Goodthief “I will need assistance in understanding how you might have begun before conception, “

My view is that if you believe the human spirit continues after death, the notion that it might exist before conception is not insurmountable. I personally do not know but am open to the idea that my “spirit” might exist prior to conception.

As for protecting 1 year olds, the point I have always supported is separation and physical individuality. During gestation the embryo is not separate nor individual, it is part of the woman in whose womb it is developing. A one year old, despite lacking much self awareness is “separate”, “individual” and therefore “independent” of the woman in whose womb it developed.

Reality Check "And Col, re huge sledge of Catholic Church . . . .without the Roman Catholic Church there would be no Western civilization."

We live in a world of free speech, the Pope does not dictate, here at least. His inquisitors hold no sway.

I am wondering how much of the unbridled lust for power and dominance over Europe did the Popes and their torturers of old contribute to the existence of “Western Civilisation”. It is no different to claiming the development of Britain was instrumentally influenced by Roman Colonialism (Although those “Romans” were “Heathens”).

Your quote might be literally accurate but its assertion is rubbish.

Without the Roman Catholic Church (or with a Roman Catholic Church had it managed not to invoke politically motivated inquisitions, systematic murder and sustained political, social and gender repression), Europe would have still developed and ended up, after suffering the ravages of invading armies from Byzantines to Napoleon and Hitler, to say nothing of the Black Death, the development of democratic government and industrial revolutions; not much different to how it is today.

Some aspects of "Western Civilisation" would have developed slower and others faster but ultimately the Roman Catholic Church is merely one tiny negative influence on a lot of non-Roman Catholics and the living example of a repressive anachronism embracing the worst aspects of paternalism, despotism and discrimination.

Part 1

Col, that was a much better bash than last. Suffice to say, there have been some very bad people who have become popes, just like there have been some very bad people who have been kings, emperors, presidents, dictators etc. Power corrupts...

The temporal activity of the Church is based on following JC and giving one's assent of faith and loyalty to your bishop, and the pope. Like the Rome of old, the ideal of citizenship (belonging) was a unifying force that led to great developments. In the absence of decent emperors, the Church fell into the breach. This didn't help the spiritual focus that is the prime reason the Church exists, however, like the founder of AI, the formation of its members means the Church continues to be active in matters political and secular and grows as part of the western tradition.

The Inquisition, as horrific as aspects of it were, was a response to the threat of Islam. Save for a French nobleman early on, the Spanish monarchs of the Inquisition and a polish king riding to Vienna, Eurabia would have been around a whole lot earlier if not for these Catholics. Napoleon wouldn't have been a general, but a Jihadi! The industrial revolution would not have transpired and we would have the economic, legal and political system of the middle east. And like early groups in the Church, crusaders - generally given bad press - set up hospitals etc that continue today.

Despite the work of Henry VIII, much of our legal system derives from the Roman Law preserved and developed in the Ecclesiastical Courts.

You final salvo needs to be assessed in how accurately it describes the enemies of the West - "but ultimately the Roman Catholic Church is merely one tiny negative influence on a lot of non-Roman Catholics and the living example of a repressive anachronism embracing the worst aspects of paternalism, despotism and discrimination.

"without the Roman Catholic Church there would be no Western civilization."

That statement it utterly ridiculous.

Celts ,Norse , Goths , Galic , Tuetons all had complex civilisations. We owe much of our egalitarianism and concepts of democracy to our non-Christian ancestors. Our legal system comes directly from the pagan Roman empire. The Roman Catholic Church was an adaption of the cult of Roma of Rome - Rome by then in post decline. The Roman Catholic Church plunged Europe into instability and the darkages as it set about Ethnically cleansing non-Christian Europe. It was only when the tyranny and influence of the Roman Catholic church was in retreat that the civilisation in Europe flourished. It may be that if the Roman Catholic Church had never existed civilisation would be hundreds of years more advanced today.

A point in case is this claim that "without the Roman Catholic Church there would be no Western civilization." is the type of claim the Taliban would make. The Taliban as its Christian counterpart also are against choice.

The Roman Catholic Church is a Dungeons and Dragons orginisation , it is fine if its members wish to play their games in the privacy of their arenas and homes , but for them to try and dictate on how other people should live by the game rules of their cult is as ridiculous as having having LOTR roll players telling us how we must live because Gandelf doesnt like us not playing.

Part 2
Once the secular, humanist left is destroyed by itself or Islam, it will be too late to recall the liberating effect of Roman Christianity. But don't worry, our evangelical friends in the USA won't let that happen without a fight (aka WWII), however this is at odds with the ultimate goal … the message of the gospel is fullness of life for all, especially for those made poor, both materially and in Spirit.

West: re other cultures – I think HAD is the operative word. Why did these ‘barbarians’ succumb to the Roman Church? Gregory the Great had no army when Rome was besieged. Maybe there was something to the Church’s teachings? Did these people rationally adopt a faith response to their world view beyond element and animal worship?
As for “throwing Europe into instability and the dark ages as it set about ethnically cleansing non-Christian Europe” can you provide specific examples from that period? I am not too sure if the secular rulers and disease were more responsible for the chaos, rather than Church teachings.

The ‘Taliban’ reference: the Universalism of the Church’s teachings and its survival of the Enlightenment and every other post-Christian attempt to redefine mankind probably have more to do with rational thought than intimidation and fear. As far as I am aware, no one has to be Catholic, even in Rome, but try getting to Mecca with your baptism certificate in hand!

The Church has a unique role and acquired knowledge. If its pronouncements appear to be dictatorial, the reality is that it is merely a voice in the wilderness, ignored by some, appreciated by others, forced on none. If the Church has power, then like the D & D people, it is with assent. If its message is valid, then, 1.1 Billion of us should be able to express views on our history, imperfect as it is.

Anyhow, I would be more concerned about Islamic foundations than Christian ones. Finally, how was the West won? Was it Polish communists that brought down the last vestige of fascism?

back to the topic…
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/battle-amnesty-need-not-have-brought-on-itself/2007/05/28/1180205155581.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap

Reality Check , the Popes used the armies of kingdoms. The whole purpose of the Pope was to be Christs Vicar to justify the coronations of king and emporer.The Roman church weilded violence on a grand scale and was still doing so as it financially and spiritually supported facism in Europe.

By moral sensibilities alone the Catholic church is barbaric . As far as your Mecca analogy is concerned , go to Rome and see how Jews are treated in 2007. Compare what you find to the plight of Christians in Iraq or Lebanon. Islamists have nothing against Christianits both hold exactly the same values ,both want absolute control, both see themselves as a master race. Both are immoral yet claim moral monopoly.Christianity and Islam have the same idolatry, the same founding principles , that there is only their god, all must submit to their way and the majority of mankind over all time is wrong.

I dont care if its Bin Laden , the Pope or Mussolini, how I live my life or anybody elses life is none of the business of their devotees.

Reality Check “If its pronouncements appear to be dictatorial, the reality is that it is merely a voice in the wilderness, ignored by some, appreciated by others, forced on none”

I recall many years ago a faithful Catholic lady who I dated was told by her priest, if she continued to “sleep” with me (she was formally separated from her husband before we met) he would refuse her communion. Such coercion to the “will of the church” suggests your claim “forced on none “ is a lie.

The continued attempts by the Church of Rome to have abortion outlawed and criminalised would suggest a similar fallacy of reasoning regarding “forced on none”.

The history of the Church of Rome and its attempts to manipulate, from selective inclusion of only some of the gospels to rewriting the bible, the inquisitions to the coverup of paedophile priests, would suggest a word like “force“ (by any means) is in common use in the Roman Catholic lexicon.

Certainly, if it had its way, the Church of Rome would ensure abortion, contraception and divorce would all be illegal. The priesthood would have greater control over the everyday lives of people who are presently free to “heretically” challenge their authority. The Pope knew absolute powre and how to wield it, only the opportunity is lacking but I am sure the desire for such absolutes remains in a dictatorial organisation which demands absolute obedinece from those foolish enough to give it any recognition at all.

For me, I am happy to be considered a “heretic” by the Pope and face God and tell him why. I am equally sure he sees through the malevolent aspirations of the Papists and agrees my stand.

I respect women sufficiently to presume they know, on the matter of abortion, what is right for each of them. I acknowledge that some may regret their decisions (to both have and forego an abortion when the opportunity arrives) but we are all responsible for the outcomes of the decisions we make.

Nicely put West.