09 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeJust stepping in a little after the event, and I'm a fairly disinterested reader (although an atheist, as some will know), but can I suggest, you've proved nothing, other than that you seem to be at least as dogmatic as the worst religious fanatic.
I have proven my points to a reasonable observer. As I predicted, no matter what I show you, you will not be happy. I will put my effort into things that pay off, and not waste further of my finite time on the likes of you. Did I ever claim the entire Catholic church all over the world burned witches, and was against lightening rods and vaccinations? No ...[text shortened]... ons because of their (ignorant) theology and I am entirely correct. Have a good day my friend!
You make poor arguments, with significant tips of the hat to emotion, you fail to cite terribly compelling evidence to support your points, and the logic of your reasoning fails to excite me one bit.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeCan you find one such reasonable observer?
I have proven my points to a reasonable observer.
I am atheist and do not particularly support the Catholic Church, nor am I employed by them. I am reasonably well educated and have a fairly good grasp of the English Language. Yet I find that you have not proven your point in the slightest.
Your claim was:
"[the Catholic Church] was also against lightning rods, small pox vaccine, and dissection of cadavers for medical education and the advancement of medicine."
You have shown that some members of the Catholic Church fit that description, but that not the same thing at all. And it is far from surprising. Considering the size and history of the Catholic Church one could expect to find just about any possible view imaginable being held by someone claiming to be a member of the Church.
I think that to this day you could probably find some Britons that are against lightning rods, small pox vaccine, and dissection of cadavers for medical education, but would you say that Britain is against those things?
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's a free country. You are entitled to your opinion. Facts are facts, however.
Can you find one such reasonable observer?
I am atheist and do not particularly support the Catholic Church, nor am I employed by them. I am reasonably well educated and have a fairly good grasp of the English Language. Yet I find that you have not proven your point in the slightest.
Your claim was:
"[the Catholic Church] was also against lightning ro ...[text shortened]... ion of cadavers for medical education, but would you say that Britain is against those things?
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut why are some Catholics against these things? It's because of their religion. The Catholic church believes that pregnacy can be avoided by not promoting condoms! The Catholic church believes condoms should be avoided in the fight against aids. Give me a break.
Can you find one such reasonable observer?
I am atheist and do not particularly support the Catholic Church, nor am I employed by them. I am reasonably well educated and have a fairly good grasp of the English Language. Yet I find that you have not proven your point in the slightest.
Your claim was:
"[the Catholic Church] was also against lightning ro ...[text shortened]... ion of cadavers for medical education, but would you say that Britain is against those things?
09 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by 667joeperhaps if persons had limited their sexual exploits to their life partner, as i am sure the catholic church would advocate although i cannot be certain, then much of the heartache would have been avoided, is it not the case? if so, then are you prepared to admit Jo Jo, that an abandonment of biblical morality has resulted in the escalation of this tragedy, while on the other hand its application would have avoided it.
But why are some Catholics against these things? It's because of their religion. The Catholic church believes that pregnacy can be avoided by not promoting condoms! The Catholic church believes condoms should be avoided in the fight against aids. Give me a break.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe world has never been perfect and never will be. Why can't you realize that there would be less suffering if more people used condoms. Oh, I forgot. Religious people get off on suffering, especially if they feel morally superior to those doing the suffering.
perhaps if persons had limited their sexual exploits to their life partner, as i am sure the catholic church would advocate although i cannot be certain, then much of the heartache would have been avoided, is it not the case? if so, then are you prepared to admit Jo Jo, that an abandonment of biblical morality has resulted in the escalation of this tragedy, while on the other hand its application would have avoided it.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, according to your religion, humans are incapable of resisting sin, right? Only God can resist sin. It's not about free will. Nobody has ever chosen not to sin except God right?
perhaps if persons had limited their sexual exploits to their life partner, as i am sure the catholic church would advocate although i cannot be certain, then much of the heartache would have been avoided, is it not the case? if so, then are you prepared to admit Jo Jo, that an abandonment of biblical morality has resulted in the escalation of this tragedy, while on the other hand its application would have avoided it.
If so, why do you blame the sinners?
09 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeNo, you haven't. That's how I play the game and you are not doing a good job of it. Just look at all the "reasonable observers" who are commenting. Anyone backing you up?
I have proven my points to a reasonable observer. As I predicted, no matter what I show you, you will not be happy. I will put my effort into things that pay off, and not waste further of my finite time on the likes of you. Did I ever claim the entire Catholic church all over the world burned witches, and was against lightening rods and vaccinations? No ...[text shortened]... ons because of their (ignorant) theology and I am entirely correct. Have a good day my friend!
09 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joewhy can you not simply address the question Jo Jo, its quite simple, for i hold it to be true that had persons desisted from a course contrary to and if they actually applied the bibles moral standard then they would not have contracted HIV in the first instance, this fact, is irrefutable. Condoms are not infallible, keeping ones sexual activity to ones marital partner as recommended by the Bibles moral code is! You have in some kind of way, at least to my mind, proved the point that you were trying to undermine, adherence to biblical morality is more practical now than it ever has been.
The world has never been perfect and never will be. Why can't you realize that there would be less suffering if more people used condoms. Oh, I forgot. Religious people get off on suffering, especially if they feel morally superior to those doing the suffering.
you assertions of moral superiority are unwarranted for understanding is the thing to be acquired and the application of knowledge leads to a course of wisdom, not condescension as you have tried to assert.
09 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGod cannot sin, for sin is imperfection and aberration, God is perfect and simply cannot sin. This statement that no one has chosen not to sin is inaccurate, for when Christ walked the earth as a human, he chose not to sin, although under the same pressures as humans, he remained until his death and subsequent resurrection sinless, thus proving that it was indeed possible for a perfect human to remain sinless under all types of conditions, thus it has everything to do with free will.
Robbie, according to your religion, humans are incapable of resisting sin, right? Only God can resist sin. It's not about free will. Nobody has ever chosen not to sin except God right?
If so, why do you blame the sinners?
The purpose of this is rather involved and has to do with universal sovereignty (Gods right to set moral standards and to make a reply to Gods adversaries that a person only serves God for what they can get out of it, rather than purely for love of God.)
I do not blame anyone. It is a simple statement of fact that you 'reap what you sow', is it not? Thus if you engage in questionable activities, you may indeed do yourself harm, who is to blame?
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiekeeping ones sexual activity to ones marital partner as recommended by the Bibles moral code is!
why can you not simply address the question Jo Jo, its quite simple, for i hold it to be true that had persons desisted from a course contrary to and if they actually applied the bibles moral standard then they would not have contracted HIV in the first instance, this fact, is irrefutable. Condoms are not infallible, keeping ones sexual activity to ...[text shortened]... ication of knowledge leads to a course of wisdom, not condescension as you have tried to assert.
No it's not. You can be faithful and still get HIV from an unfaithful partner.
09 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChrist was God, right?
God cannot sin, for sin is imperfection and aberration, God is perfect and simply cannot sin. This statement that no one has chosen not to sin is inaccurate, for when Christ walked the earth as a human, he chose not to sin, although under the same pressures as humans, he remained until his death and subsequent resurrection sinless, thus proving tha us if you engage in questionable activities, you may indeed do yourself harm, who is to blame?
thus proving that it was indeed possible for a perfect human to remain sinless under all types of conditions, thus it has everything to do with free will.
No, it proves that a human can choose not to sin if he is also God.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNope, Christ was not God, not as far as i can discern. I cannot find a single reference in the entire Bible where he claimed that he was God.
Christ was God, right?
thus proving that it was indeed possible for a perfect human to remain sinless under all types of conditions, thus it has everything to do with free will.
No, it proves that a human can choose not to sin if he is also God.
09 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungyes, but even so, despite the fact that one may be innocent and also suffer, the other having overstepped the Bibles moral code has brought the calamity upon the injured party. This does not negate the bibles morality as you have rather vainly tried to assert, for had they kept it, this could and would have been avoided.
[b]keeping ones sexual activity to ones marital partner as recommended by the Bibles moral code is!
No it's not. You can be faithful and still get HIV from an unfaithful partner.[/b]