Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Fuck off Catholicism.
i now hate the pope, instead of my former mild indifference.
This fueled the dislike. Catholicism is rather messed up.
All very well and good, but their beliefs are based on medieval horseshit, not objective science... or for that matter, common sense.
werent they. Real fucking consistent propping up mussolini and his murderous regime werent they?
'pro-life' fuck off.
according to the pope.
PS-thankyou for pointing out how outdated 'democracy' is while were at it.
And their perfectly entitled to their beliefs.
What they're not entitled to do is paint it as some kind of great moral win. They're not idiots - they know that their actions will more or less lead directly to some poor schmucks untimely death, but they signed the paper anyway.
I can just see the political cartoon now:
Pope Muppet standing in the middle of some godforsaken back street somewhere in communist Romania, pregnant women shuffling about with Securitate goons checking to make sure they're all carrying their babies to term, while other kids who should have been aborted run about robbing folk... and saying "Dammit, we're trying to save lives!"
wow very right wing
Because the right wing are all about abortion...
1) I don't particularly accept that the Nazi party and their crazy schemes is generally indicative of the spectrum of right of centre thinking.
2) I thought Eugenics was selective breeding. Not a lot of abortions there.
don't give any church money to them then. But to publicly come out and order all catholics not to donate to amnesty is fucking abhorrent. I hate the Vatican's indoctrination and dogma more than their beliefs.
its to deny the 'rabble' the right to decide themselves. Its not a moral choice if you dont make it yourself.
its ingrained within the culture and family structure many of them grew up in.
Point A) The Vatican is denying the 'rabble' the right to decide for itself.
B) They can't choose to switch to one of the other churches: it's ingrained in the culture and family structure they grew up in.
Assuming 'deciding things for oneself' encompasses deciding what church one can join, I think that if we extend what you're saying you're basically saying that the Vatican SHOULDN'T decide stuff for them, but that they CAN'T decide stuff for themselves because the Vatican is too 'ingrained' into their cultural structure.
This is either a) Catch-22 or b) self-contradiction.
So I can't agree with your point B). Anyone can choose to believe anything if they want: the consequences of their decision might be bad if everyone else believes something different and peer pressure becomes a risk, but they can still make the choice.
upbrinign and cultural/value bias as a result of catholic schooling etc. I dont see how its self contradiction. Im saying that Firstly, the concept of papal infalliability means that within the catholic community catholics are denied the ability to make free moral choices. The argument against this is that they can choose to leave their religion. I say that many catholics dont have that option. Their cultural upbrining and values they have got from catholicism have removed their ability to switch religion. Because catholic morals and all structures of catholic upbringing essentially rest with the vatican, this makes the Vatican the principal actor in both cases and therefore my original statement that the vatican denies them the right to choose is correct.
within a consensus based structure. Something any form of voting democracy cannot allow for.
No, I don't disagree with you about the Vatican denying them the right to choose.
What I'm saying is that you present a problem to which you offer no solution. I believe you are arguing with Vikram for arguments' sake, rather than anything else.
Because IF it is true that the Vatican denies Catholics the right to choose (which it is), and it is ALSO true that this intervention from the Vatican has taken from Catholics the ABILITY to choose, then what happens if the Vatican suddenly gives its subjects a right to choose?
You're saying that if the Vatican gives Catholics the right to choose, then it will be a right that Catholics cannot exercise, due to 'ingrained upbringing and values' having stopped them being able to choose whether they had the right or not.
So what's your solution to the problem you've created?
and i havent created the problem. What you have said is entirely what im saying.
Catholicism restricts the ability to make 'moral' judgements, was my argument, i did not intend to suggest a solution. However, the pope could be less of a cunt by not displaying such retarded views or hindering the work of a charitable group that has acheived great positive things by its actions.
he lied to Africa as well about microscopic holes in condoms which allow the AIDS Virus to pass through, which has led to the continued spread of the AIDS virus and much blood on his hands, organised religion is so wrong how can one man be so powerful?
paragraph 2267 of the catechism of the catholic church:
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
burn it all, burn down all the churches, burn the pope! burn! burn! burn! if people want to abort their babies let them, also the bible is just fiction it's not real, jesus never lived, there is no such thing as a holy spirit and Lazarus never rose from the dead cos he never lived in the first place!
but I dont think you can throw away THOUSANDS of years of civilization, development and history so lightly. The importance of religion in providing a sense of security for the human psyche is not to be scoffed at (hopefully this doesnt sound condescending towards religious people, it is not intended to. Also, if you're in any way predisposed to a perspectivist way of thinking, then religion,as a concept, is perfectly valid.
of whether the bible is "real" ignores that fact that its a hodgepodge of ancient tales and methods of living and surviving that had existed for centuries before their adaptation to the bible. To say that has no value is incredibly flippant.
the bible means what they want it to mean, rather than the literal meaning of what is written.
i just said they can intepret the bible how they like effectively, if they disregard creationism, effectively coz they have to due to science proving it wrong, why should they not adapt policy on other issues, when it is clearly wrong, e.g. the contraception example earlier.
i need sleep
just look at those Westboro Baptist Church twats who were on that Louis Theroux documentary
but whatever - If you don't think there's anything wrong with the Vatican effectively banning their followers from donating money to a charity that they might choose to support then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm going to bed.
been any doubt about the Pope being a cunt?
I remember when the last Pope died I sent a drunken text message to my girlfriend's Irish Catholic mum, saying I was glad he died, etc.
That went down well
Even when drunk
Ignore all debate above.
As well as a Nazi.
are you sticking up for a piss poor excuse for a religion?
it is a much better religion.
all hail the FSM
Then I saw her face.
Now I am.
...says a man who believes in original sin.
well and truly opened.
thats an ace religion.
be a pirate, don't eat pasta, laugh at everyone else's beliefs
but there's no place for policies that result in the needless deaths of millions, religious or otherwise.
And whilst i do not agree with a lot of the Catholic Church's doctrines (including the issues discussed in this thread), and my faith has somewhat lapsed, I do take offense at your use of language and the statement 'Fuck off Catholicism' I have always been taught to make up my own decisions about the teachings of the Church, and I know a lot of my friends/family who are also Catholic have been allowed to do the same.
The danger with religion is when one takes it too literally and you end up with Fundamentalism. Despite what you may think, there is progression within the Church and we are not all anti-Abortion/Contraception Nazi's.
the head of your church is an anti abortion/contraception nazi
you take your cues from a cunt like that?
does the pope exist
he is gods mouthpiece on earth is he not?
but the point I am trying to make is that not all Catholics are the same. I like to think that people within the Catholic Church will listen to what the Pope has to say about Amnesty International, and disagree with him.
But within Catholic doctrine isn't disagreeing with the Pope essentially disagreeing with God?
I do disagree with God with regard to certain aspects of the Catholic Doctrine, most notably the issue of this thread.
I'm struggling to see how disagreeing with God and being Catholic (except as a vague cultural identity) are compatible, but whatever.
who still has faith, albeit not as strong as it once was. I just think religion should not be taken literally, and followers of whatever religion should be able to make up their own decisions.
are we gonna have this debate?
I don't agree with a lot of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, especially on contraception.
But broadly I suppose I back most of their ideas on abortion.
Not the rape part though
and detract from a valid organisation like amnesty.
That's gay. He wouldn't like that. (Although, secretly, he would).
meant the social board was blocked for porn at work all day. Nice one Popey >:-(
in my opinion. they do superb work with other stuff and it will just undermine them.
Vikram dares to encourage people to see the other side of a debate. Everyone else lambasts him for being a fundamentalist neo-nazi who loves to spread AIDS and force women to have unwanted rape babies, despite his repeated statements to the contrary.
I've seen some crappy "serious" threads in my time but... seriously DiS, you can do better than this.
and it seemed to me like vikram was just trying to provoke an arguement by disagreeing with everyone.
and as an excuse to try and look big and clever. well done.
once you post an opinion on DiS it is no longer your property and drifts endlessly in a sea of free-floating signifiers.
You are no longer yourself! You despicable Nazi!