|
Germany Bans Scientology (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Did you think I was an atheist this whole time? :o |
Haha no. Jeez. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Makes sense, I suppose. And I suppose sodomizing luscious young boys also adheres to the Vatican's reasoning - I mean, you leave neither a genetic nor a viral trail and families get to stay together. Awesome. |
Seriously, you're going to try to discredit an entire faith because there are some perverts within it's ranks, yeah, that makes sense. This is just weak and unworthy of any further response.
| quote: | | However, I am a bit confused at this point - if the Vatican, itself (the word of man) is allowed to issue edicts such as this... wouldn't that just be another example of the fault of man and not the religion? Does the bible in fact have a say regarding contraception? I know they had full access to sheepskin and it's not like sexual diseases are a new thing, so there's hardly any excuse for it not to have at least something to say about this 'affront to the will of God'. Is the Pope really allowed to just ad lib like that? I mean, being the self-appointed representative of God on Earth, rather than the supposed word of God printed millions of times, must have its perks, but it still seems to me to be just another one of those faults of man rather than the belief system. Unless you can accept your beliefs from the mouth of another man. And then you're really no better off than Scientologists at that point. |
I agree with you, this is the fault of man. I've never bought into the idea that the pope is infaluable... incidently the church doesn't either which is why the test as to whether or not an edict is valid is three fold: it must have it's basis in scripture, it must come from proper authority (pope), and must be accepted by the church (members). If any of these three are lacking then it cannot be considered religious law. Near as I can figure neither the Vatican's position on sex or birth control are based in scripture nor overwhelmingly accepted by the church, threfore they are positions of the Vatican rather then laws of the church. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Near as I can figure neither the Vatican's position on sex or birth control are based in scripture nor overwhelmingly accepted by the church, threfore they are positions of the Vatican rather then laws of the church. |
No sex outside of marriage is not in the Bible? :p |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Oh, yeah, I wasn't assuming your position, I was using your logic to illustrate that stances on religion cannot be exclusive to only viewing your own, to be fair. :p |
I agree with you on this point as well. I honestly don't feel I know enough about Scientology to discuss it intelligently, so I don't; however, I agree that in principle the actions of individual adhearants to any faith cannot be deemed to be a failing of the faith. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
No sex outside of marriage is not in the Bible? :p |
Doh, you got me there, I worded it poorly. The position on sex has basis in scripture but is not accepted by the church (at least not in practice). |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Doh, you got me there, I worded it poorly. The position on sex has basis in scripture but is not accepted by the church (at least not in practice). |
That's a pretty sly loophole -- if a large enough portion of the laity stops accepting something, it automatically becomes invalid?
:clown: |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Seriously, you're going to try to discredit an entire faith because there are some perverts within it's ranks, yeah, that makes sense. This is just weak and unworthy of any further response. |
I was just being a wry fag. I didn't expect a serious response. :p
However, if you are to exclude several acts perpetrated by members of a religion's ranks or several incidents which are, realizing the full scope of a following [especially one with 2 billion subscribers], merely because they do not fully represent typical behaviour or, to an even more significant degree, represent an image the following wants to portray, of all things, then we can just go ahead and dismiss all the significance of suicide bombers of Islam, paramilitant fundamentalists of Christianity, flammable monks of Buddhism, and greedy, corporate-minded, business-oriented, life-destroying Superiors of Scientology, because these events or members are misrepresenting the aims or beliefs of the majority. They don't matter one bit. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
That's a pretty sly loophole -- if a large enough portion of the laity stops accepting something, it automatically becomes invalid?
:clown: |
Indeed; however, this is the Vatican counsel's own rule (decided in 1969). Few people know about it but I'm lucky enough to have a close friend (priest) who teachs the history of the law and spent 15 years working at the Vatican. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I was just being a wry fag. I didn't expect a serious response. :p
However, if you are to exclude several acts perpetrated by members of a religion's ranks or several incidents which are, realizing the full scope of a following [especially one with 2 billion subscribers], merely because they do not fully represent typical behaviour or, to an even more significant degree, represent an image the following wants to portray, of all things, then we can just go ahead and dismiss all the significance of suicide bombers of Islam, paramilitant fundamentalists of Christianity, flammable monks of Buddhism, and greedy, corporate-minded, business-oriented, life-destroying Superiors of Scientology, because these events or members are misrepresenting the aims or beliefs of the majority. They don't matter one bit. |
I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't matter but they, certainly, cannot be considered to be true expressions of a correctly interpreted faith. |
|
|
| DJ Mikey Mike |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
And I'm certain there's no time in your life where you've ever failed to live up to standards you set for yourself, huh? |
I haven't. But that is because I am ing incredible. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
you guys. seriously.
stop being so rediculous.
we're talking about RELIGION getting BANNED from GERMANY.
lololololol |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
you guys. seriously.
stop being so rediculous.
we're talking about RELIGION getting BANNED from GERMANY.
lololololol |
Again, it doesn't seem like anyone has been talking about that for quite some time.
And it's "rediiculase." |
|
|
|
|
