way or another claim to help people sell their valuable peices of art? For instance should the U.S. govt sell the lincoln memorial, the statue of liberty, or liberty bell or any other such thing to help victims of hurrican Ike? I would just like to check the universality of your position...

    The Big Shing on
    Yeoldemapmaker.com = my sweet flash site where you can design and print DnD maps for free directly from browser.
  • RitchmeisterRitchmeister Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    They really need to make room in that list for Pope John Paul II though. I imagine his and the churches policy on contraception has resulted in far more deaths than the rest of the popes put together.

    How is this possibly the church's fault? Theres a fire, this fire is burning people alive. The church wants to put out the fire, teach people not to step into the fire, and teach them not to start the fire again. other's assume that these people are either too dumb or too fated to change their ways and want to give people fireblankets and call it a day. Despite the obvious consequence that by not telling people that their actions are wrong, they will think there actions are a-ok. If rape and promiscuity are the fuels of this fire, the church is the only one trying to stop them. It's certainly a harder task than throwing condoms at people, but its a task that, once succeeded, can sustain itself over multiple generations. rather than say.. going in and giving africa a booster shoot of condoms every so many years.


    But were it not for your church these people could have been using condoms the past however many years.

    By your analogy the catholic church is saying to people "you cannot throw water on the fire, despite the fact it will help".

    Ritchmeister on
  • The Big ShingThe Big Shing Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    They really need to make room in that list for Pope John Paul II though. I imagine his and the churches policy on contraception has resulted in far more deaths than the rest of the popes put together.

    How is this possibly the church's fault? Theres a fire, this fire is burning people alive. The church wants to put out the fire, teach people not to step into the fire, and teach them not to start the fire again. other's assume that these people are either too dumb or too fated to change their ways and want to give people fireblankets and call it a day. Despite the obvious consequence that by not telling people that their actions are wrong, they will think there actions are a-ok. If rape and promiscuity are the fuels of this fire, the church is the only one trying to stop them. It's certainly a harder task than throwing condoms at people, but its a task that, once succeeded, can sustain itself over multiple generations. rather than say.. going in and giving africa a booster shoot of condoms every so many years.


    But were it not for your church these people could have been using condoms the past however many years.

    By your analogy the catholic church is saying to people "you cannot throw water on the fire, despite the fact it will help".

    I see what your saying. But I dont think condoms really put out any fire at all. They simply hide the root of the problem, like sweeping dirt under the rug. The problem is promiscuity. A behavioral change has to take place or there these people will be slaves to the condom, and will truely be slaves to themselves just like the rest of the world assumes they already are when they say "they will just do it anyway". The church doesn't believe this, and is trying to teach these people better ways of behaving.

    The Big Shing on
    Yeoldemapmaker.com = my sweet flash site where you can design and print DnD maps for free directly from browser.
  • RitchmeisterRitchmeister Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Well then that comes to another failing of your church.

    What's wrong with promiscuity? If they were using condoms they could be as promiscuous as they like with no ill effects. The only reason promiscuity is bad in this instance is because they can't use condoms.

    Ritchmeister on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    So basically, you've basically been paying no attention to the Catholic Church since... ever? Also, what the fuck does his statement have to do abut government?

    Really.
    vaticancity21hm1.jpg
    The hypocrisy isn't exactly new.

    I see that pic and my immediate reaction is "you could totally get by the guards in that room with those poles."

    MrMonroe on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    They really need to make room in that list for Pope John Paul II though. I imagine his and the churches policy on contraception has resulted in far more deaths than the rest of the popes put together.

    How is this possibly the church's fault? Theres a fire, this fire is burning people alive. The church wants to put out the fire, teach people not to step into the fire, and teach them not to start the fire again. other's assume that these people are either too dumb or too fated to change their ways and want to give people fireblankets and call it a day. Despite the obvious consequence that by not telling people that their actions are wrong, they will think there actions are a-ok. If rape and promiscuity are the fuels of this fire, the church is the only one trying to stop them. It's certainly a harder task than throwing condoms at people, but its a task that, once succeeded, can sustain itself over multiple generations. rather than say.. going in and giving africa a booster shoot of condoms every so many years.

    Your analogy fails spectacularly on a number of points. The major one is that jumping into a fire is not one of the most basic urges of life (nor necessary to raise a family, nor is there a population of people who judge their own worth by how many fires they've jumped into).

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Can we ignore the anticondom guy, and have a fruitful and constructive (well, more fruitful and constructive than we would have otherwise) conversation?

    Fencingsax on
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Isn't the Catholic Church mostly faintly embarrassed about the majority of its "relics" ..? They don't tend to display saints' bones any more.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Isn't the Catholic Church mostly faintly embarrassed about the majority of its "relics" ..? They don't tend to display saints' bones any more.

    We're not really talking about bones, for the most part, but religious art. The Church is also kind of cagey about selling relics (as you interpreted it) because the last time they did so the market was flooded with frauds.

    Salvation122 on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    Fuck guys, could we stop with the fucking "lolol Catholics sux" and actually have discourse about the merits and drawbacks to my chosen religion? These assumptions you guys make about the average Catholic as some ignorant fool who despises rational thought besides "God did it" and is intolerant towards the nonreligious or other religions just exposes your hypocrisy more.
    Some of us do believe in Evolution, do believe in contraceptives etc. and some of us are absolutely fine with people choosing other religions. I am one of those people. Yes, the Pope is indeed a direct line to God but he's also (imo) human who makes his own mistakes. It's why God chose a human to express His teachings... he was asking us to discern true teachings from human fallibility.
    I could go on some more but it'll probably make me angry.
    Just stop with the Catholicism-bashing and respect us as people with different viewpoints about religion. It's how I treat my atheist friends. I mean, fuck this level of vitriol just deepens the divide.

    ...

    http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-awful/popes-cadaver-synod.php

    ...Way to go, God?

    Hey, the Pope just likes to keep history entertaining alright? God doesn't want people falling asleep in history class!

    shryke on
  • TrueHereticXTrueHereticX We are the future Charles, not them. They no longer matter. Sydney, AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Fuck the Pope for saying lusting after money and power is a pagan trait

    We lust after Women too

    TrueHereticX on
Sign In or Register to comment.