Jump to content

Census 2.0


Crocefisso

About You  

180 members have voted

  1. 1. Your race is...

    • Caucasian
      152
    • African (incl. black westerners)
      4
    • Arab
      1
    • Persian
      0
    • Turkic
      0
    • East Asian peoples (Chinese et al)
      9
    • Indigenous American
      0
    • Indian
      3
    • Indigenous Australasian
      0
    • Other
      4
    • Mixed
      7
  2. 2. Your religious beliefs are...

    • Christianity
      32
    • Islam
      0
    • Judaism
      2
    • Buddhism
      1
    • Taoism
      0
    • Hinduism
      1
    • Sikhism
      1
    • Zoroastrianism
      0
    • Caodaiism
      0
    • Jainism
      0
    • Shintoism
      0
    • Primal Indigenous
      0
    • African Traditional
      0
    • Bahá'í Faith
      0
    • Neo-Paganism
      1
    • Rastafarianism
      1
    • Scientology
      1
    • Chinese folk religion
      0
    • Atheism
      103
    • Other
      37
  3. 3. Your sexual preference is

    • Heterosexuality
      134
    • Homosexuality (g & l)
      16
    • Bisexuality
      17
    • Asexuality
      8
    • Confused
      5


Recommended Posts

It's just the Catholics and some of those American ones that get all fanatical about it.

 

It's Catholic teaching that being homosexual isn't wrong, but acting on it is. This is a drastic change from where it was 100-125 years ago where they didn't even believe it existed.

 

I'm not saying that the teaching is right, because I believe that it's not. Just saying.

sig2-1.png

Last.Fm

 

My Bloggy

 

Proud to have served on Tip.it Crew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's just the Catholics and some of those American ones that get all fanatical about it.

 

It's Catholic teaching that being homosexual isn't wrong, but acting on it is. This is a drastic change from where it was 100-125 years ago where they didn't even believe it existed.

 

I'm not saying that the teaching is right, because I believe that it's not. Just saying.

 

Well I would think that the Catholic church would have to become a bit more progressive as gayness is becoming more accepted in society.

Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just the Catholics and some of those American ones that get all fanatical about it.

 

It's Catholic teaching that being homosexual isn't wrong, but acting on it is. This is a drastic change from where it was 100-125 years ago where they didn't even believe it existed.

 

I'm not saying that the teaching is right, because I believe that it's not. Just saying.

 

Well I would think that the Catholic church would have to become a bit more progressive as gayness is becoming more accepted in society.

The church has never been populist - why would they change now?

 

They've always been pro-life and abortion has been widely accepted for the past fifty years - no signs of change there.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The church has never been populist - why would they change now?

 

They've always been pro-life and abortion has been widely accepted for the past fifty years - no signs of change there.

 

The church didn't need to be populist for the most part of its history, because it had people by a societal and moral stranglehold. The church used to be an incredibly pervasive and, for parts of its history, dangerous organisation, be it the Catholic church or whatever else. The Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, and the Salem witch trials give examples of the power of the church across continents over time. If you control people's minds, lives and beliefs, what need is there for populism? Today, with this influence eroding, populism is becoming increasingly necessary as a way of preserving the church. That's why the church will need to change.

 

Similarly, in those fifty years, more and more senior church figures - though probably not in the USA, where they're ultra right-wing - are reconsidering the church stance on such issues as homosexuality and abortion. The Anglican church is just one notable example.


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The church has never been populist - why would they change now?

 

They've always been pro-life and abortion has been widely accepted for the past fifty years - no signs of change there.

 

The church didn't need to be populist for the most part of its history, because it had people by a societal and moral stranglehold. The church used to be an incredibly pervasive and, for parts of its history, dangerous organisation, be it the Catholic church or whatever else. The Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, and the Salem witch trials give examples of the power of the church across continents over time. If you control people's minds, lives and beliefs, what need is there for populism? Today, with this influence eroding, populism is becoming increasingly necessary as a way of preserving the church. That's why the church will need to change.

 

Similarly, in those fifty years, more and more senior church figures - though probably not in the USA, where they're ultra right-wing - are reconsidering the church stance on such issues as homosexuality and abortion. The Anglican church is just one notable example.

 

I don't even know where to begin with this post.....

 

I'm talking about the catholic church. I can practically guarantee there will be NO reversal of catholic moral teaching in my lifetime in regards to these issues.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all surprised by the statistic from the poll so far; most users are white, hetrosexual and christian/atheist. Although the incidence of homosexuality is higher than most average population. :razz:

 

Perhaps it might be informative to add a gender poll as well?

I found a panda and then we bought malt liquor. I hold my malt liquor better than a panda.

 

And I thought my weekends were good. ._.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The church has never been populist - why would they change now?

 

They've always been pro-life and abortion has been widely accepted for the past fifty years - no signs of change there.

 

The church didn't need to be populist for the most part of its history, because it had people by a societal and moral stranglehold. The church used to be an incredibly pervasive and, for parts of its history, dangerous organisation, be it the Catholic church or whatever else. The Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, and the Salem witch trials give examples of the power of the church across continents over time. If you control people's minds, lives and beliefs, what need is there for populism? Today, with this influence eroding, populism is becoming increasingly necessary as a way of preserving the church. That's why the church will need to change.

 

Similarly, in those fifty years, more and more senior church figures - though probably not in the USA, where they're ultra right-wing - are reconsidering the church stance on such issues as homosexuality and abortion. The Anglican church is just one notable example.

 

I don't even know where to begin with this post.....

 

I'm talking about the catholic church. I can practically guarantee there will be NO reversal of catholic moral teaching in my lifetime in regards to these issues.

There are 23 known Crusades, called for by the pope, with the main aim being to gain control of the Holy Land for Christianity.

Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all surprised by the statistic from the poll so far; most users are white, hetrosexual and christian/atheist. Although the incidence of homosexuality is higher than most average population. :razz:

 

Perhaps it might be informative to add a gender poll as well?

I don't think a female has spoken in the sixteen posts made on this page thus far. Does this answer your question sufficiently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The church has never been populist - why would they change now?

 

They've always been pro-life and abortion has been widely accepted for the past fifty years - no signs of change there.

 

The church didn't need to be populist for the most part of its history, because it had people by a societal and moral stranglehold. The church used to be an incredibly pervasive and, for parts of its history, dangerous organisation, be it the Catholic church or whatever else. The Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, and the Salem witch trials give examples of the power of the church across continents over time. If you control people's minds, lives and beliefs, what need is there for populism? Today, with this influence eroding, populism is becoming increasingly necessary as a way of preserving the church. That's why the church will need to change.

 

Similarly, in those fifty years, more and more senior church figures - though probably not in the USA, where they're ultra right-wing - are reconsidering the church stance on such issues as homosexuality and abortion. The Anglican church is just one notable example.

 

I don't even know where to begin with this post.....

 

I'm talking about the catholic church. I can practically guarantee there will be NO reversal of catholic moral teaching in my lifetime in regards to these issues.

There are 23 known Crusades, called for by the pope, with the main aim being to gain control of the Holy Land for Christianity.

 

Point being?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C-c-c-combo breaker? :P

 

But yeah, it's true that Women are a clear minority on TIF. We certainly don't need a poll for that.

 

Yeah but I want to know how many of us there are. We need to FIGHT THE POWER! :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The church has never been populist - why would they change now?

 

They've always been pro-life and abortion has been widely accepted for the past fifty years - no signs of change there.

 

The church didn't need to be populist for the most part of its history, because it had people by a societal and moral stranglehold. The church used to be an incredibly pervasive and, for parts of its history, dangerous organisation, be it the Catholic church or whatever else. The Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, and the Salem witch trials give examples of the power of the church across continents over time. If you control people's minds, lives and beliefs, what need is there for populism? Today, with this influence eroding, populism is becoming increasingly necessary as a way of preserving the church. That's why the church will need to change.

 

Similarly, in those fifty years, more and more senior church figures - though probably not in the USA, where they're ultra right-wing - are reconsidering the church stance on such issues as homosexuality and abortion. The Anglican church is just one notable example.

 

I don't even know where to begin with this post.....

 

I'm talking about the catholic church. I can practically guarantee there will be NO reversal of catholic moral teaching in my lifetime in regards to these issues.

There are 23 known Crusades, called for by the pope, with the main aim being to gain control of the Holy Land for Christianity.

 

Point being?

 

The point being that the Catholic Church was a powerhouse in Europe for well over a millennia. The Church created the populace in their image; they had no need to be populist.

 

These days, with the church's influence massively reduced, populism is going to be necessary to ensure it remains a relevant organisation. I do not think the church is evil (though it has a very corrupt history - just look at Popes Alexander VI and Julius II and you'll see a shining example), and it does many good things, but if its teachings are out of touch with the status quo, it's a problem for it and its following because it used to create the status quo.

 

Sooner or later, Catholic teaching will change. In our lifetime, maybe not, but it only takes one or two reformist Popes to make these changes. The church is already in steep decline in Europe, and other countries will follow sooner or later unless the church adopts a more populist approach.


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point being that the Catholic Church was a powerhouse in Europe for well over a millennia. The Church created the populace in their image; they had no need to be populist.

 

These days, with the church's influence massively reduced, populism is going to be necessary to ensure it remains a relevant organisation. I do not think the church is evil (though it has a very corrupt history - just look at Popes Alexander VI and Julius II and you'll see a shining example), and it does many good things, but if its teachings are out of touch with the status quo, it's a problem for it and its following because it used to create the status quo.

 

Sooner or later, Catholic teaching will change. In our lifetime, maybe not, but it only takes one or two reformist Popes to make these changes. The church is already in steep decline in Europe, and other countries will follow sooner or later unless the church adopts a more populist approach.

 

I'm well aware that they were a powerhouse and still are to some extent.

 

The fact that you actually expect the church to change their teaching on social issues only serves to show you know nothing about the church at all. It seems unfathomable to so many atheists and non-religious to think that maybe the church genuinely thinks something is immoral and isn't just creating "laws" to "control people". If the church actually believes what it preaches (which i firmly believe it does) then it cannot change its teachings to appeal to the general populace, and it won't.

 

The day the catholic church changes their stance on social issues is the day I finally hop off the fence and become an atheist.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Catholic Church has changed its' views before; indeed the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is only a recent concept, as defined by the first Vatican Council in 1870 and caused a massive uproar at the time.

I found a panda and then we bought malt liquor. I hold my malt liquor better than a panda.

 

And I thought my weekends were good. ._.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Papal infallibility is not an essential moral teaching, nor was it a "recent concept". It was generally accepted up until that point and only officially sanctioned at that time.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point being that the Catholic Church was a powerhouse in Europe for well over a millennia. The Church created the populace in their image; they had no need to be populist.

 

These days, with the church's influence massively reduced, populism is going to be necessary to ensure it remains a relevant organisation. I do not think the church is evil (though it has a very corrupt history - just look at Popes Alexander VI and Julius II and you'll see a shining example), and it does many good things, but if its teachings are out of touch with the status quo, it's a problem for it and its following because it used to create the status quo.

 

Sooner or later, Catholic teaching will change. In our lifetime, maybe not, but it only takes one or two reformist Popes to make these changes. The church is already in steep decline in Europe, and other countries will follow sooner or later unless the church adopts a more populist approach.

 

I'm well aware that they were a powerhouse and still are to some extent.

 

The fact that you actually expect the church to change their teaching on social issues only serves to show you know nothing about the church at all. It seems unfathomable to so many atheists and non-religious to think that maybe the church genuinely thinks something is immoral and isn't just creating "laws" to "control people". If the church actually believes what it preaches (which i firmly believe it does) then it cannot change its teachings to appeal to the general populace, and it won't.

 

The day the catholic church changes their stance on social issues is the day I finally hop off the fence and become an atheist.

 

The Catholic Church has spent its entire history breaking its own teachings; as such, I don't really think them changing their official stance should be an issue to anyone that realises this.

 

E.g.:

 

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

-Yet the Spanish Inquisition was a perfect example of this. It's essentially the European equivalent of the Salem witch trials, except on a far, far larger scale over 200+ years. Similarly, the Crusades also broke this commandment.

 

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

-Catholic places of worship are typically filled with statues and other such examples of idolatry which, though beautiful, do technically break this commandment.

 

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour."

-Spanish Inquisition used to force people to do this.

 

"You shall not steal."

-Catholic Church spent centuries doing this to the people of Europe, in the form of tithes and so on.

 

"You shall not murder."

-Many, many examples of this by the Catholic Church; Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, and most importantly, Pope Alexander VI. Please look this man up, he was absolute scum - a murdering, warmongering, nepotistic and power hungry man with no moral fibre whatsoever. Many Popes throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern periods displayed similar traits.

 

PS: Interesting to assume that, because I am not a fan of the Catholic Church as an institution, you assume I am non-religious. I am in fact the one Buddhist in the census.


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Catholic Church has spent its entire history breaking its own teachings; as such, I don't really think them changing their official stance should be an issue to anyone that realises this.

 

E.g.:

 

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

-Yet the Spanish Inquisition was a perfect example of this. It's essentially the European equivalent of the Salem witch trials, except on a far, far larger scale over 200+ years. Similarly, the Crusades also broke this commandment.

 

Yes, the crusades and the inquisition broke the morals of the church.

 

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

-Catholic places of worship are typically filled with statues and other such examples of idolatry which, though beautiful, do technically break this commandment.

 

The statues are not being worshiped, they are symbols of God.

 

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour."

-Spanish Inquisition used to force people to do this.

 

Once again, broke the morals of the church.

"You shall not steal."

-Catholic Church spent centuries doing this to the people of Europe, in the form of tithes and so on.

 

"You shall not murder."

-Many, many examples of this by the Catholic Church; Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, and most importantly, Pope Alexander VI. Please look this man up, he was absolute scum - a murdering, warmongering, nepotistic and power hungry man with no moral fibre whatsoever. Many Popes throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern periods displayed similar traits.

 

 

All you're demonstrating is that various corrupt members of the church have broken the morals that the church holds. It doesn't mean they've changed their teaching - it means that when humans are given power, many times they will abuse it. It says nothing about the morality of the church itself.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Catholic Church has spent its entire history breaking its own teachings; as such, I don't really think them changing their official stance should be an issue to anyone that realises this.

Never in the Church's history did it teach murder was "right".

If your point is that Catholics are hypocrites, my answer is "duh." The Church teaches to be like Christ; whenever someone professes and teaches the Catholic faith sins they've effectively done what they said not to do.

 

Anyhow, I suggest you create a new thread, "Bash Catholicism Here," so at least I know which thread to avoid instead of soiling this one.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The statues are not being worshiped, they are symbols of God.

 

 

The distinction is incredibly hazy. They may not be worshipping the statues per se, but they still worship with them and they can easily be seen as idolatry, including by most Christians outside of Catholicism.

 

Anyway, I think sees is right and we've gone a little too off topic, and we should probably leave the discussion.


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The statues are not being worshiped, they are symbols of God.

 

 

The distinction is incredibly hazy. They may not be worshipping the statues per se, but they still worship with them and they can easily be seen as idolatry, including by most Christians outside of Catholicism.

 

Anyway, I think sees is right and we've gone a little too off topic, and we should probably leave the discussion.

Do you have a poster in your room, by any chance? Perhaps of a band, or actor, or sports figure?

 

Do you have it there because you like the piece of paper with ink on it itself? Or because you like what it represents?

 

But at any rate, we are getting off topic.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong here, and it is a little late to correct it, but isn't Buddhism more of a philosphy, rather than a religion? Because, although Buddha is oftentimes elevated to a godlike status, didn't he consider himself a normal guy, and preach that morality and truth comes from within, and that you must find the religion (or lack thereof) that fits you the most? So, I, as an Atheist, can be Buddhist because I've found that my atheism is the most correct, moral path for myself. Right?

Rune Tips Merchanting Site!

"rune tips cc" if you would like to learn some tricks of the merching trade! We have a great community as well.

Each of us a cell of awareness/Imperfect and incomplete/Genetic blends with uncertain ends/On a fortune hunt thats far too fleet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong here, and it is a little late to correct it, but isn't Buddhism more of a philosphy, rather than a religion? Because, although Buddha is oftentimes elevated to a godlike status, didn't he consider himself a normal guy, and preach that morality and truth comes from within, and that you must find the religion (or lack thereof) that fits you the most? So, I, as an Atheist, can be Buddhist because I've found that my atheism is the most correct, moral path for myself. Right?

It varies widely by sect of Buddhism. Most people consider it to be a religion in the sense that it is a way of life, to be practiced consciously. A religion need not involve worship of a higher being (though many sects of Buddhism do elevate the Buddha to worshipable level.).

Flyingjj.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong here, and it is a little late to correct it, but isn't Buddhism more of a philosphy, rather than a religion? Because, although Buddha is oftentimes elevated to a godlike status, didn't he consider himself a normal guy, and preach that morality and truth comes from within, and that you must find the religion (or lack thereof) that fits you the most? So, I, as an Atheist, can be Buddhist because I've found that my atheism is the most correct, moral path for myself. Right?

It varies widely by sect of Buddhism. Most people consider it to be a religion in the sense that it is a way of life, to be practiced consciously. A religion need not involve worship of a higher being (though many sects of Buddhism do elevate the Buddha to worshipable level.).

 

Flyingjj is right.

 

Haa Haa, in response to your question about Atheism/Buddhism: true, Buddhists are largely atheist, but being an atheist is just one very small aspect of Buddhism. There are many others that are necessary before you can call yourself a Buddhist; do you believe in the cycle of rebirth? Do you aspire to release yourself from said cycle by attaining nirvana? Do you have other beliefs around this that vary from sect to sect? If not, then you're not a Buddhist, but an atheist. Just because you find atheism to be the correct moral path for yourself doesn't make you a Buddhist.


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.