 |
|
|
|
|
June 21st, 2014
02:04 PM ET
Pope excommunicates Italian mobstersBy Delia Gallagher, CNN (CNN) - Using his strongest language to date, Pope Francis told Italian Mafia members Saturday that they are excommunicated from the Catholic Church. “Those who in their life have gone along the evil ways, as in the case of the Mafia, they are not with God, they are excommunicated," Francis said. It is the first time a Pope has spoken of excommunication for the Mafia. Excommunication, which excludes Catholics from the church, can be imposed by church authorities or incurred automatically for certain grave offenses. The Pope’s remarks will resonate strongly in this part of southern Italy, where the Mafia attempt to portray themselves as upstanding religious men in good rapport with the Catholic Church, in order to maintain local credibility. During a one-day visit to Calabria, in southern Italy, the Pope denounced the local mafia, called ‘Ndrangheta, as an example of “the adoration of evil and contempt for the common good.” According to reports, ‘Ndrangheta is one of the wealthiest international crime organizations, with an annual turnover of 53 billion euros, much of it from the global cocaine trade. Calabria also suffers from 56% youth unemployment, which the Mafia exploits with promises of jobs for disillusioned young people. “They must be told, No!” the Pope said to a crowd of over 100,000 gathered in Piana di Sibari, Calabria, for an outdoor Mass. Prosecutor: Pope faces threat from the mafia Earlier during his visit, Pope Francis met with relatives of a 3-year-old boy, Nicola Campolongo, who was the victim of an alleged Mafia hit in January. Nicknamed Coco, the boy was with his grandfather when they were both shot and their bodies subsequently burned in a car. It is not the first time the Pope has spoken out against the Mafia. In March in Rome at a meeting with families of victims, the Pope called directly on Mafia bosses to repent, saying "hell ... awaits you if you continue on this road.” Some anti-mafia prosecutors have worried that mobsters may target Pope Francis, who is reforming the Vatican, including its scandal-scarred bank, the Institute for Religious Works. "The strong will of Pope Francis, aiming to disrupt the gangrene power centers, puts him at risk. He disturbs the Mafia very much," Nicola Gratteri, an anti-mob prosecutor in Calabria, told CNN in November. (CNN's Daniel Burke contributed to this report.)
« Previous entryPresbyterians vote to allow same-sex marriage
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Well if he is going to be consistent he should excommunicate the ones in the Vatican too.
So like, this means nothing then cuz religion is all lies and the pope is a farce.
Atheism is the bigger lie since it is stating that we actually came from accident. They accuse things of having "no" evidence, and try to point "fault" logic yet fail to provide even examples as to why it is reasonable to just believe that the order in nature, the functions of our cells, the laws in the universe just came into being from accident.
I am a guy who has a car that has an engine in it that allows it to work, drive, and function.. I'm saying this car had a maker, yet guy b tells me that is stupid and lie because there is no evidence for a maker.. guy b is pretty much an atheist based on logic. But atheists won't see that because they are that dim in thinking
Do you tell guy b that God made it?
yeah but the car was ultimately made beginning with the discovery of a rock that would roll, the wheel. Then many more accidental discoveries over time until the car finally evolved to where it is today. And the car of the future will be much different than today.
You've proven that accidents out of chaos are in the origins of all things. No, the car was not created, it was manufactured.
Explain what a non-designed universe would look like.
debater
Since we know how cars are made, we can claim it was designed.
Since we do not know how life originated, we cannot claim to know if it was designed or a natural occurance.
Yours is the same non-logic of all "designer" believers. Claim what we do not know as evidence of "design"
Do not claim non-logic on people when you are applying logic incorrectly yourself.
"Atheism is the bigger lie since it is stating that we actually came from accident. "
Another dumb azz without a dictionary......
Yes, we all came from something like an "accident," but to call it that isn't really accurate. Every celestial body in our universe was created from random collisions of the original particles that the Big Bang released into our ever expanding universe. I believe in extraterrestrial life given the vastness of the universe. Without proof, I can still confidently say that Earth is not the only place in the universe where chemicals were able to pool together into single celled organisms and evolve into more complex life. In that way humans are a bit of an "accident." We evolved out of the first single celled organisms that were created by "accident." I do not think your example comparing the "accident of life" to the accidental creation of a car is valid because a car is a man made object not found in nature. A car requires a maker, life just comes from other life.
When the Vatican Bank lost 200 million dollars of the Mafia's money (see "In God's Name" by David Yallop, and "Money Murder and the Mafia", by an author I can't recall), Emanuella Orlandi, the young daughter of a Vatican official was kidnapped and murdered, (by the Mafia). I hope this guy knows what he's doing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/emanuela-orlandi-missing-italian-girl-vatican-mystery_n_1514102.html
last time back in 1992, Pope condemned Mafia and they got church bombings all over the places., there is no education in the second kick of a mule, Francis.
maybe this time they'll go to the root evil, the vatican
The pope ignores the children suffering from the abuse cover ups as if mafia is far worse. The catholic church helped launder money for the mafia!!!!
What a filth pit the vatican, popes, bishops and cardinals are. Disgusting.
Yeah, but they are nice folks.
Come on – he DOES have a really cool hat. Doesn't that count for something?
This is too much work to reply. HAR!
well do get on your righteous soapbox sir; but the apostate church is no more righteous or unrighteous than godless butcherers of unborn infants.
I wish that the churches got that message out better, as over 70% of the women getting abortions are Christian.
you make the mistake of assuming that everyone calling themselves a Christian is indeed a Christian. the very fact that they are in the first place getting an abortion makes the likelihood of them being a Christian very slim. 1) the moral laxity that led to the pregnancy. 2) a callous disregard for life in getting an abortion. the untold story here is that the vast majority of those calling themselves Christians are in reality atheists. atheists should be gratified to have their ranks swollen thus.
TOT: Give it a rest! If they follow your book of fairy tales they are Christian...rather simple and you are the last person who should be judging anyone as to what represents a true Christian considering how poor of a job you do of it yourself. Given that you'll never know what it is to be pregnant and that it is not you who would be raising the child, I'd say it is safe to say that it is not your business what a woman does with her body. If it were truly murder, it would not be legal...use some common sense!! Your imaginary friend obviously has no control and thus the opinion of the gullible who follow it blindly have no merit. Regardless of what you may think, the battle is over and your ilk lost. We'll stay out of your bedroom (and continue to take pity of your blow-up toy for the torture of enduring you and your ill fantasies)...you stay out of the bedroom of others.
@Scot
One of Christianity's core conceits is that all human beings are inherently evil.
Everybody is a sinner and needs to accept Christ as their divine scapegoat.
Even the most devout Christian still sins day in and day out – this is why Catholics have confession (and the RCC used to make a mint selling get out of Hell free cards).
If you're going to disregard the tartan of every Scotsman who sins, then there is no such thing as a true Christian.
Like the old joke goes:
When the Rapture comes and all of the world's true, honest, humble, charitable, compassionate, forgiving, pious Christians ascend bodily to Heaven, I'm sure the world will miss both of them.
you're most likely morally bankrupt, knocked up, and on welfare yourself.
D0C
i see you're still supporting the butchering of defenseless unborn children along with this other immoral woman.
Sure why not....most people breed indiscriminately.
Isn't that adorable...TOT calling us immoral while he sits there supporting the Christian god who according to the buybull killed all but 8 people; while supporting the denial of equal rights to other people....slight bit of hypocrisy. Drop it TOT, abortion is not what this article is about and you bringing it up only shows very immoral you are. Like your brethren Rainy and Theo, you are a blemish on our species and extremely detrimental for our future.
By mentioning the fact that Christianity is predicated on the idea that all people are in need of salvation is, of course, a shout out to everybody to start killing children.
"O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
– Psalm 137:8-9
someday, unless you repent; you will be taken somewhere you don't want to go. at that time you will look around you and say "where is God"? but you will not see Him and then will begin the weeping and gnashing of your teeth. until then you will remain the baby-butchering immoral woman that you are.
Scot just described how I was feeling when I went to a Southern Baptist Revival, except they called the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" as "speaking in tongues".
awanderingscot,
Why is it my mistake when I report the facts? I didn't have the abortion.
The churches should get that message out better. Obviously they're not. That's all I'm saying.
Do you have the power to excommunicate a Christian from Christ?
i am not sure what it is you are asking Akira.
Do you also support the butchering of unborn children Akira?
I think Akira is asking what exactly gives you the right to condemn others from your fiery pulpit, declaring yourself the arbitor of who is Christian – what with the log sticking in your eye.
D0C
it is not required that one be a Christian to speak out against the butchery of innocent defenseless unborn babies. the fact that you do support this heinous butchery speaks volumes of your own moral turpitude.
awanderingscot, the common deflection of answering a question by asking a question is jarring and rather dishonest.
I have stated before, I personally abhor abortion.
God is the judge of these women. If they repent, wouldn't they be welcome in Heaven, the same as those who condemn then?
Akira
no, not at all. i will always condemn the butchery of unborn children and I'll also condemn the support of it. of course if true repentance is made then God accepts. do you see repentance here Akira?
Awanderingscot,
Repentance by the women who had one? I couldn't say. And if you were honest, you couldn't say, either.
One should never pretend to know the mind and the heart of another.
"God is the judge of these women. If they repent, wouldn't they be welcome in Heaven, the same as those who condemn then?" that is the question YOU proposed Akira, don't be dishonest and ask a leading question of me and then disallow a general response i give asking if i would know the heart and mind of a specific individual. you cannot know and i cannot know.
How am I being dishonest? You never answered the question, or did I read it wrong?
God will be the judge. If they repent, it isn't you or I to say whether there hearts or true or not; only God knows.
Am I wrong about that? Do you speak for God and now know what is in a repentant's heart?
I get the feeling you're trying to find something to call me names about. Surely my feelings are wrong.
And I didn't disallow anything. I was unclear on your answer.
Akira
i don't claim to know the heart and mind, but when someone tells me repeatedly they approve of something, you have to believe they mean what they are saying.
I see we are talking about two different things, awanderingscot.
I was talking about the Christian women getting abortions and repenting.
I have never seen a person here who has said they approve of abortions here, although the possibility that I may have missed that exists.
Wording and context are important, wouldn't you say?
very convenient for you to say Akira, you've never heard anyone here say they are for abortion, just change the definition to "pro-choice" right? you are foolish to think you or anyone can fool God.
Dufus: " just change the definition to "pro-choice" right?"
Different definitions mean they do not mean the same thing – which is correct by the way: abortion does not equal pro-choice.
I wish that the churches got that message out better, as over 70% of the women getting abortions are Christian....
And this Christian thing means what to a woman that wants an abortion for reasons known to her....apparently nothing.
So Francis is excommunicating Mafia members. So what? Franciis' church has lost its credibility with the horror of the pedophilia its ranks and the subsequent cover-up. Said corruption opened the doors of evaluation of the foundations of Christianity. And what did we find? Significant errors in both theology and history to the point that the Mafia could care less about their excommunication from a defunct religion. Details were previously given.
"Said corruption opened the doors of evaluation of the foundations of Christianity."
do preach your righteousness sir, how do you feel about the butchery of millions of unborn infants?
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity: (only for the new visitors to this blog)
The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
See also: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/opinion/bolan-se-xual-health/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
And from:
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about (even though is becoming a major cause of throat cancer)," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (Maybe it should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
Followed by:
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
Tot: So you support pedophilia but you don't support abortion...how very twisted and warped of you. (WHY the hell else would you bring up the topic on an article that doesn't pertain to it?) Not your business regardless.
i don't support pedophilia and have never defended it. you're a liar AND you support butchering innocent unborn children.
Once again idiot...you brought up abortion and this article doesn't have anything to do with that. I support a woman's right to control over her body and given that you're not a woman, your voice on what is right for one holds no ground. Legally abortion is not murder, so skip the hypocrisy unless you're going to agree that your imaginary friend is also a murderer.
it is an immoral and wicked woman who would butcher her own baby. it is an immoral and wicked woman who would support the butchery of innocent defenseless unborn babies.
scot
Before you jump on me, I am opposed to abortion as a method of birth control.
Here is the question. How do care for all of the children born to the people that would have aborted them. How do you pay for their care, their education, place many in homes where they cannot be cared for otherwise.
How are you going to handle that. If your opinion was forced worldwide, how are you going to handle to populace?
Do you have a plan, or do you just want to keep running around screaming murder with NO plan to solve the problem?
igaftr
review the statistics on the number of unwanted pregnancies prior to the legalization of abortion and you shall have your answer. look at more than one study so that you have a accurate representation of what the statistics actually were. personally, i am thankful that my own mother did not have an abortion and i know for a fact that there are many just like me who feel the same way.
awanderingscot,
Where can I find those statistics? Everything I have found says the number of illegal abortions prior to Roe is about the same as after Roe.
On a more positive note, abortions performed in the US is going down.
scot
I asked you what your plan was, not for you to send me to look at statistics that are false because they can only estimate the number of abortions prior to legalization.
Do not deflect or redirect...what is your plan?
Akira, are you not reading? the number of unwanted pregnancies prior to the legalization of abortion was disproportionately lower.
I am with igafr, I do not support abortion as a means of birth control but I do support a woman's right to have one.
What is more immoral is another human attempting to take away individual rights.
Reliable stats for pre-Roe V. Wade abortions are difficult to obtain because the procedures were illegal and thus unreported.
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year.
The Guttmacher Insti/ture says that a study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone (the year before Roe V Wade), 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures even though the procedure was legal in several states by that time.
Prohibition doesn't work, whether alcohol, prosti.tution or abortion.
Regardless of one's personal feelings, the fact remains that both things have been commonly practiced in every culture all throughout history. Ignoring that these things take place and/or trying to sweep them under the rug only serves to drive them underground, thus creating the opportunities for criminal empires to be built on them.
We need to stop arguing about the semantic evils of abortion. Make then safe, legal and rare – educate women about their contraceptive options, making those freely available and free of stigma so that future generations won't need to have abortions.
adoption rates declined 42% from 1970 to 1975 according to this study.
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html
despite what abortion supporter say about alternatives, there was demand before Roe vs Wade.
"Make then safe, legal and rare – educate women about their contraceptive options, making those freely available and free of stigma so that future generations won't need to have abortions." – D0C
(while my carnal instinct and the natural man is appealed to with your statement here, it does not begin to address the root of the problem which is our rebelliousness against the law(s) God gave concerning marriage.)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
Half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.
Half of the women who choose to abort are married.
(Src: Center for Disease Control – "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report", 2013, Vol. 66
scot
"address the root of the problem which is our rebelliousness against the law(s) God gave concerning marriage'
That is the root of the problem? That creates a whole different problem, in the fact that no one can show this god of yours to exist, or what it wants if it does.
You believe there is a god, and you believe you know what it wants, and you would try to ACT on that belief against others who may or may not agree with your belief, even though you cannot show any basis for the belief.
That is as arbitrary as my saying anyone named scot is evil, and must be destroyed in a very specific way. I have no evidence you are evil, just believe it, so I would force MY will on you, even though there is NO basis for it at all...that is OK to you? Because that is exactly what you are saying.
Keep your religion OFF our laws.
"You believe there is a god, and you believe you know what it wants, and you would try to ACT on that belief against others who may or may not agree with your belief, even though you cannot show any basis for the belief."
EXACTLY!!!! well said.
if you don't like my opinion, so what, i don't like yours either. really really don't like it, so what, i won't lose any sleep over it.
The point is, your "opinion" based on your belief in mythology has no place in public law.
Then there are the Brutal Effects of Stupidity as previously noted. Bottom line: Practice Safe S-ex and the epidemics of abortions and STD's would cease to exist.
Hey Dale it is like the devil calling out the devils.
http://www.victiancrimes.us
Dale?
Oops Dala .
I have no clue what you are talking about. Again.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1573244759/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
http://www.vaticancrimes.us/
you meant
Thanks for the fix using my son's phone
http://www.farleftside.com/2014/6-16-14-complications.html
I guess my question is, who specifically is being excommunicated? Shouldn’t the Pope name names for it to be official? What if it is an ex-mafia member? What if an excommunicated mafia member gets out of the rackets and finds God? I don’t understand how you can just wave a wand and excommunicate a “group” of people. This must be just rhetoric and public relations.
I'll try to explain the process for you. People excommunicate themselves by their sinful actions. All the Church does is recognize their repeated sins, asks them several times to repent, and when the sinner rejects God to live in Sin, then the Church tells the faithful that person is no longer part of the Church and is to be denied any of the Sacraments in all parishes (worldwide). If the sinner later recants/repents (very unlikely) and makes amends (a.k.a. Penance depending on what they did) they can be welcomed back into the Church. As for recognizing entire groups that sin, all members of that group can suffer the same separation from the Church. For example, one of everyone's favorite sins (Ready, Cardinal Fang fans?:-)) The Spanish Inqusition (which nobody expects!) was a civil action of the Spanish Government. Very wrong, and decidely against Church policy. The Pope threatened to excommunicate the entire country (Spain) if they didn't stop it. They did, and Spain became a Catholic country again. So, people excommunicate themselves by their sins, but they can recover from it. It only applies to Catholics.
sounds rather primitive.
So those that are excommunicated BY WHATEVER MEANS are the LUCKY ONES.
Compared to what? Canon Law has been around for millenia, is that what you are referring to?
RCC, canon law.. quite primitive stuff. Let's not forget that canon law required priests not to forni-cate with certain animals.
LOLOLOL....JUST CERTAIN ANIMALS.......LOLOLOLOLOLOL
actually, yes. It was to protect the priest from getting hurt. Imagine that!!!
The inquisition was not a purely Spanish phenomena. The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. Not a secular purpose.
Actually the office of the inquisition goes way back to the 5th century and was the inventor of the most atrocious torturers ever dreamed up .....it was used intensely by the Spanish....the office is still in use by the way....they change it"s name in 1903 to camouflage it.
That's not what Vatican II said.
The Consti'tution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) said the Catholic Church is subsumed by the Church of Christ.
Three giants tower over their children;
Tumbling rocks on an ancient river bed;
Bright green moss connecting root and boulder;
Branches reaching out in every direction to drink each drop of light;
A spreading canopy over a pristine patch of forest.
From the nothing sprang my universe;
Thanking the Mother I sing out loud;
God is not here and I am grateful;
Wooden fingers gnarl and wind and snap;
My world is sudden and breathtaking and lovely and hard;
I will be swallowed by the texture.
Deep pain
Finds a home in you
Dug in to you
A dead part
Do you have one?
Do you have a dead spot?
Did you want it to end like this?
Lost pride
You know the verdict
You didn’t want this
Now this fool wants to make you fight
All you had to do was throw it out
All you needed was a gig
Now pray to Jesus?
Where was he when my mother cried?
This photo of the pope was taken at an awkward time during his speech. He is saying, "...just when I get out, they pull me back in!"
Jehovah could have had the angels do the writing of the Scriptures. After all, they have a keen interest in us and our activities. (1 Pet. 1:12) No doubt, the angels could have written down God’s message to mankind. But would they have seen things from a human perspective? Would they have been able to relate to our needs, our weaknesses, and our aspirations? No, Jehovah knew their limitations in this regard. By having humans write the Bible, Jehovah made it more personal for us. We can understand the thinking and emotions of Bible writers and others mentioned in the Scriptures. We can empathize with their disappointments, doubts, fears, and imperfections as well as rejoice in their joys and successes. Like the prophet Elijah, all the Bible writers had “feelings like ours.”—Jas. 5:17.
Would angels have been able to say that they were “unworthy,” as Jacob said he was, or were “sinful,” as Peter felt he was? (Gen. 32:10;Luke 5:8) Would they have been “fearful,” as Jesus’ disciples were, or would righteous angels have needed to ‘muster up boldness’ in the face of opposition to tell the good news, as Paul and others had to do? (John 6:19; 1 Thess. 2:2) No, the angels are perfect in every way and are superhuman. When imperfect humans express such emotions, however, we immediately understand their feelings because we too are mere humans. When reading God’s Word, we can truly “rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep.”—Rom. 12:15.
If we ponder over what the Bible says about Jehovah’s interactions with his faithful servants of the past, we will learn countless wonderful things about our God, who patiently and lovingly drew close to those imperfect humans. Thus we will come to know Jehovah very well and come to love him deeply. As a result, we will be able to draw closer to him.—Read Psalm 25:14.
many modern people have stated far better things. And many of these people aren't religious.
monkeyabeyman, nice effort with your copy and paste. Your computer skills are outstanding.
Yes, monkey, as we ponder the bible " we will learn countless wonderful things about our God" as you said. Wonderful things, such as learning that bats are birds! Who knew? Or that rabbits chew their cud! Amazing things you can learn about God by reading the bible! Astounding!
The truth about rabbits:
Unlike most other mammals, lagomorphs (including domestic rabbits) produce two types of droppings, fecal pellets (the round, dry ones you usually see in the litterbox) and cecotropes. The latter are produced in a region of the rabbit's digestive tract called the cecum, a blind-end pouch located at the junction of the small and large intestines. The cecum contains a natural community of bacteria and fungi that provide essential nutrients and may even protect the rabbit from potentially harmful pathogens.
How does the rabbit get those essential nutrients? She eats the cecotropes as they exit the anus. The rabbits blissful expression when she's engaging in cecotrophy (the ingestion of cecotropes) will tell you that she finds this anything but disgusting. In fact, rabbits deprived of their cecotropes will eventually succumb to malnutrition. Cecotropes are not feces. They are nutrient-packed dietary items essential to your companion rabbit's good health.
A rabbit may produce cecotropes at various times during the day, and this periodicity may vary from rabbit to rabbit. Some produce cecotropes in the late morning, some in the late afternoon, and some at night. In any case, they usually do this when you're not watching (quite polite of them). This might be why some people refer to cecotropes as "night droppings," though cecotropes are not always produced at night. A human face is apparently an excellent and refreshing palate-cleanser, as a favorite activity immediately post-cecotrophy often seems to be "kiss the caregiver". Mmmmmm.
by Dana Krempels, Ph.D.
Jehovah was a conflation of the Edomite mountain god, and the Egyptian volcano deity. There are no angels and demons. Before your post nonsense, it might be a good idea to join the 21st Century, and learn some basic history. The Pentateuch was assembled in Babylon, just before the Persian Emperor Artaxerxes permitted return from Exile, as he wanted a buffer state between his empire and the invading Greeks. He needed a set of doc'uments to politically unify the a set of tribes which had previously been organized by family units, which had been disrupted during the Exile. THAT is why the Torah of Moses was assembled by the Judean priests in Babylon, and presented to Isra-el during the Fall Fesitval (as recounted in Book of Nehemiah), by the Aaranoid Priest, Ezra, in 458 BCE. (Dr. Richard Elliott Friedmann "Who Wrote The Bible", page 159). It's purpose was political cohesion and unification.
See also the "Doc'umentary Hypothesis" and "How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel" by
Dr. William M. Schniedewind, Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures, the Kershaw Chair of Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Studies, and Professor of Biblical Studies and Northwest Semitic Languages at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Great info bucky, thanks.
bucky
it was Cyrus who gave the Edict of Restoration that decreed that the Jews had a mandate for the rebuilding of the temple and the reestablishment of Judaism, your premise and those attempts to rewrite biblical history are exposed. Cyrus respected the customs and religions of the peoples he conquered and it was he who commanded this. Artaxerxes later only reaffirmed the decree Cyrus gave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great
Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying, thus says Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth the LORD God of heaven has given me. and He has commanded me to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. – Ezra 1:1-2
the Jews in exile in Babylon were not allowed to be taught and the Torah also had previously been an oral tradition; the extant teachings therefore needed to be re-taught to the people. the Torah wasn't dreamed up in Babylon.
And Nehemiah, who was the governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, "This day is holy to the LORD your God; do not mourn nor weep." For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the Law. – Nehemiah 8:9
Quoting the Bible proves NOTHING. OF COURSE that's what they said. You need EXTERNAL evidence. No one said it was "dreamed up in Babylon". Obviously you know NOTHING about Biblical Studies, or the Docu'mentary Hypothesis. The various traditions were not "oral". Hebrew culture was a writing culture, not an oral one. You have no proof of an "oral tradition". The traditions WERE "assembled" in Babylon. There is NO historical mention of the Torah of Moses before the return. Cyrus respected nothing. You know no history. You copy-pasta'd that. YOU do not know MORE than the country's most eminent scholars. You did not name one.
"it was Cyrus who gave the Edict of Restoration that decreed that the Jews had a mandate for the rebuilding of the temple and the reestablishment of Judaism, your premise and those attempts to rewrite biblical history are exposed. Cyrus respected the customs and religions of the peoples he conquered and it was he who commanded this. Artaxerxes later only reaffirmed the decree Cyrus gave."
Prove it, and NOT by Babble quotes. Then tell us where your PhD is from.
Prove one word of it, and NOT by Babble quotes. Then tell us where your PhD is from.
i supplied a link which you ignore. goggle Cyrus.
http://www.ancient.eu.com/Cyrus_II/
It doesn't matter what Cyrus did. Artaxerxes was not bound by anything he said or did. Cyrus was DEAD. There is NOT ONE mention of the Torah of Moses or any archaeological evidence before the dat I gave, AND all scholars know that the texts were assembled from various traditions. There was no history of innerant oral transmision in Hebrew culture, (as there was in Arabia, and Greece. The Hebrews were a scroll writing culture, not a memorizing culture.) Many of the elements of Genesis demonstrate it was assembled with Babylonian elements added, (as all scholars know).
Too little, too late to save the theologically and historically flawed RCC. And without the Mafia's money to shore up its foundations, the demise of the RCC will come faster than predicted.
Same old prediction that has been in use for over 2000 years. Never happened, never will!
brainwashing beginning in childhood, seems to work well.
Why do some atheist parents send their children to religious Catholic school instead of a secular public school? Do Catholic schools produce better scientists than secular schools?
Why do some catholics send their children to public schools?
Try asking the individual parents. What does this have to do with the article?
many do so to protect their children from abuse. Others do so to ensure their child have a more rounded education and become more socially balanced.
...and yet the public school system has an even greater record of abuse that has been covered up.
not with pedophilia. Pedophilia is rae in public schools where the child was left to cope alone.
Teachers will blow in pedo teachers. Priests bishops, cardinals and popes protect the pedo over the children.
That seems strange. There are a lot of people posting things that are not on topic with the article. Why do you only point that out for me?
Most Catholics probably send their children to public schools because it is cheaper. Or they want to expose them to a a variety of beliefs. Or they have no problem with a secular school system, especially one that respects freedom of religion.
I simply asked what it has to do with the article, you then tried to defend your actions and try to claim persecution, being singled out. I simply asked a question.
Then you jump into most this and most that with nothing to back it up...oh wait...it's dala, and you just know because you just know. You have evidence but you don't. You have definitive evidence, but you may have been decieved.
Which dala do we have today?
Again. What does this have to do with the article?
I didn't claim persecution.
I was just asking questions, too.
Earlier another poster, who also stated something that had nothing to do with the article, said the Catholic Church contributes nothing to society.
I was asking in reference to that.
if there is a non-catholic private school, they will send them there.
The reason is that in many cities, public schools are more dangerous. The public schools are REQUIRED to accept all students. Catholic schools can deny those children.
With regard to science? Science and religion are NOT synonymous. Those who become scientists do so out of interest. More so, those who become scientists generally become the atheists and agnostics. Seems knowledge and reasoning ability are the cause of that.
Science and religion are not inherently opposed to each other. That is why so many scientists come from a religious background. The Big Bang Theory was fathered by a devout Catholic priest, for instance.
Most scientists are not religion hating atheists and agnostics. They generally have respect for religion.
Most of the religion hating atheists and agnostics on this blog are not scientists. They don't have the education or credential to be taken seriously in regards to science.
the Big Bang was an OBVIOUS observation. To deny the big bang would have been silly.
The catholic church was NOT the reason the Big Bang theory came into being. The catholic church loves the fact that the Fatima hoax is believed by a few. This is the stuff the catholic church is about,, voodoo and delusion.
The Big Bang Theory is an obvious observation now. It wasn't before that Catholic priest demonstrated the science behind it.
I know the Catholic Church was not the reason the Big Bang Theory came into being. I never said it was.
There was nothing inherent in The Big Bang Theory that opposed the Catholic priest's beliefs.
Big bang theory was a guess at the time. yet the 'priest' was never able to prove it as fact.
The catholic church will never be wrong, since it will change it's opinions as needed. We've seen that over time.
Scientists do that, too.
The Big Bang Theory has not been proven as a fact. We can't go back to observe it. It appears very likely. But, as often happens in science, new data and technology might change that opinion in 20 years.
Dalahast,
There isn't one scientific theory that has been proven. The Big Bang is a scientific fact. The theory of the Big Bang is in perpetual development, like all theories.
Yea, that is what I said. Scientific facts appear to be very likely. But history shows what was once a scientific fact, can become a scientific misunderstanding. My grandfathers science book contained scientific facts that are not accepted today by most scientists.
"the Big Bang was an OBVIOUS observation. To deny the big bang would have been silly."
–This proposal met with skepticism from his fellow scientists at the time. Eddington found Lemaître's notion unpleasant. Einstein found it suspect because he deemed it unjustifiable from a physical point of view. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Dalahast,
That isn't my point exactly. It is important to distinguish the phenomenon from the theory developed to describe the phenomenon. Gravity is a fact, the theories of gravity are in development.
That is important to distinguish. Something is observable, but we can't fully explain it. Like gravity. Yes.
Exactly. The Big Bang is observable, and is observed all the time.
The fact that the sun rotated around us was also observable, and was observed all the time. Turns out we were actually rotating around the sun. Our observations were flawed. That fact was wrong.
That is kind of true, that was not a scientific fact it was a broadly believed fact, and that error is forever branded in the bible. Gravity turns out to be the curvature of space rather than a mysterious force, but we still observe it. The vast majority of scientific facts are not later found false, they are found to be incomplete. That is because scientific facts were tested and validated. The range of validation is sometimes limited (like Newton's Laws).
The Bible wasn't ever meant to be a science manual. Georges Lemaitre actually explains and demonstrates why that is so quite well. So that understanding can be understood within the context of the authors.
"Another beautiful day
The sun rises
When I see your face"
wrote Lionel Richie. Is that error forever brandished in his song? Or is he speaking poetically?
It is possible technological advances one day will make our big bang theory as silly as the flat earth theory. Our best thinking proved the earth was flat.
Sometimes people, even armed with the best intentions and the best science our limited understanding can grasp, are wrong.
Possible. Name a scientifically verified theory that was subsequently found silly. Is Newton's theory silly. Not many scientists would say that. The Big Bang has been tested and its repercussions are aligned to observations of a wide variety of different observations today. It is extremely unlikely that the Big Bang will be found to be silly. I have no doubt we will find new aspects, but it is very unlikely it will be overturned.
The bible is not a scientific journal. There were none then. If it were scientifically correct, there would be very few atheists today. It would have been an excellent opportunity for God to have planted objective evidence that would be successively revealed to generation after generation of his existence as human science uncovers more and more secrets of nature. Too bad that opportunity was missed. A whole segment of his creation, the scientific skeptical thinkers, would have been included. The bible is as you stated, it is poetry that can be and has been interpreted thousands of different ways.
There are plenty of scientific thinkers that believe in God. Apparently God has a different way in mind than you. All of science points to God. But due to human nature, not all of us agree on that. There is a lot that scientific skeptical thinkers get wrong. Some propose all kinds of theories and explanations for why I have knowledge of God's existence. As if I didn't actually know God is real.
I'm glad your faith in science comforts you. It is important to you. Thanks for I've found God to be greater than all you profess about science. That is why I like to share about God so much on this religion blog.
Gotta run, catcha later.
Dala:
A Catholic priest took a step in the development on the big bang theory, many Jews were instrumental in the formulation of atomic energy, Hindus have made important steps in computing theory and Muslims developed algebra and were largely responsible for many breakthroughs in early astronomy. So what!
It doesn’t validate any of their underlying beliefs. None of them claim they made their discoveries because they prayed or because Allah, God, Vishnu or Krishna told them the answer. They all made their respective discoveries through scientific experimentation and a rigorous application of the scientific method.
This methodology, when applied to religion, pretty quickly reveals that the gods are a figment of our imagination. Geology and biology shows that no god created the Earth, astronomy shows that there is no heaven or hell we can see and medicine reveals no soul in any part of our body. An application of the principles of historical analysis shows that the supernatural acts attributed to Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus never occurred, and psychology and sociology explain quite neatly why we believe in gods, ghosts and angels (both individually and collectively).
No, I’m afraid science and logic has been, is and will continue to be the killer of the Christian god and his Jewish and Muslim alter-egos as well as the Buddhist and Muslim gods. It shines like a penetrating light into the dark recesses where these beings used to hide, flushing them out and causing them to scurry off to the next dark corner we are yet to fully understand. They went from lurking just outside the glow of our primitive ancestors’ campsites to the only place reside now – in the soft, simple minds of the remaining believers.
So what?
You are the one that preaches religious people are delusional idiots.
I'm pointing out that many of those delusional idiots do things within your sacred field of science you are incapable of. Apparently you haven't been gifted through evolution with the knowledge of logic like others have, including non-believers and believers.
– Geology and biology shows that no god created the Earth,
Uh, no. That is not true. You are not a geologist or a biologist. That is a philosophical statement.
– astronomy shows that there is no heaven or hell we can see
God dwells outside our created universe. Astronomy, which doesn't show anything. Astronomers attempt to show things with astronomy. And nobody has proved there is no heaven or hell.
– and medicine reveals no soul in any part of our body.
I know you aren't being literal, but medicine doesn't reveal anything. As an analogy that makes no sense.
Too bad you can't use geology, biology, astronomy or medicine to make your points. You have to use poetic illustrations. Those fields you cite, can't prove what you claim.
I love the way fantasy believers in GODS can discredit ALL THE SCIENCES by arbitrary picking and choosing science apart since that's what they can do with the bible and bible beliefs which since it is fiction can be done whereas science is based on experiment, math and lots of searching and questioning....the bible you have no choice but to take it as it is written since in it ..it condemns you to hell if you question it which will scare the ignorant into believing it period and keep you in everlasting bondage.
I didn't discredit science. Geology, astronomy, medicine do not say no god did it.
The Bible does not indicate you have no choice but to take it literally as it is written. The Bible doesn't condemn you to hell if you question it. I'm sorry, but there is way to much evidence of believers questioning the Bible.
"All of science points to God"
That is a flat out lie.
There are no sciences that "point to" any creator or sentince. None. There is no god theory, as the concept of god is only a hypothesis.
You really do not understand science. If we do not know something, that does not "point to" any gods.
God does not enter science...there is nothing to study.
By all means , give us YOUR definitions of your words so we can understnad why it is not a lie.
You need to look at what Colin says science does.
dala, The point is they show that there is a natural explanation for the creation of Earth and the species of life on Earth, etc. etc. No god needed. No evidence of a god outside of religious texts. Pre-Big Bang we don't know but it certainly isn't the personal gods claimed by religion.
I think using the word create or created when talking to a religious fanatic helps them in their belief cause...must think of another word since create has come to means to imply magical when speaking to people who believe in so called gods.
You can't prove there is a natural explanation for the creation of the Earth and the species of life on Earth. There might not be.
And scientists will be unable to explain it using natural explanations.
I thought you accepted Big Bang, evolution, and science in general. They do show a natural cause. What if anything happened before the Big Bang is unknown – that's the only place a god can fit, the evidence shows that the creation myths are all incorrect and they are the only "evidence" of a god.
We have to use allegories and poetic terms to describe the natural cause that is observed in regards to the Big Bang and evolution.
I'm not sure how you imagine that God can't be the one directing the Big Bang and evolution we marvel at. God can and does fit in to reality today. You claiming that God can only fit into before the Big Bang is your own personal opinion.
Creation myths are stories, often poetic in nature. Evidence does not prove them wrong. They deal with human nature, values and how fallible creatures exist in a broken world. They are certainly not the only "evidence" of God.
None of the creation myths accurately describe the creation of our Solar system nor the species on Earth. We do have natural explanations for those, so as creation is god's only credentials, well, it doesn't have any. You have no evidence that a god was involved anywhere and you have no evidence that is was your god.
You say things like "I know there is a god" and "All science points to god" – where is the objective evidence for that? Many people have explained scientific method to you, while you appear to use logic, reason, and method in some aspects of your life, you cannot apply its principles to all.
There are multiple origin stories in the Bible. The intent of them is not to teach science. Christians who happen to be scientists participate and advance science to deal with those things. But the origin stories are concerned with something else. And that is how they are taught.
Creation is not God's only credential. I'm not sure why you keep dictating what God can and can't do. You are not God. I do have evidence that God is our Creator. The orderly universe points to a an intelligent Creator. I have witnessed that there is an intelligence greater than you at play in the universe that personally knows about us. I'm not going to deny that because some guy posting as "Santa" preaches a philosophy that denies that.
I've been learning about the scientific method since 5th grade. And I do appreciate logic, reason and the scientific method. They are good tools. They are not the only tools.
You don't use logic, reason and the scientific method in all areas of your life. Especially in regards to your principles.
I agree that emotions can influence anyone but when there is a mountain of available evidence it is obvious when it is being ignored. There is a huge difference between someone eating, say chocolate when they know they need to watch their weight and discarding all available evidence to believe 5000 year old stories.
What else is god's credentials if not the creation?
If you have evidence present it, although after several years of you saying that I know you cannot. Attacks on other posters does not make you right. Appeal to authority of believer scientists does not make you right. Having the last word does not make you right.
I never "dictated what god can or cannot do" – you said it created the universe and expect others to believe it just because you do. As I have said several times to you, you wouldn't make investments, etc. without due diligence – what tangible evidence do you have to support your statements? None, no causal chain. Nothing.
There is plenty of evidence of God. If you know I can not provide you any evidence than we are done. Your mind is made up.
Why are you seeking God? It seems when I ask you about what kind of evidence you desire, you start describing something like an idol.
God gives evidence. It is better than the evidence you give. Ask Him for it. If you don't agree, by all means continue to question me. I'm just glad I have someone to share the gospel with.
What is the evidence? You wouldn't set the bar so low if someone claimed alien abduction or ocean-front property in Arizona, why do it with these millenia-old myths?
I do not set the bar low when it comes to God. I don't believe because someone claimed it based on millenia-old myths.
So no evidence just avoidance and tangents?
You've avoided some of my questions and offered tangents of your own.
There is evidence. We need to start with how and why you are seeking God.
No, you made the claim of a god – where's the evidence.
Keep seeking. If you can't even explain why you are searching or what you want I'm not sure I can help you.
More dishonesty on your part. I never once said I was seeking a god but you did say you knew there was a god. See the difference?
Why do you come to a religion blog and talk about God so much? Maybe at a subconscious level you are seeking God?
I don't know. If you don't want God in your life, you are free to not pursue. Thanks for talking.
No you don't know – just like god. Why do you expect to post unsubstantiated claims without challenge or do you buy ocean-front property in Arizona?
I don't mind your challenge. I offered a lot of challenge myself to others and to myself. Basically you are just saying I can't prove God to you. But there are other people that I can. And you aren't more logical, reasonable or rational than they are.
And I'm not some idiot who buys ocean-front property in Arizona. I'm a guy who goes on a religion blog to talk about God. And I find lots of people who do want to talk about God. Some who don't even believe in him.
You can't prove god to anyone – the point about the property is the different level that you set the bar when it comes to religion.
How do you know I can't prove God to anyone? Because I can't prove it to you? Who are you? You aren't the judge of what is and isn't.
My knowledge of God is not the same as your joke about buying ocean front property in Arizona.
Because if you had evidence you'd present it. Instead you tell me what I imagine you think, you claim I'm setting limits on your god, you get upset because you don't have evidence that passes the same level of scrutiny that we all use in our daily life.
I'm not upset. I'm just sharing.
Basically you are just saying I can’t prove God to you....you say.....BUT HOW DOES ONE PROVE SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST?
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION…..
If you propose the existence of something such as a god, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence, otherwise I have no reason to listen to you.
You can't use the scientific method to prove everything that is true. It doesn't work that way.
You can't even prove using the scientific method that the scientific method is the only way to prove the existence of something.
I bear no burden of proof to you. I know God exists and live in a country that guarantees me the right to believe and act on that knowledge.
I can't prove using the scientific method that I love my family. But I have experienced that love. And I know it exists.
Dalahast,
"There are plenty of scientific thinkers that believe in God."
=> who said anything to the contrary? While true, it is completely irrelevant to our discussion and to the question of the existence of God.
"Apparently God has a different way in mind than you."
=> no doubt.
"All of science points to God."
=> Dalahast, I wish you wouldn't say things like this, it is disingenuous at best.
"There is a lot that scientific skeptical thinkers get wrong."
=> no doubt, again that is irrelevant, all people get a lot wrong. Scientific thinkers get less wrong because they test their assertions and validate the results with independent critics.
"Some propose all kinds of theories and explanations for why I have knowledge of God's existence. "
=> that is what scientists do. They propose hypotheses to explain things. The difference is, they devise ways to test those hypotheses. Not all pan out, but many do and reliable human understanding is advanced.
As if I didn't actually know God is real.
=> we've had this discussion before. Your definition of 'know' is different than mine.
"I'm glad your faith in science comforts you. It is important to you."
=> it doesn't comfort me! I'm not sure how you would think you know what I feel. Science satisfies my curiosity about nature, and provides me with objective evidence of a reliable method to explore nature. I have curiosity of humanity as well. That is explored by literature, art, politics, religions, etc. I enjoy those things as well.
"Thanks for I've found God to be greater than all you profess about science. That is why I like to share about God so much on this religion blog."
=> that's great.
– who said anything to the contrary?
A lot of people have said that. Colin has suggested that believers in God are childish and delusional idiots. Some people on here have told me that Christians can not be real scientists if they know God. Some people have told me certain fields in science, which have nothing to do with the study of God, proves their atheism.
I haven't seen anyone say religious, or Christians can't be real scientists. That would be a direct denial of fact. There is a long list of fine scientists that believe in God. Of course very few of them believe evolution is false or deny other scientific facts.
I've actually had such comments made toward me too often.
Anyone who says a religious person can't be a real scientist is a fool.
You don't even need to be fully sane to be a real scientist. Newton was one of the top 3 scientists of all time and he wasn't all there.
Yep. Most atheists and agnostics on here do not make such comments. But I know for a fact that their is a myth that exists for way too many that science proves atheism or that most scientists are religious hating types.
I'm glad I have you as an example to point them to as a more reasonable understanding.
Dalahast,
I honestly have never seen, heard, or read anyone say science proves atheism. There is no proof of atheism, scientific or otherwise. I have never heard/read anyone say a religious person can't be a good/real scientist. Can you provide a reference to one?
I can't find one right now that shows someone making the scientist statement. I'll keep searching.
I did find this from a couple days ago:
"idiotusmaximus Jun 19, 11:12 am
Follow
SCIENCE HAS PROVEN no god was necessary for the beginning of this universe…i"
Thanks. While I disagree with the assertion that science has proved God is not necessary, that is still very different than the statement that science proves atheism. Even if science can prove God is not necessary to explain the universe, that would not prove there is no God, i.e. Does not prove atheism. What scientists have shown, is that our observable universe has plausible natural origins. That is a far cry from proving the universe needs no God. I believe that, but no proof.
I agree.
@santa = "So no evidence just avoidance and tangents?"
That's dahla in a nutshell..... wild claims and ZERO EVIDENCE.
I try to lead him to the evidence. He denies seeking God – despite spending so much time on a religion blog talking about God and searching for believers in God.
No, as usual, it is precisely the case that Dala has no evidence to present. He will go on using deceptive language such as "lead you to" and so on, but he never can present evidence to support the existence of his particular god, because there is none and he has none.
As to why any atheists spend time here, I won't speak for others, but in my case I feel that it is in the public good for me to defend the world against Christian dogma and myth such as Dalahast so persistently trots out. That is a major part of why I bother dropping in here at all.
You are kidding yourself if you think posting your opinions on a message board is defending the world. Or that you are doing the public a service.
God exists. Whether Santa, flintronics and you accept that or not. I have seen evidence for God. If you guys want that evidence, seek it for yourself. The kind of evidence that Santa asks for comes from God. Not from scientists, atheist philosophers or message board warriors.
"At the center of the Christian faith is the affirmation that there is a God in the universe who is the ground and essence of all reality. A Being of infinite love and boundless power, God is the creator, sustainer, and conserver of values....In contrast to the ethical relativism of [totalitarianism], Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values and affirms that God has placed within the very structure of this universe certain moral principles that are fixed and immutable."
Martin Luther King, JR
Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you have no evidence to present. You are a slippery character, but you've been caught.
I do have evidence. I'm not being slippery. I'm sharing my experience of God with others.
Are you seeking God? What ways have you tried to find God? This is something Santa hasn't answered for me. He is a slippery character, too.
No. You clearly have no evidence that you can present for the existence of your particular god.
Sure I do. How we live our lives produces evidence. I see quite a few atheists on this blog that proclaim that logic and reason govern their thoughts. They don't demonstrate that. But they sure do proclaim it.
No. You clearly have no evidence that you can present for the existence of your particular god. If you still claim to disagree, then present the evidence now, and stop dodging. Thus far, we can fairly conclude that you are a liar.
What kind of evidence do you want? How have you searched for God in the past? Are you willing to set aside everything you think you know and open your mind to new possibilities? I'm sorry, but you come across as very arrogant. And that might be your problem with not seeing the evidence of God in your life.
And that might be your problem with not seeing the evidence of God in your life.......
So it's possible to see anything you want anyway you want if you believe in something that ONLY EXIST IN ONES MIND...it never works in reality EXCEPT for those who rearrange reality by adding what is not there to convince themselves that it is gods work and proof on his being......which is pure fantasy.
It is possible you are doing the same thing you accuse me of.
No not at all Dalahast..........
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION…..
If you propose the existence of something such as a god, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence, otherwise I have no reason to listen to you.
No, you are susceptible to the same thing you accuse me of. If I don't prove something to you using the scientific method you will not listen to me? That's fine. There is a lot that the scientific method does not explain. I'm not going to close my mind to those things.
I don't close my mind to those things either...but I do recognize them as the fantasy they are...nothing provable is always open to any interpretation....My Iphone operates on science and is logical in what it does.....I like that...
Right. But you are not an iphone. You don't operate on science. And you are not logical. You are a human being. Not a product of science. Science is a tool we created and use to study the material world.
But I do operate on science and therefore never disappointed because science is not written in stone...it's fluid..
I operate on science, too. And there is nothing in my religion that hinders me from doing so.
WRONG..... that's like saying because I speak English it does not influence the way I think...your religion influences you...you're just not aware of it since you've been doing forever.
How do you know I'm not aware of it? Can you demonstrate that using the scientific method so I know you are serious? Can you also demonstrate using the scientific method that I've been doing that forever? Does it matter that I haven't been following a religion forever? Not even for most of my life? Not even for a quarter of my life? Anyway, show me the science!
You're sounding like a typical religionists......saying show me that gods (there are many) didn't create the big bank using science to prove that the big bang happened without a god...you're like a waste of time....but you do make me happy (noticed I didn't use the word grateful) that I'm not you..
I'm not a typical religioinist. I have the testimony of atheists on this blog that proclaim that. They are more reasonable and level-headed then you.
I'll trust them over you.
EdSed.....the rule is this.....THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION…..
If you propose the existence of something such as a god, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence, otherwise I have no reason to listen to you.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION…..and those that support it.
Stop dodging, liar.
If you have the means (the money) in America anyway, you don't ever send your children to a public school unless it's one in the suburbs. I attended public schools in Chicago in the early 1970's and it was even horrible back then. You simply cannot get a decent education because of the peer pressure that is violence. The teachers don't really care and are only there to collect a pay check. And very few of them can really teach any where else.
Ask President Obama why he sends his own children to private schools.
Teachers DO care. Why must you bash them when they are working within a system that is far more difficult. Public school teachers are the FIRST to help students who ask for help.
Public schools used to be better, right? What changed?
The students. There is no discipline, the kids feel ent!tled, and the "parents' expect the school to parent their kids, but without disciplining them.
My friends that are teachers in middle schools and high scools complain about it non-stop. Their hands are tied, so one disruptive student brings down the entire class.
I know a good and faithful Muslim that went to Catholic schools as a child because he would get a better education there. There are parts of the U.S.A where that is also true.
'education' and ' faithful' shouldn't be used in the same sentence.
There is no problem with "faithful" and "education" being in the same sentence. Have you ever seen the rate of people who graduate from a Catholic school that move onto graduate programs? Some people of faith embrace education.
"Why do some atheist parents send their children to religious Catholic school instead of a secular public school?"
I assume you can provide an example to support this statement?
I personally know some people that do it.
And there are examples online:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/why-this-atheist-chose-to-send-his-child-to-a-christian-school/
You failed to mention the atheists wife is Christian........... ... ...
one example?........ and based on your past dishonest posts, I don't believe for one second that you personally know an atheist couple that sends their child to a catholic school.
That was the first example that popped up online.
I do. I actually have somebody on my street that does. And someone I work with. The one I work with, I'm not sure they are atheist. But they are definitely not religious.
Growing up I also had a friend who's parents were not religious nor did they ever mention belief in God – and he went to Catholic school. The only other option beside public school was a private school, but it was quite a distance. So they settled on the Catholic school which was within walking distance.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/jan/06/faith-schools-jewish-education-atheism
If that is true, which I doubt, it may be a geographical issue (inner city public school). ANY PRIVATE school may be a safer choice for a childs education.
I dare the Pope to excommunicate us Satanists. The Mafia are welcome to associate with Satanism.
the popes, bishops and cardinals are Satan's Keepers,, no doubt, by their behavior.
Satan = pure mythology
Excommunication only applies to people that are already Catholic. You were a lost cause from the beginning so it has no affect on you.
rather silly. Then again, I suppose evolution does take time and isn't fair to all within a species. In 1,000 years religion as Catholicism will be a required study in cultural anthropology classes.
Mythology classes.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL..... Henry the 8th was smart.....he knew when he divorced Cathrine he would be excommunicated by the pope which gave him the clearance he needed to confiscate the 3/5ths of good farm land and the $8o million that the Vatican had in England ($60 billion in todays money)....which also gave Martin Luther his ideas to break away from the degenerate Pope and Cardinals and their debauchery.
The catholic church receives billions in our tax dollars in forms of grants, subsidies and tax exemptions. In fact they spend FAR LESS than they receive. Sounds like a money maker.
Now add the hospitals, insurance companies, banks, colleges.. they own and the proft there.
It's a money making machine living off YOUR tax dollar.
And catholic politicians protect the church by working with the church to give them YOUR tax dollar and to stop laws that would expose pedos and those who cover it up.
The Roman Catholic Church has fed, clothed, sheltered, and educated more people throughout history than anyone else. As for your other rantings, Pedophelia is a mental illness that affects 8% of the total population, not just Catholics. Why don't you rant against the other sinners or do you have other axes to grind against the Church?
Hitler fed lots of people too.
BTW,, the vatican feeds no one except the popes, bishops and cardinals. Vatican is out to profit on the hard luck of others. People feed the hungry, atheists included.
All religions are the curse of the human race perpetuated by the fearfully ignorant that are terrorized by life in general....which happens to be 90% of the population.....they never grow up just bigger exchanging Santa for God somewhere along the line..
I respect this man. I don't know what the backlash is going to be but this took courage. Almost wish I were catholic.
I see, when it's safe to speak out against the mafia.
Yet those who destroyed children's lives by the cover ups and abuses are not excommunicated. The pope continues to ignore the abused and protect the pedos.
One might see right through this transparent pope. After all, if he excommunicated the priests bishops and cardinals, many would get upset and expose the other popes, bishops and cardinals cover ups. Like the pope himself for doing nothing to seek out children abused and helping them when he was a cardinal.
There is a reason they don't excommunicate the abusers. It's for self protection.
Reblogged this on macressler.
True. It's disgusting to see people fall for this PR bullshit. If I hear "I love this pope" one more time I'm gonna puke. The RCC are masters at manipulation of the masses as they sit on their hordes of gold and riches. They commit horrendous crimes and when called out bring out the PR force and make a few previous popes saints, etc. Meanwhile, all the thousands of children they have raped go on suffering.
and hen they say they are former catholic, atheists, agnostics,, you can be assured they are priests playing a game. Priests are taught well to manipulate or otherwise never get the donations.
Yet not a single priest, bishop or cardinal excommunicated for abusing children or the worst crimes of cover ups. Then again, they'd have to excommunicate all the bishops, cardinals and popes for the cover ups.
Proof the vatican is about money and power and children victims are a mere inconvenience to them.
BTW, the fraction of priests defrocked, a mere 400, were all deals cut to make it look like they were doing something. Defrock is NOT fired. They are given jobs within the church with full retirement. And most are around children today.
Do your home work you might be surprised who has even a greater record of abuse that was mention earlier.
Hint: it's not under any religion.
And finally how many people have made allegations hoping to get a pay off from the Catholic church.
Has abuse occur, has some been covered up, of course, but it's also turned into a witch hunt. And the Church is an easy target because of deep pockets.
By the way I'm not a practicing Catholic and have little regard for religion in general.
I just call the b.s. when I smell it.
The vast majority of children abused are NOT liars. Pedophilia was rare in public schools where the child was left to cope alone. In the catholic church it was common practice to deny the child and threaten them.
Children with lost lives, many mentally ill due to the abuses. And you have the disgust to call them liars?????
You are the problem, pedo protector.
Yeah, it appears you are on some sort of crusade, perhaps to justify your life style choices ?
BTW, fake non-catholic, tell us what children as later adults brought false claims?
I suggest YOU do your research.
exposing pedos and those who cover it up,, is not such a bad life style.
You have been thoroughly debunked as a young hooligan poison by your life style choices and your associations. Go over to infowars or Reedit and yell it from the roof top.
I prefer supporting laws, lobbying, to help expose pedos and those who cover it up. Unlike the catholic church which has proven to lobby against my efforts.
In fact the catholic church's lobby efforts now denies ALL children abused, no matter who abused.
Keep protecting the catholic church, you are a good catholic.
You'll make a good fiction writer perhaps one day, or end up strapped to a bed in a rubber room somewhere.
You just about have crazy down to a science.
thankfully I'm not alone in exposing the crimes of the popes, bishops and cardinals. The good news is that what I post is reality. If reality is fantasy for you, I must say, you make a good catholic.
What you have exposed is yourself.
then good. I have exposed myself as one who wants laws changed to protect children. Some say I'm doing 'God's' work.
"Vast Majority"? Care to quantify that or do you just hate Catholics in general? Pedophelia affect 8% of the general population. That means everybody of all faiths (or none), not just Catholics. Are you opposed to just child abuse (who wouldnt be?) or just the Catholics so afflicted? Let's also consider the Catholic Church is not a traditional law enforcement agency so what do you expect the Church to do other than remove the perpetrator from temptation? Punishment for civil crimes is the function of local law enforcement, not the Church. If you have evidence of a crime, call a cop.
"If you have evidence of a crime, call a cop."
Exactly what the RCC didn't do. In fact when police were called they often hid the evidence. The RCC is a criminal organization.
Screw them and screw you.
southerncelt.. the cover ups were the worst crimes. Children who cope alone are at the greatest risk to mental illness and ultimate suicide. The vatican demanded the secrets be kept and used threats when needed. The cover ups denied the child's desperately needed help, The vatican ignored them all for reputation over the lives of children.
Today, the catholic church lobbies to stop laws that would expose pedos and those who cover it up. The denial of children suffering today from the abuses and cover ups continue by the pope and vatican.
Your pope ignores them,, and then PR's this mafia crap.
The Catholic organization has one main purpose and that's to collect money however way it can....anything else is a sideline.
"so what do you expect the Church to do other than remove the perpetrator from temptation?"
They didn't even do that. As a matter of fact they actually facilitated the temptation by just moving the perpetrators to new parishes where they could continue their abuse. Don't you feel dirty for defending them?
A finisher by any other name...
It's really pathetic how you pedophile supporters, defenders and protectors always want to compare your pedophile infested cult to secular society when there's anything negative about your cult such as the institutional rape of children that is so prevalent in your church. That's like say "they rape children too!". You're disgusting. So, the RCC is not divine at all then? Right? Just another organization with no moral authority? I also notice how you only compare "abuse" and always drop the coverup portion. No one bullies their victims and protects the child rapists more than the RCC.
Just another young miss guided nut-job on a crusade.
With an agenda against organized religion. Hey enjoy yourself. But please don't try and convince anyone you care other than caring simply because of your prejudices.
You are perhaps as big a fraud as what you claim the RCC is.
Give it a rest and go roll some d ope and enjoy your internet p orn.
Typical deflection of a supporter of child rapists. How do you live with yourself?
Did I push the wrong button 'ole enlighten one ?
In other words grow up and get a life !
Again, deflecting and ignoring my questions. Why, as a True Christian®, can't you answer my simple questions?
I'm not a true Christian.
I'm only here to debunked you Atheist frauds. You and organized religion are cut from the same cloth.
Your kind are as dangerous as a pedophile priest is.
Joseph can't refute any of the issues so he resorts to personal attacks. Behavior of a child.
Make a valid rebuttal or shut it.
What's an atheist fraud? How is it that one who lacks a belief in a deity a fraud? You are seriously comparing a child raping priest to a person who lacks a belief in a deity? Really!? You have some major issues.
Joeseph sounds a whole lot like thefinisher1.
Except thefinisher1 wasn't a pedophile apologist.
Not believing in god is "as dangerous as a pedophile priest is." ???
The ignorance is strong in this one!