The popes view on contraception comes merely from his own authority that the Catholic believes belongs solely to the pope. "It’s true that many enlightened people have found ways to strip their religion of its wickedness and build their own patchwork version that has some merits" I don't think a sober reader of the New Testament could come away with the idea that there is any tolerance for violence or even the smallest scrap of meanness in the message of Jesus Christ.
John Levon
· 9 months ago
What a perfect example of patchwork Christianity you just constructed.
icepyro
· 9 months ago
I... hope... that this was a farce based upon a misguided article found on a tabloid site.
brooksgarrett
· 9 months ago
You forget one important guiding principal.
The First Amendment to the United States Consitution.
If our founding fathers (the majority of which were admittedly pagan or of no religious affiliation) recognized the right of people to pursue religious beliefs as they wished, then so be it. It IS personal choice.
Further, to follow this line of thinking whereby we eliminate all destructive behavior, where would that leave us? Many of our greatest technological acheivements are either destroying ourselves or our environment (See the history of Morphine and Penicillin).
Let me close by agreeing that any religious belief can not by definition be based on scientific evidence, and thus is just a belief. Further, I agree that every religion has negative aspects (Crusades anyone?). Therefore I partially agree with you in that we should as a society do our very best to provide sound education to our citizens so that they may make that personal choice with the very best information set.
P.S. What you assert as fact (There is NO God), you can not prove. Nor can the religious community prove the inverse.
So then, the Pope's decree that illness was NOT caused by small unobservable life forms was superior to the claim that bacteria causes illness?
Neither side had a shred of evidence at the time and belief in some invisible death machine was very silly indeed.
Further, the idea of a "God" particle (ie Higgs-Boson) is quite silly to me. It can only be observed through assumption, is completely experimental in nature, and has yet to even be proven to exist. Yet, this particle is supposed to "explain how massless elementary particles can have mass" (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson).
Sounds like a bunch of bullocks to me, I say it is OUTRAGEOUS, and thus my claim is superior and correct.
Brooks Garrett
· 9 months ago
Well postulated.
So then, the Pope's decree that illness was NOT caused by small unobservable life forms was superior to the claim that bacteria causes illness?
Neither side had a shred of evidence at the time and belief in some invisible death machine was very silly indeed.
Further, the idea of a "God" particle (ie Higgs-Boson) is quite silly to me. It can only be observed through assumption, is completely experimental in nature, and has yet to even be proven to exist. Yet, this particle is supposed to "explain how massless elementary particles can have mass" (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson).
Sounds like a bunch of bullocks to me, I say it is OUTRAGEOUS, and thus my claim is superior and correct.
All Comments
quote: "Millions remain vulnerable to the all-devouring terror of Jesus' wrath"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52708
-=T=-
"It’s true that many enlightened people have found ways to strip their religion of its wickedness and build their own patchwork version that has some merits"
I don't think a sober reader of the New Testament could come away with the idea that there is any tolerance for violence or even the smallest scrap of meanness in the message of Jesus Christ.
The First Amendment to the United States Consitution.
If our founding fathers (the majority of which were admittedly pagan or of no religious affiliation) recognized the right of people to pursue religious beliefs as they wished, then so be it. It IS personal choice.
Further, to follow this line of thinking whereby we eliminate all destructive behavior, where would that leave us? Many of our greatest technological acheivements are either destroying ourselves or our environment (See the history of Morphine and Penicillin).
Let me close by agreeing that any religious belief can not by definition be based on scientific evidence, and thus is just a belief. Further, I agree that every religion has negative aspects (Crusades anyone?). Therefore I partially agree with you in that we should as a society do our very best to provide sound education to our citizens so that they may make that personal choice with the very best information set.
P.S. What you assert as fact (There is NO God), you can not prove. Nor can the religious community prove the inverse.
http://dmiessler.com/blog/outrageous-beliefs-ar...
So then, the Pope's decree that illness was NOT caused by small unobservable life forms was superior to the claim that bacteria causes illness?
Neither side had a shred of evidence at the time and belief in some invisible death machine was very silly indeed.
Further, the idea of a "God" particle (ie Higgs-Boson) is quite silly to me. It can only be observed through assumption, is completely experimental in nature, and has yet to even be proven to exist. Yet, this particle is supposed to "explain how massless elementary particles can have mass" (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson).
Sounds like a bunch of bullocks to me, I say it is OUTRAGEOUS, and thus my claim is superior and correct.
So then, the Pope's decree that illness was NOT caused by small unobservable life forms was superior to the claim that bacteria causes illness?
Neither side had a shred of evidence at the time and belief in some invisible death machine was very silly indeed.
Further, the idea of a "God" particle (ie Higgs-Boson) is quite silly to me. It can only be observed through assumption, is completely experimental in nature, and has yet to even be proven to exist. Yet, this particle is supposed to "explain how massless elementary particles can have mass" (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson).
Sounds like a bunch of bullocks to me, I say it is OUTRAGEOUS, and thus my claim is superior and correct.