Debating a theologian

[Tolya]

I've just started a small debate on christianity on one of the polish forums. If something interesting pops up, I'll translate or summarize here.

The whole thing started with someone asking a question about the ethics behind the actions of the catholic church. You know, pedo priests, hiding scandals, that sort of thing. I made a point that one should like at the fundaments of christian religion to find justification of the hypocritical "morality" of today's church... When asked to explain, I went on about how horrible the Bible is and what immoral acts that book promotes.

The problem is, right now I think he is just stalling. He has claimed to be a theologian, still, after his 2 posts, in which he only made general comments on my arguments.

I've heavily criticized the Bible, for which he only made a general comment "I suggest you learn something on the history of literature". Smells awfully of Ad personam attack, but I let this one go. After I demanded that he makes a specific argument, he just replied, that he "requires his opponents to show some humility".

I did not call him a douchebag (yet), but am I wrong in demanding a specific argument or counter argument from him? Or is it common for theologians to stall a debate on some totally unrelated matter? What type of arguments and behaviour can I expect from him?

I can only guess that here this guy would fly off with a VI title quite fast, but since that forum is a "civilized" one, where you cannot call an idiot an idiot without consequences.

[General Zod]

He's throwing out red herrings and expecting you to do the work for him because he knows he doesn't have any valid arguments, is my guess.

[Tolya]

He's throwing out red herrings and expecting you to do the work for him because he knows he doesn't have any valid arguments, is my guess.

Well... I did call him lazy for making general comments and avoiding any specific arguments which actually can be debated... thats when he demanded "some humility".

[Darth Wong]

He's throwing out red herrings and expecting you to do the work for him because he knows he doesn't have any valid arguments, is my guess.

Well... I did call him lazy for making general comments and avoiding any specific arguments which actually can be debated... thats when he demanded "some humility".

This from someone who claims his knowledge is so superior that he doesn't need to explain anything he says? Or does Mr. Humility feel that you are so stupid that he need not deign to explain anything to you, other than to suggest that you are not worthy to receive the pearls of wisdom from His Holiness?

[Tolya]

Ookay...

Now he demanded I present specific arguments, backed with scientific evidence & all.

I asked him why do I need anyone's support on criticizing a book I actually read...

[Ted C]

Ookay...

Now he demanded I present specific arguments, backed with scientific evidence & all.

I asked him why do I need anyone's support on criticizing a book I actually read...

He's demanding specific arguments from you when he can't be bothered to produce any himself. Call "hypocrite" from the rooftops!

[Darth Wong]

Ookay...

Now he demanded I present specific arguments, backed with scientific evidence & all.

I asked him why do I need anyone's support on criticizing a book I actually read...

You might as well ask him which parts of science he rejects right now, because I think we all know where this is going. What's the point of presenting scientific evidence to him when he rejects the scientific method? We all know he's going to claim that any of the scientific absurdities in the Bible aren't really absurdities because they can't be disproven once you assume that God can do the impossible, and we know that he will ignore the fact that this flies in the face of any kind of scientific approach.

This guy is obviously a lying sack of shit. At every turn, he demands an ever higher standard from you, while meeting no standard at all himself.

[DPDarkPrimus]

If he keeps playing the theologian card, then your course is pretty clear - he's gonna have to show he's actually a theologian.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Is the debate/board in a non-english language or private in some way? I'd sort of like to read it to get an idea what exactly you've said or how they're responding.

At any rate, why not try to actually out-polite him? Show him undeserved humility while pointing out his ignorance? You won't win him over that way, but you may well win over the crowd. Something like this:



"I'm sorry; I really did not mean to offend you. I understand that as a learned theologian, you've most likely studied religion in general and christianity in specific more than I have. I can see how talking to one such as as myself might really be a test of your patience.

Let me try to clarify what I was saying earlier, and then maybe we can go from there and I can learn from you a little better? In the Old Testament, we hear the story of how a prophet of god got drunk, and then proceeded to have sex with his daughter. Not just once, but twice - with each of his daughters. Now, the way I've understood religion - and forgive me if this is wrong - you're supposed to learn from the prophets, since god gave them his knowledge, right?

Well all I was saying is if in the bible (granted, it's the old testament - i don't know if that's really officially a part of the bible or not, but for some reason my copy includes it) religious men like prophets were having intercourse with their young daughters, then why should bishops and priests in the catholic church learn a different lesson?

If you could clarify that, I'd be very glad to see how - but please don't feel pressured or anything, I can understand that being an expert in the field discussing it can be kind of hard."



All the excess politeness and apology isn't *technically* dishonest. It's style with substance, instead of style over substance. And depending on the board culture, it's far more likely to win you the debate, or help you paint that guy to be an idiot.

-AHMAD

[PeZook]

Frankly, citing specific examples of incredibly amoral behavior from the Bible isn't hard at all.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

Here ya go

http://www.biblia.org.pl/

Internet bible in Polish

[Tolya]

Discussion is in polish, but I will try to provide summaries or even translations, if something interesting pops up.

[Tolya]

Lol, latest gem of his:

Kościół nie musi kryć takich ludzi. Prawda prędzej czy później wyjdzie na jaw. Ale dlaczego takich księży (czy kogokolwiek innego) miałoby zobowiązywać się dzisiaj do publicznego wyznania grzechów? Mają zamienić się w średniowiecznych pokutników? Czy Ty lub ja wyznaję publicznie swoje grzechy? Czy w ogóle ktokolwiek chciałby to dzisiaj czynić?
Myślę, że krytyka Kościoła jako krytyka wspólnoty księży nie jest właściwą krytyką. W Kościele hierarchia, duchowieństwo nie są najważniejsze (całe szczęście Kto tego nie zrozumie, prędzej czy później z Kościoła odejdzie.

Translation:

The Church does not have to cover such people [sinful priests]. The truth will sooner or later come out. But why should be make those priests (or anybody else) to publicly declare their sins? Should they turn into medieval penitents? Do You or I publicly declare their sins? Does anyone would want to do it today? I think that criticizing the Church as criticizing the community of priests is not a proper critique. In the catholic Church, it is not the hierarchy or the priesthood that is most important Who won't understand that, sooner or later will leave the Church

I will leave comments to you (let the bashing begin), I need to compile my reply.

Im sorry, it may seem a bit torn out of context, but please do not make me translate the whole topic

If you guys are really interested then you can try google translate, but it is difficult to make anything out of it without some basic knowledge of polish:

linky

[DPDarkPrimus]

So what he's saying is if you know somebody is a child molester it's cool not to say anything about it.

[PeZook]

The problem is that the priests aren't made to confess their sins in public. I don't care if a priest fucked a prostitute up the ass while taking the Lord's name in vain.

The problem is that priests are covered when they engage in criminal behavior and some people don't expect it's reasonable to arrest and prosecute them like any other criminal scum.

[PeZook]

Damn, it should be "The problem isn't that..."

[Tiriol]

Are you certain that he actually is a theologian, as DPDarkPrimus already asked? Usually it is universities that give out such credentials (Bachelor of Theology etc.) so it shouldn't be too hard for him to prove his claims about his education.

[Rye]

It doesn't really matter if they're a theologian anyway. I know someone doing a theology degree, it's basically philosophy with a lot more focus on tradition and the like from what I can tell. It all falls down around the same epistemological and moral issues, anyway. Now, while making catholic clergy expose their consistent hypocrisy is always good fun, it is not the point, as PeZook said. The point is forcing justice upon them for committing paedophilic crimes and aiding and abetting paedophiles.

And yes, since the church is a hierarchy, critiquing that hierarchy is important to critiquing the institution. The flock can be critiqued too, but the hypocrites telling them how to live while fucking their kids in secret are more vile.

[PeZook]

Heh...now he equates child molestation with a "Mistake", arguing that since everyday people are not forced to confess their mistakes in public, child-molesting priests shouldn't be, either.

Guess what would happen if I was to molest a child? The police would've fucking tasered me, dragged me to court and I would be forced to confess my crime before the judge (or deny everything, of course, but then they'd do DNA tests and I'd get convicted and my name would be all splattered all over the media anyway)

[Darth Wong]

The Church does not have to cover such people [sinful priests]. The truth will sooner or later come out. But why should be make those priests (or anybody else) to publicly declare their sins?

Actually, if you know someone has committed serious crimes, particularly crimes of violence and/or rape, then you have an ethical obligation to inform the public. It's not about the priests themselves being forced to confess publicly; it's about the church going to the authorities and informing them. This idea that they can "keep it in-house" is bullshit; it is no more ethically acceptable than a family protecting their patriarch while he rapes neighbourhood children.

[Themightytom]

The Church does not have to cover such people [sinful priests]. The truth will sooner or later come out. But why should be make those priests (or anybody else) to publicly declare their sins? Should they turn into medieval penitents? Do You or I publicly declare their sins? Does anyone would want to do it today? I think that criticizing the Church as criticizing the community of priests is not a proper critique. In the catholic Church, it is not the hierarchy or the priesthood that is most important Who won't understand that, sooner or later will leave the Church

I don't know if its the translation or the author, but this argument links several issues together. Crime vs Sin, judgement vs tolerance Democracy vs Theocracy etc. A good theologian would be able to pick apart the mroal issues and address them seperately. he sounds like an amateur hack.

hell if he's on a chat board making these points rather then in a more formal forum he probably iIS a hack.

its all well and good for the church to say "Sin is our department we are handling it", but these are also crimes, and even jesus said "render unto caesar what is caesar's". We are not publicly declaring sins, we are publicly declaring crimes.

The Chruch can certainly be criticized for being inneffective in dealing with documented abuses.

[Tolya]

It all starts to come out.

I do not believe he is a theologian. He is an idiot.

I debated some catholic priests on some similar issues and they were A LOT more confident and presented arguments that made much more sense.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Heh...now he equates child molestation with a "Mistake", arguing that since everyday people are not forced to confess their mistakes in public, child-molesting priests shouldn't be, either.

Guess what would happen if I was to molest a child? The police would've fucking tasered me, dragged me to court and I would be forced to confess my crime before the judge (or deny everything, of course, but then they'd do DNA tests and I'd get convicted and my name would be all splattered all over the media anyway)

Even if you were falsely accused of molesting a child, you'd get your name and face splattered over the media.

[CaptainZoidberg]

I do not believe he is a theologian. He is an idiot.

Did you ask for a diploma scan? That could embarrass him pretty quickly.

[Keevan_Colton]

I do not believe he is a theologian. He is an idiot.

Did you ask for a diploma scan? That could embarrass him pretty quickly.

In my book theologian is just a longer word for idiot. It's the careful study of absurdity and nonsense...in order to start down a serious investigation of that you have suspend disbelief so high Lynch himself would be aghast.

[General Zod]

Call him on his bullshit. I guarantee if someone fucked him in the ass without his consent he'd be screaming bloody murder and demand that the person who probed his asshole get thrown in prison.