Catholic nonsense

[LCohen]

Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.

Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright

I get the impression, and correct me if I 'm wrong but you operate on the basis that the only possible explanation for a recognition of right and wrong is that God placed this instinct in humans. Similarly you believe that atheists don't recognise the right/wrong dichotomy?

[seafoid]

Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.

Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright

They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.

[muppet]

Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.

Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright

'Wrong' of course including that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, punishable by death if you disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Of course many were simply excommunicated, thereby doomed to eternal hell, which is apparently a fate far worse than death.

[omaghjoe]

The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy?  If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?

Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?

How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?

More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).

The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit

You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy

And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind

God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth

Seafoid,

Your just making things up again

Leonard,

Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho  your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from  and how we came about to have a choice in them?

How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?

Joe

Are you saying that this what Catholicism teaches original sin is and that it has backed away from the garden of eden, scriptural base and the whole passing down the genetic line business? Or are you suggesting that catholics don't believe in catholicism or are you just telling us what you believe and the mass ranks of catholics (the subject matter of the thread) believe something else?

As for morals. Call them morals, ethics, an understanding of consequence and of rights and wrongs or whatever you want. There is very sound evidence that they exist and very good explanations as to where they come from that do not need a god as either the creator or the overseer. Empathy does not need a god but it can explain positive behaviours. Kinship doesn't need a god. It fits perfectly well with darwinism. Grouped societies have their basis in genetic groupings. Behaviours originally encouraged, valued and rewarded in genetic groupings are now established and encouraged, valued and rewarded in non-family groupings.

Nothing like an either/or fallacy to double up as a red herring, do try to stick to the point Leonard. Original sin comes from God, the Garden of Eden is accepted by the church that it was simply how the author understood how they came about, in other words a literary device. The source however remains the same. Despite what you might be alluding to the CC adheres to most of the prevailing theories of science and does not take large parts of the old testament to be (for want of better word) Gospel.


Are empathy and kinship morals? Morals deal with right and wrong? Respect and Loyalty might be the corresponding morals your looking for.
Tho it seems like your saying morals exist but that basically we just made them up for our own purposes and only adhere to them because of consequences, I cant speak for anyone else but thats not true for me at least. And by that definition  At risk of a slight tangent are you trying to tell me that morals genetically developed our brains to think that way? I dont think even the most optimistic biological anthropologist would adhere to that, tradition and culture would be their argument.

But anyway  I'll ask you again slightly differently as you seem to mixed morals up with actions and consequences... Do you believe right and wrong exist?

And for that matter do you believe the choice between right and wrong exists and if so how did that choice come about and for what end?

Joe

Your argument is that human nature (or original sin) comes from God and that is in deed an argument. But what is it backed up by? What alternatives have been weighed up and what is your view on those?

I am fully aware that the catholic church and its members do not take most of the bible as literal truth. What bemuses me is the fact that the church and its members will tell people how to live their lives and condem harmless acts based upon a literal (or invented) reading of the bible which is at that point in time not a literary work but the undiluted word of god.

Empathy and kinship are not morals. I never argued that they were. They are however some of the sources of morality and you did ask where morals came from I apologise profusely for the confusion this has caused in your brain.

If you could revisit the posts and get your head around them then you will find the nonsense in the coda of your post

Im sorry if you thought that my entire paragraph was solely about empathy and kinship it clearly wasn't. Perhaps you could read the rest of it and reply instead of engaging in pointless ad hominen?

So I'll ask again.... do you believe right and wrong exist? or have we created them? Do you adhere to right and wrong in your life?

[omaghjoe]

Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.

Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright

They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.

Yeah so now im a climate change denier too I suppose it makes kids feel more guilty too?

How it teaching kids right and wrong pumping guilt into them?

[omaghjoe]

Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.

Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright

'Wrong' of course including that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, punishable by death if you disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Of course many were simply excommunicated, thereby doomed to eternal hell, which is apparently a fate far worse than death.

Nothing like keeping it relevant eh Muppet??

It was disgraceful what happened Giordano Bruno
I watched Cosmos too and was slightly bemused how a science program championed a guy who simply dreamed things up (which he should have been perfectly entitled to BTW do with getting executed). I think Carl Sagan would have thought it pretty lame. But makes you wonder about people in science driving an anti Catholic agenda. If the catholic church was so anti science there would surely be more up to date examples of it. It seems like many scientists are unsurprisingly believers in a materialist universe, this belief puts them in directly conflict with an institution who also believes in a spiritual universe. Neither can be proved (if anything truely can be), its just pointless and petty.

edit: probably slightly misdirected there, Neil deGrasse Tyson has consistently avoided being drawn on the issue of religion tho he does tend to be very politicial and most scientist (with a few exceptions) in media tend to stick to science. Seth McFarlane (who is not a scientist) on the other hand has consistently tired to up play this science v church thing. So its more likely a theme the media likes to use that has caused it to infiltrate into the mainstream.

[seafoid]

Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.

Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright

They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.

Yeah so now im a climate change denier too I suppose it makes kids feel more guilty too?

How it teaching kids right and wrong pumping guilt into them?

Can you be good without being religious ? Or is there no ethical life without the Church?

[omaghjoe]

Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.

Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright

They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.

Yeah so now im a climate change denier too I suppose it makes kids feel more guilty too?

How it teaching kids right and wrong pumping guilt into them?

Can you be good without being religious ? Or is there no ethical life without the Church?

Of course you can... IMO

Tho the question I am getting at is does good and bad truly exist or is it just something that humans have created?

[seafoid]

Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.

Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright

They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.

Yeah so now im a climate change denier too I suppose it makes kids feel more guilty too?

How it teaching kids right and wrong pumping guilt into them?

Can you be good without being religious ? Or is there no ethical life without the Church?

Of course you can... IMO

Tho the question I am getting at is does good and bad truly exist or is it just something that humans have created?

I think evil is related to trauma. People are not born with it.
Abuse and neglect drive a lot of criminal activity later in life in the case of murderers for example

[LCohen]

The whole mercy thing. Why do we need mercy?  If we were born sinners because we came via vaginas and not the ether how is it our fault ?

Excellent point. Is the original sin thing exclusive to catholics or is the belief in it a wider chrisitian thing?

How do catholics justify it? Surely they know the garden of eden story is just a story? Without it where does orignal sin come from?

More importantly what was god doing impregnating a virgin (in a weird kind of way) to create a son, who was also him (in a weird kind of way involving a third spirity party) so that the son could be murdered (how fucked up is this shit??) so that we could be absolved (which apparently he could do anyway) of a sin that passes from a person that did not exist (and as the all seeing, all powerful creator he presumably knew this??).

The whole thing from premise to dogma to practice is batshit

You start from the notion that sex with women is very grubby and unworthy

And you build it from there
Even though that is how the species survives but never mind

God needed some kind of USP
So it had to be a Virgin birth

Seafoid,

Your just making things up again

Leonard,

Call it original sin, call it temptation, call it human nature, call it whatever you want. We have parts of our makeup that are contrary to what is good and right, such as selfishness, greed etc. We each have a choice whether or not to submit to them or take the moral path. Thats what original sin is for me, You dont have to Catholic to believe in it or Christian or even theist. Some people believe morals dont exist, tho  your second paragraph on Jesus would suggest you do since "shit is fucked up". So presuming you do believe in them perhaps you would explain what you believe they are and where they came from  and how we came about to have a choice in them?

How do you know its BS or do you just believe it is?

Joe

Are you saying that this what Catholicism teaches original sin is and that it has backed away from the garden of eden, scriptural base and the whole passing down the genetic line business? Or are you suggesting that catholics don't believe in catholicism or are you just telling us what you believe and the mass ranks of catholics (the subject matter of the thread) believe something else?

As for morals. Call them morals, ethics, an understanding of consequence and of rights and wrongs or whatever you want. There is very sound evidence that they exist and very good explanations as to where they come from that do not need a god as either the creator or the overseer. Empathy does not need a god but it can explain positive behaviours. Kinship doesn't need a god. It fits perfectly well with darwinism. Grouped societies have their basis in genetic groupings. Behaviours originally encouraged, valued and rewarded in genetic groupings are now established and encouraged, valued and rewarded in non-family groupings.

Nothing like an either/or fallacy to double up as a red herring, do try to stick to the point Leonard. Original sin comes from God, the Garden of Eden is accepted by the church that it was simply how the author understood how they came about, in other words a literary device. The source however remains the same. Despite what you might be alluding to the CC adheres to most of the prevailing theories of science and does not take large parts of the old testament to be (for want of better word) Gospel.


Are empathy and kinship morals? Morals deal with right and wrong? Respect and Loyalty might be the corresponding morals your looking for.
Tho it seems like your saying morals exist but that basically we just made them up for our own purposes and only adhere to them because of consequences, I cant speak for anyone else but thats not true for me at least. And by that definition  At risk of a slight tangent are you trying to tell me that morals genetically developed our brains to think that way? I dont think even the most optimistic biological anthropologist would adhere to that, tradition and culture would be their argument.

But anyway  I'll ask you again slightly differently as you seem to mixed morals up with actions and consequences... Do you believe right and wrong exist?

And for that matter do you believe the choice between right and wrong exists and if so how did that choice come about and for what end?

Joe

Your argument is that human nature (or original sin) comes from God and that is in deed an argument. But what is it backed up by? What alternatives have been weighed up and what is your view on those?

I am fully aware that the catholic church and its members do not take most of the bible as literal truth. What bemuses me is the fact that the church and its members will tell people how to live their lives and condem harmless acts based upon a literal (or invented) reading of the bible which is at that point in time not a literary work but the undiluted word of god.

Empathy and kinship are not morals. I never argued that they were. They are however some of the sources of morality and you did ask where morals came from I apologise profusely for the confusion this has caused in your brain.

If you could revisit the posts and get your head around them then you will find the nonsense in the coda of your post

Im sorry if you thought that my entire paragraph was solely about empathy and kinship it clearly wasn't. Perhaps you could read the rest of it and reply instead of engaging in pointless ad hominen?

So I'll ask again.... do you believe right and wrong exist? or have we created them? Do you adhere to right and wrong in your life?

Joe

It is sad that I am having to direct you step by step through a pretty straight forward argument but here goes.

The point about the end of the post was that if you had understood the meaning of my post then you wouldn't have had to ask such questions. This is what I directed you back to. Dismiss that as playing the man if you wish but in this case it was"the man" who was failing to grasp the meaning.

So to answer this again. Humans and other species to hugely varying degrees show signs of being able to process a difference between right and wrong and to decide to do right. All of this is most evident in primates and the link to brain capacity cannot be dismissed. Our evolution as a social species has been primarily in family groupings. It is only in latter years that we have moved outside this. We are genetically driven to look after our genes and pass on the most apt genes. We reward behaviours in that sense. Empathy and kinship thrive. Standards of behaviour are set and with improved understanding are advanced even when dealing with non family members. That is why I try to do right. That is why we all try to with varying degrees of success. We are genetically programmed to do so.

[muppet]

Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.

Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright

'Wrong' of course including that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, punishable by death if you disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Of course many were simply excommunicated, thereby doomed to eternal hell, which is apparently a fate far worse than death.

Nothing like keeping it relevant eh Muppet??

It was disgraceful what happened Giordano Bruno
I watched Cosmos too and was slightly bemused how a science program championed a guy who simply dreamed things up (which he should have been perfectly entitled to BTW do with getting executed). I think Carl Sagan would have thought it pretty lame. But makes you wonder about people in science driving an anti Catholic agenda. If the catholic church was so anti science there would surely be more up to date examples of it. It seems like many scientists are unsurprisingly believers in a materialist universe, this belief puts them in directly conflict with an institution who also believes in a spiritual universe. Neither can be proved (if anything truely can be), its just pointless and petty.

edit: probably slightly misdirected there, Neil deGrasse Tyson has consistently avoided being drawn on the issue of religion tho he does tend to be very politicial and most scientist (with a few exceptions) in media tend to stick to science. Seth McFarlane (who is not a scientist) on the other hand has consistently tired to up play this science v church thing. So its more likely a theme the media likes to use that has caused it to infiltrate into the mainstream.

You guessed wrong regarding Cosmos, so bash whoever you want. Bruno is a historical fact, not simply the last thing you saw on TV. And the Church claimed he was 'wrong' all on their misguided own. Did the Pope involved go to Hell? Or how does that work?

As for your usual 'anti-Catholic agenda', this for me is confirmation of its falseness. If it really  believed it was 'The Truth', and that it should 'Turn the other Cheek, and that its mission was to convert non-believers, it wouldn't be pulling down the shutters at any critical analysis and firing ad hominems at non-believers.

No-one said the church was 'anti-Science'. This strawman is typical of small-minded people who need to polarise everything into right and wrong, for and against, pro and anti. Life isn't that simple.

As for modern conflicts with Science, there are still Catholics who ardently believe in Creationism. The Church allows them to do so and has never come out and said in plain language, that it was nonsense. The Church is a mess on homosexuality and calls it a choice, despite experts now believing it is likely to be a genetic evolution. The persecution of homosexuals continues unabated. Look at what that ideology turns people like Tony Fearon into.

But the main conflict, modern and historical, between Science and Religion, is that the former seeks evidence, while the latter seeks subjects. Anyone can follow science, there are no membership requirements, while in religion you usually have to suspend your normal thought processes and have 'faith'. 

Many religions ban whole sections of society. The Catholic Church is not the worst in this regard in modern times, but it has a shameful history nonetheless.

[seafoid]

In order for a discussion to develop legs you need a few posters with diametrically opposing views. I think the Church needs a reset.

[J70]

If any other subject was described as 'nonsense' the thread would be pulled and if not the deeply offensive posts would attract bans for the perpetrarors.Sadly on this Board as everywhere else,Catholics are fair game it seems.Sad all the same.

What thread like this has been pulled?

[Lar Naparka]

Serious amount of trolls on this Board.I'd say everyone of you if hit by a bus would be asking for a priest.

Can't be sure about that, Tony.   
I was never hit by a bus and I hope I never will but I'm not so sure I would call for a priest if I was.
I have had at least two close shaves shaves in the past where I was on the brink of finding out for myself if there is an afterlife or not.
I was in hospital each time and I was asked if I wanted the services of a priest each time.
I said I didn't want to confess anything about anything but the priest could call by and we'd have a chat if he liked, again about anything he wished to bring up.
My reasoning was simple: if there really was an all-seeing, all-hearing, compassionate deity, he (she?) would already know if if I was in a state of mortal sin or not. No point bothering the poor priest with a list of things Is be making up as we went along.
Besides, I didn't honestly think I had done anything to merit eternal damnation for anything I had done.
So stuff the begrudgers, I'd I 'd take my chances. Luckily for me, I pulled through on each occasion and there's a distinct possibility that I'll be faced with the same choice sooner or later.
I see no reason to change my opinion. I'll go for three out of three.

[seafoid]

Yeah lets teach them there is no right and wrong and they have no conscience, you work away with your kids on that and let us know when your ready for the mad house.

Would that be Neoliberal Climate Change? I can see how that can affect kids alright

They aren't sinners. they can still understand the difference between right and wrong without having guilt pumped into them.
I would trust my kids .
Climate change is happening anyway whether you accept it or not.

Yeah so now im a climate change denier too I suppose it makes kids feel more guilty too?

How it teaching kids right and wrong pumping guilt into them?

Can you be good without being religious ? Or is there no ethical life without the Church?

Of course you can... IMO

Tho the question I am getting at is does good and bad truly exist or is it just something that humans have created?

I think evil is something that develops in the brain. If you read psychological reports of murderers or child killers there is usually
a long process involved in the back story. There was a case in Switzerland where a prisoner murdered  a psychologist who was bringing him to a sports session. He grew up in an abusive home and his mother was tormenter in chief. He developed a hatred of women. He beat up his first girlfriend. He developed a fantasy of slitting a woman's throat.  He got turned on thinking about it. At each stage he went further. there was some kind of brain process gong on.

Graham Dwyer had something similar going on. He kept on feeding his hatred of women until he murdered one.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/30/mark-bridger-guilty-april-jones-murder
Jim Gamble, the founding head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, said there was a theory that men such as Bridger and Hazell became caught up in a "spiral of abuse"."They begin to want more, they want access not to still images but to video images, and then they want to get more real experience. And through the internet they realise that they are not alone," Gamble said.