Former Catholics question?

Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Former Catholics question?

For all those former Catholics on the boards, what is your current body of knowledge on the Catholic church?

As in have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any of the early Church Father's writings, papal encyclicals, or the Bible (completely).

I would like to qualify reading to mean actually attempting to understand what is written, as one would do so with an article in a science journal or precious document. Or have you just read the materials as you would read a comic strip, with no effort to understand the meaning, contents, and background.

 

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
As a former Catholic I have

As a former Catholic I have read the Catechism, many writings of the early church, several versions of the Bible multiple times (from cover to cover).

I originally was a Missouri Lutheran and converted when I got married at 19. I then went to a Jesuit University for my graduate degree and studied comparative religions among other subjects.

I have read the KJV through at least a dozen times, the JPS Hebrew about 2 times, the Douay-Rheims about 5 times. I have read the Q'uran only once.

I have read Polycarp, Oriegen, Clement, Ambrose, Augustine and many others. I have read most of the recent papal encyclicals and many from periods of history that peaked my interest.

I became an atheist about 20 years ago likely due to understanding and comprehensive study of both religious doctrine and ancient history.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Interesting. So I have two

Interesting. So I have two questions start with. Did you read these documents seriously as you would something you were very interested in or just quickly.

Second question:

When does the pope speak infallibly?

 

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Interesting. So I have two questions start with. Did you read these documents seriously as you would something you were very interested in or just quickly.

Second question:

When does the pope speak infallibly?

 

 

 

Are you testing his knowledge or don't you know when the pope speaks infallibly?

If it's a quiz, I'll go away.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm quizing him. I'm very

I'm quizing him. I'm very interested in any ex-Catholic's answer though. It's my experience from reading ex-Catholics comments on these forums, and even some "practicing" Catholics' comments that what they think they know about the Church is incorrect.

Arch-Bishop Fulton J. Sheen put it very well when he said, "Millions of people hate what they believe to be the Catholic Church, but only a few truly hate the Catholic Church."

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:I'm

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I'm quizing him. I'm very interested in any ex-Catholic's answer though. It's my experience from reading ex-Catholics comments on these forums, and even some "practicing" Catholics' comments that what they think they know about the Church is incorrect.

Arch-Bishop Fulton J. Sheen put it very well when he said, "Millions of people hate what they believe to be the Catholic Church, but only a few truly hate the Catholic Church."

 

 

No problem.

I'm an ex-evangelical who's not crazy about any church so I don't have a dog in this particular fight.

If you have any other fights, let me know.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:I'm

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I'm quizing him. I'm very interested in any ex-Catholic's answer though. It's my experience from reading ex-Catholics comments on these forums, and even some "practicing" Catholics' comments that what they think they know about the Church is incorrect.

Arch-Bishop Fulton J. Sheen put it very well when he said, "Millions of people hate what they believe to be the Catholic Church, but only a few truly hate the Catholic Church."

 

 

Well I went to Catholic school for 11 years... it would have been 12, but the male principle of my high school who had an affection for the boys with long hair was carted out in hand cuffs after my sophmore year for molesting a drunken freshman lad (true story)... and the principle in my Junior year showed no such inclinations... So me and my authority questioning, idealistic, yet still uncomprimised virgin ass were thrown out in the street... Like that other virgin, whats her name?....

So with all due respect, Arch Bishop Fulton can go fuck himself, unless he is otherwise pre-occupied with a similar predisposition... They had 11 years to teach me, and many others... if they couldn't get their meaning across in that time it's because they really don't want their flock to understand what vile, comtemtible, predatory, murderous guilt peddlers they truly are....

As for your "quiz".... it is condescending and insulting.... But if you really want an answer, here's one... The Meaning of the Catholic Church is profit...since first and foremost they are a BANK....

 

 


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry about your

I'm sorry about your experience however, this proves nothing.

It has been recognized within the Church that there has been a lack of Catholic Catechism education for many years; This has been due to the lukewarm approach to Catholicism by many Catholics(who if practicing in the faith are required to know their faith and teach it properly to their children.), false information disseminated through the media, and sadly some Catholic schools(Unfortunately most Catholic schools are Catholic in name only now). This most likely was the case at your school. I'd be interested to see the type of religious education you received there?

Having said this, how hard did you try to learn the faith during that time. Did you question what was taught to you about the faith, examine the Catholic literature(which is readily available on the internet and in libraries), or ask questions to the teachers, priests, parents?

You'll have to elaborate more on what you mean by, "vile, comtemtible, predatory, murderous guilt peddlers"

The question, quiz, was not intended to be condescending, I apologize for that if it came across that way. As I previously stated, from reading comments on this forum and others, most of the ex-Catholics do not know the answer to this question, and they seem to have very little knowledge, both general and specific, on Church teachings. Seeing as how papal infallibility is commonly misunderstood I asked that question first.

The Catholic Church is a bank myth, again a common falsehood. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by the Catholic Church being a bank? Are you referring to the Church's collection of paintings, books, artifacts, and etc. Or are you referring to a supposed hidden cache of billions of dollars? I need to know in order to better answer this comment.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:I'm sorry

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I'm sorry about your experience however, this proves nothing.

It has been recognized within the Church that there has been a lack of Catholic Catechism education for many years; This has been due to the lukewarm approach to Catholicism by many Catholics(who if practicing in the faith are required to know their faith and teach it properly to their children.), false information disseminated through the media, and sadly some Catholic schools(Unfortunately most Catholic schools are Catholic in name only now). This most likely was the case at your school. I'd be interested to see the type of religious education you received there?

Having said this, how hard did you try to learn the faith during that time. Did you question what was taught to you about the faith, examine the Catholic literature(which is readily available on the internet and in libraries), or ask questions to the teachers, priests, parents?

You'll have to elaborate more on what you mean by, "vile, comtemtible, predatory, murderous guilt peddlers"

The question, quiz, was not intended to be condescending, I apologize for that if it came across that way. As I previously stated, from reading comments on this forum and others, most of the ex-Catholics do not know the answer to this question, and they seem to have very little knowledge, both general and specific, on Church teachings. Seeing as how papal infallibility is commonly misunderstood I asked that question first.

The Catholic Church is a bank myth, again a common falsehood. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by the Catholic Church being a bank? Are you referring to the Church's collection of paintings, books, artifacts, and etc. Or are you referring to a supposed hidden cache of billions of dollars? I need to know in order to better answer this comment.

It reads like you are asking people what their level of knowledge is, comparing it to your own, and telling people how wrong they are if their knowledge level doesn't match yours.

If you are the sole arbiter of right and wrong in this, why should anyone discuss with you?

In short, did you come to educate or pontificate?

Btw, has Voris changed that dead animal that sits on his head yet?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Interesting. So I have two questions start with. Did you read these documents seriously as you would something you were very interested in or just quickly.

Did you read PJ's post seriously as you would something you were very interested in or just quickly ?  Because the answer to your question is in there.

Which is interesting.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Cliff

Anonymouse wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Interesting. So I have two questions start with. Did you read these documents seriously as you would something you were very interested in or just quickly.

Did you read PJ's post seriously as you would something you were very interested in or just quickly ?  Because the answer to your question is in there.

Which is interesting.

Damn! Didn't catch that, I must be sleep deprived.

Of course, I have an audition tonight and perhaps one this weekend. This is in addition to my classes and the job - Gonna be a fun week.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
 It reads like you are

Quote:

It reads like you are asking people what their level of knowledge is, comparing it to your own, and telling people how wrong they are if their knowledge level doesn't match yours.

If you are the sole arbiter of right and wrong in this, why should anyone discuss with you?

In short, did you come to educate or pontificate?

Btw, has Voris changed that dead animal that sits on his head yet?

 

I am trying to asses the level of knowledge ex-Catholics on these forums. I would like to educate not pontificate. I never said I was the sole arbiter of anything.

Wow an insult on a member of the faith never seen that before.

In response to Anonymouse's question. I did read his statement seriously and comprehensively. It didn't answer how serious he was when reading the materials he read. He stated that he read and studied them. My question was then how did he read them. Did he asks questions when he did not understand certain chapters, passages, and/or etc. Did he seek out the answers from other sources, experts, and/or etc?

He said that he became an atheist, "likely due to understanding and comprehensive study of both religious doctrine and ancient history." So then how comprehensive was his study of religious doctrine as compared to ancient history. For example I have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of chemistry and ancient history, but not nearly as comprehensive as my knowledge of Cognitive Experimental Psychology or Transformers. I should have phrased my question better for that I apologize.

[Edit:  I fixed the broken quotes, you started the post with /quote rather than just a quote -mellestad]

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:  It

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Quote:

 

 

It reads like you are asking people what their level of knowledge is, comparing it to your own, and telling people how wrong they are if their knowledge level doesn't match yours.

If you are the sole arbiter of right and wrong in this, why should anyone discuss with you?

In short, did you come to educate or pontificate?

Btw, has Voris changed that dead animal that sits on his head yet?

 

 

I am trying to asses the level of knowledge ex-Catholics on these forums. I would like to educate not pontificate. I never said I was the sole arbiter of anything.

Wow an insult on a member of the faith never seen that before.

In response to Anonymouse's question. I did read his statement seriously and comprehensively. It didn't answer how serious he was when reading the materials he read. He stated that he read and studied them. My question was then how did he read them. I could have phrased my question better.

 

What faith is he a member of again? He seems more like GOP than RCC (wanting nations under benevolent Catholic dictatorship and all). I don't think stating that a bad hairpiece looks like a bad hairpiece is an insult. I didn't say that his arguments were wrong because of the hair. Why are so many Catholics pissed off at him if he's truly "of the faith"?

You claim you don't want to be the sole arbiter of anything then you want to judge how seriously PJTS read the materials he read based on your definition of seriousness. If that's not pontificating, it's really close to it.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Quote:It

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Quote:

It reads like you are asking people what their level of knowledge is, comparing it to your own, and telling people how wrong they are if their knowledge level doesn't match yours.

If you are the sole arbiter of right and wrong in this, why should anyone discuss with you?

In short, did you come to educate or pontificate?

Btw, has Voris changed that dead animal that sits on his head yet?

 

I am trying to asses the level of knowledge ex-Catholics on these forums. I would like to educate not pontificate. I never said I was the sole arbiter of anything.

Wow an insult on a member of the faith never seen that before.

In response to Anonymouse's question. I did read his statement seriously and comprehensively. It didn't answer how serious he was when reading the materials he read. He stated that he read and studied them. My question was then how did he read them. I could have phrased my question better.

 

[Edit:  I fixed the broken quotes, you started the post with /quote rather than just a quote -mellestad]

Do people usually skim the Bible 19 times, then drift through Polycarp, Oriegen, Clement, Ambrose and Augustin while sipping a warm glass of milk before bed?

Given the context, it seems like a silly question to ask.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
I wasn't aware of any

I'm not aware of any practicing Catholics being angry at Michael Voris. I can say that many Cafeteria Catholics are ticked at Michael Voris, because they do not want to be corrected, or "judged" as many of them say.

I wasn't judging how well PJTS read the materials based on my criteria for seriousness. I was asking.

PJTS said he read multiple versions of the Bible, the Quran, most of the recent papal encyclicals, many past papal encyclicals that peaked his interest, and Polycarp, Oriegen, Clement, Ambrose, Augustine and many others. This didn't explain how serious he was about it. I've read numerous chemical, biology and other science journals for fun, but I didn't make a full effort to understand them as I would with a psych article/journal. 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:I'm not

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I'm not aware of any practicing Catholics being angry at Michael Voris. I can say that many Cafeteria Catholics are ticked at Michael Voris, because they do not want to be corrected, or "judged" as many of them say.

I wasn't judging how well PJTS read the materials based on my criteria for seriousness. I was asking.

PJTS said he read multiple versions of the Bible, the Quran, most of the recent papal encyclicals, many past papal encyclicals that peaked his interest, and Polycarp, Oriegen, Clement, Ambrose, Augustine and many others. This didn't explain how serious he was about it. I've read numerous chemical, biology and other science journals for fun, but I didn't make a full effort to understand them as I would with a psych article/journal. 

 

I was raised as a Lutheran by extremely pious parents. My name really is Paul John. My mother was a Lutheran School Teacher prior to her involvement in psychiatry and drug treatment centers. I went to parochial schools for 9 years. When I converted to Catholicism I really wanted to understand the differences between the churches. I spent many hours in studious examination. When I converted I spent many hours discussing these differences with a priest who was a Jesuit. In college I became interested in ancient history though my major was electrical engineering. After college I spent many hours reading history books many would consider very boring but I was enthralled with them. I then went to a Jesuit University and have a masters in Finance & Accounting. I took extra courses because they were available in comparative religions and I wanted to know more. Over the years the knowledge I had in regard to ancient history, gods, myths and religion led me to the decision all gods were not based in the real world, but were created by man.

With the advent of the Internet I have been able to study even more subject matter in regard to ancient history and other religions and do so with a passion. 

In regards to the pope's infallibiltiy, he's a man with no possibility of perfection. As a man he is not infallible. This is my position as an atheist.

The Church however teaches that in regard to the doctrine of Christ's teaching he is infallible only in his position or seat of power (it is the office, not the man) as also an ecumenical council only if it is in regards to faith & morals and conforms to scripture and sacred tradition. The Church's position is only Peter and his succesors are given the keys to heaven, which imho is not so, as in Matt 18:18-20 any 2 or 3 believers have the keys. Though the only heaven I consider to be real is the sky above.

So if the pope would make a statement that the Earth was flat, this is not infallible per the requirements defined.

My short synopsis probably inadequately describes the passion, understanding and effort I have spent on studying religion, the early church fathers, the bible, and ancient history.

I was not forced to read the Bible in it's various versions nor any of the early writings by the early church fathers. I did this for many reasons including a thirst for knowledge and understanding.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:I'm not

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I'm not aware of any practicing Catholics being angry at Michael Voris. I can say that many Cafeteria Catholics are ticked at Michael Voris, because they do not want to be corrected, or "judged" as many of them say.

I wasn't judging how well PJTS read the materials based on my criteria for seriousness. I was asking.

PJTS said he read multiple versions of the Bible, the Quran, most of the recent papal encyclicals, many past papal encyclicals that peaked his interest, and Polycarp, Oriegen, Clement, Ambrose, Augustine and many others. This didn't explain how serious he was about it. I've read numerous chemical, biology and other science journals for fun, but I didn't make a full effort to understand them as I would with a psych article/journal. 

 

Perhaps it's the manner in which the correction is delivered. Anger could also arise if the correction he attempts to make is based on wrong information.

If I recall some early postings correctly, PJTS had some training at an upper-level SJ institution (PJTS, I apologize if I'm wrong). I can't really see what he's claimed being recreational reading - I think it's more like study.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cliff Jumper

jcgadfly wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I'm not aware of any practicing Catholics being angry at Michael Voris. I can say that many Cafeteria Catholics are ticked at Michael Voris, because they do not want to be corrected, or "judged" as many of them say.

I wasn't judging how well PJTS read the materials based on my criteria for seriousness. I was asking.

PJTS said he read multiple versions of the Bible, the Quran, most of the recent papal encyclicals, many past papal encyclicals that peaked his interest, and Polycarp, Oriegen, Clement, Ambrose, Augustine and many others. This didn't explain how serious he was about it. I've read numerous chemical, biology and other science journals for fun, but I didn't make a full effort to understand them as I would with a psych article/journal. 

 

Perhaps it's the manner in which the correction is delivered. Anger could also arise if the correction he attempts to make is based on wrong information.

If I recall some early postings correctly, PJTS had some training at an upper-level SJ institution (PJTS, I apologize if I'm wrong). I can't really see what he's claimed being recreational reading - I think it's more like study.

As I mentioned in my last post, I went to a Jesuit University for my grad degree. 

I don't consider the effort I put into studying the bible, early Church fathers, and religion to have been recreational reading but serious study.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I'm not aware of any practicing Catholics being angry at Michael Voris. I can say that many Cafeteria Catholics are ticked at Michael Voris, because they do not want to be corrected, or "judged" as many of them say.

I wasn't judging how well PJTS read the materials based on my criteria for seriousness. I was asking.

PJTS said he read multiple versions of the Bible, the Quran, most of the recent papal encyclicals, many past papal encyclicals that peaked his interest, and Polycarp, Oriegen, Clement, Ambrose, Augustine and many others. This didn't explain how serious he was about it. I've read numerous chemical, biology and other science journals for fun, but I didn't make a full effort to understand them as I would with a psych article/journal. 

 

Perhaps it's the manner in which the correction is delivered. Anger could also arise if the correction he attempts to make is based on wrong information.

If I recall some early postings correctly, PJTS had some training at an upper-level SJ institution (PJTS, I apologize if I'm wrong). I can't really see what he's claimed being recreational reading - I think it's more like study.

As I mentioned in my last post, I went to a Jesuit University for my grad degree. 

I don't consider the effort I put into studying the bible, early Church fathers, and religion to have been recreational reading but serious study.

Yeah, I saw that after my post hit. Just too slow, I guess.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Yeah, I saw

jcgadfly wrote:

 

Yeah, I saw that after my post hit. Just too slow, I guess.

Know what you mean. I posted to this thread yesterday and it lay dormant and it exploded today while I was busy.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Thank you for your answer.

Thank you for your answer pauljohntheskeptic. It does help me understand the fervor you had for the research. I am sorry to hear that. I did the exact same thing beginning at the end of my Catholic education, and I am still reading and researching these things; however I came to the opposite conclusion.

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cliff Jumper

jcgadfly wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I'm not aware of any practicing Catholics being angry at Michael Voris. I can say that many Cafeteria Catholics are ticked at Michael Voris, because they do not want to be corrected, or "judged" as many of them say.

I wasn't judging how well PJTS read the materials based on my criteria for seriousness. I was asking.

PJTS said he read multiple versions of the Bible, the Quran, most of the recent papal encyclicals, many past papal encyclicals that peaked his interest, and Polycarp, Oriegen, Clement, Ambrose, Augustine and many others. This didn't explain how serious he was about it. I've read numerous chemical, biology and other science journals for fun, but I didn't make a full effort to understand them as I would with a psych article/journal. 

 

Perhaps it's the manner in which the correction is delivered. Anger could also arise if the correction he attempts to make is based on wrong information.

If I recall some early postings correctly, PJTS had some training at an upper-level SJ institution (PJTS, I apologize if I'm wrong). I can't really see what he's claimed being recreational reading - I think it's more like study.

The manner in which Michael Voris answers the questions is straightforward. The information presented is the teachings of the Catholic church. For example Hannity, a cafeteria catholic, was very angry when confronted with the truth on the Church's teachings on contraception. Father Thomas Euteneuer was not abrasive just straight forward. 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:jcgadfly

Cliff Jumper wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I'm not aware of any practicing Catholics being angry at Michael Voris. I can say that many Cafeteria Catholics are ticked at Michael Voris, because they do not want to be corrected, or "judged" as many of them say.

I wasn't judging how well PJTS read the materials based on my criteria for seriousness. I was asking.

PJTS said he read multiple versions of the Bible, the Quran, most of the recent papal encyclicals, many past papal encyclicals that peaked his interest, and Polycarp, Oriegen, Clement, Ambrose, Augustine and many others. This didn't explain how serious he was about it. I've read numerous chemical, biology and other science journals for fun, but I didn't make a full effort to understand them as I would with a psych article/journal. 

 

Perhaps it's the manner in which the correction is delivered. Anger could also arise if the correction he attempts to make is based on wrong information.

If I recall some early postings correctly, PJTS had some training at an upper-level SJ institution (PJTS, I apologize if I'm wrong). I can't really see what he's claimed being recreational reading - I think it's more like study.

The manner in which Michael Voris answers the questions is straightforward. The information presented is the teachings of the Catholic church. For example Hannity, a cafeteria catholic, was very angry when confronted with the truth on the Church's teachings on contraception. Father Thomas Euteneuer was not abrasive just straight forward. 

Then again, some of the teachings of the RCC are bat-guano insane."Condoms increase the spread of AIDS" comes to mind. "A tasteless cracker and some wine turn into the flesh and blood of God when a human being prays over them" is another.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Thank you

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Thank you for your answer pauljohntheskeptic. It does help me understand the fervor you had for the research. I am sorry to hear that. I did the exact same thing beginning at the end of my Catholic education, and I am still reading and researching these things; however I came to the opposite conclusion.

 

 

Sorry to hear you came to the opposite conclusion. No harm though.

My view is that one should never stop studying and researching and try to learn something everyday.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The fundamentals of the

 

Catholic bible have at their core salvation through belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This does not vary deeply from my parents' evangelical protestantism doctrinally tho' my oldies considered catholics the spawn of satan. The addition of the worship of saints, the elevation of Mary, even the need for priestly intercession seem to me to be incidental to the bedrock of original sin offset by calvary. Does this discussion about the catholic bible - and the OP's allusion to the depths of study required to understand it - bring any new proofs to the table?

I don't think anyone here is going to tar all catholicism with the same brush in the light of things about the faith we don't agree on. There are good and bad priests in the world, just as there are good and bad people everywhere. It's entirely subjective but I think priests should be allowed to marry. The church's core ignorance of male biology is a bizarre business. Condoms for Africa - I see how the pope is bound to insist on monogamy but it should come with the caveat of safe sex for all. I think the pope has to be literal in his interpretation of parts of the OT to the detriment of his ability to lead. I think popery's claims to infallibility are unfounded, unprovable and certainly a modern fraud. Good churchmen can provide powerful moral leadership without resorting to these sorts of shallow deceptions. 

Jumper - what's the core of your faith - discounting your intimation here that a deep study of the catholic bible provides the necessary proofs for faith? Are you a literalist? Do you believe in creation or evolution? Is the bible the word of god or open to the interpretation of learned men? I'm guessing the latter. Surely, the bible cannot form the buttress of your deepest beliefs about the universe?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
This a beginning response to

This a beginning response to jcgadfly. The two teachings to which you refer to as bat-guano can be shown to be very valid. I'll have to keep this short as I'm tired. I'll continue the response tomorrow.

First off the it's not condoms (birth control) that increases the spread of AIDS and other STDS. Pope Benedict XVI speaks in his encyclicals and speeches of the notion of "safe sex" with condoms etc. This lie that somehow using a condom or other means of artificial contraception will make illicit sex safer is misleading. All forms of artificial birth control have a fairly significant failure rate, which is not told to the people receiving the sex ed or is misunderstood. After all most of the third world country's citizens can barely read much less understand biology or math. So when they are told that this condom, diaphragm, etc will prevent AIDS/STDS they think it is 100% effective or in some cases the efficacy of the birth control is exaggerated by lying or skewed statistical testing. It is interesting to note that since the beginning of "safe sex" education in Africa and other third world countries there has been a increase the in the number of AIDS and STDs rates; however in places where abstinence only education has been taught along with proper sex education the rates of AIDS and STD cases have decreased dramatically.

As proof: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0074.html

I will try to find a link to the study, and elaborate on this more tomorrow.

As for Transubstantiation part of my defense would be faith, but it has been shown several times that the Communion wafer and wine have transformed into real flesh and blood. There are several books on these cases. Some of these miracles occurred over 1000 years ago and some occurred less then a decade ago. A good place to start is to read the 1995 Methuen, Mass case in which a plain wafer was transformed into flesh and blood, or the Lanciano, Italy case from 780AD. Both of these wafers have been studied by independent labs. Here's a good video on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6SH93arrIE

Here is a good website that lists some of the major Eucharistic miracles:

http://www.circleofprayer.com/eucharistic-miracles.html

Not all of them are officially recognized by the Church yet, because further research is needed. Again I will answer more tomorrow.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremeist you have

Atheistextremeist you have asked a lot of questions. I will not be able to answer them all tonight, but I'll briefly answer the last question.

The core of my faith lies in the Bible, teachings of the Church, and importantly for me scientific discoveries and natural law. There is more and I will explain later tomorrow.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Crikey, Cliff Jumper.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

...it has been shown several times that the Communion wafer and wine have transformed into real flesh and blood.

 

Now I've got cognitive vertigo. Does it matter if these representative ritualistic elements actually morph into flesh and blood? Jesus used tapas to illustrate a metaphor - this actualisation of the sacrament seems to be adventures in the land of woo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:This a

Cliff Jumper wrote:

This a beginning response to jcgadfly. The two teachings to which you refer to as bat-guano can be shown to be very valid. I'll have to keep this short as I'm tired. I'll continue the response tomorrow.

First off the it's not condoms (birth control) that increases the spread of AIDS and other STDS. Pope Benedict XVI speaks in his encyclicals and speeches of the notion of "safe sex" with condoms etc. This lie that somehow using a condom or other means of artificial contraception will make illicit sex safer is misleading. All forms of artificial birth control have a fairly significant failure rate, which is not told to the people receiving the sex ed or is misunderstood. After all most of the third world country's citizens can barely read much less understand biology or math. So when they are told that this condom, diaphragm, etc will prevent AIDS/STDS they think it is 100% effective or in some cases the efficacy of the birth control is exaggerated by lying or skewed statistical testing. It is interesting to note that since the beginning of "safe sex" education in Africa and other third world countries there has been a increase the in the number of AIDS and STDs rates; however in places where abstinence only education has been taught along with proper sex education the rates of AIDS and STD cases have decreased dramatically.

As proof: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0074.html

I will try to find a link to the study, and elaborate on this more tomorrow.

 

Failure rates not explained?  Statistical lies?  You better find something that backs this up -

What I can tell you from personal experience is that no sex education is worse than useless.  And abstinence only education doesn't work - ask Bristol Palin.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

As for Transubstantiation part of my defense would be faith, but it has been shown several times that the Communion wafer and wine have transformed into real flesh and blood. There are several books on these cases. Some of these miracles occurred over 1000 years ago and some occurred less then a decade ago. A good place to start is to read the 1995 Methuen, Mass case in which a plain wafer was transformed into flesh and blood, or the Lanciano, Italy case from 780AD. Both of these wafers have been studied by independent labs. Here's a good video on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6SH93arrIE

Here is a good website that lists some of the major Eucharistic miracles:

http://www.circleofprayer.com/eucharistic-miracles.html

Not all of them are officially recognized by the Church yet, because further research is needed. Again I will answer more tomorrow.

 

Now I am totally grossed out.  Catholics are cannibals?  eeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww................

Please promise me I am going directly to hell and I won't have to hang around people with Jesus on their breath.  Thanks.

I don't know which is worse - hanging for eternity with guys who think women should be slapped around or with guys who have Jesus-breath.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Pretty funny, cj.

 

cj wrote:

 

I don't know which is worse - hanging for eternity with guys who think women should be slapped around or with guys who have Jesus-breath.

 

 

They are the same guys aren't they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's been raised upthread

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I would like to qualify reading to mean actually attempting to understand what is written, as one would do so with an article in a science journal or precious document. Or have you just read the materials as you would read a comic strip, with no effort to understand the meaning, contents, and background.

 

But I question the imputations of this statement. Obviously there's a clear suggestion many non believers non believe without understand what they reject. But there's also a blind eye turned to the subjective and woolly nature of the source material. Does anyone understand what is written in the bible the way they might understand what is written in a science journal? We know water boils at 100C at sea level. We can cheerily go down to the beach and test our premise. But was Eve really a parselmouth? We will never know.

It's pointless going into the depths of it but the mythological creatures, the borrowed creation stories - more than one - the muddy human morality. You could read the bible ten times and not 'understand' what the writers really meant. Was the insistence on sacrifice in genesis really because the lord loved the sweet savour of burning flesh? Or was it because the priests loved a good BBQ and they were bloody hungry?

I read the bible the first time when I was about 11 and I must say that at that time, as an eager believer, much of it reinforced my spring loaded preacher-kid belief. There were things that made little sense - revelations for instance - but they make just as little sense now, for the most part. The issues I have as an adult are more profound. The lack of proof. The inherent threat of punishment in the absence of proof. The obtuse denial of true revelation. The profound ad hominem insult of the garden of eden.

As you get older, you start to understand the meaning of words like forgiveness and mercy and you see the complete lack of these qualities in biblical doctrine. You start to see the repugnant tent revival at the heart of the NT. You also own a greater sense of empathy that the bible ever shows.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
The catholic policy on birth

The catholic policy on birth control use seems to stem from the idea that people, in absence of birth control, stop having illicit sex.  Research clearly shows that is not the case.  So you are stuck in a situation where people *will* have sex.  If you teach them to use condoms, STDs and pregnancy rates drop.  If you don't, they don't.

Talking about failure rates is a total straw man.

 

I'm not even going to touch the communion stuff, this is 2010, if someone believes in this stuff now it isn't going to be changed by some people on a forum.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The catholic

mellestad wrote:

The catholic policy on birth control use seems to stem from the idea that people, in absence of birth control, stop having illicit sex.  Research clearly shows that is not the case.  So you are stuck in a situation where people *will* have sex.  If you teach them to use condoms, STDs and pregnancy rates drop.  If you don't, they don't.

Talking about failure rates is a total straw man.

 

I'm not even going to touch the communion stuff, this is 2010, if someone believes in this stuff now it isn't going to be changed by some people on a forum.

 

But if they insist their version of religion isn't a cannibalistic blood cult, can we still laugh at them?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:mellestad

jcgadfly wrote:

mellestad wrote:

The catholic policy on birth control use seems to stem from the idea that people, in absence of birth control, stop having illicit sex.  Research clearly shows that is not the case.  So you are stuck in a situation where people *will* have sex.  If you teach them to use condoms, STDs and pregnancy rates drop.  If you don't, they don't.

Talking about failure rates is a total straw man.

 

I'm not even going to touch the communion stuff, this is 2010, if someone believes in this stuff now it isn't going to be changed by some people on a forum.

 

But if they insist their version of religion isn't a cannibalistic blood cult, can we still laugh at them?

At least once a day.  Twice on Sunday.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
First response

This is a response to cj's request for proof dealing with contraceptive failure rates

1. Proof: 50%-60% of women entering abortion clinics are having the abortions because their contraception failed.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

See:MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html


2. Proof: Article from Family Planning Perspectives Volume 31 No. 2

"Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.”

This study shows the varying failure rates of different types of birth control across different ethnic groups and educational backgrounds. It shows that the lower the education of the person the higher the failure rate, also there is a 47% failure rate for women who are cohabiting with another man. Low education is the situation facing the African countries and other impoverished countries. Encouraging illicit sex practices to citizens of impoverished countries with little to no education is not the best way to prevent STDS.
 
3. Proof: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/160444.php

4. Not proof but interesting to note is that every type of birth control comes with a range of efficacy, and quite a wide one at that. For example, condoms come in at 85%-98% effective and the diaphragm is at 84%-94%. Of course most of the popular forms of birth control only protect the women from pregnancy, but not from STDs, and even the ones that protect against STDS do not do nearly as well as abstinence before marriage. Some of the stats on STD prevention are listed here:
 

http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/birth_control.html

From the CDC on condoms:
Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

As a side note I am still trying to find a laboratory study in which the efficacy of condoms, contraceptives, significantly reduces the rate of pregnancy and STDS. By laboratory study I mean controlled and tested with independent and dependent variables. Though I’m not sure how one could test this in that manner without violating AMA, APA, IRB ethics. Correlational studies cannot indicate causality only a correlation.

Condoms and other contraceptives must be used perfectly every time. This is why in most studies, see below, there are two statistics for contraceptive failures. One column represents the perfect use while another represents “typical” use. Getting a condom on perfectly every time is  is very very rare. Generally it slips, breaks, or tears.

Studies with tables:

http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html
"Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.”

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html
 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:This is a

Cliff Jumper wrote:

This is a response to cj's request for proof dealing with contraceptive failure rates

1. Proof: 50%-60% of women entering abortion clinics are having the abortions because their contraception failed.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

See:MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html


2. Proof: Article from Family Planning Perspectives Volume 31 No. 2

"Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.”

This study shows the varying failure rates of different types of birth control across different ethnic groups and educational backgrounds. It shows that the lower the education of the person the higher the failure rate, also there is a 47% failure rate for women who are cohabiting with another man. Low education is the situation facing the African countries and other impoverished countries. Encouraging illicit sex practices to citizens of impoverished countries with little to no education is not the best way to prevent STDS.
 
3. Proof: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/160444.php

4. Not proof but interesting to note is that every type of birth control comes with a range of efficacy, and quite a wide one at that. For example, condoms come in at 85%-98% effective and the diaphragm is at 84%-94%. Of course most of the popular forms of birth control only protect the women from pregnancy, but not from STDs, and even the ones that protect against STDS do not do nearly as well as abstinence before marriage. Some of the stats on STD prevention are listed here:
 

http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/birth_control.html

From the CDC on condoms:
Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

As a side note I am still trying to find a laboratory study in which the efficacy of condoms, contraceptives, significantly reduces the rate of pregnancy and STDS. By laboratory study I mean controlled and tested with independent and dependent variables. Though I’m not sure how one could test this in that manner without violating AMA, APA, IRB ethics. Correlational studies cannot indicate causality only a correlation.

Condoms and other contraceptives must be used perfectly every time. This is why in most studies, see below, there are two statistics for contraceptive failures. One column represents the perfect use while another represents “typical” use. Getting a condom on perfectly every time is  is very very rare. Generally it slips, breaks, or tears.

Studies with tables:

http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html
"Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.”

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html
 

So your solution is to outlaw contraception? Wouldn't that actually increase the number of abortions due to unwanted pregnancy? Or is this a "barefoot and pregnant" fantasy you and Voris share?

What does this have to do with the Pope's claim of "condoms spread AIDS" again? Oh, yeah. I forgot. If we outlaw contraception then people will stop having sex by divine magic.

Some of those studies you cite do show the need of better education. That is definitely needed. What you suggest would make women stupid and pregnant.

They only need to be used perfectly every time for maximum effectiveness every time. What you advocate is 100% pregnancy (as we know how well abstinence only education works).

Using old data doesn't help your cause either. Some of your stuff is 15 years old. I realize that some of you don't like science but it isn't stagnant.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Rather than debate over

Rather than debate over statistics... Has anyone thought of mentioning to this fella that the entire catholic religion is based on a character  who performs magic tricks in a poorly written, plagurized piece of 2000 year old fiction?

 

Debating over any of this operates from the premise that it actually *happened*....


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:Rather than

Rich Woods wrote:

Rather than debate over statistics... Has anyone thought of mentioning to this fella that the entire catholic religion is based on a character  who performs magic tricks in a poorly written, plagurized piece of 2000 year old fiction?

 

Debating over any of this operates from the premise that it actually *happened*....

I like this better. If we went your route all we'd get in response is "Uh-Uh!".

I'd rather deal with how this particular brand of religion is screwing up people's real lives.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Rich Woods

jcgadfly wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

Rather than debate over statistics... Has anyone thought of mentioning to this fella that the entire catholic religion is based on a character  who performs magic tricks in a poorly written, plagurized piece of 2000 year old fiction?

 

Debating over any of this operates from the premise that it actually *happened*....

I like this better. If we went your route all we'd get in response is "Uh-Uh!".

I'd rather deal with how this particular brand of religion is screwing up people's real lives.

 

OK... That's cool... carry on then Smiling


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:This is a

Cliff Jumper wrote:

This is a response to cj's request for proof dealing with contraceptive failure rates

1. Proof: 50%-60% of women entering abortion clinics are having the abortions because their contraception failed.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

See:MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html


2. Proof: Article from Family Planning Perspectives Volume 31 No. 2

"Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.”

This study shows the varying failure rates of different types of birth control across different ethnic groups and educational backgrounds. It shows that the lower the education of the person the higher the failure rate, also there is a 47% failure rate for women who are cohabiting with another man. Low education is the situation facing the African countries and other impoverished countries. Encouraging illicit sex practices to citizens of impoverished countries with little to no education is not the best way to prevent STDS.
 
3. Proof: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/160444.php

4. Not proof but interesting to note is that every type of birth control comes with a range of efficacy, and quite a wide one at that. For example, condoms come in at 85%-98% effective and the diaphragm is at 84%-94%. Of course most of the popular forms of birth control only protect the women from pregnancy, but not from STDs, and even the ones that protect against STDS do not do nearly as well as abstinence before marriage. Some of the stats on STD prevention are listed here:
 

http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/birth_control.html

From the CDC on condoms:
Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

As a side note I am still trying to find a laboratory study in which the efficacy of condoms, contraceptives, significantly reduces the rate of pregnancy and STDS. By laboratory study I mean controlled and tested with independent and dependent variables. Though I’m not sure how one could test this in that manner without violating AMA, APA, IRB ethics. Correlational studies cannot indicate causality only a correlation.

Condoms and other contraceptives must be used perfectly every time. This is why in most studies, see below, there are two statistics for contraceptive failures. One column represents the perfect use while another represents “typical” use. Getting a condom on perfectly every time is  is very very rare. Generally it slips, breaks, or tears.

Studies with tables:

http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html
"Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.”

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html
 

So this is the same problem as last time, you are not using these statistics correctly.  I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that all of your statistics are correct.

1. 50% of women get abortions because of failed contraceptives:  So what?  Without contraceptives, this number would drastically increase yes?  If contraceptives are 80% effective, and 5% or the 20% of failures get abortions, then better 5% of 20% than 5% of 100%, right?

2. Condoms to not 'generally slip, break or tear'.  I've had only a couple break in my lifetime, and never during intercourse.  If they generally broke, failure rate would be much higher.  Remember, you have somethign like a 20% failure rate over *one year of use* not every single use.  And remember how many people using them are kids or morons.  And typically horny kids and morons in a hurry.

 

You are still in a situation where you are complaining because a solution is not perfect.  Nothing is perfect, and studies show sex education is more effective than abstinince only education.  That is all that matters.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Second response

This is in response to cj's question on skewed statistical testing. There are two major ways this can be demonstrated through observable facts.

1. Seeing as how 50%-60% of women are getting abortions because of failed contraception (this obviously does not include any treatments for STDS) then how can condoms, diaphragms, what have you be 98% effective? According to the CDC, as of 2003, there was a teenage population, in America, of around 40 million. Of those 40 million 48% of the 9th-12th graders are having sexual intercourse of some kind and 98% of these teens are participating in some form of sexual intercourse while using the pill or a condom. 61% of these women are on the pill, and the average effectiveness of the pill is 92%-97%. If this is true then at the low end of the spectrum there should be a 3% failure rate and at the high end an 8% failure rate. 

So starting with a teenage population of about 40 million 19,200,000 of these teenagers are sexual active, and 18,816,000 of them are using some form of birth control, pill or condom. That being said 61% of females are using the pill. So that means that 11,477,760 female teenagers are on the pill. Since the pill’s effectiveness is 92%-97% then at the low end of the spectrum there should be 344,332.8-344,333 females with unintended pregnancies. At the high end there should be 918,220.8-918,221 females having unintended pregnancies. The actual statistic from Planned Parenthood, and other organizations is 50%-60% (dependent on the year) is having abortions because their contraceptive method failed for example the pill.  If this is the case, then there are actually 5,738,880 abortions for unintended pregnancies caused by contraceptive malfunction. That does not add up at all. All population and sexual statistics taken form:

http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf

2. The second major example lies in the abortion issue. Contraception was legalized in America on June 7, 1965. The proponents for contraception argued that contraception, the pill then, was a good thing because it would prevent unintended pregnancies, better martial relations, and help reduce divorce rates. Since then statistics have shown the exact opposite. Unintended pregnancies have increased, divorce has increased, and surveys show that contraception within marriage does not produce better martial relations. Then on January 22, 1973 abortion was legalized. One of the main arguments for the legalization of abortion by the prosecuting attorney, Sarah Weddington, and the pro-abortion lobbies was that we needed abortion because women depended on their contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy. As I have shown above the contraceptive methods are not as effective as is publicized, and they certainly were not as effective in the 60s-70s. So abortion became legal, at first as a back-up for failed contraception, and then on demand due to Doe V. Bolton. Both lawsuits were based on fraud as well.

So if contraception is so effective why did we need abortion why don’t the numbers match, and why are AIDS, other STDS, and pregnancy still on the rise in countries receiving “safe sex” or contraceptive education?
 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cliff Jumper

jcgadfly wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

This is a response to cj's request for proof dealing with contraceptive failure rates

1. Proof: 50%-60% of women entering abortion clinics are having the abortions because their contraception failed.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

See:MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html


2. Proof: Article from Family Planning Perspectives Volume 31 No. 2

"Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.”

This study shows the varying failure rates of different types of birth control across different ethnic groups and educational backgrounds. It shows that the lower the education of the person the higher the failure rate, also there is a 47% failure rate for women who are cohabiting with another man. Low education is the situation facing the African countries and other impoverished countries. Encouraging illicit sex practices to citizens of impoverished countries with little to no education is not the best way to prevent STDS.
 
3. Proof: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/160444.php

4. Not proof but interesting to note is that every type of birth control comes with a range of efficacy, and quite a wide one at that. For example, condoms come in at 85%-98% effective and the diaphragm is at 84%-94%. Of course most of the popular forms of birth control only protect the women from pregnancy, but not from STDs, and even the ones that protect against STDS do not do nearly as well as abstinence before marriage. Some of the stats on STD prevention are listed here:
 

http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/birth_control.html

From the CDC on condoms:
Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

As a side note I am still trying to find a laboratory study in which the efficacy of condoms, contraceptives, significantly reduces the rate of pregnancy and STDS. By laboratory study I mean controlled and tested with independent and dependent variables. Though I’m not sure how one could test this in that manner without violating AMA, APA, IRB ethics. Correlational studies cannot indicate causality only a correlation.

Condoms and other contraceptives must be used perfectly every time. This is why in most studies, see below, there are two statistics for contraceptive failures. One column represents the perfect use while another represents “typical” use. Getting a condom on perfectly every time is  is very very rare. Generally it slips, breaks, or tears.

Studies with tables:

http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html
"Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.”

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html
 

So your solution is to outlaw contraception? Wouldn't that actually increase the number of abortions due to unwanted pregnancy? Or is this a "barefoot and pregnant" fantasy you and Voris share?

What does this have to do with the Pope's claim of "condoms spread AIDS" again? Oh, yeah. I forgot. If we outlaw contraception then people will stop having sex by divine magic.

Some of those studies you cite do show the need of better education. That is definitely needed. What you suggest would make women stupid and pregnant.

They only need to be used perfectly every time for maximum effectiveness every time. What you advocate is 100% pregnancy (as we know how well abstinence only education works).

Using old data doesn't help your cause either. Some of your stuff is 15 years old. I realize that some of you don't like science but it isn't stagnant.

 

My solution would partly be to outlaw artificial contraception, but the other part would be to teach people a little thing called self-control. Another part would focus on teaching about the sanctity of sex, why using it as a toy has hurt not helped our society, and explain the detriments involved in multiple partners. A great place to start is Humane Vitae and the Theology of the Body. Though this could shatter certain misconceptions, like the church has no understanding of biology (sarcasm there.)

 

No, people won't stop having sex by divine magic the Pope has never said that. Replacing the idea of "safe sex" with good sex education programs which I very very briefly described above is what the Pope is suggesting. Perfect example Uganda.

 

Again what type of better education. Do you mean how to use condoms and/or contraceptives better? Because we've been at that for several decades and seen very little results; however, results are seen with the type of sex education in line with Church teaching.

I posted new data as well. I posted the old to show the reliable nature of the results.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
No, Catholics are not

No, Catholics are not cannibals. I cited these examples too show that the belief in Transubstantiation is not completely without merit. Did you look at the links? Do any research?

The Catholic church preserves these things as holy relics and does this really cool thing with them, scientific study and research.

I hope and pray you won't go to hell, but I can't tell you that.

As for hanging with guys who think women should be slapped around and people with Jesus breath, I have know clue what you're talking about. Could you please elaborate?

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Rich Woods

jcgadfly wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

Rather than debate over statistics... Has anyone thought of mentioning to this fella that the entire catholic religion is based on a character  who performs magic tricks in a poorly written, plagurized piece of 2000 year old fiction?

 

Debating over any of this operates from the premise that it actually *happened*....

I like this better. If we went your route all we'd get in response is "Uh-Uh!".

I'd rather deal with how this particular brand of religion is screwing up people's real lives.

 

Actually that wouldn't be my response. It would contain numerous sources, outside of the Bible, corroborating evidence, and much more; however, that is not the point of this thread.

Can we get back on topic?

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Perfect

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Perfect example Uganda.

Excuse me, you say what now ? Uganda is a perfect example of a country that has "good sex education programs" ? Didn't you just say you would outlaw artificial contraception ?

I guess you're talking about Pepfar, which is failing, and not the ABC-method, which was responsible for the succes.

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The second part of this

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I hope and pray you won't go to hell, but I can't tell you that.

 

sentence is really the nub of the thing. Catholic, presbyterian, muslim - they are all the same. The beating heart of these faiths is "believe my unprovable dogma or die".

Oh - and it's not their fault. They want us to live forever, it's just that their lord's 'perfect justice' will have its way.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:jcgadfly

Cliff Jumper wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

Rather than debate over statistics... Has anyone thought of mentioning to this fella that the entire catholic religion is based on a character  who performs magic tricks in a poorly written, plagurized piece of 2000 year old fiction?

 

Debating over any of this operates from the premise that it actually *happened*....

I like this better. If we went your route all we'd get in response is "Uh-Uh!".

I'd rather deal with how this particular brand of religion is screwing up people's real lives.

 

Actually that wouldn't be my response. It would contain numerous sources, outside of the Bible, corroborating evidence, and much more; however, that is not the point of this thread.

Can we get back on topic?

I never left. I said "Religion is screwing up the lives of real people by giving them wrongheaded information about sex and contraception. You came back with old data and "Yeah? Well sometimes contraception doesn't work!"

Who's off topic again?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:jcgadfly

Cliff Jumper wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

This is a response to cj's request for proof dealing with contraceptive failure rates

1. Proof: 50%-60% of women entering abortion clinics are having the abortions because their contraception failed.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

See:MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html


2. Proof: Article from Family Planning Perspectives Volume 31 No. 2

"Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.”

This study shows the varying failure rates of different types of birth control across different ethnic groups and educational backgrounds. It shows that the lower the education of the person the higher the failure rate, also there is a 47% failure rate for women who are cohabiting with another man. Low education is the situation facing the African countries and other impoverished countries. Encouraging illicit sex practices to citizens of impoverished countries with little to no education is not the best way to prevent STDS.
 
3. Proof: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/160444.php

4. Not proof but interesting to note is that every type of birth control comes with a range of efficacy, and quite a wide one at that. For example, condoms come in at 85%-98% effective and the diaphragm is at 84%-94%. Of course most of the popular forms of birth control only protect the women from pregnancy, but not from STDs, and even the ones that protect against STDS do not do nearly as well as abstinence before marriage. Some of the stats on STD prevention are listed here:
 

http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/birth_control.html

From the CDC on condoms:
Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

As a side note I am still trying to find a laboratory study in which the efficacy of condoms, contraceptives, significantly reduces the rate of pregnancy and STDS. By laboratory study I mean controlled and tested with independent and dependent variables. Though I’m not sure how one could test this in that manner without violating AMA, APA, IRB ethics. Correlational studies cannot indicate causality only a correlation.

Condoms and other contraceptives must be used perfectly every time. This is why in most studies, see below, there are two statistics for contraceptive failures. One column represents the perfect use while another represents “typical” use. Getting a condom on perfectly every time is  is very very rare. Generally it slips, breaks, or tears.

Studies with tables:

http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html
"Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.”

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html
 

So your solution is to outlaw contraception? Wouldn't that actually increase the number of abortions due to unwanted pregnancy? Or is this a "barefoot and pregnant" fantasy you and Voris share?

What does this have to do with the Pope's claim of "condoms spread AIDS" again? Oh, yeah. I forgot. If we outlaw contraception then people will stop having sex by divine magic.

Some of those studies you cite do show the need of better education. That is definitely needed. What you suggest would make women stupid and pregnant.

They only need to be used perfectly every time for maximum effectiveness every time. What you advocate is 100% pregnancy (as we know how well abstinence only education works).

Using old data doesn't help your cause either. Some of your stuff is 15 years old. I realize that some of you don't like science but it isn't stagnant.

 

My solution would partly be to outlaw artificial contraception, but the other part would be to teach people a little thing called self-control. Another part would focus on teaching about the sanctity of sex, why using it as a toy has hurt not helped our society, and explain the detriments involved in multiple partners. A great place to start is Humane Vitae and the Theology of the Body. Though this could shatter certain misconceptions, like the church has no understanding of biology (sarcasm there.)

 

No, people won't stop having sex by divine magic the Pope has never said that. Replacing the idea of "safe sex" with good sex education programs which I very very briefly described above is what the Pope is suggesting. Perfect example Uganda.

 

Again what type of better education. Do you mean how to use condoms and/or contraceptives better? Because we've been at that for several decades and seen very little results; however, results are seen with the type of sex education in line with Church teaching.

I posted new data as well. I posted the old to show the reliable nature of the results.

There is only one idea of yours I agree with. People do need to learn self-control. How can one learn that from Christianity, which teaches that control comes from God and isn't in yourself? If you have all this self-control, why do you still need the confessional?

Which Pope suggested that? It doesn't sound like Ratzinger. Not that I understand the logic behind a celibate telling anyone about sex education...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Cliff

Anonymouse wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Perfect example Uganda.

Excuse me, you say what now ? Uganda is a perfect example of a country that has "good sex education programs" ? Didn't you just say you would outlaw artificial contraception ?

I guess you're talking about Pepfar, which is failing, and not the ABC-method, which was responsible for the succes.

 

 

 

Did you read the article I posted. You might also want to do a search on NFP taught in African countires. Check out NFP methods first. As many sites will mention completely out of date methods like the rhythm method.

 

Here it is again:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0074.html

 

This is not an isolated case either. That's why there has been a demand for increased education of NFP in African countries. Of course this promotes abstinence until marriage. So for those needing the illicit sex it's not the best method neither are current contraceptives as I cited in my previous posts.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cliff Jumper

jcgadfly wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

Rather than debate over statistics... Has anyone thought of mentioning to this fella that the entire catholic religion is based on a character  who performs magic tricks in a poorly written, plagurized piece of 2000 year old fiction?

 

Debating over any of this operates from the premise that it actually *happened*....

I like this better. If we went your route all we'd get in response is "Uh-Uh!".

I'd rather deal with how this particular brand of religion is screwing up people's real lives.

 

 

 

Actually that wouldn't be my response. It would contain numerous sources, outside of the Bible, corroborating evidence, and much more; however, that is not the point of this thread.

Can we get back on topic?

I never left. I said "Religion is screwing up the lives of real people by giving them wrongheaded information about sex and contraception. You came back with old data and "Yeah? Well sometimes contraception doesn't work!"

Who's off topic again?

 

I'll need an example of the Church giving people wrongheaded information about sex. I've heard so many myths from atheists and some Catholics it's hard to keep up.  I've provided a good beginning of resources to show the point on contraception. How about doing a little research on your own?

Thank you, you admit contraception fails. So then why teach a failing method when a better one exists? I'll also add that contraception is failing and doesn't work quite a bit more then sex ed classes teach. Again I cited this in my studies and calculations.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I hope and pray you won't go to hell, but I can't tell you that.

 

sentence is really the nub of the thing. Catholic, presbyterian, muslim - they are all the same. The beating heart of these faiths is "believe my unprovable dogma or die".

Oh - and it's not their fault. They want us to live forever, it's just that their lord's 'perfect justice' will have its way.

 

 

 

Catholic, Presbyterian, and Muslim religions are not all the same, they have some similarities but they are not the same. While some of the dogmas of the Catholic church are unprovable and therefore a matter of faith, many dogmas are not. Also no matter what you believe you will die. These faiths teach which after-life you will go to.

I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity does teach it is each person's fault. They are responsible for their actions, therefore, they choose their fate or ultimate destination. There is a lot more to the topic of justice, good, and evil that would require a lot more discussion. It's my experience that people who make this point have an inaccurate view of justice, love, choice, and responsibility. This may not be the case with you however.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor