Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

[spudbynight]

You didn't reply to any of the points (as usual).

I have struggled to actually identify any cogent points to reply to.

 

[elmarko]

Well I think that is for other people to say whether you judgemental attitude offended them. Are you quite sure you didn't target individuals in this thread - you may want to think about answering that one.

You will note of course I also immediately challenged the use of the word "disorder". And I ascribe that religions has caused both bad and good things. I further asked the unanswered question pages back I asked you - what good things have you done to take the moral high ground? Circumcision is cultural not religious in origin - before you want to start down that path read the threads on here about it so I don't have to go over the same ground.

In origin yes, but it's continued based on religious customs now - almost 30% of the world is currently.

What difference does it make if it existed culturally before?, these are things being actively promoted by two of the larger religious groups.

Just because it existed before, that does nothing to validate the action continuing - that's a sunk cost fallacy.

More-so when religions do claim to have the moral high ground (I never made that claim) how can they justify the often involuntary mutilation of babies/children - which is often even more barbaric in the case of young girls.

Even when presented with actual evidence of how religion ALREADY oversteps the bounds in which it causes problems you continue to act out the role of the apologist.

 

[elmarko]

Well I have felt pretty offended by some of the things you have said. You certainly have been confrontational. Even the other atheists think you have been offensive. It isn't just us believers.

That would be because people can't distinguish the difference between somebody attacking a point of view & a person.

I believe I am the only person who has used the term disorder. I believe that homosexual practices are wrong. That is an opinion - not an insult.

It is indeed an opinion, just like the racists who's opinion is that black people are inferior - or the sexist who thinks "women are for making babies" - just labelling your homophobia as opinion does not make it any better.

On these forums I think that any homosexuals would be more concerned about the use of words like poof and queer in a derogatory manner than a Catholic saying he didn't like what they got up to in the privacy of their own home.

Actually, I think you will find having a large portion of the population believing them to be EVIL/SINNERS is a little worse than a little name calling.

Sorry, do you think there is some sort of pro-religious bias on here? Rly?

No, but I'd put money on that admin - as he seems to have no problem with your homophobia.

Well, you should be respectful of the beliefs of others. That is just good manners at the very least.

I disagree, I don't believing in being respectful of a belief system which causes actual harm.

Have you actually studied any religion at all?

I spend more time studying the impact, how it effects the members & the attitudes in society.

You for example, obviously a reasonably intelligent person holding clearly homophobic attitudes because you've been indoctrinated to believe it's evil.

In the US as an example - most circumcisions are performed for non religious reasons. Is that some sort of negative fact about those without religion then?

That's not a defence of circumcision, America also executes it's own citizens for murder - should that mean it's OK for religious people to murder? - What a foolish argument.

Many non-religious people I agree commit terrible actions I agree - but the difference is these acts are being actively encouraged & endorsed by these religious groups who claim moral high ground.

Also.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the middle east is not currently having a "few minor troubles with religion?".

 

[elmarko]

I have struggled to actually identify any cogent points to reply to.

Only a disturbed mind would think that the support in the bible of, collective punishment, Infanticide & genocide (great flood) would not need addressing - says it all really.

 

[spudbynight]

That would be because people can't distinguish the difference between somebody attacking a point of view & a person.

Hmm.....

Only a disturbed mind would think that the support in the bible of, collective punishment, Infanticide & genocide (great flood) would not need addressing - says it all really.

 

[elmarko]

Hmm.....

So do you not have a problem with collective punishment, Infanticide & genocide?.

As I stated only a disturbed mind would not have a problem with it.

 

[spudbynight]

It is indeed an opinion, just like the racists who's opinion is that black people are inferior - or the sexist who thinks "women are for making babies" - just labelling your homophobia as opinion does not make it any better.

I don't think gay people are inferior. I am not a homophobe - I believe that point has been addressed in great detail.

Actually, I think you will find having a large portion of the population believing them to be EVIL/SINNERS is a little worse than a little name calling.

I think we are all sinners - I know I certainly am. I love sinners.

Do you know what - I LOVE YOU! I mean it, it isn't just some throwaway comment. As a Catholic I am commanded to love all and to see Jesus in all. I don't have to like you but I do need to love you.

No, but I'd put money on that admin - as he seems to have no problem with your homophobia.

I have clarified my views on a number of occasions and shown just how I am not a homophobe. Which admin on here are you having a pop at?

I disagree, I don't believing in being respectful of a belief system which causes actual harm.

What harm - can we have some specifics please. (In your own words ideally)

I spend more time studying the impact, how it effects the members & the attitudes in society.

You for example, obviously a reasonably intelligent person holding clearly homophobic attitudes because you've been indoctrinated to believe it's evil.

Yawn - (but er, thanks, for the compliment, I guess...)

That's not a defence of circumcision, America also executes it's own citizens for murder - should that mean it's OK for religious people to murder? - What a foolish argument.

Many non-religious people I agree commit terrible actions I agree - but the difference is these acts are being actively encouraged & endorsed by these religious groups who claim moral high ground.

I don't agree with circumcision. But if I was in your shoes I really wouldn't be using it as some sort of justification against the existence of religion.

Also.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the middle east is not currently having a "few minor troubles with religion?".

I believe the troubles in the middle east are primarily tribal or over land.

 

[spudbynight]

Only a disturbed mind would think that the support in the bible of, collective punishment, Infanticide & genocide (great flood) would not need addressing - says it all really.

Well, are they not just a drop in the Ocean to all the people who have died since the dawn of man to plague, famine, pestilence and natural disaster?

Shouldn't you really be asking me if I support all the deaths that we should really be laying at God's door?

 

[Johno please?]

I like this elmarko1234 guy.

Just thought id show my support

 

[elmarko]

I don't think gay people are inferior. I am not a homophobe - I believe that point has been addressed in great detail

You have have to specifically think they are inferior to be a homophobic (hetrosexist is the correct term iirc) as it's not like you are afraid of them (are you?).

I think we are all sinners - I know I certainly am. I love sinners.

Do you know what - I LOVE YOU! I mean it, it isn't just some throwaway comment. As a Catholic I am commanded to love all and to see Jesus in all. I don't have to like you but I do need to love you.

I didn't say just sinners, I also said Evil - which many of the more fundamentalist religious people do believe.

Also, I don't hate religious people or anybody - I've done extensive charity work & promote equality & equal rights in all aspects of life - I'd also fight to defend your right to believe in whatever you want (assuming the choice was made freely at the age of reason) - but indoctrination is not OK.

I have clarified my views on a number of occasions and shown just how I am not a homophobe. Which admin on here are you having a pop at?

You have clarified your view, but we clearly differ on what we each believe fits under the definition of homophobe.

What harm - can we have some specifics please. (In your own words ideally)

Stoning of women, child genital mutilation, refusal to accept medicine causing the death of children, the indoctrination, covering up of child rape, sectarian violence over religious differences, promotion of the false duality of "good & evil", the segregation caused by religious differences, interference of education, preaching on doorsteps/streets, tax free status exploitation (more so in the USA), sexism for appointment of religious positions to name a few.

Yawn - (but er, thanks, for the compliment, I guess...)

.

I don't agree with circumcision. But if I was in your shoes I really wouldn't be using it as some sort of justification against the existence of religion.

I'm not trying to use it as an argument against the existence of religion, I'm using it as an example which people should consider the ramifications of the act - something widly promoted in religious cirlces which objectivly is child genital mutilation.

If I branded a 3 year old child with the transformers symbol because I believed in Optimums Prime would that be OK? (in many cases it is a painful process)

I believe the troubles in the middle east are primarily tribal or over land.

I agree that some of the quarrels are based over that, but the problem regarding multiple faiths all claiming the same bit of land (which negotiation has no place) is exasperated by religion to a great degree.

Also, being able to indoctrinate youths into believing that blowing themselves up for GROUP A will get them infinite riches & women in heaven does have it's part to play for recruitment.

 

[elmarko]

I like this elmarko1234 guy.

Just thought id show my support

Lol thanks - lonely here atm lol.....

 

[RDM]

You are simply looking at things the wrong way. Priests act "in persona Christi" as I mentioned previously. They take the place of Christ, Christ was a man, hence women can't take the place of Christ. If you don't agree with that then I can't stop you going off and founding your own Church. It really does come down to this fact though.

That is a pretty weak argument. The priest isn't the son of God either yet it doesn't stop him standing in for Christ. Why does Christ being a man mean a women cannot stand in for him? That is pretty much what I am trying to get to, but you are unable to supply any real answer.

The Catholic position on this will not move and is very clear. If Catholic adoption agencies are forced to open up to homosexual couples they close. This leaves more children in care than would be the case if Catholic teaching was followed. Do you support that approach?

I personally would prefer the approach that saw the least number of people left in care. That aside can you not therefore see why this stance of the catholic church is discriminatory towards homosexuals? (Especially as they have not said they will not allow adoption to unmarried couples, it seems that some sins are more serious than others).

Again here you are misunderstanding what is being said. For Catholic's marriage is not a legal contract. It is a spiritual contract - hence why the Catholic Church does not recognise marriages outside the church.

So they took an existing concept and coopted into their religion? Which is what I said wasnt it?

Can you give me an example of something that was said ex cathedra that you take issue with?

Can you give me a list of things that have been said ex cathedra? As you can imagine finding a definitive list is difficult considering how late the dogma of papal infallibility became dogma. However as a non Catholic I am sure there are quite a few I would have serious issue with. Take women priests for example..

They are allegorical and not part of Catholic dogma.

But are part of the Catechism. When I asked for a list of things a catholic has to believe Adam and Eve were on it.

You are confusing catechism with dogma.

Probably because when I asked for a list of dogma you gave me the catechism...

I am not being judgemental in any shape or form. I am simply quoting the official position of the Church. Every single Catholic has to accept all Church Dogma. These are the foundations of the faith. Catholics don't have to like them or agree with them they just have to accept them. Let me give you an example of this :

1 : "I wish women were able to become priests" - not heresy
2 : "I don't accept that women can't become priests" - heresy

Any Catholics who are fully educated in the faith and hold position 2 are heretics. Now they may not be formal heretics....

I am going to disagree with your reasoning due to the fact that quite a few of these catholics are quite vocal about it and have not been declared heretic or excommunicated by the Church. This would suggest that the church does not hold the strict views on it that you do.

Again you are confusing the dogma of the church with it's catechism. The catechism is written by man the dogma come from God though divine revelation.

But as it is all written by man, how do we tell apart the bits that are divinely relvealed and the bits that are just man? If you use the bible as the source then there should be no barrier to the ordination of women as it is not prohibited in scripture but interpreted from scripture.

Regardless of all that as I do not believe in any God never mind the Catholic god I would stand by the fact that the Catholic Church is sexist in it's structure due to not allowing women in the highest positions of authority. That very fact, regardless of how you arrive at it, makes the Church sexist.

I believe I am the only person who has used the term disorder. I believe that homosexual practices are wrong. That is an opinion - not an insult.

On these forums I think that any homosexuals would be more concerned about the use of words like poof and queer in a derogatory manner than a Catholic saying he didn't like what they got up to in the privacy of their own home.

Sorry, do you think there is some sort of pro-religious bias on here? Rly?

To be fair, it does seem that religion is being given additional protection that other things are not. You can be rude about sexuality, political views and many other things with little chance of censure but not Religion? As an atheist/agnostic/whatever I find that interesting.

Well, you should be respectful of the beliefs of others. That is just good manners at the very least.

I am going to disagree with my usual distinction here. I believe you should be respectful of the right of others to hold their beliefs but not necessarily of the beliefs themselves. For example I do not respect your beliefs when it comes to homosexuality, though I respect your right to hold them. I am sure you would not respect my beliefs on abortion though you (possibly?) respect my right to hold them.

 

[spudbynight]

You have have to specifically think they are inferior to be a homophobic (hetrosexist is the correct term iirc) as it's not like you are afraid of them (are you?).

I don't think "they" are inferior. I think we are all equal.That is also the official Church position.

I didn't say just sinners, I also said Evil - which many of the more fundamentalist religious people do believe.

Look I can't speak for everyone in the entire world. But neither I nor the Catholic Church think gay people are evil.

Also, I don't hate religious people or anybody

Quack!

- I've done extensive charity work & promote equality & equal rights in all aspects of life - I'd also fight to defend your right to believe in whatever you want (assuming the choice was made freely at the age of reason) - but indoctrination is not OK.

Whoa.....that seems like a very different view you what you have been espousing. Have you been hacked?

You have clarified your view, but we clearly differ on what we each believe fits under the definition of homophobe.

I prefer to use the correct definition.

Stoning of women, child genital mutilation, refusal to accept medicine causing the death of children, the indoctrination, covering up of child rape, sectarian violence over religious differences, promotion of the false duality of "good & evil", the segregation caused by religious differences, interference of education, preaching on doorsteps/streets, tax free status exploitation (more so in the USA), sexism for appointment of religious positions to name a few.

Give me specifics for each of those accusations and I am happy to discuss them. You have already lied on this topic earlier when you accused Pope Benedict XVI of covering up child sexual abuse so I would like to see something concrete from you first.
.

I'm not trying to use it as an argument against the existence of religion, I'm using it as an example which people should consider the ramifications of the act - something widly promoted in religious cirlces which objectivly is child genital mutilation.

It is also widely promoted outside of religious circles. As has been pointed out this is something which is primarily a cultural thing not a religious thing. The very fact that there isn't consistency within religions on this shows it isn't religious. If is was then ALL Muslims would be circumcised rather than some. All Christians would be circumcised rather than some. The only place there is consensus is within Judaism but even there the Jews consider themselves a race rather than just a religion.

If I branded a 3 year old child with the transformers symbol because I believed in Optimums Prime would that be OK? (in many cases it is a painful process)

Are you suggesting that children are circumcised because their parents believe in God? I don't believe this to be the case - can you back that statement up?

I agree that some of the quarrels are based over that, but the problem regarding multiple faiths all claiming the same bit of land (which negotiation has no place) is exasperated by religion to a great degree.

So you have climbed down somewhat - some progress. Out of curiosity if all the people in Palestine converted to Judaism tonight do you think the problems would suddenly stop?

Also, being able to indoctrinate youths into believing that blowing themselves up for GROUP A will get them infinite riches & women in heaven does have it's part to play for recruitment.

Having read the Koran I can say that isn't the message in there. Unfortunately in this world we do have some bad people and we have some very impressionable people. Unfortunately when you put them together bad things can happen.

 

[Castiel]

It is pointless arguing with elmarko, he is as indoctrinated in his opinion as any religious fanatic.....no one will alter or influence his opinion so why bother.

 

[spudbynight]

First of all these complex multi-threaded responses between us are taking a lot of time to write - and I am supposed to be working. Can we leave this as one more response each? (This will be my last) Then we can shake and carry on?

That is a pretty weak argument. The priest isn't the son of God either yet it doesn't stop him standing in for Christ. Why does Christ being a man mean a women cannot stand in for him? That is pretty much what I am trying to get to, but you are unable to supply any real answer.

God chose to send his son not his daughter. He selected 12 male apostles. These are basic tenets of the faith. I am not trying to formulate an argument - just telling you this is what Catholics believe and why women can't be priests. It is just one small part of what we are taught.

I personally would prefer the approach that saw the least number of people left in care. That aside can you not therefore see why this stance of the catholic church is discriminatory towards homosexuals? (Especially as they have not said they will not allow adoption to unmarried couples, it seems that some sins are more serious than others).

I think we need to agree to disagree on this. The church doesn't discriminate against people it discriminates against sin and yes some are more serious than others.

So they took an existing concept and coopted into their religion? Which is what I said wasnt it?

No, the Catholic teaching is that God created the sacrament of Marriage - specifically the marriage at Cana as the first sacramental marriage.

Can you give me a list of things that have been said ex cathedra? As you can imagine finding a definitive list is difficult considering how late the dogma of papal infallibility became dogma. However as a non Catholic I am sure there are quite a few I would have serious issue with. Take women priests for example..

If you want to criticise the Church then you do need to do your own research.

But are part of the Catechism. When I asked for a list of things a catholic has to believe Adam and Eve were on it.

Probably because when I asked for a list of dogma you gave me the catechism...

I haven't given you any link to the catechism of the Catholic Church. I have you this link which lists the Dogma of the Catholic Church. Herehttp://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm is a link to the catechism.

Dogma are the biggies. They have to be believed and there isn't scope for picking and choosing. There is nothing there that states that the Adam & Eve story is literal.

I am going to disagree with your reasoning due to the fact that quite a few of these catholics are quite vocal about it and have not been declared heretic or excommunicated by the Church. This would suggest that the church does not hold the strict views on it that you do.

The difference is between material sin and formal sin. Essentially if you have been brought up and told X heresy you essentially "know no better" and the sin is only material. However should a bishop ordain a woman he would be excommunicated quicker than you could say boo. You may disagree with my reasoning but I am simply stating the position under canon law.

But as it is all written by man, how do we tell apart the bits that are divinely relvealed and the bits that are just man? If you use the bible as the source then there should be no barrier to the ordination of women as it is not prohibited in scripture but interpreted from scripture.

Good question and one I am happy to answer. The Catholic Church takes its teaching not just from the Bible but from Tradition as well . There are numerous references in scripture to support the use of Tradition as opposed to sola scriptura. In fact I don't believe there is anything in the Bible to reject Tradition in favour of using the Bible alone.

There is a difference in the Church between Tradition and tradition. Tradition is taught to us by divine revelation and includes things like infant baptism. There is nothing in the Bible about infant baptism. Catholic tradition includes things like not eating meat on Fridays. Tradition is set in stone and can't be changed - tradition can.

In essence this is where the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith comes in. This body is a congregation of the Roman Curia. Essentially for the last 500 years they have been tasked with overseeing Catholic Doctrine. These guys are essentially the Mythbusters of the Catholic Church. They will actually do a far finer job than you or I to pick holes in any claims of divine revelation.

Regardless of all that as I do not believe in any God never mind the Catholic god I would stand by the fact that the Catholic Church is sexist in it's structure due to not allowing women in the highest positions of authority. That very fact, regardless of how you arrive at it, makes the Church sexist.

It isn't a fact, it is an opinion and one we have to differ on.

To be fair, it does seem that religion is being given additional protection that other things are not. You can be rude about sexuality, political views and many other things with little chance of censure but not Religion? As an atheist/agnostic/whatever I find that interesting.

I think that religion is given far less protection today than it needs. You only have to look at all the cases which are used to roughshod over the right to hold religious beliefs. I think as well you will find yourself up in court over anything deemed to be "anti-gay" far quicker than anything deemed to be "anti-faith"

I am going to disagree with my usual distinction here. I believe you should be respectful of the right of others to hold their beliefs but not necessarily of the beliefs themselves. For example I do not respect your beliefs when it comes to homosexuality, though I respect your right to hold them. I am sure you would not respect my beliefs on abortion though you (possibly?) respect my right to hold them.

I would expect nothing less than rational disagreement from you.

I think we can find some level of consensus on this. Everyone has the right to their beliefs - I think we are agreed on that. But surely any beliefs that people hold that you disagree with should still be discussed in a respectful manner? I think we have pretty much been in solid disagreement throughout this thread but always in a respectful manner. That is a stern contrast with the approach that elmarko1234 has taken.

I don't know your beliefs on abortion. If you were supportive of it though I would challenge those beliefs with every fibre of my being. I wouldn't abuse you for holding them.

 

[spudbynight]

OK - at this stage - 515 posts on the thread and 72 from me I am pretty much spent.

I am going to gracefully retire from the thread with respect to most of you.

I probably won't post on it again unless elmarko1234 comes out with something really offensive.

 

[Glaucus]

It is pointless arguing with elmarko, he is as indoctrinated in his opinion as any religious fanatic.....no one will alter or influence his opinion so why bother.

Well said and he can't even see, that he's become that, which he so despises.

 

[Castiel]

Well said and he can't even see, that he's become that, which he so despises.

As Xordium said earlier, he has been staring into the abyss far too long.......

 

[RomanNose]

Posted on my college website, when will the next space shuttle leave?
Also the second post starts off with a contradiction of the rest of the post by saying that there is proof of evolution but the person in question decides to ignore it.

 

[Xordium]

Oh well made for some interesting justifications anyway chaps. My favourite though being the resorting to the very arguments that the creationists use to further their cause to substantiate his existing as a "fact".

On a more serious note though I do pity someone who carries that much hate and anger around. One does have to wonder how they ever got into such a situation where clearly the only person they are hurting is themselves. Methinks there is a story there. Anyways got to use a quote from my favourite syphilitic philosopher so must not grumble.