All Religion is Bad.

[articulett]

The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).


http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

 

[The Atheist]

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

The subject under discussion had been the current pope's comments on condom use in Africa. That has no relation to the passage you quoted.

If you again want to change your argument and deal with wider comtraception issues, then sure, the RCC has a position on it which is ex cathedra.

Doesn't help your buddy qayak's claims. He's talking about the Ratfink and condoms.

 

[Wheezebucket]

The pope is ugly as hell.

 

[VanillaCone]

It has been suggested that if all religion is bad, people who don't admit to that are religious apologists as a result. If the majority rule decides that all religion is bad, because that is not a position I can state, I am changing my name to The Religious Apologist.

Please do not take this a chance to be mean to The Atheist!

I promise I didn't peek! I could not in good conscience vote that all religion is bad and causes harm. As a citizen of the United States, I'm a lucky beneficiary of religious conflict. Those pilgrims most likely would not have traveled here if not to practice their whacktastic religion. However, my appreciation is tainted with sadness and disgust for the way they treated the locals when they got here. Still, I can't deny the role that religion has played in my own good fortune.

 

[articulett]

The pope is ugly as hell.

separated at birth?

 

[articulett]

You are arguing that catholics only listen to the pope when he invokes infallibility.

Care to explain how the catholic church got all those rules and regulations when the pope has only invoked infallibility once or twice?

It was stated by Pope Paul and confirmed by Benedict...

http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/can_the_church_change.htm

And it is in their doctrine, has not been revised and the Catholic church has knowingly spread misinformation about Condom usage...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm

Ignorance kills people, but the spin continues. Protect the "holy"-- demonize the critics. tsk, tsk. No matter how egregious the act of any religion, the apologists come out in droves to defend the institution in general despite known harms such as these.

 

[The Atheist]

And it is in their doctrine, has not been revised and the Catholic church has knowingly spread misinformation about Condom usage...

Yet in your straw world, it never occurred to you that that part had not been disputed in this thread.

You'd go really well on a forum where you could write your opponents' posts - as opposed to just dreaming up what you want them to have said. Is it simply a comprehension problem?

 

[Herzblut]

The subject under discussion had been the current pope's comments on condom use in Africa. That has no relation to the passage you quoted.

I wouldn't say Arti's quote is useless. I find it worth noting that the RCC is exclusively banning contraception as defined via marital acts. There are other types of "acts", obviously. What I found about extra-marital sex is this:

“One fundamental question is whether this is something that is always wrong or not—what in church lingo we would describe as intrinsically evil,” says Williams, an American moral theologian. “It’s almost counterintuitive, because the church sees no added evil with the use of condoms in cases of prostitution, or casual relationships with multiple partners or homosexual relationships. Even though the church would never say this in principle, on a pastoral level anybody would say if you are going to a prostitute, it’s already a moral evil, but use a condom.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12615605/site/newsweek/page/2/

So, condom usage within a marriage is the critical point and I regard the crude RCC's ban - even in cases where one of the spouses lives with HIV! - as utterly bizarre. It ridiculizes the self-image of the RCC as being a protector of human life, it penalizes marital sex etc. It's monstrous!

Actually, in Germany public discussions are ongoing for more than a year now about a potential fundamental change of that dogma. It is well known that Ratze is busy investigating.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,412657,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,450125,00.html

Doesn't help your buddy qayak's claims.

Not at all. Breaking these papal edicts is ubiquitous, also in predominantly catholic regions. I know that for a fact.

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

Actually, in Germany public discussions are ongoing for more than a year now about a potential fundamental change of that dogma. It is well known that Ratze is busy investigating.

A source in English:

Pope-commissioned condom study passes first hurdle

VATICAN CITY, Nov 21 (Reuters) - A study commissioned by Pope Benedict on the use of condoms to fight AIDS has passed its first hurdle and is now being reviewed by top theologians for possible use in a Papal document, a cardinal said on Tuesday.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21816424.htm

This was unthinkable under JP2.

Herzblut

 

[quixotecoyote]

Wonderful. They're finally starting to think about facing a small portion of reality. Good for them.

 

[Herzblut]

Wonderful. They're finally starting to think about facing a small portion of reality. Good for them.

It's droll how somebody gives a lecture on "facing reality" and at the same time cluelessly fantasizes that "the pope's words are accepted as truth by all catholics". Not to talk about Latin America and all that stuff, right? Hahaha!



Herzblut

 

[ceo_esq]

ceo_esq, I believe that the Pope's position against contraception is part of his infallibility claims.

As The Atheist pointed out, I was not referring to the pope's position against contraception generally, and neither was qayak in the post to which I was responding. I was clearly responding to (1) qayak's mention of "the pope stating condoms cause HIV/AIDS", and (2) qayak's subsequent suggestion that the doctrine of infallibility would pose an obstacle to the pope ever stating later that condoms do not cause HIV/AIDS.

Do you think religion in present day times, is mostly helpful or mostly harmful?

That's a pretty vast question. I think the answer, if there is an answer to be had, probably depends on the particular faith. I wouldn't know how to begin aggregating them for this kind of net determination.

Why would you defend the suffering caused by misinformation about condoms because the guy proffering them didn't say whether he was speaking "infallibly" or not?

I certainly didn't do so above.

Why would you seek to condemn qayak rather than the pope?

Again, I don't see where in my post above I condemned anyone, although I did tell qayak that he (she?) was jumping the gun (in speculating as to an argument I had not made), and also reminded him that he had not answered my questions. That was at most a very gentle and well-intended reproof, not a condemnation.

I can only imagine that you guys don't see how readily you do this tap dancing for "god". Why do you defend even the ugliest aspects of religion by changing the subject?

There's much I don't understand in your comments here. Who are "you guys"? What is "tap dancing for 'god'"? Why reproach me for changing the subject when I merely pursued two specific issues raised quite expressly in someone else's post?

As for defending "even the ugliest aspects of religion", I'm not sure how my remarks above constitute a defense of anything. Generally an unworthy attack deserves to be assailed itself, of course, regardless of the object. Here, though, I'm just trying to clarify a couple of points.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It's droll how somebody gives a lecture on "facing reality" and at the same time cluelessly fantasizes that "the pope's words are accepted as truth by all catholics". Not to talk about Latin America and all that stuff, right? Hahaha!



Herzblut

Anyone who accepts Catholicism as it is written and defined by the Catholic Church, must defer to the pope in order to be a Catholic, BY DEFINITON.

Yes I know some people call themselves Catholics and do not. In this case we avoid No True Scotsman errors because we have a clear definition of what Catholicism is unlike other branches of Christianity which are undefined or with large variances.

For a Christian you're pretty ignorant about Christianity.

 

[Herzblut]

Anyone who accepts Catholicism as it is written and defined by the Catholic Church, must defer to the pope in order to be a Catholic, BY DEFINITON.

By your private definition, maybe.

The most common definition of an adherent used in broad compilations of statistical data is somebody who claims to belong to or worship in a religion. There is a United Nations definition of an adherent, which formally states about the same thing.

Such factors as religious service attendance, belief, practice, familiarity with doctrine, belief in certain creeds, etc., may be important to sociologists, religious leaders, and others. But these are measures of religiosity and are usually not used academically to define a person's membership in a particular religion.

.. most denominational statistics .. come from membership records. Various religious bodies use different methods to count their members, but many report formal membership figures, that is, numbers of people who have formally joined a religious organization.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_faq.html#adherent

So, self-identification and/or formal membership - got it?

For a Christian you're pretty ignorant about Christianity.

I like you. You're so self-righteous, it's fun to refute your chitchat. But how did you fabricate the idea that I was a Christian?

Herzblut

 

[quixotecoyote]

But how did you fabricate the idea that I was a Christian?

Yah. You're just a frothing at the mouth fan of Christianity who nevertheless is not a Christian Now pull the other one, it has bells on it.

BTW you posted a generalized definition. We are talking specifics. For most religions there is not a centralized authority to define the rules of membership. In Catholicism there is such a body to define what the rules of the religion are. I said as much in the post you replied to.

In fact, I specifically preempted the line of argumentation you employed. Yet you made the argument anyway without addressing it. So either your reading comprehension is lacking today or you are being dishonest.

 

[Herzblut]

Yah. You're just a frothing at the mouth fan of Christianity who nevertheless is not a Christian Now pull the other one, it has bells on it.

Yet another militant anti-theist unaware that he has lost touch with reality.

Herzblut

 

[quixotecoyote]

Go ahead, call me more names. It makes you look real good.

eta:Whatever you do, don't actually engage the arguments presented. It would blow the whole persona you've got built up.

 

[articulett]

ceo_esq... sorry than... I misinterpreted... this whole thread was started because Mijo and The Atheist believe that if someone says anything bad about religion, they mean all religion... consequently it's hard to talk about anything religion does wrong because the issue is immediately sidetracked into whether "all religions are harmful and bad"-- it's a red hearing. It's designed to focus an attack on religions accusers rather than religion itself. I get tired of the side tracking...

The pope is responsible for discouraging condom use and spreading misinformation saying that it does not protect against AIDs. We don't know how many people have died because of the churches condemnation of condoms--contraception in general-- and homosexuality. All part of the official documents of the church and reiterated. To ask quayak for supporting technical data negates the obvious-- the Catholic church's position on condom usage and it's directives to its missionaries in Africa is absolutely appalling and indefensible and conrary to WHO and the CDC.

 

[The Atheist]

ceo_esq... sorry than... I misinterpreted... this whole thread was started because Mijo and The Atheist believe that if someone says anything bad about religion, they mean all religion...

Let me just disabuse anyone of that notion for the sixth time in this thread.

It was clearly stated that ALL RELIGION IS BAD. I checked the meaning of that before I posted the poll and it was confirmed that ALL RELIGION IS BAD AND CAUSES HARM. No ambiguity at all.

They weren't your words, they were qayak's, but he confirmed it twice. Would you like me to copy the quotes again?

But you claimed to have voted "true", so I find it hard to understand why you are now railing against the use of the word "ALL". Are you some kind of religious apologist?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Perhaps it is possible to vote that religion is bad without getting sucked into your petty semantic squabbling.