The catholic church historically seems to support whoever gives them exclusivity in a country, no matter how fascistic the policies. And now they refuse to believe or admit it ever happened. Maybe an apology in 100 years.

Awesome...stop using the word "christian" altogether. Put every candidates specific religious affiliation next to their name, and let them go at each other. Maybe their handlers are too smart to let that happen, but if you repeat it enough, the voters will be thinking about it.

We already see the occasional public division, like one church decides a woman priest is okay. Wasn't it the catholic church specifically with the pedophilia problem? Divide and conquer.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have said Wrroonngg so quickly--but you presume that your readings about Rome are more extensive than mine.

Nero, Caligula and many later Emperors are examples of the human psyche let loose. Psychopaths with no restrictions on their behavior.

The Roman Republic lasted for almost 500 years--during which time--homosexuality was looked on as a vice and shameful behavior. Emperor Augustus imposed strict modesty and morality edicts--including homosexual activities--which didn't apply to him. So even in the later, Empire Era, Rome was hardly be considered, "one big, gay death machine."

"Marcus Aurelius was straight at least..." This one gave me a laugh.


The Love Letters of Emperor Marcus Aurelius and Marcus Cornelius Fronto
Excerpts from My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters through the Centuries (1998), Edited by Rictor Norton

From Marcus Cornelliius Fronto to Marcus Aurelius

Your lover, too, as they say, composes some amatory writings about you in the hope of enticing you with this bait, if with no other, and attracting you to himself and catching you; but such things are a disgrace and an insult and a sort of licentious cry, the outcome of stinging lust, such as those of wild beasts and fed cattle, that from sexual desire bellow or neigh or low or howl. Like to these are the lyrics of lovers. If, therefore, you submit yourself to your lover to enjoy where and when he pleases, awaiting neither time that is fitting nor leisure nor privacy, then, like a beast in the frenzy of desire, will he make straight for you and be eager to go to it not the least ashamed. . . .

"But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something..."

The role of prostitution in other societies varies--ours is not the only moral way. And the actions of the Christian church are--during most of it's history--atrocious. I thought you were talking about early Rome with it's outright destruction and pillage.

"You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their 'laws.'"

A whole country was BI? Wow--just wow.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@Boise_Lib
Now now, don't say I am wrong quiet yet. I just read up on Rome and have the advantage here (I read like fucking two days’ worth...)
Nero was more than gay (He married a man as his husband and a man as his wife...see slit in lieu of vagina,) and Caligula (Who was fucking a man while in the arena in front of everyone, then had that man beheaded during climax) was bi and Tiberius (Who was fucking Caligula after murdering his family) was bi and the typical soldier, and...wait, yeah, there were many more. Basically, 14 out of 15 were gay or gay-ish at least. By that I mean some were open, some closed. Commodus? Yeah, gay...
(Most were simply bi just to have a son btw. Otherwise it would have been just man on man.)
The whole conflict with homosexuality came in later--after the Roman Catholic Church gained power... Now, that's not saying it wasn't against the law in the early days--but that's the same as adultery, yet then orgies were common even though they were illegal... let's pretend the law doesn't matter here---because it didn't...
Marcus Aurelius was straight at least...
And yes, this was the early Rome, when it was brutal, but then that's what I was talking about when I said the world hated them. Later, yes, later they began to hate homosexual behavior. But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something...
You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their "laws."
@shuac I meant the crimes of Rome itself, not homosexuals. It's kind of hard to forgive a nation that captured and enslaved your city and then raped your male children with abandon.
@hpqp
I don't think homosexuality is girly, but that's their reasoning... Sad, so sad because it is not true.

@Boise_Lib

Now now, don't say I am wrong quiet yet. I just read up on Rome and have the advantage here (I read like fucking two days’ worth...)

Nero was more than gay (He married a man as his husband and a man as his wife...see slit in lieu of vagina,) and Caligula (Who was fucking a man while in the arena in front of everyone, then had that man beheaded during climax) was bi and Tiberius (Who was fucking Caligula after murdering his family) was bi and the typical soldier, and...wait, yeah, there were many more. Basically, 14 out of 15 were gay or gay-ish at least. By that I mean some were open, some closed. Commodus? Yeah, gay...

(Most were simply bi just to have a son btw. Otherwise it would have been just man on man.)

The whole conflict with homosexuality came in later--after the Roman Catholic Church gained power... Now, that's not saying it wasn't against the law in the early days--but that's the same as adultery, yet then orgies were common even though they were illegal... let's pretend the law doesn't matter here---because it didn't...

Marcus Aurelius was straight at least...

And yes, this was the early Rome, when it was brutal, but then that's what I was talking about when I said the world hated them. Later, yes, later they began to hate homosexual behavior. But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something...

You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their "laws."

@shuac I meant the crimes of Rome itself, not homosexuals. It's kind of hard to forgive a nation that captured and enslaved your city and then raped your male children with abandon.

@hpqp
I don't think homosexuality is girly, but that's their reasoning... Sad, so sad because it is not true.

"The American Pshychological Association is not proof of anything"

She should have answered: "The Catholic Church and the Bible agreeing with you is proof that you think the same as a racist, bigoted bronze age sheep herder."

Yes, Rick, your position is bigoted, and the position of the Catholic Church is also bigoted. Isn't that easy?

Not all psychologists are members of the American Psychologists Association.

And not all Christians are members of the Catholic Church.

What was your point, asshole?

I started out Catholic but always found the beliefs baffling.

I know now that my mother has a relatively serious problem with depression but as a kid all I understood was that she was upset and sick a lot. I frequently prayed for God to help my mother. She says she still talks to God every day.

I was a very timid and sensitive child. A lot of my time in church and Sunday school was spent crying. I didn't understand why I was always being accused of having done evil things.

My father was and is an atheist but he kept it to himself until I came out. On one hand it's good to know I wasn't influenced by him to "become an atheist"; that I came to my conclusions on my own; but on the other hand it probably would have been comforting to know there were others out there. I thought I was the only person in the world who didn't believe in God.

I made it through First Communion but was allowed to stop Sunday school shortly before Confirmation. Even though my mother is a believer, she dislikes the Catholic church and dogma in general. It makes me wonder why I was sent there in the first place.

I have come to call myself both atheist and agnostic meaning I do not believe there is a God but I do not have, nor claim, certainty or knowledge.

I have also come to like the term ignostic. The term itself is a pun, but the position is legit: that we cannot answer the question of whether or not God exists without first defining what God is supposed to be.

>> ^marinara:

Bald guy is correct that Jesus offers salvation from guilt.
absolution from guilt usually goes like this:
admit you're wrong
commit to paying the price
change your behavior
get forgiven
this is how it is. period.
forgiving people doesn't make the act of forgiveness into an amoral act. Obvious to me. You can say God is amoral because he allowed it (but this is a different distortion)
I suppose if you had a corrupt judge who forgave the sentences of murderers, that would be a example of amoral behavior. is it christian forgiveness? Never.


It's amoral because that's exactly how Christianity is set up. Murderers, rapists, and child molesters (not unlike those found in the Catholic church) can be "saved" and be spared sentencing. Did you not listen to the whole vid? You might want to watch it again.

Plus, regular, law-abiding, decent, moral people have no wrongdoing to admit.

What about original sin, you say?

So it's perfectly cool to condemn the child for the crimes of the father? Just dandy, is that right? That's okie-dokie, am I understanding that correctly? Scapegoating, I believe that's called. That's perfectly moral, is it?

And what crime are we talking about? Violating the law, you say? The law of "do not eat from this tree." So no laws are unjust? Walking your pet squirrel on the first & third Saturdays of the month will result in a $500 fine. You think that's peachy, do you?

God was the one who supposedly set this whole system up. Couldn't he have just provided forgiveness WITHOUT the sadistic torture of a fellow human being? WITHOUT blood sacrifice? Just a simple: "you're forgiven" and be on our way? That might've approached something similar to morality.

It baffles me that you people can look at this and massage your brains into believing this to be a moral system.

Baffled. <- Me.

>> ^hpqp:

@Contagion21 and @SDGundamX
Indeed, I stand corrected.
The Vatican's stance on evolution is an excellent example of its hypocrisy and doublethink/doublespeak. Without the myth of creation/fall, the notion of original sin is impossible, rendering Jesus' sacrifice (i.e. redemption) unnecessary. That's pretty much the whole creed crumbling right there. So while it officially embraces evolution, it still teaches the mutually exclusive doctrine of Adam/Eve/the Fall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Polygenism



I found these to be interesting reads.

Adam, Eve, and Evolution (Official Catholic Church stance)

What is a Mitochondrial Adam and Eve

@messenger

I will agree that this video is not one of the best arguments against religion/Christianity (I posted it mainly for the animations), but his interpretation doesn't seem any less valid than that of the Catholic Church; we're talking about critiquing the writings in an ancient book, and I know several biblical verses he could have used to support his arguments (pm me if you want a list). As you rightly pointed out in your first comment, his arguments are a rehash of someone elses, i.e. Hitchens. My guess was that you disliked the video because he presents poorly arguments that you otherwise agree with, but now I'm not so sure. In any case, it's one interpretation among many.


As for confirmation bias, I don't think you are using the term properly, here or in the other thread (actually, especially in the other thread). Yes, I post a lot of antitheist videos, some better than others, because I feel strongly about religion, I enjoy reading people's reactions to them as well as discussing this issue.

Well this is the current Vatican position:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/06/us-pope-bigbang-idUSTRE7052OC20110106

Oh, wait, I forgot, those are the wrong kind of Christians... only Shinyblurry types know what's right and what's not!

In all seriousness, I just don't get why idiots have to close their eyes to the evidence that the world wasn't created 6000 years ago. FFS, just do what the Catholic church is doing and basically point out that the ultimate question of what caused it all to start is one that will likely always be a mystery. That I can respect.

I'm gonna step out here and defend the Puritans. In the early 17th century the Puritans in England were not happy with the Church of England (which they were a part of at the time). They saw that its reformation had not gone far enough, meaning, it was still way too close to Catholicism. Above all else, Puritans despised Catholicism, the Pope, and everything the Catholic Church did and they didn't want the Church of England to be anything close to it. When they tried to further the reforms within the Church of England, they were blocked. Though protestant, King James I refused to allow the reforms and told the Hampton Court that he preferred the status quo and that the monarch should rule the church through the bishops. The Puritans felt alienated by this move. In 1625, Charles I became king and he tried to dissolve Parliament entirely to neutralize his enemies, which included plenty of Puritans. This, coupled with the Thirty-Years War (Catholics vs. Protestants), which had over 8 million casualties, now being in full-swing prompted the Puritans to flee to the New World.

The Puritans weren't trying to establish a religiously free society. Roger Williams, who wanted separation of Church & State, was banished and founded Rhode Island. However, the Puritans did want their own society where they weren't underneath the authority of the monarch, the Church of England and where they didn't fear for their lives because of what they believed.

So Ahno Whatanawfulvoice thinks the churches actions should be judged by the standards of the day does she? Well how about this one that came out recently.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-25/catholic-c
hurch-apologises-over-forced-adoptions/2808672

It is believed at least 150,000 Australian women had their babies taken against their will by some churches and adoption agencies between the 1950s and 1970s.

150,000! In Australia alone. This is what comes of assuming you have all the answers and know what's best for everybody.

>> ^SDGundamX:

Pope Paul VI, the pope at the time of the moon landings, had a lot of things to say about the event--pretty much all of them positive judging from this article. I can't find any record of him demanding missionaries be sent into space to convert other life forms. Anyone have a source?
In fact, the only thing about space missionaries I could find was this opinion article... which turns out to be a heavily slanted gross exaggeration of this actual news story which itself is clearly a humorous take on the subject and certainly not any sort of "announcement" from the Vatican.
I didn't know of this woman before this vid. I'm very grateful to her for helping getting prayer out of schools. I'm sickened by the way she died. But I get the feeling from this vid and the other one @xxovercastxx posted that she was hated as much for her extremely confrontational attitude as for her atheism. She's like a forerunner of Hitchens.


Maybe my opinion of Hitchens is inflated, but all I know about this woman is what she says in this video. Compared to Hitchens she(like most of us, no slight intended to her) is left looking like an incoherently rambling little child with a speech impediment.