Is it ... SATAN?
Posted on 05/28/2004 5:25:59 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
I had no idea that a bottle of jellybeans randomly arranged is evil, and that a bottle of jellybeans with the various colors separated into distinct blocs was good.
Do you REALLY think a Catholic website provides this?
Yes, and the pleasurable aspect of successful combat was designed for the defense of the tribe. You have yet to find any way of logically arguing that the two cases differ.
No. I said it evolved that way.
It still doesn't change the fact that sex is fun, whether or not children are the result. Or that porn is, to some people.
Tired?? A reader of this thread would think that you revel in doing so.
Tired?? A reader of this thread would think that you revel in doing so.
This case is an example of choosing the lesser of two evils, lying to the Nazis or handing two people over to be killed.
You are utterly daft to consider such a concealment an 'evil', A-Fan. What you consider a 'lie' is an attempt to prevent an act of force by the nazis.
Lying remains intrinsically evil,
A lie is an act of fraud. No fraud is being committed by concealing these people from harm.
yet lying is the proper action in this case, since only two courses of action are possible.
The concealment is not an 'evil' act of fraud. It is a proper action to prevent force.
Nice try at justifying your "intrinsic evil" theory, but no sale.
-- Blind obedience to an 'authority' is the evil, not an effort to thwart it.
Well, is the person telling the truth or lying?
Neither. They are concealing the people from harm.
I think that the person is lying about the Jews' whereabouts.
Imagine what you like. Calling the attempt at concealment a 'lie' is your ethical cross to bear.
You can believe that the person is telling the truth if you like.
Just as you can imagine they 'lied'. You are not being honest with your own faith, imo.
As I said before, the liar is absolved of moral culpability since the lie was done under duress and was a choice of the lesser of two evils.
There was no liar, thus no culpability. The moral man has no obligation to cooperate with a fascist state.
You need to question your basic assumptions my son, before you meet your maker.
Yeah, like 1.3 million aborted babies annually. They might have a different opinion of the "moral advancement" of our society.
That follows logically if there is an established Church. But as I said before, this has to be balanced against freedom of conscience, which is a natural right.
The establishment of State Churches is legitimate, if not desirable.
This is from the same guy who argued later that the Founders would agree with your notion of the general welfare.
Good point. The founders didn't want a nationally established church, but they had no problem with established state churches.
Otherwise, I think they would have agreed with my notion of the common good.
The most intense State/Church suppression of non-Christian religions occurred with the Catharists and Mohammedans.
By specifying non-Christian, you excluded the extermination of the Hussites. Very Clintonian.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Hussites. The Church could deal harshly with heretics, and for good reason. Luther's errors have done quite a bit of damage to western civilization, as well as destroying the unity of Christendom, in contradiction to Christ's expressed wish that "they all be one as I and the Father are one."
That's a fair point, and a matter for prudential judgement. The prime conflicting principle is freedom of conscience.
Freedom of conscience to deny Christ, but no freedom of conscience to have sex on camera.
Faith in Christ is a gift of grace. Some who deny explicit faith in Christ do so out of ignorance. The same cannot be said of pornography. Divine revelation is not necessary to understand that it is evil.
The purpose of speech, like every other human power, is to glorify God.
Let me borrow from Monty Python: "You're a loony!"
You obviously base your opinions on reason. You're certainly not dogmatic.
I haven't gone through the whole thread but I hope you posted some pics of Jenna, she is HOTT!. I happen to enjoy a bit of good porn now and again.
You think she can "walk away" ~ have you ever seen the SIZE of a porn stars equipment
Like what? The Spanish Inquisition?
And please do me the courtesy of pinging me when you disparage me.
The Myth of the Spanish InquisitionTo put this in perspective, consider that we put 1.3 million babies to death every year in our enlightened country.by Ellen Rice
"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, will re-air on the History Channel this December 3 at 10 p.m. It is a definite must-see for anyone who wishes to know how historians now evaluate the Spanish Inquisition since the opening of an investigation into the Inquisition's archives. The special includes commentary from historians whose studies verify that the tale of the darkest hour of the Church was greatly fabricated.
In its brief sixty-minute presentation, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.
The Inquisition began in 1480. Spain was beginning a historic reunification of Aragon and Castile. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile created a unified Hispania not seen since Roman times. Afraid that laws commanding the exile or conversion of Jews were thwarted by conversos, i.e. synagogue-going "Catholics," Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned an investigation or Inquisition. They began the Inquisition hoping that religious unity would foster political unity, and other heads of state heralded Spain's labors for the advent of a unified Christendom. The documentary clearly and boldly narrates the historical context, which intimates that the Spanish were not acting odd by their contemporary standards.
The Inquisition Myth, which Spaniards call "The Black Legend," did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later, and exactly one year after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Mühlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character (Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden (which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.
The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.
What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.
The approach is purely historical, and therefore does not delve into ecclesial issues surrounding religious freedom. But perhaps this is proper. Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event.
One facet of the Black Legend that evaporates under scrutiny in this film is the rumor that Philip II, son of Charles V, killed his son Don Carlos on the advisement of the aging blind Grand Inquisitor. But without a shred of evidence, the legend of Don Carlos has been enshrined in a glorious opera by Verdi.
The special may be disturbing to young children. There are scenes of poor souls burning at the stake, and close-ups of the alleged torture devices. Scenes depicting witches consorting with pot-bellied devils are especially grotesque. For kids, this is the stuff of nightmares.
Discrediting the Black Legend brings up the sticky subject of revisionism. Re-investigating history is only invalid if it puts an agenda ahead of reality. The experts - once true believers in the Inquisition myth - were not out to do a feminist canonization of Isabella or claim that Tomas de Torquemada was a Marxist. Henry Kamen of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona said on camera that researching the Inquisition's archives "demolished the previous image all of us (historians) had."
And the future of the Black Legend? For many it may continue to hold more weight than reality. There is the emotional appeal against the Church. The dissenters of today may easily imagine Torquemada's beady eyes as a metaphor of the Church's "dictatorial, controlling, damning" pronouncements. The myth is also the easiest endorsement of the secular state: "de-faith" the state and de-criminalize heresy. Who will be the revisionists in this case? Will the many follow Montanas' lead in rewriting history?
Our 20th century crisis of man playing God - usurping power over conception, life, and death - leaves us with no alternative but to qualify our demythologization of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.
I see that I must be firm with you. YOU SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT WITHOUT HAVING THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE DONE SOME POINTED OUT AS EVIDENCE OF YOUR DISHONESTY.
Am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that the Inquisition was not physically capable of carrying out all the evils it wished because it lacked the resources to do so?
Terry Nichols hasn't helped to blow up any buildings lately. I guess he's reformed.
Yes, but not because natural law is advocated by Catholic natural law theorists. The natural law is the basis for all law. Otherwise, law would have no logical basis.
Have you read the Constitution? It promotes the general welfare mostly by restricting the state.
True. That doesn't obviate the principle.
I'm not familiar with their justification for the first amendment, but they didn't object to established state churches, just a national established church. Many states had established churches well into the 19th century.
Uh, no. I know Thomas Jefferson, for one, objected strongly.
So? The fact is that many states had established churches well into the 19th century. The Founders were aware of this.
When the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1791, the First Amendment guaranteed that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This provision ensured that no one religion would be favored over another and protected religious groups from unfair treatment by the federal government. Still it did not protect against unfair treatment by state governments. Indeed, the amendment was thought by many to protect against congressional interference with state governments' involvement with religion-that is, it was thought to prohibit the U.S. Congress from “disestablishing” churches established by state governments.You took the fact they had a law, and conclude the Founders supported it. You forget something hugely important: they weren't legislators in the Greek sense. America has never handed power to a Lycurgus or a Solon or to a college of Lycurgi and Solons to reorder our laws as seems best.
In revolting against England they placed something above civil obedience.
The Founders were just politicians, with more than usual wisdom (as politicians go).
True.
It would seem that you are in need of a divine revelation to find some logical difference between the use of sexuality as a spectator sport and the use of combat prowess as a spectator sport. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of doing so through your own reason.
Applying the standard of empirical evidence to logical arguments is illogical. Specifically, it's a category error.
Science cannot prove itself. That is, it is based on philosophical assumptions, such as the idea that nature is orderly and predictable (natural laws do not randomly vary) and that an observer can trust the data provided by his senses. Neither assumption can be proved by strictly empirical means.
Insofar as the only natural law universal to human experience is the nonagression principle, you've just shot down what's left of your own argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.