|
zh1 posted:You are only one of the two of those! You're kind of an idiot hth. On the bright side, there is still time to educate yourself!
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, Roman Catholicism has certainly never worked against leftists on a societal level by collaborating with fascist regimes, nor would they ever speak out about cherished rights like a woman's right to an abortion, or the rights of gay people to get married and adopt kids. There's lots of kinds of Catholics, some of them are even different from how you describe. Which is weird, I know, for a religion with 1.2 billion adherents.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, of course not every Catholic opposes birth control, and not every Catholic supported Franco, and of course not every Catholic supported moving child molesting priests around to avoid prosecution. But it is both fair and true to say that the Roman Catholic Church did, in disagreement with many Catholics, hold and act on all of those positions at various times. Which is, I think, why it's reasonable to say that the Left should be wary, at least, of organized religion, if not necessarily hostile to religion itself or the many positive ways in which it can shape and influence society. Criminy, it's like 2005 in here with the goontheists popping up. So, since you're probably smart enough to understand this, imagine for a minute that "left/right" is not simply a matter of where one's opinions are on social matters, but in fact is traditionally very much associated with economics. There are many leftists who are/were very socially conservative, but we would still call them leftists - many of the Soviets, for instance, or Castro, or Saint Archbishop Romero. Also, go back to your own examples and see what precisely the "Church" positions are on those subjects. You may discover, if you are honest with yourself, that they are not monolithic!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
zh1 posted:the admins got tired of getting reports from idiotic rightists offended that people were calling them on their bullshit so they installed a bunch of mods who killed the forum and banned anyone with a real opinion, what you're reading now is the fruits of their labors lmao lol sass is back. BattleMoose posted:Religion is allowed, its the very definition of religious freedom. What you don't get to do is force your religious views or rules on others, its this part that you are really struggling with. This is a good point, too. The essence of living in an open society is that no group gets to push its religious views on any others.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Mr. Wiggles will no doubt be here soon with his #NotAllCatholics speech, but, yeah. If the Catholic Church was not actively Francoist throughout, then it can at least be said they did not complain much as they benefitted greatly from it. Lo, I have been summoned. And really, you're smarter than that. The reason "not all priests" "not all men" "not all gointheists" is a thing is because people are people. Overgeneralizations don't really advance debate here. If you really have a hard on to discuss the church in francoist Spain, ok, but let's not pretend that all of the church marched lockstep in anything involved there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:On a more telling note, has the Church's teaching on transubstantiation of the Eucharist changed substantially within the last couple decades? Because if not, as a faithful Catholic, you are professing to a true and honest belief in literal magic as a core part of your faith. Transubstantiation and other philosophical intricacies of the Catholic faith are a complicated enough can of worms that they're probably a better fit for a dedicated thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:If you write this sentence, but you need to write "generally" instead of "literally always every single time, no exceptions whatsoever" then that presents a historic and ongoing conflict between science and religion. So long as the Bible contains any empirical claims, that's an opportunity for conflict between science and religion. It doesn't matter if someone think the whole Bible is literal or 50% literal or 1% literal. Any amount of literal claims are subject to scientific review. The young-earthers are just convenient in that they both exist and are definitely wrong, the fact that they are recent or few is irrelevant to fact that they show that religion and science can be/is in direct conflict. Other believers have wrong beliefs about reality, it's just much more difficult to demonstrate they're wrong, or, often, pin them down on what they actually believe. Of course religion CAN BE in conflict with science, but it is not necessarily so. In these specifics about the Bible, while some people have taken parts literally, it does not follow that it is a document meant to be read so (nevermind the fact that the Bible isn't even a single document etc.) Your claim is essentially saying that because some white people are Trumpists, then all white people are terrible. And while I concede that there are many terrible white people, you would be hard pressed to prove your logic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Squalid posted:It's something many religious people will say repeatedly, it's no secret Christianity is founded on the Bible. Of course there are many religious traditions with no texts, their practitioners typically appeal to tradition as a justification. Just catching up on the thread but whoah whoah whoah, hold your horses there. Your fundamental supposition is incorrect. Christianity was most certainly not founded on the Bible, but rather the Bible was something that grew out of Christianity after a couple of centuries. This is important.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 21:27
|
|