>>Sarcasm is a blunt weapon but one is forced to use it when intelligent reasoning fails.<<

Perhaps, slumlord, your "intelligent reasoning" failed because it lacked merit? or persuasiveness? or logic?

You say that you were not advocating a return to the Dark Ages, but then say "Where the Church and the modern world differ is...". Clearly, to you the Church and the modern world are two separate - possibly even opposing - concepts. It is little wonder that you find us confusing.

What bugs me about you holy rollers is when you say stuff like:

"What bugs me about atheists is their own blind spot when it comes to their set of values(religion by another name?)"

Are you suggesting that all atheists have a blind spot? Some atheists have a blind spot? An atheist you once knew had a blind spot? And that all atheists share a set of values?

Because it is Christianity's blind spot to believe that they have the one and only answer to all life's problems and challenges. And the holy roller's blind spot to believe that constant repetition of this absurd argument will make it somehow more true. Back when the peasants tilled the fields and the priests lived in luxury, life was simpler, and you might have got away with it, but it gets progressively less simple as the years go by. And also more difficult to wind back the clock.

Not many people would disagree that the concepts of caring, forgiveness and tolerance as important to society in their struggle to live peacably together. What Christianity has done is to gather these together - quietly adding a few other strictures that aren't quite so harmless - and giving them a label. This is undoubtedly a smart piece of marketing, roughly equivalent to "do you believe in motherhood", but it doesn't make you the sole repository of goodness, just because you have called yourselves Christians.

Ok.. Luigi, u better tune out because "its me" :) but this time I tend to agree with you *shock horror*
Pericles, welcome back.
Slumlord, valuable in spite of Pericles assessment.

The very nature of the huge 'beurocracy' of the Catholic and Anglican churches and the rather stark contrast with the vibrant living fresh spontaneous and Spirit filled New Testament Church is precisely the reason I never committed to any of them.

Luigi, I must introduce you to the Rev Ian Paisly, you 2 would get along well about the Catholic church.

When the Church ceases to be about 'Christ' crucified/resurrected and glorified, and the forgiveness and new life He offers us, it ceases to be relevant. I found the presense of the 'M' on the coffin of John Paul pretty close to idolatry, or more accurately "Maryology"

When a church deifies a human being, to almost a cosmic granny of our big family in the sky level, which was the 'tone' of many comments made by John Paul "I hope to be received by.....who ? The Father ? nope, Christ the Son, ? nope.. by MARY yes ! and then, almost as 'also rans' by Jesus and the Father.

Am I being Critical ? yes, but biblically so.

TOPIC

I find that when so much could be said about the Historical side of the Church, both good and bad, that Greg has just 'politicized' it in terms of a few current issues of his lefist agenda.

"Aids is rampant in Africa" -- blame the church, African men have strong sex drives, but 'The Church is to blame for Aids spreading'

C'mon Greg. reality check time. Not all Africa is Catholic u know.
When statements like that are alluded to, I'd prefer to see them backed up by a country by country analysis with infection rates associated with religious traditions to see if there is a correlation.

Dear Pericles.

You accuse me of tarring all atheists with the same brush but then proceed to tar all "holy rollers".
Lucky you don't have a blind spot.

Firstly. Catholics believe that death is not the worst thing that can happen to a man. Ending up in the hot place is.

On the basis of this, the following;

Ratzinger believes that it is Gods will that contraception is evil. Ratzinger believes that men should not do evil whatever the price because if they do evil, God will send them to hell.
Ratzinger then refuses to sanction evil. That is logic.

compared to;

Ratzinger belives that it is Gods will that contraception is evil
Ratzinger believes that men should not do evil whatever the price because if they do evil God will send them to hell.
Ratzinger sanctions evil because theres a good enough reason. That is relativism.

Ratzinger is not a big fan of relatavism.

Look. No reptetition.

Now as for my blind spot with respect to Atheists. To an atheist who does not believe in an Afterlife or hell, Ratzingers statements are totally ridiculous and cruel. A socially positive atheist bases his moral compass on the preservation of life and furtherance of human happiness A moral calculation is made of the situation and best course of action taken. If contraceptives can help decrease the spread of aids then they should be sanctioned anything which hampers this is evil. I understand this argument and Ratzinger understands it as well.

What disgusts me about this current thread is that the vitriol spewed at Ratzinger is essentially about his religous beliefs. It is an attack on Catholicism under the guise of compassion.

If only those Catholics were gotten rid of, then there would be no more AIDS.
If only those capitalists in Russia could be destroyed, then the workers would enjoy paradise.
If only those Jews could be eliminated from Germany, Germany again would prosper.

No lines in the sand. No limit to the terror.

Its this line of thinking that leads you to the hot place.

Cheerio

Slumlord.

It's secular bigotry.

1. How do good Catholics get Aids?

2. If we're going to judge Catholics, what standard of morality are we going to apply? An objective, absolute standard of morality or a subjective, relative standard of morality?

I'm not sure I entirely follow your reasoning here, slumlord.

Are you suggesting that only atheists believe that contraception is OK? That is what your "Ratzinger logic vs Ratzinger relativism" argument seems to say. To tar all non-Roman Catholics with the brush of atheism seems just a little strong. The you go on to put words in this imaginary atheist's mouth:

"If only those Catholics were gotten rid of, then there would be no more AIDS."

Nobody, as far as I am aware, has suggested that the Catholic injunction against contraception is the only reason AIDS is still with us. What they - and Greg's article - do say is that your church's opposition is prolonging the misery by causing unnecessary deaths. That was the "blood on their hands" bit, in case you missed it.

You appear to both accept this, and think it is a "good thing", on behalf of yourself and your Pope:

"[Atheists say that if] contraceptives can help decrease the spread of aids then they should be sanctioned anything which hampers this is evil. I understand this argument and Ratzinger understands it as well."

Presumably then, you and Ratzinger both approve of this course of inaction, and are totally unmoved by the deaths you cause. How do you reconcile this with loving your neighbour? Or is that an entirely different religion I am thinking of? We atheists do tend to tar you all with the same brush I'm afraid.

Like many 'debates' in these forums, this one has quickly polarised to extreme positions on either side, with Catholic/Christian hardliners in one camp, secular humanists in the other, and very few other contributors game to say anything for fear of being shouted down by zealots of one persuasion or another.

As I suggested above, the thing that interests me when I speak with currently serving Catholic clergy who live and work in my small country town, is that they are universally disappointed in the Conclave's choice of Ratzinger as the new Pope, over other potential choices that might have allowed the Church to increase its relevance and efficacy. The clergy who express this view work on a daily basis with the sick, the poor and the disadvantaged, and I have never heard them express the extreme and intolerant positions that some of the 'holy rollers' here assert is the true Christian perspective.

I have a feeling that these extreme positions enunciated here by the regular 'godbotherers' marginalise them even within their own churches, so that OLO is the most convenient 'pulpit' available to them. And of course, preaching is the antithesis of debate.