The Rampant, Irresponsible Religion Thread

[Towelmaster]

Hi Jan,

Are you sure you want to do this?
Allright, here it goes...

<sarcasm>

First of all : May I request sources from Mr. Dweller? Because I would really like to know why I was taught completely different facts in school when I was younger. Like one Mister Alger Hiss giving away Poland to the Russians? My GOD! I always assumed that Stalin just took it and kept it.
Must be all those misinformed historians who underestimate the mortal fear Mr. Stalin felt for the americans. Oh well, that's what you get when you live in old misinformed Europe, we just don't have any sense of history.
Of course I have no doubt that Zhd is much better informed without any bias of whatever kind... So if I could just see one or two reliable sources or so I can completely bow to the superior knowledge of Zhd. Perhaps the complete works of Joseph McCarthy would be a start?
</sarcasm>

On-topic : the pope... Well... As a fiercely convinced humanist I have no need for a pope. Nor for an imam or whatever btw. This pope limited the damage the catholic church did but still; banning of contraceptives, the banning even of condoms in the most dense AIDS-infected area in the world, etcetera. For YEARS the governments were trying to get people to be more careful. Up comes the pope and in 1 visit destroys years of hard work and good efforts. The more little children the more catholic souls later on. Doesn't matter that they die from hunger, starvation and war, because Heaven will surely take in these children.

I apologize for getting slightly nauseaus.
Sorry if I - as a humanist - grin sarcastically while I write this.

The only thing he did do was that he helped stem communism in Poland. But this 'good work' was almost neutralized by his ridiculous attitude towards El Salvador. Communism as displayed in Russia was wrong so communism everywhere in the world in any form is by definition wrong. And it didn't matter that the(right-wing dictatorial) regime that was overthrown showed a total lack of respect for any deviating opinion. It didn't matter the government's deathsquads were making overtime. This is the kind of dogmatic thinking that I have always expected from the Catholic Church. Or in this pope's words : "Jezus was not a revolutionary". I expected no less from the pope...

So let me make a short list :

For him : Enabling Poland to become a free state. Seeking reconcilliation with the other main religions(Judaism, Islam). The courage to admit the catholic church was wrong in WWII when they did almost nothing for the jewish communities in Europe. These by the way are all matters of the past and/or matters of pure religion.

Against him : No contraceptives, No abortion even if the life of the mother is threatened(what do you mean 'respect for life'?), The absolute denial of the new government in El Salvador(hoping that the catholics in El Salvador would rise up against the "communist regime"). These by the way are all matters for the future...

I will keep the list short. This was the most conservative pope in at least 60 years and he showed it. All deviations from the official doctrines of Rome had to be abandoned. Hardly any room for discussions about the catholic faith itself. Andsoon, andsoon.

I'm not applauding this man's death or anything, as far as I'm concerned nobody has to die. But excuse me for not applauding his life either.

[Dr Maturin]

I don't think that any Pope, could possibly say that is right to do something that the Bible said is wrong. And I mean the original Bible, the one catholics and orthodoxes are using, not the protestant one. We are orthodox and yes, our priests have the right to marry and have children, in fact my grandfather was a priest. But this doesn't mean that catholic church is doing a wrong thing because it forbidds catholic priests mariage. The man who chose to become a priest, made his choice. He chose to become a priest, although he knows very well that he will not be able to get married.

And people in Shr's Africa do not have to be Catholic and shun the use of condoms, either. They have a choice. This argument doesn't make sense to me because if the Church says that using condoms is a sin, so is pre-marital sex. If the people doing it know it is a sin, then they may as well use a condom, too.

[Ariake]

I'm sorry to say the John Paul II's many achievements have been eclipsed by his frankly evil stance on contraception which has done nothing but escalate the African HIV pandemic decimating the continent. Merely saying, it is ok to wear a condom would have saved millions of lives. His stance ,which has no basis in biblical teaching, will send ripples of suffering through history equal if not worse than the effects of Stalinism.

I wholeheartedly disagree that "his stance on contraception is evil." The true evil is the blatant murder of unborn children.

I'm non-denominational Christian (or multi-denominational depending on how you look at it) but can look at it from the church's point of view: Sex is only allowed between a man and a woman who have been married under God. Thus, why would you need contraception? A major reason that the the AIDS (and STD) epidemic is spreading like it is, is because people are generally idiots when it comes to sex. Sex is a gift best given to your mate, someone who will actually be able to receive and understand the love that is behind it. Its truly best then anyway. I messed up when I was younger. I saw how it (pre-marital sex) destroyed my life, my then-fiancee's life, and that of our son. Fortunately, I was able to dig my way back out after essentially serving a 1 1/2 year penance (I call it my "Year of Hell") and my entire world view changed. I became a Christian again, and my faith has grown to the point where I am hearing a calling to teach.

To me, part of the confusion always appears to stem from not understanding what the Church is teaching: Abstinence. Most people would rather hear "Have sex! Don't use a condom!" But the church is actually teaching "Don't have sex! Period! Till you're married! It's God's law!"

Also, many also fail to realize that God speaks through the Pope here on Earth. So, it is not always "this man" that is speaking to us, it is God that is speaking to us. And if you are saying that Pope John Paul II is evil, then you are saying that God is evil.

Also denying Catholic priests the option to marry and bring up families (actually contrary to biblical teaching) has wrecked lives too. Forcing loving couples to go against their church, women to be shunned for having preist's babies out of wedlock and turned the church into a haven for child molesters and sex abusers.

You are thinking of the wrong Pope. Pope John Paul II did not outlaw priests rights to marriage. If memory serves, this has been the stance since sometime after the Dark Ages into the Renaissance. Problems were creeping up, similar to the problems that the Church is currently dealing with, thus this was deemed a remedy. And it worked for hundreds of years.

If a Catholic priest was part of a loving couple, then that person should not be a priest. He, not she, is most at fault. He knows the rules better than anyone else, and should be given no pity. And besides, sex should be something that ONLY married people do. And in as far as I have heard, it is the American Catholics that have this big pedophilia problem. And the American Catholic leadership yells and screams at the Vatican every chance it gets, so I wouldn't be so quick to lay the blame at the feet of Vatican City without looking a little closer to home.

A more reasoned approach to these issues and the dropping of the filthy notion that Gay men and women are an abomination to be killed. Needs to be adopted as does a total condemnation of war.

Killed, I don't agree with. Shown the truth of God's will, I do agree with. Read the Bible and you will see God's stance on gays and lesbians.

Well, that's my opinion.


EDIT:

And people in Shr's Africa do not have to be Catholic and shun the use of condoms, either. They have a choice. ... if the Church says that using condoms is a sin, so is pre-marital sex. If the people doing it know it is a sin, then they may as well use a condom, too.

My point exactly.

[Jan]

Hi Jan,

Are you sure you want to do this?
Allright, here it goes...

I think we can do this if we remember to keep it calm and cool. Respect other viewpoints and only argue specifics. If it could be mistaken for an attack, you probably want to rephrase it.

Regardless of religion, we can at least employ the Golden Rule here.

Jan
(wearing her moderator hat so she'll respond to posts in a different post)

[Towelmaster]

I think we can do this if we remember to keep it calm and cool. Respect other viewpoints and only argue specifics. If it could be mistaken for an attack, you probably want to rephrase it.

Regardless of religion, we can at least employ the Golden Rule here.

Jan
(wearing her moderator hat so she'll respond to posts in a different post)

Hi Jan,

Rampant....
Irresponsible...

I didn't make up those names anymore than I make up Zhd's stories my dear Jan. But of course I will abide by the rules of the site/moderators.

I'm sorry; I just can't stand shortsighted ill-informed, got-it-from-the-man-next-door-who-read-it-somewhere-so-it-must-be-true postings.

I don't think I have said anything that jms would object to very much, after all I do believe he is not religious. But again; when you come down to it this is your forum(and Dougo's of course).

As for the pope : I will miss him just as much as I will miss the(catholic) church.

[Jan]

I wholeheartedly disagree that "his stance on contraception is evil." The true evil is the blatant murder of unborn children.

Which is a completely different argument. Contraception is the prevention of pregnancy. I think you'd have to reach pretty far to call that murder unless you consider every ovum and sperm cell an unborn child.

I'm non-denominational Christian (or multi-denominational depending on how you look at it) but can look at it from the church's point of view: Sex is only allowed between a man and a woman who have been married under God. Thus, why would you need contraception?

Because you don't want children at all? Can't afford them? Aren't emotionally ready for them? Already have all that you can care for? There are at least as many reasons for not wanting children as there are for wanting them.

To me, part of the confusion always appears to stem from not understanding what the Church is teaching: Abstinence. Most people would rather hear "Have sex! Don't use a condom!" But the church is actually teaching "Don't have sex! Period! Till you're married! It's God's law!"

Ignoring for the moment whether it's God's law or not, is any sin so grievous that it deserves the possibility, and in some areas probability, of a lingering, painful death? Especially a sin so comparatively trivial as having sex? Now if God's law mandated that serial killers or those who sanction genocide were to suffer like that, I wouldn't have a problem, but sex? What happened to "Love one another"?

Also, many also fail to realize that God speaks through the Pope here on Earth. So, it is not always "this man" that is speaking to us, it is God that is speaking to us. And if you are saying that Pope John Paul II is evil, then you are saying that God is evil.

I would need an exact example of where and when the Pope was speaking Ex Cathedra regarding sex and contraception. Because that is the *only* time when Catholic doctrine allows that the Pope is speaking infallably. That's a set procedure that must be followed, otherwise he is only speaking as a man, regardless of how influential. And if he's speaking as a flawed man, then yes, what he's speaking can be evil.

If a Catholic priest was part of a loving couple, then that person should not be a priest. He, not she, is most at fault. He knows the rules better than anyone else, and should be given no pity. And besides, sex should be something that ONLY married people do.

"...no pity"? Harsh there, don't you think? If I were to still be Catholic, I'd certainly shun so vengeful a god.

And in as far as I have heard, it is the American Catholics that have this big pedophilia problem. And the American Catholic leadership yells and screams at the Vatican every chance it gets, so I wouldn't be so quick to lay the blame at the feet of Vatican City without looking a little closer to home.

I think that the Vatican has shown by policy that it simply doesn't want to know about problems. It was John Paul II, after all, who forbade discussion of women in the priesthood. Talk about burying one's head in the sand. Could it not be that the American cardinals are simply trying to give the Vatican the information it needs to lead wisely?

Killed, I don't agree with. Shown the truth of God's will, I do agree with. Read the Bible and you will see God's stance on gays and lesbians.

That's quite a stretch. The bible has been edited and translated to a fare-the-well. Even when I was inclined to believe, I certainly couldn't allow it to be more than a guideline.

This argument doesn't make sense to me because if the Church says that using condoms is a sin, so is pre-marital sex. If the people doing it know it is a sin, then they may as well use a condom, too.

Perhaps because in many cases there's also the culture that the more children the better in hopes that more will survive to support one in their old age.

Jan

[Redrake]

Huh, El Salvador? I think you're speaking about Nicaragua. That's were his message was not welcomed. But that's because he perceived all socialists as comunists. But it wasn't his fault. In the eastern countries, communist parties were not established per se, they were initially soviet spyies. After they came to power, they absorbed the socialist parties and dared to go that far, as replacing the history of those parties with their own. So in all communist countries, socialism was identical with the communism.
Pope didn't care more for the right-wing government. He perceived both extremes as a bad thing. His country was ocupied first by nazis (right-wing) and then taken over by communists (left-wing). Is obvious that he considered that the revolution was in fact a coup mounted by the comunists and decided to move against what he perceived as a growing dictatorship.
And communism is indeed wrong. Is an extreme left-wing doctrine and is really bad. Only those who never lived under the communism, can think that those utopic ideals where indeed acomplished.

As for gays and lesbians, read Paul's letter to romans. It explains it all.

[Jan]

Hi Jan,

Rampant....
Irresponsible...

I didn't make up those names anymore than I make up Zhd's stories my dear Jan. But of course I will abide by the rules of the site/moderators.

It was in the Rampant, Irresponsible Political thread that we managed to discuss politics and (I think also) abortion. I think of it as more of a caution sign than a true description. I named this thread in honor of the other one because it really worked out nicely.

I don't think I have said anything that jms would object to very much, after all I do believe he is not religious. But again; when you come down to it this is your forum(and Dougo's of course).

No, it's *all of yours*, definitely not mine. My only function as moderator is to keep the atmosphere here from going toxic and I try to make it clear when I'm posting as moderator (like now). As for JMS objecting, the only thing I'm aware of that we do in case he's around is to keep story ideas flagged or 'tagged' to make them unreadable except by intent. If he were here and wanted to join in, his views would be as open for debate as anybody elses. I've disagreed with him several times over on the moderated group and it was a perfectly civil exchange of views.

Jan
taking off her moderator hat again

[Towelmaster]

I think of it as more of a caution sign than a true description. I named this thread in honor of the other one because it really worked out nicely.

So noted and accepted Jan.

No, it's *all of yours*, definitely not mine. My only function as moderator is to keep the atmosphere here from going toxic and I try to make it clear when I'm posting as moderator (like now).

Yo! I hear you! But what I actually meant was that someone has to lay down the rules or it will become one big mess around here, hence 'your forum'. Goes for every forum I have ever read, with the exception of the first version of www.h2g2.com (before they were bought by the BBC).
Of course a forum without members will not survive...

As for JMS objecting, the only thing I'm aware of that we do in case he's around is to keep story ideas flagged or 'tagged' to make them unreadable except by intent. If he were here and wanted to join in, his views would be as open for debate as anybody elses. I've disagreed with him several times over on the moderated group and it was a perfectly civil exchange of views.

I was not talking about those kind of objections. What I am saying is that if jms would be active on this forum, knowing some of his convictions I think he would take no offense at my previous posting. Since this is a forum about jms I thought that perhaps we can use his opinions as a yardstick for how far one can go in one's postings. When in doubt I always do so on this forum...

I too have read all of those usenet-postings(!) and I can say that jms has a finely honed skill for answering curtly and not too polite when he encounters stupid questions, when people make claims without backup them up with facts or when people are misquoting him to make a point. He is indeed a civilized human being but not a demure meek personality. ;-) And from my perspective a very good debater.

So what I mean is that I have seen jms crack down on fellow-forummers with far more fanaticism then I did here in this thread. And for things that were less nonsensical that what was said here about Poland, Mr. Hiss etcetera.

In my opinion there is danger in not speaking out against postings that offend one's feeling of historical accuracy : If no one does it, these postings may very well be considered true in the long run. To point at one Alger Hiss and say "Look, there goes the man who gave Poland to Stalin" is immensely stupid. Stalin did not need favours, Stalin took what he wanted. Stalin was a ruthless powerjunkie. Period.
I am not really amused when people try to teach a very much historically interested European like me about the recent history of his own continent. Using the most simplistic comments and matter-of-fact statements to do so.
Frankly ; it is insulting and it shows that the person does not have any sense of perspective.

Jan
taking off her moderator hat again

TM, taking off his Bloody Stupid Responder hat again.

As Will Smith said to the aliens in ID4 when he delivered the bomb : "PEACE!"

P.S. Correction : indeed Nicaragua, not El Salvador. My apologies.

[Radhil]

If a Catholic priest was part of a loving couple, then that person should not be a priest. He, not she, is most at fault. He knows the rules better than anyone else, and should be given no pity. And besides, sex should be something that ONLY married people do.

What was the reasons for these rules, might I ask? I'm not up on old church doctrine. And if you're going to declare no pity, you should know why, I think.

More comments as I browse the thread. I'm kinda coming late to this.

EDIT -

No, it's *all of yours*, definitely not mine. My only function as moderator is to keep the atmosphere here from going toxic and I try to make it clear when I'm posting as moderator (like now).

*bows down to Jan* You know how many boards I've been to that never would have thunk that up in four hundred years?

EDIT 2 -
As with regards to the pope, I have little specific to bounce off of. I have always viewed him as a man who tried to be down to earth, and I think it can be agreed upon that the people were his sole focus. In anything else, I think he marched in lockstep to whatever had gone before. Maybe he didn't know how to do it any other way, when removed from his focus. I don't presume to know. I call this a flaw. In the end, it probably more than balanced with the good he did. You can dismiss that as sentimental if you wish - but that's the way this (particularly non-Christian) soul thinks.

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

The Catholic Church's stance on the celibacy of the clergy was originally a money saving scheme. Priests COULD marry (before about 1300) but the church had to maintain the families of priests after they died; the solution? Ban marriage for the priesthood.

Jesus says nothing about homosexuality -- neither does the decalogue.These are the only two instances (if you believe the accepted Christian Gospels) where God DIRECTLY communicates to humanity (without being filtered through the weakness of human prejudice). The patriarchs come down against anal intercourse (not the same thing as homosexuality). They also don't like tattoo's, particular styles of haircut, etc, but selling your daughters into slavery is OK (as long as you sell her to a foreigner).They state that the penalty for men having anal sex with each other is to be stoned to death, either it's the word of God (and all Catholics MUST punish transgressors accordingly) OR it's a bunch of archaic homophobic nonsense and should be edited out. Peter, too, doesn't like homosexuals -- but then he doesn't like women either.

Love expresses itself in many ways, and treating one group in society as spiritually or mentally ill because of often mistranslated oral treachings from thousands of years past is frankly just as evil as "disappearing" someone for their faith.

Just how is wearing a condom killing a child? Just how is it "evil" to try and reduce the risk of STDs by using a condom? Is humanity better served by unwanted pregnancies and children a family can't afford in order to appease the "will of God"? Is it God's will that a faithful woman be infected with a deadly disease because her husband has sex elsewhere. Surely, in the name of God, families are more important than just having babies.

By the way the 'Protestant Bible' IS the same Bible that Catholics and Orthodox Christians use. By that I mean its the same mix of beautiful truth quaint myth, common sense and idiotic nonsense. True faith is a DIRECT and personal communion with the infinite. Personally, I feel that the Bible is an obstacle to peace (as are, ultimately, all religious texts).

If you can't see the divine in your daily life, it's either not there or you just aren't looking hard enough. Either way you don't need some dusty old book or reactionary old man to tell you what's right or wrong.

[Andrew_Swallow]

The ban on Homosexuality is in Leviticus, chapter 18

"22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. "

and chapter 20

"13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

The Bible, Revised Standard Version

[Jan]

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

The Bible, Revised Standard Version

Andrew, without your quoting, it's hard to tell who you're responding to. The last mention of homosexuality, though was by Shr'eshhh who specifically says that neither Jesus or the ten Commandments mentions homosexuality. Didn't Jesus come to give the new law, basically invalidating the Old Testament?

This is a serious question, even if it sound's flippant:
Would somebody please explain to me how a book that's been 'revised' translated, re-translated and edited can still be accepted as the unvarnished word of God? I've seen picture Bibles, 'Good News' Bibles, modern language Bibles, King James Bibles and I'm sorry but they do *not* all say the same thing, nor even keep the same tone. And that's just in my lifetime. How can anybody believe that the message hasn't changed in 2,000 years??

Jan

[Andrew_Swallow]

Andrew, without your quoting, it's hard to tell who you're responding to. The last mention of homosexuality, though was by Shr'eshhh who specifically says that neither Jesus or the ten Commandments mentions homosexuality. Didn't Jesus come to give the new law, basically invalidating the Old Testament?

I replied to the post immediately before mine by Shr'eshhh.

Jesus Vs Old Testament is a change of a subject on a change of a subject.

[Jan]

I replied to the post immediately before mine by Shr'eshhh.

Jesus Vs Old Testament is a change of a subject on a change of a subject.

Yes, it is, isn't it? You're welcome to assume that it was deliberate.

Jan