(Cont...)

While you're here I know that'll never happen to anyone else…you've made a big difference to me.”

No 'Catholic spin' either…

You claim to attack the Catholic Church because it’s seldom done - where’s your credibility-logic?…your posts are an indication of something more akin to paranoia and obsession.

RE: Islam, little criticism from any of you directed there…perhaps for fear of reprisals…much ‘safer’ to kick the Catholics.

RE: Pope John Paul 11…I doubt in my lifetime, we'll see the sort of response he received wherever he went…nothing like that given to any ‘pop star’, Yabby. Open your mind and see…

‘Fact is, empathy and altruism are part of our genetic herigate, as a social species’…

…actually Yabby empathy and altruism are learned virtues that result from having and exercising free will and accepting consequences…as many of us have recommended on the abortion issue, instead of killing babies, as you suggest…no empathy or altruism evident in your course of action.

Pope John Paul 11 and Mother Teresa developed their extraordinary empathy for others and undisputed altruism, because they were selfless and freely chose to live a life of service to others…not the self-indulgent, no-consequence lifestyle you promote.

Scout – re: personal derision, diatribe and double standards…your posts are examples of all three. FoetusES - correct, in both English and Australian dictionaries.

Re-read your posts - unpleasantly condemning anyone with differing viewpoints.

I’m an employer who demands the same rights for workers as I do for all human life, including the unborn…it’s you who has double standards.

You see Scout, Catholics don’t have three heads and eat atheists for lunch…tolerance and justice is part of Christian faith…individual Christians aren’t perfect but Christ’s teachings apply to every aspect of life.

‘she is incapable of reasoned discussion’ and

‘she can be quite informed and intelligent’

More than a little contradictory and both directed to me…YOUR double standards?

Again, it’s not you that’s wrong is it? It’s the rest of the world…others have to accept that truth MUST bend to your convenience, right?

Bosk,you've abandoned all logic and reason with this post...desperation setting in?

Yabby,

“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.”

Having grown up in a secular society and been a teenager and as a result being open to Buddhism to the point of taking a keen interest in it, identifying with the religion, meditating, burning incense sticks and reading their scriptures I don’t accept the secular perception of Buddhism based solely on the nice sounding things that Buddhist monks say.

Speaking from a Western perspective of such things non-violence is very prominent in Buddhist teaching but violence is very prominent in Buddhist actions and society. Things aren’t as straight forward in that religion as we are used to in our Christian based society. Indeed my personal conclusion was that the talk and the actions are rather contradictory. I am not suggesting that Buddhists aren’t sincere in their beliefs or are trying to be less than candid in their talk but the religion is derived from a culture that has a different perspective on such things.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/ctbw.htm

Buddhists hate all violence including killing and think it has negative consequences for people. As a result of this and their take on it we have the anecdote in the above link of a Buddhist killing someone upon discovering that they intend to kill others out of compassion to protect him from the consequences of his intended actions.

http://library.thinkquest.org/12255/temple/martart.html

The above link is a confirmation of something you probably already know. Many martial arts are courtesy of Buddhist monks.

People get a warm fuzzy feeling when Buddhists (in their mind correctly) point out that their religion condemns violence and call for non-violence. However I would submit that this should not be taken at face value as many secular Westerners tend to.

Personally I believe that if we want a more peaceful world Christianity makes the most sense. Give me a mother Theresa any day rather than someone killing another with murderous intent. What if the intended murder changed their mind?

Hehe Meg, you clearly havent been to many rock concerts, where teenybopper girls faint at the site of their rockstar :) No doubt religious zealots become emotionally engulfed by their guru as well, even Catholics.

Regarding empathy/altruism, you are about 50 years out of date as to how the mind works. Various primates display empathy/altruism, so according to you, they must have learnt it and used their free will to act on it :) Do you really think that say a mothers love for her kids, is just freewill? Hormones, peptides, ligands etc, all affect the human brain and our behaviour. The tabula razza theory was thrown out years ago.

No need for me to say anything on this forum about Islam, as its flooded with fanatical Christians doing that in excess, including Martin. What is seldom highlighted anywhere, is exactly how much misery is being caused by Catholic politics, as few people are even aware of huge political effect of the Catholic Church, on a worldwide basis. As we are debating abortion here in Australia right now and there is no organisation campaigning as the Catholic Church does, who would like to remove womens right to abortion, it makes perfect sense to highlight the misery that they are responsible for around the globe.

Fighting for peoples rights from the tyranny of religious political power and being concerned with the environment and sustainability of our planet, is not exactly promoting a self-indulgent, no consequence lifestyle Meg. Thats my very point. The Catholic Church should be concerned with the consequences of its actions and the misery they are causing, I see no sign of that at all.

Meg1

You see the world in a totality of black and white. It IS possible to be too emotionally engaged on a particular subject to be able to debate reasonably - as you repeatedly demonstrated on the question of abortion. You have, however, argued quite eloquently on the subject of IR changes - perhaps you are less emotionally engaged here - however no-one has disagreed with you thus far - be interesting to see how you respond to someone vehemently in favour of new IR laws.

Now you also state I "unpleasantly abuse" contradictory views to mine. Whatever - I respond to how I am treated and you fail to look at your own abusive behaviour on the abortion threads, you continually attempt to belittle opponents - and only wind up making yourself look ignorant. (eg spelling; and I suggest you check out Dicionary.com for the variety of spellings for the foetus - expand your mind).

You also contradict yourself - one minute according to you I don't offer suggestions for surplus FOETI and then you claim I am a facist for suggesting stem cell research - and YOU talk about double standards!

As for catholics you state "Catholics don’t have three heads and eat atheists for lunch…" I have NOT EVER mentioned Catholics in my posts - are you now confusing me with Yabby and Col Rouge?

And as for your claim "tolerance and justice is part of Christian faith…"

Practise what you preach!

Now, if you wish you may respond - you have the same addiction as Col Rouge - you can't back down from a put-down - you both can be very tiresome with your vitriolic replys to each other.

For myself, I maintain my sovereignty over my reproductive rights - and there is not a thing you can do about it.

Farewell (you need it).

”Regarding empathy/altruism, you are about 50 years out of date as to how the mind works.”

Just on the issue of innate v learned …if they are hardwired then why doesn’t everyone display those qualities?

”… What is seldom highlighted anywhere, is exactly how much misery is being caused by Catholic politics, as few people are even aware of huge political effect of the Catholic Church, on a worldwide basis. As we are debating abortion here in Australia right now and there is no organisation campaigning as the Catholic Church does, who would like to remove womens right to abortion, it makes perfect sense to highlight the misery that they are responsible for around the globe.”

On the contrary the general rule is that the Catholic Church alleviates the suffering and helps protect the innocent.

”Fighting for peoples rights from the tyranny of religious political power … is not exactly promoting a self-indulgent, no consequence lifestyle Meg. Thats my very point.”

Then your point is wrong. Overregulation can be oppressive but Christianity can be quite liberating by providing clear guidance on right and wrong and it makes things easier. Remove Christianity from a Christian society and it is like playing cricket without knowing the rules. As soon as the rules are introduced it is so much easier. People who attack Christianity do so because they find the truth threatening to their desire for a self-indulgent and no consequence lifestyle.

MJ
Quote "On the contrary the general rule is that the Catholic Church alleviates the suffering and helps protect the innocent."

Not in South America MJ. There the catholic Church [as well as fundamentalist churches from the US] have done deals with right wing dictators & preached patience to the poor & opressed.

Second quote: "Remove Christianity from a Christian society and it is like playing cricket without knowing the rules. As soon as the rules are introduced it is so much easier. People who attack Christianity do so because they find the truth threatening to their desire for a self-indulgent and no consequence lifestyle."

You might like to read this site MJ.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1798944-2,00.html

It shows that on the contrary societies are harmed by being intensely religious. The article does this by comparing [in many areas] religious societies with secular ones. The evidence surprised the heck out of me I must admit.

Meg
Obviously you can't answer my arguments which is why you are now merely dismissing them instead of even attempting to answer them. Wish to prove me wrong. Then point out where my analogical argument falls down. Your attempt to then guess at my motives were particularly insulting & supercilious. How can I respond except to say I forgive you Meg & turn the other cheek. Would you like to strike that one too?