Atheism's Twentieth Century Death Toll

[McCulloch]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

[micatala]

That is why I said liberal Catholics. All the educated german Catholics are basically far away from the stuff the pope preaches. That is why today many are trying to fight for priesthood of women. Why a gay man living in a gay relationship gets voted into the community board of church, against which the bishop cannot do squat. Why 99% of all Catholics (that have any sex at all) use contraception.
My dad thinks priesthood and this whole making stuff sacred rituals are meaningless. The holy part meaning anybody can lead a mass if he/she knows what to say. Abolition of the celibacy is also popular. At least in western Europe Catholicism is very liberal and not literal.
Nobody around here would even start with evolution is just a theory nonsense. The nutjobs afaik exist too but are mostly old dudes and represent maybe a 5-10% of the total.
My father now even goes to both protestant and catholic bible study groups and according to him the local priest even attends the protestant mass because they pastor and him are friends. If the pope knew that. woah.

My religion teacher who was a studied theologian taught everything kind of like the Jesus Seminary.

I am following news reports of the election of a new Pope with interest. Hopefully a new Pope will be more liberal than the old Pope. I can understand the need to maintain tradition, but it is time Christianity pulled itself out of the Dark Ages.

I am not sure how optimistic I would be on that front. From what I understand, all or nearly all of the cardinals who will be selecting the new pope owe their positions to Benedict. My perception (for what it is worth), is that there is a rather large divide between the thinking of the heirarchy and the laity, especially the laity in the U.S. and a few other developed countries.

[Cephus]

I am following news reports of the election of a new Pope with interest. Hopefully a new Pope will be more liberal than the old Pope. I can understand the need to maintain tradition, but it is time Christianity pulled itself out of the Dark Ages.

It's very unlikely that you will see anything different than a younger version of Benedict himself. Benedict just moved aside so that when all of these scandals explode, he won't be directly caught in the crossfire.

[southern cross]

That is why I said liberal Catholics. All the educated german Catholics are basically far away from the stuff the pope preaches. That is why today many are trying to fight for priesthood of women. Why a gay man living in a gay relationship gets voted into the community board of church, against which the bishop cannot do squat. Why 99% of all Catholics (that have any sex at all) use contraception.
My dad thinks priesthood and this whole making stuff sacred rituals are meaningless. The holy part meaning anybody can lead a mass if he/she knows what to say. Abolition of the celibacy is also popular. At least in western Europe Catholicism is very liberal and not literal.
Nobody around here would even start with evolution is just a theory nonsense. The nutjobs afaik exist too but are mostly old dudes and represent maybe a 5-10% of the total.
My father now even goes to both protestant and catholic bible study groups and according to him the local priest even attends the protestant mass because they pastor and him are friends. If the pope knew that. woah.

My religion teacher who was a studied theologian taught everything kind of like the Jesus Seminary.

I am following news reports of the election of a new Pope with interest. Hopefully a new Pope will be more liberal than the old Pope. I can understand the need to maintain tradition, but it is time Christianity pulled itself out of the Dark Ages.

I am not sure how optimistic I would be on that front. From what I understand, all or nearly all of the cardinals who will be selecting the new pope owe their positions to Benedict. My perception (for what it is worth), is that there is a rather large divide between the thinking of the heirarchy and the laity, especially the laity in the U.S. and a few other developed countries.

No, most owe there positions to JP2, and a thus mostly conservative. Many years ago when I was a catholic the conservative elements in the church were in the minority but I don't think there is any doubt that now they are in the ascendency.

[dusk]

I am following news reports of the election of a new Pope with interest. Hopefully a new Pope will be more liberal than the old Pope. I can understand the need to maintain tradition, but it is time Christianity pulled itself out of the Dark Ages.

I very much doubt there will be anything remotely liberal about the next pope. All the people with the really close ties to the vatican are the nutjob conservatives in Europe. Also the Catholic church is global and Asia, Latin America or Africa may not see either eye with Europeans. Latin America is probably the most liberal out of the bunch but Africa is completely mental from our perspective

I am not sure how optimistic I would be on that front. From what I understand, all or nearly all of the cardinals who will be selecting the new pope owe their positions to Benedict. My perception (for what it is worth), is that there is a rather large divide between the thinking of the heirarchy and the laity, especially the laity in the U.S. and a few other developed countries.

The top positions are all appointed by the vatican. And they only appoint loyal slaves and like minded very conservatives. The divide is steadily increasing. Rome thinks they can counter the liberal developement in the laity by appointing even nuttier guys like that Wagner guy and in so doing may eventually drive everyone out of the church. I think they are practically already at the stage where many communities would like to secede in full from the Catholic church wouldn't they loose all the stuff that the church legally owns (Churches, Community centers, castles for seminaries and other stuff).

It's very unlikely that you will see anything different than a younger version of Benedict himself. Benedict just moved aside so that when all of these scandals explode, he won't be directly caught in the crossfire.

Smart move

[Goat]

I don't get the entire virgin birth issue. If that was important, why in the childhood stories does Maria run around with Joseph. If the stories wanted to convey a virgin birth, they should have had her run around on her own in that story.

That is only one of the reasons that the story sounds at least a little immoral to me. God or no God, Mary was ENGAGED to Joseph at the time God took advantage of her innocence.

And since Mary was only about 13 at the time, that makes God a pedophile.

Only in the modern concept. Back then, girls married earlier, probably right after puberty, and it was considered 'normal'. They were ignorant about the medical issues that could happen if a girl was not fully mature at their first pregnancy, and people in general did not live as long, so early birth/early death' was much more the norm. I don't think that is a valid argument at all..

[southern cross]

I don't get the entire virgin birth issue. If that was important, why in the childhood stories does Maria run around with Joseph. If the stories wanted to convey a virgin birth, they should have had her run around on her own in that story.

That is only one of the reasons that the story sounds at least a little immoral to me. God or no God, Mary was ENGAGED to Joseph at the time God took advantage of her innocence.

And since Mary was only about 13 at the time, that makes God a pedophile.

Only in the modern concept. Back then, girls married earlier, probably right after puberty, and it was considered 'normal'. They were ignorant about the medical issues that could happen if a girl was not fully mature at their first pregnancy, and people in general did not live as long, so early birth/early death' was much more the norm. I don't think that is a valid argument at all..

Are you saying that god was unaware at the time? I know what you are saying, but it looks funny my way.

[dusk]

Only in the modern concept. Back then, girls married earlier, probably right after puberty, and it was considered 'normal'. They were ignorant about the medical issues that could happen if a girl was not fully mature at their first pregnancy, and people in general did not live as long, so early birth/early death' was much more the norm. I don't think that is a valid argument at all..

Most importantly though they didn't much care about the consent a woman gives to the situation. That has little to nothing to do with any medical knowledge. Today children hit puberty way sooner and any 13 yr old is technically very much capable of having sex. We don't condone it because we think they are too young to really know what they want and they should give a consent that holds meaning.
How mature a 13 yr Mary emotionally was they could work out 2000 years ago just the same as today. No medical science knowledge necessary. They simply didn't care and the perfect word of god didn't give any hints either. Ergo god didn't care either (or doesn't exist).

[southern cross]

Only in the modern concept. Back then, girls married earlier, probably right after puberty, and it was considered 'normal'. They were ignorant about the medical issues that could happen if a girl was not fully mature at their first pregnancy, and people in general did not live as long, so early birth/early death' was much more the norm. I don't think that is a valid argument at all..

Most importantly though they didn't much care about the consent a woman gives to the situation. That has little to nothing to do with any medical knowledge. Today children hit puberty way sooner and any 13 yr old is technically very much capable of having sex. We don't condone it because we think they are too young to really know what they want and they should give a consent that holds meaning.
How mature a 13 yr Mary emotionally was they could work out 2000 years ago just the same as today. No medical science knowledge necessary. They simply didn't care and the perfect word of god didn't give any hints either. Ergo god didn't care either (or doesn't exist).

Yeah but he/she is also saying that god wasn't aware. An all knowing god. Who impregnated her.

[dianaiad]

Only in the modern concept. Back then, girls married earlier, probably right after puberty, and it was considered 'normal'. They were ignorant about the medical issues that could happen if a girl was not fully mature at their first pregnancy, and people in general did not live as long, so early birth/early death' was much more the norm. I don't think that is a valid argument at all..

Most importantly though they didn't much care about the consent a woman gives to the situation. That has little to nothing to do with any medical knowledge. Today children hit puberty way sooner and any 13 yr old is technically very much capable of having sex. We don't condone it because we think they are too young to really know what they want and they should give a consent that holds meaning.
How mature a 13 yr Mary emotionally was they could work out 2000 years ago just the same as today. No medical science knowledge necessary. They simply didn't care and the perfect word of god didn't give any hints either. Ergo god didn't care either (or doesn't exist).

Yeah but he/she is also saying that god wasn't aware. An all knowing god. Who impregnated her.

Let's look at the story. Evidently Mary was quite safe...and mature for her age, as well. Remember; she was around for her Son's death...another 33 years. She evidently had other children, and there are many stories around that have her living a fairly long and healthy life after that. Therefore she outlived many of her peers.

Therefore, her health was not affected. She seemed to have been a good mom and a fairly happy woman with her husband, who seems to have been fairly happy with her. The women of that time learned everything they needed to know by the time they were sent off to be married; they were prepared to hold household and perform the roles they were expected to perform, as were the sons.

You REALLY need to get your head out of the 21st century standards and consider the standards of the time...and if you come back with the 'God would have known better..." well, evidently He did, given that Mary was not harmed and remained healthy and happy for considerably longer than the average woman of the day.

[JohnPaul]

Only in the modern concept. Back then, girls married earlier, probably right after puberty, and it was considered 'normal'. They were ignorant about the medical issues that could happen if a girl was not fully mature at their first pregnancy, and people in general did not live as long, so early birth/early death' was much more the norm. I don't think that is a valid argument at all..

Most importantly though they didn't much care about the consent a woman gives to the situation. That has little to nothing to do with any medical knowledge. Today children hit puberty way sooner and any 13 yr old is technically very much capable of having sex. We don't condone it because we think they are too young to really know what they want and they should give a consent that holds meaning.
How mature a 13 yr Mary emotionally was they could work out 2000 years ago just the same as today. No medical science knowledge necessary. They simply didn't care and the perfect word of god didn't give any hints either. Ergo god didn't care either (or doesn't exist).

Yeah but he/she is also saying that god wasn't aware. An all knowing god. Who impregnated her.

Let's look at the story. Evidently Mary was quite safe...and mature for her age, as well. Remember; she was around for her Son's death...another 33 years. She evidently had other children, and there are many stories around that have her living a fairly long and healthy life after that. Therefore she outlived many of her peers.

Therefore, her health was not affected. She seemed to have been a good mom and a fairly happy woman with her husband, who seems to have been fairly happy with her. The women of that time learned everything they needed to know by the time they were sent off to be married; they were prepared to hold household and perform the roles they were expected to perform, as were the sons.

You REALLY need to get your head out of the 21st century standards and consider the standards of the time...and if you come back with the 'God would have known better..." well, evidently He did, given that Mary was not harmed and remained healthy and happy for considerably longer than the average woman of the day.

Jesus is said to have had at least one brother, but the doctrine, of some at least, insists that Mary remained a virgin all her life. Excuse me, but I have difficulty with the whole story. Why don't we send it back to the author for a rewrite before we buy it?