Andrew,
Unfortunately child abuse isn't just a Catholic problem, although from media coverage one might think it was. If "child abuse in the Protestant church" is put into Google there is a lot of evidence to point to the regretable fact that child abuse cuts across denominations. Why I have come across JW's having problems
Here is one link I found.
http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/protestant-clergy-abuse-equals-or-exceeds-catholic-clergy-abuse/

Perhaps I have picked you up wrong but I don't think there is a connection between homosexual tendencies and the abuse of children. The desire to abuse children come from a disorded sexual desire, irrespective of ones sexual orientation. This is why I disagree with the argument that some put forward that child abuse in the Catholic Church is due to celibacy.
If a priest, or any person for that matter, has a disordered sexual desire, which expresses itself by wanting to have sex with children, marriage will not the cure it. Getting married will only involve the transfer of a man's unhealthy lust to his wife or children. Conversely, if a man abuses his wife, the solution to the problem is not the renunciation of his call to marriage. The solution lies precisely in his call to marriage, to love his bride as Christ loved the Church.

I suppose they left themselves wide open when they mentioned specific illnesses in their pamphlets.

I don't know if I am making any spritual progress this lent but I'm making progress in other ways. I have lost two pounds since Ash Wednesday. 

Dawkins suggest we are not, because fewer than the last census would tick the box.  He further goes on to say that those claiming it don';t believe it.

We'd best leave aside the point that when asked to give the full title of the Origin of the Species he did say "oh God!".

So, are we a Christian country, and if we are, how are we?  Th examples of prayers before meetings seem to me to be historical and traditional.  No new group formed even suggests that prayers would be welcome or necessary.  We have a head of State who is the head of the State religion, but again, this is very historical. Does it make a difference that we are a Protestant Christian country?  I know that Saundthorpe pbuh, used to be fond of making the point that we lived in a Christian country, but was less happy with the thought that we were a Protestant Christian country.

Hi Boudi,
I think as time goes on it will become ever more difficult to call ourselves a Christian country. This country has been running on the legacy of past Christianty for some years. That legacy is nearlly all spent. I would like to think I'm wrong, but the omens for the future are not good.

Quote from: saundthorp on August 08, 2011, 07:56:55

Aware of your sensibilities and deep antagonism towards Catholicism, Martin, here is a non-Catholic link.
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro19.html

ROFL, you keep on and on trying to paint me as 'antagonistic towards Catholocism', someone who is 'attempting to diminish God', 'arrogant', 'conceited' etc.  In fact, all I'm doing is pointing out the holes in your argument using my own brain to show how your view cannot be correct. 

You have yet to provide me with a clear answer to my question which is, IN YOUR OPINION did Neanderthal humans possess what you call a soul?  If they did, then you are admitting the possibility of an animal other than Homo sapiens having a soul,  if you say you don't know then you are admitting the possibility that an animal other than Homo Sapiens could have had a soul.  It's only if Homo neanderthalensis couldn't possibly have had had a soul, that you can maintain that Homo sapiens aree the only creatures with one.  If Neanderthals had souls then what about homo erectus?  If erectus had a soul then what about australopithecus?   If australopithecus had a soul then what about modern apes such as chimpanzees, orang utans and gorillas?

You see, if Neanderthals, homo erectus and australopithicus were still around today, in conversation with us, it would be bleedin' obvious that (at least in the case of erectus and neanderthalensis) they were intelligent creatures capable of understanding and postulating 'God', who had their own spirituality, and the concept of 'soul' would be very much more easily seen to correlate to brain-power and not to something infused into just one species by God.

So which is it to be Saundthorp.  Do you think that Neanderthals, a species who almost certainly had language, who made tools, laid traps for mamoths, who ceremonially buried their dead, have a soul?   Yes, No, Don't Know - you choose.

Incidentally, the article you linked to, 'Making Man Out Of Monkeys' doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion in hand (nor do any of the other articles you've posted).  For the purposes of this discussion we do not need to know whether Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus or Australopithecus (it is generally acknowledged that Neanderthals were not on our evolutionary path).  Who evolved from who is not important, the fact is that these articles acknowledge the existence of these other species who possessed high intelligence.  Since their existence is not in doubt, we have to ask ourselves, whether, if such a thing as a soul exists, God put souls in those animals too. If we say that God did, then we have other animals who possessed souls - disproving the idea that only the descendents of Adam and Eve had souls. If we say that God did not, then we have the awkward idea that there existed animals who spoke, planned, loved, grieved their dead, and to all intents and purposes were intellectually very similar to ourselves, who were completely soulless.

Martin,
I have answered your points in previous posts.
I'll refresh your memory,
Post 24

Personally I think man was a completely different species brought into being by God. Yes, evolution has taken place but all within the confines of that unique species.

There is another theory about man's origins. He did evolve from another creature such as an ape, but at some point in the evolutionary process God endowed him with an immortal soul, which had a profound change on his character and behaviour. I prefer the unique species approach.

Post 28

Animals may well have a part of them that survives after death, but God has chosen not revealed it to us.

Here is a cop out on your part if there ever was one,

Incidentally, the article you linked to, 'Making Man Out Of Monkeys' doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion in hand (nor do any of the other articles you've posted).

Quote from: saundthorp on August 07, 2011, 17:20:06

Jan and JJ,
I think you guys and gals are taking the ****. or to use a phrase a famous tennis player used to scream at the umpire,
"You can't be serious"

Pardon??

I said "The Bible is a collection of ancient scriptures written by many different people over a long time period. Some parts may or may not be true.  It is not 'evidence' !!"

the above statement happens to be quite true Saundy - it is not 'taking the ****'.

Why do you think it is 'taking the ****'?

Jan,
I thought this discussion board was broadly Christian so I was quite taken aback by what you said, because it was so dismissive of the Bible.
Christians don't regard the Bible as just a collection of ancient writings.
How do you react to this statement taken from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, regarding the Bible?

The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known. Much of the Scripture came to its writers through the channels of ordinary knowledge, but its sacred character and Divine authority are not limited to those parts which contain revelation strictly so termed. The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical "because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church". The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.

Trusting that you don't have the same antagonism towards Catholicism that other posters have, I have used a Catholic source. I could have used a non-Catholic quote, which apart from the reference to Tradition, would have been very similar.

Humans and animals differ in as much that human being posses a part of them that survives death, the part we call the soul.

Says who? there is not one shred of evidence for this.

Read the Bible, Martin, you will find the evidence there