Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[fatjim]

 

Really?

 

Presumably, then, your next comedy set will contain ridicule for the simple idiots who believe that a man sticking his penis up another mans bum is the same as normal human sexuality?

 

Or for those who claim abortion doesn't represent the death of a human being?

 

At least, if you were consistent and credible, your act would contain such matter.

 

But you are not consistent and so you will not ridicule genuine mumbo-jumbo - such as the above - but instead attack safe, PC-approved targets which you (not logic or truth) decide are mumbo-jumbo.

 

Because in your defintion of mumbo-jumbo, it only means "what you don't agree with" - it doesn't mean "what isn't logical".

 

Depends what you mean by normal sexuality. Plenty of men stick their penis up a woman's bum but they wouldn't expect to get her pregnant.

Logic could argue that homosexuality exists because nature is trying to keep the population down. It occurs in many species. Some species are even able to change from one sex to another if there is an over population of one sex.

 

It could also be argued that a feotus isn't a human being. It has the potential to develop into a human being but technically it isn't at the stage it is aborted. Due to avatisms it could potentially develop parts of beings that previously existed.

 

I don't really comedy about religion so I wouldn't need to cover these topics.

[Poodler]

I'm unsure if it has been covered already in this thread but as far as religion goes there is just two questions that I've never had a decent answer to;

 

1. How did Noah's ark accommodate all those animals?

 

2. God made the earth in 7 days. If he was so great, why didn't he do it in six? Why does it fit in with the calendar of the time the Bible was written?

[StandFree1982]

A fair point - why would we want to waste our time going to a clinic, when we can control our fertility naturally, with the same efficiency, without such hassle?

 

Condoms are not needed in a committed and responsible sexual relationship.

 

They only become important when sex is used in a risky or selfish way. They are to mitigate the hazards arising from irreponsible sexual conduct.

 

I better get back to work now - later!

Controlling naturally = Either pulling out (as Billy Connolly once said, 'At the point of ejaculation a pack of wild horses could not pull my arse the opposite direction") or not having sex at all. Give me the hassle of contraception any day of the week than either of those two options.

[StandFree1982]

 

Depends what you mean by normal sexuality. Plenty of men stick their penis up a woman's bum but they wouldn't expect to get her pregnant.

Logic could argue that homosexuality exists because nature is trying to keep the population down. It occurs in many species. Some species are even able to change from one sex to another if there is an over population of one sex.

 

It could also be argued that a feotus isn't a human being. It has the potential to develop into a human being but technically it isn't at the stage it is aborted. Due to avatisms it could potentially develop parts of beings that previously existed.

 

I don't really comedy about religion so I wouldn't need to cover these topics.

Exactly. It's like banning having a wank because you are killing millions of "potential" children making sperm.

[fatjim]

 

This is amazing to me - that people will hold forth on stuff they clearly know nothing about.

 

I mean lets be honest, perhaps bar some stereo-types you don't know the 1st thing about Catholicism. Most "experts" don't.

 

Allow me to enlighten you to a degree:

 

Confession (reconciliation)

 

So, the idea of saying sorry is "nonsense" huh?

 

Given that we know this is in fact not true, that "sorry" is in fact an extremely important and basic concept between even human relationships, I find it quite amazing that anyone could attack this concept.

 

Were you not taught to say sorry as a child, if you somehow did wrong? Do you not teach your own kids the same?

 

I wonder how much thought you have put into your analysis of this? I would not imagine much.

 

Protestant-Christians often reject a Catholic Priest as having the authority to function in such a fashion, but in fact in the new Testament Christ quite explicitly bestows various authority on his ministers (the apostles were the first bishops and priests).

 

Eating bread and drinking wine as the body and blood of christ.

 

Far from nonsense, this is the central pillar which has sustained Christianity for 2000 years.

 

Presumably your conclusion here is based on the fact that human senses cannot comprehend object A becoming object B, whilst still resembling object A.

 

This is where we will differ - thanks to my faith, I do not regard it as any great shakes that God can achieve such a feat. Indeed, it almost seems a little underwhelming in comparison with creating the universe and everything in it.

 

Our physical bodies require nourishment, why would our souls not require the same?

 

Not being allowed to eat fish on a Friday.

 

 

You have this arse for tit, which clearly shows up how credible /well thought out these criticisms are.

 

We eat fish on a Friday

 

Traditionally, when people were in general a lot poorer, it was a luxury to eat red meat. it would be a very desirable thing for people, especially as many could not afford it (which is why people in Scotland turned to eating offal, or soup made from bones etc).

 

As a sacrifice, Catholics would traditionally chose to forego red meat on a Friday, and eat fish instead.

 

(The concept of sacrifice will obviously baffle you - restraint or moderation are not familiar concepts to the Godless mind, which prizes greed and excess instead).

 

As it turns out, fish / seafood is my favourite, I'd be happy to eat it everyday.

 

Not being able to use contraception.

 

Well the question here is - why would any Catholic want to pay money to use imperfect artificial means of controlling fertility?

 

Given we (couples) can control their fertility naturally, with the same or better efficiency (Billings method), why would you want to pay money when you can do the same for free?

 

The only think I can think of is that someone might want a condom if they are having relations with someone whose health status is unclear to them. But anyone would half a brain would obviously argue that its not a good idea to have sex with people who you cant trust implicitly in such a way.

 

The fact that condoms don't achieve much in practice, as public health experts agree, is another mark against them.

 

I don't pretend to know everything about catholicism. I know that it is based on mythology and not fact but I was merely highlighting that it is not exempt from nonsense.

 

Comparing confession to a kid saying sorry is a bit naive though.

 

You are supposed to confess about your sins.

 

That can be a bit different from teaching your kid to apologise.

[Ke1t]

 

 

This is amazing to me - that people will hold forth on stuff they clearly know nothing about.

I mean lets be honest, perhaps bar some stereo-types you don't know the 1st thing about Catholicism. Most "experts" don't.

You're misunderstanding the position of the atheist, clearly.

It doesn't matter what specific rules have been set forth to the Catholic cult by their own specific version of god.

If you think the fact that one religion believing their god told them to hop on one foot every Tuesday or another religion told them to eat fish on a Friday makes any kind of a difference to the Atheist position on either religion, or that one religion sounds more likely than the other you're very much mistaken.

Explaining things like confession, catechism, or live human sacrifice to the volcano gods does NOTHING to address the basic premise that more or less all these religions share the one thing in common that the Atheist rejects... that being the belief that there are gods in the first place.

All the rules, rituals, chants, and demands that you're sitting here explaining to us are of complete irrelevance.

What IS relevant is that you, and the guy who throws children into volcanoes in order to make the crops grow, both believe that there's some unknowable supernatural being who can decide whether to make it rain, snow, or if your kid is going to be born with one or two heads.

You both believe you have some kind of superpower that allows you to communicate, directly or indirectly, with the noumenal.. which by its very nature, and admitted in the Christian holy texts themselves, is impossible.

No-one cares if catholics can or can't eat fish, or if Protestants can or can't wear a Johnny, or if Shamans do or don't throw live humans into volcanoes... none of that is the contention of the Atheist..

I'm amazed that you still haven't grasped that.

[fatjim]

 

Depends what you mean by normal sexuality. Plenty of men stick their penis up a woman's bum but they wouldn't expect to get her pregnant.

Logic could argue that homosexuality exists because nature is trying to keep the population down. It occurs in many species. Some species are even able to change from one sex to another if there is an over population of one sex.

 

It could also be argued that a feotus isn't a human being. It has the potential to develop into a human being but technically it isn't at the stage it is aborted. Due to avatisms it could potentially develop parts of beings that previously existed.

 

I don't really comedy about religion so I wouldn't need to cover these topics.

 

Don't know why I wrote avatisms when I actually meant atavisms. doh!

[BrianFaePerth]

@ Harcus:

 

Hi Harcus - you are an Orcadian right? Given your obvious interest in Catholicism, (!), why not visit Golgotha Monastery Island one day? Its on Papa Stronsay, which I understand is one of the Orkney Islands (yes?).

 

I would love to visit these guys one day, Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, (Transalpine Redemptorists), they are different gravy. Perhaps I could go on a few days retreat or something. They have a Monastery in New Zealand too. They are a very international congregation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did the theme tune to Father Ted pop in to anyone else's head when looking at this pic?

[Henry]

 

Did the theme tune to Father Ted pop in to anyone else's head when looking at this pic?

 

[The Boofon]

I'm unsure if it has been covered already in this thread but as far as religion goes there is just two questions that I've never had a decent answer to;

 

1. How did Noah's ark accommodate all those animals?

 

2. God made the earth in 7 days. If he was so great, why didn't he do it in six? Why does it fit in with the calendar of the time the Bible was written?

 

 

1. It was a big ark.

 

2. He wanted a day off. Would you work every day of the week with no breaks? I know I wouldn't.

[The Boofon]

http://www.panmacmillan.com/book/willstorr/theheretics

 

I'm reading this at the moment. Lots of it fits very nicely with this thread.

[amancalledbuck]

http://www.panmacmillan.com/book/willstorr/theheretics

 

I'm reading this at the moment. Lots of it fits very nicely with this thread.

 

Prove it.

[gla5gowdon]

Nobody knows.

 

Depending on the tangible is pretty horrendous though.

[StandFree1982]

Nobody knows.

 

Depending on the tangible is pretty horrendous though.

And soley depending on something totally intangible is less horrendous?

[gla5gowdon]

And soley depending on something totally intangible is less horrendous?

 

People do it every day.

 

Love, hate etc.

 

[StandFree1982]

 

People do it every day.

 

Love, hate etc.

 

You are loving and hating tangible things.

 

Except for Rangers, I hate them but they don't exist....but they used to exist.

[fatjim]

 

People do it every day.

 

Love, hate etc.

 

 

 

Love and hate and merely words to describe emotional responses.

 

However depending on tangible things is a good start.

It is better than making a leap of faith based on bronze age mythology.

[The Boofon]

Love and hate and merely words to describe emotional responses. However depending on tangible things is a good start.It is better than making a leap of faith based on bronze age mythology.

Did people living in the bronze age know they were making bronze and why had they not discovered iron? It was always there.

[amancalledbuck]

 

 

Love and hate and merely words to describe emotional responses.

 

However depending on tangible things is a good start.

It is better than making a leap of faith based on bronze age mythology.

 

Give me bronze age mythology any day of the week.

[The Hulk]

http://www.panmacmillan.com/book/willstorr/theheretics

 

I'm reading this at the moment. Lots of it fits very nicely with this thread.

 

I've just reserved it from the Library. Anything with David Irving and Christopher Monckton has got to have some comedy gold in it.

[gla5gowdon]

 

 

Love and hate and merely words to describe emotional responses.

 

However depending on tangible things is a good start.

It is better than making a leap of faith based on bronze age mythology.

You have a worrying dependence on words.

 

Would you be happier with "the emotional response we call love" and "the emotional response we call hate" etc.

 

These responses are intangible and we make most of the important decisions in our lives based on them.

[StandFree1982]

Feelings such as Love and Hate are a chemical thing within your body. We have drugs that can easily modify these.

 

They exist and can be adjusted.

 

The belief in a God, for example, is something that is brought on by hearing it from someone else. It doesn't "come naturally" like Love, Hate, Lust etc. A belief system is adjusted simply by exposing a child to it at an early age and using guilt, punishment and pressure to ensure that they grow up with that belief.

 

It's called brainwashing. Without it, you'd never experience it.

[fatjim]

You have a worrying dependence on words.

 

Would you be happier with "the emotional response we call love" and "the emotional response we call hate" etc.

 

These responses are intangible and we make most of the important decisions in our lives based on them.

 

I personally don't have a dependence on these words never mind a worrying dependence.

 

I see where you are coming from in terms of these emotional responses but I fail to see what it does to support people believing in myths with no evidence. It seems more like two wrongs don't make a right. Neither is mutually exclusive.

[tightbreeks]

the messiah, doug Stanhope, says he hates the jews like he hates people who put the pot noodle sachet in an ashtray. people who etc.

[gla5gowdon]

 

I personally don't have a dependence on these words never mind a worrying dependence.

 

I see where you are coming from in terms of these emotional responses but I fail to see what it does to support people believing in myths with no evidence. It seems more like two wrongs don't make a right. Neither is mutually exclusive.

 

Well, pointing out that "love" and "hate" are just words is a meaningless exercise.

 

It's not supposed to support the religious. The belief that there is no god is as much of a myth as the belief that there is.

 

We make decisions based on the intangible on a daily basis: love, hate, morality etc.

[gla5gowdon]

I don't even know why I posted in here again: two groups of people telling each other how wrong they are without a shred of evidence between them. Waste of time.

[Guest]

Feelings such as Love and Hate are a chemical thing within your body. We have drugs that can easily modify these.

 

They exist and can be adjusted.

 

The belief in a God, for example, is something that is brought on by hearing it from someone else. It doesn't "come naturally" like Love, Hate, Lust etc. A belief system is adjusted simply by exposing a child to it at an early age and using guilt, punishment and pressure to ensure that they grow up with that belief.

 

It's called brainwashing. Without it, you'd never experience it.

 

Love and Hate are more psychological than chemical, surely? Stanford's Sapolsky lectures brilliantly on the balance between neurology and psychology in relation to depression. Schizophrenia and epilepsy etc. are chemical and genetic and frontal lobe driven and dopamine receptors etc., certainly, and therefore neurological rather than psychological but love and hate are expressions of emotion and therefore arising through conditioning and environmental and prejudices primarily.

 

I agree that all ordered religions are brainwashing but your last line, I'm not so sure?

 

The pagans believed in something. Those in the east believed in something. So did those in the west. That certain exploiters of people jumped on religion as a vehicle to further their own ends and are selling a ordered philosophy, doesn't mean that they have any of the answers. The primitives ingesting peyote or iawahuasca or mushrooms and other psilocybin forms swear by spiritual enlightenments and having done two of the three myself and will do the third this decade sometime, I KNOW that there is another dimension or other dimensions to existence. Whether this is string theory and a fourth dimension as sold by Hawkings et al (severely doubtful) or whether the additional dimension(s) derives from "something else", I am certain that none of us know.

 

There is irrefutable evidence and millions of examples of "experiencing something". Just cos we can't explain it doesn't mean it's not there.

[The Macca Show]

 

The belief that there is no god is as much of a myth as the belief that there is.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a conclusion.

[Guest]

 

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a conclusion.

 

I don't know. I would say it's more of a reaction.

 

To conclude, you need data on which to base.

 

Atheists are rejecting religions and reacting to one bunch of ignorance by being equally stupid themselves.

 

In my opinion.

 

They can't possibly conclude that a fabrication doesn't exist without proving it.

 

I think they are right to reject religion. They just go too far in their reaction.

[gla5gowdon]

 

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a conclusion.

 

Fair enough, it's a conclusion based on nothing.

 

Much the same as it's opposite.