pope plots homophobia

[Illuminatus Primus]

Frankly, its like me telling a black man what being black is like.

What kind of a rebuttal is that? How is anything Mike said not a legitimate critique of the Roman Catholic organization? It promotes many immoral, backward, intolerant and socially harmful messages on to its members. And as we see with the girl in Guatemala, ruthlessly ostracizes them for dissention.

And don't tell me more of what you said to Mike. I was a Catholic.

I was thinking more along the lines of you intruding into my belief system and telling me its wrong and that I should change

Perhaps more evangelical than fundie.

I don't like my current Pope.

The previous one was even worse.

The entire institution of the papacy should be abolished as an affront to human civilization. However, that will never happen. The world has hundreds of millions of Catholic sheep willing to defend and uphold this ridiculous archaic institution of an anointed "Holy See" or whatever the hell they call him now. And it doesn't matter how many pedophiles his organization shelters and protects.

Wow, that was just a personal exhortation that you're evil for being Catholic and you personally should reject it.

The fact that millions of Catholics openly disagree with (and in some cases are downright ashamed of, given the checkered history of papal announcements) the papacy maybe should be a hint of a fucking clue that the Pope isn't exactly doing a lot of damage.

Western Egocentricism. The Catholic Church in Latin America, Africa, and much of the Third World is still the backward, socially retarding cache of ideologues. While you and many other Catholics remain Catholic while regarding its very dogma absurd (why these individuals are still Catholic, who knows), what that have to do with all the fanaticism elsewhere. Hell, in Africa they're back to witchcraft accusations.

At any rate, to have a single united church one really needs a figurehead to look to. Saying that many past popes have been bad does not mean that the papacy is bad, unless Dubya makes the idea of a presidency bad.

Dubya doesn't dictate morality and commands to the entire national populace. And the Papacy spreads negative ideology to places like Africa and South America, retarding social progress and aggrivating superstition and delaying modernization and AIDS control.

Are you really attempting to argue the Papacy is good? Or that the Catholic poor-as-shit fundies in other countries don't believe all the bull about the Vicar of Christ?

[Howedar]

Frankly, its like me telling a black man what being black is like.

What kind of a rebuttal is that?

Its not. I know from experience that all that will come from this is me and Mike flaming each other on our own personal opinions, and absolutely nothing will come of it.

[StarshipTitanic]

On the other hand, as I have begun to study history and particularily medieval history, I have come to have a tremendous respect for the Catholic Church. As the 2000 year old defender and advocate of the Christian faith, as an organization that preserved and increased knowledge, as an organization that has done tremendous good in places.

You forgot that it was the Greeks (and their influence) who actually did anything with this.

And with Catholicism alone bigger than any other religion in the world, the Papacy isn't going to go away anytime soon.

There are more Muslims than Catholics, actually.

[Darth Wong]

I know from experience that all that will come from this is me and Mike flaming each other on our own personal opinions, and absolutely nothing will come of it.

As usual, you simply dismiss everything I say as mere opinion. Your universal debate rebuttal-reflex kicking in again, I see.

Do you deny that the institution of the papacy and the concept of papal inerrancy exemplifies the fallacious appeal to authority? And do you deny the harm wrought by this institution throughout history and to the present day?

[StarshipTitanic]

the concept of papal inerrancy

Papal infallability only means that the Pope is the last word in Bible interpretation, from what I've been able to find. Naturally, many Catholics just ignore that.

[Darth Wong]

the concept of papal inerrancy

Papal infallability only means that the Pope is the last word in Bible interpretation, from what I've been able to find. Naturally, many Catholics just ignore that.

It's still an "appeal to authority" fallacy. And while that may be the excuse used to justify appealing to the authority of a man whose position has been the source of unspeakable horrors in the past, it doesn't change much when the Pope uses "Bible interpretation" as the flimsy basis for all manner of pronouncements on subjects such as abortion or birth control that are never explicitly addressed there.

In other words, "Bible interpretation" is not much of a limitation on a Pope's authority to pronounce dogma when the Bible can be interpreted to speak on virtually any subject.

[StarshipTitanic]

the concept of papal inerrancy

Papal infallability only means that the Pope is the last word in Bible interpretation, from what I've been able to find. Naturally, many Catholics just ignore that.

It's still an "appeal to authority" fallacy. And while that may be the excuse used to justify appealing to the authority of a man whose position has been the source of unspeakable horrors in the past, it doesn't change much when the Pope uses "Bible interpretation" as the flimsy basis for all manner of pronouncements on subjects such as abortion or birth control that are never explicitly addressed there.

Oh I know that, I just wanted to clarify it but read below...

In other words, "Bible interpretation" is not much of a limitation on a Pope's authority to pronounce dogma when the Bible can be interpreted to speak on virtually any subject.

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. That's absolutely true.

[Howedar]

As usual, you simply dismiss everything I say as mere opinion. Your universal debate rebuttal-reflex kicking in again, I see.

Yes, of course, thats what I always do in all of my other debates

Golly Mike, I only claim that everything is opinion in the debates that are (gasp) based on opinion!

Do you deny that the institution of the papacy and the concept of papal inerrancy exemplifies the fallacious appeal to authority?

No. I deny that this is any of your business to tell Catholics that they can't follow whoever they damn well please.

And do you deny the harm wrought by this institution throughout history and to the present day?

I do not deny that the papacy has done damage through history, but I do deny that it continues to do much of anything, good or bad.

Because nobody but Fred's dog actually listens to the Pope.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Is there a powertool strong enough to get it through Howedar's skull that some people's opinions (Mike's) are worth more than others (his) because they actually make sense. Despite what everyone's sixth grade teacher said, not all opinions are equal, especially not ones born of ignorance and blind devotion rather than evidence and logic.

[Howedar]

Is there a powertool strong enough to get it through Howedar's skull that some people's opinions (Mike's) are worth more than others (his) because they actually make sense.

Actually, I'd say that my opinion on internal matters of the Roman Catholic Church, being Catholic and all, are worth rather more than an atheist's views on an institution that he has nothing to do with.

Despite what everyone's sixth grade teacher said, not all opinions are equal, especially not ones born of ignorance and blind devotion rather than evidence and logic.

Blind devotion? Hah!
Ignorance? What have I ignored?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Is there a powertool strong enough to get it through Howedar's skull that some people's opinions (Mike's) are worth more than others (his) because they actually make sense.

Actually, I'd say that my opinion on internal matters of the Roman Catholic Church, being Catholic and all, are worth rather more than an atheist's views on an institution that he has nothing to do with.

[/quote]
Appealing to self authority, I see. Nice.

Despite what everyone's sixth grade teacher said, not all opinions are equal, especially not ones born of ignorance and blind devotion rather than evidence and logic.

Blind devotion? Hah![/quote]
You need to teach me how to refute points by going "Hah!" That would make life so much easier.

Ignorance? What have I ignored?

Only a brand new hard drive's worth of people's posts, for starters.

[Worlds Spanner]

There are more Muslims than Catholics, actually.

Really? Must be a recent development. My numbers are about 5 years old.

[Darth Wong]

As usual, you simply dismiss everything I say as mere opinion. Your universal debate rebuttal-reflex kicking in again, I see.

Yes, of course, thats what I always do in all of my other debates

Golly Mike, I only claim that everything is opinion in the debates that are (gasp) based on opinion!

So it's just my "opinion" that anointing some idiot as "infallible" is obviously a fallacious appeal to authority, or that his pronouncements (which you admit you don't agree with yourself) are harmful when countless millions of people obediently follow them across South America and Africa?

As I said, your response to all of these religion debates is to simply dismiss everything you can't deal with as "opinion". Pathetic.

Do you deny that the institution of the papacy and the concept of papal inerrancy exemplifies the fallacious appeal to authority?

No. I deny that this is any of your business to tell Catholics that they can't follow whoever they damn well please.

Bullshit. I have the right to identify an "appeal to authority" fallacy when I see it. If I just ran over your favourite sacred cow with my Humvee of logic, that's too fucking bad.

PS. Stop playing the victim card, asshole. People can criticize your beliefs, your church, or your Pope without taking away your right to follow them. I'm so fucking tired of Christians who try to paint any form of criticism as persecution.

And do you deny the harm wrought by this institution throughout history and to the present day?

I do not deny that the papacy has done damage through history, but I do deny that it continues to do much of anything, good or bad.

Then you are full of shit. I and many others have pointed out that America and Europe have moved beyond blind obedience to the Pope, but he continues to do enormous damage elsewhere.

Because nobody but Fred's dog actually listens to the Pope.

And the entire continent of South America, as pointed out numerous times. Your Wall of Ignorance is strong, young one.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Is there a powertool strong enough to get it through Howedar's skull that some people's opinions (Mike's) are worth more than others (his) because they actually make sense.

Actually, I'd say that my opinion on internal matters of the Roman Catholic Church, being Catholic and all, are worth rather more than an atheist's views on an institution that he has nothing to do with.

Do you have to be a fundie to discuss why fundies are stupid? Mike's right that the Papacy has caused harm to society and retards civilization throughout the world where it is needed most and you ignore this and reply with baseless "well I don't listen to it" while millions do. And I was Catholic, so I do think I recognize what I am talking about.

[Stravo]

Until the papacy decides to protect children there is absolutely no need to protect the papacy in return. I am horrified by the vast conspiracies that work within the church to portect these fiends. Funny how the church is quick to condemn homomsexuals and American military action but we have a pedophile priest that has violated 90 children and has been shuffled back and forth across the country in a pathetic and sickening shell game.

Any Catholic that defends this institution has some serious issues right now because the people they are defending are not defending the most defenseless of our flock, you know, the ones Chrsit himself said came first above all others: the children.

Fuckers.

[Howedar]

Appealing to self authority, I see. Nice.

So if I tell you that you should paint your room plaid, and you disagree, you don't think your opinion is worth more than mine>

You need to teach me how to refute points by going "Hah!" That would make life so much easier.

By all means, show my "blind devotion" to the papacy.

[Howedar]

So it's just my "opinion" that anointing some idiot as "infallible" is obviously a fallacious appeal to authority, or that his pronouncements (which you admit you don't agree with yourself) are harmful when countless millions of people obediently follow them across South America and Africa?

No, its not your opinion that anointing some idiot is an appeal to authority. It is. I totally agree.

What is your opinion is saying that "the entire institution of the papacy should be abolished as an affront to human civilization."

I don't have a problem with you saying what you think about the Pope. I enjoy the same privileges of freedom of speech as you do. What does bug me is when you tell me what I should do within the confines of my own religion.


Do you see my problem with this?

Bullshit. I have the right to identify an "appeal to authority" fallacy when I see it. If I just ran over your favoureite sacred cow with my Humvee of logic, that's too fucking bad.

You certainly do. It is. But don't tell me what to do about it.

PS. Stop playing the victim card, asshole. People can criticize your beliefs, your church, or your Pope without taking away your right to follow them. I'm so fucking tired of Christians who try to paint any form of criticism as persecution.

Yes, but thats not what you said. You said that the papacy should be abolished.

Then you are full of shit. I and many others have pointed out that America and Europe have moved beyond blind obedience to the Pope, but he continues to do enormous damage elsewhere.

And the entire continent of South America, as pointed out numerous times. Your Wall of Ignorance is strong, young one.

I concede that point. Forgot about the loons in South America.


However, I must have missed the "numerous times" that was pointed out.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What is with the rediculous fucking victim complex.

I hardly thought Wong's commentary on the uselessness of the Papacy as an institution was directed as a demand on your life, at all, especially not a personal one.

Seemed on par for his commentary, and I think you're just imagining that he's ordering you to do anything.

[Darth Wong]

What is your opinion is saying that "the entire institution of the papacy should be abolished as an affront to human civilization."

Which it should. It's an irretrievably stupid idea, and its uselessness has been clearly demonstrated in the behaviour of past and present popes. I have presented two facts:

1) Papal authority is a logical fallacy.
2) Papal actions have been harmful to society.

You agree with the first and conspicuously skate around the second, then declare that the conclusion (ie- that there's no good reason to hang onto a tradition built upon a fallacy which has failed to demonstrate its worth) is somehow not based on anything but personal opinion.

I don't have a problem with you saying what you think about the Pope. I enjoy the same privileges of freedom of speech as you do. What does bug me is when you tell me what I should do within the confines of my own religion.

In other words, any comment on the Catholic religion is somehow an attempt to intrude into your personal life? Cry me a river, whiner. You play the victim card so stridently that nobody in his right mind listens to you any more. Or hadn't you noticed that other people in this thread who belong to (or used to belong to) the Catholic church aren't backing you up on this?

I'm not even going to bother refuting your asinine stupidity in attempting to dismiss my comments because I'm an atheist. Others have already dealt with it, and its fallacious nature is obvious.

I concede that point. Forgot about the loons in South America.

However, I must have missed the "numerous times" that was pointed out.

Perhaps you should go visit the optometrist and have your vision checked out, then. Alyrium Denryle and myself even had a brief exchange on that very subject, in this very thread. Perhaps you were too busy whining and crying persecution to notice little things like important points being made.

[Howedar]

Which it should. It's an irretrievably stupid idea, and its uselessness has been clearly demonstrated in the behaviour of past and present popes. I have presented two facts:

1) Papal authority is a logical fallacy.
2) Papal actions have been harmful to society.

You agree with the first and conspicuously skate around the second, then declare that the conclusion (ie- that there's no good reason to hang onto a tradition built upon a fallacy which has failed to demonstrate its worth) is somehow not based on anything but personal opinion.

Its not about you thinking that the papacy should be abolished. I'm really not sure what I think on that, but I do see your points and I see where you're coming from.

What bothers me, again, is not your argument, but the presumption that you have the right to tell Catholics what to think and who to listen to.

In other words, any comment on the Catholic religion is somehow an attempt to intrude into your personal life? Cry me a river, whiner. You play the victim card so stridently that nobody in his right mind listens to you any more. Or hadn't you noticed that other people in this thread who belong to (or used to belong to) the Catholic church aren't backing you up on this?

I'm not even going to bother refuting your asinine stupidity in attempting to dismiss my comments because I'm an atheist. Others have already dealt with it, and its fallacious nature is obvious.

I'm not dismissing your comments. You have a valid point. I'm just bothered that you seem to think you have the right to tell other people how they should act.

Perhaps you should go visit the optometrist and have your vision checked out, then. Alyrium Denryle and myself even had a brief exchange on that very subject, in this very thread. Perhaps you were too busy whining and crying persecution to notice little things like important points being made.

I was there today, actually. Must have been in the part of the thread where I was trying to distance myself from this argument.

Sadly, that never seems to work.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't see what's the big deal with explaining that an institution is fucked up and causes harm and is therefore unworthy of support. Especially when it is well-supported.

[Howedar]

There's nothing wrong with that.

But thats not the same as saying "the papacy should be abolished."

[Illuminatus Primus]

It probably should. It does harm. How is that saying "Catholics you must rise up and overthrow the Papacy." It doesn't.

[Howedar]

I've been being an ass on this topic. I did probably read more into Mike's statement than he intended. Life blows right now, and I took it out on people here.

Sorry.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its alright, man.