Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    *abstinence
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You've gone from trying to back up your stupid statement about there being just one whole Christian Church
    I never tried to back this argument up. I merely explained what I meant by this term. Moreover, I did not launch into overdrive because you called me Jewish, when in fact I'm a Liberal Jew. At no point did I "change my tune", so try reading what I post, instead of guessing, yah?

    'Jewish Church' since thats not a Jewish word for either the faith or pace of worship (I asked my Jewish housemate who said it made no sense).
    The Jewish Church does exist. Try asking your friend about The Third Reformation. I was also using that as a generic term, and being Jewish, I and many Jewish friends, also use it as a generic term. So shut up.

    Theres no such thing (as the Jewish church)
    Yes there is, again, try looking up the Third Reformation.

    That its a rant you wont find me arguing with,
    My God! You could have fooled me!

    Nobody said he was stupid
    Either you're very stupid or you just put that very badly
    Yes, you did, you idiot. You can't even follow your own posts, let alone mine!

    As for the Jewish stuff- I'll say what I like about your knowledge of Judaism- how dare you tell me what I may comment on
    So in what way is it fair that you don't let me comment on Christian denominations? Hypocrite.

    If he does actually know that Christianity is made up of many denominations and is on the whole very fragmented, why is he bothering to try and argue otherwise when it just destroys his whole argument?
    I have said throughout that I disagree with Christianity as a whole - do as least try to keep up, why don't you?

    You were wrong in suggesting that there is one single Christian Church
    Again, I never suggessted that, did I now. I explained throughout what I meant by the term "Christian Church" yet you chose to ignore me.

    NB I'm not a practising Catholic so best not to base any argument you make on that- just a tip
    But you're a Catholic nonetheless? And hence associated with people who want to kill others through misinforming them about condoms?

    So shall we conclude?

    So far, I have

    a) Expressed my disire to disestablish the Church
    b) Used the terms "Christian and Jewish Church" as generic ones, which I explained to mean "Christianity and Judaism"
    c) Talked about Protestantism and Catholicism as two separate entities and why they are both bigoted - on homosexuality & contraception

    So far, lala, you have

    a) Expressed your disire to disestablish the Church
    b) Written god knows how many words about 2 unimporant phrases which I had already explained
    c) Told me I don't understand denominations
    d) Defended the morally repugant stance on Catholics telling people in Africa that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV, which is just sick.

    Now, please address my issues. Or is that too much to ask? Or are you going to go mad and write another 300 words on ther term "Christian Church" whilst continually insulting me? Now, just grow up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)

    So far, I have

    a) Expressed my disire to disestablish the Church
    b) Used the terms "Christian and Jewish Church" as generic ones, which I explained to mean "Christianity and Judaism"
    c) Talked about Protestantism and Catholicism as two separate entities and why they are both bigoted - on homosexuality & contraception

    So far, lala, you have

    a) Expressed your disire to disestablish the Church
    b) Written god knows how many words about 2 unimporant phrases which I had already explained
    c) Told me I don't understand denominations
    d) Defended the morally repugant stance on Catholics telling people in Africa that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV, which is just sick.

    Now, please address my issues. Or is that too much to ask? Or are you going to go mad and write another 300 words on ther term "Christian Church" whilst continually insulting me? Now, just grow up.
    Bordering on obssession.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Bordering on obssession.
    You're all bordering on obsession as far as this thread goes. It is amazing, I had 2 pages to read and I've only been asleep for 3 hours.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Tek- it amuses me that you think you are in a position to call anyone stupid (and again, you mistake knowing more than you do for arrogance). The only reason you want to stop discussing the term "Christian Church" is because you've realised how wrong you were and are presumably feeling embarrassed. Which is funny. However you still seem confused. I never suggested that the term 'Christian' ought not to be used to describe a person (read my posts before you try and argue with them). You've just made that up. What I said related to church structure. Backtrack all you like, thats how it is. Neither have I posted anything about the difference between liberal and orthodox Jews, so I think attempting to pick an argument over something I havent actually commented on is perhaps not the road to go down. There is no contradiction between highlighting the fragmented structure of Christianity and using the term 'Jew'. Why you would think that is beyond me.
    You also seem confused about what I put about my friends. I reckon you're just p**sed off because the fact that I spend my days gallivanting around with a poof and go home and sleep under the same roof as a Jew upsets your little bigotry crusade. At no point did I ask about or in any way remark upon your friends however. I was talking about mine, obviously. Just think a little about these things before you post them now and maybe you wont make such a divvy of yourself. I mean, we've already had you suggesting that all Protestants elong to the established church, you wouldnt want to make such a schoolboy error again now would you?
    The fact that the best you can do is throw a litany of insults at Catholicism is evidence of how far you've been backed into a corner. Please note, I have said nothing about the sins of Judaism. I dont need to resort to religious abuse to win an argument. I can do it by using cold hard fact. Incidentally, I've already warned you to be a bit more careful what you say or you'll get a reputation as a bigot. And I dont think people would be too impressed if they knew that you were bad repping someone because of their religion. They might draw conclusions.

    As for the AIDS issue. The first time you asked me this I said that as far as I was aware, the virus can be transmitted through a split condom. These accidents happen quite often- I think condoms are about 95% effective (exact figure anyone?) Which means that they fail to work with alarming frequency (this is why I think going on the Pill too is sensible for contraception) and that the potential for the virus to be spread is still pretty high, especially when you consider how many people are already infected. Abstinence is the only way that it could possibly be eradicated, but of course that's just unfeasible. However, I cant see how glossing over the fact that condoms arent infallible is going to stop the epidemic. Look a bit closer to home before you accuse others of spreading misinformation and disappearing up your own exhaust in a cloud of self righteousness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    Lala
    The point you don't appear able to grasp is that although the pope advocated abstenince, he disagreed with the use of condoms. Is it better that people use condoms or don't? Abstinence is quite a hard thing to do. Another question is, should decisions like these be forced upon people (ie by the Pope ordering them), for example the Bush adminstration refusing to let any aid go to charities which in any way council abortion, even if that aid is not directly used to fund anything that even discusses abortion as a viable option.

    Absitence is not really the issue as part of the rampant spread of aids through Africa is due to the high incidence of rape in many countries torn by intercine strife e.g. in the Congo. Maybe we should combat the root causes of the wars as opposed to giving out condoms or preaching abstinence, neither of which will halt the spread in many african countries. Although arguably both have their uses in countries where life is slightly more settled, for example South Africa.
    A couple of things you might want to know. Firstly, the Pope isnt forcing anyone. Nobody has to do what the Catholic Church says, whether they are a member or not, and also you should know that the Pope hasnt spoken ex cathedra on this. That means that what he's said hasnt become an unmoveable part of Catholic teaching. Its his statement of how he perceives the correct church teaching to be no an issue, and doesnt invoke any infallibility doctrine either. The Vatican publishes on lots of issues, this included, as a guideline for Catholics as to the way which is seen to be most compatible with church teaching. Secondly, it would be a mistake to think that the population of sub-Saharan Africa, the heart of the pandemic, are Catholic. Some are, but the majority follow either traditional religion or are members of a Protestant denomination. So what the Catholic Church has to say on the matter is an irrelevance to them since they arent Catholic. Blaming the Pope for forcing people to do things who dont even regard him as an authority is a bit harsh! What you dont seem to have realised is that abstinence rather renders condoms unneccessary. The problem with it as a solution is not that it wouldnt work (it would be better than encouraging people to use an imperfect barrier method- and condoms split) but just that it couldnt happen- I dont think that everyone would just stop having sex. Sadly, until we get condoms which dont split then the people who suggest that they neutralise the risk of infection will continue to be wrong.
    Your last point is a very perceptive one, and I'm sure you've heard of cases of young children being raped because its believed to cure AIDS. I agree, the high level of rape is the major problem, and I wish I could think of a way to do something about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Here is an idea. Why don't we just leave the church alone, yet perhaps educate people a little more on the fact that there is no such thing as God. Organised religion is a great thing though, and if nobody believed in God, there would still be something similar. "If God did not exist, it would be necessary for man to create him" Voltaire. That makes perfect sense don't ya think?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Here is an idea. Why don't we just leave the church alone, yet perhaps educate people a little more on the fact that there is no such thing as God. Organised religion is a great thing though, and if nobody believed in God, there would still be something similar. "If God did not exist, it would be necessary for man to create him" Voltaire. That makes perfect sense don't ya think?
    No
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    No
    Well of course it wouldn't to you. What about anyone else?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    A couple of things you might want to know. Firstly, the Pope isnt forcing anyone. Nobody has to do what the Catholic Church says, whether they are a member or not, and also you should know that the Pope hasnt spoken ex cathedra on this. That means that what he's said hasnt become an unmoveable part of Catholic teaching. Its his statement of how he perceives the correct church teaching to be no an issue, and doesnt invoke any infallibility doctrine either. The Vatican publishes on lots of issues, this included, as a guideline for Catholics as to the way which is seen to be most compatible with church teaching. Secondly, it would be a mistake to think that the population of sub-Saharan Africa, the heart of the pandemic, are Catholic. Some are, but the majority follow either traditional religion or are members of a Protestant denomination. So what the Catholic Church has to say on the matter is an irrelevance to them since they arent Catholic. Blaming the Pope for forcing people to do things who dont even regard him as an authority is a bit harsh! What you dont seem to have realised is that abstinence rather renders condoms unneccessary. The problem with it as a solution is not that it wouldnt work (it would be better than encouraging people to use an imperfect barrier method- and condoms split) but just that it couldnt happen- I dont think that everyone would just stop having sex. Sadly, until we get condoms which dont split then the people who suggest that they neutralise the risk of infection will continue to be wrong.
    Your last point is a very perceptive one, and I'm sure you've heard of cases of young children being raped because its believed to cure AIDS. I agree, the high level of rape is the major problem, and I wish I could think of a way to do something about it.
    I agree with what you have said and have grasped that abstinence renders condoms unnecessary but the choice tends to be between sex or sex with condoms (if available at all). Some males will not even bother to use condoms if they are available due to the effort involved.

    The pope may not be forcing people but a lot of what he says and what the Catholic church publishes is followed to the letter by some very devout Catholics. (not that this is a bad thing) And as you said some Africans are Catholic (not all), it is still important as every person that the church prevents from using condoms may die due to AIDS. If the choice to a bloke is between Abstention or having sex, i believe most blokes would choose the latter (I used blokes because in africa, as bad as it is, it is normally the man who decides when or if they have sex). Remember that the Catholic church disagrees with contraception, in fact they used to argue that masturbation was a worse sin that having sex with animals because of the waste of sperm (depsite the pain to the animals ). Condoms are a way of preventing the spread of aids and everything that helps to stop its spread should be welcome (except the nuking of Africa).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    I agree with what you have said and have grasped that abstinence renders condoms unnecessary but the choice tends to be between sex or sex with condoms (if available at all). Some males will not even bother to use condoms if they are available due to the effort involved.

    The pope may not be forcing people but a lot of what he says and what the Catholic church publishes is followed to the letter by some very devout Catholics. (not that this is a bad thing) And as you said some Africans are Catholic (not all), it is still important as every person that the church prevents from using condoms may die due to AIDS. If the choice to a bloke is between Abstention or having sex, i believe most blokes would choose the latter (I used blokes because in africa, as bad as it is, it is normally the man who decides when or if they have sex). Remember that the Catholic church disagrees with contraception, in fact they used to argue that masturbation was a worse sin that having sex with animals because of the waste of sperm (depsite the pain to the animals ). Condoms are a way of preventing the spread of aids and everything that helps to stop its spread should be welcome (except the nuking of Africa).
    Well said as usual. *applauds*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    I agree with what you have said and have grasped that abstinence renders condoms unnecessary but the choice tends to be between sex or sex with condoms (if available at all). Some males will not even bother to use condoms if they are available due to the effort involved.

    The pope may not be forcing people but a lot of what he says and what the Catholic church publishes is followed to the letter by some very devout Catholics. (not that this is a bad thing) And as you said some Africans are Catholic (not all), it is still important as every person that the church prevents from using condoms may die due to AIDS. If the choice to a bloke is between Abstention or having sex, i believe most blokes would choose the latter (I used blokes because in africa, as bad as it is, it is normally the man who decides when or if they have sex). Remember that the Catholic church disagrees with contraception, in fact they used to argue that masturbation was a worse sin that having sex with animals because of the waste of sperm (depsite the pain to the animals ). Condoms are a way of preventing the spread of aids and everything that helps to stop its spread should be welcome (except the nuking of Africa).
    The point about men choosing when to have sex is an interesting one and I think its certainly true that the relative positions of men and women in societies suffering from the epidemic is something which is relevant. It links in with the rape issue to an extent, and also the view that men wouldnt bother with condoms. Thats quite a feminist argument we've put together here!
    Some Catholics follow this yes, but certainly not all (most Western Catholics don't, for example) and since its not an ex cathedra teaching there is no serious conflict between disregarding it and still being a Catholic. NOBODY is being forced to observe it, and what the Pope says is about as relevant to many Africans as the teaching of Ian Paisley is to me, for example. I think people in this debate often credit the Pope with an influence in sub-Saharan Africa far above what he actually has.
    It would be the ideal solution if condoms were sure to protect against AIDS (and pregnancy, come to that) but sadly its not a certainty. Its naive to think otherwise. Even if condoms only split one in a hundred times, that still has a hefty potential to infect, especially since so many people already have the virus. The only way to prevent it would be by abstinence, but as you've highlighted, thats just not possible. That doesnt mean however that we should portray condoms as the solution- until they never split, then they arent. It would be great of they were, but since they arent it would be irresponsible to suggest they alone can prevent further spread of the virus, however much we would like it to be the case (and believe me I wish it was that simple).
    btw I'm not quite sure what the point in the masturbatin reference was- I'm glad we're having a sensible discussion but why use an old teaching which has no relevance to the AIDS pandemic to score cheap points?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    The point about men choosing when to have sex is an interesting one and I think its certainly true that the relative positions of men and women in societies suffering from the epidemic is something which is relevant. It links in with the rape issue to an extent, and also the view that men wouldnt bother with condoms. Thats quite a feminist argument we've put together here!
    Some Catholics follow this yes, but certainly not all (most Western Catholics don't, for example) and since its not an ex cathedra teaching there is no serious conflict between disregarding it and still being a Catholic. NOBODY is being forced to observe it, and what the Pope says is about as relevant to many Africans as the teaching of Ian Paisley is to me, for example. I think people in this debate often credit the Pope with an influence in sub-Saharan Africa far above what he actually has.
    It would be the ideal solution if condoms were sure to protect against AIDS (and pregnancy, come to that) but sadly its not a certainty. Its naive to think otherwise. Even if condoms only split one in a hundred times, that still has a hefty potential to infect, especially since so many people already have the virus. The only way to prevent it would be by abstinence, but as you've highlighted, thats just not possible. That doesnt mean however that we should portray condoms as the solution- until they never split, then they arent. It would be great of they were, but since they arent it would be irresponsible to suggest they alone can prevent further spread of the virus, however much we would like it to be the case (and believe me I wish it was that simple).
    btw I'm not quite sure what the point in the masturbatin reference was- I'm glad we're having a sensible discussion but why use an old teaching which has no relevance to the AIDS pandemic to score cheap points?
    I am enjoying reading this. Thanks JSM and lala. I'll give you both some rep. when I'm allowed to again if you'd like. Please keep this up, great thread so far.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you

    (Original post by Sire)
    Here is an idea. Why don't we just leave the church alone, yet perhaps educate people a little more on the fact that there is no such thing as God. Organised religion is a great thing though, and if nobody believed in God, there would still be something similar. "If God did not exist, it would be necessary for man to create him" Voltaire. That makes perfect sense don't ya think?
    This is a nice idea but then aethism would become about as attractive as religion (in my opinion) because again you'd be told what to think. Organised religion is good as it helps to take charity away from the state, as i dislike the idea of redistributive taxes. Voltaire's does make sense but i prefer Feurbach's "What man wishes to be he makes his god", there is another one that i forgot (cos i always disliked RS).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    The point about men choosing when to have sex is an interesting one and I think its certainly true that the relative positions of men and women in societies suffering from the epidemic is something which is relevant. It links in with the rape issue to an extent, and also the view that men wouldnt bother with condoms. Thats quite a feminist argument we've put together here!
    Some Catholics follow this yes, but certainly not all (most Western Catholics don't, for example) and since its not an ex cathedra teaching there is no serious conflict between disregarding it and still being a Catholic. NOBODY is being forced to observe it, and what the Pope says is about as relevant to many Africans as the teaching of Ian Paisley is to me, for example. I think people in this debate often credit the Pope with an influence in sub-Saharan Africa far above what he actually has.
    It would be the ideal solution if condoms were sure to protect against AIDS (and pregnancy, come to that) but sadly its not a certainty. Its naive to think otherwise. Even if condoms only split one in a hundred times, that still has a hefty potential to infect, especially since so many people already have the virus. The only way to prevent it would be by abstinence, but as you've highlighted, thats just not possible. That doesnt mean however that we should portray condoms as the solution- until they never split, then they arent. It would be great of they were, but since they arent it would be irresponsible to suggest they alone can prevent further spread of the virus, however much we would like it to be the case (and believe me I wish it was that simple).
    btw I'm not quite sure what the point in the masturbatin reference was- I'm glad we're having a sensible discussion but why use an old teaching which has no relevance to the AIDS pandemic to score cheap points?
    Im not suggesting that they alone will help to stop it, but if they are the best method of prevention we can have that can be used if the person decides that they do not want to abstain. Then we should advocate their use as far as possible. You are looking at the failure rate, even if it is 95% of times a success. IF of those blokes, some of them always use a condom, of course some will get infected but the use of condoms will help to slow the spread of AIDS and HIV. Every life saved is worth it, even better would be if it could filter out the AIDS virus and still let the man impregnate a woman as if they want to have children, it would be nice for the child if they were not born with a death sentance over theirself. (I know death sentence is not a nice phrase to use but i believe that in this situation in accuratley reflects what would be likely to happen as access to antiretroviral drugs to help combat AIDS and other medicines which would help to stop the other diseases which tend to kill AIDS sufferers would be curtailed if this hypothetical child was born in Africa).

    btw the old teaching was not maent to score cheap points, it was just an indication of what the church used to think when it was officially considered the established church in many countires and when it had a lotgreater power than it does now. THe catholic church essentially is Conservative, for example the appointment of the new conservative cardinals, who will help to elect the next Pope. I myself am conservative, but conservative viewpoints tend to move only slowly over time and as such many Cathoic views may still be similar to this old teaching. It was not meant to score cheap points (neway whats wrong with cheap points)

    btw: my argument is not a feminist one as i am diehard anti feminist due to the disgraceful affirmative action which follows (tending to end up discriminating against me)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    JSM- (sorry not to quote you but these posts are getting long!)

    Its actually very surprising to me that the Catholic Church and specifically this Pope are always seen as only conservative. For example, the Pope's stance on capital punishment and the war in Iraq, both of which he vehemently opposes, are not those of a conservative. And have you ever heard him on the effects of neo-liberal economics on the worlds poor? In that respect he's actually following a tradition of quite leftist economic thinking which goes all the way back to Rerum Novarum (1898ish I think). His thinking on peace issues is quite radical too. Catholic Church teaching is much more of a mixed bag then its generally perceived to be.
    If you weren't trying to score cheap points, then that's fine and we'll say no more about it.
    I think there is quite a feminist vein running through your argument but then I wouldn't see that as such a bad thing! I do very much agree that the points you raised concerning male and female behaviour merit investigation.
    Sadly I can't agree that just advocating condom use is going to stop it- the level of infection means its too late for that now. A failure rate of 5% still means that huge numbers of people will be infected. If condom usage is promoted at the expense of abstinence, then this leaves so many people unwittingly leaving themselves open to the risk of infection and I can't support that. Condom usage may well slow the infection rate but the thing is its at such levels that slowing it is nowhere near enough. But while abstinence education is one idea, I don't think that entire swathes of the worlds population will just stop having sex, whatever the risks involved. You are right of course that it would be ideal if virus holders could have children without passing it on and adequate treatments were available, but tragically, like the foolproof condom this just isn't going to happen. I think we can all agree that we wish it wasnt like this, but it is and there doesn't even seem to be a solution. Which is upsetting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lala

    Catholic teaching is mixed, but conservatism can be from the left as well as from the right, it doesn't matter on economic viewpoint, conservatism is in favour of the current status quo (IF it ain't broke don't fix it){the example you cited since 1890-just shows that the church is conservative in its views}. Both of the viewpoints you cited would probably conservative viewpoints from within the actual church

    Alright you practice abstinence then, should everyone practice that in order to totally halt almost all transmission of STDs.

    Condom usage won't stop it as you said but every condom that helps slow the spread is beneficial.

    So we both agree that abstinence education and condoms in conjunction are one way to slow down the stop of aids. We could continue arguing on the merits of a 5% failure fate or a 95% (probably not that high, as this is in ideal conditions) success rate forever. There is one flaw in your argument, the human race would die out if everyone practised abstinence . . .


    btw I hate feminism cos it promotes affirmative action, i was just telling it how it is. If it should be equal then it should be equal for all.

    ill leave the argument for a while as no one else is posting as wev driven them off. Its like my pol set where my teacher always gives the girls a chance to spk first (she says she nos its sexist) as otehrwise they arent confident enough to join in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't quite get what you mean about the viewpoints I cited being conservative from within the actual church, but the point was that there is as much radical as there is conservative within Catholic teaching.
    Can't see what my sex life has to do with it, especially since I don't actually have the HIV virus but never mind. I will say that I don't trust condoms on their own though! Since I regard the risk to myself as too great if only condoms are used, it would be hypocritical of me to dismiss it as ok for other people. Neither did I ever suggest that the whole human race should practice abstinence. I pointed out that it would be the only thing which could stop the spread in the areas suffering from a pandemic (as far as I know that doesnt include Oxford!)
    If you want to leave it there thats ok with me, I think we've both said what we want to say and its been great to have a sensible discussion without mud-slinging.
    Btw, for someone who hates feminism you seem quite enlightened!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    I never tried to back this argument up. I merely explained what I meant by this term. Moreover, I did not launch into overdrive because you called me Jewish, when in fact I'm a Liberal Jew. At no point did I "change my tune", so try reading what I post, instead of guessing, yah?


    The Jewish Church does exist. Try asking your friend about The Third Reformation. I was also using that as a generic term, and being Jewish, I and many Jewish friends, also use it as a generic term. So shut up.


    Yes there is, again, try looking up the Third Reformation.


    My God! You could have fooled me!



    Yes, you did, you idiot. You can't even follow your own posts, let alone mine!


    So in what way is it fair that you don't let me comment on Christian denominations? Hypocrite.


    I have said throughout that I disagree with Christianity as a whole - do as least try to keep up, why don't you?


    Again, I never suggessted that, did I now. I explained throughout what I meant by the term "Christian Church" yet you chose to ignore me.


    But you're a Catholic nonetheless? And hence associated with people who want to kill others through misinforming them about condoms?

    So shall we conclude?

    So far, I have

    a) Expressed my disire to disestablish the Church
    b) Used the terms "Christian and Jewish Church" as generic ones, which I explained to mean "Christianity and Judaism"
    c) Talked about Protestantism and Catholicism as two separate entities and why they are both bigoted - on homosexuality & contraception

    So far, lala, you have

    a) Expressed your disire to disestablish the Church
    b) Written god knows how many words about 2 unimporant phrases which I had already explained
    c) Told me I don't understand denominations
    d) Defended the morally repugant stance on Catholics telling people in Africa that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV, which is just sick.

    Now, please address my issues. Or is that too much to ask? Or are you going to go mad and write another 300 words on ther term "Christian Church" whilst continually insulting me? Now, just grow up.
    You did try and back up your use of the term "Christian Church" which was why I pursued the issue. Stop lying.
    Like I said before, I was referring to the institution rather than the people and if you look back you'll see that I haven't objected to the term 'Christian' to describe a believer. You yourself have stated that you are Jewish many times and I for one would not demean a follower of the liberal strand by suggesting that he was somehow not Jewish. I was talking to a liberal Jew about her Judaism last night actually, so its quite a coincedence that you made that (nonsensical) point.
    Pointing out that what you have written is stupid is not the same as saying you yourself are stupid. This is quite a basic distinction so I'm unimpressed that you haven't managed to grasp it.
    Well the Jew I asked said it wasn't a Jewish term, but thank you for the tip- I will look up the Third Reformation when I get chance. If only you would take the chance to educate yourself more about Christianity.
    Nobody ever said that it isn't for you to comment on Christian denominations, merely pointed out that when you did so you were talking out of your a**e. Your own suggestion that I had no right to discuss your Judaism compares rather badly.
    What you think of Christianity as a whole in moral terms is an irrelevance, and hence I haven't bothered to discuss it with you. I don't intend to do so now either.
    You didn't provide an explanation as to what you meant. You ranted, and then appeared to suggest that all Protestants are members of the established church, which makes me think you haven't quite grasped the concept of denominations yet. Thats why I gave you a clear explanation. It's basic knowledge which you really ought to have. You still haven't provided a coherent explanation for your 'Christian Church' argument actually, but I'm not holding my breath.
    Yes I'm Catholic. Are you not Jewish despite your atheism? I would have thought you of all people would be aware that one does not have to subscribe to all the tenets of a religion to identify oneself with it.
    I dont think anyone who uses religion as a reason to give out bad rep should really be mouthing off about bigotry, but I'll leave that for the other forumites to decide.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Congratulations Lala and JSM on a comparatively calm, and interesting discussion. It shows that without us hotheads around, mature debate can prevail.

    (I would give you rep if I could, but I have a browser problem!)
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.