| A biased blog of blasphemy (or why I will never understand Catholicism) |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 01.15.04 (9:50 pm) I should write a similar essay about Islam. ;) I think they (I also hate making generalizations like this) are the most unreasonable people around. Great blog! posted by: jimmytherighteous (reply) post date: 01.16.04 (7:58 am) Dragonbait, I couldn't agree more. I get thoroughly disgusted by discussions of religious superiority. The irony is that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God. In Islam, Jesus Christ is held in great reverence as one of God's prophets. I doubt that sits well with those who despise Islam. I don't care what religion anyone is, as long as they recognize the legitimacy and importance of the other religions out there. Trying to claim your own as superior is unreasonable itself. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.16.04 (2:47 pm) Reply to: RedTigress Thanks. :) I just think it's unreasonable for anyone to assert that their religion is infallible or that anyone who doesn't follow their religion is inferior. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.16.04 (2:57 pm) Reply to: jimmytherighteous Not only is it unreasonable to try and claim your own religion's superiority, it is also unreasonable to insist upon the religious doctrines of any one religion to establish morality or legality of actions. Everyone thinks their religion is more right than the others, otherwise they likely wouldn't believe in that religion, but some neglect the fact that there is just as much justification and validity to any other religion. These people tend to argue on all issues based on their religious dogma, without accepting any arguments that don't correspond to the church doctrines. That's why I say Catholics are unreasonable- there's no way to argue with that logic. posted by: William (reply) post date: 01.16.04 (8:34 pm) Dear Dragonbait22, I think you may be somewhat confused about what Catholics want as far as a union of Church and State. The true Catholic order wants no such equality at all. It wants to be the supreme power with governments working for its own end. Looking at history, you'll notice that the organization that wanted to stop the printing and distribution of the bible was the Catholic church. They actually made it against the law to do so and many thousand of people who thought otherwise were butchered in the most horrible way (Saddam style.) Look at our early American History. Once again, it was the Catholics who wanted bible reading to be removed from the public school system. You've already been to my site and read the supreme court cases I cited. You must have missed who was the party attempting to remove the bible from school. That's right, it was the Catholic schools! Catholicism and the Bible do not agree with each other in many places. This was causing severe problems for the Catholics. You will notice that the majority of private schools at that time were from the Catholic sector. This was so they could keep the truths found in the bible away from their children. It wasn't until we got our first Catholic President that the unlikely happened; for the first time since the beginning of schools in America, the bible was finally banned from the schools. This was no accident, but a very well planned Catholic assault on the bible. Although there has been a lifting of the ban on bible reading by the Catholic church to its people, it was never desired to happen, but being in America, it became necessary. Every year over 100,000 hispanics alone quit the Catholic church every year. This isn't including the other people groups. In conclusion, I'd like to say that Catholicism is not true Christianity and it was born just like Islam in thuggery and murdering its opponents to seize and keep its control over the minds of people. I hope that with all of this said, that you will give true Biblical Christianity a fair chance in your life (if you are not so already.) Thank you for this opportunity to serve you in expressing these comments. Respectfully, William posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.17.04 (3:22 pm) Reply to: William Thanks for your comment. I don't know much about the history of Catholicism in America (or elsewhere, for that matter), and I'd like to just take your word for it, but you seem to be more biased against Catholicism than I am. :) "I hope that with all of this said, that you will give true Biblical Christianity a fair chance in your life" I've given Christianity a try, it didn't agree with me (or rather, I didn't agree with it). Thanks anyway. :) posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 01.17.04 (11:56 pm) Even more confusing for me is the Mormons. According to their theology, in the pre-earth life, Lucifer (a 'good' guy then) wanted God to enact his plan to force everyone to be good. But Jesus disagreed and there was a huge war, that gave humans that would go to earth Free Will. Of course, it is always emphasized that Agency requires repsonsibility, but many a church sermon sounds a lot like a libertarian tract. And yet Mormons vote nearly uniformly against abortion rights, against tobacco and alcohol use, etc. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.18.04 (2:49 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Hmm, that's pretty interesting. I don't know much about the Mormon theology, but it sounds like, as with most any religions, there are many contradictions. posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 01.19.04 (2:48 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 There can be nothing beside rational Free Will! Controls only cause contempt. And as far as sermons are concerned, the Catholic church says the same, exact thing every week! My dad used to get upset when I was a child and fell asleep in church. Maybe because it was so damn illogical and bored me to death... posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 01.19.04 (3:09 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 When the president now, or when past presidents have said: "God Bless America", I cringe. Sure, it's a "nice" thing to say to those who wish to believe in a god, and/or that a god is "guiding" our country, but the government, in no way, can make any claim to one god. It's exclusionary toward the Jewish and other religions. Bush is a Christian, though Christian and Jew share the same God, he can not rule by a Christian ethic alone. He must be inclusive to all religions, and must never, ever rule by what he percieves, on an individual basis, as right to only him and the religion he follows, and to adapt that one religious view into policy... posted by: LynnKramer (reply) post date: 01.19.04 (4:17 pm) What is the pro-life response to abortionists' arguments? Pro-abortion advocates consistently rely on the same arguments they have used for decades. What follows is these arguments broken down into their 5 basic forms, and the corresponding pro-life answer to these claims. Click on the claim to read an in-depth pro-life response. 1. Claim: 'It's not a baby/person - it's just a blob of tissue' Response: When a woman is pregnant, science tells us that the new life she carries is a complete and fully new human being from the moment of fertilization. By the time most abortions can be performed, the baby already has a beating heart and identifiable brain waves. The baby living in her mother is as distinct and unique a new person/human being as you are from me, and as deserving of protection under the law as we are. The baby every mother carries as she faces a life and death decision has a beating heart at 18 days after fertilization and brain waves as early as six weeks after fertilization. Most abortions are not performed until nine weeks of the pregnancy. Even RU 486 chemical abortions can't be done until after six weeks. 2. Claim: 'It's my body/ a women's choice' Response: Every mother is faced with profound decisions to make for herself and her child but these decisions can never include the right to kill her baby. Mothers facing difficult pregnancies require accurate and compassionate information about the facts of fetal development as well as the practical help that is available to them through the more than 3,000 mother helping centers around the USA. Mothers have a right to be fully informed about the facts at least 24 hours before making this life or death decision for themselves and their child. 3. Claim: 'What will we do with all the unwanted kids?' (Poor babies, overpopulation, abuse, etc.) Response: We will never end poverty in our world simply by killing poor children. The poor mother who is encouraged to have an abortion today is just as poor tomorrow. Problems such as lack of job security, education, or abuse are not cured by ignoring their existence in a woman's life and turning to abortion as a way to make it all "go away." The problem is lack of development -- not population. What women of the world desire are good basic health care for themselves and their families. In those countries where abortion is not legal, it is often because of strong cultural and religious beliefs that respect each new life. That respect needs to be backed up with wiser development plans not more dangerous and deadly abortion activity. In countries where there is not even the guarantee of clean running water, abortion will only become a death sentence for third world women and their babies. 4. Claim: 'If abortion is made illegal women will die in back alleys' Response: The numbers often used by pro-abortionists to back their claims are vast fabrications mostly made up by the pro-abortion lobby as admitted by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL. The real numbers of deaths before 1973 are shockingly different. Thirty-nine women died of illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v Wade. Those are thirty-nine tragedies along with their thirty-nine children who also died because of abortion's violence. The true reason the deaths have decreased from abortion isn't legalization, it was the widespread introduction of antibiotics into medicine that saved the lives of women who would have otherwise died of botched abortions. In fact, the main forms of abortions have changed very little since the middle of this century! The only thing that legalizing abortion did was to give abortionists the right to hang their shingle on the front door and stop using the back alley! Mothers deserve better answers than the death of their children through the violence of abortion, legal or illegal. Help us support the work of the more than 3,000 mother helping centers committed to providing real life affirming options for these women and their families. 5. Claim: 'What about a woman who's been raped/incest or carrying a disabled/sick child? (the hard cases)' Response: A. We don't cure illness by killing the patient. Aborting a child with a disability or illness is the height of prejudice. When a family learns that the child they are expecting may have a special need, that family needs support and good solid medical information -- not the death of their most fragile member. Society must flee this attitude that uses arbitrary yard sticks to measure peoples worth. B. When a woman has been raped or a victim of incest, she has been the victim of a terrifying act of violence of which she is a true victim. Tragically, we are some times faced with a second victim of this great crime committed by the rapist, a baby. While pregnancy is extremely rare from rape, it can happen. The cruelest thing that can happen to the women in question is to now be pitted against her child, who is the second victim. In several studies done across America, women who were encouraged to use abortion in such circumstances felt that they had been put through a second act of violence, the violence and pain of the mechanical rape of abortion. Worse than that, they stated feelings of being made into the victimizer of their own child. they felt that their baby had paid with his/her life for the crime of the rapist. Meanwhile, mothers who found support to carry their children to term, whether they opted for adoption or kept their babies, felt that they'd turned something horrible into something life-giving. The key here is support for both victims, mother and child. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.19.04 (4:35 pm) Reply to: LynnKramer Well, first of all, none of these addressed my main argument against the pro-life stance. The second argument- my body, my choice- is close, but no quite the same as my argument. Whether I do or don't have the right to abort my child is not a matter that should be decided by the government. It is a moral or ethical dilemma that likely will never be solved, as morality is not standard for everyone, but relative. The government oversteps its boundaries by asserting its power to make moral decisions for all the people. Whether I agree with the practice of abortion itself really doesn't matter. Nor does it matter how you feel about it- it is not up to us to decide the moral rectitude of such a situation. And it certainly should not be the government's decision. As for the rebuttals themselves, they are mostly ridiculous and not in the least convincing; just as I'm sure it would take a lot to convince you that the arguments given are correct. Even if it is technically a baby, does the baby get to choose whether it is born or not? What makes you so certain the baby would choose life if given the opportunity? See, that probably sounds like a pretty silly argument, but so does claiming that since the fetus is a baby, it negates the mother's rights of individual liberty. I haven't really heard several of those arguments intimated by pro-choice advocates, but I don't think that either point is more valid (pro-choice or pro-life). Abortion is (or should be) a moral issue, not a legal matter. posted by: Octo6er (reply) post date: 01.22.04 (8:01 am) I'm definitely happy that they've cracked down on school prayers. I live in the Bible Belt and all through grade school we HAD to pray during auditorium events (and in elementary school during class) or else we'd be sent to the principal's office! It was horrible since I'm not a Christian and I always thought it was disrespectful to people of other religions and took out the freedom of religion....and our basic right to choose. To be such a "melting pot" and supposedly an equal opportunity country...Christianity sure does seem to control a lot of things... posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.22.04 (9:37 pm) Reply to: Octo6er Wow, I can't believe you had to pray in school. I would have spent a great deal of time in the principal's office. ;) I say everyone is free to believe whatever they choose to believe, just as long as they don't try and force their beliefs on the rest of us. |
|