|
Smoking Crow posted:No one man is above the council that elects him. Even the Pope may be ousted by the College of Cardinals. This is not actually true, once appointed the Pope is the boss and you'd better like it. However back in the old days popes were sometimes deposed through means such as murder. As for the topic at hand I do think the country/world would be best if run by the Vatican, but I also am a strong believer in individual liberty and personal choice to an extent that deviates from historical theocratic practices, in part because I love sinning and in part because I think Christ was minimally coercive. So yes I like modernism and traditionalism together, both in fullness, neither in half-measure, let's embrace a law built on the delightful ambiguity of paradox. As a Catholic I already recognize the Pope as the supreme earthly authority so I essentially belong to a theocracy already, it is just presently in political competition with various illegitimate gang-states with substantial armies. But the good news is that when everyone does finally become a Catholic the world will be a better place.
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Major religion preys upon and exploits the poor in third world countries, news at 11. Exploitation such as providing food, water, medicine, education, and protection from murderous Muslim hordes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The Catholic church is doomed. Ironically it's because sainted JPII and his buddy Ratzinger went out of their way to suppress various South American theological movements. You think the church is in trouble because it refused to accept a bunch of Marxist babble? I don't know if you've been paying attention but outside internet forums Marxism has been dead a long time now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don't know if you've been paying attention but the less dogmatic churches willing to consider people's actual needs are stealing catholic parishioners left and right in Latin America. A bunch of Latin Americans becoming evangelical and Pentecostal Protestants with mega-churches, massive televized events, faith healing, poppy worship songs, etc. is somehow because of a refusal by the church to adopt liberation theology?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I was just trying to be playfully antagonistic. Nobody needs to be rebaptized, but it is my believe that the symbolic death and rebirth of baptism should be fully grasped by whoever is being baptized. I assume there is an Orthodox version of the Catholic first communion? Kinda like that, but with baptism too. Baptism is not traditionally considered symbolic, it literally cleanses you of all sin, including original sin. It is also the initiation of a person into the church. Infant baptism was practiced by the early church, Paul says that it replaces circumcision, Christ says "Let the children come to me," entire households were baptized in the Bible (implying children), and the Bible nowhere restricts baptism to only adults.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:I am not convinced by your anime, so, honestly, why not Satan? Because Satan is evil and Jesus is good? It's literally the same thing as choosing good over evil. It may not seem hip to the edgy kids, but it's obviously the morally superior choice. Satan has a gross aesthetic, too. The music and art of traditional Christianity is gorgeous, it appeals to the soul, and it accepts (and loves!) absolutely everyone. But when it really comes down to it, I have always loved Jesus as long as I can remember, he is a really great guy that has inspired me so much in my life, he has a pure heart and is right about everything and I have a lot of fun attending and defending his church.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Murder only applies to the unlawful killing of an actual person. So you can't murder the unborn. Even taking a strict interpretation of "unlawful" to mean earthly law, it is still possible to murder the unborn. In cases of assaulting a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child, the courts have considered it murder. But the real issue here is that if you are willing to conflate the idea of murder and earthly law so closely, then the word becomes useless as a moral term and becomes only a technical one, and an uncertain one, subject to the relative whims of whichever governmental system presently decides and enforces your law, no matter how outlandish. But murder is not a technical term, it is an impassioned and emotional one used colloquially to mean an unjust killing, and rightly so. Who What Now posted:"Yes but that's the wrong type of Theocracy. Ours will be different because *fart*" They are different religions, for one thing, I'd say that's a significant difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Word to the wise: unaccountable authority figures always end up being corrupt. The idea that if you could only get the good guys in power, and keep the bad guys out, is historical fantasy. What makes this doubly disgusting is that it claims that religious figures are more moral than other people, which as we've seen with the church abuse scandals, is not true. I could not disagree more strongly with this. Some people are more ethical than others, which is to say, they are more proficient in ethics than others. The ideal system of government is going to have good people in power, and not bad people. I'm sure whatever system of government you prefer ultimately rests on this as well. The only real dispute is how you identify and select the good people.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:My question for the Christians who want theonomy or theocracy. I've had some of you tell me that those who aren't Christian or who don't sign onto Logocentric Trinitarianism are not our brothers and sisters. That is not, from what I see of the example of Christ presented in the gospels, in line with the example of Jesus. Which to me seems to be that we are all children of the Father and His brothers and sisters. That is to say it seems to be against the Logos and frankly against the vision of Kingdom of God presented in the New Testament. You do have to have some standards, personally I'd say ultimately anyone who loves Christ can use the word Christian. A Christian state would not be the literal "Kingdom of God," which is spiritual in nature. I'm just looking for the best system of governance and I don't think strict secularism is the way to go.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:That is because you are gullible. You are someone who is easily fooled by empty rhetoric and vague promises, which is what delivers every single authoritarian shithole into existence. It's a recurring theme of history and it's still happening, right now, all over the world. Islamic theocrats promise to be really good too! Honest! You can trust them! Right? But to you, they're muslims and therefore bad, if only you could put good, christian people in. Ahh, but we already had that poo poo, and the people overthrew them in the French Revolution. I consider the French Revolution a very bad event, what with all the unjust mass murders and reign of terror and general societal upheaval, a republic so unstable it quickly became an empire, and then shifted into kingdom again, and then back into republic, and back into empire, and so on. It's mystifying to me that people could see it as something virtuous, I think more people should question their education. It absolutely is about good and bad people. Political systems are made up of people, and my ideal system encourages good behavior in people. I mostly agree with your last point, which I like because it implies that people can have better behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Muslims love Christ only slightly less than they love Mohammed. A good point, although I think their Jesus is quite different than the biblical Jesus as Miltank pointed out. Not only in that he was never crucified, but his teachings were different too and more in line with Muhammad's ideas. But is it too much to say I think a Muslim could be "a good Christian?" It's possible, if they try to live Christ's teachings. e: I have to go to work, back later. Kyrie eleison fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Hello again friends. I'm enjoying my weekend and hope you are too. Anyway, here's my thoughts on that abortion thing. It's that, scientifically speaking, human life very clearly does begin at conception. If you were to identify, biologically, the moment at which every human life began, you would go back to the moment the sperm entered the egg and began the rapid chain of events that results in a fetus and finally a baby. This is true for you, it is true for me, it is true for every man, and it is true for every woman. To try to shift the time life "truly" begins is a sort of dishonest enterprise by nature. As for morality and God, when religious folk speak of "God" they are often referring directly to their inner sense of morality, which they identify as God. In Christian terms, it is the "holy spirit", a personality which imbues us when we become morally charged, as it were, and the voice of God rings clear in us, and we can even speak using that voice when such passion arises, as the prophets did and as Christ did. So for the religious, God is morality. The belief is that this morality is universal and can be heard by all people who are willing to sincerely listen to it, and for our sake, I certainly hope that is true. In short, everyone is capable of listening to God and his true morality, not a single person is devoid of the ability to hear God and to speak to God, I don't care how long you have been an atheist or how convinced you are that God is a fairy tale of a bearded man in the sky. And beyond all that, it's just healthier for you personally to know God, and for your social relationships to have this common ground. It allows you to know all people on a basis that is much deeper and more spiritual than just your common humanity, which in a godless universe would be only a biological accident, a happenstance of questionable fortune, a mere ape species with no inherent beauty.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Read 1 Cor 13 and tell me Paul is bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I'll try to keep the true voice of God in mind the next time a religious person tells me I'm a deviant sinner who should be treated like subhuman scum. If there is a true morality in everyone's soul, Christianity certainly isn't the key to it. While it is true that you, like myself and everyone else, are a sinner, it is not true that you deserve to be treated like subhuman scum. Anyone who says that, even if they pray daily and are a regular church-goer, speaks not from God, but are deceived by Satan. God is love. He is always love.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I know Paul's not all bad. But Paul directly calls people like me degenerate sinners. You can prevaricate all you like about how early Christians would have been fine with queer people, but you know they wouldn't have been. Why should I trust Christians not to cite him again, among other passages, to oppress queer people again, especially after all it took to get (some) good Christian people to acknowledge our basic humanity in the first place. I apologize in advance for this post. I should just be honest, I am a homosexual. At least in part. I have known since I was young. And I suspect most men are, to some extent, even if they aren't fully aware of it, or don't want to admit it to themselves or to others. I think science such as Kinsey supports this. (This isn't meant to be a challenge to anyone, I just want to establish that I believe it to be a common temptation, despite the popular belief it is something only a small subset of men experience.) I think homosexuality comes partly out of love, but partly out of sin. It is love that attracts us to someone's heart. It is love that breaks through the fear of betrayal. But my rational mind, which is in tune with truth, which is God, tells me that I should prefer a wife, and to try to have children. If I choose not to procreate, and universalize that principle, then I spell the separation of the sexes and the death of the species. If there is a cultural shift in which good people evade procreation, I believe the results will be nothing less than catastrophic. I can't endorse that. In short, I view it as an obligation to humanity itself, to the future, to harmony with the female sex, and to my family, to keep it going. It is a responsibility. My misgivings with women, born out of experience, will have to be worked through and laid aside in a spirit of humility, honesty, truth, and love, in the hopes of lasting union between the sexes. I know I can fall in love with women, I have done so many times before, I'm just afraid to try because I don't want to be hurt. My preference for men, who share so many of my interests, who are usually much kinder to my heart, must be kept at the boundary of sex. I must work hard and dutifully to achieve a sex life that does not make me feel unholy, and I should resist sex otherwise. I am grateful that my sin is not punishable by the state, or by the church, although I have to admit that would probably make it easier to avoid, but only out of fear, which corrupts the soul. It may be hard to face, but it is the truth, and I trust in God to get me through, and to never fear the truth, but to be humbled by it! The words and actions of Christ tell us that the only moral alternative to marriage and (attempted) procreation is celibate devotion to God, which is actually held to be an even higher and more spiritual choice than marriage, because romance and sex are sacrificed. In practice, sexual activity is common amongst many supposedly celibate people, to the extent celibacy seems sometimes like a lie, an outer shield used to protect people from criticism rather than a true dedication. I cannot endorse a hypocritical and dishonest "celibacy" that is actually filled with sex, but I greatly respect the discipline of sincere spiritual abstinence, including from pornography and masturbation, in the same sense I respect fasting. Of course, in these times, I interact with many openly homosexual people and find them to generally be very kind and fun. I am, in a sense, one of them. Some are members of my church community, and everyone gets along great there and supports one another. I support them against those who condemn them, I enjoy their company, and again, this is because of love. I think homosexual monogamy is less sinful than heterosexual promiscuity. So I believe it is a sin, a sin I myself commit, a sin I truly wish I did not, a sin I confess now and in the confessional, and a sin I pray to God to help me with. And I admire those who either commit to true celibacy, or achieve healthy marriages. Sorry again for talking about myself so much, but homosexuality comes up a lot in relation to Christianity and it seemed appropriate and even necessary that I finally share my experience and thoughts on the issue. I hope my words do not inspire any sadness, that is not my intention. To address the point of your post a bit, I think Paul sometimes got angry with the church community's decadence and tried to keep it in line so it would leave a positive impression on the surrounding community. At times, he could be rough, it is true. My advice is to simply understand how he feels, know he is speaking from his heart, and realize that Paul himself, as I believe most men do, likely struggled with the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Homosexuals have loving procreative relationships right now, in which they raise loving families. There is no reason you can't have that. Everything is "partly out of love, but partly out of sin" and no sin can separate you from God. I honestly find that story more disturbing than anything. It's like something out of the twilight zone. It's particularly bizarre to me that the mother of the child is not named and is only mentioned in passing. It seems disordered, and I am concerned for the child. Put simply, this is not what I want for my life. My own homosexuality does not automatically make me comfortable with things like this. I think a lot of homosexuals feel the same way, but prefer not to admit their own homosexuality, or face the criticism from the political crowd. E-Tank posted:Kyrie, you've been lied to. You've been told to repress yourself. You've been told that you're wrong. That you're evil for having these feelings. I have not been told that I am evil for having feelings (not by the church anyway). The truth is that my social influences are mostly liberal in nature. I deduced my ideology by myself through my own private studies. The church does not say anyone is evil merely for feeling sexual attraction and recognizes sexual morality as a universal struggle. It is the most common confession by far. I find this position more in line with my intuition and reason than the alternative which teaches that I should deny being a sinner and do whatever I feel the inclination to do. quote:“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” ~ Matthew 5:18-19 He also says he comes to "fulfill" the law, but does a number of things which seem to contradict it, such as healing on the sabbath and interrupting the stoning of the adulteress, meaning there is clearly a more nuanced meaning to what is being said here. He highlighted the best parts of the law such as "love your neighbor as yourself" (from Deuteronomy), emphasized hypocrisy of those who claim to enforce it, and generally sought the moral spirit of the law. As for Paul's take on the Old Testament, please read my gbs post here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:He may be a popular theologian (I'll take your word on that), but he is not clever. He hasn't solved the problem, he's simply moved it behind the word 'duty'. Why should an authority figure be respected? Why the gently caress should we care about authority at all, legitimate or not? That itself is a prescriptive statement. It's actually really transparent, there's no way you'd fall for it unless you really wanted to. Which is basically what the function of these kind of pieces are, they suppress rational thought through obfuscation. But this position suggests that a philosophical argument is only valid if it's critical. Apologetics are certainly a valid form of philosophy. They are a necessary half of the debate, you need both sides of the story. If you only read critiques of an ideology you aren't going to be educated enough on the issue to make a decision on it. E-Tank posted:I am not going to sit here, and judge you for your beliefs. Nor am I going to tell you what you should and shouldn't do. I'm going to just show you what the church in their quest to rid the world of 'sin' has done to people like you and me. I sincerely appreciate your desire to help me. I strongly oppose bullying, cruelty, and most forms of coercion. For what it's worth I am a Catholic so if you want to link Christians behaving badly you should stick to my fellow papists or it just gives me an excuse to scoff at Protestants. There's plenty of examples of evil in the church but the church is rather educated and open-minded on these issues in my personal experience, it tries very hard to be approachable these days.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Uh, no. Philosophy ever since the 1700s is reductionist, and that means being critical. Studying philosophy is all about seeing how the 99% of bad arguments in history were killed dead, and doing your best to kill your own arguments. The 1% of proofs and concepts that survive the onslaught are the ones that get a respectable degree of credence. This made me want to address an important topic which is why I care about what a bunch of dead guys said in the first place. The answer is simply that I want to relate with and understand them because I value the idea of human communion. I want to discover the truth and help spread it effectively. I earnestly want to understand everyone's mind as best as I can and the way I've gone about that is by exploring all sorts of ideologies. I think there is truth to be found in pretty much all of them. A lot of these people, like Jesus or Paul, can be seen as the "progressives" of their time. It's good to respect the ideology they were raised in and surrounded by and seeing the sort of thinking they did to improve it. If you are concerned about being see as on the "right side of history" you should probably concern yourself with vindicating people of the past who had some positive influence. We think of Christianity as this old crufty burden because it's been around 2000 years but you have to look at how revolutionary it really was and how it helped push things forward. And I like to think of all of the people who lived their lives thinking of the wise teaches of Christ and died hoping for the resurrection. That deserves respect and defense in my opinion. I care about those people and I don't want them to be lost. I think the approach that treats people of the past as a bunch of insane or nasty people is not only wrong, it is uncharitable. It's a bitter and cynical way of looking at history. If there is one thing I'm sure of it's that being hateful is always going to be on the "wrong side of history". I am willing to discard the bad elements and keep the good and I think people in the past, if they were teleported to today, would have understanding of that. And I'm willing to overlook a lot of bad things because everyone does bad things or believes bad things and I don't want to be a hypocrite. Anyone who believes in truth can respect that idea and I think deep down everyone believes in truth. Usually when people stick by some abhorrent thing it's because there is some truth to it they refuse to give up. Yes there is lots of rationalization around any ideology but the goal is to be empathetic to people and stay focused on the core truth of it so it isn't lost. Once people forget truths it always causes nasty consequences, things become disordered. Anyway to the point of your post I am surprised you oppose the idea of healthy debate or seeking out answers to critiques. You must surely understand you are being irrational when you say that only critiques are valid but answers to the critiques are not worth being considered. An apologetic is just a critique of a critique. The mere presence of a critique is not enough to satisfy a philosophical problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahahaha of all of the reasons to hate gays, "If we don't hate gays hard enough, everyone will become gay and abjure children, and human civilization will end" has to be the dumbest. "Gross, butt sex" is a better reason than that, Christ. I don't think homosexuals are any kind of threat. I'm just saying that I feel I have a responsibility to procreate which is ultimately greater than my desire to fulfill my homosexual desires. I am not interested in forcing you to do anything. I do not believe in hate, cruelty, or anything of the sort. And, of course, I do not want anyone to commit suicide or to feel psychologically tortured, I'm not sure why you think that. SedanChair posted:Do you now see how it can be tough to get over the overt repression on display? The word "repression" is often used in this context but it isn't really used accurately. The term repression comes from Freud and it refers to desires that someone has but is not consciously aware of. Freud, like me, believed that everyone was by nature pansexual, so ironically he would probably consider you repressed. I am consciously aware of my homosexuality, so he would not consider me repressed. A more appropriate term would be suppression, a willful control of behavior. ShadowCatboy posted:As I said before, it's possible for robust philosophies to develop, but they tend to be few and far between. They also exist by virtue of succeeding where many, many others have failed. I think you are convinced that there is some sort of consensus that all of these arguments are necessarily flawed, but even if there was (there is not), consensus is not a logical basis of rejection. That an argument is old or that it has had critiques presented of it are also not a logical basis for its rejection. Ultimately you have to address the argument on its own merits and other people may not intuitively agree with your conclusion, which is why the argument persists.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 23:44
|
|
Please make out with handsome dudes and feel better about yourself.
|
Smoking Crow posted:Let's take a moment out of our discussion to agree on one thing. I use it, but only to express unironic doting affection while drunk, such as here http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3579076&pagenumber=9558&perpage=40#post431947339
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 02:25
|
|
is the worst smilie on these forums and everyone would appreciate it if you didn't use it.
|
SedanChair posted:You get drunk? What happened to willfully controlling your behavior? It turns out that I'm actually really, really bad at willfully controlling my behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Homosexuals can marry each other and procreate or adopt. And before you poo poo on other people's families, go ahead and mentally replace "gay" with "black", and think about how hosed up it would be to say that interracial marriages are fundamentally disordered and how you fear for the children of those unnatural unions. I suppose that thing about race would be true but I mean that's just not a Catholic teaching and never has been, in fact today the recessional hymn was In Christ There Is No East or West, an ode to human unity through Jesus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAsE-89wNWQ quote:Gay people have to spend their whole lives hearing about how they are inferior and should choose to be straight if they want to be moral. Sorry your religion did that to you, it's terrible I know, maybe you could not perpetuate it? You are free to believe whatever you want, but we're on a debate & discussion forum where I am frequently asked by people about my views on homosexuality so I decided to share them with you due to the regular requests, otherwise I would keep my personal thoughts on the subject to myself so as not to upset others. I love my fellow homosexual people and sometimes have sex with them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Why is it that people like you always expect understanding and respect for your religious beliefs but don't respect how other people live? If I called your religion "disordered" or said I was uncomfortable you with practicing it you'd probably call me a religious bigot. Yet you feel perfectly comfortable expressing intolerant beliefs towards this gay couple with a kid. How hard is it to just recognize that you're going to live your life how you see fit and they're going to do the same? People say nasty things about religion all the time. I'm accustomed to it in this environment. I only shared my reaction to that story because it was shared with me in a way that was supposed to inspire me personally to live that kind of lifestyle.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Yo, Kyrie, question: Luke is a good book. Glad that you are interested in Catholicism! But it is a rather large set of beliefs and practices. Becoming Catholic requires going through a conversion process and being baptized. However I would say you are off to a good start. If you are curious you should read some Catholic arguments for positions you are curious about. The authority for Catholic teaching is the Catechism. But you can find out a lot just by googling a subject and adding "catholic". To be properly Catholic you are supposed to believe and uphold all of the official doctrine, which is understood to be permanent and unchanging. The teachings on homosexuality and contraception are doctrine held from the earliest days. Not everything is technically considered doctrine (such as the celibacy of priests, which is a respected "discipline"). In reality Catholics engage in homosexual behavior, use contraceptives, and engage in other sinful activities, for which they seek absolution in the sacraments. All Catholics are sinners and the church welcomes sinners. Catholics also disagree on all sorts of things in practice and there are many groups and factions within the church. There are a number of Catholic public figures who publicly disagree with doctrine and this is tolerated but discouraged. People can be excommunicated if they go too far (e.g. a priest having an ordination ceremony for a female priest). I would recommend attending a local Mass and observing to see what it is like. Feel free to ask me anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Catholic natural law is all kinds of screwed up as a philosophy. Killing is contextually alright in many circumstances (such as in a Just War), but having sex with a condom almost never is. Charles Curran, one of the leading Catholic moral theologians that pointed out the problem with this, had to flee an investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the renamed Inquisition) to a Protestant institution. *shrug* I think people know what they are getting into when they challenge church teaching. It's not like the CDF threatened to break his legs. They just said he wasn't fit to teach theology in a Catholic university because he openly opposed Catholic teachings. Is that so unreasonable? Oh, and Benedict said that condoms, while inherently bad, were better than knowingly transmitting disease.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Barlow posted:No, this is not correct. He hinted that condoms might be okay for gay prostitutes to use. But as procreation is not possible for gays anyway this was not a change in Catholic natural law teaching. Source here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/world/europe/22pope.html?_r=0. Yes, it is correct. Read what he said and what I wrote. Institutionally hostile to pacifism, really??
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Well, there is the idea of a Just War, which suggests that violence is allowed in some circumstances. Opening the door to violence is pretty toxic to the idea of pacifism. People are allowed to be pacifists in the Catholic church, but pacifism is not required. The Catechism lists these conditions in which war is morally approved:
It says a few lines down that "Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Of course they didn't! You can't break a person's legs, that's barbaric! Seriously, what is this? It has nothing to do with context, and nobody is encouraging breaking women's legs?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Of course they do, I'd just think that someone used to hearing nasty things about their religion might hesitate before saying nasty things about how other people live. Some people criticized your decision to live as a celibate gay man and then you immediately turn right around and criticize gay parents, do you think either of those things are constructive? Being a celibate gay man might look odd from my perspective but I'm not going to criticize how other people choose to live their lives as long as they're not harming me, perhaps you should try it. I said I would prefer to marry a woman and have children. You criticized being a celibate gay as "odd." But it doesn't bother me much. To answer your question, yes, I do think criticism can be constructive. I am not complaining about anyone sharing their thoughts on religion, I like when people are honest, I learn things. I enjoy discussing things online with people who disagree with me. I'm here because it amuses me. But I'll admit I could have been nicer in my comments about the gay parents, so I apologize for that. I know this particular forum isn't for humor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
McAlister posted:They never threatened to saw through those women's pelvic bones instead of doing a c-section. What are you talking about? The church has nothing against medical c-sections. Who What Now posted:Humor is plenty welcome in Debate Disco. It just has to be, you know, funny. I guess that all depends on your sense of humor, doesn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What's funny about "I think homosexuals are unfit to be parents"? The twilight zone comment was funny to me, personally. Anyway I was referring to how the story was written, I found it creepy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No you weren't. I directly quoted you word for word just a few posts up. Your only criticism of the story was that it didn't mention the mother by name. The you went on to talk about how homosexuals raising a child is disordered and harmful to the child. I wasn't trying to be funny with those comments, I was with the twilight zone comment. You can disagree with me all you like. Captain_Maclaine posted:I am shocked, just shocked I say! To discover that you missed the story McAlister posted about how Catholic hospitals in Ireland preferred breaking women's pelvises rather than resorting to c-sections, as the latter can complicate later pregnancies, while the former merely cripples the Well I don't know what to say about that except it's bad!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No one was taking issue with the Twilight Zone comment, you twit. So don't whine about people attacking your "joke" when that wasn't what they were doing at all. Well I don't change my view on it. The article honestly made me laugh because it was so ridiculous, saying the child was born to two men. A child isn't born to two men! That's not how children are born! A child is born to a woman and then handed over to two men. I mean, you want to talk about broodmares. I also think it's funny they're not wearing shirts. Have to go, you can all pile up on me again later. Barlow posted:No, again you not correct. It's pretty clear that no change in church teaching occurred. The CDF put out a statement clarifying that no change in policy was intended in any way by the Pope. All that means is that his statement is consistent with prior policy. Which it was.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"Broodmare"? Do you seriously not understand the difference between a woman volunteering to carry a surrogate pregnancy to term and a beaten and battered woman forces to have child after child against her will? That's me joking again, relax! See, this is why I'm careful and boring. I know from experience that joking is risky in this forum, I don't want to be branded an unwelcome gimmick so I've been coloring within the lines at the expense of everyone's entertainment. Maybe I'll stick to having pointless religious debates in gbs where it's safe. OK, heading out for real this time
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
In defense of pacifism, Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace was an ardent believer in it. He wrote a book called The Kingdom of God Is Within You in which he explained how he believed the essential message of Christ's teaching was non-violence, to the point of martyrdom if need be. He justified this primarily by the "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek" teachings in the sermon on the mount, as well as Christ's willingness to die without fighting. He believed all war, physical coercion, etc. to be the ultimate evil. He criticized all church traditions as compromising Jesus's true message. And he seemed to believe all of the miracles were merely symbolic. Nonetheless he considered himself a Christian first and foremost.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:To me, Nietzsche is the ultimate "man without God." He is the ultimate man that lives only for himself, with just his own pride to keep him company. He rages against the night and the light. Father Seraphim Rose said it best in his book Nihilism: “Atheism, true 'existential' atheism burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God, is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God.… Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved thereby his intense hunger for Christ.” Nietzsche burned deep with a hatred; he saw the light and he chose to go away from it. Yes Nietzsche is very interesting. He saw the "death of God", by which he meant society losing faith in God, as an absolutely crucial event for human society, which would have far reaching effects that were only beginning to unfurl. He was deathly afraid that it spelled the victory of nihilism, which would mean the tragic decline and death of the species. So, he tried to create a new and alternative philosophy, neither religious values nor nihilism, which humanity could embrace that would save it from destruction; this new humanity would be so fundamentally altered by its new guiding philosophy that it would essentially become a new, and more advanced species.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:If there was a way to change the world for the better without resorting to organized armed violence, it would be forbidden. There are lots of ways to change the world that don't involve violence, such as gaining some level of credibility and then speaking out on an issue. Words and art matter, they shape opinions, which changes the world. And yet words and art are not forbidden, not in liberal democratic society at least.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is also wrong and stupid. You deserve blame for the predictable consequences of your actions. If you knock over the first domino you're effectively knocking down all of them. The US destabilized Iraq and left. It obviously doesn't deserve the entire blame for current events. But certainly some. To be fair, the decision to leave Iraq rather than uphold a long-term commitment to building liberal democratic government there was made by the opponents of the neocons, despite neocon arguments that it would lead to chaos. If I recall, the core opposition argument was that it would be too expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:I was under the impression that the core argument for leaving Iraq was that the sectarian violence could only be held at bay if we stayed there for-loving-ever as an occupying force, so we might as well just cut our losses and go back. Particularly since our presence would only just make our troops a constant target while also acting as a sign that Iraqi sovereignty was a sham. Barlow posted:If you recall the choice to leave Iraq was also that of the Iraqi government, which would not sign a status of forces agreement. Though I suppose the neo-con response is that we could always have toppled another government if need be. Is the logical conclusion then that the Iraqi people are simply incapable of liberal democracy?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
I'm afraid the only way to end trolling once and for all is going to be theocracy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 22:31
|
|