NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not a Catholic; I am not even a Christian. Nonetheless I have decided I will defend under-represented views on NS. If anyone would like to recommend a view for me to defend, you may do so. It must be a: under-represented by a large margin, and b: not be overly offensive (Nazism). If we're all lucky, I'll get around to defending Creationism :eek:.

Rules:

You cannot directly attack a person verbally.

You may use humor, with the limitation that may not be sarcastic in this trite sense: "teh Catholics are going to save us from all teh ebil gayz :rolleyes:".

Anyone is welcome to play the Devil's (well, technically God's :p) advocate with me, Catholic or no. You must use logical arguments. Just telling someone they will go to hell if they don't accept Jesus won't work here.

Oh, and you can;t use font size bitter then 2, except in your sig.




My basic defense: the World was better for the invention of Catholicism. You may criticize, or attack that statement in any way you like (the Crusades for example).


LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

What hard proof is there that taking communion is God's will?

Easy.People who think bush is doing a good job(at least better then John Kerry,any normal person could do better but you know most polititions are not normal)

Easy.People who think bush is doing a good job(at least better then John Kerry,any normal person could do better but you know most polititions are not normal)

What does this have to do with Catholicism, or the taking of communion?

What does this have to do with Catholicism, or the taking of communion?
He said underrepresented views on NS froums.

Is celibacy truly written in Biblical scripture or was this notion conceived by the Vatican for other reasons? There are popes and other members of the clergy in the church's earlier history that had children.

I am not a Catholic; I am not even a Christian. Nonetheless I have decided I will defend under-represented views on NS. If anyone would like to recommend a view for me to defend, you may do so. It must be a: under-represented by a large margin, and b: not be overly offensive (Nazism). If we're all lucky, I'll get around to defending Creationism :eek:.

Rules:

You cannot directly attack a person verbally.

You may use humor, with the limitation that may not be sarcastic in this trite sense: "teh Catholics are going to save us from all teh ebil gayz :rolleyes:".

Anyone is welcome to play the Devil's (well, technically God's :p) advocate with me, Catholic or no. You must use logical arguments. Just telling someone they will go to hell if they don't accept Jesus won't work here.

Oh, and you can;t use font size bitter then 2, except in your sig.




My basic defense: the World was better for the invention of Catholicism. You may criticize, or attack that statement in any way you like (the Crusades for example).


LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

You've not really given any reason why the world is better for the invention of Catholicism, though. By the same tactic:

The world is worse for the invention of Catholicism?

I like this idea, but I think it'd benefit if you had a starting platform to argue from. Also, good call on the font....using visually offensive font should be an instant-ban, imo. =\

Is celibacy truly written in Biblical scripture or was this notion conceived by the Vatican for other reasons? There are popes and other members of the clergy in the church's earlier history that had children.

Oooh. Think I can answer this one.

Celibacy, as I understand it, wasn't even originally a practice maintained among the early Catholic clergy. It became a rule once it was realized that allowing the clergy to reproduce could lead to issues of inheritance, should the priests also be land owners, etc.

You've not really given any reason why the world is better for the invention of Catholicism, though. By the same tactic:

The world is worse for the invention of Catholicism?

I like this idea, but I think it'd benefit if you had a starting platform to argue from. Also, good call on the font....using visually offensive font should be an instant-ban, imo. =\

They created a strong government structure, and protected Europe from invaders.

Oooh. Think I can answer this one.

Celibacy, as I understand it, wasn't even originally a practice maintained among the early Catholic clergy. It became a rule once it was realized that allowing the clergy to reproduce could lead to issues of inheritance, should the priests also be land owners, etc.

What's your point? Are defending celibacy, or attacking it?

The unique value of the Roman Catholic faith, and the church associated therewith, can be found in its value as a powerful agent of cultural transmission and protection. Certain elements of traditional western classical culture and society were well preserved by the Church, and the lessons that have been learned over the past two millenia have been protected.

Furthermore, Catholicism provided a mechanism by which order was provided in post-collapse Europe, and a level of social stability that would have been non-existent otherwise.

What's your point? Are defending celibacy, or attacking it?

It sounds kinda like a defense, of sorts. A mechanism by which power might become less concentrated, and more diverse.

It sounds kinda like a defense, of sorts. A mechanism by which power might become less concentrated, and more diverse.

Oh. Well, we're running low on attackers here...perhaps some Catholic won't mind bashing his/her religion. :D

Fine,i'll attack(tho im not a catholic)The Catholic Church started the crusades which fueled An Islamophobic outlook still existing today even though Jesus tought tolerance not persecution(ironic that christians were once peresucted and now some christians are persucting Moslems)

Fine,i'll attack(tho im not a catholic)The Catholic Church started the crusades which fueled An Islamophobic outlook still existing today even though Jesus tought tolerance not persecution(ironic that christians were once peresucted and now some christians are persucting Moslems)

Well they were kinda provoked. You do know it was Muslims who were the aggressors, right? I read somewhere some of them castrated any males who wouldn't convert.

Oh. Well, we're running low on attackers here...perhaps some Catholic won't mind bashing his/her religion. :D

Part of your problem might be related to the implications of the thread title itself. Although you claim to be defending Catholicism, you state in the thread title that Catholicism is the side of Satan. I'm pretty confident that Catholicism does not need a 'devils' advocate. But intentional or otherwise, I'm sure it was meant for fun.

Part of your problem might be related to the implications of the thread title itself. Although you claim to be defending Catholicism, you state in the thread title that Catholicism is the side of Satan. I'm pretty confident that Catholicism does not need a 'devils' advocate. But intentional or otherwise, I'm sure it was meant for fun.

I mention I'm technically "God's advocate" in the first post.

Well they were kinda provoked. You do know it was Muslims who were the aggressors, right? I read somewhere some of them castrated any males who wouldn't convert.
Which is why I live now and not then(that might hurt)but in reality the catholic church has distorted the bible to serve their own purposes through the years. The original Catholic church was created so prevent conflict,but it ended up creating more conflict then it solved.

Which is why I live now and not then(that might hurt)but in reality the catholic church has distorted the bible to serve their own purposes through the years. The original Catholic church was created so prevent conflict,but it ended up creating more conflict then it solved.

How? The Catholic church was run by a fine set of laws for the time. Indulgences weren't really any different from taxes. Of course you could pardon crimes with Indulgences, but Borgia (Alexander VI) outlawed that. So by 1492 you have a pretty fair legal system

Oh. Well, we're running low on attackers here...perhaps some Catholic won't mind bashing his/her religion. :D

I was neither attacking nor defending. Kryo asked a question about clerical celibacy and I answered it.

Oooh. Think I can answer this one.

Celibacy, as I understand it, wasn't even originally a practice maintained among the early Catholic clergy. It became a rule once it was realized that allowing the clergy to reproduce could lead to issues of inheritance, should the priests also be land owners, etc.

That makes sense. :)

Part of your problem might be related to the implications of the thread title itself. Although you claim to be defending Catholicism, you state in the thread title that Catholicism is the side of Satan. I'm pretty confident that Catholicism does not need a 'devils' advocate. But intentional or otherwise, I'm sure it was meant for fun.

It's a friggin' expression. Besides, if there was no evil, there would be no religion because it would be a natural occurrence. With evil existing, there needs to be a venue that provides the "good".

How? The Catholic church was run by a fine set of laws for the time. Indulgences weren't really any different from taxes. Of course you could pardon crimes with Indulgences, but Borgia (Alexander VI) outlawed that. So by 1492 you have a pretty fair legal system

Now when you say "fair legal system"....? How would you define it as "fair" given what the general knowledge available to the public about this time period says?

Part of your problem might be related to the implications of the thread title itself. Although you claim to be defending Catholicism, you state in the thread title that Catholicism is the side of Satan. I'm pretty confident that Catholicism does not need a 'devils' advocate. But intentional or otherwise, I'm sure it was meant for fun.

Not really. In fact the Devil's Advocate is a term that directly refers to the Catholic hierarchy, specifically to the individual tasked with amassing all of the potentially harmful information related to all of the candidates for the papacy.

How can you justify the position of the pope when a lot (all?) of his power was/is based on forgeries (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidore), Donation of Constantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine), etc), the trivial fact that Petrus and Paulus were buried in Rome, or the connections between the pope and worldly powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Nomenclature). There is also nothing in the New Testament about the pope, celibacy, rites that are used by the CC etc. There is also a big difference between the early church and the later CC (celibacy, aversion of everything that has even the slightest connection with sex (which, like many other aspects of catholicism, mostly comes from augustine of hippo iirc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinus#Augustine_and_lust)))
etc etc

Now when you say "fair legal system"....? How would you define it as "fair" given what the general knowledge available to the public about this time period says?

I mean individuals were generally tried, and freedom of speech was available. If there was no freedom of speech, then I guarantee you Boccaccio could never have written Decameron. The infamous Spanish Inquisition rarely tortured people. It generally confiscated property. It was the IRS of it's time, and hated for the same reasons.

How? The Catholic church was run by a fine set of laws for the time. Indulgences weren't really any different from taxes. Of course you could pardon crimes with Indulgences, but Borgia (Alexander VI) outlawed that. So by 1492 you have a pretty fair legal system

I fear you are putting together things that do not match. I am a Catholic and I can tell you: the Catholic Church is not meant to be a political entity. It is not a State, although it is useful for it to have a political presentation. The payment of indulgences, although it could be legitimated by the objective of building churches for God's glory (if this did happen, or money was otherwise wasted in mondanity, is another matter, though painful) cannot be justified by the supposition that Catholicism had indulgences instead of taxes.

Not really. In fact the Devil's Advocate is a term that directly refers to the Catholic hierarchy, specifically to the individual tasked with amassing all of the potentially harmful information related to all of the candidates for the papacy.

The advocatus diabuli was also the one who, till 1983, had to bring bad proofs against Saints. This figure was abolished by JP II.

The advocatus diabuli was also the one who, till 1983, had to bring bad proofs against Saints. This figure was abolished by JP II.

Gracias. It's always nice to get the full scoop from someone who actually knows more about it than what appears in Angels & Demons, :D

I fear you are putting together things that do not match. I am a Catholic and I can tell you: the Catholic Church is not meant to be a political entity. It is not a State, although it is useful for it to have a political presentation. The payment of indulgences, although it could be legitimated by the objective of building churches for God's glory (if this did happen, or money was otherwise wasted in mondanity, is another matter, though painful) cannot be justified by the supposition that Catholicism had indulgences instead of taxes.


On the contrary. Although the only thing left today is the Vatican, before Napoleon put the kibosh on it, the Catholic church was most certainly a state, with armies, and courts. The Papacy.

What hard proof is there that taking communion is God's will?

What I'm going to say can be taken as a proof only if you believe in the New Testament.

Simply, if Jesus gave his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk, and if you believe that whatever He did is good, then you'd better do as He said. :D

Anyway, what I said is MY explanation - if you ask a bishop. he'll tell you something more, in quantity and complexity. Any priest or monk should be good for this, too.

On the contrary. Although the only thing left today is the Vatican, before Napoleon put the kibosh on it, the Catholic church was most certainly a state, with armies, and courts. The Papacy.

The Church had a State, it was not a State. It's not easy to explain. Catholicism is both a temporal reality and a spiritual reality. The Church is (for a Catholic) bot the assembly of the Catholics and the Mystic Body of Christ. Catholicism is both the Catholic doctrina and a historical phaenomenon.
You understand, a doctrina can not have become a State. Anyway, if you say that a part of the ecclesiastic authority could be identified with this State, then you're right.

Anyway, if you say that a part of the ecclesiastic authority could be identified with this State, then you're right.

http://www.007flowers.co.uk/images/thank-you-balloons.jpg

http://www.007flowers.co.uk/images/thank-you-balloons.jpg

:D

What I'm going to say can be taken as a proof only if you believe in the New Testament.

Simply, if Jesus gave his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk, and if you believe that whatever He did is good, then you'd better do as He said. :D

Anyway, what I said is MY explanation - if you ask a bishop. he'll tell you something more, in quantity and complexity. Any priest or monk should be good for this, too.

But, as you noted, the Bible isn't hard proof.

Celibacy, as I understand it, wasn't even originally a practice maintained among the early Catholic clergy. It became a rule once it was realized that allowing the clergy to reproduce could lead to issues of inheritance, should the priests also be land owners, etc.
That was the widespread conspiracy theory.

What they reason was some verse in the bible that says that if you were to serve God, they must leave everything behind, carry the cross, and follow Jesus... sort of like that. Can't give you the real quote, though, but, yeah, that was the justification... I think. :p

Oh. Well, we're running low on attackers here...perhaps some Catholic won't mind bashing his/her religion. :D
Oooh. Wanna be on both sides, can I?
-- this nonpracticing Catholic

Oooh. Think I can answer this one.

Celibacy, as I understand it, wasn't even originally a practice maintained among the early Catholic clergy. It became a rule once it was realized that allowing the clergy to reproduce could lead to issues of inheritance, should the priests also be land owners, etc.
Yep, pretty much. I think the Church even admits this.
Now, there are other reasons, like devoting your entire life to God, thinking of the parish as a family, etc. And even before this became law, there was a tradition of celibate priests; for example, none of the apostles were married. But the idea was actually codified when inheritance became an issue.
Part of your problem might be related to the implications of the thread title itself. Although you claim to be defending Catholicism, you state in the thread title that Catholicism is the side of Satan. I'm pretty confident that Catholicism does not need a 'devils' advocate. But intentional or otherwise, I'm sure it was meant for fun.
Actually, the Church does have a devil's advocate. When someone is going through canonization, there is a priest whose job it is to dig up as much dirt as they can about the potential saint, so they canonize someone who doesn't deserve it. I don't this his official title is "Devil's Advocate," but that's where the term comes from.

Wait, im confused. How does this have anything to do with swords and duels? I read the whole thread and neither were even mentioned ONCE!