BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:14 PM

Your view is neither here nor there, ake. Neither is mine. Nor Joe's. It is facts that matter and the fact is that I have not, as far as I can remember, started an argument from scratch. I have responded to many and that may be viewed by some as combative. I will stick by my original point that addressing what I see as an inaccuracy or a piece of misinformation is neither wrong nor aggressive. How people react to my reaction is entirely up to them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:07 PM

1/2 K!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 11:40 AM

Sorry bill, but you are still not reading me accurately. I have never denied the faith factor in my belief , though holding that it is not unreasonable faith.   You,s all however are claiming the intellectual high ground for what I say is a philosophical stance rather than an objective scientific and logical position. So the greater onus, I suggest rests on the evolutionist here to provide far more evidence than the argument that most scientists accept it. I am not claiming that I can prove, or give enough evidence for my position, other than point out where yours is contrary to the scientific method ( btw, I see you bypassed my point on that !) , which of course does blow a hole in yours, if I can demonstrate the force of the argument against your belief and thus open the way for alternative answers.    Your dismissal of creationist sights as opposing "science" seems very self serving.    It is no use dismissing them as contrary to accepted science if you cannot argue the points they raise. .....Consensus" science "is not science.            And the careful experiments you mention, when applied to origins science are 1 interpreted according to assumptions that cannot be verified.....because the past is gone. And 2, the dates arrived at by different methods have often give wildly conflicting results, sometimes spectacularly out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 11:28 AM

It may not be the way you wish to live your life, Steve. But millions of people do live their lives in a faith centered way. They are not fools or buffoons, nor are they stupid. They are simply people who see the world differently from you. That IS allowed. I don't think you come for debate, you come for combat and it gets very tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 11:09 AM

Dave, I told you, you were a troll!.....So don't act so bloody innocent.

Well said Joe, the "biter bit" in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 10:28 AM

That might be the implication but it's no way to live one's life. What frogprince said. Life can be tough enough without inventing moral mazes for ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 10:23 AM

Shimrod...Pete is not crazy... he is not stupid... as to "willfully ignorant", that depends...he is committed to a set of beliefs that most of us find to be at great odds with reason & science, but he does not hold them "in order to BE ignorant"...he is only one of many who take a literal view of one version of one religious text... and he does a pretty good job of listing the claims & arguments necessary to defend his set of views. He is emotionally committed to that interpretation, and all *I* do is present the countering views?

You want serious examples of warped logic in defense of religious thought? The following were posted here at Mudcat a couple years ago by a former member who has since moved on.....even Pete didn't try to emulate this degree of narrow thinking..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning"

"What evidence would be required for me to abandon my belief that God created the earth as He says He did? Prove to me that God doesn't exist and I'll recant everything I've said. It's an impossible task. You can't disapprove the very Being who created you! "

"Righteousness is defined by God, because God is the definition of goodness and righteousness. Therefore, stoning adulterers, homosexuals, et cetera, is not unrighteous because the righteous God has commanded it."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 07:40 AM

You lay out a clear and constant view of morality, Steve, which does in fact imply that every action we do has a moral dimension. It's perhaps the most basic criterion of being human.

Insofar as we become aware of that quality in an animal, or maybe in some robot or alien in a science fiction story, so that what it does is seen as moral or immoral, we regard it as sharing that humanity. We wouldn't see a tree that fell on us as acting immorally. We might see a man who chopped down a tree as acting immorally, depending on circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 07:28 AM

Uh-oh. Here we go. Another 300 posts on the meaning of combative I suspect...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 07:20 AM

Joe combative!
You hate filled people are beyond parody!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:56 AM

If anyone has been combative and negative combined in this thread it's you, Joe. You appear to be operating outside your comfort zone and it's making you tetchy. And no, it's a vast chasm. "Seeing God in it" is a product of your conditioning (most of us suffered it but some of these us wrestled ourselves free) and is a dereliction of intellect, a refusal to look for the true explanations which are a hundred times more wonderful in the searching than the dismal God who explains nothing and who is beyond explanation himself. That's not a difference in perspective - it's chalk and cheese.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:42 AM

Joe, I am happy to respond here so there was no need for a PM stating exactly the same thing as you did in the thread. I don't understand what you were trying to achieve with that. Anyway...

In answer to one of your questions. At certain times of day, when there is little on at work, no. I'll let you figure out which one. To address a different point, you were the only one that said "Try having sex with somebody you really love" so how can that be anyone's suggestion but yours? I certainly don't see pointing out my interpretation as combative or causing trouble. I do see trying to place the blame for your own statements on someone as not having an adequate argument. Still, it is water under the bridge and Raggy is happy so, like him, that is my final word.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 05:52 AM

I admit that I have trouble with Pete's redefinition of science, just as I have trouble with people's redefinition of what I believe myself.

I see the Genesis creation stories as a beautiful, poetic expression of the intimate and eternal relationship between God and Universe. I see Pete's pseudo-scientific approach as stripping the awe and beauty of the Genesis poetry and replacing it with a vain attempt to distort science to support his insistence on literalism.

And even for those who don't believe in a God, there is much awe and beauty in our universe. We all see the same things. Some see these things as wonderful, and some don't. Whether we see a God in it or not, is mostly just a difference in perspective and not the vast chasm some people on both sides of the spectrum take it to be.

-Joe-

P.S. Raggytash, I suppose you don't know the American TV character Eddie Haskell from the Leave It to Beaver show. Mr. Gnome is a perfect reflection of that character, and has been for years - feigning innocence while doing his best to cause a fight. It's time somebody called his bluff. And since I'm music editor and no longer a moderator, I can do that. Have I insulted him, or have I simply told the truth? He may well be delightful in person, but he plays disruptive games online, and always has. I think it's time for him to stop those games, once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 05:49 AM

Joe I too have no desire to get into a slanging match but I took your comment about my wife and I as a personal attack.

Dave obviously thought the same and now you have made a personal attack on him. I know Dave slightly, we have met on occasion and even shared a pint or two. I can assure you he is delightful company.

I would have thought as an albeit ex-moderator you should have led by example and refrained from such comments.

That is my final comment on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 05:36 AM

I fully accept Pete has a different world view to most people here. I debate with him primarily to increase my understanding of that. But I do expect him and others to be prepared to support their statements or to agree they got a bit carried away. In this case Pete said "Former evidence (ie that used to convince scientists software following Hutton that young earth theories can't work is dropped or discredited even by evolutionary scientists." I interpret that last bit as meaning scientists who aren't creationists. Now if that statement is true, you would expect the evidence in the journals they use and gsa bulletin can be considered as the historical record of how the thinking has changed. So it would certainly contain articles in support of Pete's statement. So I am not challenging Pete's beliefs at all, just asking him to support a statement about what non creationists think

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 05:16 AM

I can understand that, Raggytash, so let's bury the hatchet.

I know that you crave combat, Dave the Gnome, but I'm not going to give you the satisfaction. Your definition of "sacred" is just one of several legitimate definitions listed in my dictionary. And the suggestion that specific people don't love each other, is yours alone. My intent was merely to broaden the definition of the word "sacred," as it is found in countless dictionaries.

Why do you have such a craving for causing trouble? You sound so much like a church lady I once knew - very pious on the outside, but just itching to cause a fight wherever she was. She was the most hateful person in the congregation, but she tried so hard to maintain a pious facade. Sounds just like you.

Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 03:52 AM

"You cannot reach a reasoned accommodation with a crazy person."

Is Pete crazy? Well, we have to admit the possibility ...

What he is though is the most stubbornly, wilfully ignorant person that I have ever encountered! There is much on this thread about sin and morality. In my book, wilful ignorance - the refusal to use the brain that nature gave you - is a sin! You're a sinner, Pete, but, then, you Christians love to wallow in your sinfulness, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:45 AM

Sacred: connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

My marriage of over 42 years definitely has nothing to do with an imaginary friend, Joe. My friend, partner, lover and mother of my children may well deserve veneration but she is definitely real.

Ake. Let me help you out. The term wanker, as I use it, has nothing to do with masturbation. It simply means that you please no one but yourself. In is a metaphor rather than literal. In just the same way, if I was to say you are a stupid fucker, I would not mean that you are practicing procreation in a nonsensical manner.

Which brings me back to sacred. If you mean sacred in a metaphorical manner, Joe, just say so. But it still does not excuse suggesting that people do not love each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:37 AM

In my book, off the top of my head at 6.30 in the morning, morality is an approach to life in which you seek to be happy in yourself and to have as positive an effect on the other inhabitants of this planet, and the planet itself, as you can humanly manage. There, tried to say that without once rattling on about avoiding sin or obeying rules or being bad.

Yes Kevin but what a terrible strategy for life, finding a moral issue in everything. That's exactly what I was trying to say. Just remember that not one of us can walk a few yards without unintentionally squashing a minibeast on the path. That doesn't mean we can't go for a walk and enjoy it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:55 AM

Sacred is not a word I would use Joe. Sacred has too many religious connotations in my personal lexicon.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:59 PM

Pete... you simply define your way out of dealing with my explanations. Shimrod & DtG have made certain points about science... I won't repeat those. I will just tell you again that you break the rules of standard discussion when you say " it is bluff and bluster if you cannot substantiate it yourself. "
   I would ask if you are willing to apply such a strange requirement to YOUR premises. No one can   "substantiate" religious beliefs. I don't even ask them to try. That past is indeed past! As I have said many times, there is a reason why the word 'belief' is used. You believe certain religious claims. The only thing that can be dated is the age of some manuscripts...

But in science, all sorts of things about the past can be tested in several ways. I am not the one who does all the testing, but neither are you the one who translates old manuscripts...or who interprets those translations in complex theological tomes. The problem is not me..or others... going out of the way to disprove the Bible... it is rather people who go out of the way to create & use sites like Creation.com to disprove scientific findings accepted by 99% of scientists. The data used in science is not **for the purpose** of arguing with religion... that is a mere side effect which some are more concerned with than others. But you DO upset them when you deny the accuracy of careful experiments based on NOT SO ACCURATE experiments and careless interpretation. (Details? Read 27 old threads... the points about carbon dating...etc... were made a dozen times.)

I can't do much more than explain a point..... if you just repeat the same flawed reasoning to counter them, I can't figure to where to go. I know where some have told me I'm going....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:51 PM

Yeah, Frogprince, I think you're trying to make a point, but I don't get it yet. Please expland (mixing explain & expand should do the trick).

You know, it might be a good idea for everybody to have a broader view of morality. I know plenty of religious people who take a very narrow view of morality - they seem to think it has to do with other people's sexual conduct (not their own, of course), and not much else. Oh, except abortion - that's an important issue to them as long as they're not the one who's pregnant. They can tend to get irritated if they are told that morality should have an impact on their business decisions, that cheating a customer or oppressing an employee can be far more immoral than fornication. Plenty of Catholic Republican politicians (and some Democrats) got irritated with Pope Francis when he questioned their attitudes toward the poor, toward other nations, toward global warming and the ecology, and toward warfare and capital punishment. The Catholic Church has been moving steadily toward a pacifist, anti-capitalist stance and complete opposition to capital punishment. That makes a lot of Catholics, particularly American Catholics, very nervous. Whatever position you take on these issues, it's clear that they are moral issues that may well be far more important than sexual conduct - and the Catholic Church expends a lot effort teaching about these issues, far more than it does on sexuality.

Steve Shaw, I'm having a hard time understanding your definition of morality. Please explain.

Is there a difference between morality and ethics? I don't think so, but I'm sure some will disagree. Why?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:35 PM

Ain't nothin' like a garble of double negatives to try to make my point, I guess...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:30 PM

". The fact that we may think that some activity is a perfectly legitimate thing to do means that we are treating doing it as a moral issue, just as much as if we had the opposite view."

I really think that that easily becomes stretching a point to where it is meaningless. Most of us do vast numbers of things which we, or no normal person we have ever known, have never even thought of as "perfectly legitimate"; non issues, plain and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:03 PM

Every conceivable human action is potentially a moral issue. By that I mean that in principle there could be an argument as to whether it is right or wrong. It's an essential consequence of it being a human action. So you couldn't have an argument about whether having indigestion is right or wrong, but you could about whether having a bacon sandwich is, maybe with a vegetarian or a Muslim or Jew. A Mormon might argue similarly about drinking coffee. The fact that we may think that some activity is a perfectly legitimate thing to do means that we are treating doing it as a moral issue, just as much as if we had the opposite view.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 07:55 PM

Raggytash, you say: My wife is my friend, my companion, my lover and my rock.

That's admirable, and I congratulate you. But it seems to me that you're saying that your relationship with your wife, including your sexual relationship is sacred to you. Isn't that correct?

My point is that moral codes, whether or not you agree with them, are based in reality, (usually) not in arbitrary religious legislation. They are based on "natural law," which applies to everyone and not just to people of one religious denomination or another. Most moral codes have reasons behind them, and are not purely arbitrary. Therefore, it is of value to explore widely-held moral codes and understand the thinking behind them, whether or not one agrees with the codes.

Too often, those here who consider themselves to be "enlightened" take the same approach as those who consider themselves "conservative" - defend the ideology you already hold and attack all other trains of thought. I submit that a more productive method of discussion is to be slower to attack and quicker to listen - look for the truth in what the other person is trying to express, even if you don't think you're likely to agree. Don't be so quick to find fault with the method of presentation.

Pete holds to some premises that the rest of us aren't likely to accept: that the Bible is literally true in every sense, a scientifically valid explanation of all aspects of life and the functions and history of the universe. And also, that God can do anything, even if it doesn't make sense - so the Bible describes how God did things. According to those premises, what Pete says is true, and we're not likely to shake his thinking. So, rather than trying to fight with him or disprove him, why not just take what he says as how Pete sees the world? Then we can deal with him within the context in which he lives. Then the goal becomes to figure out how to coexist in society with someone whose thinking is so radically different from ours. I live in an area where the majority of people think Pete's way, so I can either learn how to coexist, or I can heed their instructions to move elsewhere - as has been stated directly to me more than once in the Letters to the Editor of the local newspaper.

Most of us here seem to accept a more permissive moral code, and to hold to a cosmology that is more-or-less in accord with the writings of Darwin. I hold to a belief in a God who is the essence of the cosmos, and the essence of every individual being in the cosmos. As such, I view myself as surrounded by sacredness, but living in a world that is completely in accord with the tested discoveries of science. Two songs that do a pretty good job of expressing my thinking are Peter Mayer's (Everything Is) Holy Now and Iris DeMent's Let the Mystery Be. To my mind, most everything has a divine aspect that is a holy, sacred mystery....or not. But whether that holy mystery exists as a separate entity or not, that's how I see it. That perspective works for me, and I see no need to defend it as long as people understand what it is and don't try to redefine me as something else. I think I should feel free to speak from my perspective without having my perspective attacked - but I also feel obliged not to attempt to impose my perspective on anybody else.

I do not seek to condemn or attack anyone whose thinking is different from mine, but I also expect to be able to live in this world without having my guiding principles condemned or attacked. I hope to learn from the thinking of others, and I try to avoid doing battle.

Still, it really pisses me off when people try to redefine and destroy my thinking instead of trying to understand what I'm saying. When that happens, I find myself forced into battle mode - and that's a place where I don't like to be. I like constructive discussion and exchange of ideas, not destructive battles.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 07:01 PM

Masturbation and homosexuality are normal and healthy. In mischief mode I can add a moral dimension to cleaning my teeth, having a wee, watering my petunias, staying up too late, watching Bakeoff, forgetting to turn a light off, putting a bit too much butter on my crumpets, lighting the fire, having a glass of wine, using a dishwasher. Go on, try every one of them. Shall I start you off? It's a really easy game. Cleaning my teeth? Think of the energy that went into making that brush and think of its impact when it goes to landfill! Think of the lamentable waste of resources that went into that toothpaste tube! Think of those microcellulose beads that get my teeth nice and shiny then go into the sea with the sewage to kill the fishes! And the waste of water! And I could have cleaned my teeth with a twig and given the money to Oxfam! There, I'll leave you to do the others.

Yep, could sit here all night turning every conceivable activity into a moral issue. Might as well curl up and die a miserable guilty wretch. Easy-peasy! That's what the Catholic Church does with aspects of sex. They turn normal things like being gay, doing a bit of harmless self-pleasuring and trying not to get pregnant too often into guilt fodder. Things that people can't help doing become things that you should be avoiding like the plague 99%-plus of the time. And it's really hard to find out what the Church really thinks or whether it's changed its mind. Which it almost certainly hasn't, deep down.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 06:09 PM

I think there's strong evidence, from his posts, that he gets all of his 'information' from 'creationist' sources.

Stupid is as stupid does. 'Twas ever thus.

Now, how about we move on to Holocaust denial? Or climate change denial, or flat earthism & etc.............

You cannont reach a reasoned accommodation with a crazy person.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 06:00 PM

I think there's a very strong possibility, DMcG, that Pete has never even heard of The Geological Society or the Royal Institution - let alone read any of their bulletins or journals. I think there's strong evidence, from his posts, that he gets all of his 'information' from 'creationist' sources.
When he makes statements like: "and much of the former evidence used to support the GTE, is now dropped or discredited ...", he means that he's read something to that effect in an article written by a, self-styled, 'creationist scientist' and posted on a creationist website.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 05:49 PM

Regarding masturbation Steve, If I remember correctly you or your friends on this forum are very fond of using the word as a term of abuse, why is this OK when applied to such a " natural and beneficial activity"?........puzzling contradiction there surely?

Is homosexuality "moral"   depends on your definition of moral. It is certainly dangerous to those men who practice it and has very sexual health associations.
I think the Church is correct not to promote homosexuality as it runs contrary to their teaching of "family values", a teaching which is beneficial to society.
Same with the issue of abortion, most liberals believe it should be solely the choice of the mother, but the issue is much more complicated.
A fatal failing of the left is over simplification of complicated and nuances subjects......reliance on ideology, especially ideology based on emotion rarely produces positive results.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:46 PM

... Say one million years. And I mean that journal, or perhaps one published by the Royal Institution, backing up the idea much has been overturned in the sense a young earth better fits the facts than an old one. I don't consider an estimate from.say 1900a that the earth was say a few hundreds of millions being overturned ny another saying it is billions as helping your case, by the way!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:32 PM

Really, Pete? The geological society has been publishing the gsa bulletin since 1890. Perhaps you could give a reference to an article in that that says the previous ideas were wrong and that the earth is actually less than

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:22 PM

Here's the Catholic Church making up moral issues as it goes along. From the catechism:

"2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability."

I note the sanctioning of the judging of masturbators and remedial "pastoral action." That's a good laugh is that!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:08 PM

"Any time somebody questions whether something is right or wrong, it becomes a moral issue."
What absolute nonsense. A completely wrong-minded clot can question whether something is right or wrong. I think that it's wrong that all black men are not hanged. I haven't created a moral issue. I've created a mental illness issue (mine). Someone arbitrarily decides that masturbation is wrong and they have no reason for saying it and no evidence for it. The issue there is their stupidity, not the immorality or otherwise of masturbation, a perfectly normal, natural and beneficial activity. Go on, google it. I do realise that you may wish to dignify the ecclesiastical old fools that come out with that stuff. Very valiant of you. Religions make "moral issues" out of sexual matters in order to have instruments of control. Making people feel guilty about masturbating by saying stupid things about it, now that IS a moral issue. Whoever decided that being homosexual was a moral issue? Whoever decided that every sex act should leave open the potential for pregnancy? If you're telling me that those are moral issues, I'm telling you to get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 03:25 PM

Point taken Dmcg, but that was a long time past and there is more evidence now, and much of the former evidence used to support the GTE, is now dropped or discredited even by evolutionary scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 03:07 PM

Joe, I have absolutely no desire to fall out with you and accept your, albeit hedged, apology.

However Dave the Gnome has hit the nail on the head.

I, and others, took your comment to mean that my good lady and myself didn't either:

1. Love each other

2. Didn't know what love meant

3. Understand the meaning of the word

I can assure you on each of these you are utterly wrong.

My wife is my friend, my companion, my lover and my rock. I am a very lucky man to have such a wife, I know this.

I would wish it for everyone, sadly that, due to individual failings can never be.

I, AND my wife do not need any church or religion to tell us how to behave or how lucky we are to have found a lifelong companion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 02:44 PM

Actually Pete it was the other way round. Before Darwin and Hutton the scientific community was indoctrinated with a young earth attitude and it was evidence that slowly and painfully persuaded them otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 02:42 PM

" ...you say the evidence demand millions of years, but how do you know if you cannot present that evidence yourself?"

Because I'm not a practising paleontologist/geologist you idiot! But then, neither are you!

Oh right! I see! I've got to go out into the field and painstakingly dig up evidence for you to inspect ... and no doubt sniff at ... while all you have to do is to (ineptly) copy stuff from a creationist website! You are incredibly arrogant in your ignorance, aren't you, Pete?!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:45 PM

I am sure Raggy can speak for himself, Joe, but the most insulting part of that statement was nothing to do with the word sacred. You said, unequivocally, Try having sex with somebody you really love, Raggytash. How can that imply anything other than Raggy has either never loved anyone he has had sex with or he has never had sex with anyone he loves. But, hey, if Raggy accepts your apology, I shall have no axe to grind but I must point out that I cannot understand how an educated man such as yourself could have failed to see what you were suggesting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:44 PM

Part 2......you say the evidence demand millions of years, but how do you know if you cannot present that evidence yourself? ,!, seem like a case of one branch saying it is the other branches that have the conclusive evidence. That seems to be shim rods approach as he has previously let slip that his branch has no bearing on origins.          the fact is , no matter how much you say the evidence demands it , it is bluff and bluster if you cannot substantiate it yourself.    Meanwhile, creationists demonstrate with observational testable evidence that millions of years are not only not demanded, but that there is considerable evidence against the paradigm.      You insist that scientists ....by which you probably mean evolution believing....don't start with presuppositions. However, that seems somewhat of a simplistic belief in our evolutionary indoctrinated culture, and I have already quoted honest evolutionists that have recognised the power of the paradigm, and the refusal to consider anything other than naturalistic causes, whatever the evidence.   I don't know what else I can say either bill !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:21 PM

Actually the principle has long been accepted that, where an action has several effects, the more important should be given priority. It's the same principle that means that when faced with a starving family, a parent has a right, even a duty, to steal in order to get food to eat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:18 PM

"The first sexual thought anyone had was GodS!"

What??!!

"Well bill, as you suggested, I looked up the scientific method, which you say scientists, and presumably yourself claim to employ ."

Scientists don't "claim" to employ the scientific method - they EMPLOY IT!!

"The past is gone , and any attempted measurements are interpretive of the data and have often been spectacularly out."

More grotesque and heavily biased generalisations from a scientific ignoramus who is parroting stuff from a creationist website!

Pete, is modern science a massive secular plot to discredit Christianity or not?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:10 PM

Steve Shaw, in his usual fashion says: And who decided that masturbation and homosexuality were moral issues?

Any time somebody questions whether something is right or wrong, it becomes a moral issue. This is not a big deal. You just consider both sides of the discussion, and make up your own mind what you should do.

And again: And whatever you say, the Church does NOT sanction the use of condoms for HIV prevention.

Prove it, without quoting St. Hitchens.
See this article (click) dated 20 Nov 2010. Again, please take heed of the fact that Catholic moral teaching is presented as a discussion backed by reasoned statements, not as a list of do's and don'ts. In November 2010, Pope Benedict made a carefully reasoned statement about the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Thus far, no one of equal authority has issued a statement to contradict him, so his statement holds.

Click here for a major part of the official Catholic discussion of sexuality. Mind you, I take a far less conservative view of such things myself - but what is presented in the link is the official presentation. I take this into consideration, and then decide how to live my own life. Note, however, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells me that my supreme moral authority is my own conscience, not some list of rules that Reuters or St. Hitchens deceptively presented as a summary of Catholic teaching.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:03 PM

Well bill, as you suggested, I looked up the scientific method, which you say scientists, and presumably yourself claim to employ . About halfway down in the process is .....test your hypothesis by doing an experiment.......    This of course is to be expected with observable, teatable repeatable Science , but is obviously severely limited with origins science....evolution or creation. The past is gone , and any attempted measurements are interpretive of the data and have often been spectacularly out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 12:43 PM

I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding, Raggytash. Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the word "sacred."

My dictionary gives this as one definition of "sacred": highly valued and important : deserving great respect

If you and your wife have been together 37 years, then I would expect that the marriage would be sacred to you, and so would the love and sex you share with your wife be sacred.

I intended no offense, and you know damn well that no offense was intended. I congratulate you on your 37 years.

But I can't understand how, after 37 years, you can't see sex as sacred. All I can say is that we must have different understandings of the word. If you want to battle over semantics, I don't want to fight. But I do wonder why you scoffingly pontificated against my considering sex between lovers to be sacred. Who's the one pontificating, Raggytash?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 12:37 PM

Methinks some have trouble discerning between venom and irony . Sex as God intended is sacred in Christian theology. The first sexual thought anyone had was GodS!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 11:34 AM

The oriiginal meaning of "pontification'" is as it happens "bridge building". Which is quite a good summary of what Joe's posts do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 11:34 AM

It would look like I'd be signing off my encyclicals with a kiss though. How's about Pope Stevie G I?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 11:19 AM

Sorry, Steve, you will have to be Pope Stephen X. The earlier ones are all taken

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 10:35 AM

The irony of that thread has not escaped my notice Greg. I am more than a little pissed off by Joe's pontification. An apology would not go amiss.