Religious Discussion Thread

[Berries]

 

[Kelpie03]

That's not true at all. If that's the exact wording the pamphlet used, then whoever wrote the pamphlet is lying.

Singer has said, and written, some terrible sounding stuff. But he didn't say that the grounds for not killing should not apply to newborn babies. He stated that if a child is suffering and has no potential for living a full life, then it should not be considered murder if a Doctor helps the family through euthanasia. And he also stated that while he sees an ethical difference between a baby dying and an adult dying, a baby's death still holds the same problems as its the family that suffer the death of the child.

When asked about his stance on healthy babies, he stated:

"What about a baby without any disability? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill any baby they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?"

"Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that’s a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although no newborn baby has a sense of the future, and therefore no newborn baby is a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill any newborn baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for an infant without serious disabilities. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it."

Life lines which is published by Family Life International did not say that Singer advocated the killing of newborn children. Life Lines quoted that Singer said that, the grounds for not not killing a person do not apply to new born infants, "since new born babies cannot see themselves as beings who might or might not have a fututure, so they cannot have a desire to continue living which is not very different from what you posted.
BTW no living thing (human or whatever) can be sure of been alive tomorrow.
I am certain that most people including many non Christians would be sickned by what Singer said, he would not be very popular if what he said became public. Imagine what the parents who a desperate for a child would think of him.

I guess its not supprising that Victoria is the state leading the culture of death.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Life lines which is published by Family Life International did not say that Singer advocated the killing of newborn children. Life Lines quoted that Singer said that, the grounds for not not killing a person do not apply to new born infants, "since new born babies cannot see themselves as beings who might or might not have a future, so they cannot have a desire to continue living", which is not very different from what you posted.

In life I put one thing ahead of everything else. The truth. And I mean actual factual, verifiable truth. I don't care how uncomfortable it is. I will always aim to put the truth first.

That's why stuff like this annoys me. I have said that I think Singer said many disgusting things, and I disagree with him on many things, but...

He never said that.

Life Lines and Family Life International are lying. And that annoys me. Especially when it's done by a group that claims to be "honest Christians"

Singer didn't say that. He said, "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all"

He said that in 1979. He has since partially retracted it, saying that his stance has changed.

The "quote" that Life Lines made was by one of Singer's opponents when trying to sum up what Singer said, but it wasn't what Singer said at all.

 

[Kelpie03]

In life I put one thing ahead of everything else. The truth. And I mean actual factual, verifiable truth. I don't care how uncomfortable it is. I will always aim to put the truth first.

That's why stuff like this annoys me. I have said that I think Singer said many disgusting things, and I disagree with him on many things, but...

He never said that.

Life Lines and Family Life International are lying. And that annoys me. Especially when it's done by a group that claims to be "honest Christians"

Singer didn't say that. He said, "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all"

He said that in 1979. He has since partially retracted it, saying that his stance has changed.

The "quote" that Life Lines made was by one of Singer's opponents when trying to sum up what Singer said, but it wasn't what Singer said at all.

Anyone who lives and breaths the truth is doing Christs work, so congrats,
I believ that we have all quoted others at times, sometimes true some times exagurated and sometimes false In this case I quoted what family life International reportered, I'm sure that even some of our religious people exagurated at times, I know from personal experience.
I didn't say that what FLI reportered was true, but then Singer was in Victoria at that time, and that state appeared to be at the forefront of the " 'culture of death" ie is late term abortion and partial birth abortions, which I regard as murder, and hate with a passion, and uthinasia, which my.is church against.
My Church which believes and teaches about the after-life and wants EVERY ONE TO GO TO HEAVEN. I can understand its reasoning behind it. Personally I have an open mind about uthinasia, (1) because I believe that life is sacread, (2) Because I have also seen so many FANATICAL anti God people, that they will never change, so they should be allowed to do what the want behind closed doors. Then lealising uthinasia might lead to legual killing of the old who want to continue living, in effect the slippery slope
You did say that Singer retracted what he said, so what he origionally said may not have been to different from what Family life reportered, and at some stage you also said that he had said some nasty things.
I have never heard you get ropable about what people posted before.
One thing I am certain about Hacky is that you cannot live and breath the truth but also carry a gripe against someone or some institution.

 

[Doogie]

Bishop Saunders from Broome eh.

Another one - so bad the pope asked for a report and are sitting on it and doing squat.

 

[Mr 95%]

Bishop Saunders from Broome eh.

Another one - so bad the pope asked for a report and are sitting on it and doing squat.

It’s a disgrace Dooges.. had the report for 6 months.. They have video footage of him buying alcohol and cigarettes in efforts to grooming Indigenous male youths..yet silence.

One of Australia’s most powerful Catholic figures at centre of Vatican report

A three-year investigation by 7NEWS can reveal shocking claims against the former Bishop of Broome.

7news.com.au

 

[Kelpie03]

It’s a disgrace Dooges.. had the report for 6 months.. They have video footage of him buying alcohol and cigarettes in efforts to grooming Indigenous male youths..yet silence.

One of Australia’s most powerful Catholic figures at centre of Vatican report

A three-year investigation by 7NEWS can reveal shocking claims against the former Bishop of Broome.

7news.com.au

Even the courts take their time to sort out charges and complaints, so lets wait and see, because every incident has at least 2 different versions.
Since the sex scandles I am certain that most of our faithfull have become very vigilent about what goes on in and around their Church.
A few of my fellow Parishioners have asked questions about our own clergy, due to stories they heard from the anti Catholics they associate with.
Hacky is so obsessed with the truth so I'm sure he would do his own research and tell us all about it, considering its a Catholic Church matter.
BTW Bro, considering that you're a lapsed Catholic, have you ever any heard false rubbish about Catholics and their Church.

 

[Kelpie03]

Even the courts take their time to sort out charges and complaints, so lets wait and see, because every incident has at least 2 different versions.
Since the sex scandals I am certain that most of our faithful have become very vigilant about what goes on in and around their Church.
A few of my fellow Parishioners have asked questions about our own clergy, due to stories they heard from the anti Catholics they associate with.
Hacky is so obsessed with the truth so I'm sure he would do his own research and tell us all about it, considering its a Catholic Church matter.
BTW Bro, considering that you're a lapsed Catholic, have you ever any heard false rubbish about Catholics and their Church.

I read the report after I had posted, if true they were very serious offences, SO WHY HASEN'T HE BEEN CHARGED BY THE POLICE,, even for a bishop been defrocked is'nt much punishment, for sexual related offences..

 

[Mr 95%]

Even the courts take their time to sort out charges and complaints, so lets wait and see, because every incident has at least 2 different versions.
Since the sex scandles I am certain that most of our faithfull have become very vigilent about what goes on in and around their Church.
A few of my fellow Parishioners have asked questions about our own clergy, due to stories they heard from the anti Catholics they associate with.
Hacky is so obsessed with the truth so I'm sure he would do his own research and tell us all about it, considering its a Catholic Church matter.
BTW Bro, considering that you're a lapsed Catholic, have you ever any heard false rubbish about Catholics and their Church.

Absolutely Kelps.. This one is different though, it was actually an investigation by the Church itself, which seems to suggest that this Bishop has raised a number of red flags that his own institution warranted a closer scrutiny of his behaviour. Considering this, it would be expected that something have been said by now. They have video footage of the guy actually grooming young kids. I guess time will tell. It is sad that these grubs are still hiding and infiltrating the Church.

 

[Mr 95%]

I read the report after I had posted, if true they were very serious offences, SO WHY HASEN'T HE BEEN CHARGED BY THE POLICE,, even for a bishop been defrocked is'nt much punishment, for sexual related offences..

Yes this be true, the Police were unable to charge him due to insufficient evidence. However, the Church still felt compelled to investigate him. The police have now urged them to hand over their report which details the crimes the Bishop committed. This is the key, the Church thought it was still warranted to investigate him Kelps, and they did, and they found he most likely committed these crime. Yet no comment or statement from the Vatican as yet 6 MONTHS LATER..

 

[HD and Ink]

View attachment 81177

I guess that's speaking from experience .

 

[Grunthos]

In my 61 years on this planet, I have come to the conclusion that though God is not an asshole, most religious people are...

 

[south of heaven]

In my 61 years on this planet, I have come to the conclusion that though God is not an asshole, most religious people are...

I don't know making a 600 year old pensioner build a big boat , because God cracked the shits over his own science experiments ( which he already knew how it would end)is kinda a dick move on most levels

 

[Doogie]

Yes this be true, the Police were unable to charge him due to insufficient evidence. However, the Church still felt compelled to investigate him. The police have now urged them to hand over their report which details the crimes the Bishop committed. This is the key, the Church thought it was still warranted to investigate him Kelps, and they did, and they found he most likely committed these crime. Yet no comment or statement from the Vatican as yet 6 MONTHS LATER..

Gets better.

Apparently the Vatican argument is they are waiting on a response from old mate. And he hasn't responded. So its all stuck at this point. Its why the police want the Vatican report but they are not handing it over. I can sort of understand the Vatican position on not releasing the report without old mates statement.

Now just saying, if my employer reckons I diddled and is asking for a response, I'd respond fairly quickly to clear my name as soon as possible. But I guess thats just me. 6 months doesn't seem fairly quickly. Unless he had a LOT to respond to, in which case either its the greatest stitch up ever or he's guilty as.

Know what horse my money is on.

 

[Mr 95%]

Gets better.

Apparently the Vatican argument is they are waiting on a response from old mate. And he hasn't responded. So its all stuck at this point. Its why the police want the Vatican report but they are not handing it over. I can sort of understand the Vatican position on not releasing the report without old mates statement.

Now just saying, if my employer reckons I diddled and is asking for a response, I'd respond fairly quickly to clear my name as soon as possible. But I guess thats just me. 6 months doesn't seem fairly quickly. Unless he had a LOT to respond to, in which case either its the greatest stitch up ever or he's guilty as.

Know what horse my money is on.

If that’s the case I do understand the report not being released. I agree with wanting to clear my name, and as such I would not stand down, and I would plead my innocence. Additionally, if he was my old mate, and I thought he was innocence, I would be jumping in to stand by him straight away. I would not go MIA for six month.

That horse is a short price favourite Dooges.

 

[Kelpie03]

Yes this be true, the Police were unable to charge him due to insufficient evidence. However, the Church still felt compelled to investigate him. The police have now urged them to hand over their report which details the crimes the Bishop committed. This is the key, the Church thought it was still warranted to investigate him Kelps, and they did, and they found he most likely committed these crime. Yet no comment or statement from the Vatican as yet 6 MONTHS LATER..

What I find odd is, when sex crimes against Children are involved the police have always been very quick to deal with complaints, and lay charges sometimes on very flimsey evidence.
One case i know well involved my wife who chaired the jury, she told me herself that the case against the priest who was aquitted was a total fabrication.
In the other case a priest whom I was frends with was hurled out of bed during the night and taken to jail. The incident occured before he had been ordained and had alegedly occured at a social gathering, and involved a grown woman, who after making the complaint and having the priest charged failed to appear in court for the trial. BTW I was assured that the church did not pay her compo. Also ten years later the Church has still not allowed the priest who was very popular to practice.
Perhaps WA police arn't as trigger happy as the NSW ones, but I cannot see how any level headed intelegent person would jump to conclusions at least untill charges have been laid.
I have no time for paedo's particularily priests no doubt I will now be accused of covering up for them. by the hate blinded skum.

 

[Kelpie03]

Bishop Saunders from Broome eh.

Another one - so bad the pope asked for a report and are sitting on it and doing squat.

BTW how long ago did these alledged incidents occur, because I thought that the parishioners were told to be very vigilent since the RC.

 

[Kelpie03]

In my 61 years on this planet, I have come to the conclusion that though God is not an asshole, most religious people are...

Thanks Grunthos, you have just shown yourself to be a person of the highest intelect.

 

[Doogie]

BTW how long ago did these alledged incidents occur, because I thought that the parishioners were told to be very vigilent since the RC.

No allegations after mid 2021 it says online.

 

[Grunthos]

Thanks Grunthos, you have just shown yourself to be a person of the highest intelect.

Why thankyou, and to think I was dropped on my head as a baby.

Several times actually.