Catholic nonsense

[LCohen]

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?

He didn't answer it the first time so I'm not sure what will have changed.

There is a recurring theme of evading the gaping holes in the religious arguments or throwing out words/concepts and not being able to back up e.g. Describing something as simultaneously strong and immeasurable. Tony and his confreres are adept at this. Wilful misinterpretation (or are they really that thick)is a standard ploy. And then label it anti religious as if saying someone is anti you is a means of addressing their disagreement with you. Laughable really

[Itchy]

What breed is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?

Dunno, but he appears to be deaf.

Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
grant us peace.

Very good lads

[Itchy]

What is exorcism about anyway? Is it schizophrenia or are there really demons sent by the devil, whoever that is ? Why would the devil attack someone in Co Monaghan, for example? Is it like computer viruses?

Because the devil is from Cavan.

[seafoid]

TryIng to argue with TF is like trying to talk sense to a Brexiteer. A banker interviewed by the FT said it was impossible to ask them about details. If you do you are accused of hating Brexit.

[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?

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.

See above in bold Leonard.

I had already discussed this... Looks like your telling me that human action is governed by inevitable preconditions by preprograming in the brain or whats learned in the enviroment.... so basically  morals dont exist then? There is no such thing as good and evil is what you are telling me? And that actions that most of us could percieve to be abhorent (say murder) are only that, a perception. And ultimately the perpetrator could think they are perfectly ok and there is nothing concrete to say they are wrong? Brings into question the whole justice system does it not? I actually think Anders Brevik seems to be a good example of this.

And since your heading down this route. Where does the actual decision come from? How do we have a choice to make these decisions?
And why do we have the experience of thought at all. I mean if are brains are just akin to computers processing all this information why do we experience anything more than a computer does? Genetic evolution does not offer anything on how we came to have that experience anymore than an oak tree, we really should be zombies.

[Bord na Mona man]

TryIng to argue with TF is like trying to talk sense to a Brexiteer. A banker interviewed by the FT said it was impossible to ask them about details. If you do you are accused of hating Brexit.

Pray for him.

[seafoid]

TryIng to argue with TF is like trying to talk sense to a Brexiteer. A banker interviewed by the FT said it was impossible to ask them about details. If you do you are accused of hating Brexit.

Pray for him.

I think we need Investment grade prayer. A novena

[seafoid]

http://god-answers-prayers.com/miracle_prayers/never_known_to_fail/index.html

[MoChara]

http://god-answers-prayers.com/miracle_prayers/never_known_to_fail/index.html

60% of the time it works everytime

[seafoid]

http://god-answers-prayers.com/miracle_prayers/never_known_to_fail/index.html

60% of the time it works everytime

How can it work for all Ireland finals?

[TabClear]

http://god-answers-prayers.com/miracle_prayers/never_known_to_fail/index.html

60% of the time it works everytime

How can it work for all Ireland finals?

Mayo are getting the 40% out of the way and are about to go on a Crossmaglen-esqe run of titles. ...

[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.

See above in bold Leonard.

I had already discussed this... Looks like your telling me that human action is governed by inevitable preconditions by preprograming in the brain or whats learned in the enviroment.... so basically  morals dont exist then? There is no such thing as good and evil is what you are telling me? And that actions that most of us could percieve to be abhorent (say murder) are only that, a perception. And ultimately the perpetrator could think they are perfectly ok and there is nothing concrete to say they are wrong? Brings into question the whole justice system does it not? I actually think Anders Brevik seems to be a good example of this.

And since your heading down this route. Where does the actual decision come from? How do we have a choice to make these decisions?
And why do we have the experience of thought at all. I mean if are brains are just akin to computers processing all this information why do we experience anything more than a computer does? Genetic evolution does not offer anything on how we came to have that experience anymore than an oak tree, we really should be zombies.

Human thought is governed by the programming of the brain. The brains which thrive, live longest and reproduce most successfully are the ones that result in the most apt behaviours as its the behaviours that get rewarded.

Good and bad, right and wrong are labels. Society develops standards and denotes extreme wrongs. Obviously not everyone shares the sames thoughts on what is wrong. Some would consider an action to be acceptable whereas the broad base of society (or a society) would consider them wrong. Breivik is in this category. Society punishes this behaviour and enforces its collective view of acceptability. Others accept that an individual action is wrong for ordinary people but is acceptable for them as superior beings. Again society punishes this and enforces its view. This is how society works (including the use of formal laws today). The zeitgeist shifts but the most generally accepted wrongs tend to remain as denoted as wrongs. And in all of this Breivik is unlikely to become a father

Humans in these senses represent the current peak of the evolution. Other species populate a spectrum. The oak tree is quite near the opposite end of that continuum.

[omaghjoe]

Leonard, we'll start afresh..

Most of our social action is governed by our environment its nothing to do with our makeup, this would certainly be true of Anders Brevik, who I believe incidentally knows what he did was wrong but wants to fly in the face of society for the shear hell of it.

So there is no right and wrong then in your opinion then? Just a perception off, sorry but I'll disagree I believe there are inherent rights and wrongs similar to how maths and laws of nature exist, you believe they exist dont you or did we invent those to?

But again back to that same question. I used the tree as an example because if we cut a tree we dont believe it experiences anything in the way of pain when we do that but it still reacts by growing a branch, so ..why arent we like that?. How do we come to experience thought (and everything else for that matter like pain, smell, sight). Why arent we just robots or zombies with no experience of our thought, for example why dont actions happen automatically.... like I dont need to think if I touch something hot i just take my hand away before I even feel heat or pain, how is it all our actions arent like that?

[LCohen]

Leonard, we'll start afresh..

Most of our social action is governed by our environment its nothing to do with our makeup, this would certainly be true of Anders Brevik, who I believe incidentally knows what he did was wrong but wants to fly in the face of society for the shear hell of it.

So there is no right and wrong then in your opinion then? Just a perception off, sorry but I'll disagree I believe there are inherent rights and wrongs similar to how maths and laws of nature exist, you believe they exist dont you or did we invent those to?

But again back to that same question. I used the tree as an example because if we cut a tree we dont believe it experiences anything in the way of pain when we do that but it still reacts by growing a branch, so ..why arent we like that?. How do we come to experience thought (and everything else for that matter like pain, smell, sight). Why arent we just robots or zombies with no experience of our thought, for example why dont actions happen automatically.... like I dont need to think if I touch something hot i just take my hand away before I even feel heat or pain, how is it all our actions arent like that?

Lets

I know little of Breivik other than what he did and how to spell his name. I know nothing about his motivations. He is not an individual I have studied.

I do believe in right and wrong. I don't have to rely on mere belief as we can witness the shared views of right and wrong. We can see how these vary from era to era and in terms of geography/ethnic groupings etc. All that is considered wrong or evil in one time and place in one group of people will not represent wrong or evil in every time period (past, present and future), in every geography and with every social grouping. We don't need to merely believe that we can witness it and the record of it.

There is a very clear difference between a snapshot invention and an evolution over the geological time. That is not difficult to understand and doesn't require belief as the record of it is there to be witnessed.

The true wonder of the evolution of species is the complexity of and variation in species. Complex organs are not easy to regenerate but simple orgnanisms and organs are. A human cannot re-grow a lobbed off leg (at one end of the complexity scale) but a star fish at the simpler end of multi-cell animals can. Humans are complex and our development is at the extreme end of the development. The wider primates share much of this. Some senses are acute and suited to our environment e.g. our eye sight is a product of something moving at our speed hunting large mammals on the african plain. The mole has inferior sight conducive to its environment and a product of its apt evolution. A peregrine falcon's eyesight is vastly superior to human's for all the same reasons.Humans's are not alone in being able to think, respond to stimulus, record the response to stimulus and use it in the future (a day old calf knows not to go back to the electric fence). We don't have to believe this, the evidence is all around us. Many spiritualist struggle with this. The whole man in god's likeness doesn't really help with all these similar characteristics in the wider animal kingdom. It doesn't help with the fact that human's didn't just appear on earth but has antecedents and intermediate evolutionary steps. It doesn't help with explaining what god was at all this time. Just messing "in a mysterious way" I suppose?

[Eamonnca1]

Is it just me or does Satan get an awful bad rap? The God of the Old Testament is a genocidal psychotic maniac who hates women and tells old fellas to kill their children to test their faith. Then there's the great flood holocaust thing. God racks up a far bigger body count than old Lucifer. I think the likes of Tony have been reading the good book all wrong. God is the baddie and Satan is the goodie.