The bad teachings of the Catholic Church

Safehands

The Catholic Church taught us that good people went to Heaven and bad people went to Hell. There is nothing wrong with that teaching, even if it is not essentially true. However, the church then taught us that breaking their man made rules, like missing mass on Sunday or using contraception, would result in an eternity being burnt in hell. These and other Catholic teachings resulted in torment for many good people.
Isn't it true that any organisation which can issue rules which are actually based on lies and associate the breaking of those rules with horrendous consequences, can only be described as downright evil?

maryishere

If using contraception means an eternity spent in hell, then there will not be many Irish people going to heaven. Bit ironic when more than a few of those lecturing about contraception and the like done things to kids and of course they went to heaven.
So you may have a point OP, but in fairness you get good and bad people everywhere. I think maybe if you get too many old men running something its not healthy.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

The Catholic Church taught us that good people went to Heaven and bad people went to Hell. There is nothing wrong with that teaching, even if it is not essentially true. However, the church then taught us that breaking their man made rules, like missing mass on Sunday or using contraception, would result in an eternity being burnt in hell. These and other Catholic teachings resulted in torment for many good people.
Isn't it true that any organisation which can issue rules which are actually based on lies and associate the breaking of those rules with horrendous consequences, can only be described as downright evil?

Well, do you think the Catholic church is unique in this respect? Can you name a church that hasn't promised damnation for infringing a moral principle that is not universally accepted?

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, do you think the Catholic church is unique in this respect? Can you name a church that hasn't promised damnation for infringing a moral principle that is not universally accepted?

Actually, I don't think the Anglican church people go to hell nearly as easily. Unless of course you listened to the Catholic church a few years ago, when merely going into a protestant church was like teetering over the steps into hell.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

Actually, I don't think the Anglican church people go to hell nearly as easily.

Really? You never heard of the Puritans?

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Really? You never heard of the Puritans?

I am not referring to the middle ages. If I was, I could go back to the inquisitions within the Catholic churches.
I am referring to the late 20th century contemporary church.

Peregrinus

Well, if you think that the contemporary church is teaching that "missing mass on Sunday or using contraception would result in an eternity being burnt in hell", you haven't been paying a lot of attention to the real world.

Safehands

maryishere wrote: »

If using contraception means an eternity spent in hell, then there will not be many Irish people going to heaven. Bit ironic when more than a few of those lecturing about contraception and the like done things to kids and of course they went to heaven.
So you may have a point OP, but in fairness you get good and bad people everywhere. I think maybe if you get too many old men running something its not healthy.

The people running the church were, by and large, well educated and intelligent. They knew that some of the man made rules were wrong. They still know that the use of contraception is very positive in most situations, but still preach against it. One lady I knew, was advised by doctors not to to get pregnant, following the birth of her second child, because further pregnancies could be fatal. She asked the priest if she could use contraception and was told that she could not, because to do so was a sin. She became pregnant and subsequently died. How many other women in Ireland suffered this fate due to the church's obscene teachings? I doubt there are many statistics which show such a figure, but I suspect that there are quite a few women who died because of what they were told by these evil people dressed in black.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if you think that the contemporary church is teaching that "missing mass on Sunday or using contraception would result in an eternity being burnt in hell", you haven't been paying a lot of attention to the real world.

When did the church come out and say, 'Actually we were wrong about that, sorry for misleading you'? Any change that has happened is not by the will of the church but because of the will of the people. But as far as I know, the official church position has not changed. Look up 'The Precepts of the church' for an official viewpoint.
The 'Real World' has nothing to do with church teaching. It never has!

Peregrinus

I'm not here to defend the Catholic church's teaching on contraception; I'm here to question why you single out the Catholic church for this criticism. I don't have to point out to you that there are plenty of non-Catholic denominations that will threaten you with eternal fire just for not being baptised.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not here to defend the Catholic church's teaching on contraception; I'm here to question why you single out the Catholic church for this criticism. I don't have to point out to you that there are plenty of non-Catholic denominations that will threaten you with eternal fire just for not being baptised.

I criticise the RC church for a few reasons. Of course I realise that there are many churches which are very extreme in their views. Most of them quote the bible and they believe that their followers must adhere to the rules of that book. A lot of them could be generally considered to be quite mad.
The RC church is one of the largest and most influential organisations in the world. They have added their own rules to those of the bible. These rules and beliefs tend to change from time to time. So 'mortal' sins of a decade ago, may not even be considered to be a sin today. I was brought up in the Catholic faith, so I have experienced their methods and I am glad to be able to say that I escaped their grasp and influence. I am bitter though, about what they have done to so many people.
Before anyone says it to me, I know that there are many good people in the RC organisation. I know that the religious orders did some very good work in this country. I would expect that from them though. That is their reason for existing. A lot of this good work has been negated by the negative influences they have had on society.
I do believe that they have been a very unchristian organisation in many ways. They have a hell of a lot of apologising to do for all of their very bad past ways, before they can begin to be considered to be a truly Christian Church.

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

I criticise the RC church for a few reasons. Of course I realise that there are many churches which are very extreme in their views. Most of them quote the bible and they believe that their followers must adhere to the rules of that book. A lot of them could be generally considered to be quite mad.
The RC church is one of the largest and most influential organisations in the world. They have added their own rules to those of the bible. These rules and beliefs tend to change from time to time. So 'mortal' sins of a decade ago, may not even be considered to be a sin today. I was brought up in the Catholic faith, so I have experienced their methods and I am glad to be able to say that I escaped their grasp and influence. I am bitter though, about what they have done to so many people.
Before anyone says it to me, I know that there are many good people in the RC organisation. I know that the religious orders did some very good work in this country. I would expect that from them though. That is their reason for existing. A lot of this good work has been negated by the negative influences they have had on society.
I do believe that they have been a very unchristian organisation in many ways. They have a hell of a lot of apologising to do for all of their very bad past ways, before they can begin to be considered to be a truly Christian Church.

Theirs so much wrong in this post I don't know where to begin.
Yeah they have added some rules to the bible, they never claimed to be Sola scriptura. They explicitly say that the faith rests on 3 pillars scripture, tradition and the magisterium of the church. I'm not sure if you are agrueing for a purely biblical faith or what here.
Not sure you understand what a mortal sin is, believe me what was a mortal sin hasn't changed. Mortallers are still mortalliers.
And are you sure it was the RCC that influenced society or was it society that gave us the RCC we know and love? I'm not as certain that the RCC caused as much damage to society as society caused the RCC. We had a church that reflected the prejudices and biases and aspirations of the society it operated in.
I'm fairly bitter about the harm done myself but I don't blame the rcc for what were the failings of a whole society. Yes they deserve criticism for failing to be better than the society they claimed moral leadership of.
Their sins is one of failing to live up to their own standards, sins of omission more than commission.

Mrs OBumble

Safehands wrote: »

One lady I knew, was advised by doctors not to to get pregnant, following the birth of her second child, because further pregnancies could be fatal. She asked the priest if she could use contraception and was told that she could not, because to do so was a sin. She became pregnant and subsequently died.

Contraception is not fail safe - in fact, some forms have a remarkably high failure rate.

The only reliable way to avoid getting preggers is to not have intercourse.

I'm sorry for the woman you knew, but bottom line she chose to not take responsibility for her own moral and physical welfare, ie asked the priest, rather than worked out consequences in her own conscience.

Catholic teaching is pretty clear that informed individual conscience supercedes any teaching.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

Theirs so much wrong in this post I don't know where to begin.
Yeah they have added some rules to the bible, they never claimed to be Sola scriptura. They explicitly say that the faith rests on 3 pillars scripture, tradition and the magisterium of the church. I'm not sure if you are agrueing for a purely biblical faith or what here.

The Magisterium of the Church is the one I have a problem with. This involves teachings which are really beyond Scripture. The "Precepts of the church" as they were called, are really the Church's commandments. Now I want to be clear, I do not accept these precepts, which are:
1. To attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and to rest from servile works on Sundays 2. To observe the days of fast and abstinence. 3. To confess our sins to a priest, at least once a year. 4. To receive the Holy Eucharist at least once a year during the Easter Season. 5. To contribute to the support of the Church.

You cannot really understand the significance of these commandments until you realise that the church taught that to break any of these rules meant you had committed a mortal sin.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not sure you understand what a mortal sin is, believe me what was a mortal sin hasn't changed. Mortallers are still mortalers.

I don't believe in Mortal Sins. I did when I was younger because I was a Catholic, and being brought up as a Catholic meant I learned about sin and guilt. I believed what they told me. Why shouldn't I? They were the authorities and we learned from them. So when they told me I had to go to Mass on Sundays and Holy days, I believed them. When they told me it was a Mortal sin to intentionally miss mass, I believed them. I can tell you Tommy, it took a lot of effort, reading and thinking for myself, to escape from that mindset. If you haven't been there you could never understand the guilt which was experienced when Mass was missed on a Sunday or a Holy day. There are many, many people in our society who would still feel that guilt if they miss mass. My own parents among them. The church have never retracted that teaching. It is true that they don't preach it anymore, but they have never openly stated that they were wrong to teach the way they did. They have caused more damage to people than you obviously realise. Imagine, missing mass on Sunday received the same punishment as killing someone. Ridiculous I know, but that is what we were taught.[/QUOTE]

tommy2bad wrote: »

And are you sure it was the RCC that influenced society or was it society that gave us the RCC we know and love? I'm not as certain that the RCC caused as much damage to society as society caused the RCC. We had a church that reflected the prejudices and biases and aspirations of the society it operated in.
I'm fairly bitter about the harm done myself but I don't blame the rcc for what were the failings of a whole society. Yes they deserve criticism for failing to be better than the society they claimed moral leadership of.
Their sins is one of failing to live up to their own standards, sins of omission more than commission.

Without question the RCC influenced society, especially in Ireland. The RCC caused far more damage to society than the other way around. Look back forty short years ago. The Church's influence in this country was immense, and largely, very negative. There were positive features such as education and health care. Actually, I have a lot of time for much of the work done by various orders of Nuns in this country. But the organisation they belonged to has a lot to answer for.

Safehands

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Contraception is not fail safe - in fact, some forms have a remarkably high failure rate.

The only reliable way to avoid getting preggers is to not have intercourse.

I'm sorry for the woman you knew, but bottom line she chose to not take responsibility for her own moral and physical welfare, ie asked the priest, rather than worked out consequences in her own conscience.

Catholic teaching is pretty clear that informed individual conscience supercedes any teaching.

There are several reliable ways to avoid pregnancy,Tubal ligation and vasectomy among them.
If you don't mind me saying so, you sound quite hard hearted and lacking in understanding of the mind set of this type of simple, good living Catholic woman.
If the priest had told her that it was up to her own conscience, then maybe I could understand it. But he did not.

Manach

Without question the RCC influenced society, especially in Ireland. The RCC caused far more damage to society than the other way around. Look back forty short years ago. The Church's influence in this country was immense, and largely, very negative. There were positive features such as education and health care. Actually, I have a lot of time for much of the work done by various orders of Nuns in this country. But the organisation they belonged to has a lot to answer for.

Nonsense - whilst they may not have been the idealised past of yore they did a long of good in this society and you have a deep ignorance of the law and history of this island. The trawl through historic record might uncover a shortsighted, oppressed people with the only the Church managing to revieve some measure of national Spirit, a middle path from the servile colonial mindset to the rabid nationalist mindset. Your post makes no sense in a historical sense beyond a post-modern stripping away of any value revisionist.

Safehands

Manach wrote: »

Nonsense - whilst they may not have been the idealised past of yore they did a long of good in this society and you have a deep ignorance of the law and history of this island. The trawl through historic record might uncover a shortsighted, oppressed people with the only the Church managing to revieve some measure of national Spirit, a middle path from the servile colonial mindset to the rabid nationalist mindset. Your post makes no sense in a historical sense beyond a post-modern stripping away of any value revisionist.

What is nonsense? After the formation of this state the RCC took over the education of our young people. They influenced Government decisions to such an extent that virtually no law would be passed which conflicted with Catholic teaching. The Government ran everything past the Bishops. For example, Noel Brown's Mother and child scheme ran foul of the clergy. A law was not allowed to be passed because the Church disagreed with it.
They were allowed to indoctrinate the vast majority of our kids from the age of four up, with their philosophies and rules. So, to state that the church did not influence Irish society is absolute twaddle. The Irish state was TOTALLY influenced by the church.

Manach

And what do honestly presume would take care of education - sweeping Angels from on high. Your frankly unhistorical model of education is based on an imposed mindset that posed a model of education to enable a servile working class of industry.-do have any idea the devastated state of the country post Independence - try and break yourself from the back of the cornflakes packet version of history in that Ireland of misty eyed patriots that had a plan, at least had a measure of stability especially in the back of a vicious civil war thanks to the stabiliy of the Church.
Given the current indoctrinate model where the state knows best or the joys of the Soviet model in that historical period, I'm thinking glass houses in that respect.

Graces7

wondering if the op is christian....i ask as i get arguments like this when trading at street markets when especially folk in from the north when they see i sell rosaries..

frankly if your faith is based on attacking the beliefs and traditions of others rather than sharing thetrue brotherhood of christ i wonder re the nature of that faith
it is something i consistently refuse to do. there is no point and it isdestructive

Safehands

Graces7 wrote: »

wondering if the op is christian....i ask as i get arguments like this when trading at street markets when especially folk in from the north when they see i sell rosaries..

frankly if your faith is based on attacking the beliefs and traditions of others rather than sharing thetrue brotherhood of christ i wonder re the nature of that faith
it is something i consistently refuse to do. there is no point and it isdestructive

As I said I was brought up a Catholic. I can honestly say that, in my experience, the church did not share the true brotherhood of Christ, anything but!

Graces7

Safehands wrote: »

As I said I was brought up a Catholic. I can honestly say that, in my experience, the church did not share the true brotherhood of Christ, anything but!

ok so why are you not doing so then if that is so wrong of them...render to no man evil for evil.. judge not.

while i have problems with people who come on holiday to kerry with a case full of anti catholic literature, to be handed out to all and sundry i am always polite and kind to them,. their life their choices and yes their experiences like yours.

Safehands

Graces7 wrote: »

ok so why are you not doing so then if that is so wrong of them...render to no man evil for evil.. judge not.

I am not rendering evil and of course I can judge them. I am a victim of their indoctrination who has escaped.

Graces7

Safehands wrote: »

I am not rendering evil and of course I can judge them. I am a victim of their indoctrination who has escaped.

does not sound in any way as if you have escaped. the prison you have locked yourself in is harsh and unhappy, and you are indeed a victim but of yourself.

all of us could do that but we choose else and that is freedom.

Safehands

Manach wrote: »

And what do honestly presume would take care of education - sweeping Angels from on high. Your frankly unhistorical model of education is based on an imposed mindset that posed a model of education to enable a servile working class of industry.-do have any idea the devastated state of the country post Independence - try and break yourself from the back of the cornflakes packet version of history in that Ireland of misty eyed patriots that had a plan, at least had a measure of stability especially in the back of a vicious civil war thanks to the stabiliy of the Church.
Given the current indoctrinate model where the state knows best or the joys of the Soviet model in that historical period, I'm thinking glass houses in that respect.

Luckily I don't eat cornflakes and I'm not a misty eyed patriot. I'm not crazy about the RCC's idea of stability. Its interesting though, how you can sweep their dreadful actions under the carpet. Airbrush out all the bad stuff and concentrate on only the good that they did. I suppose that is one way to go forward. But do you learn from the past that way and ensure it never happens again?

Graces7

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Contraception is not fail safe - in fact, some forms have a remarkably high failure rate.

The only reliable way to avoid getting preggers is to not have intercourse.

I'm sorry for the woman you knew, but bottom line she chose to not take responsibility for her own moral and physical welfare, ie asked the priest, rather than worked out consequences in her own conscience.

Catholic teaching is pretty clear that informed individual conscience supercedes any teaching.

so few know that teaching, the work of ratzinger, and if they quote it they emphasise the section re informed as if that negates the other

Safehands

Graces7 wrote: »

does not sound in any way as if you have escaped. the prison you have locked yourself in is harsh and unhappy, and you are indeed a victim but of yourself.

all of us could do that but we choose else and that is freedom.

Being critical of an organisation who are intrinsically bad is not akin to locking yourself in prison. Freedom is having the God given right to criticise those who deserve criticism and doing so.

Manach

Safehands wrote: »

Luckily I don't eat cornflakes and I'm not a misty eyed patriot. I'm not crazy about the RCC's idea of stability. Its interesting though, how you can sweep their dreadful actions under the carpet. Airbrush out all the bad stuff and concentrate on only the good that they did. I suppose that is one way to go forward. But do you learn from the past that way and ensure it never happens again?

Being someone with a history qualification I've a fair idea of what happens in the past and can easily recognise when someone is trying to blacken one institution whilst being in ignorance of the wider socialtal issues and the shear scale of other human rights abuses and mismanagement that have torn away at the foundations of this country which the Church has in no small part in cementing. Your heaping of seemly all the blame that ever happen to Ireland on the shoulders on the Church is classic revisionism at its best,

Safehands

Manach wrote: »

Being someone with a history qualification I've a fair idea of what happens in the past and can easily recognise when someone is trying to blacken one institution whilst being in ignorance of the wider socialtal issues and the shear scale of other human rights abuses and mismanagement that have torn away at the foundations of this country which the Church has in no small part in cementing.

For once I agree. The Church did engage in huge human rights abuses. Now you're getting it Manach. Well done!

Manach wrote: »

Your heaping of seemly all the blame that ever happen to Ireland on the shoulders on the Church is classic revisionism at its best,

You shouldn't exaggerate

Manach

Safehands wrote: »

You shouldn't exaggerate

Are we now moving in the position of giving advice now. .. really from some of your subjective opinions no doubt as a vast experience in instructing others, but it is not wanted in this case given your blinkered, skewed and unhistorical view of Irish history. This thread which you've started to illuminate your opinionated position on the Church instead seems to be a testament to your inability to read even simple posts or link them to the past normative behaviour of the state, of which I was refering to. :rolleyes:

Safehands

Manach wrote: »

Are we now moving in the position of giving advice now. .. really from some of your subjective opinions no doubt as a vast experience in instructing others, but it is not wanted in this case given your blinkered, skewed and unhistorical view of Irish history. This thread which you've started to illuminate your opinionated position on the Church instead seems to be a testament to your inability to read even simple posts or link them to the past normative behaviour of the state, of which I was refering to. :rolleyes:

You said that I 'heaped seemly all the blame that ever happen to Ireland on the shoulders on the Church'. That is classic exaggeration!
Do you not think that the Church had excessive influence on Irish society in the mid 20th century?

Popescu

The thread is supposed to be about erroneous teaching in the Catholic Church but by Post #3 the subject was changed to include all churches. This is a classic hijacking of the topic.

Manach

And you are jumping from historical decade to decade in an attempt to avoid the central crux of your failure to demonstrate the level of supposed iniquity that is more in place in a penny-dreadful than in real life. The Church did not have the same grip on the ideological tenants of the state in that era as other competioning ideologies had in other countries such as Cold-war communism or the Military-industrial nationalists of the West. It instead had a measure of Authoritarianism but at least there were some measure of a social conscience that allowed the lower clergy to follow the biblic tenants of feeding the poor, comforting the bereaving and aiding the sick - which I can attest. Given the historical grandstanding of the politicans and the insular nature of the civil service that sections of the civil guards and civil service in other areas are complicate in such dealing with prisoners, the elderly and mental patents - where is your sense of historical outrage on that. None.

Peregrinus

Popescu wrote: »

The thread is supposed to be about erroneous teaching in the Catholic Church but by Post #3 the subject was changed to include all churches. This is a classic hijacking of the topic.

Hardly a hijack, Popescu. If you want to start a thread about the unique awfulness of the Catholic church, you have to be prepared to defend the thesis that the Catholic church is uniquely awful.

Popescu

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hardly a hijack, Popescu. If you want to start a thread about the unique awfulness of the Catholic church, you have to be prepared to defend the thesis that the Catholic church is uniquely awful.

There is no claim to the Catholic Church being uniquely in error in the opening post. If you want to discuss other churches, another thread can be started.

catallus

How can any teaching of the CC be erroneous? Surely doctrine is self-evidently true and correct?

Popescu

catallus wrote: »

How can any teaching of the CC be erroneous? Surely doctrine is self-evidently true and correct?

Thanks for giving us a chuckle.

Peregrinus

Popescu wrote: »

There is no claim to the Catholic Church being uniquely in error in the opening post. If you want to discuss other churches, another thread can be started.

Oh, come on, Popescu. Here' what safehands said in his OP:

Safehands wrote: »

The Catholic Church taught us that good people went to Heaven and bad people went to Hell. There is nothing wrong with that teaching, even if it is not essentially true. However, the church then taught us that breaking their man made rules, like missing mass on Sunday or using contraception, would result in an eternity being burnt in hell. These and other Catholic teachings resulted in torment for many good people.
Isn't it true that any organisation which can issue rules which are actually based on lies and associate the breaking of those rules with horrendous consequences, can only be described as downright evil?

That plainly evokes an old polemic under which Catholic ethical teaching is based on "man-made rules" which are "actually based on lies", in implied distinction to the pure biblical doctrine of protestant churches. The clear implication is that it's those Catholics who have man-made rules based on lies.

Safehands either has to condemn everyone who teaches man-made rules base on lies, or he has to be prepared to defend the thesis that only the Catholic church does so, or if he concedes that other churches do so he has to offer some explanation of why he singles out the Catholic church for condemnation.

Popescu

Peregrinus wrote: »

... That plainly evokes an old polemic under which Catholic ethical teaching is based on "man-made rules" which are "actually based on lies", in implied distinction to the pure biblical doctrine of protestant churches.

This tells us more about how your mind works than what Safehands believes. He never mentioned Protestant churches.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Safehands either has to condemn everyone who teaches man-made rules base on lies, or he has to be prepared to defend the thesis that only the Catholic church does so, or if he concedes that other churches do so he has to offer some explanation of why he singles out the Catholic church for condemnation.

You should stick to the topic, namely, Catholic Church erroneous teaching and stop putting words in Safehands' mouth.

Peregrinus

I'n not putting words in Safehand's mouth. In his own words:

Safehands wrote: »

Isn't it true that any organisation which can issue rules which are actually based on lies and associate the breaking of those rules with horrendous consequences, can only be described as downright evil?

It is true. Which raises the obviously question - if safehand believes that any organisation which does this is evil, why does he single out the Catholic church for condemnation? I don't think it's a hijack to ask that question.

Popescu

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'n not putting words in Safehand's mouth. In his own words:

It is true. Which raises the obviously question - if safehand believes that any organisation which does this is evil, why does he single out the Catholic church for condemnation? I don't think it's a hijack to ask that question.

He might to want to include the Catholic Church in other human organizations rather than see it as a divine institution. I cannot speak for him. He seems a bit muddled.

Peregrinus

Popescu wrote: »

He might to want to include the Catholic Church in other human organizations rather than see it as a divine institution.

His own position makes no distinction between divine and human organsations - all organisations, divine or human, which do such a think are intrinsically evil. He might well think that a "divine organisation" couldn't or wouldn't do such a thing, so by implication we are only talking about human organisiations, but so what? Given his own position, he should be condemning all human organisations which do this, and the question as to why he isn't is still a relevant one.

tommy2bad

Well as Safe hands was talking about Ireland, the RCC are the obvious target for his ire. The Methodists or Jw's didn't have the same level of influence or power. I might point out that the Free Presbyterian had a similar level of toxic influence in the North of Ireland but then I'de be playing whataboutery.

I have no doubt that the RCC had huge influence in Ireland and that they used this power to enhance their own prestige and narrow catholic agenda. (isn't narrow catholic an oxymoron?). I would dispute that this was a power grab by the RCC or that they connived to get into that position. I think they fell into a vacuum left behind when we got independence. They were as much victims of the nationalism and mood of the times as everyone else.

I do condemn them for failing to live up to the teaching of their own faith and for taking on the trappings of state power.
But what they did they did with the support of the people and the instruments of state. They played a huge part in a cruel and merciless system of abuse. For which they deserve criticism , what they don't deserve is blame for all our failings. Any power they had we gave to them.

qdawg86

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, do you think the Catholic church is unique in this respect? Can you name a church that hasn't promised damnation for infringing a moral principle that is not universally accepted?

So they're all at it.....it's still despicable.

sbsquarepants

tommy2bad wrote: »

And are you sure it was the RCC that influenced society or was it society that gave us the RCC we know and love? I'm not as certain that the RCC caused as much damage to society as society caused the RCC. We had a church that reflected the prejudices and biases and aspirations of the society it operated in..

You are either lying or deluded, either way you are wrong.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their sins is one of failing to live up to their own standards, sins of omission more than commission.

Well yea there is that, but then there was also all those countless kids they sold on to the highest bidder, the slaves they worked to the bone, the rapists they aided and abetted, the lies they told and continue to tell to cover their tracks, the enormous mountains of money they hoard while half the world starves, the poor mouth bullshít they put on when the subject of victims compensation comes up, the bigotry, the homophobia, the oppression of women, the general intolerance of any other point of view, and last but not least the stupid hats and frocks combo they insist on sashaying around the place in whilst demanding respect and obedience - I mean seriously what the fúck is that all about?

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Contraception is not fail safe - in fact, some forms have a remarkably high failure rate.

The only reliable way to avoid getting preggers is to not have intercourse.
.

Gods loophole. He's omnipotent, he could just as easily have made square pegs and round holes, he didn't so take from that what you will.:D

tommy2bad

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You are either lying or deluded, either way you are wrong.

So my choices are fool or knave?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Well yea there is that, but then there was also all those countless kids they sold on to the highest bidder, the slaves they worked to the bone, the rapists they aided and abetted, the lies they told and continue to tell to cover their tracks, the enormous mountains of money they hoard while half the world starves, the poor mouth bullshít they put on when the subject of victims compensation comes up, the bigotry, the homophobia, the oppression of women, the general intolerance of any other point of view,

Which applys to the rest of the aperatus of the state as well, so I guess my contention holds up.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

and last but not least the stupid hats and frocks combo they insist on sashaying around the place in whilst demanding respect and obedience - I mean seriously what the fúck is that all about?

Now your just engaging in nonsense. I thought they looked kinda cool, sort of like Neo but with rosary beads.




Gods loophole. He's omnipotent, he could just as easily have made square pegs and round holes, he didn't so take from that what you will.:D[/QUOTE]

Thats a nice term for it, but the church discourages anal sex too.

sbsquarepants

tommy2bad wrote: »

So my choices are fool or knave?

Pretty much

tommy2bad wrote: »

Which applys to the rest of the aperatus of the state as well, so I guess my contention holds up.

Ah, they old "sure they we're all at it" defence - Morally dubious at the best of times, but from someone with a direct line to the creator of the universe and supreme moral being, in fact the very creator of morals themselves - eh, no, that is just not good enough.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Now your just engaging in nonsense. I thought they looked kinda cool, sort of like Neo but with rosary beads

Steve McQueen looks cool, Neo looks like a member of some <Snip> - oh wait, you're right they do look alike:D

tommy2bad wrote: »

That's a nice term for it, but the church discourages anal sex too.

As if I needed another reason to dislike them!

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

His own position makes no distinction between divine and human organsations - all organisations, divine or human, which do such a think are intrinsically evil. He might well think that a "divine organisation" couldn't or wouldn't do such a thing, so by implication we are only talking about human organisiations, but so what? Given his own position, he should be condemning all human organisations which do this, and the question as to why he isn't is still a relevant one.

Let me make that distinction right now. To be divine, something or someone has to be Holy, truthful and usually eternal. To associate the word 'Divine' with the Catholic Church borders on heresy. There is nothing Divine about them. The organisation, (and absolutely not most of the ordinary good people belonging to them) are evil, even though they like to think of themselves as partly divine. They have behaved in an evil way throughout the last century. The level of support they continue to enjoy is a testament to the outstanding brainwashing job they did with their 'flock'.
Of course there are other evil organisations in the world. I would condemn all of them. But isn't it astonishing that we have arrived at a point where I am being asked to condemn all of them AS WELL AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The Church should be able to be compared to people like Jesus, the Apostles, Nelson Mandella, Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
Instead we are drawn to make comparisons with other evil organisations, pick your own, there are a few very obvious contenders.

Benny_Cake

Mod: Criticising the Catholic church is one thing, crude generalisations designed to insult is another. Stick to the charter folks, thanks.

qdawg86

Graces7 wrote: »

does not sound in any way as if you have escaped. the prison you have locked yourself in is harsh and unhappy, and you are indeed a victim but of yourself.

all of us could do that but we choose else and that is freedom.

Twisting words and victimisation. Very manipulative.......reminds me of something......oh yes the RCC.

Polarix

Came across this, maybe I'm missing something simple here but I would have thought I can use most things for good or bad, depending on what I want to do with them. I can use knives, politics, banks, laws, churches, science, my local GAA or swimming club etc. for good or bad, to help others or to just help myself to what I want at the expense of others, that's my choice. Jesus said love God, love one another, love your enemy, and that if you love God you will keep his commandments. If you don't you won't. As Jesus himself said he is the only way to God, but no one bothers to read everything he said, including what he said about Church. They just pick and choose what they want, and make excuses about the rest. Love your enemy seems to be the one most forgotten about.

robp

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Well yea there is that, but then there was also all those countless kids they sold on to the highest bidder, the slaves they worked to the bone, the rapists they aided and abetted, the lies they told and continue to tell to cover their tracks, the enormous mountains of money they hoard while half the world starves, the poor mouth bullshít they put on when the subject of victims compensation comes up, the bigotry, the homophobia, the oppression of women, the general intolerance of any other point of view, and last but not least the stupid hats and frocks combo they insist on sashaying around the place in whilst demanding respect and obedience - I mean seriously what the fúck is that all about?

Do you really believe that? Really? Regarding the claim

the enormous mountains of money they hoard while half the world starves

Why don't you do the Maths, and come back to us and show this exactly.

Tell us exactly who is demanding your respect and obedience?