It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stephen Fry Speaks out Aggains the Catholic Church

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Shamatt
 


Have you ever heard the saying; The proof is in the pudding.
Only when tasted will it be known.


I think I'll skip pudding and go straight to the cheese and biscuits.




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I would like evidence to back up your claim that "God is known"



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Yeah, um, pretty much everything this guy Frye says is wrong. I watched the videos. First he talks about purgatory, baptism, etc. . . Well, if you ask a knowledgeable Catholic, they'd explain where in the Bible it's all in. Some of the stuff Frye says is just outright lying. Unbaptized don't go to hell, for example. The Catholic Church can never say anyone is going to hell. When Frye quotes Ratzinger, it was from before he became the current pope, so does not represent the Catholic Church. Frye mostly uses the past abominations of the Catholic Church of course, then mentions child abuse, but the problem with child abuse/rape is that it is against Catholicism. Frye mentions Ratzinger (again before he became pope so doesn't represent Catholic teaching) against homosexuality, yet the Catholic Church is one of the most homosexual-friendly churches. Gays can go to heaven in Catholicism. Females can't become priests, because Jesus was a man, so if Catholicism is sexist, so is all Christianity. Finally he mentions condom use. The fact is, condom-use doesn't protect against HIV/AIDS (If AIDS is even actually caused by a virus called HIV). The virus is the smallest lifeform, if it is even considered a lifeform, and passes through condoms. Condoms are for birth control, plain & simple. Come on ATS, can't you see a conspiracy right in front of your eyes! The Catholic Church is the biggest helper of the poor in the world. In almost every country there is a Catholic Mission helping the poor with education, food, clean water, and other basic necessities of life. (Final note: I'm not Catholic; I'm just a Theist, but I do think the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
Yeah, um, pretty much everything this guy Frye says is wrong. I watched the videos. First he talks about purgatory, baptism, etc. . . Well, if you ask a knowledgeable Catholic, they'd explain where in the Bible it's all in. Some of the stuff Frye says is just outright lying. Unbaptized don't go to hell, for example. The Catholic Church can never say anyone is going to hell. When Frye quotes Ratzinger, it was from before he became the current pope, so does not represent the Catholic Church. Frye mostly uses the past abominations of the Catholic Church of course, then mentions child abuse, but the problem with child abuse/rape is that it is against Catholicism. Frye mentions Ratzinger (again before he became pope so doesn't represent Catholic teaching) against homosexuality, yet the Catholic Church is one of the most homosexual-friendly churches. Gays can go to heaven in Catholicism. Females can't become priests, because Jesus was a man, so if Catholicism is sexist, so is all Christianity. Finally he mentions condom use. The fact is, condom-use doesn't protect against HIV/AIDS (If AIDS is even actually caused by a virus called HIV). The virus is the smallest lifeform, if it is even considered a lifeform, and passes through condoms. Condoms are for birth control, plain & simple. Come on ATS, can't you see a conspiracy right in front of your eyes! The Catholic Church is the biggest helper of the poor in the world. In almost every country there is a Catholic Mission helping the poor with education, food, clean water, and other basic necessities of life. (Final note: I'm not Catholic; I'm just a Theist, but I do think the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.)

While I know we're not supposed to say "I agree", I do, I agree with you!
Vicky



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
Yeah, um, pretty much everything this guy Frye says is wrong. I watched the videos. First he talks about purgatory, baptism, etc. . . Well, if you ask a knowledgeable Catholic, they'd explain where in the Bible it's all in. Some of the stuff Frye says is just outright lying. Unbaptized don't go to hell, for example. The Catholic Church can never say anyone is going to hell. When Frye quotes Ratzinger, it was from before he became the current pope, so does not represent the Catholic Church. Frye mostly uses the past abominations of the Catholic Church of course, then mentions child abuse, but the problem with child abuse/rape is that it is against Catholicism. Frye mentions Ratzinger (again before he became pope so doesn't represent Catholic teaching) against homosexuality, yet the Catholic Church is one of the most homosexual-friendly churches. Gays can go to heaven in Catholicism. Females can't become priests, because Jesus was a man, so if Catholicism is sexist, so is all Christianity. Finally he mentions condom use. The fact is, condom-use doesn't protect against HIV/AIDS (If AIDS is even actually caused by a virus called HIV). The virus is the smallest lifeform, if it is even considered a lifeform, and passes through condoms. Condoms are for birth control, plain & simple. Come on ATS, can't you see a conspiracy right in front of your eyes! The Catholic Church is the biggest helper of the poor in the world. In almost every country there is a Catholic Mission helping the poor with education, food, clean water, and other basic necessities of life. (Final note: I'm not Catholic; I'm just a Theist, but I do think the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.)


You call him a liar, and then you say "The fact is, condom-use doesn't protect against HIV/AIDS (If AIDS is even actually caused by a virus called HIV). The virus is the smallest lifeform, if it is even considered a lifeform, and passes through condoms"

This is untrue, and there is zero evidence to back it up. In fact there is a wealth of scientific evidence, and real life proof, that condoms do prevent HIV transmition. This is scientific fact. To start a sentace with the words "The fact is...." and then follow that with a complete untruth is just laughable.

The virus is not the smallest life form. You got that worng, by the way. Google "Archaea microbe" and see what that brings up.

There is also a wealth of scientific evidence from every major western country which showes catagorically that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

If you have any poroof whatsoever to back up your statements please post it here, I would be very interested to see it.

I feel your statements are just another "faith over fact" argument by someone blinnded by religion. This is, for me, the scariest thing in the world, as it means that even well meaning people are doing completely the wrong thing because they refute the truth in favour of what there religions tell them, and what they want to beleive.

You also mention the abuse of children, and state quite correctly that this is against catholicism. Although I do wonder why that is all you have to say about it? Surely, if it is seen to be so wrong in the the eyes of the catolic church, the head of that church would not choose to cover it up, and instruct senior church members to cover it up? And what Ratzinger said before he became pope is still his opinion! Did he renounce all previous opinions and statements when he became pope? No, he took his attitudes and beleifes into that position with him.

"Females can't become preists because Jesus was a man" - What sort of statement is that? That is no reason for anything. Was Jesus a preist? Did the church even exist when he was arround? No! Hows about this, following yur same logic.... Brunets can't become preists becasue jesus was blond! Or even Christians can't become preists becasue Jesus was a Jew. How's that sound?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 



Originally posted by bettermakings
Yeah, um, pretty much everything this guy Frye says is wrong.


Stephen Fry? Wrong? That's a rare event.



I watched the videos. First he talks about purgatory, baptism, etc. . . Well, if you ask a knowledgeable Catholic, they'd explain where in the Bible it's all in.


Except...they couldn't, really. Most knowledgeable Catholics take doctrine at face value. Where is the Assumption of Mary in the Bible? Where is her coronation? Where is purgatory? I'm not going to just take your blatantly incorrect assertion that these things are in the Bible when I've actually bothered to read the damn thing.



Some of the stuff Frye says is just outright lying.


Citation needed. Can you prove that he is deliberately misleading people?



Unbaptized don't go to hell, for example.


True, he was wrong about that one. Technically they used to go to limbo and now they may or may not go to heaven.



The Catholic Church can never say anyone is going to hell.


What!? Someone is unfamiliar with the concept of excommunication. If someone is excommunicated they are definitively hell bound, it's why it's a punishment considered worse than death by the devout.



When Frye quotes Ratzinger, it was from before he became the current pope, so does not represent the Catholic Church.


He was a Cardinal in the Catholic church, he did represent the Church at the time. Hell, he was the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years....that's basically the second highest position in Catholicism.



Frye mostly uses the past abominations of the Catholic Church of course, then mentions child abuse, but the problem with child abuse/rape is that it is against Catholicism.


And yet Pappa Ratzi didn't have a problem protecting those who abused and raped children.



Frye mentions Ratzinger (again before he became pope so doesn't represent Catholic teaching)


Again, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith represents the Catholic teaching.



against homosexuality, yet the Catholic Church is one of the most homosexual-friendly churches.


...no, they really aren't. Considering that they tell homosexuals that they are not only unable to follow the natural feelings they have of romantic love towards other men, they say that those urges are sinful.



Gays can go to heaven in Catholicism.


...yes, if they don't participate in homosexual behavior. They have to be fully celibate.



Females can't become priests, because Jesus was a man, so if Catholicism is sexist, so is all Christianity.


I'm sorry, but how is it that you know that Jesus was a man (if he existed at all)? And where is your causation that Jesus having a penis means that all higher-level clergy must have a penis as well?




Finally he mentions condom use. The fact is, condom-use doesn't protect against HIV/AIDS (If AIDS is even actually caused by a virus called HIV).


...I'm sorry, but I've heard this before and I'd like to actually see the evidence that condoms don't protect against AIDS.



The virus is the smallest lifeform, if it is even considered a lifeform, and passes through condoms.


No, it really doesn't. I'd like you to support this claim. Condoms protect against all sorts of viruses, not just AIDS. Well, they protect against all fluid-transmission STDs, not against genital warts or other contact-spread diseases.



Condoms are for birth control, plain & simple.


...and for the prevention of the spread of all sorts of sexually transmitted disease. Of course, you're ignorant about condom use, I doubt you even understand the basics of STD transmission or anything about biology in general for that matter, or at least I'll extend to you the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather claim you're ignorant than deceitful.



Come on ATS, can't you see a conspiracy right in front of your eyes!


...yes, the Catholic church is a huge one.



The Catholic Church is the biggest helper of the poor in the world.


Citation needed. What have they done to increase the economic position of the poor? Feeding them as a pretense to conversion isn't a way to help the poor, it's a creation of dependence.



In almost every country there is a Catholic Mission helping the poor with education, food, clean water, and other basic necessities of life.


As a pretense for conversion. These missions provide very limited education and do not do anything to increase base financial viability for communities. They may help individuals to a level, but they show no interest in actually enacting any sort of dramatic change. Of course, I'll gladly take being corrected if you can show me an instance where the Catholic church acting alone implemented long term and sustained financial changes to a community that were positive.



(Final note: I'm not Catholic; I'm just a Theist, but I do think the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.)


Well, you're wrong.
edit on 26/3/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt

The virus is not the smallest life form. You got that worng, by the way. Google "Archaea microbe" and see what that brings up.

Coincidentally, I was reading about this very thing just yesterday - and you're 'worng'! The Archaea microbe is bigger than any virus. (Not that it's an important point, but even so.)


Originally posted by ShamattYou also mention the abuse of children, and state quite correctly that this is against catholicism. Although I do wonder why that is all you have to say about it? Surely, if it is seen to be so wrong in the the eyes of the catolic church, the head of that church would not choose to cover it up, and instruct senior church members to cover it up? And what Ratzinger said before he became pope is still his opinion!

What you need to do is find out what Benedict as Pope has actually said on the subject! As for the belief, that many atheists seem to seriously get off on that all priests molest little boys, a little bit of common sense will tell you two things - most, probably 99.9 % of priests have not and never will molest any child, and second, that other categories of people are far more statistically significant as molesters. Step-daddies and sports coaches head the list (hence my signature).

Vicky



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

..... As for the belief, that many atheists seem to seriously get off on



A little harsh don't you think? We don't get off on bad news you know.


Originally posted by Vicky32

that all priests molest little boys, a little bit of common sense will tell you two things - most, probably 99.9 % of priests have not and never will molest any child, and second, that other categories of people are far more statistically significant as molesters. Step-daddies and sports coaches head the list (hence my signature).

Vicky


I agree with you completely, you are totally right in what you say. What you don't do though, is comment on my statement regarding the pontif doing his very best to cover up this behaviour in the church rather than throw the guilty parties on the mercy of the legal system. Why would he cover it up, and instruct others to do the same? I don't understand that. That is the point, I make no argument that this does not happen in other areas of life too. Of courtse it does. It is wrong wherever it may happen. So why protect the guilty inside the church?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt

A little harsh don't you think? We don't get off on bad news you know.



I agree with you completely, you are totally right in what you say. What you don't do though, is comment on my statement regarding the pontif doing his very best to cover up this behaviour in the church rather than throw the guilty parties on the mercy of the legal system. Why would he cover it up, and instruct others to do the same? I don't understand that. That is the point, I make no argument that this does not happen in other areas of life too. Of courtse it does. It is wrong wherever it may happen. So why protect the guilty inside the church?

I need proof that he did in fact cover it up! I am currently reading a book by him, and his pain about the whole subject is very plain to see, and as far as I know, Benedict never covered anything up!
I am not a Catholic, I am reading the book because a dear friend sent it to me as a Christmas present. Although I am almost certain you'd sooner gouge your eyes than read it, I really wish you actually would! His sincerity and his passion show - and he is genuinely a nice person.
And of course you get off on bad news! Allegations of abuse, as hard to refute no matter how hard people such as me who hate bigotry try, as a Birther's fervent belief that Obama is an evil liar, are the best news you guys could ever get!
Amazon listing



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


99.9%? So you're going to lie that all atheists think that all priests molest young boys (which I as an atheist don't, I even have two relatives who are priests and I respect them quite a bit) and the we all somehow get off on that? You are making a sweeping generalization while accusing people of making a sweeping generalization! Is that not ironic enough?

Oh, and there are a lot of 'black collar' crime cases around the world. Hell, my own country had to shut down the only orphanage on one of our islands due to how the Dominican nuns there were mistreating the children to the point where outright torture and molestation were the norm.

Furthermore, just look at the damn news for all the reported cases.

You see, some people actually keep track of all the religious child abuse.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Ratzinger (as he was known at the time) most definitively covered things up in his previous position within the church. This comes up with just a simple Google search.
Here's another one.
And another
Wow, even more
I can keep going
This could take a while
I'm really suprised you've never heard anything about this...

Also, your appeal to emotion is frankly sickening. The guy can claim to feel as broken up as he wants about it, you can say you feel it, but honestly who give a flying fornication about what this guy feels? He has yet to enact any sort of reforms that would protect children, he's yet to turn many priests who the Church undoubtedly has evidence on to justice, and he's consistently deflected the problem publicly.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
I was going to write a sensible reply, giving you the evidence you requested (Easily found if you know how to use google) but then I thought "Why the hell should I"

In all my exchanges with you on this thread I have been polite and stated my case calmly. On the other hand, you insist on being insulting and rude:

"...I am almost certain you'd sooner gouge your eyes than read it..." It is an insult that you accuse me of being so closed minded

"And of course you get off on bad news!" Insult number 2

"Allegations of abuse,....... are the best news you guys could ever get!" Insulting , and an attack on my characher too.

Did you even realise how rude you were being? So go google yor own answers. I have no respect for someone who is unable to debate without attacking and being rude.
edit on 28-3-2011 by Shamatt because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Ratzinger (as he was known at the time) most definitively covered things up in his previous position within the church. This comes up with just a simple Google search.
Here's another one.
And another
Wow, even more
I can keep going
This could take a while
I'm really suprised you've never heard anything about this...

Also, your appeal to emotion is frankly sickening. The guy can claim to feel as broken up as he wants about it, you can say you feel it, but honestly who give a flying fornication about what this guy feels? He has yet to enact any sort of reforms that would protect children, he's yet to turn many priests who the Church undoubtedly has evidence on to justice, and he's consistently deflected the problem publicly.


Well done for postinng these links, and thank you - there were a couple there which were new to me.

Fascinating isn't it? The church preaches that lying and breaking the law and then lying about that are all sins. And yet that is how they behave thenselves. They cover up crimes, and then lie about having done so.

www.youtube.com...

This is how I feel about it. MAN I love Ian Brown. Please listen to this



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
You see, some people actually keep track of all the religious child abuse.

Of course you do, you're obsessed! Didn't you have a thread (one of the millions you've started) in which in a fit of honesty, you admitted it was all because of your relationship problems?
Turn about is fair play, you called me a liar! But I suppose this post will disappear as well - I came back on today to find that whenever I've disagreed with an American, my post's gone.
Maybe you're not an American, though? But I really can't be arsed arguing with you any more. Shamatt was reasonable, you're not.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt


I was going to write a sensible reply, giving you the evidence you requested (Easily found if you know how to use google) but then I thought "Why the hell should I"

In all my exchanges with you on this thread I have been polite and stated my case calmly. On the other hand, you insist on being insulting and rude:

"...I am almost certain you'd sooner gouge your eyes than read it..." It is an insult that you accuse me of being so closed minded

"And of course you get off on bad news!" Insult number 2

"Allegations of abuse,....... are the best news you guys could ever get!" Insulting , and an attack on my characher too.

Did you even realise how rude you were being? So go google yor own answers. I have no respect for someone who is unable to debate without attacking and being rude.
edit on 28-3-2011 by Shamatt because: (no reason given)

Oh dear, I am sorry.. Sorry for thinking what a pleasant person you were! I was feeling bad about having been rude to you, especially after having come up against a #load of abuse from Madness... Then I saw this.
You made the claim, you provide the proof, that's how it's supposed to work, isn't it?
But on the other hand, you can provide links til the cows come home, I am not following them. I am not following this thread at all!
Sei veramente un coglione...
V.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Oh dear, I am sorry.. Sorry for thinking what a pleasant person you were! I was feeling bad about having been rude to you, especially after having come up against a #load of abuse from Madness... Then I saw this.
You made the claim, you provide the proof, that's how it's supposed to work, isn't it?
But on the other hand, you can provide links til the cows come home, I am not following them. I am not following this thread at all!
Sei veramente un coglione...
V.


I don't understand you hon. You say you were feeling bad for being rude, then after I point out that you were rude you decide that I am not a pleasant person, and you are rude again.

And to think i once thought you may have been capable of intelligent debate.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
First, there are a lot of facts on the Catholic Church that can be looked up on. Such things as excommunication do not mean that someone goes to hell, for example.

Someone should start a thread on HIV / AIDS, because there is only 1 FACT about it:

No one has ever died of AIDS. They die of TB, Pneumonia, etc.. If I'm a starving African child who dies of dysentery, they would say I died of AIDS. If I was an "HIV positive" homosexual in NY who dies of cancer, they would say I died of AIDS. ETC.. No one has ever died of AIDS.

Condoms are to protect the sperm from reaching the egg, also known as population control.

I've been to third-world countries and spent a lot of time exploring. Catholic organizations are one of the very few who DO NOT spend their time & money trying to convert the pagans. Most other Christians have converting to Christianity as their main goal. This is one of the reasons why I respect the Catholic Church, along with their belief in the theory of evolution.

Oh, and I did mention that the Catholic Church doesn't allow females to be priests because Jesus was a man. As for my opinion, I don't care. It's not my business, and I don't think it's sexist. Maybe Jesus didn't exist, or maybe he was just a man; I don't know. Eastern Catholic Rites are sometimes allowed to have married priests, but other than that, a priest or nun is celibate. That's also "nun" of my business because it's a personal choice for those individuals.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt

I don't understand you hon. You say you were feeling bad for being rude, then after I point out that you were rude you decide that I am not a pleasant person, and you are rude again.

And to think i once thought you may have been capable of intelligent debate.

It's simple enough! I was feeling sorry for being rude to you, and I even had remarked to someone on what a pleasant person you were...
Then, after posting my praise of you, I came across a piece of foul abuse from you. I can't remember what it was and I am not going to try finding it.
It's impossible to try to debate with Madness or with you. You're too full of hatred.
(NB - I am not "mad" I am angry. Learn English, men!)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Yeah, whatever. I have a new rule in life. I am not going to have a battle of whits with someone who is unarmed.

Too much rubish is talked on this forum.

If anylne has anything intelligent to say on this subject, that would really cheer me up. If you can only manage ill-educated, biggoted, ignorant non-scientific magical twaddle then please don't bother posting. I have enough problems with my own reality without having to be subjected to yours!



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Yeah, whatever. I have a new rule in life. I am not going to have a battle of whits with someone who is unarmed.

Too much rubish is talked on this forum.

If anylne has anything intelligent to say on this subject, that would really cheer me up. If you can only manage ill-educated, biggoted, ignorant non-scientific magical twaddle then please don't bother posting. I have enough problems with my own reality without having to be subjected to yours!

You lose! I had already decided to unsubscribe, as there's no point to this thread.
Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Vicky




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join