Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

More Catholic Church Self-Sabotage

13567…10

Comments

  • #62
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    yutta wrote: »
    ...Catholicism teaches that these people should be treated with dignity and respect. It is the Church's duty to point out evil and wickedness, warn people of its cancerous effect, and prevent souls from being deceived. This is done, in the main, through gentle persuasion and diplomacy. Sometimes stronger language is required. Sometimes just wars are necessary to protect the faith.
    ...So "thou shall not kill" goes out the window when convenient to ones argument or reason?
    ...Then nicely goes back to it when suits?


  • #63
    yutta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭yutta


    Pittens wrote: »
    Where did I mention NI?

    Cahtolicism is a minority religion in the UK.

    Someone posted an Englishman attacking that minority religion, based on a series of historical lies.

    That post was thanked by people with little or no historical knowledge.

    I am attacking Fry's speech in this thread. There will be no reference to Northern Ireland. Most of Ireland's new atheist anti-Catholicism is based on English style bigotry, so this is relevent to this thread.

    Otherwise we can fawn over Fry;s bigotry as if it were true, it aint.

    I don't think he's a bigot. That's too strong a word. However, he is evidently very emotional on this subject as the Catholic Church has a lot to say on the morality of homosexual behaviour. You'd think water would flow off a duck's back, but deep down in his soul, I suspect the institution really does matter to him.


  • #64
    yutta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭yutta


    Biggins wrote: »
    ...So "thou shall not kill" goes out the window when convenient to ones argument or reason?
    ...Then nicely goes back to it when suits?

    War is sometimes necessary. Thankfully we live in a peaceful country and don't have to spend too much time pondering the morality of war.


  • #65
    furiousox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭furiousox


    yutta wrote: »
    I'll pick you up on this. You do know what moral relativism is, don't you?
    Also, people of different beliefs (as well as people with homosexual inclination) are human persons. Catholicism teaches that these people should be treated with dignity and respect. (Unless they want to get married)
    It is the Church's duty to point out evil and wickedness, warn people of its cancerous effect, and prevent souls from being deceived. (Note: does not apply to in house child rapists)
    Sometimes just wars are necessary to protect the faith. (At ALL costs...see above)
    .

    You are a khaki coloured bombardier, it's Hiroshima that you're nearing.



  • #66
    scientific1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    amacachi wrote: »
    Good.


    Stupid people in possibly being stupid shocker!


    There's no argument, anyone still in the Catholic Church is an idiot. People who say "Oh well I don't believe this or that" get on my ****ing wick. Either you do subscribe to the scummy, child-raping corporation you're giving your money and time to or you don't.
    I agree with you. I have more respect for fundies that halfarsed religious people. Id love to know the percentage of catholics who have actually read the bible.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    yutta wrote: »
    War is sometimes necessary. Thankfully we live in a peaceful country and don't have to spend too much time pondering the morality of war.
    So many holes in that poor uneducated statement - but in the meanwhile your answer totally fails to answer the contradiction!

    Your talking rubbish and failing to answer points that are put to you.


  • #68
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    However, he is evidently very emotional on this subject as the Catholic Church has a lot to say on the morality of homosexual behaviour. You'd think water would flow off a duck's back, but deep down in his soul, I suspect the institution really does matter to him.

    WHy? Not only will it not affect his life, it affects very few people in Catholic countries who are gay.

    List of Catholic countries again.

    List of countries which have civil partnership.

    It is only in mainline protestant and Catholic countries where civil partnership is allowed. No Eastern orthodox, no Shintu, no /hindu, no Greek Orthodox State allows homosexual marriage, or civil partnership.

    So why the obsession on this issue with Catholicism, if the Catholic church has no power on it's flock including on it's "billions of poor" ( where are they? Even South american is largely liberal on homosexuality - and in the US it is the States with Catholic pluralities where homosexual rights exist)

    A glance at the majority catholic charts will show why England has such a fear of Catholicism, it is historically surrounded by it. However it bodes ill for liberalism if the English can attack one minority religion and not another - it means that the hatred of the Other is waiting in the wings.

    One last point here. Look at South America. Only one part of it is red. Which means that homosexuality is banned there and punishable by life imprisonment. That country is 7% Catholic, a former British colony and its laws are old British laws kept intact. Cross the border to Catholic Brazil and you can get civilly married.

    Bigot much, Mr Fry?


  • #69
    yutta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭yutta


    You can't pick and choose. You cannot marry your mother, your brother, your dog, your boyfriend at the altar of God. Allowing someone to marry his mother for example would not be dignified or respectful and would be facilitating evil, placing the eternal life of that person's soul in great danger. To facilitate or approve this kind of marriage would place a divine guilt on the bishops that is 1000s of times worse than a single act of incest.


  • #70
    furiousox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭furiousox


    yutta wrote: »
    You can't pick and choose. You cannot marry your mother, your brother, your dog, your boyfriend at the altar of God. Allowing someone to marry his mother for example would not be dignified or respectful and would be facilitating evil, placing the eternal life of that person's soul in great danger. To facilitate or approve this kind of marriage would place a divine guilt on the bishops that is 1000s of times worse than a single act of incest.

    I don't know where to begin...you're starting to sound a bit irrational.

    You are a khaki coloured bombardier, it's Hiroshima that you're nearing.



  • #71
    scientific1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    yutta wrote: »
    I'll pick you up on this. You do know what moral relativism is, don't you?

    Also, people of different beliefs (as well as people with homosexual inclination) are human persons. Catholicism teaches that these people should be treated with dignity and respect. It is the Church's duty to point out evil and wickedness, warn people of its cancerous effect, and prevent souls from being deceived. This is done, in the main, through gentle persuasion and diplomacy. Sometimes stronger language is required. Sometimes just wars are necessary to protect the faith.
    Wow man. Just wow.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    scientific1982 wrote: »
    Wow man. Just wow.
    Aye!
    Sometimes just wars are necessary to protect the faith.

    ...Others say the above words differently but with the same meaning = "The ends justify the means!"
    ...when convenient of course!


  • #73
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sykk wrote: »
    What a disgrace.. Do you not think they'd try stay out of the headlines for a while, amid all the other stupid things they've done?

    I agree, it's an incredibly insensitive comment to make when people are grieving over lost ones. No doubt at least some of those people are Roman Catholics at least on a nominal level.


  • #74
    yutta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭yutta


    Biggins wrote: »
    So many holes in that poor uneducated statement - but in the meanwhile your answer totally fails to answer the contradiction!

    Your talking rubbish and failing to answer points that are put to you.

    I'd suggest you wikipedia "just war". Trust me on this one: it's been well thought-out.

    It might appear to you, given your limited knowledge on theological matters that is plainly evident, that just war doctrine contradicts the 5th commandment. The Church has the authority to interpret scripture and issue decrees based on the most up-to-date knowledge available. Sacred tradition is just as important as Sacred Scripture.

    The guys who stand on public corners quoting the King James Bible word for word through megaphones might disagree with me though... ;(


  • #75
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    yutta wrote: »
    I'd suggest you wikipedia "just war". Trust me on this one: it's been well thought-out.

    It might appear to you, given your limited knowledge on theological matters that is plainly evident, that just war doctrine contradicts the 5th commandment. The Church has the authority to interpret scripture and issue decrees based on the most up-to-date knowledge available. Sacred tradition is just as important as Sacred Scripture.

    The guys who stand on public corners quoting the King James Bible word for word through megaphones might disagree with me though... ;(
    And yet again you fail to answer the basic contradiction pointed out.

    Come back to us when you can avoid wordplay, avoidance tactics and just explain the contradiction of "thou shall not kill" - but hey "sometimes just wars are necessary to protect the faith!"


  • #76
    longshanks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭longshanks


    fuzzy wuzzy was a woman?

    no, hang on

    fuzzy wuzzy was a bear

    ah bi dont know


  • #77
    scientific1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    Pittens wrote: »
    WHy? Not only will it not affect his life, it affects very few people in Catholic countries who are gay.

    List of Catholic countries again.

    List of countries which have civil partnership.

    It is only in mainline protestant and Catholic countries where civil partnership is allowed. No Eastern orthodox, no Shintu, no /hindu, no Greek Orthodox State allows homosexual marriage, or civil partnership.

    So why the obsession on this issue with Catholicism, if the Catholic church has no power on it's flock including on it's "billions of poor" ( where are they? Even South american is largely liberal on homosexuality - and in the US it is the States with Catholic pluralities where homosexual rights exist)

    A glance at the majority catholic charts will show why England has such a fear of Catholicism, it is historically surrounded by it. However it bodes ill for liberalism if the English can attack one minority religion and not another - it means that the hatred of the Other is waiting in the wings.

    One last point here. Look at South America. Only one part of it is red. Which means that homosexuality is banned there and punishable by life imprisonment. That country is 7% Catholic, a former British colony and its laws are old British laws kept intact. Cross the border to Catholic Brazil and you can get civilly married.

    Bigot much, Mr Fry?
    Homosexual have rights in the countries you mentioned because those countries have a seperation between church and state, not because they are mainly Catholic. The Catholic church always try to prevent social reform. Today its abortion and gay rights. In the past it was unmarried mothers and womens rights.


  • #78
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    yutta wrote: »
    It might appear to you, given your limited knowledge on theological matters that is plainly evident, that just war doctrine contradicts the 5th commandment. The Church has the authority to interpret scripture and issue decrees based on the most up-to-date knowledge available. Sacred tradition is just as important as Sacred Scripture.

    Not all Christians agree with you on this. For example, many of us would consider that only God's authority comes above Scripture, meaning that the RCC does not have ultimate authority over how it is used. It's not just people with megaphones on street corners, it's pretty much every Christian who isn't an RCC.

    We've been discussing this in depth on the Catholic / Protestant debate megathread on the Christianity forum.

    scientific1982: Not a Roman Catholic, but I find it amazing that people can consider abortion a human right.


  • #79
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    Pittens wrote: »
    The whole thing is a paiselyite lite wankfest.

    In the interest of fairness, I'd like to say Paisley, the NI version of Fred Phelps, and all his followers are c*nts too. Equally as extreme and as intolerant as Ratsy the Nazi and his cohorts.


  • #80
    scientific1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not all Christians agree with you on this. For example, many of us would consider that only God's authority comes above Scripture, meaning that the RCC does not have ultimate authority over how it is used. It's not just people with megaphones on street corners, it's pretty much every Christian who isn't an RCC.

    We've been discussing this in depth on the Catholic / Protestant debate megathread on the Christianity forum.

    scientific1982: Not a Roman Catholic, but I find it amazing that people can consider abortion a human right.
    I didnt say it was a human right. I said it was social reform.


  • #81
    furiousox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭furiousox


    longshanks wrote: »
    fuzzy wuzzy was a woman?
    no, hang on
    fuzzy wuzzy was a bear
    ah bi dont know

    Gene Wilder!

    Lads, let's look back to the OP (way before Stephen Fry appeared)
    The crap spouted by that bishop is indefensible.
    Anyone going to disagree?

    You are a khaki coloured bombardier, it's Hiroshima that you're nearing.



  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    furiousox wrote: »
    ...The crap spouted by that bishop is indefensible.
    Anyone going to disagree?
    Nope!
    Absolutely not!


  • #83
    yutta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭yutta


    Biggins wrote: »
    And yet again you fail to answer the basic contradiction point out.

    Come back to us when you can avoid wordplay and just explain the contradiction of "thou shall not kill" - but hey "sometimes just wars are necessary to protect the faith!"

    Seriously mate, just war doctrine has been well thought-out. If you want to find out the thinking behind just war, google is your friend. Don't be so quick at the aul cockiness. I suspect you're trying to cover up your shallow thinking. If you do indeed think you have something new to add to the just war debate (unlikely), you should consider publishling a paper. This topic has a sizeable following in the theological community.


  • #84
    Plautus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭Plautus


    yutta wrote: »
    The Church doesn't approve of his unsanitary behaviour and it upsets him. Deeply.

    How very mealy-mouthed. It's not a case of the Church merely disapproving of his 'unsanitary' behaviour - the Catholic Church doesn't oppose homosexuality because of concerns for public health. If it was concerned for public health it wouldn't be so inveterate in its opposition to contraceptives - as Fry quite correctly pointed out.

    It opposes homosexuality because it relies upon a strange co-mixture of Aristotle, the Bible and some Church fathers to tell it that gay sex must be wrong because the 'nature' (meant in the fullest sense of the word) of sex is fundamentally unitive and procreative and, further, only acceptable within the confines of marriage. The Church, then, does not merely disapprove - it labels Fry evil and intrinsically disordered. He's every right to be upset given who's telling him this: a hierarchy that routinely covered up paedophilia.

    There are plenty of good reasons to reject such a narrow view of sex, derived as it is from a laughable set of sources that have no recourse to empirical data. There is no readily explicable mechanism by which you can object to the conduct of two consenting homosexuals in a bedroom ipso facto.

    Get back to your copy of Alive! - it's honestly pathetic to hear this trash from unreconstructed Catholics after your fashion in 21st Century Ireland.


  • #85
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    yutta wrote: »
    Seriously mate, just war doctrine has been well thought-out. If you want to find out the thinking behind just war, google is your friend. Don't be so quick at the aul cockiness. I suspect you're trying to cover up your shallow thinking. If you do indeed think you have something new to add to the just war debate (unlikely), you should consider publishling a paper. This topic has a sizeable following in the theological community.

    So on other words YET AGAIN (please note folks!), your not going to explain the contradiction but sidetrack (surprise!) again with more divisive issues and generalities.

    So to repeat... in the meanwhile your answer totally fails to answer the contradiction!
    Your talking rubbish and failing to answer points that are put to you.


  • #86
    yutta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭yutta


    Plautus wrote: »
    How very mealy-mouthed. It's not a case of the Church merely disapproving of his 'unsanitary' behaviour - the Catholic Church doesn't oppose homosexuality because of concerns for public health. If it was concerned for public health it wouldn't be so inveterate in its opposition to contraceptives - as Fry quite correctly pointed out.

    It opposes homosexuality because it relies upon a strange co-mixture of Aristotle, the Bible and some Church fathers to tell it that gay sex must be wrong because the 'nature' (meant in the fullest sense of the word) of sex is fundamentally unitive and procreative and, further, only acceptable within the confines of marriage. The Church, then, does not merely disapprove - it labels Fry evil and intrinsically disordered. He's every right to be upset given who's telling him this: a hierarchy that routinely covered up paedophilia.

    There are plenty of good reasons to reject such a narrow view of sex, derived as it is from a laughable set of sources that have no recourse to empirical data. There is no readily explicable mechanism by which you can object to the conduct of two consenting homosexuals in a bedroom ipso facto.

    Get back to your copy of Alive! - it's honestly pathetic to hear this trash from unreconstructed Catholics after your fashion in 21st Century Ireland.

    Sanitation is merely one good reason, amongst many others, for banning the behaviour. Remember, this behaviour is not limited to just homosexual persons, but also extends to those of compatible sex. And sodomy is not just limited to anal penetration: it also includes acts such as the fellatio. Aside: why is it that it's only Catholic Church opposition to homosexual behaviour in society that annoys you so much? Do you hate Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. too?


  • #87
    yutta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭yutta


    Biggins wrote: »
    So on other words YET AGAIN (please note folks!), your not going to explain the contradiction but sidetrack (surprise!) again with more divisive issues and generalities.

    So to repeat... in the meanwhile your answer totally fails to answer the contradiction!
    Your talking rubbish and failing to answer points that are put to you.

    Seriously mate, bully-boy message forum tactics are no substitute for intellectual depth. You need to do your background reading. Did you even bother to have a cursory glance that wikipedia page on just war doctrine yet? It's not too hard to digest. It really isn't.

    In summary: there is no moral contradiction between the 5th commandment and the waging of a just war.


  • #88
    ElaElaElano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,508 ✭✭✭ElaElaElano


    yutta wrote: »
    Sanitation is merely one good reason, amongst many others, for banning the behaviour. Remember, this behaviour is not limited to just homosexual persons, but also extends to those of compatible sex. And sodomy is not just limited to anal penetration: it also includes acts such as the fellatio.

    Excuse me a moment while I lift my jaw from the floor.

    It's astounding that attitudes such as your own still exist today, and somewhat frightening.


  • #89
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    yutta wrote: »
    Seriously mate, bully-boy message forum tactics are no substitute for intellectual depth. You need to do your background reading.
    Pot calling the kettle black by your poor attempts at insults?
    ...your shallow thinking

    Fourth time:
    ...in the meanwhile your answer totally fails to answer the contradiction!
    Your talking rubbish and failing to answer points that are put to you.

    Please explain to us uneducated, shallow thinking, tiny fools how on one hand you can justify killing in a "necessary war" and then conveniently say "thou shall not kill!"

    Please educate us with your brains.


  • #90
    yutta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭yutta


    Biggins wrote: »
    Fourth time:

    Your ignorance is astounding. Probably spend far too much time on internet forums for your own good health.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Plautus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭Plautus


    yutta wrote: »
    Sanitation is merely one good reason, amongst many others, for banning the behaviour. Remember, this behaviour is not limited to just homosexual persons, but also extends to those of compatible sex. And sodomy is not just limited to anal penetration: it also includes acts such as the fellatio. Aside: why is it that it's only Catholic Church opposition to homosexual behaviour in society that annoys you so much? Do you hate Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. too?

    Looks like someone bought a copy of 'straw-men' 101.

    Yes. If a Jew, Muslim or Buddhist articulates an argument from his/her particular doctrine against sex in all contexts except unprotected missionary position with the wife then I'm against them too. However, the Catholic Church - a majority religion in this country whose legacy has been quite hurtful - is what is up for scrutiny here. And I don't 'hate' so much as I intensely dislike specific doctrines and those who espouse them. Yourself included. Keep the hatred for your religious wars.

    However, you shouldn't be so sweeping in your adducement of the position of other religions and their adherents. They're less centralised than the Roman Catholic Church and so there are some variegated sets of belief.

    And this 'public health' lark is hilarious. What, you don't like anal sex because of what might be encountered? Trust people to wash and use lubrication, for christ's sake. Don't hear you complaining about the 'unsanitary' nature of heterosexual coitus - doesn't blood regularly issue forth from one orifice in that configuration?


Advertisement
Advertisement