Lesser of two evils

[Durandal]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the Catholic Church is willfully exacerbating the AIDS epidemic in Africa by actively stifling efforts to educate the inhabitants about condoms and safe sex.

Granted, lots of protestant denominations have their share of shameful history, but holding back vital information that could help slow the spread of a fatal disease infecting over 35 million people because your Invisible Man told you so trumps preaching hate against non-Christians and subscribing to Biblical inerrancy by quite a long shot.

The Church is clearly the greater evil.

[haas mark]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the Catholic Church is willfully exacerbating the AIDS epidemic in Africa by actively stifling efforts to educate the inhabitants about condoms and safe sex.

Granted, lots of protestant denominations have their share of shameful history, but holding back vital information that could help slow the spread of a fatal disease infecting over 35 million people because your Invisible Man told you so trumps preaching hate against non-Christians and subscribing to Biblical inerrancy by quite a long shot.

The Church is clearly the greater evil.

Thank you, Durandal, for bringing something else out into the open. But are you going to leave us in the dark as far as incriminating things against the Protestant chusrch? Or are you just too involved in hating Catholics that you're too blind to see it?

PS: No offense.

[Durandal]

Thank you, Durandal, for bringing something else out into the open. But are you going to leave us in the dark as far as incriminating things against the Protestant chusrch? Or are you just too involved in hating Catholics that you're too blind to see it?

Don't start with me, verilon. I mentioned in my post that the protestant denominations are the ones that preach hate against non-Christians and subscribe to Biblical inerrancy, the former being a consequence of the latter.

I don't hate Catholics. Most of my family is Catholic, and I love them all. I think that the institution they're a part of is a cretinous plague upon the world, but that's because the people who run it are sexist, bigoted assholes. Individual Catholics aren't any more responsible than American citizens are for Congress' or the president's decisions. And, here's the kicker...

NOWHERE IN MY POST DID I INCRIMINATE ALL CATHOLICS.

Maybe if you brush up on your reading comprehension skills rather than wasting time misrepresenting others' positions, you could grasp this plainly obvious fact.

PS: No offense.

Up yours, you snivelling little shit. Don't think you can just tack on a "no offense" disclaimer and be absolved of the personal ramifications of your statements. You implied that I hate all Catholics because I have serious problems with the institution that they're a part of, which is a patently ridiculous leap in logic. If I say that the American government is a dysfunctional, bigoted state, does that translate to me declaring the same of each individual American citizen? Of course not. Try to grasp these simple concepts before you post this kind of asinine bullshit again.

No offense, indeed. Fuck you.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Nein. Protestants are the greater evil. Which makes a very good camapign slogan for protestant missionaries:

Why accept the lesser of two evils? Become a protestant!

You learn, data_link. There is hope for you yet.

[Sonnenburg]

The issue of Protestantism vs. Catholicism is terribly important, and I feel we should all research it by watching Patriot Games some time in the near future. It not only shows us the implications of inter-faith warfare, but also that our multi-million dollar satellites are being used to look at cleavage from high altitudes. It also gives you Han Solo teamed up with Mace Windu.

[haas mark]

Thank you, Durandal, for bringing something else out into the open. But are you going to leave us in the dark as far as incriminating things against the Protestant chusrch? Or are you just too involved in hating Catholics that you're too blind to see it?

Don't start with me, verilon. I mentioned in my post that the protestant denominations are the ones that preach hate against non-Christians and subscribe to Biblical inerrancy, the former being a consequence of the latter.

Do you also realize that the Protestants are willing to incriminate and bash on Catholics as readily as they would be non-Christians in general? I realize that this is taking it close to fundie-ism, but it's true.

I don't hate Catholics. Most of my family is Catholic, and I love them all. I think that the institution they're a part of is a cretinous plague upon the world,

As you would say of any religion, and you are thereby condemning both your family and mine to a "disease" that we call religion. Don't start preaching to me about the virtues of science and logic because I've heard them from enough people to know what they are. But to say a religion is a disease, a plague, as you have put it, is to say that people are infected by it. I tis not a mental illness, it is a set of belifs. Albeit, a harsh and stupid set of beliefs, but a set of beliefs no less.

but that's because the people who run it are sexist, bigoted assholes.

That may be so, but the fact that they have earned respect in many people's eyes must mean something, especially if some of those people happen to be your family. If you're not going to be there to support them, even if you share different beliefs, how can you truly consider yourself part of the family?

Individual Catholics aren't any more responsible than American citizens are for Congress' or the president's decisions.

Never did I say they were. Not to mention the fact that I am continuously trying to defend the individuals.

And, here's the kicker...

NOWHERE IN MY POST DID I INCRIMINATE ALL CATHOLICS.

Nowhere did I mean to say that you did, and for that I apologize.

Maybe if you brush up on your reading comprehension skills rather than wasting time misrepresenting others' positions, you could grasp this plainly obvious fact.

Again, I apologize for misreading your statement. It was unfair and unjust on my part. Bu tyou must also realize that by posting, you were subject to someone taking it the wrong way, just as byu posting the topic, and even my response, I was subject to your retaliation.

PS: No offense.

Up yours, you snivelling little shit.

Look, I never once brought you as a person into this intentionally. You did that, not me. I didn't attack you intentionally, and even if I had, I still refrained form any foul language. That does not in any way make you respectable in my eyes, if you can't keep your head clear. I know I get pretty hot-headed and stupid sometimes, but you don't see me calling names every chance I get. That is one thing I pride myself on, and one thing I will always pride myself on.

Don't think you can just tack on a "no offense" disclaimer and be absolved of the personal ramifications of your statements.

Did I say I meant to? If so, show me where. I didn't mean to sound as cocky and obnoxious as I did, and the fact that I did is what got you all riled up over this. Now, I'm to going to beg at your shoes for forgiveness, because I don't have to. But you must understand that I wrote that as a serious response, and you really have no right to say what I did or did not intend. But like I said earlier, I deserve it becasue I posted it.

You implied that I hate all Catholics because I have serious problems with the institution that they're a part of, which is a patently ridiculous leap in logic.

Maybe I should have said Cathlicism. My fault for a poor choice of wording.

If I say that the American government is a dysfunctional, bigoted state, does that translate to me declaring the same of each individual American citizen? Of course not. Try to grasp these simple concepts before you post this kind of asinine bullshit again.

Again, language. Again, poor choice of wording on my part.

No offense, indeed. Fuck you.

Since I have reason to, now, I return the sentiment. Fuck you, Durandal, for your blind rage. For failing to see that maybe I messed up unintentionally. For failing to see that MISTAKES DO HAPPEN.

[jegs2]

I'm hesitant to vote in the poll, because I know not enough about Catholsism. I know I'm not a Catholic, and I know they engage in practices with which I disagree (graven images of Christ, too much importance placed on Mary, mother of Jesus, etc.), but I don't know if I'm ready to call them an evil institution. Likely, it depends heavily on which church one refers to -- the Calvary Chapel I attend is more suited to me than other churches and falls more in line with what I believe.

[haas mark]

I'm hesitant to vote in the poll, because I know not enough about Catholsism. I know I'm not a Catholic, and I know they engage in practices with which I disagree (graven images of Christ, too much importance placed on Mary, mother of Jesus, etc.), but I don't know if I'm ready to call them an evil institution. Likely, it depends heavily on which church one refers to -- the Calvary Chapel I attend is more suited to me than other churches and falls more in line with what I believe.

The graven Jesus is to celebrate the Death of Jesus for our sins. Catholics remember that Jesus died for our sins, whereas Protestants prefer after he rose. That is also where Mary comes in, mostly from the Pieta, when Jesus is taken from the cross.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that they're sitting on centuries worth of ill-gotten gains (read: dirty money) from intercontinental conquests but they still have the gall to lecture everyone else about how to live their lives is all you need to know about their moral stature.

The fact that they have never formally apologized for their past crimes against humanity, the fact that they still consider many of the participants in those crimes to be "saints", the fact that they refuse to enact a zero-tolerance rule on Catholic priests who sexually abuse children, the fact that they steadfastly teach everyone they can find in Africa that condoms are evil despite the 17 million already dying from AIDS ... all of these things are merely more testament to the fact that the Catholic Church is rotten to the core.

[Stormbringer]

An honest question: Do you have a problem with all the priests and members of the Roman Catholic Church?

[haas mark]

The fact that they're sitting on centuries worth of ill-gotten gains (read: dirty money) from intercontinental conquests but they still have the gall to lecture everyone else about how to live their lives is all you need to know about their moral stature.

The fact that they have never formally apologized for their past crimes against humanity, the fact that they still consider many of the participants in those crimes to be "saints", the fact that they refuse to enact a zero-tolerance rule on Catholic priests who sexually abuse children, the fact that they steadfastly teach everyone they can find in Africa that condoms are evil despite the 17 million already dying from AIDS ... all of these things are merely more testament to the fact that the Catholic Church is rotten to the core.

True this all, but I wonder, is there anything ANYONE can dig up against the Protestants? I mean, we all look at the present situations, but what about the past? Protestant meaning any form of Christianity (excluding Unitarianism) that is not Catholicism.

So we can then add in everything from exile from Britain into the Americas, and everything the Puritans and whoever else did.

But we also add in Cortes and Coronado in the Southwest.

So really, looking at the religions AS A WHOLE, which is the lesser evil?

I mean, seriously, there have been plenty of things that weigh up to present-day things (maybe) that Protestants have done in the past. I mean, look at how Hitler was not Catholic, and based Christianity as a defense for the Holocaust (of sorts). I am seriously using any and all additions to the fact that possibly Protestantism could possibly be worse. Although, I DO realize that Catholicism is in many ways worse, but also realize that it has been around much longer. But Protestantism is more diverse. Many things to consider, here.

[Darth Wong]

True this all, but I wonder, is there anything ANYONE can dig up against the Protestants?

The problem with the Protestants (in terms of assigning blame) is their fractured nature. Simply put, there is no monolithic Protestant Church. There are bazillions of individual churches, each with their own set of rules, doctrines, etc. So you really can't make any kind of statement about the Protestant Church the way you can about the Catholic Church, which has a single headquarters, a cohesive hierarchy, a history, etc.

I mean, seriously, there have been plenty of things that weigh up to present-day things (maybe) that Protestants have done in the past. I mean, look at how Hitler was not Catholic, and based Christianity as a defense for the Holocaust (of sorts).

Actually, Hitler was Catholic. And he was never excommunicated for his crimes against humanity. If you go to my creationism website, you'll see a picture of a Catholic bishop warmly greeting Hitler on his birthday, on the personal instructions of the Pope.

I am seriously using any and all additions to the fact that possibly Protestantism could possibly be worse. Although, I DO realize that Catholicism is in many ways worse, but also realize that it has been around much longer. But Protestantism is more diverse. Many things to consider, here.

Protestantism has many of the same flaws. However, it is not a monolithic entity, so criticism becomes quite difficult. Moreover, it does not persistently glorify its own shady past, the way Catholicism does with its "Sainthood" designations.

[haas mark]

True this all, but I wonder, is there anything ANYONE can dig up against the Protestants?

The problem with the Protestants (in terms of assigning blame) is their fractured nature. Simply put, there is no monolithic Protestant Church. There are bazillions of individual churches, each with their own set of rules, doctrines, etc. So you really can't make any kind of statement about the Protestant Church the way you can about the Catholic Church, which has a single headquarters, a cohesive hierarchy, a history, etc.

True, that does make things a bit harder.

I mean, seriously, there have been plenty of things that weigh up to present-day things (maybe) that Protestants have done in the past. I mean, look at how Hitler was not Catholic, and based Christianity as a defense for the Holocaust (of sorts).

Actually, Hitler was Catholic. And he was never excommunicated for his crimes against humanity. If you go to my creationism website, you'll see a picture of a Catholic bishop warmly greeting Hitler on his birthday, on the personal instructions of the Pope.

Could have SWORN he was Protestant....on to the KKK...

I am seriously using any and all additions to the fact that possibly Protestantism could possibly be worse. Although, I DO realize that Catholicism is in many ways worse, but also realize that it has been around much longer. But Protestantism is more diverse. Many things to consider, here.

Protestantism has many of the same flaws. However, it is not a monolithic entity, so criticism becomes quite difficult. Moreover, it does not persistently glorify its own shady past, the way Catholicism does with its "Sainthood" designations.

True, true, but it is still possible (although not likely, as you have very well pointed out to me) that Protestantism is worse. But all I can say in response to a shady past is that it can always be brought to light, as the scandal involving priests was.

[Durandal]

Do you also realize that the Protestants are willing to incriminate and bash on Catholics as readily as they would be non-Christians in general? I realize that this is taking it close to fundie-ism, but it's true.

Yes, but what does that have to do with the evil of the Church as compared to protestants?

As you would say of any religion, and you are thereby condemning both your family and mine to a "disease" that we call religion. Don't start preaching to me about the virtues of science and logic because I've heard them from enough people to know what they are. But to say a religion is a disease, a plague, as you have put it, is to say that people are infected by it. I tis not a mental illness, it is a set of belifs. Albeit, a harsh and stupid set of beliefs, but a set of beliefs no less.

I said that the Catholic Church was a cretinous plague, and I stand by that statement. Stop with your strawman bullshit, already.

That may be so, but the fact that they have earned respect in many people's eyes must mean something, especially if some of those people happen to be your family. If you're not going to be there to support them, even if you share different beliefs, how can you truly consider yourself part of the family?

What, so I should poll my family before I dare point out the Catholic Church's blatant evils and the fact that it has been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths throughout its existence?

As for not sharing their beliefs, that's too bad. We love each other because we're blood, not because we're all Catholic. There's more to familial bonding than subjective beliefs in invisible men based entirely on hearsay and subjectivism. I've got some Jewish members of my family, and they certainly don't share the Catholic belief system. Is it so hard for you to believe that people can love each other and accept one another without agreeing on which invisible man rules the heavens?

Never did I say they were. Not to mention the fact that I am continuously trying to defend the individuals.

Then you've got a knee-jerk reaction.

Nowhere did I mean to say that you did, and for that I apologize.

Fine.

Again, I apologize for misreading your statement. It was unfair and unjust on my part. Bu tyou must also realize that by posting, you were subject to someone taking it the wrong way, just as byu posting the topic, and even my response, I was subject to your retaliation.

Don't dance around the fact that you read plainly obvious statements incorrectly. Of course by posting I'm opening my words up to misinterpretation, but what the Hell does that have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't vindicate misrepresentations of my stance.

Look, I never once brought you as a person into this intentionally.

Read what you wrote again:

Or are you just too involved in hating Catholics that you're too blind to see it?

You don't accuse someone of unjustly hating an entire group of people (many of whom are members of his family) and not mean it as a personal attack.

You did that, not me. I didn't attack you intentionally, and even if I had, I still refrained form any foul language.

Red herring. Any reasonable observer could see that your words were fashioned in such a way that they were a personal attack, and you can't blame me for taking them as such. Refraining from foul language is immaterial.

That does not in any way make you respectable in my eyes, if you can't keep your head clear. I know I get pretty hot-headed and stupid sometimes, but you don't see me calling names every chance I get. That is one thing I pride myself on, and one thing I will always pride myself on.

So I called you names after you accused me of being a bigot against Catholics and blatantly misrepresenting my stance. Deal with it.

Did I say I meant to? If so, show me where. I didn't mean to sound as cocky and obnoxious as I did, and the fact that I did is what got you all riled up over this. Now, I'm to going to beg at your shoes for forgiveness, because I don't have to. But you must understand that I wrote that as a serious response, and you really have no right to say what I did or did not intend. But like I said earlier, I deserve it becasue I posted it.

You didn't deserve anything by simple virtue of the fact that you wrote a post. You deserved it because you didn't bother to get my position straight before accusing me of hating each, individual Catholic and then tacked on a "no offense" disclaimer, as if that would make everything better. I don't buy it, and I stand by my insulting statements, especially in light of the fact that you accused me of saying that all religion was bad, even though it was blatantly obvious that I only said those things about the institution of the Catholic Church. You deserved them by virtue of the fact that you don't consider it important to properly analyze your opponent's statements before attacking his arguments.

Maybe I should have said Cathlicism. My fault for a poor choice of wording.

Yes, it was.

Since I have reason to, now, I return the sentiment. Fuck you, Durandal, for your blind rage. For failing to see that maybe I messed up unintentionally. For failing to see that MISTAKES DO HAPPEN.

It's not hard to make the distinction between an organization's actions and those of its members, especially in the case of the Catholic Church, where its laypeople members have almost no say in the edicts passed by the Pope, as he is supposed to be the voice of God. Try to make this distinction in the future.

[haas mark]

Yes, but what does that have to do with the evil of the Church as compared to protestants?

They do the same thing both ways, as I realized just now.

I said that the Catholic Church was a cretinous plague, and I stand by that statement. Stop with your strawman bullshit, already.

A touchy one, aren't we? By calling the Church a plague, how are you to not infer the religion? Anybody actively involved in the Church must be involved in the religion. Thusly, any religion applies.

What, so I should poll my family before I dare point out the Catholic Church's blatant evils and the fact that it has been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths throughout its existence?

Did I say you should? Stop making assumptions. I personally wouldn't dare, for fear of being thrown across the room, but that's my family. I have no idea how your family works, and I frankly dont' care because thats not my business.

As for not sharing their beliefs, that's too bad. We love each other because we're blood, not because we're all Catholic. There's more to familial bonding than subjective beliefs in invisible men based entirely on hearsay and subjectivism. I've got some Jewish members of my family, and they certainly don't share the Catholic belief system. Is it so hard for you to believe that people can love each other and accept one another without agreeing on which invisible man rules the heavens?

It is because you are so blatantly intolerant that I ask.

Don't dance around the fact that you read plainly obvious statements incorrectly.

I'm not. I admitted it, crystal clear. I misread what you wrote. But you of all people should know that someone might misread it.

Of course by posting I'm opening my words up to misinterpretation, but what the Hell does that have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't vindicate misrepresentations of my stance.

I'm not trying to be vindictive.

Look, I never once brought you as a person into this intentionally.

Read what I wrote again. Read the last word. Slowly and carefully. Try again.

You don't accuse someone of unjustly hating an entire group of people (many of whom are members of his family) and not mean it as a personal attack.

Out of blind anger, people do stupid things.

Red herring. Any reasonable observer could see that your words were fashioned in such a way that they were a personal attack, and you can't blame me for taking them as such. Refraining from foul language is immaterial.

I will no longer apologize for what I said, but I will admit to doing so.

As far as the language, to you, it is immaterial. I see debating in a rational sense as something respect-worthy. Maybe you don't. So be it.

So I called you names after you accused me of being a bigot against Catholics and blatantly misrepresenting my stance. Deal with it.

After I apologized for doing so. And I have a different idea of respect than you do. Deal with that. Or maybe I'm supposed to share your views? I think not.

It's not hard to make the distinction between an organization's actions and those of its members, especially in the case of the Catholic Church, where its laypeople members have almost no say in the edicts passed by the Pope, as he is supposed to be the voice of God. Try to make this distinction in the future.

I know this distinction. Why do you accuse me of lumping them all together? I never have, and never will. I know the heirarchy of Catholicism as well as you do, and I have no reason to treat laypeople as equals to the Pope. I know he is supposedly infallible. But I never once said he was, and never will. Again, quit making assumptions of what you do not know (that I know).

And with that, I bid you good night, as I have not slept in a day and a half and I actually have the chance to.

[pecker]

Hitler was a non-practicing Catholic who later scorned the Christian religion, and pretty much all 'mainstream' religion. Call him Catholic if you want.

Actually, the Pope is only considered speaking the complete and utter truth of God when he speak ex cathedra, or something like that. Anyway, it has been used only twice, and in the declaration of holy days.

[Darth Wong]

Hitler was a non-practicing Catholic who later scorned the Christian religion, and pretty much all 'mainstream' religion. Call him Catholic if you want.

No. That is a post-war revisionist history invented by American propagandists and based primarily on two uncorroborated hearsay sources (Rauschning's "Voice of Destruction" and Bormann's "Table Talk") which have both been totally discredited since then. It has since become "common knowledge", which is to say "urban legend".

Actually, the Pope is only considered speaking the complete and utter truth of God when he speak ex cathedra, or something like that. Anyway, it has been used only twice, and in the declaration of holy days.

Yes, everyone always points out that the Pope is only considered infallible under certain conditions. How does this exclusion make it any less idiotic? And why aren't the warmongering "Saints" of the Crusade era de-Sainted?

[pecker]

Hitler was a non-practicing Catholic who later scorned the Christian religion, and pretty much all 'mainstream' religion. Call him Catholic if you want.

No. That is a post-war revisionist history invented by American propagandists and based primarily on two uncorroborated hearsay sources (Rauschning's "Voice of Destruction" and Bormann's "Table Talk") which have both been totally discredited since then. It has since become "common knowledge", which is to say "urban legend".

Actually, the Pope is only considered speaking the complete and utter truth of God when he speak ex cathedra, or something like that. Anyway, it has been used only twice, and in the declaration of holy days.

Yes, everyone always points out that the Pope is only considered infallible under certain conditions. How does this exclusion make it any less idiotic? And why aren't the warmongering "Saints" of the Crusade era de-Sainted?

I'm no history major, so I'll take your word on that. I have heard that Catholics were sent to the concentration camps as well, but I'll assume you've done in-depth research on this. It is still a matter of opinion, though, if a genocidal megalomaniac can be considered a practicing Catholic (and before you say it, this is in terms of the ideal. Not many Catholics act Catholic, Crusades and pedophilic Priests included.)

AS for the second part, I didn't mean to say that it isn't stupid. However, the reason most Catholics aren't outraged and up in arms is apathy. If the Pope started making declarations left and right, people would be a little more inclined to act. But right now, he's pretty much a geriatric who goes on goodwill tours every now and then.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Yes, everyone always points out that the Pope is only considered infallible under certain conditions. How does this exclusion make it any less idiotic? And why aren't the warmongering "Saints" of the Crusade era de-Sainted?

Wasn't Saint Christopher de-sainted. (I know there's a proper term for that, I just don't feel like looking it up.) So it can be done.

BTW, anyone know why Saint Christopher was de-sainted?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Except the Orthodox and the Gnoztic Christians

Their split was long before the Reformation.

Also the Gnostics are much more liberal then the Rest of the sects.

THe Greek Orthodox are fairly Cool too.

Also I don't understand is the poll which is the lesser or worse of evils?

[Vympel]

I'm no history major, so I'll take your word on that. I have heard that Catholics were sent to the concentration camps as well, but I'll assume you've done in-depth research on this. It is still a matter of opinion, though, if a genocidal megalomaniac can be considered a practicing Catholic (and before you say it, this is in terms of the ideal. Not many Catholics act Catholic, Crusades and pedophilic Priests included.)

Of course he sent people who were Christian to concentration camps. Does this mean he sent them there because they were Christian? No. They were sent there for opposing the State. The 'argument' that Hitler wasn't really Christian/Catholic because he didn't observe every silly little religious ritual is a stupid one (I'm not saying you're making it, just a lot of people do)- by that standard, hardly anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

Many genocidal maniancs were praticing Catholics. Like every Crusader who declared sanctimoniusly to 'kill em all because God will know his own".

[Durandal]

A touchy one, aren't we? By calling the Church a plague, how are you to not infer the religion? Anybody actively involved in the Church must be involved in the religion. Thusly, any religion applies.

Blatant inductive fallacy with enormous leaps in logic. I've explained to you this distinction before, and the fact that you still can't grasp it makes my earlier comments toward you fully deserved.

Did I say you should? Stop making assumptions. I personally wouldn't dare, for fear of being thrown across the room, but that's my family. I have no idea how your family works, and I frankly dont' care because thats not my business.

Then why did you bring it up by implying that I couldn't call myself a part of my own family because I don't share their religious beliefs?

It is because you are so blatantly intolerant that I ask.

Bullshit. I have good reason to say the things about the Church that I say. It's you who is introducing a horrendously obvious inductive fallacy and assuming that I hate all Catholics because I think the organization itself is corrupt and does more harm than good.

I'm not. I admitted it, crystal clear. I misread what you wrote. But you of all people should know that someone might misread it.

I don't see why you keep bringing this up. It doesn't justify your misintepretations in any way.

As far as the language, to you, it is immaterial. I see debating in a rational sense as something respect-worthy. Maybe you don't. So be it.

Rational debate is making rational points and counterpoints. How those points are presented is immaterial to their actual content. It's called the "style over substance" fallacy. Get acquainted with it.

I know this distinction. Why do you accuse me of lumping them all together? I never have, and never will. I know the heirarchy of Catholicism as well as you do, and I have no reason to treat laypeople as equals to the Pope. I know he is supposedly infallible. But I never once said he was, and never will. Again, quit making assumptions of what you do not know (that I know).

Because you accused me (and continue to do so) of hating all Catholics when my comments only applied to the institution! By definition, you must be lumping them together!

[Connor MacLeod]

Its not a matter of what the religion is, its a matter of how extreme they are. And if you're a logical bugger like Mike, how irrationally they are.

[haas mark]

A touchy one, aren't we? By calling the Church a plague, how are you to not infer the religion? Anybody actively involved in the Church must be involved in the religion. Thusly, any religion applies.

Blatant inductive fallacy with enormous leaps in logic. I've explained to you this distinction before, and the fact that you still can't grasp it makes my earlier comments toward you fully deserved.

You have yet to show me how it is a leap in logic. Aplague infects people does it not?

Did I say you should? Stop making assumptions. I personally wouldn't dare, for fear of being thrown across the room, but that's my family. I have no idea how your family works, and I frankly dont' care because thats not my business.

Then why did you bring it up by implying that I couldn't call myself a part of my own family because I don't share their religious beliefs?

Not what I asked. I asked how you could consider it if you did not support them. Try reading it next time.

It is because you are so blatantly intolerant that I ask.

Bullshit.

You're not intolerant of the Church?

I have good reason to say the things about the Church that I say.

I know that. Have i ever said you didn't? I don't remember doing so, but if you can pull up something, then I recant.

It's you who is introducing a horrendously obvious inductive fallacy and assuming that I hate all Catholics

No, I'm not. You hate the institution, BUT you have to hate at least some of the poeple involved in it to do so.

because I think the organization itself is corrupt and does more harm than good.

But you admit that it does some good. And considering that it did a lot of that good before Protestantism came about, then that does redeem Catholicism in some ways.

I'm not. I admitted it, crystal clear. I misread what you wrote. But you of all people should know that someone might misread it.

I don't see why you keep bringing this up. It doesn't justify your misintepretations in any way.

And how the fuck does one justify misinterpretation!?

As far as the language, to you, it is immaterial. I see debating in a rational sense as something respect-worthy. Maybe you don't. So be it.

Rational debate is making rational points and counterpoints. How those points are presented is immaterial to their actual content. It's called the "style over substance" fallacy. Get acquainted with it.

You're not stepping outside your comfort zone. How is saying 'Fuck you' considered a point or counterpoint? That is what I am trying to get across.

I know this distinction. Why do you accuse me of lumping them all together? I never have, and never will. I know the heirarchy of Catholicism as well as you do, and I have no reason to treat laypeople as equals to the Pope. I know he is supposedly infallible. But I never once said he was, and never will. Again, quit making assumptions of what you do not know (that I know).

Because you accused me (and continue to do so) of hating all Catholics when my comments only applied to the institution!

I am not, and you know it. I have never once said that you did and not recanted it. Meaning, I KNOW that you don't hate Catholics. I don't hat any, because I lack the capability to outright hate very many people.

By definition, you must be lumping them together!

I 'must' be lumping them together. Right.[/i]

[Durandal]

You have yet to show me how it is a leap in logic. Aplague infects people does it not?

See my previous American government example. You're resorting to wordplay. I said "plague" as reference to it being a bad thing, not in the literal meaning.

Not what I asked. I asked how you could consider it if you did not support them. Try reading it next time.

Which implies that you don't think it's possible. For fuck's sake, do you think about anything before you write it?

You're not intolerant of the Church?

You can't be intolerant about an organization. I simply don't like the Catholic Church. Is this so hard for you to grasp?

I know that. Have i ever said you didn't? I don't remember doing so, but if you can pull up something, then I recant.

You accused me of unjustly hating all Catholics, which means that I don't have a reason to not like the Church.

No, I'm not. You hate the institution, BUT you have to hate at least some of the poeple involved in it to do so.

Of course. I certainly don't like the Pope; I think he's a retard with delusions of grandeur. Is this what you've hoped to prove? That I hate some Catholics?

But you admit that it does some good. And considering that it did a lot of that good before Protestantism came about, then that does redeem Catholicism in some ways.

Not by a long shot. The Church is responsible for unheard-of amounts of cultural genocide and countless millions of deaths, and it still stakes its own beliefs as higher priorities than human life.

You're not stepping outside your comfort zone. How is saying 'Fuck you' considered a point or counterpoint? That is what I am trying to get across.

You focused on the fact that I said "Fuck you," rather than any of my actual rebuttals to your arguments. That is style over substance.

I am not, and you know it. I have never once said that you did and not recanted it. Meaning, I KNOW that you don't hate Catholics. I don't hat any, because I lack the capability to outright hate very many people.

Then why are you dragging this out? Because I was rude? Why do you persist in arguing that I must have Catholics based on my use of the word "plague" to describe the Church?