Catholic Priest tries to hire hitman to kill teen he raped at gunpoint

reply to post by awake_and_aware


That's not true.

Birth control and abortion are in the best interests of religious fundamentalists.

The people most likely to use these are non-religious or mildly religious people. The people least likely to use these are fundamentalists.

Children are much more likely to adopt the views of their parents, and with the atheist birth-rate at only 1 child per family, people who are brought up in a secular manner will be drastically outnumbered and out-bred by those being brought up in a religious manner in the future.

Birth control and abortion will always work in favour of religious fundamentalists.

Your contradicting yourself. In One statement you say God decides what man tells him to decide and in another you say that the Pope changes the word of God. The old addage of: If i am wrong, oh well I lived a good life based on morals. If you are wrong.....Oh boy. I don't condemn other religions, not at all, in fact I believe that other religions are just as assured a place in Heaven as mine. Also, ignorrance is certainly a safe bet to obtain a seat in Paradise. I think of all those tribal groups with no outside contact whatsoever....that is what I mean by ignorrance. Thank you for expressing how you feel. Believe it or not it means alot to me. The interaction between beliefs is welcomed as it helps with overcomming barriers that we might otherwise have.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Birth control and abortion are in the best interests of religious fundamentalists.

What interests are these? And why do the abrahamic mono-theistic religions disagree with birth control, especially abortion? (well actually the Pope's changed his mind now regarding condoms after SECULAR anger caused by his comments stating condoms are worse than aids)

Children are much more likely to adopt the views of their parents, and with the atheist birth-rate at only 1 child per family, people who are brought up in a secular manner will be drastically outnumbered and out-bred by those being brought up in a religious manner in the future.

I'd love to know where you get these figures from, Even if someone is an atheist more than likely their birth certificate states "Roman-Catholic" or "Catholic" or "Christian" or "Jewist" so these figures are no where near accurate not by a long shot.

Religious people WILL populate because the master of their religion, NOT GOD, the Pope has decided that most family planning is bad thing thus allowing for the virus of Christianity to spread and cause further harm to society and people's lives.

Birth control and abortion will always work in favour of religious fundamentalists.

Yes, like i've said it allows them to populate like a virus, that's the reason behind all this pro-life nonsense which has the same credibility as all this "condoms are evil" rhetoric.

Re Zippidee

And I on my part can also see your points.

But you missed my essential meaning, which implied exactly the obvious weaknesses in the use of christian doctrines your post examplified. This in all respect.

In all the doctrinal points on 'sin' balanced with 'repentence' (a way of describing 'reality' I personally consider close to insanity, but accept as an individual choice) the major issues get lost in quibblings over details, where black can be turned into white through use of sophistery, demagogic interpretations and even outright applying of pressure.

It's more than just an awkward handling, its awkward basic assumptional doctrines and awkward 'methodology' intrinsic to said doctrines. Like when maffia bosses go free time and again because of sharp lawyers, who can twist laws into unrecognizabilty.

The distance between the 'normal' world, increasingly based on such methods as science, technology and logical abstractions, and the fictive world based on outdated doctrines, is growing all the time.

And as science constantly developes and changes itself as new knowledge emerges, so should the church make a drastic sprincleaning, and get rid of bronze-age values, many of which clearly are powertools rather than spiritual tools. The price for this will be high for the church(es), but not so high as if they don't do it.

(PS I'm not implying, that science has all the answers. This existential area called religion or for me better: Metaphysics, can't be defined away or ignored, even if it eventually maybe turns out to be a psychological phenomenon. Who knows. I'm not an ANTI-theist, I'm anti-doctrinal).

I believe that other religions are just as assured a place in Heaven as mine

Lol awesome.

Zeus? Odin? Ra? They have the same credibility?

Truth is you don't care, whether Allah says don't eat pork but your God disagrees, it makes no difference to you, you're all going to your super special afterlife. GL and HF i say.

Humans can be moral without religion, as if humans didn't know any different before the Sermon of the Mount, before the publication of the 10 commandments.

You think humans are naturally "evil", that's what separates you and i, and the reason you think you are better than people who are non-religious.

Have a good day sir.

Any one sitting on the fence i suggest you listen and read Christopher Hitchens arguments. I'm not asking you to believe, just to think.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

I believe that other religions are just as assured a place in Heaven as mine

Lol awesome.

Zeus? Odin? Ra? They have the same credibility?

Truth is you don't care, whether Allah says don't eat pork but your God disagrees, it makes no difference to you, you're all going to your super special afterlife. GL and HF i say.

Humans can be moral without religion, as if humans didn't know any different before the Sermon of the Mount, before the publication of the 10 commandments.

You think humans are naturally "evil", that's what separates you and i, and the reason you think you are better than people who are non-religious.

Have a good day sir.

Any one sitting on the fence i suggest you listen and read Christopher Hitchens arguments. I'm not asking you to believe, just to think.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 24/11/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Why personaly attack me? Did I once do that to you? Did I ever state that Humans are intrinsically evil? I don't get it.

reply to post by Zippidee


No but that's what separates me and you, in order to believe in what you believe, if you have to agree that God is the decider, that without him, you would be an immoral human being, That without "his" "guidance" you wouldn't be as moral as you were if you followed your religon. I say that's an insult to human intelligence.

I mean for God's sake (exuse the pun) everyone knows that doctrine i.e. the word of God was written by man, not God. it's as simple as that.

Opposing these doctrines and the alledged word of GOd is the reason women now have equal rights, the reason that racism is finally clearing up, the reason that the Pope has all of a sudden had to change his mind on condoms.

It shows that we don't have to have religion to be moral.

By opposing abortion you are really saying that religion is right, the word of God is absolute, when clearly it is not, or Christians and Islamists would not have to change the word of God whenever society shows it is immoral.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Zippidee

 

By opposing abortion you are allowing to say that religion is right, the word of God is absolute, when clearly it is not, or Christians and Islamists would not have to change the word of God whenever society shows it is immoral.

edit on 24/11/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Yes...you understand me! I still don't get why you were trying to put words in my mouth before though, or the personal attack. Have I not been fair and accepting when it comes to your own personal choices?

For me, the word of God is absolute.

reply to post by Zippidee


And as i've said that's what separates you and I, it wasn't an attack.

I come here to offer my argument, you come here to offer yours. People will see the light. The burning light of truth that the age of enlightenment has braught us. The beauty of evidence, rationality, logic, and the wonderous poetic nature and true delight of science.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
What interests are these? And why do the abrahamic mono-theistic religions disagree with birth control, especially abortion? (well actually the Pope's changed his mind now regarding condoms after SECULAR anger caused by his comments stating condoms are worse than aids)

One of their interests is to populate the world and future generations with people of like-minded beliefs.

This is why I assume they are against it for ideological reasons, as the more widespread birth control is, the more beneficial it is to the future demographics of religious fundamentalism.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I'd love to know where you get these figures from, Even if someone is an atheist more than likely their birth certificate states "Roman-Catholic" or "Catholic" or "Christian" or "Jewist" so these figures are no where near accurate not by a long shot.

I can not find any confirmation of the figure, but I have read before that research suggests that the birth-rate amongst atheist parents in the US is round about 1 per family.

Even if this figure is slightly off the mark, it logically follows that atheists or non-religious people will tend to have a lower birth-rate, because:

1. Their views on abortion will not have any influence from religious attitudes on the subject.
2. They are much less likely to bring a child into a world that they may consider to be chaotic, unjust and meaningless.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Religious people WILL populate because the master of their religion, NOT GOD, the Pope has decided that most family planning is bad thing thus allowing for the virus of Christianity to spread and cause further harm to society and people's lives.

Your point doesn't hold, because it's not only devout Christians that have a higher birth-rate, but also more serious adherents of other religions, such as Islam.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Yes, like i've said it allows them to populate like a virus, that's the reason behind all this pro-life nonsense which has the same credibility as all this "condoms are evil" rhetoric.

No, what I mean is that the people most likely to use birth control or have an abortion are going to be non-religious or mildly religious people. Consequently, they will have fewer children, who would be raised in a secular surrounding.

Regardless of how widespread birth control and abortion are, religious fundamentalists will still not use it, and will out-breed those that do use it, raising their children with similar beliefs.

So despite their ideological objections to it, it actually works in their favour.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I agree, it works in their favour. I never said it didn't.

Your atheist/birth-rate correlation argument bears no weight, Atheism has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with abortion, and bears no signifcance on birth-rates. All my argument shows that Christian propaganda is tool to spread the religion, or at least a clear effect of their preachings. Don't know how you came to that logic Holmes. Not even elementary. Atheists arn't obligated to be in support of abortion the way that Christians are to be against it, although like religion always does..... it will change it's mind, "oh wait God didn't really mean kill foreigners, mutilate children, treat women as inferior or people of different skins as inferior, we can change our mind now, because now we're saying God's word isn't absolute anymore."

It's doctrine written by man, and changed by man due to a maturity. Simple as that.

Religion changes as society changes, for if we were still living by the old testament; women you would not be free, blacks; good luck, gays = don't even think about it.

Hypocrisy anyone?

Re Zippidee:

You wrote:

"For me, the word of God is absolute."

Sorry to be so trite, but you asked for it. Where do you FIND this absolute word(s)? An educated guess would be in one of the bibles, and if I'm right there, how do you decide on the absolute'ness?

Literally or symbolically? On whose interpretation; your own or some authority in your denomination? Does genesis present the truth in form of a 6.000 year old geocentric universe as opposed to the scientific model? Is the absolute word compulsary (i.e. MUST you kill someone being offensive to D-g and his rules as commanded in OT?)

So how absolute are you really about absolute-ness? You have positioned yourself ideologically in a rather black-white way. But my impression of you are, that you probably are a decent person in a social context.

As I've said here and elsewhere, the contrast between normal, rational-based life (I assume, that you do join modern technological society) and a faith-based life contradicting the rational-based one, would lead to some inner conflicts. And while my questions are old chestnuts, they are still valid, because no-one ever has answered them, and they (my questions) are quite legitimate, being without sarcasm or derision.

reply to post by bogomil


He doesn't even know what he's saying about himself.

If the word of his God is absolute he's saying that God's words condoning genocide, racism and slavery are still absolute and should be followed.

He doesn't realise that Christian doctrine actually changes it's mind as society demands it. If my country still lived life by the "holy" dctrines we would still be opressing homosexuals, women and blacks.

This is the type of wickedness that i fight. To say religion is not my enemy is to mis-label myself an anti-theist.

Hi Sherlock,

while you're right in theory about fundies more likely would have more children than less active christian religious groups, this doesn't show pragmatically in e.g. the statistics here in middle-north Europe. Maybe the fundie-part of christian population really does get more children, but in an overall situation of our mainly protestant christianity, the total number of active christians is going down almost exponentially.

In my country, a few years ago, 95% of the population was nominally christian, 5% went to church regularly.This trend of diminishing active christianity is common for most of Europe and the former Sovjet area, and in some countries even the factual, nominal membership of the church(es) is falling.

Mainly catholic countries are slower in this trend, but it does exist there also, and the recently exposed peculiarities in mostly catholic jurisdiction will undoubtly hasten the secularization process.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Your atheist/birth-rate correlation argument bears no weight, Atheism has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with abortion, and bears no signifcance on birth-rates.

I didn't say that atheism had anything to do with agreeing or disagreeing with abortion, just that abortion will be more prevalent amongst non-religious people, leading to a difference in birth-rates.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Don't know how you came to that logic Holmes. Not even elementary. Atheists arn't obligated to be in support of abortion the way that Christians are to be against it, although like religion always does..... it will change it's mind

The logic is based on a simple equation.

A non-religious person will form their beliefs on abortion without the influence of religious teachings.
A religious person will form their beliefs on abortion with the influence of religious teachings.

Considering that the most common religious texts, such as the Bible and the Qur'an, are sometimes interpreted to prohibit abortion, then this is a factor that will slant the number of anti-abortionists amongst religious adherents, higher than amongst non-religious people who would not take this factor in to account.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
people of different skins as inferior... women you would not be free, blacks;

I don't claim to have a vast knowledge of the Bible, but where abouts does it purportedly condone racism, and in particular, racism against blacks ?

Re awake-and-aware

In the case of Zippidee, I personally mostly disagree on an academic level. I don't feel this fanatic missionary zeal for world monopoly, so characteristic of the hard-core fundies.

If people want to be mad as hatters privately, it's none of my concern. I'm rather weird myself, when it comes to it. Though it's kind of more coherent and uniform weirdness, where the different parts of my life aren't at opposite polarities.

So my questions were actually more on the academic level than an expression of Flash Gordon shooting it out with Ming the Merciless.

reply to post by bogomil


Hello bogomil.

I am generally lumping the ''mildly religious'', or those that are nominally Christian, in with the non-religious, in terms of birth-rates and attitudes towards abortion.

I doubt there is that much difference between the average birth-rate of an atheist and a ''Christian in name only''.

Even in the more religious countries in Europe, such as Romania, Poland, Greece, Italy, Malta etc. their birth-rates are extremely low.


It's just that the birth-rates of religious fundamentalists will outstrip the others in future, and while obviously not all of their children will share the faith of their parents, they are still more likely to adopt similar beliefs and continue this cycle.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

A non-religious person will form their beliefs on abortion without the influence of religious teachings.
A religious person will form their beliefs on abortion with the influence of religious teachings.

Which is exactly why they use this as a tool to spread their religion, which was my point. It's propaganda, it's not a case of right and wrong or even the word of God, it's just a case of the Pope using a form of social pressure to meet his agenda to spread Christianity and cause further separation in society.

I'm done here i have nothing more to say.

Anyone who is willing to listen to the arguments of those in favour of abortion, Here's a link:-

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I'm not entirely in disagreement with what you are saying in regards to religious groups wanting to boost their numbers by condemning the use of birth control, but I disagree that that's the primary motivation for their stance.

I'm just pointing out that religious fundamentalists will always have large families, and it's actually in their interest for less ardent followers of their faith to use birth control.

The birth-rate in Catholic countries is much the same as it is in comparable non-Catholic countries, so most Catholics don't even listen to what the Pope has to say about birth control or abortion anyway.