[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Now compare with the classic image of Mary and Child. The sun disk has changed into a Halo of course but it is exactly the same iconography.
[/quote]
Should Mary be holding the Christ child by the foot?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
To sum up, the hypocrisy charge is groundless. The Church hasn’t suddenly changed from auto-forgiveness (if unrepentant), to repentance then forgiveness. It hasn’t deviated from it’s teachings.
The hypocrisy is in the fact that a mother trying to save her daughter is excommunicated whereas the rapist is not. Mind you, given the history of rape and child abuse by the Catholic Church I guess that is just par for the course.
That’s not hypocrisy. It’s no secret that abortion, a pre-meditated act of murder, is an automatic excommunication. I don’t think you’re using the word correctly.
So is rape and child abuse. All grievous acts against another human being is an automatic excommunication, even if they received the holy orders. There was not now, nor ever any public or private acceptance of child abuse of any kind save for a few corrupt individuals…I am pretty sure most child molesters ain’t Catholic. I’d like to see a chart.
Rape is clearly not an automatic excommunication, the rapist in the case has not been excommunicated. Neither have the hundreds of child rapists that Roman Catholic Church deliberately covered up.
The church did not cover it up, certain people did, but this was not a church sanctioned cover up.
Hundreds? Do you have proof of this claim? A link or anything credible, not something from atheistuniverse.com or somebody who clearly has a bone to pick. Last I heard the numbers were double digits, one is to high, but let’s not exaggerate here.
I’d still be willing to be the vast majority of child rapists are atheists. Religious folk have done some bad things in history, but atheist are still the winners when it comes to crimes against humanity.
Care to discuss history of brutal murders carried out in the name of atheism…the numbers are in the millions and this is referencable in a million places.
The vatican sent a document to all Bishops detailing how to cover such cases up.
And as for numbers, the Church estimates it at roughly 5,000 so probably a lot more than that.
As for your claim that the vast majority of child rapists are atheist, any chance you could back that up? Given that atheists are for the moment in the minority in the population I doubt it very much.
The discussion of Atheist attrocities has been done to death. Yes there were a couple of individuals that committed horrific acts and espoused atheism however the reason the numbers killed were so high had nothing to do with atheism, it was to do with efficiency. There have been far more instances of attrocities in the name of religion.[/quote]
Really their have been far more atrocities in the name of religion? If you are going to bring up the problems of religious, itâ??s only fair to do the same for atheists. There are 1.2 billion Catholics and a total of 2 billion Christians total in the world. So approximately 1/3 of the world is Christian. You complain about the harm some bad people did in Catholic Church, out of 1.2 billion people. Atheists have killed 300,000,000 people in just the 20th century alone.
If you are going to bring up examples of how bad Christians are. I will be more than happy to bring up how bad Atheists have done. So atheists killed 300 million in 20th century, much of it done to eradicate the religious, how many people did Christians kill? Numbers do matter.
If you are going to accuse Catholics of being child molesters, the atheist are brutal murderers of men, women and children.
The Crimen Sollicitationis was created in a time where they did not have the imagination of sex abuse cases coming up. It was wholly unsuitable for the situation at hand, it was designed for priestâ??s chasing skirts, but it was the only procedure available. It was amended in 1983 and rescinded and replaced in 2001â?¦.What steps have atheists taken to make sure that their like thinking brethren are killing folks anymore? None? What have atheists done to stop Castro or Pyongyang for starving and oppressing people? No what you have is atheists like Anita Dunn, admiring and celebrating assholes like Mao Se Tung, a man she admired, according to her own words.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Now compare with the classic image of Mary and Child. The sun disk has changed into a Halo of course but it is exactly the same iconography.
Should Mary be holding the Christ child by the foot?[/quote]
Don’t get your point. Sorry have been in meetings since 7am and haven’t had a coffee yet.
One of the main reasons that Christianity has been so succesful is it’s adaptability. Whenever Christianity arrived in a new area local iconography and stories were co-opted into Christian Mythology. This made it an easier adaptation. Today, pretty much whatever your personal views you can find a flavour of Christianity that fits.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Now compare with the classic image of Mary and Child. The sun disk has changed into a Halo of course but it is exactly the same iconography.
Should Mary be holding the Christ child by the foot?
Don’t get your point. Sorry have been in meetings since 7am and haven’t had a coffee yet.
One of the main reasons that Christianity has been so succesful is it’s adaptability. Whenever Christianity arrived in a new area local iconography and stories were co-opted into Christian Mythology. This made it an easier adaptation. Today, pretty much whatever your personal views you can find a flavour of Christianity that fits.[/quote]
Well, I mean, how many ways can one hold an infant, in an image? Otherwise, I see a Goddess holding a child, and a mortal woman holding a child.
[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
To sum up, the hypocrisy charge is groundless. The Church hasn’t suddenly changed from auto-forgiveness (if unrepentant), to repentance then forgiveness. It hasn’t deviated from it’s teachings.
The hypocrisy is in the fact that a mother trying to save her daughter is excommunicated whereas the rapist is not. Mind you, given the history of rape and child abuse by the Catholic Church I guess that is just par for the course.
That’s not hypocrisy. It’s no secret that abortion, a pre-meditated act of murder, is an automatic excommunication. I don’t think you’re using the word correctly.
So is rape and child abuse. All grievous acts against another human being is an automatic excommunication, even if they received the holy orders. There was not now, nor ever any public or private acceptance of child abuse of any kind save for a few corrupt individuals…I am pretty sure most child molesters ain’t Catholic. I’d like to see a chart.
Rape is clearly not an automatic excommunication, the rapist in the case has not been excommunicated. Neither have the hundreds of child rapists that Roman Catholic Church deliberately covered up.
The church did not cover it up, certain people did, but this was not a church sanctioned cover up.
Hundreds? Do you have proof of this claim? A link or anything credible, not something from atheistuniverse.com or somebody who clearly has a bone to pick. Last I heard the numbers were double digits, one is to high, but let’s not exaggerate here.
I’d still be willing to be the vast majority of child rapists are atheists. Religious folk have done some bad things in history, but atheist are still the winners when it comes to crimes against humanity.
Care to discuss history of brutal murders carried out in the name of atheism…the numbers are in the millions and this is referencable in a million places.
The vatican sent a document to all Bishops detailing how to cover such cases up.
And as for numbers, the Church estimates it at roughly 5,000 so probably a lot more than that.
As for your claim that the vast majority of child rapists are atheist, any chance you could back that up? Given that atheists are for the moment in the minority in the population I doubt it very much.
The discussion of Atheist attrocities has been done to death. Yes there were a couple of individuals that committed horrific acts and espoused atheism however the reason the numbers killed were so high had nothing to do with atheism, it was to do with efficiency. There have been far more instances of attrocities in the name of religion.
Really their have been far more atrocities in the name of religion? If you are going to bring up the problems of religious, itâ??s only fair to do the same for atheists. There are 1.2 billion Catholics and a total of 2 billion Christians total in the world. So approximately 1/3 of the world is Christian. You complain about the harm some bad people did in Catholic Church, out of 1.2 billion people. Atheists have killed 300,000,000 people in just the 20th century alone.
If you are going to bring up examples of how bad Christians are. I will be more than happy to bring up how bad Atheists have done. So atheists killed 300 million in 20th century, much of it done to eradicate the religious, how many people did Christians kill? Numbers do matter.
If you are going to accuse Catholics of being child molesters, the atheist are brutal murderers of men, women and children.
The Crimen Sollicitationis was created in a time where they did not have the imagination of sex abuse cases coming up. It was wholly unsuitable for the situation at hand, it was designed for priestâ??s chasing skirts, but it was the only procedure available. It was amended in 1983 and rescinded and replaced in 2001â?¦.What steps have atheists taken to make sure that their like thinking brethren are killing folks anymore? None? What have atheists done to stop Castro or Pyongyang for starving and oppressing people? No what you have is atheists like Anita Dunn, admiring and celebrating assholes like Mao Se Tung, a man she admired, according to her own words.
[/quote]
The current pope sent the document to all bishops in 2001 at that time it contained information on how to cover up cases by guilting the victim.
And on the atheist side, firstly atheism is not a belief system or a cohesive group like the catholic church.
Secondly, you are referring to a small number of incidents. Yes they were horrific but they were examples of just a few people leading populations that were easy to lead because they have been made that way by religion and it’s virtues of blind faith without questioning.
I repeat, the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of religion far outweighs the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of atheism.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Now compare with the classic image of Mary and Child. The sun disk has changed into a Halo of course but it is exactly the same iconography.
Should Mary be holding the Christ child by the foot?
Don’t get your point. Sorry have been in meetings since 7am and haven’t had a coffee yet.
One of the main reasons that Christianity has been so succesful is it’s adaptability. Whenever Christianity arrived in a new area local iconography and stories were co-opted into Christian Mythology. This made it an easier adaptation. Today, pretty much whatever your personal views you can find a flavour of Christianity that fits.
Well, I mean, how many ways can one hold an infant, in an image? Otherwise, I see a Goddess holding a child, and a mortal woman holding a child.[/quote]
Well you are a believer so I guess you continue to see what you have been told to choose to see.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I repeat, the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of religion far outweighs the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of atheism.[/quote]
Wait until you’re the majority. The hatred is already palpable. In fact, I sometimes wonder where the most alarming speech comes from, New Atheism or the Mosque. Secular racial seperatists already making their case now on genetic differences between groups. Heck, generally, you guys support the slaughter of humans for convenience as it is.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Well you are a believer so I guess you continue to see what you have been told to choose to see.[/quote]
This brainwashed unit doesn’t compute your input. Malfunction! Malfunction! Lol.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Well you are a believer so I guess you continue to see what you have been told to choose to see.
This brainwashed unit doesn’t compute your input. Malfunction! Malfunction! Lol.[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I repeat, the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of religion far outweighs the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of atheism.
Wait until you’re the majority. The hatred is already palpable. In fact, I sometimes wonder where the most alarming speech comes from, New Atheism or the Mosque. Secular racial seperatists already making their case now on genetic differences between groups. Heck, generally, you guys support the slaughter of humans for convenience as it is.
[/quote]
I guess the difference is that because Atheism isn’t a cohesive belief system in the way that a religion is I don’t have to believe something just because an important Atheist says it. You have to believe that condoms are a sin because the Pope says so and the Pope is infallible because he is God’s spokesman on earth.
I however owe no allegiance to any Atheist group therefore when Dawkins starts spouting arrogant retarded bullshit about the fact that Atheists should refer to themselves as brights then I am totally free to call it arrogant retarded bullshit based on my own reasoned opinion on the fact. I am also free to still respect and enjoy his scientific writings as some of the best and most accessible explanations of the process of evolution by natural selection.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Erm, the Egyptian Religions predate Christianity by thousands of years so it is pretty obvious who ripped off who.
The Jesus and his mother Mary is a straight rip off of Horus and Isis for instance.
This is called a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” argument - a logical fallacy.
Actually, the Egyptian archaeological record is scant on many things and Muslims are not known for treating artifacts from the period of ‘Jahilya’ (the time of darkness before the land was converted to Islam) with any sort of respect or deference. For instance, there has been a campaign in Iran to dismantle the pre-Islamic Persian structures. The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas because they were a representation of Jahilya. During Muslim occupation of India, thousands of Hindu shrines and temples were destroyed. An archaeologist’s best hope remains in finding things before the Muslims. But even so, stuff tends to get destroyed in the Nile flood plains.
The Bible is generally treated with more skepticism than other ancient Near Eastern religious texts when it comes to historical matters owing to the prevailing minimalism of archaeologists these days. Minimalism is nothing more than a presupposition.
I think the Bible definitely agrees with the archaeological record in the Levant regarding the Israelite invasion.
Hoffmeier’s book on the matter is very good.
OK first lets look at Isis and Horus, note sun disk above Isis’s head[/quote]
Right, I get it. Because one thing that came later is somewhat similar (but mostly different) to something that came earlier, therefore the thing that came earlier caused the thing later.
If we’re to stick to logic, you have 0 proof of what you’re saying.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Erm, the Egyptian Religions predate Christianity by thousands of years so it is pretty obvious who ripped off who.
The Jesus and his mother Mary is a straight rip off of Horus and Isis for instance.
This is called a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” argument - a logical fallacy.
Actually, the Egyptian archaeological record is scant on many things and Muslims are not known for treating artifacts from the period of ‘Jahilya’ (the time of darkness before the land was converted to Islam) with any sort of respect or deference. For instance, there has been a campaign in Iran to dismantle the pre-Islamic Persian structures. The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas because they were a representation of Jahilya. During Muslim occupation of India, thousands of Hindu shrines and temples were destroyed. An archaeologist’s best hope remains in finding things before the Muslims. But even so, stuff tends to get destroyed in the Nile flood plains.
The Bible is generally treated with more skepticism than other ancient Near Eastern religious texts when it comes to historical matters owing to the prevailing minimalism of archaeologists these days. Minimalism is nothing more than a presupposition.
I think the Bible definitely agrees with the archaeological record in the Levant regarding the Israelite invasion.
Hoffmeier’s book on the matter is very good.
OK first lets look at Isis and Horus, note sun disk above Isis’s head
Right, I get it. Because one thing that came later is somewhat similar (but mostly different) to something that came earlier, therefore the thing that came earlier caused the thing later.
If we’re to stick to logic, you have 0 proof of what you’re saying.
[/quote]
There are huge numbers of examples of this appropriation of local customs into Christianity. Santa Claus comes from Saint Nicholas which comes from Woden.
The whole Christmas celebration is aligned with the existing midwinter festivals.
Easter is aligned with existing Spring festivals and even takes it’s name from a Germanic god.
George and the Dragon comes from Horus killing a Nile Croc (the inconography here is staggeringly similar.)
The whole idea of resurrection was taken from Egyptian tradition.
Various elements from the Mithra cult also found their way into modern Christianity. Mithra was pretty much the blueprint for Modern Christianity though it had two issues. It hadn’t developed enough from obvious Sun Worship and it wasn’t inclusive enough of female figures.
The fun thing is that the inconsistencies in the gospels actually show where the early Christians were not quite sure which bits they were co-opting. Different figures in the early church evidently had different ideas of the direction that the religion should take. Partly, this was based on the local customs where they happened to be or which group they were trying to persuade.
This leaves us with fun situations like Jesus being virgin born but also descended from David on his father’s side where two different stories have been combined into one.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Erm, the Egyptian Religions predate Christianity by thousands of years so it is pretty obvious who ripped off who.
The Jesus and his mother Mary is a straight rip off of Horus and Isis for instance.
This is called a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” argument - a logical fallacy.
Actually, the Egyptian archaeological record is scant on many things and Muslims are not known for treating artifacts from the period of ‘Jahilya’ (the time of darkness before the land was converted to Islam) with any sort of respect or deference. For instance, there has been a campaign in Iran to dismantle the pre-Islamic Persian structures. The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas because they were a representation of Jahilya. During Muslim occupation of India, thousands of Hindu shrines and temples were destroyed. An archaeologist’s best hope remains in finding things before the Muslims. But even so, stuff tends to get destroyed in the Nile flood plains.
The Bible is generally treated with more skepticism than other ancient Near Eastern religious texts when it comes to historical matters owing to the prevailing minimalism of archaeologists these days. Minimalism is nothing more than a presupposition.
I think the Bible definitely agrees with the archaeological record in the Levant regarding the Israelite invasion.
Hoffmeier’s book on the matter is very good.
OK first lets look at Isis and Horus, note sun disk above Isis’s head
Right, I get it. Because one thing that came later is somewhat similar (but mostly different) to something that came earlier, therefore the thing that came earlier caused the thing later.
If we’re to stick to logic, you have 0 proof of what you’re saying.
There are huge numbers of examples of this appropriation of local customs into Christianity. Santa Claus comes from Saint Nicholas which comes from Woden.
The whole Christmas celebration is aligned with the existing midwinter festivals.
Easter is aligned with existing Spring festivals and even takes it’s name from a Germanic god.
George and the Dragon comes from Horus killing a Nile Croc (the inconography here is staggeringly similar.)
The whole idea of resurrection was taken from Egyptian tradition.
Various elements from the Mithra cult also found their way into modern Christianity. Mithra was pretty much the blueprint for Modern Christianity though it had two issues. It hadn’t developed enough from obvious Sun Worship and it wasn’t inclusive enough of female figures.
The fun thing is that the inconsistencies in the gospels actually show where the early Christians were not quite sure which bits they were co-opting. Different figures in the early church evidently had different ideas of the direction that the religion should take. Partly, this was based on the local customs where they happened to be or which group they were trying to persuade.
This leaves us with fun situations like Jesus being virgin born but also descended from David on his father’s side where two different stories have been combined into one.[/quote]
Santa’s not in the Bible. Festivals in the Gregorian calendar not found in the Bible are non sequiturs.
As for the rest, well, I’m sorry you don’t understand what a logical fallacy is. Oh well.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Erm, the Egyptian Religions predate Christianity by thousands of years so it is pretty obvious who ripped off who.
The Jesus and his mother Mary is a straight rip off of Horus and Isis for instance.
This is called a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” argument - a logical fallacy.
Actually, the Egyptian archaeological record is scant on many things and Muslims are not known for treating artifacts from the period of ‘Jahilya’ (the time of darkness before the land was converted to Islam) with any sort of respect or deference. For instance, there has been a campaign in Iran to dismantle the pre-Islamic Persian structures. The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas because they were a representation of Jahilya. During Muslim occupation of India, thousands of Hindu shrines and temples were destroyed. An archaeologist’s best hope remains in finding things before the Muslims. But even so, stuff tends to get destroyed in the Nile flood plains.
The Bible is generally treated with more skepticism than other ancient Near Eastern religious texts when it comes to historical matters owing to the prevailing minimalism of archaeologists these days. Minimalism is nothing more than a presupposition.
I think the Bible definitely agrees with the archaeological record in the Levant regarding the Israelite invasion.
Hoffmeier’s book on the matter is very good.
OK first lets look at Isis and Horus, note sun disk above Isis’s head
Right, I get it. Because one thing that came later is somewhat similar (but mostly different) to something that came earlier, therefore the thing that came earlier caused the thing later.
If we’re to stick to logic, you have 0 proof of what you’re saying.
There are huge numbers of examples of this appropriation of local customs into Christianity. Santa Claus comes from Saint Nicholas which comes from Woden.
The whole Christmas celebration is aligned with the existing midwinter festivals.
Easter is aligned with existing Spring festivals and even takes it’s name from a Germanic god.
George and the Dragon comes from Horus killing a Nile Croc (the inconography here is staggeringly similar.)
The whole idea of resurrection was taken from Egyptian tradition.
Various elements from the Mithra cult also found their way into modern Christianity. Mithra was pretty much the blueprint for Modern Christianity though it had two issues. It hadn’t developed enough from obvious Sun Worship and it wasn’t inclusive enough of female figures.
The fun thing is that the inconsistencies in the gospels actually show where the early Christians were not quite sure which bits they were co-opting. Different figures in the early church evidently had different ideas of the direction that the religion should take. Partly, this was based on the local customs where they happened to be or which group they were trying to persuade.
This leaves us with fun situations like Jesus being virgin born but also descended from David on his father’s side where two different stories have been combined into one.
Santa’s not in the Bible. Festivals in the Gregorian calendar not found in the Bible are non sequiturs.
As for the rest, well, I’m sorry you don’t understand what a logical fallacy is. Oh well. [/quote]
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
To sum up, the hypocrisy charge is groundless. The Church hasn’t suddenly changed from auto-forgiveness (if unrepentant), to repentance then forgiveness. It hasn’t deviated from it’s teachings.
The hypocrisy is in the fact that a mother trying to save her daughter is excommunicated whereas the rapist is not. Mind you, given the history of rape and child abuse by the Catholic Church I guess that is just par for the course.
That’s not hypocrisy. It’s no secret that abortion, a pre-meditated act of murder, is an automatic excommunication. I don’t think you’re using the word correctly.
So is rape and child abuse. All grievous acts against another human being is an automatic excommunication, even if they received the holy orders. There was not now, nor ever any public or private acceptance of child abuse of any kind save for a few corrupt individuals…I am pretty sure most child molesters ain’t Catholic. I’d like to see a chart.
Rape is clearly not an automatic excommunication, the rapist in the case has not been excommunicated. Neither have the hundreds of child rapists that Roman Catholic Church deliberately covered up.
The church did not cover it up, certain people did, but this was not a church sanctioned cover up.
Hundreds? Do you have proof of this claim? A link or anything credible, not something from atheistuniverse.com or somebody who clearly has a bone to pick. Last I heard the numbers were double digits, one is to high, but let’s not exaggerate here.
I’d still be willing to be the vast majority of child rapists are atheists. Religious folk have done some bad things in history, but atheist are still the winners when it comes to crimes against humanity.
Care to discuss history of brutal murders carried out in the name of atheism…the numbers are in the millions and this is referencable in a million places.
The vatican sent a document to all Bishops detailing how to cover such cases up.
And as for numbers, the Church estimates it at roughly 5,000 so probably a lot more than that.
As for your claim that the vast majority of child rapists are atheist, any chance you could back that up? Given that atheists are for the moment in the minority in the population I doubt it very much.
The discussion of Atheist attrocities has been done to death. Yes there were a couple of individuals that committed horrific acts and espoused atheism however the reason the numbers killed were so high had nothing to do with atheism, it was to do with efficiency. There have been far more instances of attrocities in the name of religion.
Really their have been far more atrocities in the name of religion? If you are going to bring up the problems of religious, it�¢??s only fair to do the same for atheists. There are 1.2 billion Catholics and a total of 2 billion Christians total in the world. So approximately 1/3 of the world is Christian. You complain about the harm some bad people did in Catholic Church, out of 1.2 billion people. Atheists have killed 300,000,000 people in just the 20th century alone.
If you are going to bring up examples of how bad Christians are. I will be more than happy to bring up how bad Atheists have done. So atheists killed 300 million in 20th century, much of it done to eradicate the religious, how many people did Christians kill? Numbers do matter.
If you are going to accuse Catholics of being child molesters, the atheist are brutal murderers of men, women and children.
The Crimen Sollicitationis was created in a time where they did not have the imagination of sex abuse cases coming up. It was wholly unsuitable for the situation at hand, it was designed for priest�¢??s chasing skirts, but it was the only procedure available. It was amended in 1983 and rescinded and replaced in 2001�¢?�¦.What steps have atheists taken to make sure that their like thinking brethren are killing folks anymore? None? What have atheists done to stop Castro or Pyongyang for starving and oppressing people? No what you have is atheists like Anita Dunn, admiring and celebrating assholes like Mao Se Tung, a man she admired, according to her own words.
The current pope sent the document to all bishops in 2001 at that time it contained information on how to cover up cases by guilting the victim.
And on the atheist side, firstly atheism is not a belief system or a cohesive group like the catholic church.
Secondly, you are referring to a small number of incidents. Yes they were horrific but they were examples of just a few people leading populations that were easy to lead because they have been made that way by religion and it’s virtues of blind faith without questioning.
I repeat, the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of religion far outweighs the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of atheism.[/quote]
You watch to much TV…
You mean this?
“The document recently came to light because it was referenced in a footnote to a May 18, 2002, letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation, to the bishops of the world regarding new procedures for sex abuse cases.”
He mentioned it in a footnote? Hardly a smoking gun…Sorry if the sensationalism got to you.
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm
A few ba
Surely you fucking jest… You think like 12 people managed to kill off 300 million by themselves…That is would not even be plausible in fiction with the dreaded death ray.
Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.
[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
To sum up, the hypocrisy charge is groundless. The Church hasn’t suddenly changed from auto-forgiveness (if unrepentant), to repentance then forgiveness. It hasn’t deviated from it’s teachings.
The hypocrisy is in the fact that a mother trying to save her daughter is excommunicated whereas the rapist is not. Mind you, given the history of rape and child abuse by the Catholic Church I guess that is just par for the course.
That’s not hypocrisy. It’s no secret that abortion, a pre-meditated act of murder, is an automatic excommunication. I don’t think you’re using the word correctly.
So is rape and child abuse. All grievous acts against another human being is an automatic excommunication, even if they received the holy orders. There was not now, nor ever any public or private acceptance of child abuse of any kind save for a few corrupt individuals…I am pretty sure most child molesters ain’t Catholic. I’d like to see a chart.
Rape is clearly not an automatic excommunication, the rapist in the case has not been excommunicated. Neither have the hundreds of child rapists that Roman Catholic Church deliberately covered up.
The church did not cover it up, certain people did, but this was not a church sanctioned cover up.
Hundreds? Do you have proof of this claim? A link or anything credible, not something from atheistuniverse.com or somebody who clearly has a bone to pick. Last I heard the numbers were double digits, one is to high, but let’s not exaggerate here.
I’d still be willing to be the vast majority of child rapists are atheists. Religious folk have done some bad things in history, but atheist are still the winners when it comes to crimes against humanity.
Care to discuss history of brutal murders carried out in the name of atheism…the numbers are in the millions and this is referencable in a million places.
The vatican sent a document to all Bishops detailing how to cover such cases up.
And as for numbers, the Church estimates it at roughly 5,000 so probably a lot more than that.
As for your claim that the vast majority of child rapists are atheist, any chance you could back that up? Given that atheists are for the moment in the minority in the population I doubt it very much.
The discussion of Atheist attrocities has been done to death. Yes there were a couple of individuals that committed horrific acts and espoused atheism however the reason the numbers killed were so high had nothing to do with atheism, it was to do with efficiency. There have been far more instances of attrocities in the name of religion.
Really their have been far more atrocities in the name of religion? If you are going to bring up the problems of religious, it�?�¢??s only fair to do the same for atheists. There are 1.2 billion Catholics and a total of 2 billion Christians total in the world. So approximately 1/3 of the world is Christian. You complain about the harm some bad people did in Catholic Church, out of 1.2 billion people. Atheists have killed 300,000,000 people in just the 20th century alone.
If you are going to bring up examples of how bad Christians are. I will be more than happy to bring up how bad Atheists have done. So atheists killed 300 million in 20th century, much of it done to eradicate the religious, how many people did Christians kill? Numbers do matter.
If you are going to accuse Catholics of being child molesters, the atheist are brutal murderers of men, women and children.
The Crimen Sollicitationis was created in a time where they did not have the imagination of sex abuse cases coming up. It was wholly unsuitable for the situation at hand, it was designed for priest�?�¢??s chasing skirts, but it was the only procedure available. It was amended in 1983 and rescinded and replaced in 2001�?�¢?�?�¦.What steps have atheists taken to make sure that their like thinking brethren are killing folks anymore? None? What have atheists done to stop Castro or Pyongyang for starving and oppressing people? No what you have is atheists like Anita Dunn, admiring and celebrating assholes like Mao Se Tung, a man she admired, according to her own words.
The current pope sent the document to all bishops in 2001 at that time it contained information on how to cover up cases by guilting the victim.
And on the atheist side, firstly atheism is not a belief system or a cohesive group like the catholic church.
Secondly, you are referring to a small number of incidents. Yes they were horrific but they were examples of just a few people leading populations that were easy to lead because they have been made that way by religion and it’s virtues of blind faith without questioning.
I repeat, the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of religion far outweighs the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of atheism.
You watch to much TV…
You mean this?
“The document recently came to light because it was referenced in a footnote to a May 18, 2002, letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation, to the bishops of the world regarding new procedures for sex abuse cases.”
He mentioned it in a footnote? Hardly a smoking gun…Sorry if the sensationalism got to you.
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm
A few ba
[/quote]
And I am sure that the national catholic reporter is totally unbiased in the way they report it…
The guy sent a reminder to people that this was the correct procedure to follow at a time that people were making complaints about child abuse.
Historically we are talking about a handful individuals that came to power then created relegions of personality to replace the incumbent religions. The people who were used to believing without questioning did exactly that.
For every one atheist leader who has carried out attrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.
And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.
I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.
But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I repeat, the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of religion far outweighs the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of atheism.
Wait until you’re the majority. The hatred is already palpable. In fact, I sometimes wonder where the most alarming speech comes from, New Atheism or the Mosque. Secular racial seperatists already making their case now on genetic differences between groups. Heck, generally, you guys support the slaughter of humans for convenience as it is.
I guess the difference is that because Atheism isn’t a cohesive belief system in the way that a religion is I don’t have to believe something just because an important Atheist says it. You have to believe that condoms are a sin because the Pope says so and the Pope is infallible because he is God’s spokesman on earth.
I however owe no allegiance to any Atheist group therefore when Dawkins starts spouting arrogant retarded bullshit about the fact that Atheists should refer to themselves as brights then I am totally free to call it arrogant retarded bullshit based on my own reasoned opinion on the fact. I am also free to still respect and enjoy his scientific writings as some of the best and most accessible explanations of the process of evolution by natural selection.[/quote]
Actually the Catholic Church has directly told Christians to question and do not just take things as matter of fact.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
And I am sure that the national catholic reporter is totally unbiased in the way they report it…[/quote]
Not going to bother much with this, as the article does a good job. And even most non-catholics realize the importance to Catholics of the secrecy and privacy surrounding confession. It is/was the procedure while an accussation and the resulting Church investigation went on. It had nothing to do with the interaction between civil authorities and the Church if a solicitation was criminal (which, obviously, isn’t always the case). There, civil laws apply.
Get more members =P
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Erm, the Egyptian Religions predate Christianity by thousands of years so it is pretty obvious who ripped off who.
The Jesus and his mother Mary is a straight rip off of Horus and Isis for instance.
This is called a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” argument - a logical fallacy.
Actually, the Egyptian archaeological record is scant on many things and Muslims are not known for treating artifacts from the period of ‘Jahilya’ (the time of darkness before the land was converted to Islam) with any sort of respect or deference. For instance, there has been a campaign in Iran to dismantle the pre-Islamic Persian structures. The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas because they were a representation of Jahilya. During Muslim occupation of India, thousands of Hindu shrines and temples were destroyed. An archaeologist’s best hope remains in finding things before the Muslims. But even so, stuff tends to get destroyed in the Nile flood plains.
The Bible is generally treated with more skepticism than other ancient Near Eastern religious texts when it comes to historical matters owing to the prevailing minimalism of archaeologists these days. Minimalism is nothing more than a presupposition.
I think the Bible definitely agrees with the archaeological record in the Levant regarding the Israelite invasion.
Hoffmeier’s book on the matter is very good.
OK first lets look at Isis and Horus, note sun disk above Isis’s head
Right, I get it. Because one thing that came later is somewhat similar (but mostly different) to something that came earlier, therefore the thing that came earlier caused the thing later.
If we’re to stick to logic, you have 0 proof of what you’re saying.
There are huge numbers of examples of this appropriation of local customs into Christianity. Santa Claus comes from Saint Nicholas which comes from Woden.
The whole Christmas celebration is aligned with the existing midwinter festivals.
Easter is aligned with existing Spring festivals and even takes it’s name from a Germanic god.
George and the Dragon comes from Horus killing a Nile Croc (the inconography here is staggeringly similar.)
The whole idea of resurrection was taken from Egyptian tradition.
Various elements from the Mithra cult also found their way into modern Christianity. Mithra was pretty much the blueprint for Modern Christianity though it had two issues. It hadn’t developed enough from obvious Sun Worship and it wasn’t inclusive enough of female figures.
The fun thing is that the inconsistencies in the gospels actually show where the early Christians were not quite sure which bits they were co-opting. Different figures in the early church evidently had different ideas of the direction that the religion should take. Partly, this was based on the local customs where they happened to be or which group they were trying to persuade.
This leaves us with fun situations like Jesus being virgin born but also descended from David on his father’s side where two different stories have been combined into one.[/quote]
They are aligned on purpose. It was a way to bring pagans into the fold by maintaining their traditions but making them Christian celebrations…So what’s your point? None of it invalidates anything, at all.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
To sum up, the hypocrisy charge is groundless. The Church hasn’t suddenly changed from auto-forgiveness (if unrepentant), to repentance then forgiveness. It hasn’t deviated from it’s teachings.
The hypocrisy is in the fact that a mother trying to save her daughter is excommunicated whereas the rapist is not. Mind you, given the history of rape and child abuse by the Catholic Church I guess that is just par for the course.
That’s not hypocrisy. It’s no secret that abortion, a pre-meditated act of murder, is an automatic excommunication. I don’t think you’re using the word correctly.
So is rape and child abuse. All grievous acts against another human being is an automatic excommunication, even if they received the holy orders. There was not now, nor ever any public or private acceptance of child abuse of any kind save for a few corrupt individuals…I am pretty sure most child molesters ain’t Catholic. I’d like to see a chart.
Rape is clearly not an automatic excommunication, the rapist in the case has not been excommunicated. Neither have the hundreds of child rapists that Roman Catholic Church deliberately covered up.
The church did not cover it up, certain people did, but this was not a church sanctioned cover up.
Hundreds? Do you have proof of this claim? A link or anything credible, not something from atheistuniverse.com or somebody who clearly has a bone to pick. Last I heard the numbers were double digits, one is to high, but let’s not exaggerate here.
I’d still be willing to be the vast majority of child rapists are atheists. Religious folk have done some bad things in history, but atheist are still the winners when it comes to crimes against humanity.
Care to discuss history of brutal murders carried out in the name of atheism…the numbers are in the millions and this is referencable in a million places.
The vatican sent a document to all Bishops detailing how to cover such cases up.
And as for numbers, the Church estimates it at roughly 5,000 so probably a lot more than that.
As for your claim that the vast majority of child rapists are atheist, any chance you could back that up? Given that atheists are for the moment in the minority in the population I doubt it very much.
The discussion of Atheist attrocities has been done to death. Yes there were a couple of individuals that committed horrific acts and espoused atheism however the reason the numbers killed were so high had nothing to do with atheism, it was to do with efficiency. There have been far more instances of attrocities in the name of religion.
Really their have been far more atrocities in the name of religion? If you are going to bring up the problems of religious, it�??�?�¢??s only fair to do the same for atheists. There are 1.2 billion Catholics and a total of 2 billion Christians total in the world. So approximately 1/3 of the world is Christian. You complain about the harm some bad people did in Catholic Church, out of 1.2 billion people. Atheists have killed 300,000,000 people in just the 20th century alone.
If you are going to bring up examples of how bad Christians are. I will be more than happy to bring up how bad Atheists have done. So atheists killed 300 million in 20th century, much of it done to eradicate the religious, how many people did Christians kill? Numbers do matter.
If you are going to accuse Catholics of being child molesters, the atheist are brutal murderers of men, women and children.
The Crimen Sollicitationis was created in a time where they did not have the imagination of sex abuse cases coming up. It was wholly unsuitable for the situation at hand, it was designed for priest�??�?�¢??s chasing skirts, but it was the only procedure available. It was amended in 1983 and rescinded and replaced in 2001�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦.What steps have atheists taken to make sure that their like thinking brethren are killing folks anymore? None? What have atheists done to stop Castro or Pyongyang for starving and oppressing people? No what you have is atheists like Anita Dunn, admiring and celebrating assholes like Mao Se Tung, a man she admired, according to her own words.
The current pope sent the document to all bishops in 2001 at that time it contained information on how to cover up cases by guilting the victim.
And on the atheist side, firstly atheism is not a belief system or a cohesive group like the catholic church.
Secondly, you are referring to a small number of incidents. Yes they were horrific but they were examples of just a few people leading populations that were easy to lead because they have been made that way by religion and it’s virtues of blind faith without questioning.
I repeat, the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of religion far outweighs the number of incidences of horrific acts being carried out in the name of atheism.
You watch to much TV…
You mean this?
“The document recently came to light because it was referenced in a footnote to a May 18, 2002, letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation, to the bishops of the world regarding new procedures for sex abuse cases.”
He mentioned it in a footnote? Hardly a smoking gun…Sorry if the sensationalism got to you.
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm
A few ba
And I am sure that the national catholic reporter is totally unbiased in the way they report it…
The guy sent a reminder to people that this was the correct procedure to follow at a time that people were making complaints about child abuse.
Secondly, you are referring to a small number of incidents. Yes they were horrific but they were examples of just a few people leading populations that were easy to lead because they have been made that way by religion and it’s virtues of blind faith without questioning.
Surely you fucking jest… You think like 12 people managed to kill off 300 million by themselves…That is would not even be plausible in fiction with the dreaded death ray.
Historically we are talking about a handful individuals that came to power then created relegions of personality to replace the incumbent religions. The people who were used to believing without questioning did exactly that.
For every one atheist leader who has carried out attrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.
Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.
And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.
I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.
But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.[/quote]
Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.
Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.
You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.