Col,

”It is this second 1% who have trashed the efforts of many who work tirelessly to help others.”

Certainly any bad behaviour is not helpful for those who work tirelessly to help others and the associated media frenzy is even less helpful for their image but I suspect that many who don’t like the religion use it as an excuse to slander priests generally. For the record to characterise that second subsection all as corrupt relies upon an oversimplification as I have previously discussed.

”… Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the manipulation of society by the management tiers of organised religions as they exist today.”

Seek and you shall find but I believe that where there is any attempt to participate in the decision making processes in society it normally is in full accord with Jesus Christ. I am thinking of things like JPII calling for sexual ethics and protection of children. What do you have in mind?

”mjpb your last post lacks the one thing …, name the team !”

Sorry I can’t say much more than has been said.

”Another with more mouth than sense!”

Didn’t you get mouth and sense in the wrong order?

”… how those women will use their own bodies.”

That brings in the question of perspective on the central issue. If it is women’s use of their bodies than that suggests one conclusion and if it is killing of babies then another conclusion.

”2 The claims to virtue made by organised religion have been dashed by the coverup and hypocrisy which organised religions perpetrated to protect the corruptors. It is this cover-up which has made organised religions the sanctuary of the scurrilous and which has destroyed their standing in modern society.”

Organised religions exist to promote the God’s Word not for the purpose of supporting corruptors by protecting them even if individuals have made mistakes. People hate organised religion because worship of God and loving and respecting others is threatening to a self indulgent culture. They bark at any fault of the individuals in the religion rather than admit it.

Yabby thank you for your support

However, intelligent readers here will note that Meg1 confuses derision with debate. Clearly she is incapable of reasoned discussion on the subject of FOETI.

Perhaps if both she and Col Rouge could desist with the personal diatribe, Meg1 would settle down and talk some sense as I have seen her do on another thread entirely. I was quite surprised to find that she can be quite informed and intelligent but not when it comes to women's reproductive rights, nor when the issue of surplus FOETI is raised. She has demonstrated a double standard on these topics.

BTW - Meg1

Before taking swipes check that you know what you are talking about.

You stated I hadn't given any suggestions for surplus FOETI - I have many times - in fact you yourself compared me to Hitler with the suggestion of stem cell research, I have also suggested assistance to other fertile couples.

Also I suggest you purchase a dictionary - FOETI is the English version of the plural for foetuses.

Martin, lots of people do good in society, without being religious.
Look at Fred Hollows. Look at the huge philanthropical donations made. The notion that people will just be self indulgent without religion is a flawed one. Fact is, empathy and altruism are part of our genetic herigate, as a social species. Lots of societies have thrived without Christianity too, so your claims are flawed.

The three Abramic religions all have a history of violence. If we wanted a more peacefull world then Buddhism as a religion would make far more sense. Still today, Christianity threatens to burn people forever, if they don't toe the line.

I'm sure that the old papa is a nice old fellow. Sure people flock around him when they see him, but they do the same for most pop stars.

My reason for highlighting the misery and suffering being caused by the Catholic Church around the world, is that its seldom highlighted and pointed out. The image that the Church tries to promote is one of peace and love etc. Thats not the reality of the result. Thats
just Catholic spin.

Most people don't hate religion at all. They just hate the fact that some fanatically religious try to use legal means to force others to live by their dogma, dogma for which they have not a scrap of subtantiated evidence. Both Islam and the Catholic Church are highly political religions. Why should we refrain from criticising those
who try to play politics with our lives?

Christianity is certainly not the key to modernity. A secular state, with freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion, is the only way for a tolerant society to evolve and without that tolerance there can be no peacefull society. Thats why I am intolerant of the intolerant.

Meg, your ensouling is what religion sells you, but they never have to deliver. Its an old philosophical concept, that was stolen by the Xtians and used to sell and promote their religion, no evidence for anything more.

MJ, Meg Tubley et al.
Here are a few sites you might like to visit. They contain very interesting material.

First is this one:
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/political/conception.html

It contains medical arguments concerning abortion. They PROVE that human life CANNOT begin at conception. Have a read.

The second is this one:
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/political/Bible.html

This one shows that the bible does NOT forbid abortions. In fact quite the opposite.

The third is this one:
http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2006/02/life_begins_at_.html

It gives a theological & philosphical argument that shows that the anti-abortion position has no intellectual basis.

I won't try to summarize the arguments. I couldn't do them justice. Please have a read & see for yourself. I found them most impressive but I would be interested in any counter-arguments you might offer.
All the best.
Bosk

I would like to also provide an analogous argument.
Imagine a woman goes out on a date. She takes all the necessary precautions but her date attacks her & she wakes up to find herself secured to a table providing a blood supply to the guy's infant son.

He explains that his son [for various reasons] requires her blood for the span of nine months. At the end of that time she will be released.

Now the woman is obviously frightened & is there against her will. Do you agree that, if given the chance, she has the right to escape? Even if the infant child will die because of her escape? I would argue that most people would say that she has such a right. Most would hope she would stay to give the infant a chance at life but few would be prepared to force her.

What has this to do with pregnancy? Quite simply this. Many women, despite their precautions find themselves pregnant [perhaps because of rape]. They find themselves in a very similar situation to the woman in the example given above.

The question now becomes if you agreed that the woman in our hypothetical example had the right to escape her captivity [even though the infant would die] why is it unethical for a pregnant woman to escape her metephorical captivity [i.e her pregnancy] & have an abortion? See the dilema? Either you would force the woman to have the child [& likewise the kidnapped woman to supply her blood to the infant] or you would support the right of abortion for one & escape for the other. There really is no consistent 3rd option.

Hope I've given everyone something to think about.

Col, still no credibility apparent…expecting respect for anyone on these threads with differing viewpoints is obviously beyond your limited capacity for self-restraint.

RE: ‘management positions of organized religions’, are you referring to Mother Teresa, ‘managing’ the Sisters of Charity? … the present or past Pope? … all the Cardinals, Bishops and Priests world-wide?

Your inability to post without gross exaggeration or blatant falsehoods would suggest your club, if you are an example to go by, is representative of blatant liars and-or ego-driven bullys…bulls-eye? Your posts indicate complete disregard for the truth…

That team?…hmmm, I’d hate to discredit all of the others just because you are a member.

1. I haven’t asked for that authority, or claimed it, neither have any other pro-lifers here.

2. ‘organised religions perpetrated’ – no Col, INDIVIDUALS perpetrated, as you perpetrate slander and bullying on these threads, not your team.

‘organised religions the sanctuary of the scurrilous...’

No Col, like the rest of society, they contain wide diversities of people, and many levels of virtue.

To answer your latest spew, let’s quote Christ himself, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone…”

Hiding Col? Running off with your tail between your legs…?

I hope you’re not a school-teacher, Col because your tendency to threaten, bully and torment those you can intimidate, isn’t a good authority-figure-role-model. Nor would your demands for conformity to your viewpoint, OR ELSE, motivate young minds to search for truth and reason.

Ditto Yabby…

I heard an old priest tell how he’d gone as a young man to Papua New Guinea, eager to help the people there.

After some years, he sat with an elderly tribesman and asked if he’d made a 'difference'…

The old man explained that when he was a small child, a woman had haemoraged and died in childbirth, leaving a healthy son.

At the graveside, the tribe were asked if anyone would take the child, no-one volunteered so the baby was laid in the grave beside the mother and buried alive.

“Father”, said the man,”that woman was my mother and I watched my brother buried alive.

tbc...