NationStates Jolt Archive

Thus that means the box can only have positive dimensions.

Therefore the box has positive dimensions or the box has negative dimensions.

I am not a constructionist, comrade.

Yet, it IS open to life. They are having sexual relations in such a manner that, even though it is highly improbable, even approaching impossibility, that the wife will get pregnant, if the Lord proclaims "Woman! You're bearing a child!" that she would be able to do so.

The Lord has done this sort of thing in the past.

If the lord can make a sterile woman pregnant, he can make a man pregnant!

So, really, god's just being a lazy fuck and claims homosexuality is evil to cover it up.

Is this still going on?

Why are you guys all feeding the troll again?

OK, where exactly did God say "Thou shall only haveth the sex to procreate"?

Maybe the same place he says it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. (I believe that's in Corinthians.)

If wrong is soley a matter of perspective in every single instance, then there should be no laws or courts, because laws and courts themselves enforce some held standard of right or wrong. Your argument is self defeating, comrade.

People are charged and punished because they broke the law, agreed upon by the social contract and not (supposedly) because morals are objective.

Maybe the same place he says it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. (I believe that's in Corinthians.)

Actually, it's in the book of Leviticus.

I think you have all missed the boat. You aren't disagreeing with "wrong or not wrong." You are disagreeing with the possibility of anything being wrong.

That doesn't go against the dichotomy that I've said. If everything is not wrong, then everything is still wrong or not wrong.

So, I really don't have to prove that anything can be objectively wrong. The point does remain, however, that if we disagree about the point, then there must be some way of determining whether it is or isn't.

Thus, there must be some universal standard.

Again, you're assuming your conclusion in your givens. If you disagree about the point, you could both be completely clueless.

First assume there is no universal standard.
Now assume A is "X is wrong"
Now assume B is "X is not wrong"
If there is no universal standard then X is sometimes not wrong and sometimes wrong.
That means Not A and Not B.

Now assume there is a universal standard.
That means that A or B.
Which of course supports a universal standard.

So it depends on which conclusion you start with in order to get to the same conclusion at the end. It's a circular argument by definition.

Maybe the same place he says it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. (I believe that's in Corinthians.)

...

Well, if that's the case, we can disregard both (most likely as well as most of the writings of whoever said that) as bullshit.

If wrong is soley a matter of perspective in every single instance, then there should be no laws or courts, because laws and courts themselves enforce some held standard of right or wrong. Your argument is self defeating, comrade.Once again, in Europe death penalty is wrong while in the US it is not wrong. What is the absolute here and why?
Why are there laws defining whether or not death penalty is wrong or not wrong in the respective society if there is already an absolute standard for that? How do you determine what is wrong?

...

Well, if that's the case, we can disregard both (as well as most of the writings of whoever said that) as bullshit.

Awww. can we keep the one that says that if a woman who is not yet married is raped, she is to be married to her rapist with no possibility of divorce ? Or the one that states that she is guilty herself if the rape occured in the city, and should die ?

Awww. can we keep the one that says that if a woman who is not yet married is raped, she is to be married to her rapist with no possibility of divorce ? Or the one that states that she is guilty herself if the rape occured in the city, and should die ?

No, those have to go too. They're also bullshit.

Dude, I merely gave a proof of the law of the excluded middle. If you reject the proofs I gave, you reject formal logic in its totality, and if you do this, you concede that contradictions are possible, and therefore I have no reason to debate with you, especially since there is absolutely no possibility with you of having rational discussion.

If you were stating the law of the excluded middle then why did you say that it proved that there is objective morality?

No, those have to go too. They're also bullshit.

What about the ones about stoning disobedient children?

No, those have to go too. They're also bullshit.

That wearing polyester-cotton tshirts is an abomination then ? (as are all clothes of two different fabrics). Just like the eating of lobster ?

ok. The Bible has some.. odd rules.

Dude, I merely gave a proof of the law of the excluded middle. If you reject the proofs I gave, you reject formal logic in its totality, and if you do this, you concede that contradictions are possible, and therefore I have no reason to debate with you, especially since there is absolutely no possibility with you of having rational discussion.

No, you didn't. You misapplied the law of excluded middle which is a common logical fallacy. If you wish to have a rational discussion, you should probably avoid the fallacies. Or you can continue to get your behind handed to you. It's up to you.

What about the ones about stoning disobedient children?

Also bullshit, so also DEATed.

(Hey, I'm like the NSG authority on bullshit now)

Also bullshit, so also DEATed.

(Hey, I'm like the NSG authority on bullshit now)

No adultery?

No adultery?

That law is also DEATed... though your spouse(s) can still divorce you if that happens, so you better ask him/her/them first if you don't like divorce.

No, you didn't. You misapplied the law of excluded middle which is a common logical fallacy. If you wish to have a rational discussion, you should probably avoid the fallacies. Or you can continue to get your behind handed to you. It's up to you.

It is impossible for "misapply" the law of the excluded middle. Everything which takes the form "A v ~A" is a logical tautology. I refuse to believe that absolutely any contradiction is possible. However, since the other participants of this thread clearly refuse to uphold the most basic truths of Formal Logic, I refuse to continue participating in this thread. I am out.

It is impossible for "misapply" the law of the excluded middle. Everything which takes the form "A v ~A" is a logical tautology. I refuse to believe that absolutely any contradiction is possible. However, since the other participants of this thread clearly refuse to uphold the most basic truths of Formal Logic, I refuse to continue participating in this thread. I am out.

You believe in a totally unverifiable magic man in the sky! You cannot apply logic! The side you're debating for CANNOT be defended logically! And you know it, and that's why you're leaving.

Since you cowardly ignored me the first time.

If you love your own homosexual desires more than you love the Church and the Lord, then you should really reconsider calling yourself a Catholic.

"Homosexual" and "Christian" are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of people who are both. And considering that the Bible tells you to love your fellow man, not to judge lest you be judged, that we are all sinners, and that no sin is greater than any other sin, perhaps you should reconsider calling yourself a Christian.

That law is also DEATed... though your spouse(s) can still divorce you if that happens, so you better ask him/her/them first if you don't like divorce.

Stoning gay men? (Interestingly, as far as I can tell, there's nothing about stoning lesbians. Guess Jesus had a thing.)

Stoning gay men? (Interestingly, as far as I can tell, there's nothing about stoning lesbians. Guess Jesus had a thing.)

That law is DEATed too.

And before you ask...

1) No "stoning lesbians" law
2) No "monogamy only" law
3) No "hetero marriages only" law

Since you cowardly ignored me the first time.



"Homosexual" and "Christian" are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of people who are both. And considering that the Bible tells you to love your fellow man, not to judge lest you be judged, that we are all sinners, and that no sin is greater than any other sin, perhaps you should reconsider calling yourself a Christian.

This would be a very good argument if people the likes of him really cared about following scriptural thruth for what it is, instead of trying to hypocritically pick-and-choose scripture passages to defend their own bigoted, homophobic rants.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: homosexuality is brought up about 5-6 times in the bibles, and never by Jesus himself. Meanwhile, Jesus rants and raves for hours on ends about adultery. One would think everybody would understand that the lesson to get from that is "Don't cheat on your partner, it ain't nice" not "GAYS R TEH EBIL!!11!!1!One!!Eleven!".

Yet, so-called Christians and catholics still choose to try to make homosexuality into a pet sin of theirs, picturing it as disgusting and abominable to God, forgetting that eating shellfish and wearing cotton/polyester blends are equally as abominable to him, and ignoring the core message Jesus brought in the Gospels about loving thy neihbour and not judging others.

I'd just like to quote Our Lord, if you don't mind:

I certainly can't stop you.


Are you a Heathen and a Publican?

Neither.


If you love the Lord, then you will take his cross. If you take not up his cross, then you are not worthy of Him. He says this Himself.

I have already stated for the record I left the Roman Catholic Church and after long examination I have found the Church wanting in both moral and ethical authority. Faith is not about a building and spirituality is not confined to the writings within a book that has been abused by men for a couple of millenia.

With all due respect, I find my spiritual life much more comfortable now. I live by the simple rule, "Harm no one."

I no longer need a man in vestments to tell me when to pray, how to pray and who to pray to. I suspect I never did.


The first and greatest commandment Our Lord offers is to love God with a sacrificial love. He demands of us sacrifice. He commands us to die to ourselves, and to be absolutely obedient to the Church and to His commandments.

Then with due respect, your Lord does not ask simple worship, but undying, unyielding obedience with harsh and strict penalties for disobedience. You are saying the Lord is a high school principal with a Napoleon complex. This is utterly wrong.


If you love your own homosexual desires more than you love the Church and the Lord, then you should really reconsider calling yourself a Catholic.

First off Gens, I was BORN with my homosexual "desires." They are a part of me, no amount of guilt, brainwashing or religious programming can change who or what I am. Nowhere in the Bible does it demand that heterosexual men not love their heterosexual desires. You seem to believe that my accepting my homosexuality and feeling no guilt or remorse for it automatically means I do not love the Lord. This is not true. I choose to believe that God does not play dice with the universe. If I was born to my homosexuality, and I believe I was...then that orientation must be what God intended.

You should reconsider your very narrow interpretation. I repeat, men are fallible, and that does not exclude senior priests, bishops, cardinals and the Pope himself.

If such a viewpoint disqualifies me as a Catholic then you don't want worshippers, you want brainwashed followers who dare not question the often broad statements and pronouncements made by the modern Church. Look in the mirror and live with that.


You claim me to have a "narrow interpretation." I'm not interpreting anything. This is the teaching of the Church. These are the words of the Magisterium. I am not offering you my own take on anything. This is what the Lord says.

When words are written by men and then read by them, interpretation occurs. Some men (or women) take the words too literally and others do not take the words seriously enough. You cleave to an interpretation because you were NOT there when the Lord spoke those words, and likely the person who wrote those words was a translator. Not the holiest of tasks, you must agree.


Edit: For the record, don't take my relatively harsh words as any sign that I don't like you, particularly because you are a homosexual. I love you as my Christian brother. If I didn't love you, I wouldn't bother pointing out what I am pointing out. Don't take what I am saying as a personal attack. I am only doing what Our Lord commands, when he tells us to rebuke our brother. You are my brother, and I am responsible for you. Therefore, I must proclaim to thee what the Church teaches.

I only wish your priest would have done the same.

I could care less if you like me, I am not tied to "like and dislike." I am decidedly NOT your Christian brother and I don't much care for being treated like a retarded schoolboy.

I am an adult man and I live with the consequences of my actions and words. I take responsibility. I feel no need to have my beliefs spoon fed to me by a man who was a Nazi and now holds the highest spiritual office in the Church. Yes, I am fairly certain that his moral choices were...shall we say...lacking?

~S

Or perhaps, my friend, you were born a homosexual specifically because God didn't want you having sex at all. Have you considered that perhaps God wants you all for Himself?

Then God should have made him attracted to noone.

I have already stated for the record I left the Roman Catholic Church and after long examination I have found the Church wanting in both moral and ethical authority.

Then why do you call yourself a Catholic?

I no longer need a man in vestments to tell me when to pray, how to pray and who to pray to. I suspect I never did.

I repeat: Why do you call yourself a Catholic, then?

First off Gens, I was BORN with my homosexual "desires." They are a part of me, no amount of guilt, brainwashing or religious programming can change who or what I am. Nowhere in the Bible does it demand that heterosexual men not love their heterosexual desires. You seem to believe that my accepting my homosexuality and feeling no guilt or remorse for it automatically means I do not love the Lord. This is not true. I choose to believe that God does not play dice with the universe. If I was born to my homosexuality, and I believe I was...then that orientation must be what God intended.

Have you ever thought that perhaps God specifically allowed you to be born a homosexual because he didn't want you having sex...at all? Have you thought for a moment that God is calling you to special graces, and to a special state in life? Have you thought for a moment that perhaps God wants you all to Himself?

God puts upon us no burden, no temptation and doesn't offer us the grace to resist it. Repent, comrade. Through your suffering, united with the sufferings of the Lord, you can do a lot of good for souls.

You should reconsider your very narrow interpretation. I repeat, men are fallible, and that does not exclude senior priests, bishops, cardinals and the Pope himself.

Then if you truly believe that, then why do you place so much confidence in your own understanding?

Gens Romae wrote:

If you love your own homosexual desires more than you love the Church and the Lord, then you should really reconsider calling yourself a Catholic.


"Homosexual" and "Christian" are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of people who are both. And considering that the Bible tells you to love your fellow man, not to judge lest you be judged, that we are all sinners, and that no sin is greater than any other sin, perhaps you should reconsider calling yourself a Christian.

Thus, there must be some universal standard.

1) Morality isn't black and white
2) Morality is a human construct. Human constructs often fall apart under enough examination.
3) I thought you were leaving?

Have you ever thought that perhaps God specifically allowed you to be born a homosexual because he didn't want you having sex...at all? Have you thought for a moment that God is calling you to special graces, and to a special state in life? Have you thought for a moment that perhaps God wants you all to Himself?



Why would I want to believe in a God that lets you see all the excitement and fun life has to offer, and then forbids you from participating? Why would I want to believe in a God that has a predestined fate in mind for me? Why would I want to believe in a God that would discourage me from starting a family with someone I love and want to spend eternity with? I for one refuse to believe in a cruel, torturous God and would rather believe that God would want me to enjoy life, and not harm anyone in the process, physically or mentally.

It is impossible for "misapply" the law of the excluded middle. Everything which takes the form "A v ~A" is a logical tautology. I refuse to believe that absolutely any contradiction is possible. However, since the other participants of this thread clearly refuse to uphold the most basic truths of Formal Logic, I refuse to continue participating in this thread. I am out.

You're entirely incorrect. Of course you're fleeing. You've been proven wrong. False dilemma is a logical fallacy based on the misapplication of the law of excluded middle. Strange that science of logic would have a specific fallacy designed to describe something you claim is impossible.

You're correct that A or Not A is a tautology. You unfortunately don't undersand what not A means which is why you are misapplying the law.

One of the basic truths of formal logic is that it's possible to misapply the law of exclude middle and as such create the false dilemma fallacy. Since you're claiming to be a student of formal logic you should no this. Now is a good time to flee. You're embarrassing yourself.

Then why do you call yourself a Catholic?



I repeat: Why do you call yourself a Catholic, then?



Have you ever thought that perhaps God specifically allowed you to be born a homosexual because he didn't want you having sex...at all? Have you thought for a moment that God is calling you to special graces, and to a special state in life? Have you thought for a moment that perhaps God wants you all to Himself?

God puts upon us no burden, no temptation and doesn't offer us the grace to resist it. Repent, comrade. Through your suffering, united with the sufferings of the Lord, you can do a lot of good for souls.



Then if you truly believe that, then why do you place so much confidence in your own understanding?

Jesus preached discernment. He intended for us to have a personal relationship with God through Him. The person that recreated the idea that we would discern the Truth through a man claiming infallibility is Paul. I prefer to listen to Jesus. You should try it. You know, Him being the subject of Christianity and all.

Jesus preached discernment. He intended for us to have a personal relationship with God through Him. The person that recreated the idea that we would discern the Truth through a man claiming infallibility is Paul. I prefer to listen to Jesus. You should try it. You know, Him being the subject of Christianity and all.

Regrettably Gens has forgotten that simple truth and many Catholics with him. That is why the Church has left so many people behind. But, I am not surprised, in reaction to a new century the Church has tried to return to 12th Century. It is an odd day that the Society of Jesus falls out of favour with the Papacy and a cult (Opus Dei) within the Church enjoys special favor of the Papacy of both Benedict and the later years of John Paul II (conveniently when His Holiness was afflicted with Parkinson's Disease, I might add). Such extremes should never enjoy the favor of the occupant of the Seat of Peter.

Extreme reactionism seems to have a rather powerful hold among religious conservatives. This is never a good sign. Arch conservatives enjoy special favor in Benedict's Papacy and yet our dear friend Gens says nothing is wrong?

I am a Catholic, even if I no longer claim the Church. I and many more moderate thinkers await the day the Church moves back to the center.

~S

Jesus preached discernment. He intended for us to have a personal relationship with God through Him. The person that recreated the idea that we would discern the Truth through a man claiming infallibility is Paul. I prefer to listen to Jesus. You should try it. You know, Him being the subject of Christianity and all.

Matthew 16:18. Luke 10:16.

I am a Catholic, even if I no longer claim the Church. I and many more moderate thinkers await the day the Church moves back to the center.

~S

The Church has never been in the center. If anything, in the past 40 or 30 years, she's become more liberal. Sure, perhaps not in doctrine, for she's can't become more lax in doctrine, nor any more strict. But in practice, she's become more lax. She has become completely lax on such things as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Just compare the Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX to Nostra Aetate. There is a huge difference.

I fail to see what you are "awaiting" the Church to move back to.

Matthew 16:18. Luke 10:16.

Care to elaborate? I can't be bothered looking up the opposition's own argument myself.

I can't be bothered looking up the opposition's own argument myself.

Isn't that the idea of a debate? Looking up and knowing the idea of your opposer before you attack their idea? :p

Though I do agree that an elaboration should be made.

Care to elaborate? I can't be bothered looking up the opposition's own argument myself.

In all honesty I do think that being willing to read the Bible in a debate on what it states is not unreasonable...

http://www.biblegateway.com/



18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

I however find it humerous that Gens was essentially arguing that homosexuals are Gods chosen people a few posts back.

Isn't that the idea of a debate? Looking up and knowing the idea of your opposer before you attack their idea? :p

Though I do agree that an elaboration should be made.

The normal thing to do would be to provide a quote or at least a link. Just writing the names of bible verses hardly counts as contribution. And what does Matthew 16:18 have to do with this anyway? And can someone explain who is talking to who in Luke 10:16.

Also, the original topic of this thread appears to have been lost somewhere along the way.

EDIT: I'm tired, please don't yell at me for not wanted to look up and understand bible verses. And that's referring to anyone below not above.

"Homosexual" and "Christian" are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of people who are both. And considering that the Bible tells you to love your fellow man, not to judge lest you be judged, that we are all sinners, and that no sin is greater than any other sin, perhaps you should reconsider calling yourself a Christian.

I've always wondered why Christians can claim to be pure of heart but say that homosexuals are evil... I don't particularly agree with the practice, but I will never illegalize nor damnify the practice.

By the by, the word "Christian" literally refers to "a person who believes in Jesus Christ." Today's "Christian," as we all should know, is divised into two major sects (among the others): Protestant and Catholocism. Protestants believe in a personal, loving God; whearas Catholics believe in an impersonal and punishing God. The major theory of the two mostly resemble each other... on paper. Catholics, however, are devoted to an Earthly authority, and essentially removing yourself from the idea of an Earthly authority over an unearthly sentient removes you from being a Catholic...

but not a Christian.

Matthew 16:18. Luke 10:16.

We were talking aout Paul, not Peter. Oh, and I'm not sure if you heard the news, but Peter died. Quite some time ago actually. So he really hasn't said much to accept or reject for a while. :p

Matthew 16:18. Luke 10:16.

Yes, that's very helpful if you want to ignore EVERYTHING else Jesus said about the corruption of the Church hierarchy. But, hey, you HAVE to believe that. It's the only way you can defend following the Pharisees and Hypocrites.

The only people who have the most sexual choice are bisexuals. *Nods* they can be straight on Monday and gay on Tuesday.

My mother doesn't believe in bi-sexuality. Then again, she also believes that everyone is chaste until marraige and anything to hint otherwise is just "expirimentation." Therefore, the entire world is full of scientists.

Have you ever thought that perhaps God specifically allowed you to be born a homosexual because he didn't want you having sex...at all? Have you thought for a moment that God is calling you to special graces, and to a special state in life? Have you thought for a moment that perhaps God wants you all to Himself?

Have you ever thought that the guy has enough faith in God's benevolent, all-understanding, etc. status to not think of Him/Her/It as such a fucking asshole?

Because that is what that move is a tell-tale sign of.

Now let's talk about a few other "positions" of the Church.

Matthew 23 -

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. [B]12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Now, does that sound like any practices within the Church? That could be a man speaking today and it would completely apply to the modern Pharisees and hypocrites.

Since you obviously ignored this the first, here you go.

In one place, Jesus says to be aware of the people who claim the authority of God and make you treat them as if they are higher than you, the men who call themselves "Father" (I can't remember, what are Catholic priests called), the men who take the place of honor at the table and wear elaborate clothes. It's like Jesus predicted it 2000 years before it happened. That's what is amazing to me. Jesus could have been speaking the Christian leadership of today. A message 2000 years old, but entirely poignant today. It simply increases my faith.

But, hey, nevermind that, take two obscure passages out of context make them mean something they don't actually say, and that should negate the broad teachings of Jesus.

Yet, did the Holy Father tell Galileo to advocate the other position? It seems to me that the Holy Father desired Galileo to give an unbiased work, which seems completely reasonable to me for that particular time. They were not living in the age in which we live. They didn't know all that we know about science. At that particular time, the science in which Galileo was working was still fairly young.

It is only reasonable that the Holy Father, who at the time was the chief political figure, and responsible more or less for the stability of Europe, not to want some uppity young jackass causing all sorts of trouble with newfangled ideas.

I love the way you appeal to moral relativism when it suits you.

Yes, that's very helpful if you want to ignore EVERYTHING else Jesus said about the corruption of the Church hierarchy. But, hey, you HAVE to believe that. It's the only way you can defend following the Pharisees and Hypocrites.


You mean the verse you gave earlier? That's against the Pharisees and the Hypocrites, not the Holy Catholic Church, which He Himself established. There is no verse in which he speaks against the Church.

snip pseudo-logic

I say that X is tasty.
You say that X is not tasty.
X cannot be both tasty and not tasty.
Therefore tastyness must be objective and one of us is wrong.

You mean the verse you gave earlier? That's against the Pharisees and the Hypocrites, not the Holy Catholic Church, which He Himself established. There is no verse in which he speaks against the Church.

The Church he was talking about was established by Moses.

Meanwhile, are actually suggesting that when he said NO MAN that he really meant NO MAN except SOME MEN.

I say that X is tasty.
You say that X is not tasty.
X cannot be both tasty and not tasty.
Therefore tastyness must be objective and one of us is wrong.

As a Platonist, I agree.

The Church he was talking about was established by Moses.

Meanwhile, are actually suggesting that when he said NO MAN that he really meant NO MAN except SOME MEN.

The only verse that really stood to really apply to the Church was "Call no man father," which fails to hold up considering St. Paul's declaration that he has begotten many children through the preaching of the Word.

I love the way you appeal to moral relativism when it suits you.

You noticed that too, huh?

He's not too good at being logically consistent. "Yes, I know Jesus said beware the man who takes the seat of honor, speaking of holy men who were placed themselves above others, and call no man Rabbi, father, and the like, and that ALL MEN are equal, but what he really meant was until the Pope came around."

It's very convenient double-speak.

As a Platonist, I agree.

You just missed everything in his post.

You noticed that too, huh?

He's not too good at being logically consistent. "Yes, I know Jesus said beware the man who takes the seat of honor, speaking of holy men who were placed themselves above others, and call no man Rabbi, father, and the like, and that ALL MEN are equal, but what he really meant was until the Pope came around."

It's very convenient blackwhite.

Fixed your Newspeak there.

(It's actually blackwhite, the act of calling black white when it suits your argument OR the willingness to do so.)

The only verse that really stood to really apply to the Church was "Call no man father," which fails to hold up considering St. Paul's declaration that he has begotten many children through the preaching of the Word.

You mean Paul can override God incarnate? Are you serious?

Jesus Christ said that we are all equal. Jesus Christ said judge no one. Jesus Christ said unless you are completely without sin you may not throw the first stone. Jesus said to pray privately and worship the Father personally and directly and to let no man stand between you and He. Jesus said the sum of the Law and the Prophets was to love God and love everyone else. Jesus said to beware of what comes out of you, and not confuse the laws of man, meant to direct our actions or protect us, with the laws of God.

This isn't what Paul or some other person said. This is what Jesus said. These are His spiritual directions to us. Every one of these has been violated by the Catholic Church. We can also add in idolatry and worship of men.

But, hey, if a MAN said it was alright, you really should ignore the word of the object of your faith. That makes perfect sense. Unless you actually think about it.

As a Platonist, I agree.

Seriously, you don't understand logic at all.

As a Platonist, I agree.

So taste isn't subjective? :rolleyes:

If that's really the logical conclusion of Platonism then Platonism should be dismissed as madness; it's a reductio ad absurdum.

You mean Paul can override God incarnate? Are you serious?

Jesus Christ said that we are all equal. Jesus Christ said judge no one. Jesus Christ said unless you are completely without sin you may not throw the first stone. Jesus said to pray privately and worship the Father personally and directly and to let no man stand between you and He. Jesus said the sum of the Law and the Prophets was to love God and love everyone else. Jesus said to beware of what comes out of you, and not confuse the laws of man, meant to direct our actions or protect us, with the laws of God.

This isn't what Paul or some other person said. This is what Jesus said. These are His spiritual directions to us. Every one of these has been violated by the Catholic Church. We can also add in idolatry and worship of men.

But, hey, if a MAN said it was alright, you really should ignore the word of the object of your faith. That makes perfect sense. Unless you actually think about it.

YAY! :D

You noticed that too, huh?

He's not too good at being logically consistent. "Yes, I know Jesus said beware the man who takes the seat of honor, speaking of holy men who were placed themselves above others, and call no man Rabbi, father, and the like, and that ALL MEN are equal, but what he really meant was until the Pope came around."

It's very convenient double-speak.

Indeed. His stance on contraception and on sterile couples being allowed to have sex also reeks of the kind of legalism which Jesus condemned so vehemently in the Pharisees.

I'll bet you a taco that the Pope would be one of the first people Jesus would kick in the nuts if He came back to life today. *nod*

So taste isn't subjective? :rolleyes:

If that's really the logical conclusion of Platonism then Platonism should be dismissed as madness; it's a reductio ad absurdum.

No, he doesn't actually understand Platonism, much like his flawed understanding of the law of excluded middle. He spent exactly enough time on it to know what it is and not enough time to understand what it means. In philosophy and logic, it's a very common problem.

Now, he's going to come back and tell you about something called universals, thinking it defers objectivity on everything, despite that be a flawed understanding of the concept.

I'll bet you a taco that the Pope would be one of the first people Jesus would kick in the nuts if He came back to life today. *nod*

On that note. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ7elKNfSpc) :D

On that note. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ7elKNfSpc) :D

Double YAY! :D

I'll bet you a taco that the Pope would be one of the first people Jesus would kick in the nuts if He came back to life today. *nod*

Hmmmmm.... you mean the man who took a title that previously has only be ascribed to God Himself, not even Jesus had the gumption to do such a thing? You mean the man who prays in synogogues and street corners? You mean the man who claims to exclude you from heaven if you wrong his Church? You mean the man who makes his phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on hist garments long? You mean the man who takes the place of honor at every banquet? The man who would have you bow and scrape before, while Jesus washed feet and discouraged such practice? The man who would have you kiss his ring? The man who declares other men to be special god-men and encourages people worship them by leaving gifts at the feet of carved idols and praying to them?

That guy? Yeah, I think it's pretty clear what Jesus' stance on such behavior was.

No, he doesn't actually understand Platonism, much like his flawed understanding of the law of excluded middle. He spent exactly enough time on it to know what it is and not enough time to understand what it means. In philosophy and logic, it's a very common problem.

Now, he's going to come back and tell you about something called universals, thinking it defers objectivity on everything, despite that be a flawed understanding of the concept.

I knew that Plato believed in a Form of Beauty but I always assumed that it left room for subjectivity in your appreciation of all instances of that beauty, with only the Form itself being universally beautiful. I did a little Plato last year, but that focused mainly on his political ideas and on the role of philosophy rather than his theory of the Forms.

I'll bet you a taco that the Pope would be one of the first people Jesus would kick in the nuts if He came back to life today. *nod*

OK, I'll throw in a side of refried beans.

Now, is anyone here knowledgeable in the art of necromancy?

Hmmmmm.... you mean the man who took a title that previously has only be ascribed to God Himself, not even Jesus had the gumption to do such a thing? You mean the man who prays in synogogues and street corners? You mean the man who claims to exclude you from heaven if you wrong his Church? You mean the man who makes his phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on hist garments long? You mean the man who takes the place of honor at every banquet? The man who would have you bow and scrape before, while Jesus washed feet and discouraged such practice? The man who would have you kiss his ring? The man who declares other men to be special god-men and encourages people worship them by leaving gifts at the feet of carved idols and praying to them?

That guy? Yeah, I think it's pretty clear what Jesus' stance on such behavior was.

That's why the Popes stopped wearing that triple crown thingy. If Jesus comes back, ... well... It must be hard to walk with one of those things shoved up your ass. :p

On that note. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ7elKNfSpc) :D

I love the bank mention. The richest entity on earth is the Church. Jesus said something about those that covet money, didn't he? I'm trying to remember, was Jesus an advocate for wealth and the trappings of it? You know like palaces and whole private compounds and accumulating goods for millennia? These are all things Jesus would have encouraged, yeah?

That's why the Popes stopped wearing that triple crown thingy. If Jesus comes back, ... well... It must be hard to walk with one of those things shoved up your ass. :p

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42091000/jpg/_42091892_pope_ap_416.jpg

Seriously, is this what a humble servant looks like?

Compare that to Jesus washing the feet of his disciples and wearing humble and undecorated robes and sandles.

By the way, I actually feel bad because the majority of Catholics are not so bold as to make the claims of the poster we're arguing with. I know this must upset some of you, and I apologize, but it's what I see. I does not reflect on the average Catholic in my estimation any more than previous people who worked to reform the Church or spoke out against it were condemning the average Catholic.

The average Catholic I believe is a decent person who is simply trying to interact with God according to their understanding. I don't make any judgement as to your stance with God spiritually or what will happen to you have upon Judgement.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42091000/jpg/_42091892_pope_ap_416.jpg

Seriously, is this what a humble servant looks like?

Compare that to Jesus washing the feet of his disciples and wearing humble and undecorated robes and sandles.

I don't even fault Saint Peter for the Roman Ctholic Church. Paul(who never met Jesus) and three hundred years of politics and corruption before the First COuncil of Nicaea established the institution of Christianity's rule over the faith of christianity play a large role in what exists today.

By the way, I actually feel bad because the majority of Catholics are not so bold as to make the claims of the poster we're arguing with. I know this must upset some of you, and I apologize, but it's what I see. I does not reflect on the average Catholic in my estimation any more than previous people who worked to reform the Church or spoke out against it were condemning the average Catholic.

The average Catholic I believe is a decent person who is simply trying to interact with God according to their understanding. I don't make any judgement as to your stance with God spiritually or what will happen to you have upon Judgement.

Questions:
1. is gens accurately conveying the official, literalist stance of the Catholic Church ? So if one does not dare to think for oneself (or considers that arrogant), but merely obeys - is he doing the right thing ?
2. Do most Catholics agree with the decisions and stances of the Vatican ?

If the answer to 1 or 2 is no.. why do these Catholics not call themselves something other than Catholic ?

Questions:
1. is gens accurately conveying the official, literalist stance of the Catholic Church ? So if one does not dare to think for oneself (or considers that arrogant), but merely obeys - is he doing the right thing ?
2. Do most Catholics agree with the decisions and stances of the Vatican ?

If the answer to 1 or 2 is no.. why do these Catholics not call themselves something other than Catholic ?

I think many Catholics even most Catholics don't 100% agree with the Vatican. I think your questions oversimplify the questions of faith that anyone faces. I think we all falter. We all stumble. So "doing the right thing" isn't something I'm particularly willing to judge.

As to 2, you can question the decisions and stances, even think the Church is fallible, and still believe it is the Church of Peter, the rock on which faith is formed. I don't. But certainly an argument could be made.

I don't even fault Saint Peter for the Roman Ctholic Church. Paul(who never met Jesus) and three hundred years of politics and corruption before the First COuncil of Nicaea established the institution of Christianity's rule over the faith of christianity play a large role in what exists today.

Unfortunately, the Council didn't actually reach a decision about Christianity that was supported by everyone. They decided that what was Christian or not, what out of the teachings of Jesus should be included, that including the teachings of Paul who never met Jesus, was an act decided by majority, even pretty famously going so far as coerce agreement.

What would be dangerous about including all of the Gospels, for instance, and allowing people to read and figure out for themselves? What would be dangerous about allowing people to have different beliefs and to pray and seek answers from God Himself? Nothing, unless you had a different agenda when making the Bible and including a faith into your empire. Just by coincidence a famous anti-semite and pagan is presiding over the preceedings and has a vested interested in a controlling and precise faith being formed. And what happens? A controlling and precise faith is formed. Coincidence?

The Church has never been in the center. If anything, in the past 40 or 30 years, she's become more liberal. Sure, perhaps not in doctrine, for she's can't become more lax in doctrine, nor any more strict. But in practice, she's become more lax. She has become completely lax on such things as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Just compare the Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX to Nostra Aetate. There is a huge difference.

I fail to see what you are "awaiting" the Church to move back to.

Really?

1. Among Wojtila's first actions as Pope was to attack freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech in Catholic universities. Progressive theology, feminist thought, and "liberation theology" were driven from accepted Catholic discourse. Catholic universities in Europe and North America have lost their best scholars in the humanities and have sunk into being miserable intellectual ghettoes with respect to history, philosophy, theology, and related fields.

2. Wojtila revived and strengthened the Office of the Inquisition under the infamous Cardinal Ratzinger. The "Holy Office" was near abolition under the two previous pontiffs, but Wojtila wielded the Inquisition as his special shock troops in a relentless campaign to silence all varieties of opinion other than his own. Repression of thought at the level of the diocese and parish became commonplace again after a blessed reprieve in the 1960s and 1970s.

3. Pursuing his lifelong dedication to fanatic anti-communism, Wojtila pressured the reluctant Christian Democrats of Italy, Germany, and Holland to accede to the placement of US cruise missiles in Europe in the early 1980's. As a result of this provocative action by the United States, nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union came even closer than during the Cunan Missile Crisis. The result might have been the nuclear annihilation of the planet. No credit to Wojtila, the planet survived. Wojtila's claims as an advocate of peace are false to their core.

4. Wojtila intervened repeatedly in the electoral politics of his homeland, Poland, since the late 1980s to bring about government by socially conservative politicians who pass papal muster on women's rights and abortion and "anti-materialism" (opposition to the introduction of consumerism). Despite some cultural and economic promise in the late 1980s, Poland has become stultified with vast out-migration of educated Poles and economic paralysis. When they are being honest, migrating Poles will tell you that Wojtila and the power of the Polish Catholic Church are destroying their homeland.

5. Wojtila badgered the progressive Latin American bishops and archbishops (yes, there used to be several of them!) to abandon support of cooperatives, peasant political initiatives, and community organizing in his infamous campaign to eliminate "liberation theology." Only safe, traditional, right-wing candidates were promoted into the Catholic hierarchy. Wojtila denounced "liberation theology" and drove its proponents in Nicaragua and many other places out of the Catholic Church.

6. In the United States, Wojtila in 1980 forced Father Robert Drinan, one of the nation's leading elected progressive politicians, to resign from Congress (under penalty of being forced to leave the priesthood). At the same time, Wojtila fostered the alliance of right-wing American Catholic bishops with the "Christian right" on the issues of abortion, women's rights, and homosexuality. In North America and beyond, a double standard was applied by Wojtila for Catholic clergy involvement in political causes. Advocating for progressive causes has been forbidden as impermissibly "political" while advocacy and alliances against abortion, contraception, and women's rights has been approved as necessary "witnessing" to Catholic values.

7. Wojtila systematically purged what were previously culturally and politically progressive religious orders such as the Jesuits and Franciscans. These worldwide purges of the orders have been carried out by appointees Wojtila has made as heads of the various orders. In some cases, progressive leaders in the religious orders were forced to retire early so that his handpicked reactionaries could take command.

8. Wojtila refused to acknowledge what had been a central role of women in the Catholic Church. He not only opposed the elevation of women to ministry (despite powerful evidence that women performed such roles in the early Christian Church), he refused to allow the many orders of nuns to creatively adapt to modern conditions. As a result, the Catholic sisterhoods are virtually defunct, and the clerical personnel of the Catholic Church has been turned into an all-male private club.

9. Wojtila forbade the use of indigenous cultural forms in worship services in non-Western countries. Gone are the marvelous masses and hymns from Africa and Latin America that inspired Christian worship in the 1960s and 1970s. In Western countries, he has insisted on restricting the use of Catholic church buildings to specifically religious purposes despite their great value as venues for concerts, art exhibits, and community activities. Multiple uses of churches was a tradition carried down from the Middle Ages. The great cathedrals of Europe were designed on the assumption of multiple uses.

10. Despite painfully obvious need and institutional commitments made during the Second Vatican Council, Wojtila refused to modernize working conditions for the Catholic clergy. Catholic priests remain the most underpaid and overworked of denominational Christian ministers. In addition, the input of priests into promotion processes within the clergy, which traditionally acted as a counterweight to hierarchical oppression, has been reduced by Wojtila to a nullity.

11. Flying in the face of historical precedent and the most basic common sense, Wojtila refused to consider issues of clerical celibacy and the upgrading of the diaconate to the central functions of the ministry. Clerical celibacy is (quite frankly) a custom originating in the early middle ages for purposes of property consolidation, and it has always been "honored more in the breach than the observance." Furthermore, deacons performed sacramental functions until modern times. The restriction of sacramental functions to a celibate priesthood was not even an official ideal of the Catholic Church until the sixteenth century. Wojtila's refusal to even permit discussion of issues concerning clerical celibacy and full sacramental functions for the diaconate has created a vast shortage of Catholic clergy and turned the most energetic and talented Catholics away from ministry within their own Church.

12. The ancient tradition of partial autonomy of the "nationes" within the Catholic Church has been broken by Wojtila. Traditionally, the national councils of Catholic bishops within each country had considerable leeway in governing the local churches. Wojtila, unlike any of his modern predecessors, regularly intervened and overturned decisions by the national councils concerning details of religious customs and personnel decisions.

13. Wojtila deepened and intensified the reproductive doctrinal fetishes of his most reactionary predecessors. Official "Catholic" positions on contraception and abortion are creations of deservedly obscure, personally bizarre, and sexually twisted theologians resident in the Roman theological colleges during the nineteenth century. They have no basis whatsoever in the beliefs and practices of either the ancient or medieval Church. Because of Wojtila's use of the Catholic Church's influence in international organizations and its alliance with the "Religious Right" in the USA, international birth control programs have been starved and gutted over the last two decades. As a result, tens of millions of African, Asian and Latin American infants and children have lived and died in misery.

14. Despite Wojtila's external reputation as some sort of "liberal," Catholics know that Wojtila is the close ally of the extremist and highly secretive Catholic movement known as Opus Dei. Wojtila has welcomed and blessed the practices of Opus Dei, which is a kind of "Church within the Church." He has promoted clergy who are affiliated with Opus Dei to the highest of positions within the Church. Opus Dei members congregate in secret in KKK-like costumes and engage in practices which include wearing hairshirts and self-flagellation. They maintain a network of secret monasteries and houses where young Catholics (especially those from wealthy and prominent families) are taken for intensive indoctrination sessions. Opus Dei members have been reliably reported by deprogrammed former members to favor re-ghettoization of Jews and international military crusades against Islam. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a key member of Opus Dei in North America.

15. Wojtila methodically purged the College of Cardinals of any creative or free-thinking members, and almost all members of the current College of Cardinals, are rightwing clerical robots appointed by Wojtila himself. The Catholic Church is now guaranteed to have a self-perpetuating reactionary leadership for the indefinite future.

16. All initiatives for democratization of governance of the Catholic Church which began in the 1960s and 1970s were stopped in their tracks by Wojtila. American Catholics no longer talk about lay input into major decisions of the Church. The many talented laymen and laywomen who run the day-to-day operations of Catholic parishes and diocese are treated with highhanded disrespect, and the most talented have left or are in the process of leaving.

17. Wojtila cruelly abandoned the Catholics of Northern Ireland to a fate of political oppression and denial of their basic human rights. The Catholics of Northern Ireland are the only European Catholics still undergoing systematic persecution for their religious beliefs. One might have thought that Pope John Paul II would have championed the human rights of Northern Irish Catholics. Instead, Wojtila never spoke out against the horrendous oppression of his coreligionists in Northern Ireland. His sole contribution to the discussion of Northern Ireland was to condemn IRA violence (without any corresponding condemnation of British Army or loyalist violence) and demand a cessation of IRA activities, which would simply have left the Catholics in Northern Ireland completely helpless to their oppressors.

18. Last but not least, Karol Wojtila proved his utter moral bankruptcy in his horrendous mishandling of the pedophile scandals in the Catholic Churches of the United States, Canada, Ireland, Britain, and several other nations. Wojtila could never bring himself to a clear apology or an acknowledgement of wrongdoing or institutional responsibility for the Catholic Church's practices of abuse, intimidation, and rape of tens of thousands of children and adolescents. Most reprehensibly, Wojtila removed the independent power of the United States Catholic bishops to discipline pedophile priests while attributing the horror and filth within the American Catholic Church to some sort of American cultural malady.

And you say the Church has become more liberal? Karol Wojtila and his successor have and are continuing to reactionize the Roman Catholic Church.

(I would like to thank friend and author Jim Connolly for the 18 points)

Now, he's going to come back and tell you about something called universals, thinking it defers objectivity on everything, despite that be a flawed understanding of the concept.

Dude, the Universal is an Aristotelian concept, not a Platonist concept. The Platonist concept was that of the Form. I think that Plato would agree with me that there is an absolute tastiness. Granted, our perceptions of individual tasty objects may be different, and we may differ on individual tasty things, but I think that there is some thing that all men percieve as tasty. Consider pure sugar, for example. I know not the man who tastes a bit of sugar and says "Holy crap! This is disgusting!"

That said, you show your own philosophical ineptness (is that a word?) by bringing up the Aristotelian universal, particularly since the universal has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. The Universal is predominately a species descriptive to which we arrive by induction.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the Forms.

Dude, the Universal is an Aristotelian concept, not a Platonist concept. The Platonist concept was that of the Form. I think that Plato would agree with me that there is an absolute tastiness. Granted, our perceptions of individual tasty objects may be different, and we may differ on individual tasty things, but I think that there is some thing that all men percieve as tasty. Consider pure sugar, for example. I know not the man who tastes a bit of sugar and says "Holy crap! This is disgusting!"

Dude, seriously, now you're not even demonstrating a passing knowledge of what you're talking about. Platonic Realism is all about the realism of universals.

You're wrong. Plato wouldn't agree with you. If you differ on individual tasty things then it's not absolute. I don't know why that's complicated for you. And, yes, some people absolutely would say that tasting a bit of sugar is disgusting. However, even if your example were true, it wouldn't actually demonstrate a universality. Universal means ALWAYS true. Not sometimes true. Not maybe true. Not possible. It's always correct or it's not universal.



That said, you show your own philosophical ineptness (is that a word?) by bringing up the Aristotelian universal, particularly since the universal has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. The Universal is predominately a species descriptive to which we arrive by induction.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the Forms.

Again, if you don't recognize where the forms come from that's not my problem. It's yours. A Form is a type of Universal. However, you've couldn't have more clearly illustrated the point, which is your demonstration of these concepts is so basic that you can only talk about surface concepts. You've not delved into the Platonic at all if you don't recognize the connection of Universals to the the ideology.

And the reference to Forms is a complete misapplication as I pointed out. You are suggesting a particular Universal. As such, I called you out perfectly. I said what you'd come back with. You did. And you misapplied in exactly the predicted way. How did I know? Because that's what people do when they don't fully understand the implications of the Form, the arguments for and against it, and the theory of Universals. I could see this coming like a train on tracks. You couldn't turn if you'd wanted to.

I assumed you'd at least recognize the connection of Forms and Universals, but I gave you too much credit.

Dude....

Dude, you're a dumbass.

Who else is in favor of the standard post size for this thread getting a lot smaller?

Dude, you're a dumbass.

As much as Gens and I vociferously disagree, I would not call him a dumbass.

I would call him blind to any point of view other than his own, or even prejudiced. But not dumb.

~S

1. Among Wojtila's first actions as Pope was to attack freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech in Catholic universities. Progressive theology, feminist thought, and "liberation theology" were driven from accepted Catholic discourse. Catholic universities in Europe and North America have lost their best scholars in the humanities and have sunk into being miserable intellectual ghettoes with respect to history, philosophy, theology, and related fields.

Meanwhile, his relations with other religious groups were open to the point of scandal. He allowed a statue of Buddha to be placed upon a Catholic altar, hindu dancers to dance during a mass. He poured out an oblation of milk at the request of African shamans!

Meanwhile, he excommunicated His Emminence Archbishop Lefebvre and those he ordained, and all but alienated the Traditionalists of the Church. He allowed, and Pope Benedict XVI have allowed kneeling to recieve Holy Communion to be all but banned from the churches.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget the fact that he tolerated the cookie cardinals.

They have pushed the Mass of All Times to be used very rarely, if ever.

Even with Benedict XVI in power, Traditionalists like myself are still left asking "Where the hell is our Motu Proprio?"


5. Wojtila badgered the progressive Latin American bishops and archbishops (yes, there used to be several of them!) to abandon support of cooperatives, peasant political initiatives, and community organizing in his infamous campaign to eliminate "liberation theology." Only safe, traditional, right-wing candidates were promoted into the Catholic hierarchy. Wojtila denounced "liberation theology" and drove its proponents in Nicaragua and many other places out of the Catholic Church.

Comrade, I have read about the effects on Latin America of "liberation theology," in my freshman anthropology course. Because of this whacked out "theology," many, many numbers of dying infants were turned away by the priests from baptism, and left to die outside of God's Holy Church.

6. In the United States, Wojtila in 1980 forced Father Robert Drinan, one of the nation's leading elected progressive politicians, to resign from Congress (under penalty of being forced to leave the priesthood). At the same time, Wojtila fostered the alliance of right-wing American Catholic bishops with the "Christian right" on the issues of abortion, women's rights, and homosexuality. In North America and beyond, a double standard was applied by Wojtila for Catholic clergy involvement in political causes. Advocating for progressive causes has been forbidden as impermissibly "political" while advocacy and alliances against abortion, contraception, and women's rights has been approved as necessary "witnessing" to Catholic values.

The Church's stance on abortion, women's rights, and homosexuality are not innovations of His Holiness Pope John Paul II. That's the way it's always been.

8. Wojtila refused to acknowledge what had been a central role of women in the Catholic Church. He not only opposed the elevation of women to ministry (despite powerful evidence that women performed such roles in the early Christian Church), he refused to allow the many orders of nuns to creatively adapt to modern conditions. As a result, the Catholic sisterhoods are virtually defunct, and the clerical personnel of the Catholic Church has been turned into an all-male private club.

Women have never been priests. At best, women might only ever have been Deacons, and I think you fail to realize that deacons are not priests. Deacons are layman whose special task it is to preach the Gospel and assist the priest. Deacons are not priests.

Hell, prior to the Second Vatican Miscouncil, the line between Deacon and priest was even greater. A deacon in the Tridentine Mass can't even give communion to the Faithful except where there is grave reason to do so.

9. Wojtila forbade the use of indigenous cultural forms in worship services in non-Western countries. Gone are the marvelous masses and hymns from Africa and Latin America that inspired Christian worship in the 1960s and 1970s. In Western countries, he has insisted on restricting the use of Catholic church buildings to specifically religious purposes despite their great value as venues for concerts, art exhibits, and community activities. Multiple uses of churches was a tradition carried down from the Middle Ages. The great cathedrals of Europe were designed on the assumption of multiple uses.

There is no evidence that the cathedrals of Europe were designed on the assumption of multiple uses. Churches are built for the purpose of celebrating the Holy Mass. A cathedral is the place of the Bishop, and every church is the house of the Eucharistic Jesus.

11. Flying in the face of historical precedent and the most basic common sense, Wojtila refused to consider issues of clerical celibacy and the upgrading of the diaconate to the central functions of the ministry. Clerical celibacy is (quite frankly) a custom originating in the early middle ages for purposes of property consolidation, and it has always been "honored more in the breach than the observance." Furthermore, deacons performed sacramental functions until modern times. The restriction of sacramental functions to a celibate priesthood was not even an official ideal of the Catholic Church until the sixteenth century. Wojtila's refusal to even permit discussion of issues concerning clerical celibacy and full sacramental functions for the diaconate has created a vast shortage of Catholic clergy and turned the most energetic and talented Catholics away from ministry within their own Church.

Deacons are layman. Deacons aren't priests. They never were priests. That's a fact.

It is not the nature of a layman to offer up the Eucharistic sacrifice. It is the nature of a priest to offer up the Eucharistic sacrifice.

It is not the nature of a layman to be Christ's representative. It is the nature of the priest to be Christ's representative.

That said, the bit about it being soley an innovation of the middle ages is completely false. Even prior to the middle ages, most priests didn't get married anyway. And even in the rites, and the Orthodoxies which allow marriage for their priests, it is the same for them as it is for our deacons. They can get married ONLY before ordination, and after ordination, cannot marry.

There is no evidence that the cathedrals of Europe were designed on the assumption of multiple uses. Churches are built for the purpose of celebrating the Holy Mass. A cathedral is the place of the Bishop, and every church is the house of the Eucharistic Jesus.

They were also used as forts during Moor assaults.

I am infallible.

I say that it is wrong for you to eat food of any type.

If I am infallible, you should never eat.
If I am not infallible, it might be true that you should never eat. You don't know.

Prudence says you should stop eating.
I'm really getting hungry.

I think it's time for a Schism, so we can set up a new branch office with new leaders who assert that eating is, in fact, exactly what we should do.

As much as Gens and I vociferously disagree, I would not call him a dumbass.

I would call him blind to any point of view other than his own, or even prejudiced. But not dumb.

~S

The fool and the wise man are equally harmless, it is the half-wise and half-foolish who are most to be feared.

Indeed.

Half-wise and half-foolish= Half-wit. But not in this case.

I imagine he's all in a tizzy because I criticized his hero for being a two faced liar. He can't even properly argue against the charges brought forward with anything other than TRADITION and THAT'S THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN.

Read this: Just because it's tradition, Gens, does not mean it is right or even morally justifiable.

The Church as an institution fights change with all of it's inertia. Yet it is clear that the Church as we know it, is dying. Instead of having the courage to address modern problems with modern solutions, the Church hearkens back to the days of it's total moral authority and seems to think nothing has changed.

The Church must address the problems with an aging priesthood, decimated spiritual orders, barely functional convents and religious reactionism. Until it does so, it will age and grow smaller. More modern thinking Catholics will go elsewhere for worship.

The Church is a dinosaur either unable or unwilling to adapt to modern times.

~S

Read this: Just because it's tradition, Gens, does not mean it is right or even morally justifiable.

Was it not Kyro who said "Tradition is just a euphemism for "It's broke but we aren't fixing it" (I may have paraphrased).

How it rings true.

Read this: Just because it's tradition, Gens, does not mean it is right or even morally justifiable.

Tradition (capital T) is infallible. We cannot contradict what held in Sacred Tradition. If Tradition says priests must be men only, and it is sacramentally invalid for there to be a woman ordained, then there can never have been, cannot be now, and cannot ever be a woman priest in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

For Jesus Our Lord says of the Church "Whatever you bind on earth I will bind in Heaven," and the Holy Apostle St. Paul says "Hold fast to tradition."

snip

Actually, I find it interesting that you bring up the alleged "death" of the Church. This isn't technically true. While the church is "dying" in certain places, such as perhaps Europe and to some degree the United States, we are seeing a flourishing of converts in other places such as Africa.

In fact, since the late Holy Father John Paul II (even though I am by no stretch of the term a fan of his) became pontiff, there has been a relative increase in ordinations since the plummetting of ordinations and the like that accompanied the Second Vatican Miscouncil and the Novus Ordo Mess.

Whatever the case, I agree with your general sentiment, which is to say, that there is in fact a problem. However, I'd like to point out that many of the problems can be traced to the closing of the Second Vatican Council.

And I'd also like to point out that the most faithful adherents (which is to say, most regular in attending Holy Mass, the ones who don't question Her doctrine, etc) to the Church, statistically speaking, are Traditionalists (Those who prefer the Tridentine Mass and practices associated with the same).

So while your answer is "Modernize the Church," I look at the idea and think "That would be suicide...just look at the Second Vatican Council." My answer is "Let's return to the preconciliar practices and traditions of the Church, and let's crack down on modernization in all its forms. It's killing us."

Hell, the Orthodoxies sure as hell aren't having the problems we are. Are they?

Tradition (capital T) is infallible. We cannot contradict what held in Sacred Tradition. If Tradition says priests must be men only, and it is sacramentally invalid for there to be a woman ordained, then there can never have been, cannot be now, and cannot ever be a woman priest in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

For Jesus Our Lord says of the Church "Whatever you bind on earth I will bind in Heaven," and the Holy Apostle St. Paul says "Hold fast to tradition."



Actually, I find it interesting that you bring up the alleged "death" of the Church. This isn't technically true. While the church is "dying" in certain places, such as perhaps Europe and to some degree the United States, we are seeing a flourishing of converts in other places such as Africa.

In fact, since the late Holy Father John Paul II (even though I am by no stretch of the term a fan of his) became pontiff, there has been a relative increase in ordinations since the plummetting of ordinations and the like that accompanied the Second Vatican Miscouncil and the Novus Ordo Mess.

Whatever the case, I agree with your general sentiment, which is to say, that there is in fact a problem. However, I'd like to point out that many of the problems can be traced to the closing of the Second Vatican Council.

And I'd also like to point out that the most faithful adherents (which is to say, most regular in attending Holy Mass, the ones who don't question Her doctrine, etc) to the Church, statistically speaking, are Traditionalists (Those who prefer the Tridentine Mass and practices associated with the same).

So while your answer is "Modernize the Church," I look at the idea and think "That would be suicide...just look at the Second Vatican Council." My answer is "Let's return to the preconciliar practices and traditions of the Church, and let's crack down on modernization in all its forms. It's killing us."

Yep, and let's return to do services in Latin.

Yep, and let's return to do services in Latin.

It's about time. :p

Yep, and let's return to do services in Latin.

First and foremost, I disagree with your use of the word "service." The word is either "Holy Mass" or "Sacred Liturgy."

That said, you are probably being sarcastic, but I agree entirely. I think we should go back to the Tridentine, and have it done in Latin.

Just watch this. This is beautiful. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64) Even the Low Mass (http://youtube.com/watch?v=txyjtTZAJWo)

Just read the text. (http://www.latinliturgy.com/tridmass.html)

So while your answer is "Modernize the Church," I look at the idea and think "That would be suicide...just look at the Second Vatican Council." My answer is "Let's return to the preconciliar practices and traditions of the Church, and let's crack down on modernization in all its forms. It's killing us."

Alienating the moderate base will do you no good.

Alienating the moderate base will do you no good.It will, however, do us a world of good. So please don't discourage him.

It will, however, do us a world of good. So please don't discourage him.

Hmm... you're right.

*Ahem* Gens Romae, please continue on your quest to make the Catholic Church as extremist as you are.


(We'll be waiting for the alienated members.

Alienating the moderate base will do you no good.

The "moderate base" doesn't pay tithes anyway. ;)

The "moderate base" doesn't pay tithes anyway. ;)

Tithes? Aren't donations enough?

I strongly agree that gay people have no NEED to change their orientation. No one has to like them or accept them but at the same time nobody should mind either way. In their own way or lifestyle, choice or preference they are just people with feelings, needs, problems and equal rights just like the rest of us.

The "moderate base" doesn't pay tithes anyway. ;)Perhaps. But they are the ones that enable your clergy to be taken semi-seriously when they demand your deity and cultural legacy of choice, be added to transnational constitutions. Just like they are the ones that enable your clergy to more or less directly appoint career politicians in countries that are supposed to be democratic, and the power base with which your clergy backs up demands that politicians crack down on civil liberty, and get concessions to do so in transnational constitutions.

Really.. Without those no good moderates, Lions Club would be more of a religion than the Catholic Church.

.... But like I said, please do carry on. Putting the spotlight on insanity and injustice is always a good thing. Whether you're trying to fight it or make people join in doesn't matter.

. . . since you've touched the so delicate topic of church and religion here is a sight I thought some of you would find some what interesting. Not everything is in black and white.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/gospels.htm

Tithes? Aren't donations enough?Of course not. You have to pay tithes. It pays for childcare, job training, education, food and shelter & so on, for the destitute.

... Ah, sorry. That's in Islam. I dunno what Catholics use them for. Hats seems likely though, all things considered.

My 2 cents is that it probably can't change. But that doesn't matter, nor does it make it right. Actions can change, actions are what count, not orientation.

Tradition (capital T) is infallible. We cannot contradict what held in Sacred Tradition. If Tradition says priests must be men only, and it is sacramentally invalid for there to be a woman ordained, then there can never have been, cannot be now, and cannot ever be a woman priest in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Who says? Oh, I forgot the Nazi guy in the miter. You ever wonder why there is a problem with sexual predators in the priesthood? It boils down to two factors:

1. Disallowing priests from marrying and having families.

2. Not ordaining women as priests.

Celibacy is an unnatural and artificial state of affairs. As unhealthy as demanding no use of contraception in sexual congress.

As for your crystal ball, Gens...I do not pretend to see the future, but as the Church continues to marginalize 52% of the world's population, its relevancy will continue to wane.


Actually, I find it interesting that you bring up the alleged "death" of the Church. This isn't technically true. While the church is "dying" in certain places, such as perhaps Europe and to some degree the United States, we are seeing a flourishing of converts in other places such as Africa.

The Church will always flourish in socially backwards and less modern societies. Such areas are prone to believe in all sorts of superstitious pap.


In fact, since the late Holy Father John Paul II (even though I am by no stretch of the term a fan of his) became pontiff, there has been a relative increase in ordinations since the plummetting of ordinations and the like that accompanied the Second Vatican Miscouncil and the Novus Ordo Mess.

And you will find the increase in ordinations in poor, uneducated and rural areas the reason ordinations are up. This makes perfect sense in the context of your commentary.

The reason the Second Vatican Council was not successful was the extreme Orthodoxy in the Church played upon fear of change in the congregations and played upon the tendency human beings have to not trust uncertainty.


Whatever the case, I agree with your general sentiment, which is to say, that there is in fact a problem. However, I'd like to point out that many of the problems can be traced to the closing of the Second Vatican Council.

The Second Vatican Council was the first time in centuries the Church was going to actually address the problems of a modern church. Secularism is the inevitable result of giving science, industry and rational thought equal conditions in which to flourish aside spiritual thought. This does not mean that the two value systems cannot co-exist, it means that spirituality cannot ignore modern secular thought or give it short shrift else it will be seen as bar to progress.


And I'd also like to point out that the most faithful adherents (which is to say, most regular in attending Holy Mass, the ones who don't question Her doctrine, etc) to the Church, statistically speaking, are Traditionalists (Those who prefer the Tridentine Mass and practices associated with the same).

So while your answer is "Modernize the Church," I look at the idea and think "That would be suicide...just look at the Second Vatican Council." My answer is "Let's return to the preconciliar practices and traditions of the Church, and let's crack down on modernization in all its forms. It's killing us."

You're joking right? What good will it do to deny prevailing conditions in the world? Modernity is here to stay and trying to deny progress, be it industrial, scientific or spiritual stagnates a society. The more moderate practices of the Church, post VC2 was beginning address the problems the Church has in modern society, it was beginning to offer relevance to all Catholics.

Statistically speaking, the Orthodoxy represents stagnation. The great progressive religious thinkers of the Franciscan and Jesuit Orders were correct. Opus Dei may satisfy your urge for extreme Orthodoxy, but it is does not address the need for the Church to address modern problems. The Church cannot live in the past and you cannot put the djinn back into the bottle.

Your attitude regarding gays orientation is an excuse to freely speak prejudicially about other folks. Your reasoning impinges upon arguments that simply do not hold secular or spiritual water.

It is moral bankruptcy at it's most extreme.


Hell, the Orthodoxies sure as hell aren't having the problems we are. Are they?

Yes they are. I have many friends and acquaintances that do not believe there has been a legally seated Pope since the closing of VC2. Their congregations are small, and getting smaller.

Reactionism cannot be made attractive. It is like putting lipstick on pig.

~S

have many friends and acquaintances that do not believe there has been a legally seated Pope since the closing of VC2.Well, that would be an awful long time to remain standing don't you think? What kind of a sick religion would condemn an old man for sitting down?:confused:

Was it not Kyro who said "Tradition is just a euphemism for "It's broke but we aren't fixing it" (I may have paraphrased).

How it rings true.

No, you got it right.

Change doesn't necessarily mean giving up core values. Change means advancing and incorporating new ideas so that you can improve old ideas.

ie: the church can speak out against pre-marital sex while saying that the use of contraceptives between two married people is acceptable.

Hm...

Well, then again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Tradition is stubborn like that.