|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Come on down, Trisagion
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Actually, Eliab, you are NOT one of the gobshites I had in mind. The gobshites I had in mind were the ones who WERE behaving the way I suggested.
Like I clearly said, arguing the point is a VERY good thing indeed. Unexamined premises, arguments, theses are unlikely to be true, and the truth is always what matters.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
The Nazis drove atheist movements out of public life in 1933 - it was one of the very first things they did. The freethinking organisations were banned. Hitler said secular schools were not to be tolerated.
I have read a great deal about Nazi Germany, and I've never heard this before. Would you please give details and sources.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Like I clearly said, arguing the point is a VERY good thing indeed.
Eliab has you bang to rights. On every actual argument of the point your side loses, at which point it's back to "yeah well, we're right because we're Right, OK?".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Um, you might conceivably have a point if I had been talking just about a one-off, unrepeatable referedum - which I wasn't. I was talking about the right to campaign for a change or a retention of a particular law.
The trouble you're having here is that you're confusing two issues. Whether you get to campaign to change the law and whether you get to campaign to change the law unopposed. Come back with those goalposts!
It's clear from this and what followed it that you've not understood either the content or context of my exchanges with Dan. Try again if you like.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
"For the record" - a record which I put straight on the very thread you mention, as I recall - the young Joseph Ratzinger, who came from a family that had caused themselves trouble by refusing to fall in with the Nazis, was a completely unwilling conscript to the Hitler youth, along with hunderds of thousands of other adolescents, and who deserted from the combat division he ended up in rather than fight. As such, he can say whatever the fuck he likes about the Nazis, precisely because "he was there".
But this is a slander against him that you already know to be unfair. What do you think that tells us about the integrity of your position?
Did you actually read the post you were replying to? I in no way brought up Joseph Ratzinger's membership of the Hitler Youth.
I'm not having the atheism and Nazism discussion with you again, Justinian - we had that out exhaustively not so long ago, fruitlessly.
But I'd be interetsed to hear what you did mean when you said above: "When His Holiness Benedict XVI, despite having been there dared to try to mendaciously pin atheism on the Nazis"? Naturally, if you meant no slur on the pope's record as a minor in Nazi Germany, I will be glad to hear you say so, and I will apologise. But I don't think I'm entirely paranoid for reading the suggestion of a slur into the above given the context.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Comparing creationism to the RCC stance on secular marriage of gays is really fucking funny. Because it's painfully accurate.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
In particular, on the hot topic of the day, gay marriage, we have absolutely and comprehensively out-argued your side on every fucking part of the field.
That was quite amusing in a surrealist sort of way. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) But as entertaining as Rumpelstilzchen dadaism might be, let's get back to the actual point of discussion.
There is a very simple decision to be made here for the SoF community. Do you want to hear what Roman Catholics have to say on contentious issues? Then you will have to stop hammering them on the paedophilia scandals (and like matters) on all possible occasions. Not because it is "rationally" indefensible to swing that hammer. The paedophilia scandals might indeed stop you from accepting any moral pronouncements from the RCC. But because all this negativity is selecting against MOTR RCs and for the extremes: Protestants-in-waiting that agree with you anyhow, and "never say die" Catholics that just won't go away.
Not that I want to spoil your fun. See Roman Catholicism, the trad freak show with a supporting cast of Catholics in terrible standing. Proudly sponsored on SoF by liberal Anglicanism shooting its mouth off. Heh.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is a very simple decision to be made here for the SoF community. Do you want to hear what Roman Catholics have to say on contentious issues?
Yes, if it's part of a reasoned discussion.
No, if it means being told what the Absolute One And Only Truth Of The Matter is.
But really, I might as well ask you guys if you're here to discuss the matters of the day or to preach (your version of) the truth at us. It's a two-way road, you know.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's a two-way road, you know.
Firstly, no, it is not. Roman Catholics are a minority here, and so it is more like a highway going one way and a dirt road going back.
Secondly, are you saying that I do not argue my points enough? I do try, you know... Or if not me, who else?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's a two-way road, you know.
Firstly, no, it is not. Roman Catholics are a minority here, and so it is more like a highway going one way and a dirt road going back.
I've never known you to be intimidated by weight of opinion before!
I was, of course, referring to the level of respect accorded to the views of one's opponents in debate. If you are right that we should not be unfairly prejudiced against your points because they come from the Magisterium, then by the same token you should not be unfairly prejudiced against ours because they don't.
quote:
Secondly, are you saying that I do not argue my points enough?
Heaven forfend! But when it comes to "if you're here to discuss the matters of the day or to preach (your version of) the truth at us", all your well-reasoned argumentation, copious though it be, still seems to boil down to the latter...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I gotta back up IngoB's feelings on this one. It's typical of him to feel that it's Roman Catholics against everyone else, but there are several issues where arguing a lower-case-catholic view gets one a reaction like he describes.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Just noticed that I unwittingly attributed the following section of a post to Justinian above, when it's actually my response to him: quote:
It's clear from this and what followed it that you've not understood either the content or context of my exchanges with Dan. Try again if you like.
Sorry about that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you want to hear what Roman Catholics have to say on contentious issues? Then you will have to stop hammering them on the paedophilia scandals (and like matters) on all possible occasions.
I want to hear what Roman Catholics have to say on contentious issues, but whenever I encounter the term 'Roman Catholics' I immediately think of priests raping little boys and it being covered up.
Do not disassociate yourself from it, IngoB, because it is only Good Catholics who are in a position to make this dreadful terrible thing better.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
IngoB: Are you, Trisagion, Triple Tiara and Chesterbelloc MOTR Catholics? I ask because based on posts here, you all seem like Catholic-or-die folks to me.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
there are several issues where arguing a lower-case-catholic view gets one a reaction like he describes.
Any non-Dead Horse examples? Or are they all ones where the "lower-case-catholic" view amounts to advocating in favour of promoting division in society and causing pain and anguish for a certain segment of the population?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You all seem like Catholic-or-die folks to me.
I'd like to think so. "[He] could never be a saint, but [he] thought [he] could be a martyr if they killed [him] quick."
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've never known you to be intimidated by weight of opinion before!
I'm not. But frankly, I'm not your regular Catholic. Neither are the other Catholic "survivors" on SoF, as different as they may be from me. My point was that one can be totally justified in what one is doing (at least in one's own mind), and yet still achieve an outcome that one never wanted.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But when it comes to "if you're here to discuss the matters of the day or to preach (your version of) the truth at us", all your well-reasoned argumentation, copious though it be, still seems to boil down to the latter...
A charge that can be levelled against anyone possessing any principles, I reckon. If you insist that we stick with the lowest common denominator of assumptions, then all discussion on SoF collapses to "Well, we just don't know, do we?" Switch the lights off as you close down the boards, please.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Any non-Dead Horse examples? Or are they all ones where the "lower-case-catholic" view amounts to advocating in favour of promoting division in society and causing pain and anguish for a certain segment of the population?
I had the sacraments in mind. Try arguing a catholic understanding of the sacraments and you'll get a half dozen people calling you a horrible person for denying what they feel in their hearts. "Wottu yu MEAN I have to be splashed to be a Christian!" "You're a dogmatic monster for denying the validity of Presbyterian Eucharist!"
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I want to hear what Roman Catholics have to say on contentious issues, but whenever I encounter the term 'Roman Catholics' I immediately think of priests raping little boys and it being covered up.
Really? Bye.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
IngoB: Are you, Trisagion, Triple Tiara and Chesterbelloc MOTR Catholics? I ask because based on posts here, you all seem like Catholic-or-die folks to me.
It was exactly my point that you are selecting for "never say die" Catholics like yours truly (and Triple Tiara, and Chesterbelloc - Trisagion may be "dying" currently), or for Catholics halfway out of the Church's door! Anything more normal tends to leave, at least Purg and DH.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A charge that can be levelled against anyone possessing any principles, I reckon.
Perhaps. I like to think that my own principles are open to amendment should I encounter a sufficiently persuasive reason for that to happen. But now we're back to the old "absolute certainty is a bad thing" argument, aren't we...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I like to think that my own principles are open to amendment should I encounter a sufficiently persuasive reason for that to happen.
As former apathetic agnostic and former Zen Buddhist, I like to think that about my principles, too.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I had the sacraments in mind.
Well, that's a Dead Horse isn't it. And FWIW it's one I'd class under "causing division in society".
But I'll note that there's a world of difference between "arguing a catholic understanding of the sacraments" and "denying the validity of other people's practices". It's the difference between saying "I believe this to be true" and saying "this is True". Maybe if you started using the former format more often you wouldn't run into so much hostility?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As former apathetic agnostic and former Zen Buddhist, I like to think that about my principles, too.
I keep forgetting about that.
But I will say that your argumentation style hides it well. You debate as if no power (or Power) in heaven or earth could ever cause you to change your mind.
(And I have half a feeling you'll take that as a compliment ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But I will say that your argumentation style hides it well. You debate as if no power (or Power) in heaven or earth could ever cause you to change your mind.
(And I have half a feeling you'll take that as a compliment )
Maybe he's trying to convince himself?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I want to hear what Roman Catholics have to say on contentious issues, but whenever I encounter the term 'Roman Catholics' I immediately think of priests raping little boys and it being covered up.
Really? Bye.
Actually, that's kind of my point. To dismiss my genuine and heartfelt disgust and dismay about the church with which you are associated does it no favours. I can understand why you should feel unhappy about always having to apologise for your church when you yourself are a Good Catholic, but it's only by your association with it that you can represent what is Good Roman Catholicism to me.
I'd have much more respect for the RCC if the Pope Himself gave high profile weekly public addresses about the terrible horrors of the child abuse scandal and what is being done about it. The fact that you try to dismiss it has the opposite effect on my respect for your church.
But hey, it's your problem sunshine.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As former apathetic agnostic and former Zen Buddhist, I like to think that about my principles, too.
I keep forgetting about that.
But I will say that your argumentation style hides it well. You debate as if no power (or Power) in heaven or earth could ever cause you to change your mind.
(And I have half a feeling you'll take that as a compliment )
I've always had the impression that IngoB argues the way he does because he is well aware that there are powers that *could* cause him to change his mind and his best defence against this is to regularly test out his ability to argue his point of view coherently.
I admire this in him.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
- Trisagion may be "dying" currently
Not a bit of it IngoB: just trying to avoid making things worse rather than better. This thread simply confirms me in my initial observations. It is clear that there is no interest in engaging with the teachings of the Catholic Church or with the beliefs of Catholics by the usual suspects on these boards. If there was, instead of the pathetic knee-jerk reference to the child abuse scandal yoked to crocodile tears and faux-outrage, there would be an attempt to both critique the philosophy and the theology on its own terms, whilst proposing a coherent alternative position. Instead we simply get unsupported assertion upon unsupported assertion, allied to prejudice, bigotry and the misrepresentation of history. I've simply too much going on IRL, including dealing with the human damage of the abuse scandal, to spend the kind of time needed to engage with it, even if I had the inclination so to do. You suggested that I've been increasingly tetchy recently. You might be right. I have tried not to let the weariness that the ground-hog day that many of these threads have become for me overtake me. I have clearly failed in that duty.
FWIW, on reflection I'd like to apologise to RuthW for posting the "liberal echo chamber" post in Styx. It was quite the wrong place to make such remarks.
The point about not PMing me, RuthW, was similarly inappropriate.
I am also sorry that I used the word holocaust in connection with abortion. It was clearly entirely disproportionate of me to carelessly use language that could be taken to suggest an equivalence between the unjustified slaughter of six million Jews, gays, gypsies, communists, handicapped people, Catholic priests and others with the unjustified slaughter of over one hundred million children in the womb across the world in the last forty years or so.
[ 21. June 2012, 15:45: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Well, that's a Dead Horse isn't it.
Not that I know of.
quote:
And FWIW it's one I'd class under "causing division in society". But I'll note that there's a world of difference between "arguing a catholic understanding of the sacraments" and "denying the validity of other people's practices". It's the difference between saying "I believe this to be true" and saying "this is True". Maybe if you started using the former format more often you wouldn't run into so much hostility?
Because principles mean some things are true and some aren't.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But Zach, what you're not getting is that those things about sacraments are true for you (and actually me) but they aren't true for many Christians. And that's why you've had the abuse on that thread.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe he's trying to convince himself?
Indeed, got it in one. The promises of the LORD are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. That's why I like the unrelenting, varied and often intelligent opposition to Catholicism here. It's a stress test more creative than anything I could come up with on my own. Bring on the white-hot heat, let's see if that is silver...
But what has been good for me need not be good for others, nor indeed for me in future. Just saying.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
If there was ... there would be an attempt to both critique the philosophy and the theology on its own terms, whilst proposing a coherent alternative position.
But that's impossible. If we take the theology and philosophy on on its own terms, one of those terms is "the Magisterium is correct". It's only by discarding those terms that a coherent alternative position becomes possible. Which is why any thread where someone wants to argue against the position of the RCC inevitably descends into a discussion of the moral authority of the institution itself.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Well, that's a Dead Horse isn't it.
Not that I know of.
No, you're right. It's only the specific subissue of closed communion that's a DH.
quote:
Because principles mean some things are true and some aren't.
No, they mean you believe some things are true and others aren't. See the difference?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But that's impossible. If we take the theology and philosophy on on its own terms, one of those terms is "the Magisterium is correct".
You really haven't been listening, have you, Marvin? The authority or otherwise of the Magisterium is a result of the philosophical and theological principles, not one of those principles.
quote:
It's only by discarding those terms that a coherent alternative position becomes possible.
I agree. But it isn't what we get. What we get is simply the recitation of assertions, without any explanation or reasoned justification of the underlying first principles.
quote:
Which is why any thread where someone wants to argue against the position of the RCC inevitably descends into a discussion of the moral authority of the institution itself.
If you frame an argument in such a way that attacks the man and not the ball then this is, indeed, inevitable. It's a pretty sterile process though. Furthermore, the moral authority is most often hereabouts attacked by insinuation and misrepresentation, rather than by evidence. If that satisfies your intellectual curiosity the, I guess, that's your business.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
But Zach, what you're not getting is that those things about sacraments are true for you (and actually me) but they aren't true for many Christians. And that's why you've had the abuse on that thread.
It's not just that thread, it's every thread about the sacraments. And is isn't just me either.
I get that people have other views, but "true for me" is a ridiculous concept. If something is true, it is true for everyone, in all places, and at all times, no matter what people may believe.
It's when we move beyond merely asserting beliefs to looking to principles to see whether those beliefs are actually true that the accusations of dogmatic monstrosity start rolling in, from posters who cannot fathom submitting their beliefs to critical examination.
quote:
No, they mean you believe some things are true and others aren't. See the difference.
I see the difference. I just think it's irrational to think one can assert truth without necessarily rejecting every view that contradicts it. Like Ingo said, if we refuse to talk about whether beliefs are actually true, then we just show up, assert our beliefs, and go home. Why not just make the ship a list of members' blogs?
[ 21. June 2012, 16:27: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It is clear that there is no interest in engaging with the teachings of the Catholic Church or with the beliefs of Catholics by the usual suspects on these boards.
Probably not, but then that's why they are the usual suspects. I am Catholic. I could not be Catholic, very, very much so. If I believe that this is a great grace of God, and I do, then in the end I cannot be angry with those who did not receive it. Just sad about their loss. Our tears will be dried in heaven, it is written, but our angry furrows will have to be smoothed before we can get there.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
pathetic knee-jerk reference to the child abuse scandal yoked to crocodile tears and faux-outrage
No faux-outrage here, nor crocodile tears nor knee-jerk reaction. I am utterly disgusted by the child abuse scandal. It's a hideous, filthy stain of festering puke. When you try thus to trivialise or misrepresent my sense of outrage, you also disgust me.
quote:
I have tried not to let the weariness that the ground-hog day that many of these threads have become for me overtake me. I have clearly failed in that duty.
Oh, cry me a river, poor baby. Before you start playing the self-pitying victim card, try imagining a comparison of the burden of your weariness with that of those living with priestly sex abuse.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Oh my. Lessons from Yorick on not playing the self-pitying victim card. Who'd have thought it?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No faux-outrage here, nor crocodile tears nor knee-jerk reaction. I am utterly disgusted by the child abuse scandal. It's a hideous, filthy stain of festering puke. When you try thus to trivialise or misrepresent my sense of outrage, you also disgust me.
And you've done precisely what to sort the problem out other than self-indulgently emote on the Ship of Fools? I am utterly disgusted by it too. The kind of disgust that is fed by having spent days and days listening to the stories, the cries and wails of victims. The kind of disgust that results from having interviewed abusers. The kind of disgust that you live with once your imagination is infected with the details of the cases. But I haven't lost the ability to distinguish between disgust at the actions of abusers and those who covered up for them and the rest of the organisation. And rather than parade my disgust as an excuse to not engage with other issues, I've done something about it. Well bully for me.
quote:
Oh, cry me a river, poor baby. Before you start playing the self-pitying victim card, try imagining a comparison of the burden of your weariness with that of those living with priestly sex abuse.
I wasn't not seeking any sympathy: I was answering IngoB's questions up thread as to why I'd reacted as I had. In the process of losing your capacity to discriminate you have also clearly lost the ability to read for comprehension - that or revealed that you have very poor retention.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
IngoB: Are you, Trisagion, Triple Tiara and Chesterbelloc MOTR Catholics? I ask because based on posts here, you all seem like Catholic-or-die folks to me.
Well, the Church is a whore but she's my mother and I love her.
I tend to steer away from lots of discussions, but every now and then something oversteps the mark and I wade in, against my better judgement. It's this nasty habit I have when I see something false being asserted, and wanting to tell the truth instead.
One falsehood that persists is the assertion that the Pope, the Bishops, "the Vatican", have done and said nothing about the scandal of child abuse. And a more grave falsehood is that it is distinctly a Catholic issue.
The problem you have created with all that is that you have turned the abuse of children into a Catholic issue. It isn't - we're just easier to spot. And here I once again doff my hat and bow in respect to Fr Gregory for having the courage to make this post.
Every time one of you twats (I am NOT looking at you, Eliab) turn out a post like this: quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I want to hear what Roman Catholics have to say on contentious issues, but whenever I encounter the term 'Roman Catholics' I immediately think of priests raping little boys and it being covered up.
you show that you just don't get how serious child abuse is, in all manner of contexts. It's a Catholic problem to you.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe he's trying to convince himself?
Indeed, got it in one.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I don't have much brain, but I have plenty of intuition.
Even so - I agree - good debate and discussion can help to refine one's beliefs.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
One falsehood that persists is the assertion that the Pope, the Bishops, "the Vatican", have done and said nothing about the scandal of child abuse. And a more grave falsehood is that it is distinctly a Catholic issue.
The problem you have created with all that is that you have turned the abuse of children into a Catholic issue. It isn't - we're just easier to spot.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing that ONLY Catholic priests commit sexual abuse against children. But the difference is that your Church went to lengths for many years to deal with pederasts in an internal and criminally inadequate way, shuffling priests to other parishes without warning to the parishes that these priests had been accused in the past of raping children.
When this situation is raised, many Catholics, including you, apparently, reflexively reply that we're just attacking the Catholic Church and that it's not a "uniquely Catholic problem." Well, no, I'm sure you can find incidents without too much trouble of Episcopal priests and Baptist pastors and rabbis who fuck children. But a) what does that have to do with what the Catholic Church is doing to clean its own house? and b) your church appears to have made it worse by having an institutional policy of sweeping child abuse cases under the rug and shuffling the deck rather than removing problem clergy from positions where they can assault children, rather than cooperate with authorities and take reasonable actions to protect children.
The response from the Church at large, with the exception of the U.S. bishops who took action a decade ago, has been a day late and a dollar short, and it's still common for the higher-ups to blame society or the gays for the problem, rather than own up to their own institutional failures.
There are plenty of unfair criticisms of the Catholic Church, but this is not one of them.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe he's trying to convince himself?
Indeed, got it in one. The promises of the LORD are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. That's why I like the unrelenting, varied and often intelligent opposition to Catholicism here. It's a stress test more creative than anything I could come up with on my own. Bring on the white-hot heat, let's see if that is silver...
But what has been good for me need not be good for others, nor indeed for me in future. Just saying.
Frankly, I think it would be a shame to lose that.
But sometimes, IngoB, I get the impression that SoF is a kind of preliminary work-out before you get cracking on some serious argumentation with a RL "Devils Advocate" Jesuit. A warm up before the big race. That's a compliment to the power and stamina of your approach. It often seems to me that you need a very thick skin as well.
I'm also inclined to agree with your view of the survival only of the "Catholic or die" folks and the incipient rebels. Whether that's a consequence of our ethos of unrest - or an impoverishment of it - is a subject on which good people seem to disagree.
[I'm still puzzling through what a Host is supposed to do about that. If anything.]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have read a great deal about Nazi Germany, and I've never heard this before. Would you please give details and sources.
Would wikipedia do? (Complete with a link to the NYT's headline of the day). Or another Wikipedia link? Complete with links to primary sources?
The March 14 New York Times shows just how studied the insults were:
ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED
Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers
Wireless to the New York Times.
BERLIN, May 13. - In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.
The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members ...
The dirty secret that no one likes to mention here on either side is that a lot of the German Atheist and Freethinking organisations were either overtly communist or at a bare minimum full of fellow travellers. (The League of Militant Atheists of course was an outright communist organisation). So most Atheist organisations were swept up in the 1933 Enabling Act as an offshoot of Communist gatherings - with a few organisations with Volkish roots lasting a few more years.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
There is one fundamental flaw in the arguments of all you gobshites: don't like the message so shoot the messenger.
As a point of correction - the Catholic Church's intervention on societal issues is never based on the argument "we are Catholic Bishops so you have to listen to us". The interventions are based on arguments concerning the common good. What the common good is is the crucial question, of course.
Triple Tiara, not only have you failed to pay attention to your debate, you have just failed Roman Catholic Ethics.
Even appealing to The Common Good is a debate about consequences. And Roman Catholic ethics aren't consequentialist. They are deontological. As I've been informed by certain other Catholic members on this thread you aren't allowed to take consequences into account.
So if the Roman Catholic Church wants to throw out its entire ethical system and start talking about the Common Good and join everyone else with a consequentialist basis to ethics rather than deontological ethics. And while you are about it you can get rid of your damn stupid rules on Double Effect and the fatuous causistry that lets you abort ectopic pregnancies but only at added harm to the mother (I defy you to find a public good in that compromise).
But ultimately your complaint here seems to be that people are being mean in Hell. Welcome to Hell, Triple Tiara. The harmful nature of Roman Catholic teachings on contraception, on abortion, and on just about all forms of sexuality has been taken apart ad nauseam on Dead Horses without many references to the practices of those preaching it. And even IngoB has to admit that once you accept sex between consenting married adults can be morally acceptable for purposes other than procreation, the entire house of cards that is Catholic Homophobia, and Catholic Opposition to Public Health falls down.
Let me repeat that. Even IngoB accepts that if sex for purposes other than procreation can be permitted then the Roman Catholic Church is on the wrong side. The Roman Catholic teachings therefore all hang on one extremely questionable thread that simply isn't accepted by almost anyone else. And they cause direct and manifest harm to at a first order women and gay people of either gender. At a second order to everyone, including the people the teachings encourage to be bigots.
We can have and indeed have had discussions about the issues even if you've chosen not to pay attention to them. The Roman Catholic Church loses there. And on contraception, we have shown that the Roman Catholic teachings are downright dishonest in the way they try to confuse contraception with abortion (Trisagion, to his credit when I pushed the point home with links, agreed to go away and rethink and as far as I know has said nothing on the subject since).
We've rebutted the message and the reasoning at every turn. On the issues where I actually care what the Catholic Church does it is an ex message. It is completely refuted. It has joined the choir illogical.
There are literally only two things keeping the Roman Catholic message going despite it being seriously against the public good. Moral authority and inertia. And trying to use the moral authority argument does make the moral character of Catholic priests relevant.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Is seems that historians differ on whether Hitler's ideology was atheist.
In which case it maybe that the pope simply adheres to a historical perspective with which you happen to disagree - rather than 'is lying about Nazis'.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Not a bit of it IngoB: just trying to avoid making things worse rather than better. This thread simply confirms me in my initial observations. It is clear that there is no interest in engaging with the teachings of the Catholic Church or with the beliefs of Catholics by the usual suspects on these boards. If there was, instead of the pathetic knee-jerk reference to the child abuse scandal yoked to crocodile tears and faux-outrage, there would be an attempt to both critique the philosophy and the theology on its own terms, whilst proposing a coherent alternative position.
Right back atcha, Trisagion. If there was any sort of Roman Catholic attempt to engage with the moral reasoning of the world you'd be moving into our territory. Roman Catholic ethics ultimately boil down to an argument from authority, and an argument from an authority no one else accepts.
As for a coherent alternative position, in the cases where I consider Roman Catholic Ethics to be downright harmful, I have done so. A few days ago I laid out an atheist epistemology - and not only managed that I showed how an atheist epistemology leads to morality.
I can and do accept certain questionable premises for the sake of argument. However, under a logical system then a single wrong statement means that you can prove anything you want. As is attributed to Russell, if 1+1=1 then Bertrand Russell was the Pope.
And being deontological and rational rather than consequentialist or utilitarian, Roman Catholic ethics have no significant checks involved in them. If someone is claiming utilitarian ethics I am more than happy to meet them on the field of utilitarian ethics and trade data for data. Deontological ethics that explicitely reject consequentialism have no such check. They may as well have come out of thin air - therefore I can't treat them the same way. I can only hope you are right and attack the entire moral framework when you are obviously wrong.
quote:
I am also sorry that I used the word holocaust in connection with abortion. It was clearly entirely disproportionate of me to carelessly use language that could be taken to suggest an equivalence between the unjustified slaughter of six million Jews, gays, gypsies, communists, handicapped people, Catholic priests and others with the unjustified slaughter of over one hundred million children in the womb across the world in the last forty years or so.
And now I'm going to repeat a plea to you I've made many threads ago.
I don't think as strongly as you do about abortion. I don't believe that a bundle of cells without a brain and without breath is the same as a child. But this doesn't mean I don't regard abortion as a tragedy.
Every time an abortion happens it is because something has gone seriously wrong. It means that someone considers having a child to be more than they can bear. Every. Single. Time. And even a hundred million major medical procedures that should be unnecessary is to me a tragedy.
And to me the truly damning thing about this hundred million figure is that many of the hundred million were preventable. Even if we do nothing about social justice (a subject on which I broadly agree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church), there are four points at which conception can be stopped.
1: The couple can abstain from sex.
2: The couple can have non-procreative sex (oral, anal, infertile part of the cycle cycle, mutual masturbation, etc.)
3: The couple can take precautionary contraception (The Pill, a condom, an IUD, a vasectomy/tubes tied etc.)
4: The woman can take emergency contraception (Plan B, Ella, Emergency IUD).
All four of these, preferably used in order (2 and 3 being about the same level) mean that the tragic need for an abortion is averted as the sperm never meets the egg for conception (or in the case of Ella can't get into the egg once it gets there). And most of category 2 and all of categories 3 and 4 are considered mortal sins by the Roman Catholic Church. Which means that if you aren't strong willed enough to follow the first command, your only hope of avoiding a mortal sin is to do nothing and hope not to get pregnant.
So please, if you care about abortion, on the single point of contraception, break with the official line of the Roman Catholic Church. Make sure that if someone sins through negligence, through weakness, or through their own deliberate fault, there is something they can do to make sure they don't end up pregnant. Like take emergency contraception. Far better for the mother and means there will not be an abortion.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
A few days ago I laid out an atheist epistemology - and not only managed that I showed how an atheist epistemology leads to morality.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I've just now read it.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Is seems that historians differ on whether Hitler's ideology was atheist.
In which case it maybe that the pope simply adheres to a historical perspective with which you happen to disagree - rather than 'is lying about Nazis'.
You're moving the goalposts there. The question isn't what Hitler believed in his heart but what the Nazi party did.
Hitler himself was a political opportunist who professed to be Roman Catholic, and was normally a Roman Catholic in public. And in private was whatever the person he was talking to wanted to hear. Whatever his faith was, it was only skin deep as far as I can tell (which is a world away from him being an atheist). I believe that if there had been political benefit to him to convert then he would have done so. I count Hitler as a Roman Catholic because that's what he professed in public, and because under the way the Roman Catholic Church counts its adherents it would, I believe, count him if he were anyone else - if the RCC wants to stop counting people on the rolls and start counting people who turn up every Sunday that's a different set of numbers. (I also have little doubt that he'd have ticked the 'Roman Catholic' box on the census).
But Adolf Hitler was not Nazi Germany or the Nazi party.
The relevant part of the article is:
quote:
When we look to religion, however, there is little agreement. The three main schools of thought are that the Nazis adhered to neo-paganism, that their ideology itself formed a "political religion" or that they advocated a particular form of Christianity.
Neopagans are not atheists. Period. People following a particular form of Christianity are not atheists. Period. As for a political religion, it was one that certainly wasn't atheist as if it was it wouldn't have been mistakable for Christians or neo-Pagans. (Now it might be possible to argue it was secular).
So as we can see, the Nazi party was clearly not atheist. They never went out of their way to deny that God or Gods existed.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm not having the atheism and Nazism discussion with you again, Justinian - we had that out exhaustively not so long ago, fruitlessly.
But I'd be interetsed to hear what you did mean when you said above: "When His Holiness Benedict XVI, despite having been there dared to try to mendaciously pin atheism on the Nazis"? Naturally, if you meant no slur on the pope's record as a minor in Nazi Germany, I will be glad to hear you say so, and I will apologise. But I don't think I'm entirely paranoid for reading the suggestion of a slur into the above given the context.
I have two points with the bolded part.
The first is that he is a man in a glass house throwing stones. That if he brings up the Nazis then he has only himself to blame for the next round of Hitler Youth Cartoons.
The second is that he was there and he saw what was going on. He should have known better.
It was a statement that was mendacious, ignorant, and politically just plain stupid. It both displayed a tin ear for politics and offered any would be third-rate comics an open goal while bringing him absolutely no benefit.
On the other hand I did not mean to imply that he was ever a more active supporter of Nazi Germany than he by law had to be, although with hindsight I see how it could have been misinterpreted that way.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for a political religion, it was one that certainly wasn't atheist as if it was it wouldn't have been mistakable for Christians or neo-Pagans. (Now it might be possible to argue it was secular).
So as we can see, the Nazi party was clearly not atheist. They never went out of their way to deny that God or Gods existed.
That would be your interpretation - which is my point. The same events are interpreted more than one way - and the pope's interpretation falls in with a reasonably main stream school of historical thought.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The dirty secret that no one likes to mention here on either side is that a lot of the German Atheist and Freethinking organisations were either overtly communist or at a bare minimum full of fellow travellers. (The League of Militant Atheists of course was an outright communist organisation). So most Atheist organisations were swept up in the 1933 Enabling Act as an offshoot of Communist gatherings - with a few organisations with Volkish roots lasting a few more years.
There's the clue there as to the Nazi relationship to atheism.
A RC spiritual guide who worked at the Dachau concentration camp memorial site told me that Hitler was actually paying money each month to his RC church (in Braunau, I think) till his death. This despite the fact that the Nazis forbade the Central party from pursuing things other than "religious" matters (something which contributed to the imprisoning of German RC priests and brothers in Dachau, as well as later of RC priests from Poland). For me the issue is not "was Hitler/the Nazis Roman Catholic?" It's a complicated issue, where one has to take into account fear of communism and the official Nazi policy of defending traditional German values, of which Christianity was one of them (while of course at the same time the Nazis were at the least numbing the political power of Christianity, and at the most killing its priests).
Regarding the RC church in its present day form, I believe that it is natural that individuals feel attacked when the RC church is being attacked. We all have diverse identities, and many of them are shared identities, such as our sex, political beliefs, nationality and indeed confession. Like when a family member gets criticised by someone outside the family, we can at some unconscious level feel attacked ourselves. Part of them is us.
That's not to say that criticism should not happen. Here though I believe that things like sexual abuse become an easy weapon, an emotive weapon at that. It is obviously a bad thing, and is, unlike other human rights abuses one which is more or less universally reviled. There's all manner of mud that can be flung at all of us as a result of the identities we share, such as crimes done by British military. I'm not trying to relativise here, I'm just saying that talk of paedophilia sometimes comes across to me as a chance to show how good we are.
I've more respect for people who deal with people who have been sexually abused (and I know such people) than those who use it as an easy weapon to hit RC's with.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
