Cherie Blair

[Songsheet]

I'm genuinely interested, Grey - if the Pontiff doesn't represent the core beliefs you refer to, then who does set them and how do you know what they are?

I understand perfectly well that many Catholics follow their religion in every aspect except that of contraception and that doesn't make them any less Christian. However, as on many occasions I believe using contraception has been viewed as a sin by Rome, then you do have to ask yourself if, by not using it as directed to by the Head of your Church, does it makes you less Catholic ?

However, this isn't a discussion that anyone is going to change minds about. As an agnostic, I find most religions inherently flawed, mainly because they provide a vehicle for fanatics and those who wish to control large numbers of people for whatever advantage they perceive they can achieve by doing so. Too many conflicts have, at their root cause, religion as their raison d'etre and for that alone, I wouldn't be part of an organised religion if you paid me.

Doesn't stop me following the basic tenets of honesty, consideration to others, charitable giving etc etc though.

 

[simmo]

Originally posted by Songsheet@May 20 2008, 11:51 AM
I wouldn't be part of an organised religion if you paid me.

On the basis that I do not have to follow any of the views promoted by a religion which I find myself in direct disagreement with, I would consider myself to be a religious whore, open to bids from any and all religious organisations who may wish to pay for my services.

 

[Songsheet]

:laughing:

 

[clivex]

Grey

No. I will not rephrase that. Anyone who unquestioningly follows the edicts of any leader, be they political or religous, deserves that description

Ill tell you what i find offensive Its the likes of Ruth Kelly voting against valuable research on dreadful diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons, because of her superstitions...

She should firstly have a sense of responsibility towards her largely secular constituents (and remember this is a country with a healthy contempt for hard nosed religion). many of whom will be suffering from the diseases in question

How she can look Gordon in the eye (given the condition of his son and his strong beliefs in this area) is beyond me

A revolting example of fundamentlist beliefs at play

Frankly if people have these beliefs, they should (like Jehovahs) sign away any future benefit from the research

And before the chippy responses get lined up...I would feel exactly the same about anyone using any strain of any religion as a reason to have prevented that bill

 

[Sheikh]

I've not seen the Bristish news today but if your talking about stem cell research, that is a complex issue and is an ethical minefield.Is that the issue you refer to ?

 

[Grey]

I think the quote below taken from this website addresses Songsheet's question and also illustrates why clivex's association of the term 'devout' with "unthinking, brainwashed drones" is ignorant.

an unofficial catholic website


"Are all members of the Church obliged to obey all official moral teachings of the Church and to assume almost as a matter of course that their consciences are necessarily erroneous and not to be followed if they are in conflict with the Church's moral pronouncement?

"a. If after appropriate study, reflection and prayer, a person is convinced that his or her conscience is correct (well formed ), the person not only may, but MUST follow the dictates of conscience rather than the teachings of the Church.

"b. The Church has never explicitly claimed to speak infallibly on moral questions; so there is probably no question as yet of a conflict between an individuals fallible decision in conscience and a teaching of the Church which is immune from error.

"c. No teaching of the Church can hope to account for every moral situation and circumstance. Every teaching still has to be applied in particular cases. One is not necessarily repudiating the values affirmed in the teaching if one decides that the teaching does not bind or apply in this matter.

"d. The teachings themselves are historically conditioned. What may have been perceived as morally wrong in one set of circumstances, e.g. charging interest on a loan today, in the context of modern commercial life." (A.C.)

The duty of a Catholic, then, is to learn what the Church teaches about human sexuality, marriage, and birth control. Catholics also ought to study these teachings, preferably with other Catholics and qualified teachers, reflect on their meaning, and prayerfully consider before God how to put these values into practice in their own concrete situation in marriage and family life.


Q. If a Catholic couple does this and decides to use some non-abortive form of artificial contraception, is it a sin?

A. Even though the objective nature of artificial contraception will be considered sinful by some, a couple acting with according to what they believe to be a correct conscience on this matter will not be committing a sin.


Q. How can one know if one's conscience is well-formed if it is at odds with the teaching of the Church?

A. It is sometimes difficult to arrive at absolute certainty concerning what is good and right. In general, there is a sense of more peace concerning the "rightness" of one course of action over another. In the context of marriage, there is also a sense that the action taken will lead to a greater growth in love in the marriage relationship, and greater responsibility to the needs of children who may already be born, or yet to be born.

"Because we never know ourselves completely (self knowledge is something one works to acquire; it is not ready made), decisions are necessarily incomplete and partial; and because our own circumstances are always historically, socially and culturally defined, decisions of conscience are necessarily fallible and subject to correction and change. Conscience is never stagnant; it is always in development." (A.C.)

By the way, I should add that I am not a believer myself but have plenty of respect for many of those who are.

 

[clivex]

Shiekh

Thats right, but its not ethical minefield to me and many others. Pretty clear cut

 

[Sheikh]

No, but I'd say you would alienate roughly 50% of the human race with your previious post.

 

[clivex]

Even in the US, where there Bush has been against this research on religous grounds, there is a clear majority in favour


http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/05/20/po...ic-research-ok/

UK

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle3716791.ece



But i couldnt care less whether people are alienated by this or not. Its those that suffer from the conditions that matter and under no circumstances should religous nuts block something that could be of benefit to those that do not buy into the supposed religous arguments against.

 

[Euronymous]

Can I just point out that these days with all that we know about how the world works: Religion, all religion is basically the preserve of the weak and the stupid.

 

[Honest Tom]

Originally posted by Euronymous@May 21 2008, 12:25 AM
Can I just point out that these days with all that we know about how the world works: Religion, all religion is basically the preserve of the weak and the stupid.

A smug statement Euro, particularly when you consider that many scientists are starting to entertain the idea that we may have been created (although I accept that doesn't make them religous). Most humans would have difficulty tuning in a telly, so expecting them to know how the world works makes you sound a bit delusional about the species you belong to.

 

[Bar the Bull]

I don't believe in God.

But I would never be dismissive of beliefs held by so many.

Unless they said they believed Arcalis would win a Champion Hurdle.

 

[Euronymous]

Originally posted by Honest Tom+May 21 2008, 08:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Honest Tom @ May 21 2008, 08:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Euronymous@May 21 2008, 12:25 AM
Can I just point out that these days with all that we know about how the world works: Religion, all religion is basically the preserve of the weak and the stupid.

A smug statement Euro, particularly when you consider that many scientists are starting to entertain the idea that we may have been created (although I accept that doesn't make them religous). Most humans would have difficulty tuning in a telly, so expecting them to know how the world works makes you sound a bit delusional about the species you belong to. [/b][/quote]
How many of these scientists are American?

I`m under no delusions about the human race, but no matter how slowly we have still evolved over the last few centuries - no one surely thinks the Earth is still flat after all.

 

[clivex]

I doubt whether creationism is seriously being considered by many scientists

Pretty strong stuff there Euro though

Personally i think there is much that is unexplained (although that doesnt include evolution) and there are areas that we have to keep an open mind about

But would agree that blindly following an organised religion (whether thats described as "devout" or not) is not far off what you describe.

 

[betsmate]

Bar The Bull - I don't think this is the place to discuss horse racing beliefs.

 

[Bar the Bull]

Can a moderator please move any Arcalis comments to a separate Arcalis thread on the horse racing forum?

 

[Honest Tom]

Originally posted by Euronymous+May 21 2008, 10:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Euronymous @ May 21 2008, 10:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Honest Tom@May 21 2008, 08:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Euronymous

@May 21 2008, 12:25 AM
Can I just point out that these days with all that we know about how the world works: Religion, all religion is basically the preserve of the weak and the stupid.

A smug statement Euro, particularly when you consider that many scientists are starting to entertain the idea that we may have been created (although I accept that doesn't make them religous). Most humans would have difficulty tuning in a telly, so expecting them to know how the world works makes you sound a bit delusional about the species you belong to.

How many of these scientists are American?

I`m under no delusions about the human race, but no matter how slowly we have still evolved over the last few centuries - no one surely thinks the Earth is still flat after all. [/b][/quote]
No idea of the actual numbers or their country of origin (although at least one was British) but I fail to see what the latter's got to do with it. None of the ones I've heard or read about were regurgitating the beliefs of American christian fundamentalists or giving it that the bible was correct. Also, many were suggesting we may have been created but weren't making any assumptions about the creator(s) who (themselves) may or may not also have been created. More to the point, their knowledge of "how the world works" was way beyond my (and I assume your) understanding of the laws of physics. They could certainly have tuned in a telly.

Personally I think anyone who thinks this is it and there's no possibility of there being anything more is pretty stupid. I know no end of people who claim to believe (and comprehend) that in the blink of an eye they, and their loved ones, will be wiped into oblivion, yet they still somehow manage to drag themselves out of bed at 6 in the morning to do a job they detest for 6 or 7 quid an hour. FFS it reminds me of the condemned man who rejects a last smoke because he's trying to give up. These people can be split into 2 groups. The more neandrethal among them probably think belief in anything other than oblivion is a bit gay and the more intelligent ones aren't too sure of their own intelligence so go along with overall scientific thinking but neither group exhibit symptoms to suggest they find their situation in the least bit desperate or their lives futile.

I can understand why people are religous although I'll never be able to understand why all their Gods seem to be pretty obnoxious. If God isn't slaughtering their enemies (enemies by accident of birth), he's laying on 21 poor sacrificial virgins for suicide bombers or banishing unborn babies to limbo. At least the oblivionists' 'God' doesn't discriminate, but even their 'God' is a matter of faith.

Me, I haven't a fukcing clue.

 

[Euronymous]

Originally posted by Honest Tom+May 21 2008, 04:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Honest Tom @ May 21 2008, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Euronymous@May 21 2008, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Honest Tom@May 21 2008, 08:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Euronymous

@May 21 2008, 12:25 AM
Can I just point out that these days with all that we know about how the world works: Religion, all religion is basically the preserve of the weak and the stupid.

A smug statement Euro, particularly when you consider that many scientists are starting to entertain the idea that we may have been created (although I accept that doesn't make them religous). Most humans would have difficulty tuning in a telly, so expecting them to know how the world works makes you sound a bit delusional about the species you belong to.

How many of these scientists are American?

I`m under no delusions about the human race, but no matter how slowly we have still evolved over the last few centuries - no one surely thinks the Earth is still flat after all.

No idea of the actual numbers or their country of origin (although at least one was British) but I fail to see what the latter's got to do with it. [/b][/quote]
I think some American scientists struggle for funding if they`re outright Darwinists.

 

[Grey]

I know no end of people who claim to believe (and comprehend) that in the blink of an eye they, and their loved ones, will be wiped into oblivion, yet they still somehow manage to drag themselves out of bed at 6 in the morning to do a job they detest for 6 or 7 quid an hour.

As Samuel Beckett would have it:

"I can't go on. I'll go on."

 

[Honest Tom]

Originally posted by Euronymous+May 21 2008, 05:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Euronymous @ May 21 2008, 05:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Honest Tom@May 21 2008, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Euronymous@May 21 2008, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Honest Tom@May 21 2008, 08:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Euronymous

@May 21 2008, 12:25 AM
Can I just point out that these days with all that we know about how the world works: Religion, all religion is basically the preserve of the weak and the stupid.

A smug statement Euro, particularly when you consider that many scientists are starting to entertain the idea that we may have been created (although I accept that doesn't make them religous). Most humans would have difficulty tuning in a telly, so expecting them to know how the world works makes you sound a bit delusional about the species you belong to.

How many of these scientists are American?

I`m under no delusions about the human race, but no matter how slowly we have still evolved over the last few centuries - no one surely thinks the Earth is still flat after all.

No idea of the actual numbers or their country of origin (although at least one was British) but I fail to see what the latter's got to do with it.

I think some American scientists struggle for funding if they`re outright Darwinists. [/b][/quote]
None of the scientists I'm referring to mentioned anything anti-Darwin or pro-bible.

 

[Melendez]

Originally posted by Honest Tom+May 21 2008, 09:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Honest Tom @ May 21 2008, 09:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Euronymous@May 21 2008, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Honest Tom@May 21 2008, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Euronymous@May 21 2008, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Honest Tom@May 21 2008, 08:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Euronymous

@May 21 2008, 12:25 AM
Can I just point out that these days with all that we know about how the world works: Religion, all religion is basically the preserve of the weak and the stupid.

A smug statement Euro, particularly when you consider that many scientists are starting to entertain the idea that we may have been created (although I accept that doesn't make them religous). Most humans would have difficulty tuning in a telly, so expecting them to know how the world works makes you sound a bit delusional about the species you belong to.

How many of these scientists are American?

I`m under no delusions about the human race, but no matter how slowly we have still evolved over the last few centuries - no one surely thinks the Earth is still flat after all.

No idea of the actual numbers or their country of origin (although at least one was British) but I fail to see what the latter's got to do with it.

I think some American scientists struggle for funding if they`re outright Darwinists.

None of the scientists I'm referring to mentioned anything anti-Darwin or pro-bible. [/b][/quote]
Just trying for the record for nested quotes.

 

[Songsheet]

Grey:

I completely agree with the tenets of your chosen website - however, the basis of your logic that you can be a devout Catholic while following whatever it is you want to do that is frowned upon by the leaders of your Church merely illustrates my point that you're following a Pick 'N Mix religion!

Fair enough if the 'devout Catholics' you refer to follow whatever it is is they believe to be suited to their particular brand of catholicism (deliberate lower case c ) but, unless they do so and don't attend organised any organised religious Catholic services or contribute any money to the Catholic Church, then I believe they aren't devout. Very good people? Yes. Devout in the true organised religion that is Catholicism? No.

Maybe I misunderstand the term 'devout' - to me it doesn't mean that being devout about anything makes you an exceptionally moral/'good' person - it just means to me that you hold a deeply held belief about whatever it is you are devout about!

 

[Grey]

Songsheet,

Ian Paisley used to portray the Catholic church and its followers as a disciplined army ready to slit Protestant throats and overthrow the British state at the Pope's bidding.

And echoes of this attitude remain in the British constitution. Autumn Kelly (given she's North American, shouldn't it be Fall Kelly? ) renounced her Catholic faith so that her new husband could remain as a possible heir to the throne.

You yourself refer to the "true organised religion that is Catholicism". Believe me, it ain't like that, there is a diversity of sincerely held views within the Catholic church just as there is in any large organisation, and however much the Vatican sometimes might wish this wasn't the case.

The important theological point is that Catholics are not merely allowed, but are obliged, to follow their own informed conscience, even if it conflicts with the official Church position. I know recent popes haven't drawn much attention to this aspect of Catholic faith - to say the least - but they haven't tried to change it either.

 

[Songsheet]

I think you're still missing my point - probably badly expressed by me.

My point is that if you subscribe to a particular religion by funding it (as many 'devout' Catholics do) - then you are - whether you believe/follow all the various tenets of the faith or not - passively supoprting the credo.

The same applies to any brand or organized activity, religious or not.

Quite what Paisley or the Monarchy have to do with this, I'm not sure !

 

[Grey]

Maybe I am missing your point.

All I'm trying to say is that being devout, and in particular being a devout Catholic, does not mean you must automatically follow the instructions of your religious leader if to do so would be to go against your own informed conscience. There are some who do follow the official line without question, but equally there are plenty of serious and devout Catholics who cannot in conscience follow the Church's official position on every matter.

To take the issue that started all this off, those Catholics who don't follow the official church position on artificial contraception are probably - almost certainly - in a large majority. And many of these people are in fact devout.

I don't claim to know anything much about Cherie Blair, but the use of artificial contraception, while being against official church teaching, is no proof that she is not a devout Catholic.