Catholic church is deadly!

Re: What's next?

err..no, Islam does NOT dictate that secular and spiritual are the same, but thank you for playing, anyway! Ironically, the same misconception is held by many Muslims about Christianity.

Hittin' the ball LONG -- STRAIGHT -- and unfortuntely, often.

Doesn't sound like a reasonable combination even to me -- but it is what is!

Re: What's next?


Oh, I see - you must be an Islamic scholar, in addition to your other academic credits.

My experience and study tells me that Islam IS just what I said it is. It is also an evil institution, but that's another topic. LOL.

Hey Hobitbob - please jump on over to:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14473
I would appreciate your input on that - it's a hell of a lot more intellectually stimulating that the Vatican's problem with condoms. Besides, I'm not discussing Islam in this thread any further. :-) I will participate in one, if you want to start a thread about it, though.

Re: What's next?

Well, medieval Islam is one of my minor fields.....
Youir second comment is pure ignorance.

Re: What's next?


I know I can make a sound, convincing case for the evils of Islam as an institution - I've done it before, so if you'd like to start a thread somewhere on these forums, please do. I am open minded, and you may sway some of my opinions, after all, but most of all, others may benefit from the discussion. I don't appreciate baseless flames like that one, though. It's not really necessary, is it?

Considering the number of times I've had this discussion with Perception, Italgato,and even AU, I don't feel like butting my head against a wall today. And, considering the preponderance of historical evidence, the comment still stands. It is pure ignorance. Islam is no more and no less "evil" than Catholicism, Protestantism, Bhuddism, Judaism, or any other "ism" you care to name.

I wouldn't be having the discussion today, anyway.
So, many others have said the same thing? I'm presuming.
Well, yes, almost all of the 'isms' are a form of evil, so, Islam happens to be one of the worst. I wouldn't lump Buddhism into the same category, nor would I do that to Hindism. I would lump Christianity into that dangerous, evil category, if that's any comfort.

HobitBob -I'm speaking of Islam's contemporary applications throughout the world - it's historical record has little bearing, if any, and that's not to say that your studies of medieval Islam is not significant - don't get me wrong, ok. I'm only concerned with it's actual practice, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, by all the Imams and inside all the madrassahs.

I would be more careful about my use of the word "all" if I were you. It doesn't say much for your objectivity.
As for Hinduism and Bhuddism, Hindu terrorists have been as active in the India/Pakistan conflict as have Muslim terror groups, both proudly flying banners of religious identity. As for Bhuddism, the inclusion of Bhuddist thought, and the re-allignment of Bhuddist thought (particularly Zen) in support of Japanese military actions in the early 20th century were rather extensive.

That doesn't say much for your reading skills. Didn't I write "almost all" -??

You're going to lecture me now about objectivity? Why don't we discuss Chemisty - I have a BS in Chem, and did a minor in biochemistry. Your profile says you're a molecular BIO person, so let's talk about that, eh? Hey, I was an army medic too - back in 1976.

Egads - ok - I see - you want to play the "one upmanship" game, and you're still comparing Islam - the relative terrorist aspects of Hindus and Buddhists - LOL - who cares?

Sorry, I don't play that HobitBob. Besides, this thread is about the Vatican killing people by discouraging HIV carriers to not use condoms. Later on, and goodnight.

How nice. I have a BS in molecular Bio, but it is old! (1985). I have an MA in medieval History and am in a PhD program for the same, so I might actually know of what I speak, eh? BTW, are you sure it was my profile you read? The phrase "molecular chem" doesn't even appear.

Well, no. If you would have written "almost all" I probably wouldn't have commented.


Thank you for playing, leave your number at the door, our secretaries will call you if they need a good laugh!

You are a master of medival history, and soon to have a doctorate. Congratulations. Wasn't chemistry more lucrative, btw? (that's not a dig, btw, just a sincere question)

I'm sure you know medieval history, and if I need some information on medieval history, I'll read your books, and/or listen to what you have to say here about medieval history. Fascinating topics in medieval history - really are.

Goodnight. Best wishes in your doctorate program.
If I need information on contemporary Islam, I'll probably look elsewhere.

Actually, never used the Bio degree. Went into the Army to pay off student loans. Not a conservative, so I'm not in love with money. I doubt I would be able to do anything "lucrative" if chained to it!
For a good reading list on Islam, try these:Non-specialist texts
or these:
PhD reading list (includes MA list)
But be warned, they aren't likely to support your point of view.

phineasf and HobitBob
Phineasf and HobitBob, I know the two of you are having fun with your pissing match, but it ain't much fun for the rest of us. How about giving it a rest? I know its tough to do with religious topics, but it shuts out and turns off everyone else.

BBB

p.s. I see you started a new thread where you two and others can duke it out and flame each other to your hearts content. Thanks a bunch

The Vatican is killing us slowly
Well BEE, I wasn't about to continue, and certainly don't enjoy flaming anyone (don't object at all to your interjection here, either, btw). I actually do have a lot of respect for anyone pursuing a doctorate program, and do, despite what I am going to say next, have repect for the 'person' adhering to any theism. I'm an atheist on Sundays, and an Agnostic the other 6 days of the week. LOL. Besides, our disagreement about an aspect of Islam, had nothing to do with this thread. So, on that note, I'm going back to a discussion of the irrationalities of the Catholic Church!

The issue here is that in Philippines, in Kenya and various other places, the battle against AIDS is being lost because the Church has joined the battle against it. It is well established that condoms provide, not absolute safety but significant reduction of risks in transmission of AIDS. Of course condoms can break or tear and infection can still take place. But if we can reduce the risk of transmission, then we significantly reduce the spread of AIDS. However, across four continents, the Catholic Church, which regards birth control as anathema, is fighting against AIDS control using condoms. That they should oppose birth control itself is a sign of their obsolete thinking. That they should claim their own scientific studies to oppose the role of condoms in AIDS control exposes millions of their followers to unacceptable risks. Already doctors in various parts of the world have testified that they are facing hostile reaction from the Church in their attempts to educate the people in the use of condoms and safe sex.

There has been criticism of the current pontiff that he has taken the Church back a number of decades. On issues such as celibacy and gay rights, even liberation theology, the Church can argue that this is an internal matter of the Church and does not belong to the public domain. The matter becomes altogether different when the Church propagates belief in miracles and miracle cures and when it involves itself in sabotaging attempts to allow people to practice contraception. This verges on the criminal if a deliberate scientific fraud is practiced on its followers in the world wide struggle against AIDS where safe sex using condoms has been shown to be effective. That the Church should oppose such measures in its bigoted belief against contraception is condemning millions to this dreaded disease.

The western media, which spares no attempts to show how other societies are irrational, falls curiously silent when it comes confronting irrationality in their own backyards. That is why the silence of the western media on miracles being used to justify an action by the Church becomes an important omission.

Lest people feel that the denial of miraculous powers of Mother Teresa is an attempt to run down her work, let me state that all of us are deeply appreciative of her work amongst the poor in Kolakata. A number of us would differ sharply on her views on birth control, position of women, and various other social and political issues. That is our right just as it was hers to hold whatever views she did. Her views do not take away from her the quality of work she did. The issue of whether she should be conferred sainthood by the Catholic Church engages us only because instead of it being based on her work, it is based on the sudden suspension of the laws of nature. The Church is certifying that divine intervention occurred on Monica Besra praying to Mother Teresa to cure her.

The Monica Besra case has been well documented. Briefly, the case as presented during Mother Teresa's beatification was that Monica Besra's pain and stomach tumour disappeared after she applied a locket with the image of Mother Teresa on the site of the pain. This miracle supposedly took place in September 1998, on the anniversary of Mother Teresa's death. The problem with this position is that Monica Besra had undergone extensive medication in the state run Balurghat Hospital. Doctors who treated her confirm that she underwent treatment for more than 2 months and improved steadily during this period. Monica believes that though she indeed did take the medicines, but her cure is due to the locket. Her husband, Seiku Murmu, as also her doctors believe that the miracle is a hoax. The Church has been challenged to prove a miracle, but as is usual with miracles, such challenges are quietly ignored. Miracles, we are told, can only occur with the faithful. Oh BULLSHIT (my bullshit meter just went off again! LOL)

Why should we be concerned if the Church believes that the laws of nature occasionally stands still at the behest of god to establish sainthood for some? How would it matter if the Church still held that Galileo was indeed wrong and sun goes around the earth? The reason we should be, is that such beliefs of the Church have implications, and serious implications for their following. And what affects them, the ONE BILLION AND GROWING followers, has dangerous implications that affect ALL of US!

Let us take the current state of Mother Teresa's sainthood. The Church, to confer sainthood, requires a second miracle. The impact on the believers is that a number of them will leave medical treatment now to pray to Mother Teresa. That it exposes the faithful to risks of curable disease is what should be considered by anyone with a rational mind! Fight the battle of faith anyway you want, but for the sake of the people concerned do not preach against medicines and in favour of miraculous cures. This is true for all believers in God - be they Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or Christian variety believers (or any other, to be fair and not leave anyone out).

The case of AIDS and the role of the Catholic Church is even worse. According to the Church, condoms have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass and that is why the Church is arguing against the use of condoms, putting at risk millions of Catholics. The Vatican's "research" remains a well kept secret! Hmmm. A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue. The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

Obviously, irrationality is not the province of any particular religion or community. The danger unfortunately, is not even to the religious institutions. The danger lies in that it affects human lives, either through wrong practices and policies, or in extreme cases, through organized programs. It is this spilling over of religion to the public arena that must be condemned by all right thinking people.

ok - stepping off my soapbox now, and thanxs for listening ~Phineas Flapdoodle

phineasf
Phineas Flapdoodle? I love it.

I don't object to the points you make, in fact, being an atheist seven days a week, I agree with most of what you say. My objection is to the tone that always comes out when discussing religion (and other topics that generate passion.) Posters can't seem to state their thoughts without taking cheap shots at others. This results in a diversion from the issues into a pissing match. I call this behavior verbal gladiator sport. It degrades the participants and their points of view. Its interesting that it seems mostly males that persist in this behavior.

Now, back to the Catholic Church topic. All religions, and especially the Catholic church wraps itself in the veil of religious holiness and good deeds. But, in my opinion, their policies (dogma) are all designed to further their power, wealth, and numbers. Hence the ban on birth control and condoms. Either would limit the growth of the church's membership, which impedes its power and wealth.

The great religions compete with each other for power and wealth. The well being of the people of this planet plays a secondary role to that primary goal. The sexual abuse practices recently publicized, but having a centuries old history, demonstrated the focus of the church was not on helping the faithful, but protecting the church's power, wealth and numbers. As an aside, the celebacy dogma was initiated, not because of some holy need, but to prevent married priests from passing on church property upon their deaths. So the church forbade priest marriage to protect its property rights. But it had to wrap the dogma in holiness to sell it. After all, it couldn't be honest by admitting it valued its land more than the well-being of its priests.

Everything else practiced by religions is simply smoke and mirrors to protect those three primary goals. The fact that God and Jesus is used as a tool to achieve these christian goals should be self evident. The other major religions do the same with different icon tools. Even minor religions ape these techniques: David Koresch, Jim Jones, etc., etc.

I know most people won't agree with me, but at least I can express my beliefs without taking pot shots at other posters to make my point.

BumbleBeeBoogie

Au contraire BBB,

There are many who agree with you. I would venture to say that these minions would include a large percentage of those actively participating in the aforementioned religions who have seen the light but for various reasons, including social, familial, and business, elect not to ostracize themselves. My wife, a devoted catholic for most of her life, has turned bitter towards the church. This because she sees priests using the Sunday Mass , and other church venues, as a bully pulpit jamming political views down the congregation's throat. She loves her faith but hates to sit thru a mass whose main purpose seems to get out the vote for a candidate who agrees with church doctrine, at least towards one narrowly focused issue such as abortion. She feels it is her church's primary duty to see to its member's spiritual well being and not to pursue such tangential adventures in politics. (Perhaps, the fact that she refers to it as her church is where she sets herself up for disappointment: Church politics are not democracy in action)

This brings up a thought. Reading a Newsweek article a couple of weeks ago I was surprised to learn that part of the beatification process included not only testimony from those that were in the affirmative position but also those opposed. Further surprise awaited me when I learned that this testimony came not only from devil's advocates opposed to the classification of specific incidents as miracles. Indeed, a layman who has been consistently critical of Mother Teresa's actions was invited to speak. He pointed out that the candidate's teachings encouraging women to be subservient to their husbands and that they practice only "natural contraception" kept these people in poverty. This is a well known scientific statistical fact. Even the leaders of the people she helped knew this. His concluding question: How can an institution honor an individual whose entire career helped condemn millions of poor people and their children to a legacy of perpetual poverty?

One could form an apologist's argument in favor of Mother Teresa's and others' good deeds involving those in poverty but the meat of that argument would speak only towards their ignorance towards common social knowledge as regarding population dynamics and thereby discount these workers good intentions. The responsibility lies in the higher echelons of the church. This group is highly educated and consists, literally of Physicians, Lawyers, and Sociologists, many possessing PhD's.

Given this level of modern knowledge what other conclusion can one reach other than that reached and stated by BumbleBeeBoogie?



This, of course, has the potential for change. But change in such institutions is glacial. After all, how can the truly faithful argue with those with God on their side? Well, the church does respond when people implicitly vote with their feet and pocket books. Apparently, economics can play a role in spiritual fulfillment.

JM

Jim and BEE - I don't disagree with what you're saying.

This is interesting:
http://www.bank-of-wisdom.com/cddisplay.php?cd=cd10

"The works of history presented on this CD-ROM represent the highest degree of research and historic scholarship produced upon this subject. Again and again, individual research has produced the same historic facts; facts of political intrigue and corruption that destroys governments, causes endless wars, unrest, persecution and suffering---all in the name of religion. These magnificent studies of the past explain world troubles today, troubles that will continue as long as the Vatican is allowed to dominate national and international politics for its own power and profit."

"No reading can be more entertaining, stimulating and enlightening than the awful facts of political religion. Emmett F. Fields, Bank of Wisdom"

No - not hawking this, or have any affilitation with it. I just thought the summation was a concise summary of exactly how I feel about 'political religion' - and Jim, by the way, your wife might think about getting that churches IRS exemption revoked. They are violating the LAW by politicizing the sermons to the extent you describe. If more people would put some of the damn churches out of business, maybe the rest will pay attention to the laws.

Phineas Flapdoodle? Yeah - I borrowed that from Henry Miller; he used it as his anonymous pen name in the early 1920 - 30's

Very best,
Stephen