Bishops to hold conference on lack of belief in real presence

233 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joy--'s picture
“You basic premise of the

“You basic premise of the "preserved" "holy scripture" you revere is utterly without foundation.”

Ummm no. Sorry. Wishful thinking on your part, but what I said remains true. I said Latin is used so the Church can provide a single clear point of reference for translations. I also said, just as the Church is universal, the Latin language is also international. It doesn’t belong to one country or place which makes it then Catholic (which means universal). It helps make the liturgy the same for the entire world. Not sure what you don’t get about that.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Joy

@ Joy

And once again Joy is hand waving away the proof from her own church that the latin versions of her "sacred texts" have been interpolated, translated, found in error, re translated and re re translated with changes from the original Classical Latin?

What part of "revised translations" do you not understand? That the Classical Latin codex used until after 405CE had differences in tone and content to the Vulgate (Jerome's) and the Benedictine Translation of 1943 ( read Pius's encyclical as to WHY an entirely NEW translation was required) went back to source documents and RE translated (again with differences).

That since 1943 we have discovered long thought to be destroyed manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi hoard for instance which have cause revisions of that translation even in your Church versions?

And yet you maintain the New Vulgate version is the unsullied work of your god?

You must spend a lot of time doing do it yourself colonoscopy if you are trying to present that as fact to me.

The FACTS are that all the manuscripts (originally in Greek) have been translated (with errrors).many times throughout the years. The Vulgate version sat side by side with other versions until the Council of Trent.
The New Vulgate version replaced it.

It has been updated since. Your "sacred texts" are no more original even to the classical Latin Vaticanus never mind the texts that are being recovered on an almost monthly basis dating back to the 3rd Century.

You should have at least a small knowledge of Classical Latin before you start to argue out of your ignorance. Any educated Priest will put you right and agree with me.

It seems you do not even read the posts before you start manically hand waving; note :." It helps make the liturgy the same for the entire world. Not sure what you don’t get about that." I said: Latin was not a "dead" Language. It was the universal language of the Intelligentsia and aristocracy of Europe until the mid 20th Century. Many universities would not admit an undergraduate without them displaying proficiency in Latin, and in some cases Classical Greek as well. Most schools throughout Europe taught Latin as part of the standard curriculum until the 1930's and many continued (like the school I attended) until the 1960's.
wrong again Joyless. But I do not expect a retraction from the likes of you.

(edit grammar and last para added)

Joy--'s picture
“And yet you maintain the New

“And yet you maintain the New Vulgate version is the unsullied work of your god?”

Uummm . . . no, I never claimed that. The Church continually updates her translation/understanding of Sacred Scripture. Heck, just a couple years ago things like ‘and also with you’ was changed to ‘and with your spirit’ precisely because they recognized ‘with your spirit’ was the more accurate translation. But this change comes from the Church and was changed universally for all. Each and every nation now uses those words in the liturgy. They are not allowed to create their own translation, which as I said is to provide the Church with One Catholic language.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Joy

@ Joy

Uummm . . . no, I never claimed that. The Church continually updates her translation/understanding of Sacred Scripture"

And still you wriggle. Yes you have a centralised authority for controlling the way your books are meant to be understood by the masses. So what?
If the authorities change that understanding it is changing the "sacred texts" you held were preserved (they were not) in Latin.

You were wrong.

You stated quite clearly several things that have been evidenced as completely incorrect.

As we have established that the original gospels were, in fact written on Greek, the the first codex ( collections of the NT) were also in Greek, that the earliest Codex we have in complete form is also in Koine Greek, would it not be reasonable to assume that it is the Eastern Orthodox Churches that have the privilege of preserving the "sacred texts" on their ORIGINAL FORM?

The Greek Orthodox Church uses Koine Greek to this day in its liturgy, a liturgy that predates the Roman Rite. A liturgy they claim to be unchanged since the 3rd century when Koine and Classical Greek was the language of christendom and the Early Church Fathers,

The Latin Rite is a comparative newcomer and and has merely translated those original Greek texts multiple times And, in 1943 produced yet another version based on.,..yes GREEK manuscripts?

Sorry Joy, by your own admissions and by historical fact your assertions are just shown to puffery and lies.

The Latin rite has been changed many times, did not exist until at least 360CE, was changed in 405 CE, again in 1536, and again in 1943, never mind all the tweaks and encyclicals changing the translations and meanings throughout the centuries. Plus of course until the printing press there are all the copyist errors that found their way into printed versions.

Your claims to sole rights over your sacred texts and that they have solely been preserved by "Latin" in your church is ridiculous puffery and has been comprehensively debunked here.

Read some history. Actual History.

David Killens's picture
@ Joy

@ Joy

I am humbled in the strength of your conviction. I am humbled now witnessing the lengths you will go in lying and distortion just to maintain a position shredded by evidence.

Joy--'s picture
“Yes, I am pro-choice”

“Yes, I am pro-choice”

You don’t say. I was pretty sure that was your position, so I guess that assumption was correct.

“ I am also very much pro fighting for life, all life.”

But you think a woman can kill the unborn in her womb – so not all life, really, right?

“ I just so happen to be one of those that does not like it when others force unevidenced opinion onto a very specific population group”

Yes, that sounds horrible. Who does that? And what unevidenced opinion onto vulnerable pregnant women is being pushed?”

“ Complex life, like humans are a cycle. Where on that cycle do we decide a zygote, fetus etc is a human life that has greater rights to the mothers own body then the mother has to her own body is strictly a matter of opinion.”

Yes, complex life, like humans are on a continuum. A 6 week old looks very different from a 6 month old who looks very different from a 6 year old who looks very different from a 60 year old who looks very different from a 6 week old in utero. But all still human – that is settled science. All are still human life at different stages of development with a unique set of DNA. Is a 6 year old of less value than a 6 month old? A 60 year old? We would never make such a distinction because a human being has inherent value just for being human no matter where they are in their development.

A human being’s right to life trumps any kind of right to property/body. It may be said that I own my children or they could be considered my property, I suppose, but it still doesn’t mean I have he right to kill them. All one needs to do is argue Rights Based Ethics. Rights Based Ethics says: "an action is right if and only if (and because) in performing it either (a) one does not violate the moral rights of others or (b) in cases where it is not possible to respect all such rights because they are in conflict, one's action is among the best ways to protect the most important rights in the case at hand." Abortion qualies as one of these special cases because it involves conflicting rights and the right to life is a more important or stronger right than the right to one's privacy. That’s common sense.

“ The only persons opinion that matters in this tug war of rights over own body versus a zygotes right to use said body to live, is the mothers.”

Not so. See argument above.

“I am married to a wonderful, beautiful, intelligent, kind, woman for many years now, we have no children and do not plan to have children. For many reasons, but yes some of those reasons are: over population and possible/likely future scenarios like global warming, environmental degradation etc.”

I know you don’t care, but this makes me sad. You are denying each other the greatest gift you could give each other – not to mention the gift to others to be grandparents, Uncles, friends.

“If someone had a tiny 600 sqfoot apartment and 30 cats, and money is steadily running out for cat food to feed them all... is neutering some cats for the better outcomes for the remaining 30 cats irony?”
What about thinking of an alternative? Can some of the cats go live with someone else? Can others help provide more food? Of course, you’re right, I wouldn’t find your example immoral because they are cats – we aren’t talking about human beings.

For human beings forming families and having children leads to man’s happiness and well being. To neuter human beings is so called efforts to save resources for future generations disregards what is right and good for those right here and now. It also undervalues the value of human life itself. Putting it on par with any other commodity.
“What if the cats were smart enough to decide for themselves, hey ya know, space and resources is limited, perhaps we should not have so many kids?”

What if they liked having kittens? What if it brought them great joy and they would rather have less food or space if it meant sacrificing their families. Or what if were smart enough to think of alternatives that could help solve the problem of limited space and food.

“Joy: It’s illegal to kill turtle eggs, but legal to kill an embryo in the womb. I can’t wrap my head around this.
In most places in the world, and for most of human history it is not illegal to kill turtle eggs.”

But we live in a world that considers it a crime to hurt animals and often their young or even eggs, but a woman can kill her pre born baby literally at any stage in her pregnancy. And we even have some now saying she can even kill the baby after the baby is born if it is “accidentally” born alive. So, I say again, I think that is messed up!

Sheldon's picture
Joy "what unevidenced opinion

Joy "what unevidenced opinion onto vulnerable pregnant women is being pushed"

Well the catholic church has been telling them for years they are committing some sort of sin against an unevidenced deity, from an archaic superstition, by using either birth control or seeking to terminate a pregnancy. This is especially immoral where the women are living in undeveloped countries and in abject poverty, and the last thing they need is to be unnecessarily left at he mercy of their reproductive cycle.

Joy--'s picture
“The only people who can

“The only people who can claim Yahweh is good and loving are those who fit into the narrow cookie cutter of qualities he supports. Go ask suicidal lgbt teenagers if God is love. You'll probably find them sleeping under a bridge after their Christian parents kicked them out.”

Yes, many LGBT have been mistreated by many religious and non religious. This is inexcusable.
There are however, many individuals with same sex attraction who proclaim God’s love. They often are even able to do so despite cruelty they might have received from their parents, their churches, or others who supposedly loved them.

LogicFTW's picture
@Joy

@Joy

But you think a woman can kill the unborn in her womb – so not all life, really, right?

I will fight for life, all life. But I know I cannot save everyone. My grandmother had DNR and a living will. My family respected it, we could of hid it, and the doctors were willing to keep trying. After careful consideration the family agreed to say their good byes and disconnect the equipment that was keeping her alive.

It is quite common a woman does not know she is pregnant, she may drink, do other things, she did not know. She could of perhaps tried harder to test everyday, but these test are not infallible. Perhaps she read the directions wrong. Did she murder her zygote because she was not responsible enough? The point is, the line is blurry. Lots of folks (especially religious ones) like to draw the line at fertilization of the egg, its as good of a line as any, certainly a major step in the cycle of life. There is even fertility drugs available, stuff that helps the egg attach in the uterus etc. Most of the time no one bothers, its not worth the side effects cost etc. But someone that strongly believes "life" greater than a woman's right to her own body rights begins at fertilization. But do not take fertility meds to help ensure succesful pregnancy, Do you see where I am going with this? The line is blurry, where does it lie? What if the baby is likely to kill the mother? Who decides? Strictly a matter of opinion.

Your opinion is (guessing you have not stated) that soon as sperm fertilizes egg, that is a human (or 2 or more.) I think its a human potential, and should be protected and saved if possible. But I do not think my opinion gets to decide what a vulnerable pregnant women does. The hard line I draw is simple: when the fetus no longer requires the host mother. In a modern high end nicu, that is actually only about 32 weeks in for reasonable prognosis.

Yes, that sounds horrible. Who does that? And what unevidenced opinion onto vulnerable pregnant women is being pushed?”

The opinion that its life that has priority over the woman's rights to her own body. That opinion. I get where you are stuck you do not consider it opinion. You decided what ever line you picked, is the hard line backed by fact. But it is not, its opinion. Another point I also want to make clear to you. You will notice I will say "vulnerable" a lot. Reason being: If the woman is not vulnerable, and has access to money, she can get an abortion, regardless of anyone else's opinion (just travel to where it is legal.)

But all still human – that is settled science.

human. noun. Definition of human : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) There is a lot of definitions. Pick one. And I can guarantee you you will be tripping on your words. I called this, we would be talking about "what is human" but again it all comes down to opinion. Your opinion is just as valid as mine.

Abortion qualies as one of these special cases because it involves conflicting rights and the right to life is a more important or stronger right than the right to one's privacy. That’s common sense.

Kind of lost me here.. privacy? Why are we talking about privacy? I am talking about a woman's right to her own body versus the right of a zygote/fetus to live.

I know you don’t care, but this makes me sad. You are denying each other the greatest gift you could give each other – not to mention the gift to others to be grandparents, Uncles, friends.

I been told this a lot. Of the people that know us as a couple, they say we would make excellent parents. I believe them. I know I am missing out on a kid(s). I have thought about it A LOT. My personal opinion: I rather not. Only person in the world that could possibly convince me to have kids is my wife and she knows it.

For human beings forming families and having children leads to man’s happiness and well being.

Your opinion. I am aware that in general parents are happier then those that are not. I am also the happiest/free person I know out of people I know well enough to even guess at how happy they really are.

what is right and good for those right here and now.

Huh? I am not even remotely talking about forcing my opinions to go childless on any other couple.

but a woman can kill her pre born baby literally at any stage in her pregnancy.

This is false almost everywhere in the world.

saying she can even kill the baby after the baby is born if it is “accidentally” born alive.

You are talking about 1 in a million. About the same rates that 1 twin will (to no fault of its own) kill the other twin.

So, I say again, I think that is messed up!

I can think of a dozen different far more common examples that is really messed up about forcing a woman to have an unwanted baby just because she is vulnerable.

boomer47's picture
@Joy.

@Joy.

I said my mother was small c CHRISTIAN , and that is exactly what I meant. She was most assuredly not a crypto or closet catholic.

Do you honestly not understand just how smug, patronising and downright insulting it is to claim Catholics are the only true christians?
(not to mention simply untrue)

Having looked at both sides now, imo there are few less christian things than the organisation and hierarchy of the church, with its obscene wealth and pomposity. --and I won't even get started on the systemic issue of child abuse and cover up .--yes, I DO understand that the church teaches and seems to actually believe that canon law trumps civil law . That is slowly changing in OZ. A law has been passed in Queensland where the seal of confession may no longer be used as an excuse fora priest not to tell police about a crime. A minor change and probably ineffective, but it's a start.

I dismiss as deluded any organisation or individual claiming exclusive and absolute truth about anything. We are finite human beings, incapable imo, of grasping the infinite, beginning with the divine, should there be such .

Joy--'s picture
“My grandmother had DNR and a

“My grandmother had DNR and a living will. My family respected it, we could of hid it, and the doctors were willing to keep trying. After careful consideration the family agreed to say their good byes and disconnect the equipment that was keeping her alive.”

The Church does not require extraordinary means be used to keep someone alive.

“It is quite common a woman does not know she is pregnant, she may drink, do other things, she did not know. She could of perhaps tried harder to test everyday, but these test are not infallible. Perhaps she read the directions wrong. Did she murder her zygote because she was not responsible enough? The point is, the line is blurry.”

Sorry, not good or reasonable example. Drinking or even doing drugs before one knows she is pregnant would not cause a woman to lose her baby. The line is not blurry.

“ Lots of folks (especially religious ones) like to draw the line at fertilization of the egg”

You mean religious and the entire scientific community who recognize this. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

“The line is blurry, where does it lie? What if the baby is likely to kill the mother? Who decides? Strictly a matter of opinion.”

No. Not nearly as blurry as you suggest. First, risk of life to the mother is actually rare. The overwhelming majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape or risk to life of the mother. They are elective decisions to kill the baby in the womb because someone has decided they would be inconvenient. Second if the mother’s life is at risk during pregnancy one simply does whatever must be done to save the mother’s life. If the baby dies in the process well that is not murdering the baby. There would be no reason to purposely murder the baby.

“Your opinion is (guessing you have not stated) that soon as sperm fertilizes egg, that is a human (or 2 or more.) I think its a human potential, and should be protected and saved if possible. But I do not think my opinion gets to decide what a vulnerable pregnant women does.”

Unless the vulnerable pregnant woman is getting pressure from a boyfriend, husband, mother, society that the responsible thing for her to do is have an abortion. Which is precisely what happens. Many women admit they regret their abortion. They admit they wanted to keep their baby, but felt pressured into abortion.

Also, the human potential argument is lame. A 3 week old baby cannot survive on his own. We would argue he only has the potential to be able to survive on his own if we don’t help him now. To not help him reach his potential would be horrific and immoral.

“ But I do not think my opinion gets to decide what a vulnerable pregnant women does. “

You do realize the baby is not only the woman’s, right? The father has no say? But true to some degree. Neither of them have a say now, because now that human life they created has it’s own unique set of DNA separate from either of them. And with that his own intrinsic worth.

“The opinion that its life that has priority over the woman's rights to her own body. That opinion.”

No. It’s a logical even legal argument. The right to life trumps the right to property. That’s a no brainer in value of rights.

“ I get where you are stuck you do not consider it opinion.”

I don’t really care if you want to call it opinion or not, even though I do not believe moral relativism, but one would then at least have to admit it is the best or right opinion. Some opinions are better than others.

John: It is my opinion black people are inferior to white people.
Sue: It is my opinion all people are equal.

Sue has the better opinion.

“ You decided what ever line you picked, is the hard line backed by fact. But it is not, its opinion.”

No. It’s based on science/biology/facts. Your position however dismisses that and therefore is merely based on opinion.

“ Another point I also want to make clear to you. You will notice I will say "vulnerable" a lot. Reason being: If the woman is not vulnerable, and has access to money, she can get an abortion, regardless of anyone else's opinion (just travel to where it is legal.)”

Also, a woman that has money might not be considered vulnerable because now she can afford to keep her baby, whereas a poor woman might feel she doesn’t have that option. So, really we see where the whole abortion thing is skewed against the poor and vulnerable and benefits the rich. It’s also no secret more abortions are performed on little girl babies than little boy babies. As well as disproportionally higher rates of abortion among minorities. So, here we also see how racist and sexist abortion is. It is absolutely a barbaric, oppressive, and anti-woman piece of legislation. Shame on those who support it.

“Joy: Abortion qualifies as one of these special cases because it involves conflicting rights and the right to life is a more important or stronger right than the right to one's privacy. That’s common sense.
Kind of lost me here.. privacy? Why are we talking about privacy?”

Because that’s what we’ve been talking about. Are you familiar with Roe v Wade?

The justices who ruled in Roe v. Wade determined that the 14th Amendment grants women the right to privacy which allows them to have the liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

They considered a woman’s body her property and or “privacy rights” and used that legal argument to grant abortions. However, it was a poor argument not based on reason because it ignored the part that we are talking about another human life, not just the right’s of the mother.

“but a woman can kill her pre born baby literally at any stage in her pregnancy.
This is false almost everywhere in the world.”

Except in the United States where it is absolutely true! Again, not a lot of people are familiar with Roe v Wade. It literally granted the right to terminate a pregnancy at ANY stage of pregnancy.

“I can think of a dozen different far more common examples that is really messed up about forcing a woman to have an unwanted baby just because she is vulnerable.”

I can think of a dozen different far more common examples that are really messed up about a system that makes women feel pressured to have an abortion just because she is vulnerable.

*There fixed it for you.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: World of Joy - "The

Re: World of Joy - "The Church continually updates her translation/understanding of Sacred Scripture...... things like ‘and also with you’ was changed to ‘and with your spirit’ precisely because they recognized ‘with your spirit’ was the more accurate translation."

...*face palm*... *groan*... Somebody... Anybody.... Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the severely warped irony-overload screaming from that post.... *shaking head in dismay*...

So, let me get this straight... A PERFECT all-knowing/all-powerful god creates the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. However, he then has the HUMANS he created in HIS perfect image write a PERFECT book to be used as a guideline for life by alllllllll of humanity until the end of time. (Writing the book himself must have been too complicated for him to do?... *shrugging shoulders*... Oh, it is also important to note these incredibly important "PERFECT words of god" were composed and compiled over many centuries during a time in history where a vast majority of the population could not read. Anyway...) It would seem that all of the people who lived and died all those centuries prior to the bible were just shit-out-of-luck.

So, FINALLY, after several hundred years of translations, interpretations, editing, and compiling by hundreds of different scholars, scribes, priests, and kings (not to mention countless bloody holy wars and torturous religious campaigns), we end up with the PERFECT WORD OF GOD! Yay!... *cue celebration music*.... Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we now have THE PERFECT BOOK to guide our sorry unworthy asses to heaven. And we know it is perfect because the book itself says it is perfect. And it also says in that perfect book that NONE of its writings should ever be altered, added to, or taken away, because it is already PERFECT and EXACTLY the way god wanted his PERFECT message delivered to his "children".

Howwwwwwever.... The pious old human farts wearing expensive robes and living/"working" in a multi-million dollar castle surrounded by treasures of untold value often get to change the words of the bible because THEY know better than their PERFECT god what god really wanted a particular verse or passage to mean in god's PERFECT BOOK. Meanwhile, a vast number of the most faithful followers of that UNCHANGING PERFECT book live in severe squalor with barely enough food to keep themselves alive.... *scratching chin*.... Hmmmm.... Yep, makes PERFECT sense.

Joy--'s picture
“So, let me get this straight

“So, let me get this straight... A PERFECT all-knowing/all-powerful god creates the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. However, he then has the HUMANS he created . . .”

Yes. He has always used imperfect humans, because He, even though they are imperfect, can bring all things to perfection.

“It would seem that all of the people who lived and died all those centuries prior to the bible were just shit-out-of-luck.”

Then you do not know Catholic teaching, because that is not what the Church teaches or believes.

“Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we now have THE PERFECT BOOK to guide our sorry unworthy asses to heaven.”

The book has always been God’s Word to man. Love letters to us from our Lord. But the Church has never taught salvation is only possible for those who have access to the Bible.

“And we know it is perfect because the book itself says it is perfect.”

The book, Christ, Christ’s Church, historical writings of the first Christians, etc.

“ And it also says in that perfect book that NONE of its writings should ever be altered, added to, or taken away, because it is already PERFECT and EXACTLY the way god wanted his PERFECT message delivered to his "children".

Howwwwwwever.... The pious old human farts wearing expensive robes and living/"working" in a multi-million dollar castle surrounded by treasures of untold value often get to change the words of the bible because THEY know better than their PERFECT god what god really wanted a particular verse or passage to mean in god's PERFECT BOOK.”

Not exactly. The Church can grow in her understanding of the Bible, but that isn’t changing the Bible. But I think you also forget that it is the Church who gave us the Bible. It is the Church who decided what made the cut and what didn’t. So, one can’t accept the authority of the Bible without first accepting the authority of the Church.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Duplicated Post as this

Duplicated Post as this thread is getting very convoluted,

@ Joy

"Uummm . . . no, I never claimed that. The Church continually updates her translation/understanding of Sacred Scripture"

And still you wriggle. Yes you have a centralised authority for controlling the way your books are meant to be understood by the masses. So what?
If the authorities change that understanding it is changing the "sacred texts" you held were preserved (they were not) in Latin.

You were wrong.

You stated quite clearly several things that have been evidenced as completely incorrect.

As we have established that the original gospels were, in fact written on Greek, the the first codex ( collections of the NT) were also in Greek, that the earliest modern Codex we have in complete form is also in Koine Greek, would it not be reasonable to assume that it is the Eastern Orthodox Churches that have the privilege of preserving the "sacred texts" in their ORIGINAL FORM?

The Greek Orthodox Church uses Koine Greek to this day in its liturgy, a liturgy that predates the Roman Rite. A liturgy they claim to be unchanged since the 3rd century when Koine and Classical Greek was the language of christendom and the Early Church Fathers,

The Latin Rite is a comparative newcomer and and has merely translated those original Greek texts multiple times And, in 1943 produced yet another version based on.,..yes GREEK manuscripts?

Sorry Joy, by your own admissions and by historical fact your assertions are just shown to puffery and lies.

The Latin rite has been changed many times, did not exist until at least 360CE, was changed in 405 CE, again in 1536, and again in 1943, never mind all the tweaks and encyclicals changing the translations and meanings throughout the centuries. Plus of course until the printing press there are all the copyist errors that found their way into printed versions.

Your claims to sole rights over your sacred texts and that they have solely been preserved by "Latin" in your church is ridiculous puffery and has been comprehensively debunked here.

Read some history. Actual History.

Added But I think you also forget that it is the Church who gave us the Bible.

It was not the Church of the Latin Rite that is for sure. Codex existed from about 100CE. Written in Greek and some other languages including Syriac.

Maybe you should do some reading to alleviate what seems to be a terminal case of hand waving ignorance; start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_Latin_manuscripts. Make sure you understand what is being said before you comment.

It is the Church who decided what made the cut and what didn’t.

Didn't happen to all Churches, even those that were at the Councils of Nicea and after, there are differences to this day in the books included. In fact the Latin Bible was expurgated more than once. Read some history. .

Joy--'s picture
“I am humbled in the strength

“I am humbled in the strength of your conviction. I am humbled now witnessing the lengths you will go in lying and distortion just to maintain a position shredded by evidence.”

While I always appreciate a good sarcastic comment, I am equally impressed at the number of false anti-Catholic stereotypes that people continue to perpetuate even when they are debunked and the person is made aware of the misinformation they readily believed.

I’m also equally impressed with the lengths many go to in desperate attempts for a “gotcha” moment.

Judy: The Church used stained glass windows to add beauty to their churches.
Joe: The Church used stained glass windows to often tell or depict a story.
Brad to Judy: Ah- ha! So it wasn’t just about making the church more beautiful!

Meanwhile, Brad goes on to make claims like, "The only reason the Church built stained glass windows was to line the pockets of the stained glass merchants. Judy attempted to claim it was to beautify the Church, but even Joe admitted that wasn't true! I knew I was right!

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Joy

@ Joy

More Like

Judy: The Church invented Stained glass windows
Joe: Umm, no actually stained glass was an invention by the Phoenicians some hundreds of years before.
Judy: Not what I was told by the Church so I am right.
Jo: Sigh, look here is a piece of stained glass from 600BCE
Judy: The stories in the stained glass in church are all true and perfectly preserved.
Jo: Actually a lot of the glass was reset to tell a different story after the reformation. Look you can see the records.
Judy: You would say anything for a gotcha moment.

Now I have descended to your torrid and infantile point making level, please retract your statements about the Bible. Your ignorance of the origins of your own faith is inexcusable and you are only compounding your evident foolishness.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Joy - Drinking or even doing

Joy - Drinking or even doing drugs before one knows she is pregnant would not cause a woman to lose her baby.

I think that is the most ignorant statement I've read on AR in a couple weeks.

Joy--'s picture
“Joy - Drinking or even doing

“Joy - Drinking or even doing drugs before one knows she is pregnant would not cause a woman to lose her baby.
I think that is the most ignorant statement I've read on AR in a couple weeks.”

It would be highly unlikely a woman could do enough drugs within the first few weeks of conception that would kill her unborn baby without also killing herself as well. You do realize babies can be born addicted to drugs or with fetal alcohol syndrome, but even those extreme and rare instances do not kill the baby.

But my point was simply to show the weakness in his extreme unlikely analogy

Nyarlathotep's picture
@Joy

@Joy
An event you told us can't happen, has happen in my family, more than once, in the last 5 years. You seem to live in a fantasy world.

Mikhael's picture
If you think drugs and

If you think drugs and alcohol can't cause a miscarriage or severely damage a fetus I would like you to take a look at the medical records of myself, my birth mother and all my siblings that managed to survive.

Joy--'s picture
“If you think drugs and

“If you think drugs and alcohol can't cause a miscarriage or severely damage a fetus”

Not what I said. The last part of your statement, “that managed to survive” helps prove my point.

Rather than attempt to make some argument that a woman can be pregnant, not yet realize it, have a drink or smoke a joint and inadvertently kill her baby is quite frankly hyperbole and in no way, shape or form is an argument explaining then why purposely killing a developing baby in the womb is equivalent to miscarriage.

LogicFTW's picture
@Joy

@Joy

Rather than attempt to make some argument that a woman can be pregnant, not yet realize it, have a drink or smoke a joint and inadvertently kill her baby is quite frankly hyperbole and in no way, shape or form is an argument explaining then why purposely killing a developing baby in the womb is equivalent to miscarriage.

Seems like once again you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. You could not even quote what I said directly.

I wrote a post trying to explain it to you again, but really, what is the point? You seem incapable of even considering that your opinion is opinion.

Nyarlathotep's picture
@joy

@joy

Is the following statement true or false?

Joy - Drinking or even doing drugs before one knows she is pregnant would not cause a woman to lose her baby.

Sheldon's picture
@Nyarlathotep

@Nyarlathotep

One of a slew of shocking lies Joy has told on here, her dishonesty is relentless.

Sheldon's picture
joy"You mean religious and

joy"You mean religious and the entire scientific community who recognize this. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html"

OH ffs what a shockingly dishonest distortion of the facts. Do you think we can't see the words prolife in that link, have you even read those headlines? It's the usual dishonest anti choice rhetoric. The idea life starts to form when an egg is fertilised does not mean we afford the same rights to an undeveloped blastocyst as we do to a fully formed human being, and for fairly obvious reasons.

LogicFTW's picture
@Joy

@Joy

The Church does not require extraordinary means be used to keep someone alive.

What about a fetus? What if its an ectopic pregnancy? There are procedures that may be able to save both the baby and the mother. But sometimes they are very high risk, it would be far safer to the mother to simply remove the fetus then to try to re-implant. They can also take the very high risk "do nothing" which in many parts of the world is the only option a woman has, except maybe an abortion. Who decides? You with your opinion on what life is?

Sorry, not good or reasonable example. Drinking or even doing drugs before one knows she is pregnant would not cause a woman to lose her baby. The line is not blurry.

Sounds like you decided the line is not blurry. You won't even state what your line is. Is it after fertilization process completes? Are you avoiding telling me and being specific what your line is?

You mean religious and the entire scientific community who recognize this. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

The entire scientific community eh? Wow you are really not good at this, I think perhaps we should stop chatting about this, this debate is quickly devolving.

Princeton eh? You mean:
"The college was the educational and religious capital of Scottish Presbyterian America." Princeton?

I read a bunch of the quotes the link you gave, and when they speak of "human" it always precedes words like "development" Or use words like embryo instead of humans. Hmm, what is going on here? Why can't they just say: "when the union of gametes occur we have a human." Hmmm... I think that link bolsters my argument that there is no scientific line. By a bunch of quotes mined from a religious at its base institution.

First, risk of life to the mother is actually rare.

Are you willing to claim risk of life to the mother is rarer then late term abortions? What about in the parts of the world women do not have access to advanced nicus or even basic maternity wards?

The overwhelming majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape or risk to life of the mother.

How do you know that for sure? But I agree, when counting all types of abortion, (especially considering if you consider it to be abortion the moment fertilization is complete.) I think it is very likely a majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape or medical risk to the mother. By the way speaking of that. Who gets to decide on those types of abortion needs? You with your opinions? Are you going to sit there and answer every possible combination of risk and rape? Do you realize you can not?

f the baby dies in the process well that is not murdering the baby. There would be no reason to purposely murder the baby.

How do you decide what processes get this pass and which do not? Or are you going to try to force some blanket rule based on your opinion?

Unless the vulnerable pregnant woman is getting pressure from a boyfriend, husband, mother, society that the responsible thing for her to do is have an abortion.

Do you think forcing abortions to underground markets, and at home abortions via online instructions of certain over the counter drug cocktails to buy is going to help with " boyfriend, husband, mother, society" trying to pressure someone to get an abortion or not? (Remember it goes both ways, to ignore the opposite as also happening would be incredibly narrow minded.) Also be noted underground abortions and these drug cocktails have a lot of potentially very nasty side effects. Those posters of crushed but recognized fetuses? Once we are back to back alley abortions by desperate vulnerable women, those are going to multiply, exponentially. 3rd term abortions have dropped greatly in the US since roe v wade as a percentage to the population.

Many women admit they regret their abortion. They admit they wanted to keep their baby, but felt pressured into abortion.

I bet many women do. I would expect no less. It is a horrible awful no win decision when a mother has to decide to carry an unwanted child to term or not. I do not see a happy solution to this sort of scenario regardless of what choice they make. Both options might work out in the long run, but the person does not know that until after the fact.

Also, the human potential argument is lame. A 3 week old baby cannot survive on his own.

Oof. You clearly do not get this simple concept. a 28 week old preemie baby? Probably not going to live outside of the mother's womb. And even if it did after heroic efforts from an advanced and very expensive nicu, the likelihood that it will lead a full healthy life like most babies do when born ~40 weeks is not good. A 3 week old baby? Prognosis, very good even if the mother was long gone, half way around the world. Anyone could care for the child, no vulnerable pregnant woman's body is necessary. There is no battle of rights anymore. I am in 100% agreeance with you that a 3 week old baby deserves every possible right to live.

You do realize the baby is not only the woman’s, right?

Uhh.. yeah.. But you already knew I know that. It is your opinion the father gets a say. And you got no way to make it more than just your opinion. Again another opinion of yours you want to force on vulnerable pregnant women. I personally think the father does not get to force the pregnant mother to keep the baby. Especially if the baby is a result of rape. Do I think in a normal healthy relationship between two consenting adults that the mother should talk about this stuff, preferably before she gets pregnant? Yeah, I think that is a real good idea. But to be able to FORCE their opinion on the mothers body? No I will never agree to that opinion.

The right to life trumps the right to property. That’s a no brainer in value of rights.

Oh cool. I have a family member on the waitlist for important organ for his life. He is older so he is pretty far back on the list, it is likely he will not receive the needed organ, .. It is not, but lets say for illustrative purposes it is lungs. You only "need" 1 lung. Your closest friend only needs 1 lung. But since you think life trumps the right to "property" I am going to go ahead and take 1 lung from you and your friend to save my family members life. Got it? Your cool? Awesome. Glad we had this conversation. OH you going to take your statement back now? Thought you said it was a no brainer?

I don’t really care if you want to call it opinion or not,

So you dismiss what I have to say, dismiss the fact that it is opinion because you cannot evidence it. Coming from you, I am not even remotely surprised you hold this view point.

No. It’s based on science/biology/facts.

Show me this. Not a list of quote mining from a religious based school. I do doubt your ability to present evidence though as you do not even seem to understand some base concepts of what we are talking about.

Also, a woman that has money might not be considered vulnerable because now she can afford to keep her baby, whereas a poor woman might feel she doesn’t have that option. So, really we see where the whole abortion thing is skewed against the poor and vulnerable and benefits the rich.

Fully agree with you here. Just know a woman that has the means, always can get an abortion if she chooses, no one else can force their opinion on her. She can simply travel to where abortions have not been made illegal. Where as a vulnerable woman cannot.

It’s also no secret more abortions are performed on little girl babies than little boy babies.

Yep. This is true.

As well as disproportionally higher rates of abortion among minorities.

Minorities sadly are less wealthy than their peers. But actually globally you are wrong on this. While there is no true majority of race in the world, those of asian decent are the most numerous. Asia (mainly china) has performed the vast majority of abortions since the technology began to get refined in the last century or so.

So, here we also see how racist and sexist abortion is.

Racist? more like how skewed it is by income inequality. Sexist? Yep absolutely. You will get no argument from me about the wrongs of aborting babies based purely on their gender.

Because that’s what we’ve been talking about. Are you familiar with Roe v Wade?

I am familiar, I was confused by how you switched suddenly to privacy, what's the point? What is your point about privacy? Do you want to take away women's right to make a private decision with their doctor everywhere? We can get into the privacy side of things if you want, you are going to have to clarify your position here though.

However, it was a poor argument not based on reason because it ignored the part that we are talking about another human life, not just the right’s of the mother.

Again, your unevidenced opinion. I predicted this when abortion first got brought up. It devolves into: "what is a human life" and you will find, it is all a matter of opinion. As much as people would like to, you can not just draw some line, and then tell everyone they must toe that line without it being you forcing your opinion on vulnerable young women.

Except in the United States where it is absolutely true!

You mean in 3 states it is technically possible to get a late term abortion.

It literally granted the right to terminate a pregnancy at ANY stage of pregnancy.

Less than 10,000 abortions occur this way in a year, almost all of them for pressing medical reasons. Even though 3.8 million babies were born in this time. Seriously, try to find an abortion clinic in the US that will abort a 3rd term pregnancy, simply because the mother does not want the baby for non medical reasons. You are getting all worked up about something that is almost non existent. Late enough in the 3rd term if a woman wanted an abortion they would simply deliver the baby. And likely that baby would get nearly instantly adopted by some couple looking to adopt, and quite often the mother will get financially incentivized by rich folks that want to skip the line on the waitlist for babies, including top medical care for the mother and baby.

I can think of a dozen different far more common examples that are really messed up about a system that makes women feel pressured to have an abortion just because she is vulnerable.

How common do you think it is, that a woman has an abortion, even though she did not want to, because she was pressured into it?
You do know that a woman at any abortion clinic goes in there by themselves, and the doctors as best they possibly can, make sure she is not pressured into an abortion?

How many women out there do you think really are like:
"Oh hey, I got this great potential life within me, but someone does not want me to have the baby. Yeah, I will travel all the way to a crowded abortion clinic of which might be far enough away I have to take a day off work, wade through the protestors, undergo a very stressful time and sometimes painful procedure, of which I will likely regret for the rest of my life, because someone(s) pressured me to have it."

Most all clinics have some sort of counseling, many by law are forced to have a wait period, And almost all of them will require the pregnancy to not be much more than 20 weeks. This is not some "Oh I will go to the store, pick up some bread and some fruit, and oh yeah, I will get a quick little 5 minute little in and out abortion.

.

Do not think I have not noticed. You still have not provided any sort of evidence that abortion is murder of a "human being." You also have not shown that human beings fully and wholly dependent on the mother have greater rights to a pregnant woman's body then she does to her own body. You cant even show definitively that a zygote/blastocyst/fetus is "fully human."
Finally so far, you will not even clearly define what your opinion/position on what abortion is okay.

I am forced to assume your position is any egg that has completed fertilization = full on human with rights that exceeds a mother's right to her own body. Of which, I think you know on some level, if you did agree to above definition, your position/opinion would be ripped to shreds.

So far all you got is trying to force your opinion on vulnerable pregnant women. And you refuse to even consider that it is only opinion even though you can prove or provide any evidence that it is not just opinion.

Tin-Man's picture
@Jumping for Joy Re:

@Jumping for Joy Re: "Drinking or even doing drugs before one knows she is pregnant would not cause a woman to lose her baby."

Ahem!... *clearing throat*... I might point out to you there are many people here who have backgrounds in the field of medicine. Some of them quite extensive. I, for one, was an Army Combat Medic for a few years and even had a deployment to Iraq as such. Even with that, though, there are others here who are waaaaay more experienced in the medical field than I am. Now, that being said, your credibility here is beyond lacking. (And that is putting it nicely.) Therefore, I would strongly recommend you retract that particular statement in an attempt to keep your "credibility" from becoming even more tainted. (As if that were possible... *rolling eyes*...)

Joy--'s picture
Hey all, a lot of twisting of

Hey all, a lot of twisting of my comments going on. And a great deal of missing my main point. Here’s the deal . . .

The science is clear that a fetus is human life. It is simply at the early stage of development. The life of a human goes through different stages of development – again that is science. Seriously, I suppose you could try to argue “personhood” if you want, but whether we are talking about a human life or not – sorry, the science is on my side. And trying to argue “personhood” by the way starts to get into some creepy stuff about considering certain people and or groups inferior of not “fully human”.

The original argument was made a woman has the right to her body (property/privacy rights). I made the valid and reasonable argument that the right to one’s body (property/privacy rights) does not trump the right to life. Rights of Ethics says when two rights are in conflict, the stronger right should prevail. Everyone can agree the right to life trumps the right to property. The original argument also showed the lack of understanding about what exactly Roe v. Wade even argued. Roe v. Wade claimed abortion is legal because of ‘right to property/privacy’ – a woman has a right to what happens to her body. Of course, at that time, it failed to acknowledge there isn’t simply one body involved. There is also the body in the womb to consider. Another thing many people do not about Roe V Wade but Jane Roe did not actually end up having an abortion, claims she was used to advance the pro choice agenda, and went on to become vehemently pro life. Just something to think about. Educate yourselves on the real story.

The only argument you all can make is a person does have the right to take the life of another innocent human being. Personally, I think that is a horrible and unjust argument, but you can make it and lots of people on the pro choice side do in fact make it. Nazis made similar arguments in regard to Jewish people. The Hutu’s made similar arguments in regards to the Tutsi’s. One group considered another group of less value. Today, many consider human life in the womb less valuable than those outside the womb. It is the human rights issue of our times. I truly believe there will come a time when people will wonder, just like we do now in regards to slavery, how something like this could have been legal. There are many people today on the wrong side of history. We use to be able to hide behind ignorance about knowing when life begins, but with science and technology now it’s clear to see when a human life with its own unique set of DNA is created. To say a fetus is not a human life is anti-science and simply not factual.

I am not dismissing the very difficult situation a woman may find herself in with an unplanned pregnancy and as a society and individuals we need to help support women. But abortion is not the answer. Abortion is anti-woman and anti life. Abortion has never been about choice. It’s about taking all choices away from another human being. If you don’t want the baby, at least send her to someone who does. Newsflash: The body inside your body is not your body.

I hope some of you will actually think about this issue. The pro choice position really does not make sense. You guys are smarter than this.

Tin-Man's picture
@Joy-oh-Joy Re: "Hey all, a

@Joy-oh-Joy Re: "Hey all, a lot of twisting of my comments going on. And a great deal of missing my main point. Here’s the deal . . ."

...*baby crying*... Waaaaaaa! Waaaaaa! Waaaaaa!... Waa-waa-waa... Waaaaaaa!... Awwww, you poor wittle tang... Would you like some cheese to go with that whine?

So, first, you come in here spouting a shit-ton of bigoted, sanctimonious, self-righteous bologna. THEN you start regurgitating copious amounts of apologetic rhetoric that you seem to have memorized from some type of apologetic source that is desperately fighting a losing battle in trying to keep their precious god afloat in a modern world. And in most cases, you have demonstrated you have absolutely NO TRUE KNOWLEDGE about the nonsense you write, because you have been called out on it many times by many different people. However, when you DO get called out for these things, your only response always seems to be the same. "Boo-hoo. Ya'll just don't understand me.".... "Boo-hoo. Ya'll are just twisting my words."..... "Boo-hoo. I am right because my bible tells me so, and you all are a bunch of heartless meanies.".... *Boo-hoo. I don't want to answer that question, so I'll just deflect by whining about how everybody is being so nasty to me." Honestly, it would be fucking hilarious if it were not so tragic... *chuckle*... But, hey, please keep up the good work. Every post you make on here helps us atheists prove our point more and more in regards to the detrimental effects of religion on the human psyche.

Edit to add: Hmmm.. Bet you are starting to wish now that I had stayed at my obnoxious grade-school level... *wink*...

LogicFTW's picture
"I hope some of you will

@Joy

I hope some of you will actually think about this issue. The pro choice position really does not make sense. You guys are smarter than this.

Says the person that refuses to answer basic questions.

I will ask it in one short question: Can you prove that human = successfully fertilized egg. Not before, not after. (Incidentally the time that the male part of the equation happens.)

Oh and a general insult at our intelligence, resorting to that now? I warned you earlier in this thread, you seem to be going off the rails pretty fast on this subject perhaps you should step back.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.