Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ridiculous arguments for believing

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    iguana wrote: »
    A baby's fingernails. My mother in law recently waxed lyrical to my husband about the perfection of baby's fingernails and how they were obvious proof of the existence of God. I'm worried it was the opening salvo of the much dreaded campaign for baptised grandchildren.

    Not the tastiest part of a baby IMHO, but anyway.


  • Options
    #123
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Chief_Jack wrote: »
    If it is, would you allow the baby to be baptized?

    Nope. My baby can decide for himself when my baby is an adult.


  • Options
    #124
    Chief_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭Chief_Jack


    iguana wrote: »
    Nope. My baby can decide for himself when my baby is an adult.

    Exactly, that is the way it should be too.


  • Options
    #125
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    It appears lawnmower_man is banned from boards.ie now. Was he a re-reg, if so of whom?


  • Options
    #126
    Cruel Sun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,323 ✭✭✭Cruel Sun


    Galvasean wrote: »
    It appears lawnmower_man is banned from boards.ie now. Was he a re-reg, if so of whom?

    I think he may have been banned for this

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056691543&page=8#111

    He called someone an idiot, I don't know if that's enough to get someone banned on here though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Martin_94 wrote: »
    I think he may have been banned for this

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056691543&page=8#111

    He called someone an idiot, I don't know if that's enough to get someone banned on here though.

    That wouldn't be a site ban offence though. As the man said, he's probably somebodys second coming.


  • Options
    #128
    smokingman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,740 ✭✭✭smokingman


    Nodin wrote: »
    That wouldn't be a site ban offence though. As the man said, he's probably somebodys second coming.

    I'm guessing and hoping that the boards techies also upped their reporting tools on re-regs when they gave us the new skin for the site. Have seen more of these bans of late and if so, g'wan ya good things! :cool:


  • Options
    #129
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    GarIT wrote: »
    lawnmower_man wrote: »
    GarIT wrote: »
    I believe that I am right, I have talked to priests about this issue before, and they said that unfortunately they believe that is the stance of the RCC, the RCC doesn't shout out about half its beliefs as it would be seen as a joke just like all other religions.

    If you want any credibility you should deal with some of the points that have been made instead of excuses to not answer.

    God can't be real and homosexuality can't be oh at the same time so which one is right? Do you agree that it is illogical to believe both?

    il give you one thing , you have some brass neck , you come on here spouting blatant lies about the catholic church being in favour of the death penalty for homosexuals ( ala iran ) and not only do you not retract such a false statement , you remain on your high horse , demanding others step up to the plate and validate their possitions

    where on earth do you get off or have i fallen for a champion troll

    If you have proof that the church does not condemn homosexuals to death please show me.

    Stop trying to dodge questions and focusing on one point that neither side can prove, it will get nowhere.

    New atheism covering itself in glory once again.

    Surely you have to prove the opposite. The Catholic church is opposed to the death penalty full stop. Laws for sodomy were brought in in England at the reformation - in fact were used to dissolve the monasteries, the Catholic Church does not take the bible as literal, unlike Protestant fundamentalism, and the New Testement over-rides the old so Levicitus doesn't count. That's part of the point of early Christianity. You could ignore old Jewish law and still believe in the Jewish God.


  • Options
    #130
    Improbable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    New atheism covering itself in glory once again.

    Surely you have to prove the opposite. The Catholic church is opposed to the death penalty full stop. Laws for sodomy were brought in in England at the reformation - in fact were used to dissolve the monasteries, the Catholic Church does not take the bible as literal, unlike Protestant fundamentalism, and the New Testement over-rides the old so Levicitus doesn't count. That's part of the point of early Christianity. You could ignore old Jewish law and still believe in the Jewish God.

    "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty" - The Catechism of the Catholic Church


  • Options
    #131
    mrac
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭mrac


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    New atheism covering itself in glory once again.

    Surely you have to prove the opposite. The Catholic church is opposed to the death penalty full stop. Laws for sodomy were brought in in England at the reformation - in fact were used to dissolve the monasteries, the Catholic Church does not take the bible as literal, unlike Protestant fundamentalism, and the New Testement over-rides the old so Levicitus doesn't count. That's part of the point of early Christianity. You could ignore old Jewish law and still believe in the Jewish God.

    Ah yes I forgot the bit in the bible were god said "actually I changed my mind, ignore my last book"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Improbable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    mrac wrote: »
    Ah yes I forgot the bit in the bible were god said "actually I changed my mind, ignore my last book"

    To that point:

    "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:17-18


  • Options
    #133
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    mrac wrote: »
    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    New atheism covering itself in glory once again.

    Surely you have to prove the opposite. The Catholic church is opposed to the death penalty full stop. Laws for sodomy were brought in in England at the reformation - in fact were used to dissolve the monasteries, the Catholic Church does not take the bible as literal, unlike Protestant fundamentalism, and the New Testement over-rides the old so Levicitus doesn't count. That's part of the point of early Christianity. You could ignore old Jewish law and still believe in the Jewish God.

    Ah yes I forgot the bit in the bible were god said "actually I changed my mind, ignore my last book"

    The new Testement is generally considered to override the old. If Christianity did not override the old Testement it would be orthodox Judaism and it wouldn't have spread - the old Testement advocates circumcision for conversion, a dangerous adult procedure back in the day.


  • Options
    #134
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Improbable wrote: »
    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    New atheism covering itself in glory once again.

    Surely you have to prove the opposite. The Catholic church is opposed to the death penalty full stop. Laws for sodomy were brought in in England at the reformation - in fact were used to dissolve the monasteries, the Catholic Church does not take the bible as literal, unlike Protestant fundamentalism, and the New Testement over-rides the old so Levicitus doesn't count. That's part of the point of early Christianity. You could ignore old Jewish law and still believe in the Jewish God.

    "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty" - The Catechism of the Catholic Church

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html

    Pope John Paul II has declared the Church's near total opposition to the death penalty. In his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995 after four years of consultations with the world's Roman Catholic bishops, John Paul II wrote that execution is only appropriate "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady immprovement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.


  • Options
    #135
    mrac
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭mrac


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    The new Testement is generally considered to override the old. If Christianity did not override the old Testement it would be orthodox Judaism and it wouldn't have spread - the old Testement advocates circumcision for conversion, a dangerous adult procedure back in the day.

    Im not saying orthodox judaism is a good thing far from it, im merely pointing out the silliness of trying to suggest an omnipotent being would just change his mind like that. Could it be god got something wrong in his first book? Could it be he had achange of heart? Or could it be that they are merely the work of humans and each testaments was written by a different group of people with different values and outlooks on life?


  • Options
    #136
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Improbable wrote: »
    mrac wrote: »
    Ah yes I forgot the bit in the bible were god said "actually I changed my mind, ignore my last book"

    To that point:

    "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:17-18

    He ignored the law when he stopped a stoning. In any case Chritianity is not orthodox Judaism so clearly the old law is not the new law. Paul is the real founder of Christianity and he Ronanised it Christianity, with the exception of fundamentalism, owes more the Greek philosophy than Jesus and certainly more than it owes to the Old Testement.

    For that reason Levicitus is irrelevant.


  • Options
    #137
    Improbable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    I thought that: "The Catholic church is opposed to the death penalty full stop."

    Well according to its own catechism, it isn't. They can add provisos but in the end, that's what it comes down to.


  • Options
    #138
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    mrac wrote: »
    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    The new Testement is generally considered to override the old. If Christianity did not override the old Testement it would be orthodox Judaism and it wouldn't have spread - the old Testement advocates circumcision for conversion, a dangerous adult procedure back in the day.

    Im not saying orthodox judaism is a good thing far from it, im merely pointing out the silliness of trying to suggest an omnipotent being would just change his mind like that. Could it be god got something wrong in his first book? Could it be he had achange of heart? Or could it be that they are merely the work of humans and each testaments was written by a different group of people with different values and outlooks on life?

    I am not necessarily arguing that point - there was a form of Christianity which saw the old Testement god as evil - but against using the old Testement to attack theorem churches. In particular GarIT does not really know what he is talking about.


  • Options
    #139
    Improbable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    He ignored the law when he stopped a stoning. In any case Chritianity is not orthodox Judaism so clearly the old law is not the new law. Paul is the real founder of Christianity and he Ronanised it Christianity, with the exception of fundamentalism, owes more the Greek philosophy than Jesus and certainly more than it owes to the Old Testement.

    For that reason Levicitus is irrelevant.

    So he tells people not to ignore the old testament but ignores it himself? What a hypocrite... Doesn't really sound like someone I'd want to take advice from.


  • Options
    #140
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Improbable wrote: »
    I thought that: "The Catholic church is opposed to the death penalty full stop."

    Well according to its own catechism, it isn't. They can add provisos but in the end, that's what it comes down to.

    Read the last Popes arguments. That's what the Catholic church believes, in all circumstances except where society is under threat. It's not like all atheists are opposed to the death penalty.


  • Options
    #141
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Improbable wrote: »
    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    He ignored the law when he stopped a stoning. In any case Chritianity is not orthodox Judaism so clearly the old law is not the new law. Paul is the real founder of Christianity and he Ronanised it Christianity, with the exception of fundamentalism, owes more the Greek philosophy than Jesus and certainly more than it owes to the Old Testement.

    For that reason Levicitus is irrelevant.

    So he tells people not to ignore the old testament but ignores it himself? What a hypocrite... Doesn't really sound like someone I'd want to take advice from.

    Who's asking you too. I am here to point out the appalling lack of understanding of Christianity by new Atheists, not convert you to Jesus. I just pointed out two problems with the beliefs in this thread - that Carholicism is pro-death penalty and that it is pro-death penalty for homosexuals. Continuing to believe that is a profession of faith, the evidence is against you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Improbable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    Read the last Popes arguments. That's what the Catholic church believes, in all circumstances except where society is under threat. It's not like all atheists are opposed to the death penalty.

    Never said all atheists were. I'm merely responding to your point which was, as I once again state: "The Catholic church is opposed to the death penalty full stop."

    This is not true. It just isn't. Even in that statement you linked, he does say: "...ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity."

    So there clearly are circumstances in which the pope and the church in general feels that the death penalty is acceptable.

    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    Who's asking you too. I am here to point out the appalling lack of understanding of Christianity by new Atheists, not convert you to Jesus. I just pointed out two problems with the beliefs in this thread - that Carholicism is pro-death penalty and that it is pro-death penalty for homosexuals. Continuing to believe that is a profession of faith, the evidence is against you.

    I have never stated either of those things...

    edit: Actually, let me clarify. I never said that the church is for the death penalty against homosexuals. As to the other part about the church being for the death penalty in general, I suppose that depends on how you define "for it". Given what is said in the catechism and even in the statement you linked, both sources find that there are cases in which the death penalty is justified. I would view that as being for the death penalty.


  • Options
    #143
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I know people have invested lot of effort into some of the posts here, but unfortunately it's all off topic. I don't see any recovery any time soon and we don't really need another church vs homosexuals debate.

    Also, lol -
    lawnmower_man wrote: »
    your an idiot


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement