next »

[scotnadian]

So what that their prejudice is "scriptural"? This means "written in a book". That defends backwards views how?

It is also scriptural that slavery is condoned by God. Even the Catholic Church don't defend slavery any more.

It is also scriptural that disease is caused by demon possession. The Catholic Church know that everyone would laugh at them if they held this view, so they reserve demon possession for a few cases of mental illness. They get away with this ridiculousness, although aware and astute people should still be laughing at them for this. Well, if it were funny, because again people have died due to this backwards attitude.  There was the famous case of Annelise Michel, a girl presenting Schizophrenic symptoms who was "exorcised" by her  priest instead of given medical care. She died of course, in a shocking state of neglect.

It is scriptural that man was created.  It is scriptural that the Earth was formed in six days. These stances the Catholic Church has had to abandon, because these ideas will no longer fly with scientifically enlightened, educated people.

"scriptural" is NO justification of anything, a fact which even the Catholic Church have recognized. Indeed, the Catholic Church published "The Gift of Scripture" which tells adherents that the bible is not completely historically true and that they should not expect 100% accuracy from it.

Why shouldn't the Catholic Church be allowed their beliefs? Because they are backwards beliefs that harm people, and have no part in a progressive society where all are equal before the law.

Sure you CAN believe that God wants Africans to die of Aids, that He wants Aids to spread throughout the continent, if you want to be a good Catholic. Is this belief acceptable? Absolutely not. It is barbaric and idiotic.

Is it acceptable to be against the loving union of two gay people? NO! Why not? Because homosexuality is not a choice, so CANNOT be a  sinful consequence of freewill. It's just the way some people are and has no bearing on anyone's character or abilities (including the ability to raise children).

Why does it matter what the Pope says? Because he has political power. And good people with an ounce of morality should not rest until the day comes when popes have no power at all.

I recommend this:

Wow, Dave! That was one heck of a post.

Takes me back to my teenage (ex)Catholic years when I would throw questions at my priest. He had no satisfactory answers for me, except that I would burn in hell.

[Littlebuddha]

The Catholic Church have hidden so many priests who have molested too many children for years and years. If this new pope brings them to justice I will be pleased Priests should be able to marry have a home life and children. Also I do not believe that women should not be able to use contraception there are already to many children in the world who go hungry every day because the family already have too many mouths to feed. He may be a good man we will have to wait and see. I read in this mornings paper that he was too close to the Junta in Argentina children were taken from Left wing families and given to right wingers to bring up. Also the number of people who disagreed with the Junta disappeared (shot) he apparently did not speak out against this. We will have to wait and see how this pope turns out. It should be interesting.

[DaveH]

I take that the good bigots agree with you Dave and the bad bigots are on the other side in whatever argument.     That's the way politicians think  - if you are on my side you are a freedom fighter - if you are against me you are a terrorist.

What are you talking about? Do you even know?

Do you think I should agree with people I don't agree with?

Or are you under the dangerous impression that all opinions are equally good and so we should simultaneously hold both sides?

I'm not calling anyone a terrorist for being anti-gay, anti-abortion or anti-contraception. I call them a menace and an obstacle to a fair, just, and healthy world.

Of course, a true fighter for freedom can justify their cause. Can you justify being anti-homosexual, anti-abortion or anti-contraception?

Ratzinger said homosexuality was a moral evil. On what basis? Because an old book says so. A book that also says slavery and genocide is acceptable. Not to mention having children mauled by bears for mocking the pious (2 Kings 2:23-24). I've already explained that homosexuality is not a choice, so cannot be a sin.

Abortion is necessary in some cases to preserve the life of the woman, prevents further mental anguish in the case of rape, and is just downright sensible in other cases: What is the point of raising children that cannot be afforded or are unwanted? What is the good in making a young teenager bring up a child?

A fetus cannot feel pain and does not even have anything resembling a functioning brain until later in the pregnancy. Yet for some rather stretched interpretation of a book, many insist that even a sperm is sacred.



Contraception stops the spread of diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Diseases are bad. They can kill people. Overpopulation is bad. Poor households with thirteen children is NOT a good idea. What is so hard to get? In the name of "freedom", please give me the good argument that there should not be contraception.

[Iluvandy]

What are you talking about? Do you even know?

Do you think I should agree with people I don't agree with?

Or are you under the dangerous impression that all opinions are equally good and so we should simultaneously hold both sides?

I'm not calling anyone a terrorist for being anti-gay, anti-abortion or anti-contraception. I call them a menace and an obstacle to a fair, just, and healthy world.

Of course, a true fighter for freedom can justify their cause. Can you justify being anti-homosexual, anti-abortion or anti-contraception?

Ratzinger said homosexuality was a moral evil. On what basis? Because an old book says so. A book that also says slavery and genocide is acceptable. Not to mention having children mauled by bears for mocking the pious (2 Kings 2:23-24). I've already explained that homosexuality is not a choice, so cannot be a sin.

Abortion is necessary in some cases to preserve the life of the woman, prevents further mental anguish in the case of rape, and is just downright sensible in other cases: What is the point of raising children that cannot be afforded or are unwanted? What is the good in making a young teenager bring up a child?

A fetus cannot feel pain and does not even have anything resembling a functioning brain until later in the pregnancy. Yet for some rather stretched interpretation of a book, many insist that even a sperm is sacred.



Contraception stops the spread of diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Diseases are bad. They can kill people. Overpopulation is bad. Poor households with thirteen children is NOT a good idea. What is so hard to get? In the name of "freedom", please give me the good argument that there should not be contraception.

Dave - you rant but you don't think.    Most of your post is nothing to do with what I said and you obviously have no idea of what I believe.     I questioned your thought processes because you seemed to imply that there are goods bigots and bad bigots.   I don't know you well enough ro know whether you are a bigot but you certainly display the symptoms.

[Iluvandy]

  Good for you! The only thing I can remember being asked about in the street was digestive biscuits! 

I love digestive biscuits thickly spread with butter, or crumbled over stewed apples.

[Littlebuddha]

Nothing wrong with a good piece on jam thrown from the window when we were kids. It tasted great.

[Iluvandy]

If you have no objections to what I was saying then you were simply floating your fingers over the keys for the sake of it.


Forgive me if I ignore you in future if that is all you have to say.

Michelle has nothing to say on the actual issues, it seems. Maybe she will think about them and get back to me.

Neither it seems do you. So I don't know why you are saying anything.

I will try very hard to forgive you Dave.