Why every Catholic should be dragged naked over burning glass shards for a mile:

[000]

First of all, this thread is not about abortion. It honestly doesn't really matter here if you're for it or against it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7926694.stm

Let me sum it up for you: 9 year old girl is sexually abused by her stepfather, from the age of 6 probably. She gets preggers, with 2 kids. She has an abortion since it would kill her. It's entirely within the law, EVERYONE realizes it's the sane thing to do.

Guess what? A catholic archbishop is excommunicating them. Oh, and:

The excommunication applies to the child's mother and the doctors involved in the procedure.


This says a few things: first of all, this girl WILL die if she doesn't get it. 9 year old girls are TINY, and twins on top of that? It would end her, probably the kids too. This says that the catholic church cares FAR more in holding its stubborn, irrational beliefs than its actual constituents. How can this not scream evil to you?

I realize the thread title is pretty inflammatory and strong, and that there are lots of moderate catholics. But they are all supporting this awful structure, and giving it power.

[Winter]

Id like to see those catholic people in the same situation. I wonder how many would change there minds if they knew they had 0% chance of survival and the kids are going to die anyway. They are sick.

I dont care what religion anyone follows or not. Its my body and my fucking choice. Oh, and im a guy btw. But im not going to kill myself for no reason.

I didnt read the article/link,,,but the girl is only 9 years old?!? wtf?! How is that even possible?

[Built To Last]

You at least have to give them credit for having no exceptions to their rules.

[driveby]

Satan controls Earth, through the catholic church.

[Rust]

You at least have to give them credit for having no exceptions to their rules.

We should givem the credit for consistently making despicable decisions? Fuck you.

[Thelegendarylocke]

At least they aren't hypocrites... I think

[Built To Last]

We should givem the credit for consistently making despicable decisions? Fuck you.

Atheists would have called them hypocrites had they allowed for the abortion to happen.

[ants in my poptarts]

Atheists would have called them hypocrites had they allowed for the abortion to happen.

cause thats way more important then the life of a 9 year old girl

[driveby]

I've noticed alot of atheists make statements insinuating they believe in God, but deny his existence, out of anger toward him. I will only provide examples if other posters intend to engage in conversation with me, reguarding this, via quote.

[NamelessNom4d]

I'm Catholic, but go to a more reasonable church IMO... some of this shit I hear about, I don't get. Seriously, they EXCOMMUNICATED THEM and she would DIE without the abortion? What the fuck. I don't think abortion is right, if it is done for the reason of just "not ready" or "don't want to have kids" or some shit like that. That's what adoption is for. However, if the mother would die in childbirth... that's completely different. Circumstances change if complications arise. There's fucked up on both ends of the spectrum really.

Oh yeah. Fuck you OP for that thread title! :mad: *waits for flames*

[Rust]

Atheists would have called them hypocrites had they allowed for the abortion to happen.

Some would. So? Do you make your decisions on who/what to compliment based on what atheists would do?

In any case, they would be completely fucking right. The Catholics would be hypocrites. That doesn't mean the atheist would want the opposite outcome, nor does it mean we should fault the atheists for their comment. It's the fault of the Catholic Church for painting themselves in such an awful position in the first place; a position where they are either promoting the death of a 9 year old girl or violating their own preposterous rules.

[Ambient]

One catholic bishop excommunicated them;

Now in regards to the Catholic doctrine you need to asses whether this was the Bishops ethnographic bias or whether he was acting on be-half of all Catholics.

This is a problem in regards to leadership rather than Catholicism; this is a conundrum of human nature.

Perhaps if the pope excommunicated them your malice would be justified; but even then almost no catholics accept everything the papacy declares (another conundrum on leadership).

So to say all Catholics should be dragged naked over shards of glass because of one Archbishops personal conduct is actually cognitive dissonance if you are genuinly concerned for this young girl.

Surely 1 billion people being dragged naked over shards of glass is a greater suffering than the girls situation?

Perhaps you are not familiar with Catholic hireachy; but an Archbishop considering the scale of Catholicism is actually not that high up; members of the papacy such as Cardinals and the pope would be more authoratative sources.

Im sure you knew this but you decided to overlook it to prove your point; how logical.

Consider Malcom X or perhaps Martin Luther King and the black civil rights movement; are all black Americans subscribers to their philosphy?

No

I doubt all Catholics agree with the archbishops decision; An archbishop is the leader of a small segment of Catholics.

and whether the Archbishops excommunication was properly based on church doctrine is yet to be established.

That being said this is a horrible situation; and although im against abortion this young girl should not be responsible for this because she is not accountable.

An exeption to the rule.

[Cytosine]

I LIEK CHOCOLATE MILK.

I've heard this argument countless times, and it's a stupid generalization. An atheist saying "god damn it" or using a biblical reference does not mean "GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I DENY GOD'S EXISTANCE BECAUSE OF RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE".

Fact is, I rarely see this outside of 13 year-olds. They're teenagers, they're angsty, etc.

Having seen your quote about "Satan controlling earth, though the Catholic Church" I'm going to quote any future posts as saying "I LIEK CHOCOLATE MILK" to make sure you know that I don't take you seriously. I reply merely to prevent others from believing outright lies or generalizations.

[Struwwelpeter]

Hopefully she and the fetuses will die, a few less humans in the world.

[IcarusTheFool]

One catholic bishop excommunicated them;

Now in regards to the Catholic doctrine you need to asses whether this was the Bishops ethnographic bias or whether he was acting on be-half of all Catholics.

This is a problem in regards to leadership rather than Catholicism; this is a conundrum of human nature.

Perhaps if the pope excommunicated them your malice would be justified; but even then almost no catholics accept everything the papacy declares (another conundrum on leadership).

So to say all Catholics should be dragged naked over shards of glass because of one Archbishops personal conduct is actually cognitive dissonance if you are genuinly concerned for this young girl.

Surely 1 billion people being dragged naked over shards of glass is a greater suffering than the girls situation?

Perhaps you are not familiar with Catholic hireachy; but an Archbishop considering the scale of Catholicism is actually not that high up; members of the papacy such as Cardinals and the pope would be more authoratative sources.

Im sure you knew this but you decided to overlook it to prove your point; how logical.

Consider Malcom X or perhaps Martin Luther King and the black civil rights movement; are all black Americans subscribers to their philosphy?

No

I doubt all Catholics agree with the archbishops decision; An archbishop is the leader of a small segment of Catholics.

and whether the Archbishops excommunication was properly based on church doctrine is yet to be established.

That being said this is a horrible situation; and although im against abortion this young girl should not be responsible for this because she is not accountable.

An exeption to the rule.

You argue against generalization, but your name is Killallthewhitemen420, just thought I'd point that out.

[PirateJoe]

Perhaps if the pope excommunicated them your malice would be justified; but even then almost no catholics accept everything the papacy declares (another conundrum on leadership).

Actually, the infallibility of the pope is a major aspect of Catholicism.




and whether the Archbishops excommunication was properly based on church doctrine is yet to be established.



Canon 1398 states quite clearly, “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

[skyclaw441]

Ok, I hate being the *only* rational Catholic on the planet. I am morally against abortion, but if a person does not share my faith, I am not going to hold it against them to get an abortion. I swear to God, I am the only Catholic on the planet to know that not every one is going to make the same choice I am. This is why I'm considering leaving my faith, as I have to put up with people with their asshats on so tight they can't see.

[Pringles]

God damn it! I'm catholic and i'm tired of the church being against condoms and abortion. I'm also tired of people of other religions talking shit about them. I agree that that archbishop is fuckin stupid. Shit like this make me want to go somewhere else. oh well. There are too many dumbshits in this world.

[000]

I'm Catholic, but go to a more reasonable church IMO... some of this shit I hear about, I don't get. Seriously, they EXCOMMUNICATED THEM and she would DIE without the abortion? What the fuck. I don't think abortion is right, if it is done for the reason of just "not ready" or "don't want to have kids" or some shit like that. That's what adoption is for. However, if the mother would die in childbirth... that's completely different. Circumstances change if complications arise. There's fucked up on both ends of the spectrum really.

Oh yeah. Fuck you OP for that thread title! :mad: *waits for flames*

That's the thing, I addressed that. Even though you seem like a pretty reasonable, moderate guy, you are still supporting this awful structure. The church gets its power DIRECTLY from its constituents like yourself. No practicers, no church.

Make no mistake. If this guy gets in ANY trouble, it will be a formal slap on the wrist, followed by a hearty handshake when the media isn't around.

The catholic church has THOUSANDS of cases of pedophile priests on record, that they have hidden. More recently was this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7908660.stm

Which I assume you've heard of.

[000]

Ok, I hate being the *only* rational Catholic on the planet. I am morally against abortion, but if a person does not share my faith, I am not going to hold it against them to get an abortion. I swear to God, I am the only Catholic on the planet to know that not every one is going to make the same choice I am. This is why I'm considering leaving my faith, as I have to put up with people with their asshats on so tight they can't see.

God damn it! I'm catholic and i'm tired of the church being against condoms and abortion. I'm also tired of people of other religions talking shit about them. I agree that that archbishop is fuckin stupid. Shit like this make me want to go somewhere else. oh well. There are too many dumbshits in this world.

Exactly! You guys both seem reasonable and intelligent. Even though I'm pro-choice, I'm not saying you guys should be. I'm not saying you should change your beliefs. I'm just saying find more rational people to share your beliefs with. Don't group yourself with this dying, evil group.

[LiquidIce]

The ones in position will always abuse the power. Being a bishop and thinking that everyone thinks you're just second after christ has some advantages ie. young boys.

The thing is that the excommunicated people will probably lose customers, friends and have problems with family. Just because some fuckwit thinks he has the power over living souls.

[Ambient]

Actually, the infallibility of the pope is a major aspect of Catholicism.




Canon 1398 states quite clearly, “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

1st part i knew.

2nd part i didnt; although it makes sense.

The thing is the infalibility of the pope is not always adhered too; often an effort is not even known and Catholics live by thological disagreements with the papacy i.e contraception.

I do wonder what the pope has to do with this when it is the archbishop called into question.

Im not argueing in favour of the Catholics; i dislike catholicism in general as it is the power which corrupted christianity to a state which can never be reformed (because the original teachings are gone; they were destroyed when the library of Alexander was burnt twice).

To the man who attacked my "name"

My zoklet nick is an abstraction not a name; when i am communicating it a am meaning a specific complex idea that goes beyond a name and face value; it is not about killing all white men and im getting sick of everybody attacking my "name" when you dont know what thte fuck i mean.

[rabbit boy]

I LIEK CHOCOLATE MILK.

Me too!

BTW, to 000, if you were to drag every catholic naked across burning glass shards for a mile, that would include the little girl that just had the abortion. There are some nutters out there, but a lot of catholics are ordinary people like you and me.

Also, according to this article, 2/3 of fertilized eggs are aborted naturally. If they implant into the uterus, then their chances of survival increase to about 66%.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

Wouldn't it be strange if God gave humans their souls when the egg is fertilized, only to kill them most of the time afterwards?

[Rust]

I do wonder what the pope has to do with this when it is the archbishop called into question.

What the fuck are you talking about, you "wonder"? You're the one who first started talking about the Pope in this thread! You should know!

[dog with shifty eyes]

What the fuck is going on in here?

Fuck i thought it was pics :(

Yeah, well all religious people should be dragged naked on burning glass shards for a mile.

[Star Wars Fan]

why don't all the catholics who hate hate the church bs join a Unitarian church?

[Star Wars Fan]

More recently was this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7908660.stm

Which I assume you've heard of.

It's a dude who does not believe the official holocaust story. I don't consider that to be 'evil' given there could be worse.

also lol @ the Argentine Government bitching...

[Cir]

God chose to have that little girl raped and get pregnant. He wanted it to happen. Who are you to question his will?

[Ambient]

What the fuck are you talking about, you "wonder"? You're the one who first started talking about the Pope in this thread! You should know!

You misunderstand my idiom.

By saying "i do wonder" in regards to the pope i am implying its irrelevancy.

The ultamute position of authority within the Catholic church (though not the ultamute source; that would be God * according to the conception) is the pope and secondary to that the [a[acy such as the cardinals; then the archbishop of diocesceas (sp) being of lesser authority to the papacy.

So if it is the infalibe voice of Catholics then we judge the orders of all catholics according to this.

Because of this we cannot make a judgement (unless we desire to make an arbitruary judgement) on all Catholics according to the theology and theosohpy of an ArchBishop; only according to the popes and papacy;s dharma.

So the burden of proof is on the OP to provice the popes clarification (this would be his premise) before drawing the conclusion that all Catholics are in agreement and therefore deserve to be dragged naked across burning shards of glass because of this Archbishops excommunication.

So i wonder why we are concerned with the popes infalibility as a premise for all Catholics ontology being synonamous with this conduct and its premise; when the representative is an Archbishop of falibility; we can say the OP's conclusion is arbitruary because he has not seeked the authoratative representation of the catholics church.

Hence an illusionary reality is being created; infact this is not neccacarily how the Catholic church condcts himself.

The OP is just basically fucking wrong.

[Rust]

1. Sorry, but you need to take some time to proof-read your posts. You might as well be bashing your face against the keyboard at this point.

2. The position of the Catholic Church on abortion has already been established. By this Pope and by others that proceded him. Like PirateJoe already cited, the Catholic Canon establishes that the women be automatically excommunicated:

"Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM

This is what "latae sententiae" means according to Catholic Canon:

Can. 1314 Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4V.HTM

In other words, a latae sententiae penalty occurs automatically without an authority or panel having to approve it.

So again: We're talking about the Pope because you brought it up. You brought without any good reason because Catholic Canon already states that women who have abortions are automatically excommunicated - regardless of Papal edict. We don't have to check with the Pope preciesly because the Catholic Church says we don't have to!

Now as for the generalization, I'm pretty sure the OP was just angry at the despicable circumstances and was exaggerating for effect. Try not to take it so literally.

[000]

Me too!

BTW, to 000, if you were to drag every catholic naked across burning glass shards for a mile, that would include the little girl that just had the abortion. There are some nutters out there, but a lot of catholics are ordinary people like you and me.

Also, according to this article, 2/3 of fertilized eggs are aborted naturally. If they implant into the uterus, then their chances of survival increase to about 66%.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

Wouldn't it be strange if God gave humans their souls when the egg is fertilized, only to kill them most of the time afterwards?

Fuck, you're actually right. Ok, I change it to "every catholic who is consciously and willingly a catholic even knowing the other options should be blah blah...".

[postdiluvium]

I'm Catholic, but not active. Mainly because I clearly see a division between doctrine and the Book. At some point, any Christian that is serious about being a Christian must actually read the Bible. And in conclusion, compare their religion's doctrines against what the Bible actually says. I, for one, have never agreed with the Catholic Church's, well any religion, intervening on one's personal life decisions. I do think its okay for people to make decisions that go against the church and the church, in return, telling them why it was wrong and allowing them to dwell on it. But not something as extreme as excommunication. I mean, its kind of blasphemous to do something like that. Its like saying you are speaking for God and God says that child's mother no longer has access to being one with Him (Eucharist). The whole excommunication thing is between men and men, when something as serious as an abortion should be between men and God.

I'm just speaking in general terms. This specific case would end up in killing either the babies or the mother in either decision. If the case of being against abortion is to protect life, either way would have taken it. But specifically for Catholics, the Catholic choice would have been to try to save the babies as they have not been baptized yet. This is pretty much where the gray area of heaven and hell starts with Catholics. Their invention of Original Sin would have one believe that the babies would go straight to hell since they were never baptized before their deaths.

[ArmsMerchant]

With apologies to the mods there, moving to "pissing," largely because of hateful and hysterical thread title.

[Ambient]

Rust:

That canon was created 600 years ago; the Catholic church changed alot after the Vatican councels; are you sure it still applies?

And to my main point;

if some piece of writing says abortion leads to excommunication automatically;

a)Do all catholics adhere to that and approve of that?

b)Do all catholics deserve to be dragged over burning shards of glass for a mile because of this singular action based on a canonical.

In regards to the spelling;

dont like the sound please return to sender.

[Rust]

Rust:

That canon was created 600 years ago; the Catholic church changed alot after the Vatican councels; are you sure it still applies?

1. The date when it was created is irrelevant. Christians believe in the Bible and it was created centuries before the Canon.

2. The Catholic Canon has been revised constantly and completely. John Paul II did so most recently. That means Popes have looked over it, and have concluded that it is relevant still, and even added new things.

if some piece of writing says abortion leads to excommunication automatically;

a)Do all catholics adhere to that and approve of that?

This isn't just "some piece of writing" - which is what you want to call it in order to downplay it's importance.... Reminds me of this (http://bbs.zoklet.net/showpost.php?p=213619&postcount=16) - this is the dogma of the Catholic Church as established by the Vicar of Christ.

Do all Catholics adhere to it? Probably not. That doesn't mean it's not the offical stance of the Church they claim to follow.

b)Do all catholics deserve to be dragged over burning shards of glass for a mile because of this singular action based on a canonical.

Already dealt with:

Now as for the generalization, I'm pretty sure the OP was just angry at the despicable circumstances and was exaggerating for effect. Try not to take it so literally.


dont like the sound please return to sender.

Yes! Let's not improve at all.

[postdiluvium]

1. The date when it was created is irrelevant. Christians believe in the Bible and it was created centuries before the Canon.


http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2008/01/alborlandbeard2.jpg

I don't think so Tim.

Christians believe in what is preached to them in Church. Whatever is preached to them isn't always in the Bible. Hell, Christians aren't even required to read It. I mean everyone is always pointing out the contradictions of what Christians practice and preach compared to what it actually says in the Bible.

[1e-]

You at least have to give them credit for having no exceptions to their rules.

Credit for being Draconian? Catholicism was created to control man, it continues to do so via fear and hate. The whole belief structure is fucked up. Oh my anti-god i hate this religion!!!

[1e-]

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2008/01/alborlandbeard2.jpg

I don't think so Tim.

Christians believe in what is preached to them in Church. Whatever is preached to them isn't always in the Bible. Hell, Christians aren't even required to read It. I mean everyone is always pointing out the contradictions of what Christians practice and preach compared to what it actually says in the Bible.

lmao... for example the whole ritual of confession. The Bible clearly states you need not confess your sins before any man. And the reintroduction of INDULGENCES!! Have you heard about this? Retards. I guess children will always need fairy tales. I realize that's extremely disrespectful but some people just need to take the goddamn red pill already.

[LiquidIce]

lmao... for example the whole ritual of confession. The Bible clearly states you need not confess your sins before any man. And the reintroduction of INDULGENCES!! Have you heard about this? Retards. I guess children will always need fairy tales. I realize that's extremely disrespectful but some people just need to take the goddamn red pill already.

There's a difference between spirituality, religion and being a goddamn moron fuckass that believe that his views are best.

Hell, I wouldn't have anything against religious people if they stayed the fuck away from me. I can't have euthanasia because some fucking catholics thinks it ain't right. They have their heads so far up their asses they create the symbol of infinity. Be good and save people somewhere else, just leave me the fuck alone.

And yeah, Rust has the good point. Catholics -> need to follow canon. However more and more people are just catholics or christians by name. I know many young people that go to church, call themselves catholics but they believe that god created and doesn't intervene or other deistic shit. Just because they don't know that their thoughts are heresy.

[Slapshot]

Satan controls Earth, through the catholic church.

Damn straight. Our choir plays Slayer before we drink blood out of a chalice, all other religions are PUSSY.

[driveby]

I've heard this argument countless times, and it's a stupid generalization. An atheist saying "god damn it" or using a biblical reference does not mean "GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I DENY GOD'S EXISTANCE BECAUSE OF RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE".

Fact is, I rarely see this outside of 13 year-olds. They're teenagers, they're angsty, etc.

Having seen your quote about "Satan controlling earth, though the Catholic Church" I'm going to quote any future posts as saying "I LIEK CHOCOLATE MILK" to make sure you know that I don't take you seriously. I reply merely to prevent others from believing outright lies or generalizations.

It is typical to charecterize anyone who has opposing views as a 13 year old. "LAWL u don't agree wit me, so u r a 13 year old LOL"

I'm not talking about saying God damn it, you fucking moron, I am referring to certain atheists saying shit like "How could God let all this happen, there is no God." It is not a mother fucking generalization. I recognize the possibility that atheists exist, due to the fact they find the notion of what the church portrays as the truth comical in nature, but you have to be able to think outside the box, to truly understand the nature of existence, and not disbelieve shit, because it is something society calles "fictional".

[rabbit boy]

It is typical to charecterize anyone who has opposing views as a 13 year old. "LAWL u don't agree wit me, so u r a 13 year old LOL"

I'm not talking about saying God damn it, you fucking moron, I am referring to certain atheists saying shit like "How could God let all this happen, there is no God." It is not a mother fucking generalization. I recognize the possibility that atheists exist, due to the fact they find the notion of what the church portrays as the truth comical in nature, but you have to be able to think outside the box, to truly understand the nature of existence, and not disbelieve shit, because it is something society calles "fictional".

I have heard of some relatives that don't believe in God because they think what has happened is too bad to have been caused/allowed by God -- therefore, the alternative that makes sense is that he doesn't exist.

[Rust]

Christians believe in what is preached to them in Church. Whatever is preached to them isn't always in the Bible. Hell, Christians aren't even required to read It. I mean everyone is always pointing out the contradictions of what Christians practice and preach compared to what it actually says in the Bible.


1. What does that have to do with what you quoted? Please read what I said again. What you quoted was me saying that the date of the text was irrelevant because they are willing to accept much older texts. Nothing you just said refuted that. If they are Christian, the pretty much by definition they accept the Bible - though not necessarily all of it.

2. Catholics can believe things outside of what is preached to them Church. In any case, my point was that this is clearly the canon on the Church they supposedly follow. That's it.

[jackketch]

Uhm unless I have remembered my catholic doctrine wrong, they (the girl's parents and the doctors) excommunicated themselves. The Arch Bishop didn't.

[Oink The Pig]

One catholic bishop excommunicated them;




No. The whole church did. The vatican wrote a letter showing their full support to the archbishops decision.


Also, when asked why the rapist wasn't going to be excommunicated from the church, the church replied saying raping is a lesser crime than abortion.

[Oink The Pig]

Uhm unless I have remembered my catholic doctrine wrong, they (the girl's parents and the doctors) excommunicated themselves. The Arch Bishop didn't.

good old jackkoff. you are an idiot. no, they didnt excommunicate themselves by doing this. you have to be officially excommunicated by the vatican, as in an official note to confirm it, which the vatican did.

[jackketch]

good old jackkoff. you are an idiot. no, they didnt excommunicate themselves by doing this. you have to be officially excommunicated by the vatican, as in an official note to confirm it, which the vatican did.

Sorry but on this one you're the 'idiot' (ie. uninformed) I'll not quote the reams of Church Law on this but basically the moment the fetus dies everyone involved has automatically excommunicated themselves.

Btw the Vatican was saying the same thing yesterday, at least on the news I heard.

[Rust]

The law has already been quoted and linked to in this thread (First by PirateJoe, then by me), as well as the the fact that it's a "automatic" excommunication. Both of you need to read the thread...

[jackketch]

Both of you need to read the thread...

Yep, my bad, I did that whole 'open mouth without thinking (or reading)' thing.

:(

[NamelessNom4d]

I honestly don't think I'm gonna continue going to church unless I can go to the one I live near now. At the last mass I went to the deacon was talking about religious tolerance and how people get their priorities mixed up. He basically said that we need to focus on being good people rather than caring about all the tiny little ritualistic details. He was also stating that Catholicism should be based on a policy of inclusion rather than exclusion, which has been the traditional practice. I don't really feel like restating everything that he said, but take my word for it, the church I go to makes a lot more sense than what I hear about fundamentalist Christians and Catholics in other places... He even told a few jokes about this kind of thing. Kept me from falling asleep... :facepalm:

Personally I'm kinda against organized religion anyway. I believe that the perspective I was taught to believe and grew up with is only one tiny sliver of the big universal picture. Other religions are not "wrong." That is a stupid idea and close minded, but of course they're only tiny slivers of the big picture as well.

I should take my ramblings to Metaphyisical or whatever the hell the forum for religious stuff is called now.

[Built To Last]

I honestly don't think I'm gonna continue going to church unless I can go to the one I live near now. At the last mass I went to the deacon was talking about religious tolerance and how people get their priorities mixed up. He basically said that we need to focus on being good people rather than caring about all the tiny little ritualistic details. He was also stating that Catholicism should be based on a policy of inclusion rather than exclusion, which has been the traditional practice. I don't really feel like restating everything that he said, but take my word for it, the church I go to makes a lot more sense than what I hear about fundamentalist Christians and Catholics in other places... He even told a few jokes about this kind of thing. Kept me from falling asleep... :facepalm:

This has been my experience as well. While I don't doubt that such fundamentalist churches exist, it makes you wonder when atheists claim that all christian churches the bane of humanity.

[Rust]

when atheists claim that all christian churches the bane of humanity.


Quote me an atheist saying that, that isn't a internet troll.

Are you trying to match their baseless generalizations? Because you're succeeding. Congratulations.

[Built To Last]

Quote me an atheist saying that, that isn't a internet troll.

Are you trying to match their baseless generalizations? Because you're succeeding. Congratulations.

:o Good point.

[TruthWielder]

Those damn catholics! Always doin bad ignorant stuff!

You pack of morons. Catholic is a title. It doesn't mean that you're automatically ignorant or narrowminded. A rainbow exists within every label so please, shove it you prejudiced bastards.

[Rust]

Yes. Catholic is a title. It means osmeone belonging to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has various fundamental beliefs. It's not ridiculous or "prejudiced" to assume that those people who call themselves Catholics believe in that basic dogma.

According to your "logic" I would be a prejudiced bastard for assuming a guy in a police uniform is a police officer and running up to him for help...

If they don't like getting lumped in, then how about they don't label themselves as "Catholic" when they really don't believe in its dogma!

[Irukanji]

Excommunicated? So they stopped talking to them? Or some religious holy shit?

Fucking religious cunts....(just like the father did, lol. sry, shouldnt've said that...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

"O noes im gonna get banzored from teh religionz which is gonna killz meh babbeh girl which i rapzored"

[JREwing]

I'm Catholic, but go to a more reasonable church

There is only one church, the Holy Mother Church, the Earthly manifestation of God's Heavenly Kingdom.

Fuck you OP for that thread title! :mad: *waits for flames*

Why? A true Catholic would jump at the chance to be dragged naked over burning glass shards, as an opportunity to make penance for his sins.

At the OP, the links provided lead to the BBC, a *protestant* rag, and the propoganda wing of the British Army and King of England. We shall not click.

[postdiluvium]

If they don't like getting lumped in, then how about they don't label themselves as "Catholic" when they really don't believe in its dogma!

... because people fear what may happen after death. As if saying "Yeah I'm Catholic" will make killing that hooker kosher with God.

[rabbit boy]

Yes. Catholic is a title. It means osmeone belonging to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has various fundamental beliefs. It's not ridiculous or "prejudiced" to assume that those people who call themselves Catholics believe in that basic dogma.

According to your "logic" I would be a prejudiced bastard for assuming a guy in a police uniform is a police officer and running up to him for help...

If they don't like getting lumped in, then how about they don't label themselves as "Catholic" when they really don't believe in its dogma!

If believing in all of the Catholic dogma is your criteria for who is considered Catholic, then there are probably aren't many "true" Catholics out there.

Like in this instance, probably most of them would agree that they don't deserve to be excommunicated.

For example:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46105
The CFEMEA director said positive stances have been taken by Lula, a Catholic, and by Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporão, both of whom vehemently condemned the position taken by the Church in the case of the girl who was raped by her stepfather.

and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/4960546/Brazilian-girls-abortion-sparks-Catholic-row.html
President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva hit out at Archbishop Sobrinho's decision, saying, "As a Christian and a Catholic, I deeply regret that a bishop of the Catholic Church has such a conservative attitude."

"The doctors did what had to be done: save the life of a girl of nine years old," he said, adding that "in this case, the medical profession was more right than the Church."[/indent]

Breaking news! (okay, 3 days ago it was new news)

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/03/14/1245a40abd9e

Brazilian bishops have cancelled the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after being raped.

They said the decision to excommunicate was wrong and would not be applied.

The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB) decided on Thursday that the child's mother acted "under pressure from the doctors" who said the girl, pregnant with twins, would die if she carried the babies to term.

CNBB secretary-general Dimas Lara Barbosa told reporters the mother therefore could not be excommunicated. "We must take the circumstances into consideration," he said.

As for the doctors, there was no clear case for expelling them from the church either, he said - contrary to the position taken by Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, who announced the excommunications earlier in March.

Mr Barbosa said that only doctors who "systematically" conduct abortions are thrown out of the Roman Catholic Church.

Girl said she'd been abused since age of six

The case of the young girl, allegedly raped by her stepfather in the state of Pernambuco, has been highly controversial in Brazil. Archbishop Sobrinho's position that the abortion was "more serious" than the rape prompted much public debate, with many denouncing his lack of compassion.

Officials said the girl told them she had been abused since the age of six by her stepfather, 23, who also allegedly sexually abused the girl's physically handicapped 14-year-old sister.

The man was arrested a week ago and is being kept in protective custody.

Archbishop 'misinterpreted'

In an effort to mitigate the archbishop's declarations, CNBB president Geraldo Lyra Rocha said his colleague had been misinterpreted.

"Archbishop Sobrinho did not excommunicate anyone," he said. "I am sure he did not mean to harm anyone but rather wanted to draw attention to a certain permissiveness (over abortions)."

Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or if the woman's health is in danger. But a million women still seek clandestine abortions in operations, and thousands die from them.

Copyright © 2009 Radio New Zealand

[jackketch]

View Post
Yes. Catholic is a title. It means osmeone belonging to the Catholic Church. Not quite. What we commonly call 'catholic' should infact be 'Roman Catholic". Catholic itself just means 'universal' or 'everyone who believes in Christ'..something like that anyways.

Which is why the Anglican creed still refers to a belief in the 'catholic church' despite the fact they split from Rome centuries ago.

[jackketch]

But a million women still seek clandestine abortions in operations, and thousands die from them Fem-Nazi myth much?

People used to claim the same during the campaign in Germany to legalize abortion...then someone actually checked the figures and did the maths.

ooOOPS!

Turns out that about 10 women died each year from botched abortions.

[rabbit boy]

Fem-Nazi myth much?

People used to claim the same during the campaign in Germany to legalize abortion...then someone actually checked the figures and did the maths.

ooOOPS!

Turns out that about 10 women died each year from botched abortions.

http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139568

Unsafe Abortion Around the World

Of the 46 million abortions that occur each year, roughly 20 million are performed under unsafe conditions because of poorly trained providers, unsanitary circumstances, and crude and dangerous methods of self-inducement. Each year, an estimated 80,000 women die from complications of unsafe abortion, accounting for at least 13 percent of global maternal mortality. The vast majority of these deaths are preventable. Unsafe abortion also causes long-term health problems that range from chronic pelvic pain to infertility (AGI, 1997; WHO, 1998a; AGI, 1999).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), an unsafe abortion is the termination of an unintended pregnancy either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment lacking the minimal medical standards, or both.

Unsafe abortion is a significant cause of maternal mortality and morbidity in the world. Approximately 95% of unsafe abortions take place in developing countries.[1]

Every year, 100 million induced abortions occur globally (IPAS); and according to the 2000 estimates (WHO), 19 million unsafe abortions take place each year. According to WHO, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus).(IPAS) According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths.[2]

[Rust]

. Not quite. What we commonly call 'catholic' should infact be 'Roman Catholic". Catholic itself just means 'universal' or 'everyone who believes in Christ'..something like that anyways.

Which is why the Anglican creed still refers to a belief in the 'catholic church' despite the fact they split from Rome centuries ago.

I think it's pretty obvious what type of Catholic I was referring to..

[Rust]

If believing in all of the Catholic dogma is your criteria for who is considered Catholic, then there are probably aren't many "true" Catholics out there.

I don't doubt there are people that call themselves Catholics and don't follow the dogma of the [Roman] Catholic Church. In fact, I pretty much accepted just that in the post you were replying to...

[rabbit boy]

I don't doubt there are people that call themselves Catholics and don't follow the dogma of the [Roman] Catholic Church. In fact, I pretty much accepted just that in the post you were replying to...

Well, the question is "who is Catholic?"

I got into an argument with someone else about this a while back and it annoyed me. A lot of people believe in some of the ideas of the Catholic faith, and grew up in it, but don't believe everything that the religious authorities tell them. They're probably what you could consider "liberal Christians." I can see the religious authorities telling these people "you're a heretic", but should we from the outside accept that? It's like conservative Protestants telling liberals "you aren't real Christians" because of certain issues, like not being baptized.

An alternative to being Catholic would be Protestant, but these people are probably closer to Catholicism than to the various denominations of Protestants. So I would just prefer to let them be known as liberal or non-practicing Catholics. Something along that line. I don't think anyone would like to be branded as "heretics", especially when the Roman Catholic church's opinion changes over time and hypothetically the church could be wrong and the person right.

[TruthWielder]

Yes. Catholic is a title. It means osmeone belonging to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has various fundamental beliefs. It's not ridiculous or "prejudiced" to assume that those people who call themselves Catholics believe in that basic dogma.

According to your "logic" I would be a prejudiced bastard for assuming a guy in a police uniform is a police officer and running up to him for help...

If they don't like getting lumped in, then how about they don't label themselves as "Catholic" when they really don't believe in its dogma!


Wrong argument sunshine. My point was that being Catholic does not make you prejudiced. That "basic dogma" does not say to be judgmental, bigoted, or domineering. But to humor you:

Lumped in? Dude. No one...hear this and listen well...no one ever fully prescribes to any title. Everyone is a hypocrite. For example, you might be called a silly rabbit. Yes, but even then you sometimes dont eat carrots and have non-rabbit moments. I bet out of a few police officers that you ran for help to a small percentage will go the other way. Especially if youre a minority. Different issue though. Plus, since when are you able to tell what someone believes in regardless of your actions.

Heres a label for you: facist.

Oh, no? How about hypocrite.

Silly rabbit.

[Rust]

Wrong argument sunshine. My point was that being Catholic does not make you prejudiced. That "basic dogma" does not say to be judgmental, bigoted, or domineering.

Well, sunshine ( :rolleyes: ), your argument was pretty fucking irrelevant since nobody here was arguing that calling yourself Catholic makes you prejudiced by itself.


Lumped in? Dude. No one...hear this and listen well...no one ever fully prescribes to any title. Everyone is a hypocrite. For example, you might be called a silly rabbit. Yes, but even then you sometimes dont eat carrots and have non-rabbit moments. I bet out of a few police officers that you ran for help to a small percentage will go the other way. Especially if youre a minority. Different issue though. Plus, since when are you able to tell what someone believes in regardless of your actions.


Again, irrelevant; that doesn't refute a single thing I said.

That they don't subscribe to 100% everything of the Catholic faith does not mean they would not subscribe to its basic dogma (i.e. your statement can be true even if they all believe in the Catholic canon). Moreover, that they are hypocrites does not mean that it's my fault for assuming they would believe basic Catholic dogma.

Not all cops practice the rules of their job perfectly. That still doesn't mean it would be ridiculous of me to run towards someone dressed in a cop uniform asking for help; it's a natural assumption. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be wearing the uniform in the first place.

[Rust]

Well, the question is "who is Catholic?"

No actually, the question is whether it's wrong to assume that a person who calls himself Catholic would hold the dogma of Church they claim to belong to as true.

[Irukanji]

Religion cause's RAAAAAAAGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEE.

This thread shows that.

[TruthWielder]

Well, sunshine ( :rolleyes: ), your argument was pretty fucking irrelevant since nobody here was arguing that calling yourself Catholic makes you prejudiced by itself.



Again, irrelevant; that doesn't refute a single thing I said.

That they don't subscribe to 100% everything of the Catholic faith does not mean they would not subscribe to its basic dogma (i.e. your statement can be true even if they all believe in the Catholic canon). Moreover, that they are hypocrites does not mean that it's my fault for assuming they would believe basic Catholic dogma.

Not all cops practice the rules of their job perfectly. That still doesn't mean it would be ridiculous of me to run towards someone dressed in a cop uniform asking for help; it's a natural assumption. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be wearing the uniform in the first place.

a) "By itself", haha, good little addendum there. Oh please... besides the OP and every other poster? This thread is not lacking in those implying such.

b) "Basic Catholic Dogma". Er...yeah. Problem here is that you in no way define wtf you are talking about when you say "basic catholic dogma" as opposed to the rest of catholic dogma and can easily make what you define as basic catholic dogma into whatever the fuck you arbitrarily define it as to fit your description of a catholic and thus label them however you want to benefit your argument.

No one said it would be your fault for assuming such, what you would be at fault for is ignorantly assuming that people aren't flawed, and that no matter what label they have given themselves or no matter what label you have placed on them, human beings will naturally break out of it. It is childlike to think to otherwise. Silly rabbit.

An aside: why is it you always like to divert arguments with straw men? Ridiculous. Arguing with you is like pulling a mushroom out of a swampy marshland. It might take entirely too much time to get anywhere with it, and by the time you do, you usually find it was hardly worth it.

[Rust]

a) "By itself", haha, good little addendum there. Oh please... besides the OP and every other poster? This thread is not lacking in those implying such.

1. How is it an addendum when that's exactly what you're saying?

"what you would be at fault for is ignorantly assuming that people aren't flawed, and that no matter what label they have given themselves or no matter what label you have placed on them, human beings will naturally break out of it. It is childlike to think to otherwise."

2. The OP didn't assume that people aren't flawed, nor that people cannot break from the label they've given themselves. In fact, the OP said "I realize the thread title is pretty inflammatory and strong, and that there are lots of moderate catholics. But they are all supporting this awful structure, and giving it power."
which shows how he understands that there would be a lot of people who wouldn't support the excommunication, and thus that he acknowledges that "humans being can break out of the labels" they've given themselves.




b) "Basic Catholic Dogma". Er...yeah. Problem here is that you in no way define wtf you are talking about when you say "basic catholic dogma" as opposed to the rest of catholic dogma and can easily make what you define as basic catholic dogma into whatever the fuck you arbitrarily define it as to fit your description of a catholic and thus label them however you want to benefit your argument.

If anyone is leaving things up so that they can be arbitrarily defined, it's you not me. You're the one whose content with considering anyone to be a Catholic, not me. It's your criteria which allows someone who allows anyone from the Pope to a satanist to be called a Catholic so long as they used the excuse "I'm a hypocrite".

I, on the other hand, would consider people to be Catholics if they believe in a set of core beliefs. I haven't defined those beliefs, sure, but that's because it's irrelevant. My point was that it wouldn't be ridiculous to assume that someone who labels themselves as "Catholic" believes in the dogma - e.g. the Canon law - of the Catholic Church. Apparently you agree.

what you would be at fault for is ignorantly assuming that people aren't flawed, and that no matter what label they have given themselves or no matter what label you have placed on them, human beings will naturally break out of it. It is childlike to think to otherwise. Silly rabbit.

Who assumed that people aren't flawed? The whole fucking thread topic is about people who, in the opinion of the OP, are flawed for excommunicating a young girl that was saving her life.

Who assumed people cannot "Break out of their labels"? The OP explicitly mentioned Catholics which wouldn't be supporting those excommunications.

If anyone here is generalizing it's you who gave us this bucket of irony since the beginning:

"You pack of morons. Catholic is a title. It doesn't mean that you're automatically ignorant or narrowminded. A rainbow exists within every label so please, shove it you prejudiced bastards."

and let's not forget this other one:

"Oh please... besides the OP and every other poster? "


An aside: why is it you always like to divert arguments with straw men? Ridiculous. Arguing with you is like pulling a mushroom out of a swampy marshland. It might take entirely too much time to get anywhere with it, and by the time you do, you usually find it was hardly worth it.

1. There was no strawman. You either need to read what I said more carefully, or learn what a strawman is.

2. This goes to show how much of a dumb motherfucker you are, since nobody is forcing you to read my posts. Don't like them? Use the ignore feature or kindly shut the fuck up. Thanks.

[rabbit boy]

No actually, the question is whether it's wrong to assume that a person who calls himself Catholic would hold the dogma of Church they claim to belong to as true.

Yes, that's wrong to assume. That's a bit too obvious... maybe you misworded what you meant to say?

Also, you really need to calm down. This is why your debates often go on and on.

[Rust]

Yes, that's wrong to assume. That's a bit too obvious... maybe you misworded what you meant to say?

How is it wrong to assume that they would believe in the basic dogma of the Church they claim to belong to? Is it wrong to assume that a member of the Ku Klux Klan is racist?

I don't believe it's wrong, and it seems that TruthWielder - the person I'm discussing things with - agrees with me: "No one said it would be your fault for assuming such"


Also, you really need to calm down. This is why your debates often go on and on.

I am calm. And why my "debates" often go on and on has much more to do with people talking about irrelevant things... like whether I'm calm or not, and why my debates go on and on...

[rabbit boy]

How is it wrong to assume that they would believe in the basic dogma of the Church they claim to belong to? Is it wrong to assume that a member of the Ku Klux Klan is racist?

I don't believe it's wrong, and it seems that TruthWielder - the person I'm discussing things with - agrees with me: "No one said it would be your fault for assuming such"

It's wrong to assume that because there are lots of people who call themselves Catholic who don't believe in the dogma. At least, as far as I'm aware there are.

I am calm. And why my "debates" often go on and on has much more to do with people talking about irrelevant things... like whether I'm calm or not, and why my debates go on and on...

Here's what I see in that one post of yours, near the end.

2. This goes to show how much of a dumb mother:mad: you are, since nobody is forcing you to read my posts. Don't like them? Use the ignore feature or kindly shut the :mad: up. Thanks. :mad:

[Rust]

It's wrong to assume that because there are lots of people who call themselves Catholic who don't believe in the dogma. At least, as far as I'm aware there are.

The existence of those who don't believe in the dogma doesn't mean the assumption is unreasonable.

There exist people with police uniforms that aren't police officers. It would still be reasonable to run toward someone dressed in police uniform if you need help.


Here's what I see in that one post of yours, near the end.

So then you're assuming that because I used naughty language I was not calm? Thanks for proving my point. :thumbsup:

You can believe that if you want, but it won't change what I was actually feeling - or not feeling - at the time. Your perception is meaningless in this regard.

[Zay]

Rust should become a preacher of secular ethics. Use every weapon the religious faggots use. Use music, use passion, invoke feelings of guilt, preach the virtues of the scientific method, challenge anyone in your audience to question you. Invoke emotions of joy, pleasure. Show the community how liberating and pleasurable it is to be a human, a product of chance and circumstance, a novelty nonexistent for millions of lightyears in every direction from where they stand. As long as you don't lie, it's fair game right? It's all dopamine release, that's how churches lead. It's how the internet works, something fun online releases dopamine. dopamine dopamine dopamine...Along comes the disgruntled, intelligent atheist, who has found an alternative to all the lies, but doesn't know how to trigger the same epiphanies he had in other people. He may as well be preaching to the wall. The wall won't tell him he's crazy, going to hell, condemned, excommunicated, non-virtuous, immoral, not getting any christmas presents...

For the record, I didn't read the thread because I assume there is nothing novel in the replies. One day you've got to take this stuff offline man, like those bus ads in london.

[postdiluvium]

"Slurrrp slurp slurp... fap fap... slurrrp slurrrrp"

Seriously dude. Rust is cool and everything, but you're crossing the line from admiring his sense of logic to juggling his balls in your mouth. You're a cool dude too... it's just that post seems a little... I don't know what word to use.

[Zay]

Seriously dude. Rust is cool and everything, but you're crossing the line from admiring his sense of logic to juggling his balls in your mouth. You're a cool dude too... it's just that post seems a little... I don't know what word to use.

Sycophantic?

[whimsi]

Fucking sick.

I was going to write a typical whimsi post, overly wordy and blah blah, but I really can't think of anything that isn't covered by "Fucking sick"

[rabbit boy]

The existence of those who don't believe in the dogma doesn't mean the assumption is unreasonable.

There exist people with police uniforms that aren't police officers. It would still be reasonable to run toward someone dressed in police uniform if you need help.

Yes, but the proportion of people who call themselves Catholics who don't believe in the dogma is much greater than the proportion of people who wear police uniforms that aren't police officers. It's really rather commonplace. The former, I mean.

So then you're assuming that because I used naughty language I was not calm? Thanks for proving my point. :thumbsup:

If you were actually calm, that would show that my assumption was wrong in your case. That really doesn't prove your point... it just shows that I made an unreliable assumption. Some assumptions are more reliable than others.

You should know that from debating with Creationists, how they always say that the theory of evolution is full of gaps and based on assumptions, and therefore it's no better than their own ideas. Yes, evolution has assumptions, but they are much, much more reasonable than those of Creationists.

You can believe that if you want, but it won't change what I was actually feeling - or not feeling - at the time. Your perception is meaningless in this regard..

You said something like this to me before in an earlier debate. I was like "oh, when you said that you meant this" and you said "No I didn't. I know what I was thinking, and it wasn't that." Although in the end it turned out that you were bullshitting me.

So I don't believe you.

[Rust]

Yes, but the proportion of people who call themselves Catholics who don't believe in the dogma is much greater than the proportion of people who wear police uniforms that aren't police officers. It's really rather commonplace. The former, I mean.

1. Except you have no clue if that's actually the case or not. You're assuming it's the case. Or do you have some sort of study regarding the number of people that believe in dogma and the number of people who wear cop uniforms but are not actually cops?

2. At what proportion is the assumption made reasonable? Do tell.

3. How is this relevant when I wasn't arguing with you, but with Truth Wielder?


If you were actually calm, that would show that my assumption was wrong in your case. That really doesn't prove your point... it just shows that I made an unreliable assumption. Some assumptions are more reliable than others.

Who is talking about reliability? We're talking about whether it's reasonable or not, and the fact that you were assuming I wasn't calm just based on the words I was using goes to show my point: unless you have some scientific study that shows that using swear words means not being calm, then you merely based the assumption on your perception (i.e. "In my experience people who aren't calm swear. Rust is swearing, therefore Rust is not calm") which arguably is the same reasoning I'm using.

Unless of course you are admitting you made an unreasonable assumption?


You said something like this to me before in an earlier debate. I was like "oh, when you said that you meant this" and you said "No I didn't. I know what I was thinking, and it wasn't that." Although in the end it turned out that you were bullshitting me.

So I don't believe you.

I don't have the faintest clue what the hell you're talking about (i.e. what this "earlier debate" you're talking about was), and frankly I don't give shit. You don't believe me? Awesome. Like I said, your perception and belief on this matter is utterly meaningless in determining my state of mind. The truth in this matter isn't up to your opinion.

[Bender]

God damn it! I'm catholic


Point and case.

[TruthWielder]

1. How is it an addendum when that's exactly what you're saying?

"what you would be at fault for is ignorantly assuming that people aren't flawed, and that no matter what label they have given themselves or no matter what label you have placed on them, human beings will naturally break out of it. It is childlike to think to otherwise."

2. The OP didn't assume that people aren't flawed, nor that people cannot break from the label they've given themselves. In fact, the OP said "I realize the thread title is pretty inflammatory and strong, and that there are lots of moderate catholics. But they are all supporting this awful structure, and giving it power."
which shows how he understands that there would be a lot of people who wouldn't support the excommunication, and thus that he acknowledges that "humans being can break out of the labels" they've given themselves.





If anyone is leaving things up so that they can be arbitrarily defined, it's you not me. You're the one whose content with considering anyone to be a Catholic, not me. It's your criteria which allows someone who allows anyone from the Pope to a satanist to be called a Catholic so long as they used the excuse "I'm a hypocrite".

I, on the other hand, would consider people to be Catholics if they believe in a set of core beliefs. I haven't defined those beliefs, sure, but that's because it's irrelevant. My point was that it wouldn't be ridiculous to assume that someone who labels themselves as "Catholic" believes in the dogma - e.g. the Canon law - of the Catholic Church. Apparently you agree.


Who assumed that people aren't flawed? The whole fucking thread topic is about people who, in the opinion of the OP, are flawed for excommunicating a young girl that was saving her life.

Who assumed people cannot "Break out of their labels"? The OP explicitly mentioned Catholics which wouldn't be supporting those excommunications.

If anyone here is generalizing it's you who gave us this bucket of irony since the beginning:

"You pack of morons. Catholic is a title. It doesn't mean that you're automatically ignorant or narrowminded. A rainbow exists within every label so please, shove it you prejudiced bastards."

and let's not forget this other one:

"Oh please... besides the OP and every other poster? "



1. There was no strawman. You either need to read what I said more carefully, or learn what a strawman is.

2. This goes to show how much of a dumb motherfucker you are, since nobody is forcing you to read my posts. Don't like them? Use the ignore feature or kindly shut the fuck up. Thanks.

Fuck me sideways and call me Jessica.

I had such a response to this....aye. Took me a better part of an hour.

Sigh...no fuckin way. Then there went the "you have logged in previously" bullshit.

I click back, and there goes all my work. That didn't happen on totse, it was saved.

For now let me just say I apologize for the narrow insults and baseless proclamations I made as I first posted and assert that you are in the right for pointing out their lack of argumentative purpose.

God dammit.

[driveby]

Catholics claim to be christian, and holy, but are facist discriminating people who are evil.

[postdiluvium]

Catholics claim to be christian, and holy, but are facist discriminating people who are evil.

And this differs from other denominations of Christianity, how?

[driveby]

And this differs from other denominations of Christianity, how?

I'm just saying, because of the corrupt nature of these religions, people have negative feelings towards them, and some have even taken it out on God, like it's his fault. To answer your quoted question, I have run in to way, way more, extreemely decent, helping, caring protestants, then catholics.

[rabbit boy]

1. Except you have no clue if that's actually the case or not. You're assuming it's the case. Or do you have some sort of study regarding the number of people that believe in dogma and the number of people who wear cop uniforms but are not actually cops?

2. At what proportion is the assumption made reasonable? Do tell.

3. How is this relevant when I wasn't arguing with you, but with Truth Wielder?

Hmm...

Those damn catholics! Always doin bad ignorant stuff!

You pack of morons. Catholic is a title. It doesn't mean that you're automatically ignorant or narrowminded. A rainbow exists within every label so please, shove it you prejudiced bastards.

Yes. Catholic is a title. It means osmeone belonging to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has various fundamental beliefs. It's not ridiculous or "prejudiced" to assume that those people who call themselves Catholics believe in that basic dogma.

According to your "logic" I would be a prejudiced bastard for assuming a guy in a police uniform is a police officer and running up to him for help...

If they don't like getting lumped in, then how about they don't label themselves as "Catholic" when they really don't believe in its dogma!

I believe this is what started the discussion.

Actually, I'm not really sure what you were implying, anymore. It sounded like you were saying that it should be assumed that all Catholics would approve of the girls' parent's and doctor's excommunications, since that was what the thread is about.

I provided instances of Catholics who did not approve, including the president of the country. From what I read, it seemed that the Catholic community was split on the issue.

And in the end, the bishop took back what he said and the parents and doctors were not excommunicated.

So anyway, what were you trying to say?

Who is talking about reliability? We're talking about whether it's reasonable or not, and the fact that you were assuming I wasn't calm just based on the words I was using goes to show my point: unless you have some scientific study that shows that using swear words means not being calm, then you merely based the assumption on your perception (i.e. "In my experience people who aren't calm swear. Rust is swearing, therefore Rust is not calm") which arguably is the same reasoning I'm using.

Unless of course you are admitting you made an unreasonable assumption?

The latter.

I don't have the faintest clue what the hell you're talking about (i.e. what this "earlier debate" you're talking about was), and frankly I don't give shit. You don't believe me? Awesome. Like I said, your perception and belief on this matter is utterly meaningless in determining my state of mind. The truth in this matter isn't up to your opinion.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y172/disillusionary/diagram.gif

Does this look familiar? It illustrates the distortion that occurs when going from one object's frame of reference (blue) to another (red). Rocket ships and time dilation and all that fun stuff.

You made me mad, and you said you took a screenshot of my posts.

[Rust]

Hmm...

I'll take that as a "I don't have anything to support the claim I made besides my perception". Thanks.



So anyway, what were you trying to say?

I said that it would be reasonable to assume the people who call themselves Catholics believe in the canon of the Church they claim to belong to. Does that mean I claim that all of them do? No, it does not.

This is the difference between "Should be X" or "Has a good probability of being X " and "Must be X".


The latter.

Which is?


Does this look familiar? It illustrates the distortion that occurs when going from one object's frame of reference (blue) to another (red). Rocket ships and time dilation and all that fun stuff.

You made me mad, and you said you took a screenshot of my posts.

No, it doesn't look familiar. Again, I don't know what this discussion was. I don't remember you beating around the bush isn't helping.

Not that I'm asking you to tell me, because I honestly don't give a shit - aside from it being humorous that you would remember such a thread because I was allegedly "bullshitting you".

[PROJECT PAT]

The catholic church is, plain and simply, an instrument of evil.

[driveby]

The catholic church is, plain and simply, an instrument of evil.

That's what I've been saying. The vatican is Satan's seat, on earth. Hell is reserved for the apocolypse, when you die, you just become a ghost, and enter the spirit realm, untill Yashua returns to judge the living AND THE DEAD. Hint hint.

[rabbit boy]

I'll take that as a "I don't have anything to support the claim I made besides my perception". Thanks.

Well, you haven't justified your claim with statistics either, so we're even. But rather than do research, I decided to look back to the original point of the discussion. For the time being.

I said that it would be reasonable to assume the people who call themselves Catholics believe in the canon of the Church they claim to belong to. Does that mean I claim that all of them do? No, it does not.

This is the difference between "Should be X" or "Has a good probability of being X " and "Must be X".

I read what you said. But what were you implying when you said this? You were responding to Truthwielder, were you not?

The greater the consequences are for being wrong, the less reasonable an assumption is.

The latter.

Which is?

That I made an unreasonable assumption.

No, it doesn't look familiar. Again, I don't know what this discussion was. I don't remember you beating around the bush isn't helping.

Not that I'm asking you to tell me, because I honestly don't give a shit - aside from it being humorous that you would remember such a thread because I was allegedly "bullshitting you".

...well then. Just forget it.

[Rust]

Well, you haven't justified your claim with statistics either, so we're even. But rather than do research, I decided to look back to the original point of the discussion. For the time being.

Except I didn't make a claim that suggested I knew which one was more likely, you did. Please do not pin your burden of proof on me. I suggested that it would be reasonable to assume that those people professing to being members of a group would believe in the canon of that group. Truth Wielder agreed. There is no statistics necessary for that claim. It's just a position you either agree with or disagree with.

You might disagree with it - though I'm guessing you actually don't are just being difficult - but who cares? I wasn't arguing with you.


I read what you said. But what were you implying when you said this? You were responding to Truthwielder, were you not?

The greater the consequences are for being wrong, the less reasonable an assumption is.

1. I already told you what I was implying... what I actually said! There is nothing implicit here, it's explicit: it would be reasonable to assume the people who call themselves Catholics believe in the canon of the Church they claim to belong to.

2. How the hell did you determine the "consequences of being wrong" here in order to determine my assumption would be wrong and yours not? You keep making claims out of thin air...



...well then. Just forget it.

Great. This was amazingly productive.

[rabbit boy]

Except I didn't make a claim that suggested I knew which one was more likely, you did. Please do not pin your burden of proof on me. I suggested that it would be reasonable to assume that those people professing to being members of a group would believe in the canon of that group. Truth Wielder agreed. There is no statistics necessary for that claim. It's just a position you either agree with or disagree with.

You might disagree with it - though I'm guessing you actually don't are just being difficult - but who cares? I wasn't arguing with you.

You don't have to prove something if everyone agrees to assume it is true, so it's fine between you and truthwielder. However, I am disputing your assumption. You haven't provided any data about the situation with Catholicism, and I haven't either.

At the moment, it's up to you if you want to look it up, since I want to talk about something else. But I may look it up later.

1. I already told you what I was implying... what I actually said! There is nothing implicit here, it's explicit: it would be reasonable to assume the people who call themselves Catholics believe in the canon of the Church they claim to belong to.

Was it in response to something that Truthwielder said? If so, what in particular? If not, why did you say it?

2. How the hell did you determine the "consequences of being wrong" here in order to determine my assumption would be wrong and yours not? You keep making claims out of thin air...

I haven't determined the consequences of being wrong, yet, because I don't know what your point was for saying that. I was just stating why I'm asking, besides out of curiousity.

Great. This was amazingly productive.

I gave you some hints, and you don't seem to remember who I am, so...

You're just going to have to think about it if you want to know.

[Rust]

You don't have to prove something if everyone agrees to assume it is true, so it's fine between you and truthwielder. However, I am disputing your assumption. You haven't provided any data about the situation with Catholicism, and I haven't either.

You disputing my assumption does not mean I need to provide statistics because I didn't say one was more likely than the other, you did. What would I need to provide data for? That I think it's reasonable? How would I provide data for it? That's a judgment call.

Again, you and I do not have the same burdens of proof. You made claim that one of the was more prevalent than the other. I didn't.


Was it in response to something that Truthwielder said? If so, what in particular? If not, why did you say it?

Of course it was a response to what he said. It was a response to this post (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=255508&postcount=54). To what part in particular? The whole post, since it was pretty damn small.

But I'm not your personal Cliff Notes to the thread. You can read what I said and what I was replying to, yourself.


I haven't determined the consequences of being wrong, yet, because I don't know what your point was for saying that. I was just stating why I'm asking, besides out of curiousity.


Yet you already concluded that what I said was an unreasonable assumption!

"Yes, that's wrong to assume."



You're just going to have to think about it if you want to know.

I don't.

[rabbit boy]

You disputing my assumption does not mean I need to provide statistics because I didn't say one was more likely than the other, you did. What would I need to provide data for? That I think it's reasonable? How would I provide data for it? That's a judgment call.

Again, you and I do not have the same burdens of proof. You made claim that one of the was more prevalent than the other. I didn't.

It's not that you think it's reasonable, but rather whether we can agree that it's reasonable. And for that it would be nice to have some data, such as what percentage of them follow the dogma.

Of course it was a response to what he said. It was a response to this post (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=255508&postcount=54). To what part in particular? The whole post, since it was pretty damn small.

But I'm not your personal Cliff Notes to the thread. You can read what I said and what I was replying to, yourself.

Yes, I read both of those posts. In fact, I quoted them together in post #87.

Truthwielder doesn't say anything about dogma in that post. How are you applying the concept of Catholics following dogma to what he said?

Was the logic that because Catholics follow dogma, they are narrow-minded? Was it that because they follow the dogma, they would agree with the excommunication of the girl's parents and doctors? The latter is what I thought you meant at first.

At the moment, it looks to me like you're avoiding answering me straight because I provided news sources of Catholics arguing against the excommunication, and even the bishop's backing down over the event and cancelling it, in post #62.

Yet you already concluded that what I said was an unreasonable assumption!

"Yes, that's wrong to assume."

I'm backing up and trying to figure out what it is you were saying for certain.

I don't.

Okay.

[rabbit boy]

I'll always remember that time you debated against ImperfectCircle about communism. He beat you pretty badly, but you kept talking and making more arguments, making a bigger fool of yourself. I bet you had lots of fun.

[Rust]

It's not that you think it's reasonable, but rather whether we can agree that it's reasonable. And for that it would be nice to have some data, such as what percentage of them follow the dogma.

It "being nice" does not equal me having a burden to provide the data. You have a burden to provide the data since you claimed to know which one was more likely than the other I did not. You are trying to put me on equal ground with you when it comes to the claims we've made - and the evidence we should be providing with them - when that's just not the case.

We are not in equal ground. You said I needed to justify something. I don't. You do.


Truthwielder doesn't say anything about dogma in that post. How are you applying the concept of Catholics following dogma to what he said?


He didn't say it explicitly but he implied - and that was confirmed as the discussion went on - that:

a. The Catholics that supported the excommunication of the child were ignorant or narrowminded.

b. That not all Catholics had to believe the same thing.

c. That were morons for not taking this into consideration.


I pointed out how while point b was true, it was still reasonable to assume that people who call themselves Catholic would believe in the dogma of the Catholic Church (i.e. excommunication of those who perform abortions according to Canon Law), and thus we were not morons.

To continue the analogy I've been using through out the thread, it was as if he was calling us morons for assuming someone dressed in a police uniform that wasn't a cop (i.e. someone who calls himself Catholics but does not believe in the canon of the Church he claims to belong to) was a cop (i.e. believed the canon of the Church he claims to belong to).


At the moment, it looks to me like you're avoiding answering me straight because I provided news sources of Catholics arguing against the excommunication, and even the bishop's backing down over the event and cancelling it, in post #62.

What I said, and what I was replying to was very plain and very simple. I don't like being Cliff Notes to lazy people, hence why I don't jump at the chance to explain things to you every time you can't understand things.

It has nothing to do with you providing news sources of Catholics arguing against the excommunication since that would not refute a single word that I or the OP have said. At no point in time did either of us suggest that all Catholics must believe in excommunicating those who procure abortions. Again: This is the difference between "Should be X" or "Has a good probability of being X " and "Must be X".



I'm backing up and trying to figure out what it is you were saying for certain.


Backpedaling doesn't magically do away with contradictions you know...

I'll always remember that time you debated against ImperfectCircle about communism. He beat you pretty badly, but you kept talking and making more arguments, making a bigger fool of yourself. I bet you had lots of fun.

This is getting pathetic now :eek:

Have I done something that you're still butthurt over? Maybe I should care who you are; if it means these lame attacks ("I'll claim that someone who isn't me beat you in an argument on the Internet... even though I can't even begin to substantiate that") will stop?