News24

Catholics 'cannot accept gay marriage'

2011-09-24 22:50

Freiburg - Pope Benedict XVI said on Saturday the Catholic Church could not accept gay marriage and urged young people to root out evil in society and shun a "lukewarm" faith that damages their church.

The 84-year-old pope ended the third day in his homeland with a rally for about 30 000 young people at a fairground outside the southern city of Freiburg, a Catholic area where he received the warmest welcome of his trip so far.

"The world in which we live, in spite of its technical progress, does not seem to be getting any better," he told the young people. "There is still war and terror, hunger and disease, bitter poverty and merciless oppression."

He urged them to root out all forms of evil in society and not to be "lukewarm Christians", saying that lack of commitment to faith did more damage to their church than its sworn enemies.

Young people in the crowd cheered as he spoke.

"The church is shown very negatively in the media these days so it is important for us young people to see we can also be proud of the church, and the church itself is not bad, even if some people have let it down," said Kathrin Doerr, 26, who attended the youth rally.

Earlier, at a meeting with Orthodox Christian leaders, Benedict spoke out against abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage.

"We, as Christians, attach great importance to defending the integrity and the uniqueness of marriage between one man and one woman from any kind of misinterpretation," he said.

Communism's acid rain hurts faith


On the penultimate day of his trip, the pope straddled his homeland's religious and geographical divisions, praising the faithful for enduring communism's "acid rain" effect in former East Germany and then addressing cheering Catholic crowds in the west.

At a Mass in the medieval main square during a subdued visit to the city of Erfurt, where only about 7% of the people are Catholic, he praised eastern Germans who stayed loyal to the church during oppressive years under Nazism and communism.

"You have had to endure first a brown and then a red dictatorship, which acted on the Christian faith like acid rain," he told the crowd from the altar, set against a hill dominated by Erfurt's cathedral and another Catholic church.

About two hours before the morning Mass in Erfurt, a man fired an air gun at security staff at an Erfurt checkpoint in an apparent protest against the strict crowd-control measures, police said. The Vatican said the pope was never in any danger.

Benedict held a surprise meeting on Friday evening in Erfurt with victims of sexual abuse by priests. Church officials said on Saturday there were three men and two women present, chosen from many victims around Germany who had asked to meet the pope.

"The atmosphere of the meeting was rather relaxed," Vatican spokesperson Federico Lombardi told a news conference. "It was very important that the pope expressed he shares in the pain the victims suffered and that the church will do everything to prevent that happening again in the future."

About 700 Germans have filed for compensation for abuse by priests and other church personnel. A record 181 000 Germans left the church last year, many in protest at the abuse scandal.

Comments
  • slg - 2011-09-24 23:09

    Talk about being out of touch with the true love of God.

      Jason - 2011-09-25 05:45

      my my, the pope rejecting gay marriages...? what's next? snow...??

      Gary - 2011-09-25 08:06

      Does this constitute hate speech?

      Blue - 2011-09-25 10:19

      I have debated ( many many times with various people from various rligius backgrounds ) the many forms of religion and whether there is in fact a 'being' out there who most call 'Christ'. The one single conclusion I have found ALWAYS makes sense is this...there HAS TO BE a 'power' greater and more powerfull than what we as humans have seen and touched on earth. Where this 'power' is we can't say. Who this power is, again we can't say...but what has been personally witnessed and experienced by people from all ages from all types of religions...is that this 'power' definately exists. I believe too, that this 'power' gives us the strength we need to live our lives for the good of all around us, ALL living material, be it ourselves, our families, our friends, our neighbours, nature and our earth. If you doubt what I am saying now...then ask yourself this...whether you are a jew, catholic, christian, hindu...whatever and whoever you are...why, when you live your life negatively, complaining, being pessimistic about everything wround you, finding fault with everything...does bad luck continue to hammer at your door,...yet..when you live your life positively and for the good of others...does good things happen to you???

      CrabSpotter - 2011-09-25 16:24

      @zaatheist eishhh! you seem to have studied all this God-stuff, and still looking, but have not found Him. Keep looking, He promised that you will find Him.

      Met - 2011-09-25 18:27

      Definately not Christians either and here I am not talking aboout people who go to church once a week but follow their own way with total disregard for Gods word- but born again, Spirit filled people as John 3:3.In Gods eyes its an abomination- He hates it.Go and read Romans 1.Do not twist Gods love as if He would condone sin.Gods mercy will NEVER be an accomplice of sin- period.

      GHL - 2011-09-25 23:26

      @AMS-Dammer, 95%? Seriously? Just google the Jay report. I think you've overshot your estimation by about 91%...

      whereu - 2011-09-26 08:02

      zaatheist, this time I agree with you. In NZ, the Anglican Church has been debating this issue for 10 years. Instead of being bold and making a decision, they have chosen to kick the can down the road for probably a further 10 years, to debate (or should I say flog) the the issue to death. I will not be surprised if in 10 years the Anglican Church in NZ is still kicking the can down the road - that is assuming that they still exist here in 10 years time. The Anglican church in NZ only exists thanks to support of the older generation, most of whom are unlikely to still be with us in a decade or two.

      DW - 2011-09-26 08:46

      Actually sig, I think you are out of touch with who and what God is. I am not Catholic, but gays may continue with their marriages etc and are free to do so. Just dont expect a church, whose whole belief system should be based on the Bible, to condone sexual immorality (and I am not talking about sexual orientation) of any sort. You get people who tend to be adulterers, paedophiles etc but we will never ever condone or accept that this type of sexual immorality is acceptable in a biblical sense. Just because you have that inherent tendency does not make the behaviour acceptable. And asking the church to condone it just because you "cant help yourself" does not make the behaviour right. None of us can help our sinful behaviour. We are born sinners. But the church can never say that sin is acceptable and right. God hates sin. All sin. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. We cannot do it ourselves. But saying that sin is OK, is not OK.

      Succubus - 2011-09-26 08:52

      Here in the 21st century, what the Catholics can or can't accept is irrelevant.

      agurkie - 2011-09-26 09:25

      @zaatheist - You are exactly the same as people who follow a religion without questioning their belief ever. There is no way that anyone can prove the non - existance OR existance of God. So I can't understand how you can be so certain??????? Your IQ maybe???? I heard all atheists have very high IQ's..... P.S. i am agnostic, you probably thought i'm christian.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 09:26

      @ Zaatheist - "Believing in gods was very common among our primitive ancestors who didn't know any better. We know better" In other words, everyone in the past few thousand years was dumb and you're smart. Oh how arrogant you are... BTW, go research where many of those gods came from and you'd be stunned. Hindus have Prajapati, deity of procreation - came from Japeth (Noah's son) who is where European/Asian tribes come from. Thor (and Taurus) came from Tiras, Noah's grandson. Among early pagans, they traced their lineage back to Noah but somewhere along the line deified their ancestors. Also interesting is how the early pagans worshipped one creator god and speak of the Flood of Noah. There are even early pagan accounts of the Ice Age. Oh, and their dates would add up to the world being 6000-7000 years old today. All in line with the Bible (despite them never having had access to Genesis). But sure, we all evolved from a rock 4.4bya and you're the god of your own destiny. Keep on believing that bud... Agreed though - Benny Hinn is a serious fraud...

      poenskop - 2011-09-26 10:33

      Well put DW and Matt.

      Thermophage - 2011-09-26 11:32

      @ Matt :-): NO, Zaatheist is NOT saying they were dumb relative to us. HE is saying they had no evidence or understanding of the actual forces at play around us. In this way they had no other choice than to attribute these things (lighthing for instance, large floods/etc) as acts of a higher being, aka their gods (Thor and God in the two cases above).

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 12:04

      @ Thermotouch - no, that is exactly what he was saying. It's the stereotypical attitude in such people. EG "the average person is incapable of comprehending such complex issues" or in his case "ancient man was primitive but we know better". Classic examples of "I'm smart, you're dumb". And be careful of making the mistake that anything "old" is primitive. The Bible is for example loaded with science (I've quoted clear examples before but they get mocked; there is science in there that took "us" 4000 years to discover). Historians can also be very selective; Roman/Greek documents with fewer than 10 manuscripts, written 1000 years after the original, are deemed true, yet documents/books with far more existing manuscripts + written relatively shortly after the original are rejected as myth, all of those coincidentally support the idea of God. Or Herodotus, well respected for historical facts, yet his description of a pterosaur is written off. In the UK, 2000 years of British history is not taught, or at best called myth, because the documents involved trace back to Noah...

      Lawence - 2011-09-26 12:34

      Blue. There 'has to be a power'? Why? because you feel so small? Get over it

      TheUgly - 2011-09-26 12:37

      It's a catch-22. The Catholic Church believe they have to abide by what is written in the bible. It is written in the bible that homosexuality is an abomination. The problem they find themselves in is that they can't contradict what is written in what they believe to be "The word of God". Personally I believe that homosexual people should enjoy all the freedoms straight people do, but it against the Catholic Church's core beliefs, written in black and white by God. The Catholic Church can't and won't condone homosexual marriages.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 12:45

      @ Lawence - what, and the idea we came from nothing, go to nothing and share common heritage with animals, that makes you feel big?

      Succubus - 2011-09-26 12:46

      TheUgly, The catholic church does seem to be quite tolerant of homosexual priests though? Especially pedophilic homosexual priests?

      Ant D - 2011-09-26 13:36

      @ AntiThesis Quote "Acts 17:11 "God helps those who help themselves"", please go look it up in the Bible before you post rubbish, if you don't have a Bible then there are many websites you can visit to look up that verse, Acts 17:11 doesn't say anything near what you say it says, and nowhere in the Bible in fact will you find the words you have quoted above.

      Spade - 2011-09-26 13:58

      @Blue - the glass being half empty or half full comes to mind. Pessimists see the negative, and prefer to ignore the positive should it contradict the negative. Optimists due the opposite. To a pessimist it may be bad luck, while to the optimist it may be an opportunity or challenge. Upbringing, experience, society and genetics all play a role. I don't see a God-like "power" there. I don't believe for one minute the church (any church) exists to serve God. It exists to serve mankind, by providing some structure and moral basis. God is a creation of the church, not the other way round.

      noremac - 2011-09-26 15:33

      just like Christians have a right to their view and judge other even though the basis of their religion is to respect one another so am i entitled to mine.i personalty think after 7 years of being a devoted Christian that religion is cruel.its makes you feel guilty for natural inclination and gives you the elution that you are separate from this world and nature.it has given us a sense of entitlement and the mentality that we can use and abuse this planet as we see fit because it was "given" to us by got .it keeps us from our true path and separates us from our true divinity .i believe we are apart of something bigger.we are all one and the same.our bodies extensions of our collective contiousness to express itself.religion divides us.

      miya7 - 2011-09-26 17:21

      the pope has spoken , plz giv him a drink on my bill

      whereu - 2011-09-27 06:51

      Is creation science really science? Our understanding of the laws of nature have been, still are, and IMO, will always be work in progress. This ultimately is the cornerstone and strength of science. Any approach that claims ultimate truth or knowledge is not science. Such thinking may be part of religion. IMO, creation science is both bad science and bad religion. Bad science because it assumes that the existence of a creator is a concrete fact which cannot be challenged - this type of thinking is not part of science. It is also bad religion because if it is also regarded as a science then the possibility of the absence of a creator needs to be considered - this is not part of religious thinking.

      Michael - 2011-09-27 10:51

      You Either believe or you dont. I feel sorry for the persons that do not believe that their is life after death!!!

      G-spotWizard - 2011-09-27 12:43

      @zaatheist, so you claim to know the truth! There are only 2 ways of knowing the truth about the Almighty creator. the 1st way is through Jesus christ for he is the only man on record who said:"I am the way, the truth and life, no one comes to God the almighty creator except through me." The second sure way to find out the truth about the existence of God the almighty creator is when you die. So you know no truth at all if you have not tried either of these ways. As fas as I am concerned, zaatheist you are dilusional.

  • fragtion - 2011-09-24 23:16

    I'm not catholic, but think it's good to see the church standing their ground on this important moral issue

      Thermophage - 2011-09-24 23:25

      this is no moral issue. In any case morals do not stem from religion, but self preservation.

      Anton - 2011-09-25 03:38

      "Root out all evil" Yes sure, let's start by putting these thousands of priests, who have been pulling the trousers down of little boys, into JAIL. and that must include the ones who have been protecting this scum. With ther words; get a new pope!!!!!!!!!!

      zaatheist - 2011-09-25 04:36

      You obviously are the wrong type of Christian. Just as apartheid discriminated against people based on something (the colour of their skin) which they couldn't change, gays are now being discriminated against based on something (their sexual orientation) they can't change, - Reverend Peter Storey, bishop of the Methodist church, South Africa

      Arno Young - 2011-09-25 17:45

      @zaatheist. The message is repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand. If you want to be gay, then you can't claim the kingdom of God (see below). Easy as that. Repent and it's yours. I.e. you change, not the bible. If you don't agree with the precepts of the Bible then go start your own community. I.e. you are loved, but to 'mingle' with the Christian community, please adapt accordingly. Reverend Peter Storey is probably reading a different bible if he holds another opinion. You'll also note, that gays are not unique in this. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor 6:9 Let me use broad strokes: Every one is born in sin, but when you are born of God i.e. born again, you can't claim I can't change, because you are now born of God. Nobody is saying its going to be a walk in the park, but with Jesus you can. Point is, repent, if you don't want to, why do you want to 'join'?

      Met - 2011-09-25 19:38

      The views and opinions which I read here, are exactly that which are described in 2 Cor 3:1-5.You may not realize or like it, but you are fulfilling prophecy.Certainly,God allowed Jesus to die for you on a cross, but He is not looking for numbers.In fact He said that there would be a falling away.You may think that your views and opinions are filled with wisdom, but it is no different from those who shouted for the crucifixion of Jesus.Although frightening, I always knew that this would happen, because unlike the fellow who I knew fot 30 yrs, the father of lies, the God I know now, does not impose His will on us

      whereu - 2011-09-26 08:09

      So Met, it's OK to shout for the crucifiction of gays?

      Dee - 2011-09-26 08:17

      @Zaatheist, I don't think this can be lumped in with Apartheid, we are not saying they should be killed but merely in OUR church they cannot be married. Thats our belief in our church.

      whereu - 2011-09-26 08:19

      Arno, I suspect that God is quite capable of deciding who is going to inherit the Kingdom of God. I don't think he needs your help. In any case Jesus condemned the self righteous more than anybody else. I thought that a cornerstone of Christianity is to love unconditionally and avoid the urge to be judgemental. I also thought that in Christian doctrine people are save by the grace of God and has nothing to do with their genetic make up.

      Met - 2011-09-26 09:23

      This is an excellent example of distorting and twisting truth.If a person finds the act of homosexuality disgusting, it does not mean they hate the homosexual. To love someone does not imply that they love or approve what they do. No one here has called for the crucifixion of homosexuals.

      Sage - 2011-09-26 09:27

      This has nothing to do with standing your ground, particularly when it comes to the Catholic church, it's called being selective. A church that slams gay marriages yet remains conspicuously silent when it comes to paelphilia and abuse of young kids by its own priests has no room to talk. The Catholic church along with it the charismatic wannabe churches is the biggest liability on organised religion, but then again, organised religion is the biggest scam ever heaped on the human race!

      Met - 2011-09-26 09:28

      Wheru- Forget what I or anyone here think about this or any other topic- that is if and when we contradict Gods word.But if we say what God says about something, as His word clearly says, then I would advise all to listen. It is NOT judging, yet another lie by satan

      whereu - 2011-09-26 10:13

      Met posted "To love someone does not imply that they love or approve what they do. No one here has called for the crucifixion of homosexuals. " Yes, love the sinner, hate the sin is often heard. And yes, no one has called for the physical crucifixion of homosexuals, but, the psychological warfare and attempted marginalisation of these people is there for all to see. We now know that homosexuality is as much a part of these people's make up as heterosexuality is part of theirs. Since the advent of genetics our understanding has improved tremendously, but it seems not our compassion. At least the people who condemed these people 2000 years ago (and often more) could claim ignorance. This excuse no longer applies. It also occurred to me that the thought of a God creating a person with certain attributes and then having a field day by rejecting them as a bit sick to say the least.

      whereu - 2011-09-26 10:50

      Met, You suggested that we ignore what people say and act to listen to God's word. Here are just a few examples of God's word (I take it you mean the bible). Are you also suggesting that we behave this way? If this represents your thinking then I sincerely feel sorry for you. "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB) If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

      Met - 2011-09-26 11:42

      Sorry, the Scripture should read 2 Timothy 3:1-5

      Met - 2011-09-26 11:47

      Wheru- dont be selective in quoting Scripture. God says that He will never turn His back on His people.When God makes a covenanent He NEVER breaks it

      PRKER - 2011-09-26 12:35

      Moral issue? The only morals that are at play here are the ones instituted by the catholic (and other religious) churches to suit their own needs to control the masses. Get with the world I say. People need to live their own lives in their own way, so long as their is no harm caused to anyone else.

      Succubus - 2011-09-26 12:59

      PRKER, I'm afraid you are farting against thunder. What you have just said makes sense. The problem with that is, you have said it to religious zealots, who have long abandoned the entire concept of common sense, logic and anything else that roughly resembles rational thought.

      whereu - 2011-09-27 00:23

      Met, when chosen scripture contradicts your version of Christianity then I'm being selective. Your quotes which support your view, I suppose, are not selective. As for God's covenants, I suggest that you tell this to the families of the countless millions who have suffered and died in conflicts, natural disasters, famines, disease such as malaria.. and so on. I suppose that you going to tell me that this is Satan at work, and these people deserve their suffering because of some violation of some selected directive in scripture. Anyway, thank you, Met, for the opportunity to debate these issues.

      Met - 2011-09-27 06:29

      Whereu- We live in a sinful, dying and decaying world.Most, of whatever persuasion will acknowledge that. In fact, God did not promise an easy road.He said when, not if trouble comes. That is why Jesus, when He left this earth, said He was sending us a Comforter, the Holy Spirit to help us through these times.

  • Chris - 2011-09-24 23:23

    Typical of the Roman church: everyone must do as they say, and the laws of the state must enforce this. But, better than the old days; modern secular governments do not permit them their traditional response to difference: torture and mass murder.

      cerveza - 2011-09-25 07:17

      @Chris - I find it interesting to compare Stalin's rule of communism and the Pope rule of the Catholic Church and the similarities are astounding in their quest for preventing personal freedom and choices while claiming to be the only good thing in the world. The biggest "burner of fossil fuel" are complaining about "acid rain"

      Dee - 2011-09-26 08:19

      @ Chris, not everyone, but the people who are Catholic. You have the right to choose a way of religious life, and if you choose to live the Catholic way-that is the way it is...

      Succubus - 2011-09-26 17:21

      Dee, Unless you are a catholic 'priest' of course. If you are a Catholic priest, then not only is homosexuality okay, but so is pedophilia.

      RM012 - 2011-09-27 09:17

      PROUDLY-CATHOLIC: You're all so off the mark, it's ridculous reading these comments. In comparission to other Christian denominations and other religions, such as Judaism and Islam, Catholism is one of the most open and accepting of all faiths. We have many homosexual people in our church, all are treated as brothers and sisters in Christ and afforded the same respect and love anyone else is. The church seeks truth, and if that means sticking to a principle and being vocal about it, then I stand by it! For too long our societies have degenerated into pits of apathy, grey areas, liberal action and inequity. On the point (that seems to be coming up!) about Catholics priests being gay and paedophiles - if anyone in thier right mind actually thinks a church that has been around for 2000 years and boasts 1billion plus members, some of whom are the greatest intellects, historians, doctors, educators, and charitable givers of this age or the last, would condone this sort of thing, THINK AGAIN! We are JUST AS concerned about this problem as everyone else and we will do everything we can to route out this evil! The pope acts with sensitivity to ALL concerned, victims and acused - and in the propper manner. To act like a bull in a china shop would be unwise and cause more hurt. Honestly, the ignorance of some of the people on this page astounds me...Research the Catholic church and find out what we REALLY believe! PROUDLY CATHOLIC

      Succubus - 2011-09-27 12:58

      RM012 (aka PROUDLY CATHOLIC) You are more dramatic than a flaming queen who's just got out the closet. You should organise an annual catholic pride march.

      Dee - 2011-09-27 14:00

      @Succubus, I do not by any stretch of the imagination condone what those priests do. However it is getting slightly tiring that now all Catholics priests do it, A, and B that all Catholics agree with it. You get teachers who turn out to be sick twisted people, do we then turn against the institution? You can't. Sorry, thats my way of thinking...

      Forgiveness - 2011-09-27 16:30

      It is tragic for me to see all of the negativity heaped onto this comments page. The Catholic Church is open to all who wish to hear the message of Christ. It is the Church that reaches out to the poor and the needy, the lost and the forsaken. If the Catholic Church were to disappear then so would so much of the aid and charity given to the Third World. It seems so easy for people to throw stones, and while I am not condoning the actions of anyone who has committed such crimes(nor would any other Catholic) the Way of Christ is forgiveness and healing, not harbouring resentments and looking for the first victim to burn at the stake. I am sorry that people here see the Catholic church as something negative, since it is where I have found the love of Christ.

      Succubus - 2011-09-27 18:37

      You know whats even more tragic, ...or rather, 'amusing' ? Followers of religions and other silly systems of belief, telling every one else how evil they all are based on rambling quotations from their respective works of meaningless superstition, ...who 'then' act all hurt and disappointed when the people they insulted after all that come back and smack them back into place. If you don't like being abused by all us evil sinners, then keep your ridiculous theological drivel to your self. Or alternatively, send your ridiculous theological drivel my way, cos I get a kick out of smacking crap back where it came from. But please, if you going to support a silly statement like, "Catholics 'cannot accept gay marriage'", coming from a religious cult who's priests are, 'gay', 'pedophiles', ...then you need to just relax, not complain, and take it on the chin, ...because you 'know' you're going to get it from every angle.

  • marius.pieterse1 - 2011-09-24 23:24

    And this from a MIGHTY church? So how are we to believe that what was said in this bulletin is the truth?? Seeing the Vatican control all outgoing statements? Also how many times did we have to read about children have been abused by CATHOLIC priests? BUT once again the gay community have to pay for this?? Come on....maybe.... just maybe... open your eyes and look at whats happening around you....

      maceye - 2011-09-25 09:28

      How is the "gay community" paying for this. Have you ever been to a catholic church, all is welcome, not once do we find discrimination against homosexuals, this is more a WASP phenomenon, we are all sinners. Hate the sin, love the sinner. As for the abuse, most of the abuse is perpetrated against boys, which tells me one thing, these priests who hold these tendecies, hide behind the church in order to perpetrate their vile acts.

      Charci - 2011-09-25 11:35

      @maceye “ these priests who hold these tendecies “ What tendencies are you talking about? Homosexuality or paedophilia? Maybe you believe or are made to believe that they are one in the same evil (and I am not saying homosexuality is evil). If you honestly believe that then I don't have the words... “hide behind the church” Yes finally I agree with you on something. The church did a really good job of hiding these child rapists and giving them safe harbour, so these child rapists must have flocked to join.

      Succubus - 2011-09-26 17:25

      + Knock knock!! - Who's there? + Peter. - Peter who? + Peter File.

  • xto.cilliers - 2011-09-24 23:27

    Who is the so-called pope?

      Karoobloed - 2011-09-25 01:06

      The head of a religion with 2 billion followers. The "original" Christian church, and the only significant Christian church for over a thousand years. I am not a Catholic, but shall I go on?

      zaatheist - 2011-09-25 04:38

      The Don of the largest and oldest international criminal organisation in the World. The Catholic church, that's the Mafia in frocks! The same methods are employed by both organisations, in fact I believe the Mafia learned their tricks from the Catholic church. Fear Extortion Intimidation Protection racket

      Anton - 2011-09-25 06:52

      Zaatheist, I am a RC, but sadly to say, you are soo right, the RCC is nothing more than a criminal organisation. And what you mention; Fear, Extortion an intimidation, stems from one issue, and that is SECRECY. Like you are "forced" to confess your "sins" to ONE person!!! and its THAT what leads to the ABUSE. As soon as there is "secrecy" , the arms trade being a good example, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE ABUSE!!!!!

      AMS-Dammer - 2011-09-25 07:51

      LARGEST Real Estate owners on Earth is the Catholic Church! zaathiest.... you quite right on that the Catholic Church, is the Mafia in Frocks! 600 years ago, the Catholic Church was the SOLE OWNERS of the BIBLE, and THEY manipulated the Bible to suit their OWN WAYS!!!!! Until Guthenburg invented the PRINTING PRESS!!!!! Thats when the "CHURCH" fell out of favour.... and the Protestants were born.... also a load of dumb-ass SHEOPLE!

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-09-25 09:50

      Catholics are the original Christians? LOL Karoo, please, go read up a bit. The Coptic Christians are just about the oldest surviving christian church in existence.

      Kaizo - 2011-09-26 03:15

      @Martin Du Plessis - you need to do your research. The Coptic Christians came about during the 2nd century, that's about 200 years after Catholicism was founded. You probably got confused when you read The Copts are one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East, not the World...there's a big difference buddy.

      Karoobloed - 2011-09-26 03:25

      The Copts may or may not have preceded the Catholics, but, in the bigger scheme of things, was eclipsed in a relatively short time frame (relatively) by the Catholics. Non Catholics seem to enjoy belittling the Catholic Church which has been the dominant Christian Church for approzimnately 2,000 years. Many in the Protestant Churches (which I am a member of by birth) seem to miss the fact that if there is a Christian God, that that God used the Catholic Church to keep the flame of Christianity alive for almost 1,500 years. So for a Christian to sweepingly belittle the Catholic church, is to belittle a major vessel of Christianity. I am not arguing here with atheists or agnostics - as a skeptic Christtian I also accept their viewpoint a valid. I just happen to prefer the framework of Christianity to answer metaphysical questions and is e.g. totally OK with the Big Bang concept and evolution. I know that nobody can rightfully claim to have all the answers. Anyway this is not about insignificant me. I am just responding because I find it absolutely unacceptable that some Christian denominations seem to think they are better, or closer to the truth than others. Especially the new start-ups with relatively uneducated clergy.

      lacisnesnon - 2011-09-26 08:49

      The first Christians were the 12 disciples were they not? :)

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-09-26 08:58

      The Copts originated in the 1st century AD, the Roman Catholics were established in Rome in 300 AD when it was legalized by Emperor Constantine 1, making it the ROMAN Catholic Church.

      maceye - 2011-09-26 10:50

      Actually catholicism started on the day of pentecost, the very first bishops was catholic, therefore each and every priest can trace its origins directly to Jesus Himself. Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory beliefs. To see which is the true Church, we must look for the one that has an unbroken historical link to the Church of the New Testament. Catholics are able to show such a link. They trace their leaders, the bishops, back through time, bishop by bishop, all the way to the apostles, and they show that the pope is the lineal successor to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome. The same thing is true of Catholic beliefs and practices. Take any one you wish, and you can trace it back. This is just what John Henry Newman, an Anglican did in his book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. He converted shortly afterwards.

      maceye - 2011-09-26 10:51

      Furthermore, catholic, which means universal was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in 106 AD in order to make a distinction of other sects around that time. Before that they were only known as the disciples of Jesus Christ. After that they were known as Christians in 30 AD. Ultimately, however, different groups began to break off from the Christian community, falling into either heresy or schism.Consequently, a new word was needed to distinguish the Christians belonging to the Church that Christ founded from those belonging to the churches that had split off from it. The term that was picked was kataholos, which means according to the whole or universal in Greek. Ignatius of Antioch did not introduce kataholos. However, his letters contain the earliest known uses of it. It may well have been used in other Christian writings prior to this, but we have simply lost them. It certainly was in general use in speech before this point, because Ignatius writes in such a way that he already expects his readers to know this term and what it means. He also uses the term in more than one of his letters, meaning that he expects people in more than one place to know the term.

      allows - 2011-09-26 10:53

      These are the same people who harbored Nazi generals after the war. They house them and protected them from the law and courts, even after they murdered millions of people.

      maceye - 2011-09-26 12:05

      @allows, really, allowing Nazi Generals after the war. What are you smoking buddy. The catholic church saved up to one million Jews during the holocaust. They even referred to the then Pope as a rightous gentile. More importantly, all Jewish leaders at teh time hailed the church for its efforts during the war, even so that the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to catholicism. repeat a lie often enough, it usually becomes the truth.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 12:48

      @ Maceye - in 1947 the Vatican released an obituary of Adolf Hitler and called him a model Catholic. Now, Hitler was no Catholic, that's quite clear, but then why write that in an obituary?

      maceye - 2011-09-26 13:23

      @Matt, please show me the obituary. If this really was true, don't you think the press would of had a field day, oi. Talk about delusional.

      Succubus - 2011-09-26 13:39

      He's some old dude who wears a dress and a funny hat. Just ignore him, he's irrelevant.

      Kaizo - 2011-09-26 13:48

      @Martin Du Plessis - martin martin martin, you are truly dense. Catholicism was founded by Jesus Christ, the first Pope of the Catholic church was Saint Peter, who was one of Jesus's 12 disciples, meaning Jesus was alive when Catholicism was founded. The church was created shortly after Jesus's death, by Saint Peter. You don't know this because this is not your religion, and you never studied Catechetics. Just stop already, you making yourself look stupid.

      Kaizo - 2011-09-26 13:58

      @Martin Du Plessis - LOL I just saw this, you said the Catholic church was created in Rome in 300 AD ROTFLMAO! Saint Peter died around 64 AD, so how did the first Catholic Pope die over 200yrs before the religion was even created? *slaps forehead*

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 15:38

      @ Kaizo, Martin is correct. St Peter was NOT a pope. Catholic teaching claims Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, for 25 years, yet there is no historical or Biblical record of Peter ever having been to Rome, let alone its first Bishop. The first "Pope" was so named in 610AD by emperor Phocas. And Clement, 3rd Bishop of Rome, remarked that "there is no real 1st Century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

      Karoobloed - 2011-09-26 18:19

      The above exhanges clearly illustrates a major problem with believers. What they believe in is not a science, no one can prove their interpretation is right, but most/many claim they know better than others. The same problem exists amongst many non-believers - the non-existence of God can not be proven beyond any doubt, so swaggering about non-belief is also not that appropriate. I am a Christian, but I do not feel I know better than others, believers or non-believers. I hope I am not alone.

      whereu - 2011-09-27 02:54

      lacisnesnon, to the best of my knowledge what follows is the first recorded use of the word Christian (or a translated version thereof). Happy to be shown to be wrong. Acts 11:26 English Standard Version (ESV) 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

      Kaizo - 2011-09-27 13:12

      @Matt - both you and Martin are wrong. It's like I said before, you both never studied Catechetics, which is why you'll don't know the facts. Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter (meaning Rock), and on this rock I will build my Church." - this verse is found in pretty much every single Christian Bible around the world. The Catholic religion is an Apostolic Religion, meaning the Pope's of the church started from the Apostles. It was founded by Jesus Christ, and the church was formed by the Apostle Peter.

      allows - 2011-09-27 14:28

      maceye it therefore shows how two faced they are. If you ever watched the History channel on DSTV they had a series on how many Nazi's were protected by the Catholic Church and how many were assisted in fleeing Germany and hiden behind their walls.

      Succubus - 2011-09-27 23:10

      And lets not forget one of my favorites, the 30 years war in the 1600's. Where the catholics fought against the, errr, Christians!!! lol One of the most entertaining things the catholics used to do in the 1600's, was burn Christians at the stake for heresy. So keep that in mind next time a catholic, who practices the religion called catholicism, tels you that they are a Christian. Of course there is an explanation for this seemingly conflicting relationship between catholicism and Christianity. Christians practice a religion called Christianity, who's doctrine is fundamentally different to that of the religion called catholicism. Thats why these two religions have different names. Christianity and catholicism are totally different religions. From a doctrinal point of view, Catholicism is in fact much closer to being a cult or even full blown satanism, than it is anywhere even remotely similar to the religion called Christianity. Practitioners of both religions are delusional how ever. Catholics are simply 'twice' as delusional as Christians, since catholics have been deceived into believing that they are Christians, even though they practice a completely different religion with a completely different doctrine and name, catholicism. Christians have some hope of escaping the lunacy of religion, as I did. How ever, catholics on the other hand, are buried so deep in irrational religious tradition and ritualistic entrapment, that there is very little hope of escape.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-28 08:27

      @ Succubus. While we may differ on views, thank you for writing that. Which 30 year war are you referring to though? I grew up in Holland, and there the Spanish ruled with an iron fist in the 16-17th Centuries, they call it the 100 year war. Even after Holland got independence in 1648 and was free to be Christian (Protestant), there was still persecution by the Spanish Catholics right up to the 18th Century. This, by the way, is the VERY reason why South Africa has white people. After JvR set up a halfway point for the VOC, Protestants from Holland, Belgium (at the time part of Holland) and France fled Catholic persecution and landed up in SA (visit the Huguenot Museum in Stellenbosch). And indeed, many victims of the Inquisitions were in fact Christians who refused to "return" to Rome.

      Succubus - 2011-09-28 12:41

      Why thank you Matt. I had to Google it in order to refresh my memory. The 30 years war was fought mainly in what is modern day Germany. No real goal or reason for the war other than politically justified religious conflict of interest between the catholics and protestants in the region at the time.

  • Janine - 2011-09-24 23:29

    They won't accept gay marriages but do their best to sweep molestation of children by priests under the rug. Yet another reason why I'm against organised religion.

      Messenger - 2011-09-25 00:34

      Define "organised religion" for me, please.

      Janine - 2011-09-25 01:12

      Organised religion = people who claim to belong to a particular religion, follow its doctrines, attend its church etc. It's a common phrase - I'm surprised that you need clarification.

      zaatheist - 2011-09-25 04:43

      @Messenger Organised religion - When group of gullible people gather in groups to beg help from and lavishly praise an invisible Sky Fairy who grants wishes. Oh! I almost forgot. They takes loads of money with them to give to a smirking guy in a dress or a snappy suit.

      labanimal - 2011-09-25 08:54

      @ zaatheist - yea, loads of money, and they don't pay taxes I believe! Crowd control, that's all religion is while milking us!

      CrabSpotter - 2011-09-25 16:04

      @zaattheist you hate the catholics because you hate the church, bitterbek.

      Succubus - 2011-09-26 14:04

      Messenger, The definition for organised religion is the same as the definition for disorganized religion. Religion is both organised and disorganized at the same time, ...because thats how it rolls. And the definition for both organised and disorganized religion is as follows. Religion (both organised and disorganized), is a meaningless collection of primitive cultural systems, useless to totally destructive belief systems, and irrational world views that attempt to relate humanity to presumed spirituality and selective moral values. Religions employ rambling narratives, silly symbols, stupid traditions and self contrived sacred histories to give irrational meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe in the absence of simple common sense. Religions serve as a fear powered framework with in which to enforce selective morality, biased ethics, irrational religious laws and a dictated lifestyle from delusions about the cosmos and human nature. Does that answer your question?

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-09-28 09:35

      that's certainly AN answer, Succubus, and liable to make any fundies head asplode. XD

  • TK - 2011-09-24 23:32

    So slg, you seem to be an expert on the true love of God - what is it then? You probably don't know, so let me help you and point you to His "Love Letter", the Bible, the Word of God. There in black and white, it speaks against all forms of sexual immorality and perversion in both the Old and the New Testament, before, during and after the Law, just in case anyone might argue that what is said is not relevant. Love does not mean that there is no right and wrong or that anything goes. God's true love means that He loves mankind despite all the sin but as He is perfect and sin needs to be punished, He expressed His true love by sending Jesus to give up his life for us and pay for our sin. I sincerely hope that if you have not met him as your saviour, that you will. Before I sign off, I would love that Lycanthrope gives one example of a two Biblical Truths in conflict with each other. You are obviously not a Christian, which I assume by what you have written. So as a non-Christian, you can't properly understand the Bible anyway as you don't have the Hold Spirit to enlighten you. There are no contradictions in the Bible. And let's be careful to separate what people do and say in the name of religion and what truely stands in the Bible. It must really irk someone like you that after almost 2000 years, that Christianity continues to grow - amazing for primitive hogwash as you put it! In 2000 years the name of Jesus will still be preached and talked about, will people mention you?

      MKAM - 2011-09-24 23:45

      I couldn't have put it better myself...

      slg - 2011-09-25 00:29

      Hopefully it won't be talked about in the wrong way you and the church are talking and preaching about it now. it's flat out wrong, a tragic mythic tale written and re-written for political reasons, not spiritual.

      Messenger - 2011-09-25 00:37

      Amen. Praise the Lord!

      Warslat - 2011-09-25 02:37

      @TK, pay no attention to slg, she's very vague with the very few points she does make. Normally it's a one sentence politically correct, bunny-hugging empty remark. "one example of a two Biblical Truths in conflict with each other" 1 Turn the other cheek...Matthew 5:39 2 An eye for an eye...Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21

      zaatheist - 2011-09-25 04:46

      Ag shame! Hey god! There are some guys down here who think you exist. Not only that but they thinks they they are all really super special to you and you're out there in the universe concerned about their tough moments they cannot control or fix. God, they are down here on planet earth really depending on you as an imaginary friend who'll listen to their emotional outbursts during these moments when they are all alone needing someone to hug and comfort them.

      capetonian - 2011-09-25 16:09

      God's true love - you spoken to him lately...? People who hear voices in their heads are usually diagnosed as schizophrenic - religion is the correct term for a group of such people. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without proof!" There is a simple mantra that over-rides all the "rules" the "holy" book commands you to obey - and this was around long before Christianity - and that is: do unto others what you would have done unto you! We survived as a species by understanding the need for altruistic behaviour. And, incidently, this has been observed in troops of Bonobo apes, amongst our closest relatives...that's if you accept the evidence of evolutionary biology?

      CrabSpotter - 2011-09-25 16:12

      @zaatheist sorely disappointed are you, AG shame, He still listens to your rant and rave, waiting for your turn toward Him.

      Ozymandios - 2011-09-26 07:49

      @zaatheist - there is a verse in my Bible that says 'do not cast your pearls before swine'. That was what the Bible had in mind when it came to people like you. An aspect of the Bible that many people do not note is that it is a record of election, selection and REJECTION. And you mate are on the Rejection side. Good for you. I am not concerned about your interpretation of Christians or the Bible, When people like you one day get rejected then I cheer and do my soft shoe shuffle dance. I feel "vere" for you and your soul if you want to be that stupid and naiive. Then burn mate burn and I'll rejoice. As Christ said at the end of time 'Many many will shout Lord Lord' and he said He'll tun and say I never knew you. Now that is people who think they ARE CHRISITANS, AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE IT. NO HOPE FOR YOU MATE, AND GOOD RIDDANCE TO BAD RUBBISH. YOU DO NOT MOCK GOD MATE AND WALK AWAY FREE FROM IT. Trust me on that - people like you must suffer and I will not hold out a hand to your type and watse my time trying to correct your path of life. Burn buddy burn and see if I care.My Bible says if you get slapped on the one cheeck turn the other. That's correct. I'll abide by that but it does not say I must do it twice nor does it say I can't slap you back.But my snotklap ain't anyhting like the 'snotklap' you'll get at the end of time from someone that can really dish out 'snotklpas'. Ask the Money Lenders at the temple of some 2000 years ago.

      tailormade - 2011-09-26 08:18

      Interesting how people quote the Bible with such confidence, yet no person quotes the original Aramic/Greek texts. Why is this? Maybe because those texts don't even have the word "homosexuality". It speaks of promiscuity, rape, enslaved sex, beastiality. These acts occur both through heterosexuality and homosexuality. The word "homosexuality" is a relatively modern word....definitely not 2000 years old. But hey, don't take my word for it....go and read the original texts. Like they say: Lost in translation...

      Janine - 2011-09-26 08:41

      @ozymandios - is judging not a sin? From your rant at someone who doesn't agree with you I suspect that you are going to be rather warm in the "afterlife" too.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 09:33

      @ Capetonian - you associate believers with schizophrenia, but believe we came from apes. How deluded can you be? Firstly, there are other animals far more similar to humans. Secondly, what may seem a small DNA difference to you is in fact a massive difference. Just 1% difference in DNA equates to tens of millions of nucleotides difference - yet changing just 2 nucleotides is fatal to life.

      DW - 2011-09-26 10:15

      Ozymandios, I am afraid you are not ever going to win souls for the Lord with that attitude. My question to you would be, what would Jesus do? Please read 1 Peter 3:15-16 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. Sorry mate, but you show no gentleness, respect of good behavior in Christ whatsoever. You are the type which drives people away and you will have to answer to God for it one day.

      code - 2011-09-26 10:18

      Matt, we do not "come from apes", we ARE apes. I enjoy your comments on politics on these boards, but when one denies observable reality (read evolution), equipped with the tools you possess (read intellect), it becomes worrisome and a tad... dated. All biologists on the entire planet accept evolution as fact and agree that the theory of evolution adequately describes said fact. Perhaps stick to politics? Or at least make an effort to educate yourself on the subject.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 10:54

      @ Code. Firstly, I am not a lifelong Christian who denies theories out of faith. I used to be a God-mocking, Christ-hating atheist. "All biologists on the entire planet accept evolution as fact" Did you speak to them all before writing that? I actually know a biologist who is a crationist and rejects evolution based on scientific fact; but she has to keep her views quiet because she will lose her job. Also, consider this. Anyone in the field of biology, science, physics, chemistry, etc who dares question Darwinian Evolution is persecuted. There are thousands of such people who have lost their jobs and been barred from writing science journals simply for questioning evolution, not even promoting or believing in creation. So even if all scientists, biologists etc are surveyed and claim to believe evolution, what does that say? If you asked a professor in a communist country if they believe in communism, 100% would say yes for fear of their jobs. See the picture? When science journals, colleges etc enforce evolution-only and bar people of other opinion, then of course "they all support it". Plus, this implies majority rule, and often the majority are wrong. Plenty of examples in history. Also, plenty of examples of "evidence" proven wrong, fraudulent, impossible that are still used today as "proof". If it were an indisputable fact, then why lie to support the theory? Fair question. Variation within kind, fact - all else, unproven and thusfar unprovable...

      code - 2011-09-26 11:34

      Matt, science is self-correcting. If it wasn't, I can assure you we wouldn't be here communicating in this fashion. Your biologist need only to publish her findings, backed up by the evidence you claim she possess, to completely obliterate a 150 years of scientific finding! The question you should ask yourself is, why doesn't she? For fear of losing a job? Seriously!?

      legens - 2011-09-26 11:45

      Hey Zaatheist you forgot to mention that this imaginary friend also takes a personal detailed interest in what you think , eat(and when ), drink ,how you dress ,when you rest (sundays) and have sex (with whom and how), your vocabulary and plays all sorts of tricks on you to test you ( although he already knows the result).once in a while he throws curve balls at you (or his favourite trick ..small children ) ,or if he is really in a malicious mood , tornados ,earthquakes ,tsunamis , aids , cancer , war and then some really nice local representatives like some sicko who touches defenceless children . o my god , what a world.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 12:13

      @ Code - seriously! Just on Saturday I read of a chap in the UK called Michael Geiss. He's an evolutionist. But he merely mentioned that schools should considering teaching kids that besides evolution, some people believe in intelligent design. Pushed out of his job. There was another fellow in USA, he was a tenured professor. He was an evolutionist and also merely mentioned that maybe Darwin was wrong about something - they fired him. Lawsuit, he was re-employed - to clean test tubes. Another lawsuit, back in his normal job. There are many similar cases like this!!! The stories in this topic... EG Ernst Haeckel "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (gill slits in human foetus). He admitted, under trial, that he lied and it's all false. TODAY there are still scientists who teach it as truth. It's still in many textbooks and documentaries as truth. It was only proven/admitted as a deliberate lie in 1874... and the same lie/theory is used to justify abortion. Or horse evolution, proven wrong by evolutionists in 1950, still often cited as proof today. The theories are based on lots of assumption, incorrect data and, as one can still see today in the schools, false info given as indisputed facts.

      code - 2011-09-26 13:12

      Matt, until you've mentioned him, I've never heard of Haeckel's Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny theory. A quick online search and viola, I'm at least partially educated on the subject. It only confirms that which I've stated already. That science is self-correcting. Bad science is discarded and good science adopted. I call BS on your claim that his theory is to this day being taught as fact. Perhaps point me to such textbooks? You know, evidence to back up your assertions and such. The very same "forces" which led to exposing Haeckel's fraud is constantly at work against all scientific findings and theories. With regards to evolution, it has been found wanting for a 150 years. Disproving evolution is simple. Just point us to 50 million year old fossilised rabbit and that would be the end of the evil Mr. Darwin and his minions. Why this has not been done should at least compel you stop and reassess your current understanding regarding our origins.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 14:23

      @ Code - about 3-4 weeks ago I tackled a scientist who still defended it as true. I've watched documentaries (was it Nat Geo or discovery, it was 4 years back) that used "gill slits" as proof. "We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!" (Stephen Jay Gould, Abscheulich! (Atrocious!), NATURAL HISTORY, Mar. 2000, at 42, 44-45)." Also check http://www.discovery.org/a/3935 for a list of textbooks where it is still given as fact...

      code - 2011-09-26 15:04

      Matt, you keep providing evidence for the self correcting nature of science. The link you provided claims the last printed textbook of this is more than a decade old. 2004 draft versions were PRESENTED to the Texas board of education. Why wasn't it adopted? Because, (wait for it) SCIENCE IS SELF-CORRECTING AND DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANY BS. We can learn a lot from Stephen Jay Gould. A true scientist. Ask him whether he thinks evolution is fact or fiction. ;)

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 15:42

      @ Code - I would if he were still alive... he made some interesting statements though: ‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’ Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 127–128, 1977 Oh, and even if those few textbooks are a decade old, that is STILL 125 years after Haeckel's admission!

      whereu - 2011-09-27 03:09

      TK and others, you may enjoy this website. Met, and others, you may find this website offensive, so I suggest that it's not for you. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

      whereu - 2011-09-27 03:18

      Met, Scientists don't claim that humans evolved from apes but rather that apes and humans evolved from a common (now extinct) ancestor. Unfortunately the evidence also suggests that this common ancestor lived long before the biblical creation. There is a mountain of literature out there if you are interested.

      rantoftheday - 2011-09-27 11:04

      "In 2000 years the name of Jesus will still be preached and talked about, will people mention you?" People will also talk about Pol Pot and Hitler. Infamy has a habit of keeping one in the limelight. What about Allah? Do other religions not count in your eyes?

      Caramel85 - 2011-09-27 15:38

      Hi code, I know I come into this a bit late, nevertheless, I would like to make a point or two about your comment stating that creationists ought to publish findings which support a creationist explanation in peer-reviewed secular journals, should they wish the scientific community to take them seriously. This is a commonly used complaint, however it is somewhat unfair and disingenuous. Most secular journals (I would think probably all of them, actually) reject out of hand any paper that supports a creationist explanation. The very hint that a paper's conclusions may cast doubt on the currently held evolutionary dogma is enough to get a paper rejected. In fact, many journals openly state that they will not accept for review any papers with a creationist explanation. Yet, the secular establishment and yourself then challenges creationists to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, and then when there are (obviously) no such publications they say "Aha! Creationist ideas can't be real science because they're not published in any secular peer-reviewed journal!" So, it is a very unfair statement that you make. Nevertheless, should you be interested, there is a peer-reviewed creationist journal - Journal of Creation. You can find out more at creation.com. These are scientists (yes, with real PhD's) publishing their findings in the only place they are actually allowed to. So if you are open-minded enough, give it a read and decide for yourself. Kind regards.

  • Shaman Pete - 2011-09-24 23:37

    What is so evil about two people who love each other pledging their lives together? So what if they're the same gender. Religions have sowed division and fueled wars for centuries - deliberately keeping people ignorant while feeding the interests of the clergy. What would God think of the churches acting in His name. Ironically, Dhaoism is closer to the teachings of Jesus than modern Christianity. Opium of the people - one of the few things Marx got right.

  • labanimal - 2011-09-24 23:42

    Just because I love someone (of the same sex) its evil? There's nothing wrong with loving someone regardless of their sex! But I certainly do think its "evil" to molest young boys FATHER! No wonder you wear a robe, for quick access for your over the altar fix!

      proudandpink - 2011-09-25 01:41

      Well said!

      AMS-Dammer - 2011-09-25 07:57

      labanimal.......... WELL SAID! About time these ZEALOTS ACCEPT THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE ON THE EARTH and the WORLD DOES NOT EVOLVE AROUND THEM!!!!!!!!!!!

      Andrew - 2011-09-25 10:06

      Well said. And I have to admit, I have an easy attitude towards gays as I believe Nature is the "God" is ruthless in its trying to keep the population of one of its species down, and gays are one of its weapons. This is something that Nature pushes so those against gays should rethink and realise it is something they can't help and be more tolerant of them.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 09:34

      "About time these ZEALOTS ACCEPT THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE ON THE EARTH and the WORLD DOES NOT EVOLVE AROUND THEM!!!!!!!!!!! " I know... if only Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Honecker et al had taken your advice when creating atheist states and killing anybody who dared to not be atheist...

      code - 2011-09-26 10:25

      The people you mention were also a-fairyists and a-unicornists(people who lack a belief in fairies and unicorns) and using your argument, the lack of this belief might have been directly responsible for murdering millions of people. Brilliant logic.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 11:01

      @ Code - sorry but that's what happened in many cases. Stalin was a Georgian Orthodox, read Darwin and became atheist. He sais that killing a million people is like mowing the lawn - apply evolution and that is correct, for then we'd all be mere organisms, just chemical compositions and therefore what would the difference be between grass and human? Mao listed his favourite book as Origin of Species, went atheist and killed tens of millions. In the beginning he killed Christians alone at the rate of 15,000 a month, just for being Christian. North Korea, try visiting it (if you can, it's restricted) and bring along a Bible, just for fun. Karl Marx, loved God as a teenager, read Origin of Species, became atheist and founded Communism. You can look at any East-European country during Communism and see 1) the enforcement of atheism as the ONLY option, and 2) see what happened to believers of any religion during those times. Interesting too how once Communism ended in each country, how the masses flocked to religion.

      JConaPopsickle - 2011-09-26 13:02

      @CODE Using Matt's logic mustaches makes for mass murderers. For the record Hitler and Stalin were both Christians, prob not practicing Christians but Christians not the less. No wonder Matt is Christian he's got all of the non negotiable traits needed, dishonest and a severe lack of logical thinking.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 13:14

      @ Popsickle - are you kidding? Hitler called Christianity the biggest lie that ever existed, and Stalin BANNED it for well over 20 years. Now go read Archipelago Gulag and tell us again that Stalin was a Christian...

      RM012 - 2011-09-27 09:34

      PROUDLY-CATHOLIC: can someone please tell me where the Catholic church says it's EVIL to be gay, OR that homosexual people will go to hell??? Exactly! We don't say that! We accept all people as they are! We do stand up for what the bible and GOD teaches though - and it's about time someone did! I have many guys friends in my church, we love and respect them like brothers and sisters! Research your FACTS about Catholism first, before making inaccurate assuptions that are plainly wrong!

      Lanfear - 2011-09-27 10:53

      @ Matt - oh please! Hitler was NOT an atheist, finish and klaar. Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf" and later in a speech at the Reichstag said, "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." He was a creationist who saw Aryans as the lord's most perfect creation. As for Stalin and Mao, most people seem to assume that because they abolished religion, they must be atheists. In fact, they abolished religion in order to get more power, and religion was a rival power source. Stalin actually reinstated the church after Hitler invaded, because he thought it would help him. Even if any of these people were atheists, what would it say about atheists or atheism in general? I’ve never heard an atheist make the claim that because Hitler was a Catholic, Catholicism and Catholics are evil, which is exactly the way people use the Stalin/Hitler/Mao/whoever argument. However, put up against each other, religion beats atheism by several orders of magnitude in number of people killed. For example, it’s quite easy to make a really strong case that, if not for Christianity and its irrational hatred of the Jews up until the middle of the Twentieth Century, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened.

      rantoftheday - 2011-09-27 11:09

      Matt - if you want to read about genocide and rape take a peek at the Old Testament. God sanctioned it long before Hitler arrived.

  • gmckibbin - 2011-09-24 23:49

    "Merciless oppression"...just like your own treatment of gays, Mr. pope.

  • zane.wright - 2011-09-25 00:11

    That which doesn't change with the times, becomes irrelevant. This is no longer the dark ages Mr Popey. Hasten the irrelevance of this old fart! Oh and BTW, that old saying that goes: "remove the log in thine own eye before judging the speck in mine", that applies to you and your gay, kiddie fiddling criminal priests too... Just saying...

      Thermophage - 2011-09-26 12:07

      lol dude :P Now that's comedy! "remove the log in thine own altar boy" is what it should actually say...

  • JohnPicarra - 2011-09-25 00:14

    The Christian Church can not accept gay marriage and I also urged young people to root out evil in society and shun a deviant behavior that damages our society.

      zane.wright - 2011-09-25 00:18

      If you want to shun deviant behavior that damages our society, shun religion. How many wars, how many deaths, how many families in ruins in the name of God(insert relevant name)?

      zaatheist - 2011-09-25 04:48

      There is no difference between the current homophobes and the christian racist bigots who supported slavery 150 years ago and apartheid more recently. Christian racists now wish to apply the same discrimination against homosexuals and other people who differ from them. The bigotry and cruelty is identical. They have created a god in their own image and assigned their prejudice to that god, creating a god that shares their prejudice and who, then, sanctions and defends the unjustified harms that bigots like them would cause to "those who are different."

      AMS-Dammer - 2011-09-25 08:00

      zaathiest.... who says their Christ was not GAY? How can they tell??? How can they DENY? How can they PROVE that Jesus was not GAY????????? "IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS MAN.... and MAN CREATED GOD" - Ian Anderson, Jethro Tull, Aqualung 1973

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-09-25 09:54

      I urge all forward thinking people to "root out" as it were, blithering idiot fundi-christian/catholic bigots.

      CrabSpotter - 2011-09-25 16:17

      @zzatheist you are one sick puppy, coughing up so much vile.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 09:36

      @ Martin - "I urge all forward thinking people to "root out" as it were, blithering idiot fundi-christian/catholic bigots." So you claim tolerance by proposing the removal of anyone who differs from your view. Very clever bud... how very forward-thinking of you. So will you be emigrating to North Korea soon to be in your proposed heaven of atheism-only?

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 09:39

      @ Zaatheist - I'd suggest you actually do some research and study, but alas if it's beyond the realms of Wikipedia, you'd sooner choose to ignore it... maybe you can explain how the evolution theory does NOT justify racism when its own founder was extremely sexist and racist (if Origin of Species doesn't point it out to you, read the follow up Descent of Man). Racism was around before Darwin but seriously exploded afterwards as the theory justifies racism. Was it not Sir Arthur Keith (evolutionist) who admitted that the Nazi regime sought to strictly stick to evolutionary thinking?

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 11:02

      While we're at it, have a Google for a chap named Ote Benga. See what happened to him thanks to the evolution theory. Or the Aborigine, the Herero... in those cases, they used the evolution theory to consider them non-human and slaughtered them!

      zaatheist - 2011-09-26 11:17

      @Matt This article has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. I can but assume to drag in the subject because you are another professional (I make my money out of God) Christian playing to the bemused ignorant audience of tithers. I am sure know and understand evolution but deliberately carry on with your own version. Can't blame you really. After all, it is your meal ticket. Appearing monumentally stupid to educated folks is a small price to pay to collect all those donations from the ignorant tithers.

      Thermophage - 2011-09-26 12:08

      @AMS-Dammer: Exactly...who says christ was not gay. He did hang out with 12 guys and a prostitute. He was probably more gay than you know :P

      Thermophage - 2011-09-26 12:10

      @Matt :-): Lets not even get started on evolution. It happens FACT. It can be proven. It can be repeated in a lab. We may not always know WHAT we evolved from, but the fact that we DID evolve from something and are currently still evolving cannot be disputed.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 12:17

      @ Zaatheist - ad-hominem doesn't make you win the debate... btw I am not a paid professional, but thanks for thinking I am! @ Thermophage - that is not true, otherwise there would be no debate. You are now lying. Evolution can NOT be reproduced in a lab!!! The only solid evidence ever given is micro-evolution, and nobody doubts that. A dog can produce a variation of dogs, this is observed. It has never been observed that a dog produces a non-dog. So if you can prove that a kind can produce an entirely different kind, let alone the "fact" that we evolved from the primordial soup (listen to that! Your great-grandpa was soup!) there you go.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 12:20

      @ Zaatheist - I agree the article has nothing to do with evolution. But somewhere, people started bringing it in. And I just hate to see people make bold claims about stuff they read on Wikipedia and religiously believe it to be an indisputed fact.

      Flamewulf - 2011-09-26 12:24

      @ Matt: Evolution is fact. Get over it.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 12:51

      @ Flamewulf - OK, so you may now demonstrate proof that a reptile evolved into a mammal. After all, that's what the theory teaches, FARM...

      whereu - 2011-09-27 10:03

      Met, if you really want to know what evolution is about, please DYOR. You can't expect people who post here to do it for you. Naturally, you have every right to reject the theory, but I would like to request that yo do so from knowledge rather than from it (evolution theory) tramping on your religious sensibilities. Personally, I don't think that the theory of evolution proves or disproves the existence of God. I am put off Christianity not because it offends me. To the contrary, I think that there is a lot of good in it. For example, unconditional love, grace, love your enemies etc. Jesus is recorded to have spent a lot of time with the outcasts of his time and condemned the self righteous. I am put off by Christianity by those who assume the role of God by thinking that they have the right to condemn. If we let God be God and focus on compassion to our fellow human beings irrespective of what we think of them, Christianity may be rekindled

  • Richard - 2011-09-25 00:33

    Wonderful to see the Holy Father in his homeland of Germany. Our prayers are with him. R.Nye, Veritas Christi High School

      Kukushe - 2011-09-27 12:28

      Holy Father?? He's only human, just like you and me! I would never understand the Catholics, worshipping a man instead of god,

      Janine - 2011-09-28 09:16

      Indeed - isn't there something in the bible about not worshipping false gods?

      maceye - 2011-09-28 12:45

      We respect the ofice he holds and not the man. The same way you would salute the rank and not the man in the army, or you call a Judge your worship/honour. As for the pope, he is a sinner just like the rest of us.

  • revsusanrussell - 2011-09-25 00:44

    Catholics already don't "accept divorce." We've got a First Amendment that protects their right to believe whatever they want to about marriage. We also have a First Amendment that protects us from them writing their theology into our Constitution. The Reverend Canon Susan Russell Pasadena CA

  • mabsie - 2011-09-25 00:45

    Oh dear, HOLY father talking about rot. Start at home. There are plenty of your fathers full of rot.

  • Jeff - 2011-09-25 00:53

    Jesus christ

  • Frank - 2011-09-25 01:08

    Mmmm. Does Islam condone gay marrage? Do they change their mind as time goes on? NO, Islam is the SAME, YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW. I

      proudandpink - 2011-09-25 01:44

      You're right, Islam doesn't change. It's as sick today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow.

      zane.wright - 2011-09-25 02:07

      Who actually cares what Islam condones or not? Because once a child is murdered in the name of religion, all the beliefs of that religion cease to hold any meaning with me, and any sane person left on this planet.

      Anton - 2011-09-25 08:01

      Frank, Whatever thoughts you may have re Muslims and Jews, these dispicable stories coming out of the RCC, one most certainly don't hear coming out of Synagogues and Mosques!!

      JasunX - 2011-09-25 08:05

      @proudandpink - and I hate to be more truthful than you are seeing that this is a religious debate, but you are as ignorant today, as you were yesterday.

      x - 2011-09-26 08:23

      What is your point? This article is about the Pope and the RC church.

  • James Lohman - 2011-09-25 06:13

    I am doing research for a research paper and need some ANONYMOUS information from you. The topic is Gay Marriage, please take just a moment to answer some ANONYMOUS questions for me: http://survey.jameslohman.com/index.php?sid=39195&lang=en

  • Agent - 2011-09-25 07:04

    For once I agree with the Catolics.

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-09-25 09:56

      What, feeling insecure about the increase in temptation lately? THINK OF THE BOOBIES, MAN!!!!

      cameronrh1 - 2011-09-25 15:35

      Lol yea i think agent is starting to feel insecure about his own sexuality that he has to try and supress others...

      x - 2011-09-25 21:52

      Why? More gay men, less competition for you and more women to choose from.

      Thermophage - 2011-09-26 12:14

      you bloody agent!

  • Nico - 2011-09-25 07:41

    What is this with religious people that they can't think and decide themselves anymore????? They are hypnotize in a world of something, every Sunday morning I see this when I pass these churches. It normally only LAST for an hour or so. After that it is drinking, killing, sex with a prostitute, swearing, the list go on and on. BUT for an hour, well well....

      labanimal - 2011-09-25 08:45

      ...and then there's the non acceptance of using Condoms in the Catholic Idiocy! The Pope and his "Pedophilia frenzy clan" hoping to get another infectious bareback romp with the kids! I place the Catholic leadership (and any other religious group who condemns) in the same category as the Jehovah's Witness - Forcing once's beliefs on others I will always shun! I will make up my own mind what I believe, not what some homophobic closet-case dictates! The Catholic hypnotized can forgive their sins sitting in a box - a quick fix to a false forgiveness! I say don't do wrong in the first place, Love who you want, live how you want, don't hold hatred or harm others! Be accountable for your mistakes! You certainly don't need religion to use your head! (No FATHER, not that HEAD) What a Farce!

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-09-25 09:58

      Ever notice the similarities between Jehovah's witnesses and the Sith? You always see them go about their business in pairs, a master and an apprentice.

      Andrew - 2011-09-25 10:08

      @Martin du Plessis I thought they went in pairs for protection :-)

  • Vik VM - 2011-09-25 08:03

    Religion was and is used to oppress free people minds and is a constant break in the progress and development of humanity as a whole. Probably without it we were going to cure cancer, live on Mars, for example, and even flying further for a long time by now. It was and is extremely REGRESSIVE force in all its forms - various(causing wars and hatred) readings of a ... decided by voting few hundred years ago "new testament", or re-written by a speculative and calculative, middle aged "prophet" or even "scientifically" followed by "mission impossible" heroes... The Pope and his cohort are ones of the most hypocritical clowns there... (after the "mission impossible" personnel probably :-)

  • wilana.olivier - 2011-09-25 08:13

    "He urged them to root out all forms of evil in society and not to be "lukewarm Christians", saying that lack of commitment to faith did more damage to their church than its sworn enemies" This is a very dangerous statement. It reminds me of the time of the "witch hunts", the inquisition and the time when the church employed secret societies to "root out evil". Is history repeating itself? Once groups of people with a common belief and goal starts getting it into their heads to "seek and destroy" enemies of the church, the church will not take responsibility for their actions, these groups or individuals acted all on their own. You want to know what these people REALLY can do...go ask the Pagans, they are pretty well versed in the history. Forget gay marraiges and other nitty gritty stuff, looking at the bigger picture, the Pope's statement just gave the signal that hunting season is open. Coming from the head of an institution that survived over thousands of years and still holds so much power, one can not but shiver a bit. To all the ppl before me going on and on about religion, THIS is not about religion, the RC does not only have their finger in that pie, they have more fire power (under the umbrella with a diff name) in political affairs, financial institutions etc. This is not about religion - this is all about POWER. We are living in very interesting times - indeed.

  • maceye - 2011-09-25 08:23

    Well done for ratifying what the church already holds as true. The church cannot be swaed by public opinion. The word of god is not a democracy, its an absolute truth given to us by our saviour Jesus Christ. All the church scandals being trumped up by the liberal media is nothing but a smoke screen in order to weaken the church. I have news for those who attempt to discedit the church, from the words of Jesus himself, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". As for the small percentage of priests who stins the church with its acts, Jesus Himself said when referring to the pharosees, "do as they say, but not as they do, because they sit on the chair of Moses". In other words, the church has always been the voice of reason, it upholds the teachings of Christ, however, even though some of its members are unchristian in its acts, this will never discredit its message.

      labanimal - 2011-09-25 09:03

      LOL what a load of tripe! you should take your maceye out of your macarse!

      wilana.olivier - 2011-09-25 09:10

      Point? Do people act upon what is written in the Bible (that so by the way was first written by the RC) or do they follow the religion? The Bible is full of very useful and good advise, but once any institution gets hold of it and force their intepretation upon the people as TRUTH, the problems start. If religion was to be true, there would only be ONE church not 1000's! Religion became politic and that is a major problem. Just as with politicians, one looses faith in them. Once people start killing in the name of a God/Institution/belief/what ever - I am not interested anymore. Power and figures are what counts for these people and nothing else.

      maceye - 2011-09-25 09:20

      You absolutely right, there should only be one church, and thats the catholic church, all other denominations have som truths, but not the fullness of the truth. Everyone reads the bible with their own traditions, and come to different conclusions, all claiming the holy spirit guided them to it. The case in point is anglicanism, it can't agree as what it believes anymore, as there is no final arbiter. Unlike the catholic church, which speaks with one voice. Jesus started a church and not a book. The bible, although the Holy word of God, it is there to support the teachings of the church, given to us by Jesus Christ, and not the other way around.

      Oxygen - 2011-09-25 09:40

      Please refer to what labanimal suggested.

      wilana.olivier - 2011-09-25 09:43

      Your baiting me does not work...I said what needed to be said and I have plenty other constructive things to do today...so by the way...why are you not at mass or saying a 100 Hail Mary's for your sin instead of spewing nonsense? Really!

      labanimal - 2011-09-25 10:26

      @wilana.olivier I so agree! There is some really good advise in the bible, which also translates into simple common sense! I simply do not believe! Its much discussion I don't really care to get into... But I do believe for those who hang onto their faith, that it makes them stronger, it grounds them, Its the good advise that they aspire to and pray for! Its the discriminatory factor that churches preach that I have a problem with, and this rubs off on its followers! Blind Faith!, and that some churches including the Catholics and maceye over here command that you only believe in their faith, one single faith! Your faith has made you so narrow minded that it comes off hateful, spouting verses from the bible like you're pulling cue cards from your ar$$ - Really now!..., some of us have brains, we're fully in command of that organ! We know what's right from wrong, and we have full view of what's good, and full of love!, but the type of God that you aspire to will never have place in my life!

      x - 2011-09-25 22:07

      Wow the arrogance of believing your church is the only corre t one and all other believers are wrong.

      tailormade - 2011-09-26 08:30

      Maceye, Did I read correctly: The Bible is there to support the teachings of the church....and not the other way round? If so, wow!!!!! Talk about deluded arrogance.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 12:31

      @ tailormade - no, just a centuries-long attitude that followers cannot interpret the Bible, only clergy can... May I just point out that Catholic teaching dictates - even this current pope reiterated it 2 years ago in public - that the RCC is the one true church because in Matthew 16:18, Peter was called the rock upon which the church was built, and they claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome for 25 years. They fail to mention that in 16:23, Peter is called Satan. The verses clearly refer to Peter's words/attitude. 1) There is no proof, Biblical or historical, that Peter ever WAS in Rome, let alone its bishop 2) Would Rome have a bishop during a time where Christianity was illegal? 3) The post of "Pope" was started out of spite in 610AD by Phocas. 4) Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome." And read Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11 RCC was started because Roman emperor Constantine ("the great") saw a crucifix in the sky and became Christian, and by Roman law all citizens of Rome had to do whatever the Emperor commanded, did or believed. So they sent missionaries to the pagans all over the empire, they refused to accept Christ, so the RCC incorporated their pagan beliefs into "Christianity" to appease them. Why else would they start worshipping Mary as from 436AD?

  • GREEN BEAN - 2011-09-25 09:48

    As a gay married man, I do not judge the catholic or any other homophobic church (N.G.K. included). Pray for me as a "sinner" because that is what you all teaches and I will not speak out against the moral injustices and discrimination of certain churces, especially catholic. Who's the biggest sinner here ? Maybe I should pray for you, but then how can you ask me to believe in an unjust christian church, where some are more equal than others.

      x - 2011-09-26 07:46

      Interestingly, statistics just released from the UK authorities shows that, since civil partnerships have been allowed there which was 5 years ago, hetero marriage is more than twice likely to end in deivorce than gay civil partnerships.

  • Rightway - 2011-09-25 09:49

    zaatheist - September 25, 2011 at 04:38 The Catholic church, that's the Mafia in frocks! The same methods are employed by both organisations, in fact I believe the Mafia learned their tricks from the Catholic church. .................... I agree with your comment. However it is not just the Catholic Church today that uses Fear, Extortion, Intimidation,and Protection racket. Take a look at the mega churches in Randburg and the East Rand and you will see, that they make the Mafia look like school boys. If this, if that, if you don,t pay your tithes etc. They are even putting some idiot to preach from the pulpit, who went to hell for twenty minutes to scare every body that if you do not conform you will burned and tortured for ever. There senior Pastors buy cars and jets and houses fit for Kings. In this day and age there is no place for legalistic religion. They have some good points but mostly bad.

  • Rightway - 2011-09-25 09:57

    Religion started with fear and ignorance and is perpetuated through fear and ignorance.

  • Andrew - 2011-09-25 09:59

    No children possible to become Catholics. By the way, the most evil people in the world are those who deliberately spread aids. Discuss:

  • Vince York - 2011-09-25 10:17

    Wonder what the Vatican expounds these days about the ANC in SA which rode on the back of the church and hid amongst the folds of it's cloaks for centuries as it gathered momentum - only to now chummy up with money grubbing churches instead.

  • jeffreyLynnJohnson - 2011-09-25 10:43

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

      labanimal - 2011-09-25 10:48

      LOL ;))

      Margaret2 - 2011-09-25 16:50

      That is so UNoriginal, and so out of context! There were certain laws specifically for Old Testament Israel which were to indicate their separation from those who were not part of God's Covenant. These were totally distinct from the moral laws. When people keep on repeating that garbage, they merely show their ignorance.

  • jeffreyLynnJohnson - 2011-09-25 10:43

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9... I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

      Rightway - 2011-09-25 11:44

      Christians cherry pick from the Bible. So those verse,s you quoted are not in their Bible. They tell you that the Bible is the word of god and the next minute they tell it is not for us. Reading the Bible will make you mad. Christians know how to rationlise even though Jesus said they should be like children. It helps to be a theologian. However most of them lose there faith when they study the bible. God,angles,demons, devils in it cannot rise above the knowledge of the people of that time. This proves that mankind created god and the Bible, and the Koran and all religions.

      Margaret2 - 2011-09-25 16:51

      That is so UNoriginal, and so out of context! There were certain laws specifically for Old Testament Israel which were to indicate their separation from those who were not part of God's Covenant. These were totally distinct from the moral laws. When people keep on repeating that garbage, they merely show their ignorance.

      x - 2011-09-25 21:56

      Oh poor margeret trying to defend the cherry picking of modern day fools

      Colin - 2011-12-11 18:48

      So the question is, how funny is that? Young children do it; for instance laughing their heads off as they push a friend into the traffic path - they really have no idea. Literally. They're just kids, right? Sometimes they choose to do things that are very very dangerous. It's because they're living in a world about which they understand very little. So why has there always been throughout history, the concept of a "spiritual" component to life. Granted it's a scary topic to address - finding out the truth might have some major ramifications regarding how you should probably live your life. Perhaps better to not know? Head in the sand could be good. Those stories about needles in dolls in South American jungles, the effects that real witches can have on people, the powers that can be suffered via ouija boards.. get out there if you don't already know, that stuff is real. There's plenty of indications that there's a spiritual side to life. Knowing the bad stuff is real, means of course that also there really is a God, a Creator. Your Creator. Christians believe (well they know of course - it's part of their spiritual journey), that the Bible is the "inspired" Word of God.. A message from our Creator for all of humanity. Perhaps it's worth suggesting to you that, given that many many people around the world believe this to be the case, wisdom should dictate that you at least check it out. Making fun of one's own Creator's message of guidance and salvation? 0/10. :|

  • Wernher - 2011-09-25 10:57

    As early as Genesis, the Bible clearly states that God condemns homosexuality. If you don't believe in God, then it's your believe and so be it there is no point in arguing about religion, the blind will never see the light. Do you really think that this life is all that life is about, do you really think that things are the way they are because of chance, of some evolution or big bang theory and that man can explain and understand everything, how foolish! We don't understand a fraction of what is out there, and yet everything out there exists and works without pause and without fail and although there are those who think they know, in reality they can't even begin to understand. The choices in life you take is yours to make that's why we have free will and can do as we choose, but must accept that there are consequences on the choices we take in life.

      Rightway - 2011-09-25 11:50

      So according to you and the Bible creation myth the earth is six thousand years old. Oh really. Do you really think so? What about all the scientific evidence which proves you and the Bible are liars. Facts plus evidence equals TRUTH (Science) facts plus lack of evidence equals LIES (Religion)

      x - 2011-09-25 22:44

      When did you choose to be heterosexual?

      Ching Ching - 2011-09-26 09:38

      Wernher - no one is so blind as those who do not want to see. Yes, this life is all that life is about. I agree with you, we do not understand a fraction of what is out there, but WE are at least making great strides in attempting to find out, not living by some sort of ignorant code: I do not have to find out how it works, god made it so, and that's that. I cannot believe that you are threatening me for not believing in what you do. Who the hell do you think you and your god are to threaten me with "consequences" if I dare not choose what you have chosen? Stupid ignorant fool. Unfortunately it takes all kinds to make this world go round.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 09:45

      @ Rightway - somehow I doubt you've ever bothered to see if science supports the Biblical account. You'd be amazed to see it does. Now maybe you can come up with some hard scientific proof of Big Bang and evolution. Let's see... so the Big Bang was a dot (nebula, infinitesimal region). Where did the dot come from? It spun - how do you apply centrifugal force in "nothingness"? And how do you form the "dot" or indeed stars, planets, when 1) matter cannot be created or destroyed and 2) the gathering of matter requires immense energy and Boyle's Gas law drives matter apart (and in the Big Bang case, makes it impossible)? Applying the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, why does everything not spin in the same direction, nor is comprised of the same chemical make up? Why is the sun's structure almost the exact opposite of the planets? Seeing how you profess to know enough science to relegate the Genesis account, I am sure you can explain this to us dumb Christians, can't you?

      arthur.amgen - 2011-09-26 10:26

      @Matt You are obviously a committed Christian. I envy you. The fact that you can switch off your logic center in the brain "god" gave you is admirable. I can only do that when i go to sleep and dream i am flying. go to this site http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html and see what scientist think about what you are suggesting.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 11:15

      @ Arthur - that's hardly an unbiased source... even if you reject scientific laws, there is still one question - where did the dot (nebula, infinitesimal region) come from? And do you really belive that once upon a time, nothing exploded and here we are? (remember that the "new theory" is that the particle was 1-trillionth the diameter of an atom...) Christians: In the beginning, God... Big Bang: In the beginning, dirt... I haven't switched off my logic at all. If anything it's switched on now. I come from a country that is fast becoming atheist, grew up in another country where many are now atheist, I was educated in the atheist manner and yet here I am, a Christian. So after 25 years of only-atheism, why would I "switch off my logic" - could it be I saw something that turned it on?

      Thermophage - 2011-09-26 12:37

      @Matt :-): Here is your HARD scientific proof of evolution...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment AND http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ Perhaps you will be selective in reading. But I doubt the hand of god came down to make these two identical bacterial stranes diverge on two different evolutionary paths...

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 12:57

      @ Thermophage. Thank you! My point exactly. MICRO-evolution. It's adaptation, it's mutation, but it is still a bacteria. No new DNA has been added. The Bible doesn't disagree - "variation within kind". If you want to show REAL evidence of evolution, show the e-coli evolving into a fish. After all, that's your theory - from bacteria to fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal.

      OnlyaGinger - 2011-09-26 13:36

      @ matt Do you believe Carl Sagan was a liar? Have you ever watched or read 'cosmos'? You seem like a relitively smart, albeit delusional individual, maybe his work can open your eyes where others have failed.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 14:28

      @ Ginger - a man whose explanation of cave drawings of dinos, statues and depiction of dinos, is to say that the images were lodged in ancient man's brain for millions of years and suddenly leapt out of their subconscious, is a man who is seriously grasping at straws to avoid the inevitable answer.

  • Thomas - 2011-09-25 11:42

    Well done Pope Benedict - keeping true to the bible against the age old detractors

  • Messenger - 2011-09-25 13:01

    I see the God-deniers Club is going bananas on this forum. How predictable!

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 11:19

      Going by Darwin's statement in Origin of Species, all animals and plants are related - so quite possibly, the deniers are actually related to bananas ;-)

      Thermophage - 2011-09-26 12:39

      Well...we are related to banana's. One can;t really deny that. Just very very distantly related :P

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 12:59

      See what I mean... don't forget to say 10 Hail Darwins now

  • max24424 - 2011-09-25 13:50

    i am totally against gay marriage because everyone is being called whether we like it or not to be role models for people around us.We have influence that can shape our world to be better or make it more evil.It the choice we choose.The question that bothers me is that gay marriage can influence our youth to say that yes gay marriage is correct and a way of life and we can just abandon the concept of being with an opposite sex and having kids with that person.A child always needs a man and female in his/her life.if it a boy,he looks up to the dad to be the man he is about to become,his mom,looks at the quality of woman that he will love to be his wife when he reaches that age when he want to settle down.in the female perspective,the father of the daughter looks at the man she wants to marry,the mother of daughter is going to be about the type of women she wants to become when she becomes an adult.So if we break this,we are only causing more problems about relationships with and with opposite sex.The point is that it not about us or me,it about perserving our future generations that they too can value and share the same concept we had with our kids.

      semaj - 2011-09-25 14:05

      Get over it max24424, most gay people will probably not want to adopt or have a surrogately parented child. However, I know of gay people who have successfully brought up a child who has turned out to be horribly "normal" in every aspect and an absolute credit to their upbringing and superior education both academically and socially.

      Nico - 2011-09-25 17:56

      @max24424.... since when is / are straight people a good role model for children??? Everyday there are murders. Everyday there is drinking , hitting your wife, the list is soooo long. Is that what you want to teach children? Bloody hell, that aint no role models........

      x - 2011-09-25 21:59

      Some people are gay... Quite a lot actually. They are also kids and are born the way they are. Can you change your orientation to be gay? Neither can a gay kid.

  • Xena - 2011-09-25 18:04

    And Gays cannot and WILL NOT accept paedophilia!!!

      GHL - 2011-09-25 23:55

      How ironic. 70% of American homosexual men believe that paedophilia laws are too strict, that it should be removed from the list of psychiatric disorders and that the age of consent should be lowered. The bid to normalize paedophilia is following the same strategy as the bid to normalize homosexuality. Paedophilia will be legal in the West within the century, all in the name of freedom from religion, non-discrimination and sexual liberation. The Church at least acknowledges the grave evil of paedophilia and has taken more measures to root it out than any government has taken with its own employees. This is to be expected, since the secular world considers morality as completely subjective and arbitrary.

      labanimal - 2011-09-26 07:20

      @GHL Where's your proof? Hmmm??? -Idiot!

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 09:48

      @ GHL - I agree. You should see, as an example, Holland. They even have a political party fighting for kiddie-fiddler rights and to lower the age of consent to 12. Already due to a loophole one can have relations with a 12-year-old without prosecution there. The Dutch attitude in general is "if they don't do it in my house, let them do it if they want" so though they may resist it now, eventually they'll allow it under human rights or tolerance.

      Charci - 2011-09-26 10:11

      @Matt- “The Dutch attitude in general” Where do you even get this from? Some dark corner of your mind? Now you want to link the Dutch “in general” to paedophilia. This from the Guardian: Such ideas have proved too much for 82% of the Dutch population, who want the government to outlaw the party(the Paedophile party) according to a recent opinion poll. Publicity for the party last month provoked such a backlash that one of its founders had to flee a caravan park after receiving threats.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 10:23

      @ Charci - I spent almost 14 years in Holland. I grew up there and lived there as an adult. I think that qualifies me to know something about the Dutch... and yes, that general attitude I mentioned IS how most Dutch people are, this has been the case in a whole range of issues.

      Charci - 2011-09-26 10:35

      @Matt- I am interested to know how you go about finding a 'general attitude' about paedophilia?

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 11:23

      @ Charci - I said "their attitude IN GENERAL". Not just on one topic. And punishment of sexual offences is not very harsh over there. Actually, punishment in general. The worst you'll ever get is 20 years in jail, even if you've mass-murdered and raped the victims. Sexual offences aren't punished much. I cite my former teacher (later headmaster) who was found guilty of sexual assult against a few female pupils (minors!). Six-month suspended sentence, a small fine and he obviously lost his job. BTW, I'm glad 82% of them hate the political party, but that's still 18% who support their rights! Give it a couple of decades and we'll take again...

      Charci - 2011-09-26 12:52

      Sorry, since you were agreeing with GHL that society is trying to normalize paedophilia (don't know how you arrive at that conclusion), I thought you were discussing the 'Dutch attitude in general' towards that specific topic. Since we are now discussing only the 'Dutch attitude in general', would you therefore say, that in future, Dutch society will reach a point where they will eventually allow and find murder acceptable as well, as long as "if they don't do it in my house, let them do it if they want" ? 18% support the party. How many of those 18% would you think were pranksters, paedophiles and 'dirty, old men who want to have sex with teen aged girls'? Yes, I agree, Dutch law is not so harsh. Would be interesting to have an opinion poll in Holland regarding that. I know that in the UK, law is also lenient and most Brits want it changed.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 13:07

      @ Charci - honestly, I don't know. Though they already accept abortion and euthanasia. Weird country though. They allow that party to exist - personally I'd round them up and have them arrested, but in NL they're protected under freedom of opinion. Racist parties are allowed to exist and even get airtime on TV to voice their manifesto. Yet they ban Mein Kampf as hate speech - which I can understand, except that those studying WW2 can by law not study WW2 properly - which is dangerous if you can only have 1 side of the story (not saying Hitler was right at all, but if you can only study 1 side of the story, you can easily turn that story into whatever you want it to be - I read the book though and if anything it made me loathe the man more). When I was last there, there were people begging for more conservatism because NL has become TOO liberal, but the idea is still very much "as long as you don't do it in my house"... which is also dangerous, as you pointed out with the murder case. If the murderer and victim are both consenting, is it actually wrong... by normal logic, yes but by that logic, no. And this actually happened in Germany a few years ago btw - a guy met another guy on the internet, had relations, then the one killed the other and ate his parts. But because it was consensual, he was only found guilty of "disturping the peace of the dead"... weird!

      Charci - 2011-09-26 14:04

      Sorry, I admit I am a bit lost with what you are trying to say in your comment. You don't like Holland, that much I have gathered. And you honestly believe, if you allow euthanasia, it will eventually lead to a tolerance of murder no matter what the circumstances? According to you, consent AND circumstances(terminal sickness) are a none issue. The cannibalistic man you describe was on the 10 May 2006, in Frankfurt, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Look it up if you wish. I would have thought circumstance would have something to do with that conviction and not only consent. Bottom line: So you believe that accepting homosexuality will lead to a tolerance for paedophilia?

      x - 2011-09-26 14:22

      What utter crap. I don't know ONE gay person who thinks peadophilia is even remotely acceptable and should not be punishable by the full extent of the law. Equating homosexuality with peadophilia is just one of the tricks of bigots - specifically when you consider that the avst majority of cases of child abuse is committed by hetero men.

      Charci - 2011-09-26 16:39

      @Matt- Let me try to sum up your posts very briefly: The Dutch(in general) allow gay marriage, therefore the Dutch(in general) are crazy and evil. Since they are evil, they also accept paedophilia(in general, of course). Since they accept paedophilia their whole moral standing will collapse along with their country's laws(in a few decades). Is that what you are trying to say, minus the bs?

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 16:58

      @ Charci - did I say that? There is plenty I can tell you about life in Holland, but that's for another day...

      Charci - 2011-09-26 17:22

      @Matt- I am not here to discredit you or ridicule you. Being a survivor of child sexual abuse I get really offended when someone creates similarities between homosexuality and paedophilia. THERE IS NO COMPARISON WHATSOVER. I am not homosexual but I have seen many homosexuals in committed, loving relationships. Even had a close friend who was homosexual, really good guy. THERE IS NO WAY POSSIBLE you can even compare them to someone who forces themselves onto a child. That is why I am so outspoken about this.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-28 08:43

      @ Charci - I decided not to continue on this article as it's getting very long, but felt the need to reply to your comment. I'm very sorry to hear of your ordeal and applaud you for making it this far in life - such abuse often destroys people. Someone dear to me also experienced that in their family, and even rape outside the family. It broke her down for years, but she turned to God and found the strength through Him to forgive the offender. It set her free to have a normal life, no longer having to re-live the offense. In a separate case, I know a lady whose daughter died of horrible illness, and as she was angry, found an old book with words that spoke directly to her; she turned to God, found comfort knowing her daughter is in Heaven, left her job at the bank to run a successful creche (where our son goes to). Personally, I have many complaints about Holland as a country and society, having grown up there and even returned as an adult. For 13 of 14 years I endured vicious, repeated racism (verbal and physical). It took me many years to get over it and I couldn't. I was also suffering nightmares about being forced to return. I turned to God and was able to forgive and move on. I don't hate anybody, even the Dutch ;-) but I lament what Holland has become. From 1988-2001 I saw it become worse and worse and in 2008 I was just disgusted with many things in general. Forgiveness is vital! Even if the other doesn't deserve it. Forgiveness, and the Truth, SHALL set you free!

      Charci - 2011-09-28 10:37

      @Matt- Thank you for your message, it is taken with sincerity. Matt, people turn to God in different ways. Facing severe depression, I finally felt I had to listen to and trust what my heart was telling me. Going through the doubt, fear and pain was extremely difficult. Eventually I wanted to be kind and help other people as it felt right. That is my Truth of being closer to God and it set me free. It is my personal experience and it is not something I can debate. However I cannot accept homosexuality as being wrong. Witnessing the challenges including attempted suicide of a close friend, it just feels in my heart, incredibly wrong to judge someone on their sexual orientation. The choice to forgive is in the heart of every person. But it does not mean to forget. Yes, I am still angered by how the Catholic church is dealing with its past. All I want is ACCOUNTABILITY. All I want is for the Pope and anyone else accused of these crimes and/or allowing it continue, to answer PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY to these allegations. I refuse to accept blanket statements from the Vatican. No more hiding behind the Vatican. The rape of a child and allowing it to continue is something so heinous, I will not accept anything less. That is a part of my Truth. "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." Jesus

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-28 12:46

      @ Charci - :-D I don't agree on the homosexuality thing; I know there are many who battle with the issue and I sympathise greatly with them, but I still won't condone it. Still, it's quite a debate. EG suppose for a second it wasn't a sin, but Biblical marriage is a man+woman - then it would still be fornication. Either way, remains sinful. Then the issue of Bible versions; I stick to KJV but when one looks at newer versions, NIV is popular yet had homosexuals on the translating committee (at the very least Maarten Woudstra) and you see that the Bible's message is severely toned down to remove the sin-factor altogether (eg "sodomite" replaced by "male shrine prostitute", so the sin is no longer the gayness but the prostitution - and Romans 1:26 onwards was simply removed/butchered). Anyway, I definitely agree about the Catholic issue - YES they must be held accountable, they must face punishment for their wicked deeds. Entering a closet and confessing isn't enough (or indeed Biblical, but that's another topic!). I fear though that although it can't be covered up anymore, it will go relatively unpunished. Just like the ANC hmm...

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-28 12:50

      Oh, and to add - whether or not people of various backgrounds condone or condemn the act of homosexuality; it is NOT for us to judge them. Speak of it as a sin, speak out if you will, but do not judge. Personally I know I come across as super-radical, but that's what happens when one defends the Word of God against others who mock and scoff. But "preaching" is no good without "living". And typing comments can be deceiving, I'm quite laid back and placid in real life ;-) just that when it comes to issues of faith, "no compromise" with the Bible...

      Charci - 2011-09-28 13:27

      I am sorry you had to endure such extreme racism. That must leave such damaging psychological wounds and I am glad you have found the strength to move through it. Matt, you have the right to your beliefs. All I ask of you is to see the consequences of your beliefs. If you believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, then so be it. I am not saying that you are resorting to persecuting others based on sexual orientation, you seem like a really good person. Would you, however feel comfortable and at ease being around people who had a different opinion of you(one of the definitions of judging) based on your race even though they did not imply it in a direct manner? You do not want to be judged on your race whether it is intentional or not and neither do homosexuals want to be judged on their sexuality. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Jesus

  • TheUSMale2 - 2011-09-25 19:06

    This is right . God said no!

      x - 2011-09-25 22:09

      Which one? There are so many.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 09:49

      And yet surprisingly, many of them derive from the deification by pagans of the descendants of Noah. It all leads back to the one true God...

  • T de J - 2011-09-25 20:17

    zaatheist you speak for your belive but it depends on what you perceive you were place on earth for . it is quite mind boggolling to live life go through all it's tests make some good and bad deceisions and then die and that's it , surely there must be something in one that carries on. I have had the personal experience of thing higher than what we have in this earth for protection and I must say that there is some sort of after life and we all will answer for what i have done and will do .This fight between religions are caused by man and his greed.think of this " It takes all mankind to have peace and two people to start a war".You are doing excatly what "angle Lusifer" wants puting distrust,questioning what we meer mortals can not comperhened,redicule,patronishing and trying to make everybody seem naive to belive in whatever they feel comfortable with. You will run but there will come a time when you will find that moment that will change your views completely.Just be person enough to post a comment. looking forward to the comment ,May God Through his son Jesus guide in your search.One Truth no other organisation has endured what the christians have "except for the Jews" there must be something in that one billion people find to follow.maybe you like 95% of humanity expect to ask for something and in the morning they must find it waiting for them then they belive but look around you and many things(miracles)are happening.Prepare things are going to get tough.

  • Jo - 2011-09-25 22:52

    Any Religion/Theism/Godism is a fairytale. There are huge problems facing humanity right now, and if we keep faffing on about trivial things like gay marraige and other miniscual issues we are not going to get anywhere... religious doctrines in any form have not worked for thousands of years, if anything they have held us back. As a civilisation we need to embrace true compassion, tolerance and rational thinking in order to move forward into a better world.

      Vik VM - 2011-09-26 12:49

      "religious doctrines in any form have not worked for thousands..." - unfortunately they did , as u mention to pull us ( humanity) back to keep us blindly following chimeras , fight and die for them .... Instead of DEVELOPING AND MOVING FORWARD ..... They still do ... unfortunately ...

      Met - 2011-09-26 19:07

      For many, many years I thought that I was so clever, so wise, and so educated. Like many here, I regarded those who follow Jesus as backwards, until one night that same Jesus put me flat on my face before Him. Gone was that misplaced pride which I thought I can put God in a laboratory, to disprove Him. The day that the Holy Spirit convicts you of your sin, you do not go down on your knees, you fall to your knees. In my proud stupor, I did not even realize that God called me a fool and that He actually laughed at me from heaven.But praise Him for His mercy and goodness.However, He does not impose His will on us- He gives us a free will. I suggest that you use it wisely.

  • betterness - 2011-09-26 07:10

    Some notes on the Bible for those who aren't familiar ... 1. Holy Scripture … let’s take a closer look: - The bible is the oldest book in existence. Men have endeavoured by every means possible to banish it from the face of the earth. They have hidden it, burned it, made it a crime punishable with death to have it in possession, and the most bitter and relentless persecutions have been waged against those who had faith in it – yet still, the book lives on. - The bible has found its way in every nation and language on earth, with over 240 different translations of it. - Notwithstanding unparalleled efforts to destroy it, there is at least strong circumstantial evidence that the great being whom it claims as its author, is also its preserver. - Although the Jewish Scriptures were copied by hand, they were extremely accurate copy to copy. The Jews had a phenomenal system of scribes, who developed intricate and ritualistic methods for counting letters, words and paragraphs to insure that no copying errors were made. These scribes dedicated their entire lives to preserving the accuracy of the holy books. A single copy error would require the immediate destruction of the entire scroll. In fact, Jewish scribal tradition was maintained until the invention of the printing press in the mid-1400's AD. As far as manuscript accuracy is concerned, the recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has confirmed the remarkable reliability of this scribal system over thousands of years.

  • betterness - 2011-09-26 07:13

    2. - Starting in about 40 AD, and continuing to about 90 AD, the eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus, including Matthew, Mark, John, James, Peter and Jude, wrote the Gospels, letters and books that became the Bible's New Testament. These authors quote from 31 books of the Old Testament, and widely circulated their material so that by about 150 AD, early Christians were referring to the entire set of writings as the "New Covenant." During the 200s AD, the original writings were translated from Greek into Latin, Coptic (Egypt) and Syriac (Syria), and widely disseminated as "inspired scripture" throughout the Roman Empire (and beyond). In 397 AD, in an effort to protect the scriptures from various heresies and offshoot religious movements, the current 27 books of the New Testament were formally and finally confirmed and "canonized" in the Synod of Carthage. - Yes, the Bible has been translated from its original languages, but it has not been changed, interpreted or interpolated along the way. Translations such as the King James version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts -- the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Recptus (New Testament).

  • betterness - 2011-09-26 07:13

    3. - The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years. Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Today's Bibles are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations - they go right back to the ancient source manuscripts. The primary differences between today's Bible translations are merely related to how translators interpret a word or sentence from the original language (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). This is no different than any other book we read in English that was translated from a different source language.

  • betterness - 2011-09-26 07:14

    4. - Homer's Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. In fact, many people are unaware that there are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare's 37 plays (written in the 1600's), and scholars have been forced to fill some gaps in his works. This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing's been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD. - Of the approximately 20,000 lines that make up the entire New Testament, only 40 lines are in question. These 40 lines represent one quarter of one percent of the entire text and do not in any way affect the teaching and doctrine of the New Testament. - It is also true that the moral influence of the bible is uniformly that of good. - This book throughout constantly points and refers to one prominent character, Jesus of Nazareth, who, it claims, was the son of God. That a man called Jesus of Nazareth lived about the time indicated by the writers of the bible is a fact of history outside of the bible.

  • betterness - 2011-09-26 07:15

    5. - That Jesus was crucified because he had rendered himself offensive to the Jews and their priesthood is again a further fact of history outside of the bible. - Archaeological history verifies that all the writers of the New Testament (except for Paul and Luke) were personal acquaintances and disciples of Jesus. - The existence of any book implies motive on the part of the writer. So then, what motives could have inspired these men to espouse the cause of this person? These men braved contempt, deprivation and bitter persecution, risked their lives and most suffered martyrdom. If we suppose that these writers invented their stories, and that Jesus was their imaginary hero, how absurd it would be to suppose that sane men, after claiming that he was the son of God, that he was begotten in a supernatural way, had supernatural powers by which he healed the sick, walked on water, even raised the dead.

  • betterness - 2011-09-26 07:15

    6. How very absurd to suppose that they would wind up their story by stating that a handful of his enemies executed him as a felon, while all his friends and disciples fled in the trying moment??? What motives could have prompted them? Could they reasonably have hoped for fortune, or fame, or power?? The poverty of Jesus friends and the unpopularity of their hero with the great religionists of Judea contradict such a thought. He died a malefactor, a disturber of the peace and made of no reputation and held no hope of earthly advantage to those who should attempt to re-establish his doctrine.

  • betterness - 2011-09-26 07:15

    7. Is it not reasonable to suppose that such an infinitely wise being, having made a creature capable of appreciating himself and his plan would be moved by love and justice to supply the wants of that creature’s nature by giving him some revelation?? Would it not be a reasonable supposition that God would supply to man information concerning the object of his existence, and his plans for his future? On the contrary, would it not be unreasonable to suppose that such a Creator would make such a creature as man, endow him with powers of reason, and yet make no revelation of his plans to meet those longings? So then, in view of these considerations, even if we were ignorant of the bible, reason would lead us to expect and to be on the lookout for some such revelation as the bible claims to be.

      arthur.amgen - 2011-09-26 09:12

      Science supports the theory of evolution. According to science, it is theoretically possible. Do you have evidence supporting the hypothesis of creationism from the Bible you are rambling on about.? You believe that the bible was written by God, which is just beyond insane. Can you not see how evolution explains the kind of diversity of species on the planet. The kinds of "proofs" you accept for the divinity of the bible are not "proofs" at all but ramblings from ancient people who had no understanding of the way the world worked. On the other hand when science has tested and verified hypothesis thousands of times over, REAL PROOF, you, because of your ignorance and belief in faith , cannot accept this proof.

      Ching Ching - 2011-09-26 09:46

      arthur.amgen - Evolution is not a theory. It is a proven fact. These bible punchers will grasp at any straw to discredit any rational thinking person, and to impose their theory of magic (creationism).

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 09:57

      @ Ching Ching - I'm sorry you were brainwashed. @ Arthur.Amgen - I guess you have only researched the one theory and not the other... 1) The earliest accounts of pagans (Celt, Anglo Saxon, Briton, Dane, Norse, Icelandic) all write of one creator God, the Flood of Noah, dates almost corresponding with Genesis, and trace their lineage back to Noah. They had never seen Genesis. How is this possible? 2) To support evolution, stuff that has been proven wrong, fraudulent, impossible is still religiously used as "proof". If evolution were a given fact, why do this? (eg Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, horse evolution, missing links) 3) If evolution were so factual, why are schools frightend of even mentioning that certain people stick to the theory of creation? what would be the harm in mentioning it? Even recently, Michael Reiss, an evolutionist, dared to suggest that they at least mention ID/creation in school next to evolution, now he's without a job. Just like thousands of scientists, professors, who lose their job and get blacklisted from science journals, for daring to veer from Darwinian evolution. What are they so frightened of? 4) Evolution explains nothing. Variation WITHIN KIND aka micro-evolution, that happens, the Bible even supports that. It's the rest that's a fairytale. Compare "kiss a frog, turn into a prince" with the evolution timeline. It's virtually the same darn story! Variation outside the kind is impossible, never observed, therefore not scientific!!!

      Thermophage - 2011-09-26 12:55

      @ Ching Ching: Very true, proven fact based on observable evidence and hard scientific experimentation with bacteria (Lensky experiment...Matt, go read the links [if you want to] that I sent to you earlier and come tell us what you make of the findings)...

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 13:18

      @ Thermophage - I did, and commented way above. Adaptation within the bacteria kind is not proof we evolved from a rock 4.4bya, or primordial soup 3.9bya (or to put it simply, from goo to the zoo to you, lol) I would ask: - Whale evolution. The "vestigial pelvis", allegedly remnants of legs. Which, if you know whale anatomy, is used during mating. But suppose it were true, that would be the opposite of evolution as it would evolve from fish to mammal (down the line) and then evolve back into the water. - Trilobite. The most complex eye ever found. Why did we then devolve to merely having these eyes? Oh and what of accounts of live trilobites, or a trilobite within a show imprint? After all, they're "excellent index fossils" @ Arthur - "ramblings from ancient people who had no understanding of the way the world worked" OK, so for example when Job 38:16 says "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea" and this was only proven correct in 1977 (!!!), did those ancient people have no understanding of the world? Or later in 38:19 "Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof" - how did these so-called primitive ramblers know that light is moving (a way is a state of movement) or that the speed of darkness is zero (place = no movement)? I know, I know... they were stupid, you're God's gift to the world of science...

      whereu - 2011-09-27 10:25

      Ching ching, you are not helping your cause. The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It has a huge amount of supporting evidence from many scientific disciplines. But a theory it is and will remain so - that's just the way science works. The story is too big to go into detail here so people who are interested in the theory of evolution can do their own research. But, (there's always a but), science is work in progress, and there is no guarantee that the theory of evolution is not replaced by a better theory. And no, I'm not talking about creation theory. I have posted about this elsewhere under this section, so don't want to repeat myself.

  • clintas - 2011-09-26 08:05

    Just look at the world around you...murder, poverty, destruction, rape...man was born with free will, which was given to you by God and what has man done with his free will???? Believing in God is a matter of faith, even some scientists have backed the authenticity of The Bible...in any event, look at the world around you, this is exactly what God has warned us about in The Bible, if you care to read it with an open mind...The Catholic Church preaches love, but at the same time has to stay close to the doctrine...I think we all know deep down that same sex marriage is wrong, but we live in a society that "anything goes" and there are no boundaries...prostitution is legal, families are being torn apart by divorce and governments are making it easier to do the wrong thing....People tend to trash what the mind cannot comprehend and science gives them the justification and peace of mind...but how often science has been proven to be incorrect at times...people will thrash religion because of guilt, simple...and those who thrash the Church probably do not need the Church as they've got everything, a house, a good job and so forth, so who needs a God when you have all your physical needs met??? who created earth and it's inhabitants? the "BIG BANG THEORY"?

      Janine - 2011-09-28 09:25

      "I think we all know deep down that same sex marriage is wrong" - please don't count me in there. I happen to believe that same sex marriage is perfectly acceptable.

  • jen - 2011-09-26 08:18

    No gay marriage, but quite okay to molest children. I really do not know about religion - terrorism, child molestation...e

  • Willie kruger - 2011-09-26 08:26

    Get married in court. It is the right of a religious organization not to except a request to perform the ceremony. There are ministers that will perform the wedding. Do not give the Catholics more air time than they deserve.

      clintas - 2011-09-26 08:31

      so which partner will be feeding the child breast milk? oh that's right, neither of them can give birth, because that's not part of the male genetics...but the court will allow it in order to buy face and win votes...aaaah politics hey.

      clintas - 2011-09-26 08:31

      false sense of security us humans have...

      Thermophage - 2011-09-26 12:59

      @ clintas: Dude, I was bottle fed as a baby by my mother. I'm the healthiest in my family and probably healthiest of my friends as well. WTF does not being able to breast feed have to do with this anyway?

  • Ms Practical - 2011-09-26 08:47

    Because of the Catholic Church my abuser was not punished for raping me when I was 14. I was punished by having to give my child up for adoption because I was pregnant and not married. Religion is evil when practiced by Men.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 10:07

      God still loves you though. I bemoan the Catholic doctrine which bears little resemblance to the Bible; about 75% of its beliefs are of pagan origin, directly proven heretic by the Bible. We have a friend who was Catholic, we showed such things to her and she broke down, got saved and is now trying to help other Catholics. For many years did she have to go on long marches while fasting, giving her last money to the Catholic Church while not having money for food herself, and all in vain. The one thing they did not lie to you about though is that God is there and His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, died for your sins, that you SHALL go to Heaven (NOT Purgatory!). Anyway I have a site - http://deanministries.page.tl - under "links" there is info for Catholics and my stuff in general touches upon the topic as well. That abuser is of the devil and if he doesn't get punishment on earth, rest assured he will when he dies, for God is just. God loves you more than anything; and everything, good and bad, will work together for good under God (Romans 8:28). And simply accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour SHALL (it cannot be any more definite) ensure you of Heaven (John 3:16, Romans 10:13). But only through Jesus (John 14:6, 13+14 and a host of other verses). I wish you all the strength in the world and commend you on your strength for making it this far!

      maceye - 2011-09-26 11:11

      Hi Ms Practical, I am sorry to hear that, but you cannot blame the church for a few sick individuals. The church is made up of saints and sinners, that is why it is unique in its nature. As for Matt, I don't have the time to go into a theological debate with you. The bible supports catholicism, it always has and it always will. It is our book, we are the custodian of the book, and if read in its entirety, it supports catholic teaching from purgatory, to how one is born again. Case in point, most churches today are a few hundred years old, and are disintegrating as fast as they started. There are more than 40 000 denominations all claiming the holy spirit speaks to them directly from the bible. Its laughable really, Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5)

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 11:30

      @ Maceye - the weirdest thing happened. My now-saved Catholic friend showed one of my writings to her stepmom, a devuot Catholic. She rejected it, which is her right, but she said something interesting - she swears blindly that I am a fallen Catholic priest, for just the few minor things I mentioned was "stuff that only a Catholic clergy could possibly know". When she was told I've never been Catholic, she refused to believe that. No, just read the Bible... Purgatory - why did Jesus give us the parable in Luke 16? Where it states clearly that purgatory is impossible as there can be no movement between heaven and Hell? Why would Jesus lie or mislead us that it's impossible? And ask yourself, if purgatory is true, then why did Jesus bother to die on the cross to pay for our sins, if we pay for them in purgatory anyway? And what of indulgences, how does paying the priest money absolve a dead person's sins? That alone caused Luther to start the Reormation. I thought it was something of the past, so imagine my horror to hear from that former Catholic that it still happens TODAY. BTW, Purgatory is not scriptural. It was added to Catholic doctrine in 593AD by Gregory the Great.

      maceye - 2011-09-26 12:21

      Matt, purgatory is based on scripture, even if its not mentioned by name, and so is catholic and more importantly the Trinity. The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven. the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1030–1). The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32.

      maceye - 2011-09-26 12:36

      @Matt, honestly, I think most catholics are poorly catechised, they know even less about the bible. They were spoon fed all these years. So I can understand why catholics convert to other denominations without a moments notice. However, the more they study the scripture and the more they delve into history, certain concepts and verses in the bible will gnaw at them to no end, until they realise that the only biblical christian religion is catholicism. So goodluck buddy, I hope you study the bible and history a bit more, until you too will realise you need to become catholic.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 13:30

      @ Maceye - I have seen catechisms claim that WE can be gods. I'll stick to the Bible. Matthew 5:25,26 has nothing to do with heaven and hell, it is about agreeing with your adversary and paying your dues or serving punishment. Matthew 12:31,32 says that you can be forgiven for cuss words, but not for blasphemy - the one unforgivable sin. 1-Cor 3: How do you come to the conclusion that this sends you to hell, then to heaven? Again, why did Jesus die for your sins if you're going to purgatory anyway? And when He said "it is finished" (John 19:30), did He lie? Did He mean to say "well it's kind of finished but you're still going to Hell first"? And how, HOW can someone pay money to the RCC to buy you out of hell? Again, this belief was not taken from the Bible, it was ADDED to dogma by Gregory the Great almost 600 years later!

      Lanfear - 2011-09-26 13:45

      Oooo Mat! And just WHERE did you get that 75% statistic from?! LOL! Without the RCC, your protestant religion wouldn't even exist, and such a large part of the world wouldn't have been christian in the first place. You would probably have believed in Thor or somesuch. Hmm, I remember we've had this conversation before...

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 14:38

      @ Lanfear - Yes, about Thor. Do you know where Thor, and for that matter Taurus, came from? The Pagans worshipped Tiras and the name mutated over the years. Tiras, by the way, was Noah's grandson. Pagan geneaology goes back to Noah you know... http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm Debate the source if you will; but it includes Bible verses to back claims up. It's a list of Catholic practices, when they were included and by whom. You'd be shocked. BTW the argument that there wouldn't be Christianity if if weren't for Catholicism; funny, there are records of Christianity in ancient UK 300 years before St Augustine. But by the same token, Catholics would never have had access to a Bible were it not for the ilk of Luther.

      maceye - 2011-09-26 14:55

      Ok Matt, how did christianity reach the UK, if there were no protestants around. Please show me in terms of historical evidence if there were any protestants during the first few centuries. I dare you. I am sure the Holy Spirit must have really messed up with catholicism, since its been around for the first 1500 years before prtestantism came into effect. As for Luther, most protestants today dont even believe in half of what he believed back then, it has become so dilluted, because each and every person now claims the Holy Spirit speaks to them directly. Heaven help us. As for gaining access to the bible, before the printing press, bibles were hand copied and cost more than a years salary to obtain, thats why it was considered sacred and kept in most churches only. Since the advent of teh printing press, the bible was copied and widely distributed. So, dont give the reformation any credit for something that just happened by chance.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 15:54

      @ Maceye - if cost were the reason for Catholics being denied access to the Bible, why is it then that everyone was denied access except for clergy? No rich man could simply buy a Bible either. Oh, and why was the RCC furious when Luther translated it into German so that the common people could read it for themselves? As for Welsh reports of Christianity pre-Augustine, go to my page http://deanministries.page.tl/Links.htm as I have a book for you to read called After The Flood. It is stunning! It's all about ancient history and genealogy. It also explains that Constantine was in UK before going to Rome and doing what he did; it explains how there were Christians in Wales 300 years before St Augustine came to the UK and massacred virtually all of Wales's scholars and clever people (which caused the Welsh to hold huge resentment against the RCC and allegedly influenced Henry VIII to pull England out of RCC). Anyway, it's not "anti Catholic" at all and not even all that Biblical as the author remains as neutral as possible; if anything you will learn LOTS of history + reaffirm faith in the veracity of the Bible.

      maceye - 2011-09-26 16:18

      Of course the church was furious that he translated the bible in German, the bible is considered sacred scripture, his version was btw riddled with so much errors that it might as well be a book of Mormon. For your information, the bible was already translated into german before luther came on the scene. As for your fanciful history, please go and proof read this from the Brittanica for reference, regarding the murder of scholars in Wales, oi. Conspiracy theories have surely taken a hold of the man. And your insistence that the catechism teaches that we are all gods, are just plain ludicrous. Show me once again where that is written. Matt, you are a fundamentalist bigot, who has a preconceived idea of what christianity is all about, which has blinded you to the truth.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-27 11:31

      @ Maceye - not wishing to continue the "fight" on here. But you asked for the catechism in question: CCC 460, The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81 There you go. I'm sure Catholics don't believe they become God, but it's in CCC.

  • clintas - 2011-09-26 09:10

    It's actually quite scary to see all these non-believers commenting on this site alone...to think that these people are raising families with no spirituality or moral conscience, no wonder we have leaders who are corrupt...these non-believers are the same people who teach their kids that THEY are the best and that nobody else is better and that they are superior to the next person...there's just no humility in the world...do you honestly think that technological advances alone is creates some sense of freedom?! why has no cure for HIV/AIDS been found? how come the scientists you so blindly trust not provide a cure for it?

      arthur.amgen - 2011-09-26 10:04

      One does not need to be religious or spiritual to obey a moral code. Most people do not kill, steal or rape. A moral code is hard wired into humans. So is being religious. However religious ideas will evolve out of mankind as more am more hard questions are answered by Science. One by one we are being set free from ignorance and faith.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 10:09

      Yes it's funny how they see little value in religion, yet they're the first to flock in droves to the religious articles. Often (not always) they don't reject God because of impossibility, but because acknowledging a God means learning His rules, and their desire to do XYZ in life outshines the will to acknowledge God's moral absolutes. Or, they prefer to drink, fornicate, cuss, whatever their sin of choice is, than to look to God and try to stop doing those things...

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 10:11

      @ Clintas - tip. Ask those who reject God, how they tell right from wrong. Not accusing them of being wrong - just simply, how do they tell right from wrong?

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 10:29

      @ Arthur - most people do not kill, which is encouraging :-) but whereas people of religion have a moral absolute, aka "thus saith the Lord", those of no religion do not have that. So, where does their moral code come from? How do they realise that murder is wrong? From the legal laws? Laws were based on the Bible in many countries. From evolution? Evolution dictates survival of the fittest (a tautology) which means that once the stronger has evolved further, it's best for the rest to die - this, versus the human conscience that murder is wrong and compassion for the weak is good. This directly contradicts evolution. So, how do you then explain why you have good morals when it contradicts the very theory you support to "free you from God"? (alternatively, the theory of evolution of morals - whereby apparently a bunch of apes huddled 6 million years ago to decide what's right and wrong and it just kinda stuck in our brains... almost as silly as the theory by Carl Sagan that ancient man made cave drawings and images of dinosaurs because it'd been stuck in their subconscious for 65 million years and just came out one day...)

      Lanfear - 2011-09-26 13:00

      @ Matt - I have met not a single atheist, online or RL, that is an atheist, or agnostic for that matter, because there are "things" in life they desire and want to do that is "against god's rules". Most atheists/agnostics I've meet are truly moral people, more so than most of the religious maniacs that I've met in my life. It is also interesting, your choice of words i.e. "reject god". Atheists do not *reject* god, how can you reject something you don't think exists? Of course there are no absolute, but while I am willing to admit it, you just cling to your man-made myth. And why do you mention such an argument in the first place i.e. that the non-existence of god cannot be proven? You can't prove a negative. And neither can you prove the existence of any god. In comments above you called Zaatheist "arrogant" for being sure in his mind that there can be no god, especially a god a described in organised religion. Yet you yourself are smugly arrogant in your beliefs. You also clearly have a misunderstanding of evolution. Morality began, changed and is still changing, as part of human culture. The more advanced our technology, culture and thinking became, the more intricate our morality became. The bible condones slavery. Do you?

      Thermophage - 2011-09-26 13:00

      So religion breeds morals does it? Re-e-e-eally?

      Lanfear - 2011-09-26 13:08

      To add, we unbelievers comment on religous articles and forums, for precisely the reason that religion is shoved in our faces, and we are indirectly and often even directly, affected by its existence in the world. I am sure there were at least one or two atheists killed in 9/11 for example, a religiously motivated act. Not buying booze on sundays, only religious programmes for hours on the tv on sundays [SABC, Etv] and so forth. Also the change of attitude that often come over people when you admit you are an atheist, or even agnostic. And so forth. So even though we have freedom OF religion in large parts of the world, and in our country, we do not have freedom FROM religion.

      AntiThesis - 2011-09-26 13:28

      Ohh me, me, pick me!! It is actually quite scary to see all the self-righteous, bigotrous and moral-and-intellectual paraplegics masquerading as religious good-folk. People like Clintas who cannot understand(no cannot believe!!) that people can raise good, loving, compassionate, humble and well-mannered children without the throws of religion. People like Clintas, who fails to lift his gaze from heavens and cast it around him to see what pain and suffering the anal practicing and enforcing of religion causes around the world. People like Clintas, who believe that the only antithesis of religion is evil, the only alternative to Christianity is darkness, suffering and a desolate and empty existence perpetuating violence, hatred and self-centered egotism. People like Clintas, who thinks that the Human immunodeficiency virus and its resultant syndrome is sent as punishment by god and the fact that scientists have not been able to find a cure for it, is proof that we are living on a slippery slope of moral decay and the end-times is near. He fails to realize that the medical fraternity and other sciences has also not been able to find a cure for the common cold or loads of other viral infections - but yet he is strangely quiet about those. People like Clintas who argues about the virtues of science and technological advances, most of whom has saved and improved his life countless times, but he insists in rather believing in a fairy tale.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 13:42

      @ Lanfear - the KJV speaks of servants. So what would you call the maid (if you have one)? Anyway, funnily enough it was an atheist on News24 who used the theory of evolution of morals in a debate a while back. So the "huddle" story came from his very link. But still, where did the morals evolve from? How do you tell right from wrong? Who decides right from wrong? Maybe Juju should? As for ZAatheist, a hateful little man (who has even used someone's kidnap and murder to mock Christians), I referred to an attitude commonly used of "I'm smart, you're dumb". It is a common tactic used in debates by atheists to scare off those who would otherwise dare to retort. Doesn't work for me. And maybe you call this arrogant; but throughout history it has always been "so" that there is a God, that is at least what people have always believed throughout history. So when a minority group comes along and claims otherwise, it is up to them to prove the majority view wrong. And atheism is still very much a minority to this day, despite what the media or textbooks say. It is ironic though that this which people claim to be scientific, did not come from science. Darwin, Maltheus were theologians (shocker). Lyell was a lawyer. Yet they are considered great scientists and geologists. Huh?

      AntiThesis - 2011-09-26 13:42

      And then of course people like Matt - the really scary type - who without his bible, and the fear of eternal torment or eternal reward, would have no moral code - fluttering in the wind. People like him, who believe that morality is absolute - but only as absolute as you can derive from a book, and only as absolute as fits the current political agenda en popular zeitgeist. The morality he adheres to not only suggests, but commands - genocide, murder, child sacrifice, slavery, jealousy, hatred, oppression of women and other deplorable actions. Matt, also realize that the notions, ideas and values contained in the redemption and salvation(pun intended) of the atrocities contained in the old testament - aka jesus and the new testament - far predates your religion, in other words, like so many other elements, your religion is not the first and most definitely not the last to try and preach love and peace and morality - and then monopolize it.

      Matt :-) - 2011-09-26 14:51

      @ AntiThesis - yes, saying things about me really defends your stance doesn't it... Anyway, the books of Genesis are the earliest writings ever; but were only compiled by Moses. So between the time of the flood and Moses, some cultures wrote down their accounts. And your point is what exactly? Genealogy of pagans goes back to Noah and his three sons and they never read Genesis. So if one offspring of Shem led to Moses and another to another tribe which recorded their account, they still go back to Noah don't they... But no doubt you'll laugh at that as well, which is fine. After all, going by population stats + trends, if evolution were true and "flood" was not, we'd have 150,000 people per square inch. But you already think we came from apes so why not add another one to the funny-bin...

      AntiThesis - 2011-09-26 16:08

      Easy now Matt, my comments is in relation to your comments, nothing more. I don't understand: "Anyway, the books of Genesis are the earliest writings ever; but were only compiled by Moses" The earliest writings? We have written and other records of cultures far predating the alleged creation of the earth as set out in Genesis. The whole creation business as well as the noahic flood must have come as a big surprise to ancient culture who at that time was developing agriculture, architecture and some other civil advancements and after that still continued their business. Also, Moses was then either slightly mad or liked to refer to himself in the third person. I wasn't refering to the biblical accounts of creation, which at best should be read with other fictional texts, but to the alleged teachings of jesus, which was also plagiarized from earlier cultures - surely that can't be mere concidence? Look at the Analects of Confucius for a start. You clearly have no proper understanding of anthropology and cultural and societal development and population growth - your comment makes that clear. What do you think the life-expectancy of the average human baby was 300 years ago? Before penicilin? Before agriculture, proper societal structures, health care etc? I don't think we came from apes, thats just absurd. The current paleontological, biological en genetics evidence points to humans and primates sharing a common ancestor.

      daaivark - 2011-09-27 09:34

      clintas: To say that because I am not a believer in your myths I am incapable of raising a family with moral conscience is one of the more self-righteous insults I have encountered for a while. Since when is professing a belief any guarantee of goodness? Don't be ridiculous! The media are constantly full of religious figures committing any of a thousand very questionable things. A high-ranking figure in the Rhema church found to be having sex with members of his congregation. Jimmy Swaggart with many a scandal tucked away. Abuses of various kinds in most of the churches. Gangsters who kill without qualm and yet take communion. How dare you suggest that my children have no moral compass simply because we choose not to accept the rather dodgy tenets of most religions? What makes you so damned superior? And don't turn around and tell me that it is simply because you consider yourself "saved", because then I'll just become a little more nauseous.

      daaivark - 2011-09-27 09:36

      Matt: Quit the attitude. The difference between right and wrong is just painfully obvious. Doesn't need any pointers from the sky. Bad behaviour does not benefit mankind in any way, whereas good behaviour does. Simple!