Posted on 11/27/2007 7:50:05 AM PST by SubGeniusX
“Yet all other such figures were supposedly invented?”
No. It is amazing how many people who denigrate religion have no accurate knowledge of it.
“The Church’s position hasn’t changed.”
That’s right. The Church does not condemn capital punishment.
“Last year he gave a medal to the president of the Philippines for signing a law ending the death penalty.”
A person could choke, there’s so much smoke of Satan in the sacristy. A quick search yielded no mention of a medal. I did find this: “Pope Benedict has told the Philippine President Gloria Arroyo “well done” at their Vatican meeting yesterday…”
“Of course, that’s just a nice way of saying people have a difference in morals.”
No, that’s a way of saying, “We’re going to disobey God, and then pretend that we are being tolerant of you for obeying God.
“I don’t think that difference makes him evil though.”
Calling a person evil is only sometimes useful. All of us fall short. All of us are subject to the temptations and influence of the evil one. Most of us do evil at some point. At what point, though, does a person become evil? Rarely is it useful to care about that.
“But all this goes to say that even devout Christians have different views on what is moral according to God.”
Yes, people often make mistakes. Some people call themselves Christians and yet approve of the killing of innocent babies. What you say is true, but it does not prove what you think it proves.
“Therefore, you can’t say your specific view is the one moral view, all others being evil (that’s not to say there aren’t evil ones out there).”
What God has told us is the one moral view, all others being wrong. The degree to which a person correctly understands God’s will is irrelevant to the reality of what God’s will actually is. Insofar as my understanding is correct, I am right. Insofar as it is incorrect, I am wrong. What you are not considering is that there are areas in which God’s statements regarding his will are clear and unequivocal, and have been reiterated by various means. There is no need to keep an “open mind” on these subjects, any more than on the question of a flat earth.
“Most any statement of evil you make in politics like this is your personal opinion”
On the contrary, there are only a few that are opinion. Most are the clear and unequivocal expression of God’s will by God Himself.
“your interpretation of what God wants, and you are entitled to it.”
Not unless I am right, I’m not. Error has no rights.
“But it’s just that, your opinion, not an absolute. Otherwise you claim you know God better than all others.”
In your last post, Satan was giggling. Now he’s howling with laughter, rocking back and forth, and holding his sides. “Better than all others?” After aligning myself not only with the Word of God in the form of His Bible, with Tradition, with the Magisterium, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the work of holy men and women, and with the intellectual work product of the best minds of Western Civilization for two thousand years, suddenly all this is just my invention?
I claim I know God a fraction as well as one could know Him, as holy men and women have known him, as scholars and doctors of the Church have known him. And even that tiny little fraction – all of which is in line with the authorities named above – supports the statements I have made. You’re not just arguing with me, here. I am only arguing (inadequately and ineptly) the positions of those authorities – once again, the Bible, Tradition, the Magisterium, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the work of holy men and women, and the intellectual work product of the best minds of Western Civilization for two thousand years.
Of course, it is much easier to misrepresent all that as “the opinion” of dsc than to deal with it.
See, the question is not whether anybody disagrees with me or not; the question is whether someone obeys God or not.
“The question is often whose interpretation of the will of God is right or not.”
A lot of people are confused about that, yes. Hardly surprising, when we consider how hard Satan works.
“I saw a woman in a church whose hair was uncovered. Should I have demanded she cover and shaved her head if she didn’t, calling her immoral for violating the will of God?”
Do we really have to go through this childish stuff? You remind me of a George Carlin routine.
If you are a Catholic, you should follow proper procedures for filing a complaint, if that is what you want to do.
“Not at all. I understand his position and his logic, I just don’t agree.”
You contradicted yourself by calling him a back-to-the-basics doctrinal hardliner for espousing a modernist innovation.
“Give me some equivalent categories of person.”
“Equivalent” is not reasonable. “Comparable” would be appropriate. Some of those would be young men and women who are exploited for sex because of their economic disadvantages (so-called “consensual” prostitution), a person who uses drugs because he never had any guidance or parental love, men who develop same-sex attraction disorder as a result of a pre-adult molestation or seduction, and therefore are driven to engage in perverse acts despite the fact that there disorder renders them incapable of providing reasoned consent… All of these are so-called “consensual crimes,” but in each there is an element either of coercion of lack of competence to consent. One could think of many others.
“If the will is there for everyone”
Everyone? And who would see that as a possibility, short of the Second Coming? That’s not going to happen. Laws are to deter, stop, and punish those whose free will leads them to act immorally.
“You could leave and make your own country based strictly on biblical law, but then I have a feeling your country could look a lot like one of the strict Muslim countries, depending on who is doing the interpretation of God’s will.”
What in the world is going on in our schools and our media that people get this confused?
Such a country would look exactly like the U.S. looked in 1955.
“Some of your statements have been pretty demeaning”
If it seems so to you, I would recommend to you Proverbs 28:1- “The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.” What does it mean when a calm, civil statement of the truth makes a person feel demeaned?
“and in response I let my posts get likewise.”
Oh, I don’t mind. Whenever one has an exchange with a God-hater, one knows that unpleasant talk will ensue. Comes with the territory.
You seem to have no knowledge of other such figures.
That’s right. The Church does not condemn capital punishment.
Yes, it says its wrong in almost all instances.
A quick search yielded no mention of a medal.
You're right: medals. My memory isn't perfect.
We’re going to disobey God
"We're going to disobey your interpretation of the will of God."
I claim I know God a fraction as well as one could know Him, as holy men and women have known him, as scholars and doctors of the Church have known him.
One the death penalty you are going up against one of the most well-educated theologians in the world. OTOH, he was only the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for over 20 years, so what does he know?
All of these are so-called “consensual crimes,” but in each there is an element either of coercion of lack of competence to consent.
In each case you have an adult able to consent. To carry your idea along would mean that if I went broke and had to get a job at McDonald's I would be flipping burgers against my consent. Technically against my will, but I consented out of necessity, something we all have to do. Speaking of that, I have to rake leaves this weekend.
Everyone? And who would see that as a possibility, short of the Second Coming? That’s not going to happen.
So you try to achieve Heaven on Earth, a little pre-sorting before the real judgment?
Do we really have to go through this childish stuff?
Childish? That was an immoral act according to the Bible. How can God's law be childish? And it's New Testament, so you don't get to do the standard Old Testament dismissal.
Such a country would look exactly like the U.S. looked in 1955.
So you'll be lynching blacks there? Remember Emmett Till? That was in 1955. Rosa Parks kept her butt on the seat in 1955. I guess it was all downhill once they started gettin' uppity.
Since 1955 is the year, does your perfect world include or exclude McDonald's and Disneyland?
What does it mean when a calm, civil statement of the truth makes a person feel demeaned?
Look back through your posts. Neither calm nor civil.
Oh, I don’t mind. Whenever one has an exchange with a God-hater
Contrary to the saying, assumption doesn't make an ass out of you and me, just you.
“You seem to have no knowledge of other such figures.”
No, that doesn’t seem to be the case at all. No indication of any such thing. It’s just that I don’t share your misapprehensions regarding the meaning thereof.
For who knows how long you have used your misunderstanding of the fact that there have been many religions to avoid having to deal with these issues in any serious way. The problem for your approach, though, is that it has been thoroughly debunked time and time again. C. S. Lewis took care of it quite well.
The fact that there have been many religions just doesn’t mean what you so desperately demand that it mean.
“Yes, it says its wrong in almost all instances.”
Wrong again.
“We’re going to disobey your interpretation of the will of God.”
No, we’re going to disobey the clear and unequivocal statement of God’s will by God himself, as understood by 2,000 years’ worth of scholars, holy men and women, doctors of the Church, and lay faithful. That bogus little ploy of trying to pretend that this is all just my opinion is not going to fly here.
“One the death penalty you are going up against one of the most well-educated theologians in the world. OTOH, he was only the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for over 20 years, so what does he know?”
Oh, *I* am doing that, am I? And just all by myself? I’m the only one? That bogus ploy of trying to misrepresent a venerable and widely held idea as just one person’s opinion is *so* dishonest. It has Satan’s fingerprints all over it.
Aside from that, while I’m sure the current Holy Father has his reasons for not contradicting JPII, the entire history of the Church is against it, and that particular modernist error will not long endure.
“In each case you have an adult able to consent.”
Coercion negates consent, as does mental illness. Therefore, you are wrong again.
“Technically against my will, but I consented out of necessity”
Facts of the human condition that require a person to do honest work do not constitute coercion. I guess you’re so far gone that you can’t even see the difference. Or the difference in moral standing between the manager who hires you to flip burgers, and the middle-aged sleaze that sticks his hooter in a young girl who consents only because starvation is her only other alternative. Perhaps she is the sole support of several brothers and sisters.
“So you try to achieve Heaven on Earth, a little pre-sorting before the real judgment?”
You have it backwards again. It is because Heaven on Earth is not possible that laws are required.
“How can God’s law be childish?”
It’s not His law that is childish; it is your understanding thereof, and your attempt to twist it to suit your childish purposes.
Here you are trying to use a false moral equivalence. You wish to argue that women in church with their heads uncovered is the moral equivalent of kidnapping a child, sodomizing him, murdering him, cooking him, and eating him. And that since I don’t get upset and push the panic button over the one, I have no standing to deplore the other. Extremely childish.
By the way, I’ll tell you something about all those adolescent “gotchas” you seem so fond of. There is an answer for each and every one of them. An answer that satisfies an intellectually mature adult.
“So you’ll be lynching blacks there? Remember Emmett Till? That was in 1955. Rosa Parks kept her butt on the seat in 1955. I guess it was all downhill once they started gettin’ uppity.”
Yes, yes, let’s reduce that to a comic-book parody. That is certainly adult behavior.
If we started again where we were in 1955 and took a different road, we would be much better off. Race relations are worse than ever before in my lifetime...and I remember 1955.
“Look back through your posts. Neither calm nor civil.”
How odd that you would lie about something so easily investigated.
“Contrary to the saying, assumption doesn’t make an ass out of you and me, just you.”
Not an assumption. An observation.
That's his MO. I know one of the lawyers for a game company he sued, and he's sued her individually on specious claims that are always thrown out. This guy files a lawsuit more often than I change my socks.''
Unfortunately, the American court system does not allow for oubliettes -- the root of the word is Latin for "to forget." An oubliette is somewhere, very small and very dark, where you put someone you choose to forget about.
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my beef with Jack is that his ignorance of the law is matched only by his contempt for it. He routinely, if not daily, threatens and then files suits that have no legal basis or merit. He fires off one e-mail after another that are unprofessional, often unethical, and incredibly rude. He think's he's a big swingin' d--k, but he's really just a d--k.
Have I mentioned that I'm not a fan?
For whatever reasons he has locked inside his twisty little brain, Jack Thompson makes a mockery of the law every time he opens his mouth. I want to say he wouldn't piss on the Constitution if it were on fire, but the truth is he probably wouldn't recognize it. He's an idiot, a charlatan, an embarrassment to the legal profession, and if the Florida Bar decides to yank his license it will only be because they're not allowed to snap his neck.
Question though, would you support laws that force stores to close on Sunday? Would you punish idol worship with jail? What if I don't honor my mother and father?
No, we’re going to disobey the clear and unequivocal statement of God’s will by God himself, as understood by 2,000 years’ worth of scholars, holy men and women, doctors of the Church, and lay faithful. That bogus little ploy of trying to pretend that this is all just my opinion is not going to fly here.
If everything is so clear, then you might want to pass your enlightenment on to the the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches, you could heal a thousand year old rift. While you at it, how about the Methodists, First Methodists, United Methodists, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and the rest of the Protestant denominations. Oh wait, you mean there's that many differences in the interpretation of God's word JUST in Christianity? Whose interpretation are we going to base our laws upon then? Wait, don't tell me...Yours? Thought that might be the case...
And what is that?
Aside from that, while I’m sure the current Holy Father has his reasons for not contradicting JPII, the entire history of the Church is against it, and that particular modernist error will not long endure.
I don't know about your view, but I believe the teachings are supposed to be applied to modern times. I think the Pope has this position because he believes that in modern times it is not necessary to execute people in most cases. My mention of the head covering issue was about this. Forcing women to cover their heads in church may have been apropos back then, but it no longer is.
Of course you could firmly plant all the rules in the time they were enacted, not adjusted for modern times, but then you'd look a lot like the Muslim world.
Coercion negates consent, as does mental illness.
You showed no cases of coercion and no cases of mental illness, except in your opinion.
Facts of the human condition that require a person to do honest work do not constitute coercion.
Prostitution is more honest than politics -- at least you know you're getting screwed when you pay your money. There are other options in our society, so it is voluntary. Where it's legal most women say they do it because they can make a lot more money than in other jobs. This is true for many professions. You just don't like the act that constitutes this profession, and are trying to create a victim in that consensual business transaction to get justification for banning.
Considering addiction as an illness, I can go with you on addicts prostituting themselves for money to feed their habits. If we had a licensed system, they should not be allowed.
And that since I don’t get upset and push the panic button over the one, I have no standing to deplore the other. Extremely childish.
You wouldn't even agree that it was immoral.
By the way, I’ll tell you something about all those adolescent “gotchas” you seem so fond of. There is an answer for each and every one of them. An answer that satisfies an intellectually mature adult.
There are answers for some. The rest require logical gymnastics reminiscent of a cult leader trying to explain why they didn't all get taken away by UFOs last night.
If we started again where we were in 1955 and took a different road, we would be much better off. Race relations are worse than ever before in my lifetime...and I remember 1955.
The main problem with race relations these days is the race baiters like Jackson and Sharpton, the PC crowd. They constantly try to invent today what was common in 1955 in order to stir up trouble and keep their jobs. Their problem is what do activists do when their movement succeeds.
How odd that you would lie about something so easily investigated.
Various forms of laughable, "childish," "boyo," "babbling," "troll," "puerile," "babbling nonsense." Shall I go on?
Not an assumption. An observation.
Chalk that up to poor observational skills.
It sort of does. The courts can tell Thompson that he is not allowed to bring any legal action himself, that he must have competent counsel to do it for him. Thus we'll either have his causes represented in a civil, professional manner (the court will likely tell him to shut up during the proceedings), or no attorney will risk his career to aid Thompson in his abuse of the judicial system.
Don’t hold back, tell us how you really feel about Thompson. :)
I feel the same, but I’ve been holding back.
That's what I was trying to get across, yet I let him lead me down the rabbit hole and away from the subject.
You've been around that long and still have your memory? You must take really good care of yourself. :)
Just call me Lazarus Long.
“Oh wait, you mean there’s that many differences in the interpretation of God’s word JUST in Christianity? Whose interpretation are we going to base our laws upon then?
That’s what I was trying to get across, yet I let him lead me down the rabbit hole and away from the subject.”
You guys think that is such a huge gotcha, and it just doesn’t mean a thing. It’s nothing but a shallow misunderstanding.
Of course people get things wrong about God…small things and large things. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing there.
Every sect of Christianity shares the large things in common. Both of you take the fact that men have gotten some of the small things wrong – Satan being very busy – and insist that one can therefore know nothing of the large things.
Bastiat_Fan thinks he has made such a telling point with regard to the “thousand year rift” between the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches, but he seems completely unaware that said rift has absolutely nothing to do with the tenets of Christianity. Both Roman and Russian Churches believe in God the Father Omnipotent, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord, Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and Born of the Virgin Mary, Who passed under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried, Who descended into Hell, Who rose from the dead on the third day, ascended into Heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and Who will come again to judge the living and the dead.
The other sects he names also believe these things. And yet he would have us believe that the differences these churches have on peripheral matters means that we must throw our arms in the air and declare it impossible to know anything of the truth.
Every sect of Christianity endorses the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the two laws Jesus gave us, and yet Bastiat_Fan would have us believe that this is all nothing in the face of disagreements over the status of clergymen or whether musical instruments should be used in Church services.
He would have us believe that the fact that men—fallible, stubborn, prideful men—have disagreements over how the Trinity should be worshipped means that the Trinity doesn’t exist.
He would have us believe that the fact that men—ignorant, fearful, sinful men—have often gotten the wrong idea about God, sometimes as a result of Satan’s deceit, that it is impossible to know anything true about God.
Let’s apply this logic to science…whoops, as soon as you do, science disappears, because the fact that men have in the past been wrong about pretty much everything means that it is impossible to know anything about anything at all.
This argument is utter nonsense. It is the logical equivalent of a broken-down Yugo, rusting away in a junkyard.
And as soon as valid logic is applied to your great big gotcha, it disappears into the limbo reserved for puerile sophistry.
“I believe the teachings are supposed to be applied to modern times.”
This is just another way of saying, “We should be able to twist the plain meaning of God’s teachings into whatever lets us do what we like.”
“I think the Pope has this position because he believes that in modern times it is not necessary to execute people in most cases.”
I think the last Pope believed that, and the current Pope does not want to start rocking the boat over that issue just now.
“My mention of the head covering issue was about this. Forcing women to cover their heads in church may have been apropos back then, but it no longer is.”
Wrong again.
“Of course you could firmly plant all the rules in the time they were enacted, not adjusted for modern times, but then you’d look a lot like the Muslim world.”
Blah blah blah blah you’re just like the Muslims. Blah blah blah blah you’re just like the Muslims. Blah blah blah blah you’re just like the Muslims. Blah blah blah blah you’re just like the Muslims. Blah blah blah blah you’re just like the Muslims. Blah blah blah blah you’re just like the Muslims. Blah blah blah blah you’re just like the Muslims. Blah blah blah blah you’re just like the Muslims. Get a new piece of sophistry, will you? That one isn’t wearing well.
“You showed no cases of coercion and no cases of mental illness, except in your opinion.”
You seem to be under the impression that calling something an “opinion” is to demonstrate that it is wrong.
As my opinion is correct, I did show cases of coercion and mental illness. You are simply denying the plain truth.
“Prostitution is more honest than politics”
That was a very trendy thing to say…back in Oscar Wilde’s day.
The fact that politicians can behave wrongly does not morph the thing itself into an evil.
“There are other options in our society, so it is voluntary.”
You know very little about how women become prostitutes. Further, ours is not the only society.
“You just don’t like the act that constitutes this profession, and are trying to create a victim in that consensual business transaction to get justification for banning.”
Oh, is it “just” that? I have no other support for regarding prostitution as immoral and harmful, eh? No one else in the history of mankind has ever looked at it and called it a bad thing? The whole problem is that I – and I alone – am a bigot who refuses out of sheer malice to accede to your insistence that it is a good thing. God never called it a bad thing. None of the great minds of Western Civilization ever called it a bad thing. No women’s suffrage movements ever called it oppression and exploitation of women. No studies of prostitutes ever showed negative outcomes for that “lifestyle choice.” No studies ever showed exploitation or coercion in “turning ho’s out.”
No, the problem is “just” that I alone “don’t like” prostitution, for no good reason whatsoever, and with no support whatsoever for that position, and everyone in the world should therefore disregard anything I might have to say on the subject. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
“You wouldn’t even agree that it was immoral.”
I deemed it more important to draw a distinction between grave matters and the relatively trivial – especially considering that your point rested on drawing a false moral equivalence between the grave and the trivial.
“There are answers for some. The rest require logical gymnastics”
I really am sorry that you can’t keep up. Really.
“The main problem with race relations these days is the race baiters like Jackson and Sharpton, the PC crowd.”
They are a problem, but the main problem is the whole of everything that has happened. In 1967 I could walk through the black side of town at night, safely and unmolested. Try that today.
“They constantly try to invent today what was common in 1955”
Lynchings were not common in 1955. They were never as common as today’s common wisdom would have it.
“Various forms of laughable, “childish,” “boyo,” “babbling,” “troll,” “puerile,” “babbling nonsense.” Shall I go on?”
You seem to be confusing minimum standards of civility with obsequious butt-kissing.
“Chalk that up to poor observational skills.”
Chalk it up to your state of denial.
You call the differences trivial. I don't think the decision of whether to take a man's life is trivial, you apparently do. I think it's one of the most serious decisions possible. If you cannot agree on such important matters, you should not be allowed to establish an authoritarian government that decides these matters on the authority of your interpretation of God's will.
“I love how you’re able to dismiss without support for your dismissal.”
I’m not “dismissing” anything. I’m explaining why you’re wrong, with a good deal of support in the form of reasoned argument. You really ought to learn the difference.
“You call the differences trivial.”
No, I called the matter of head covering “relatively trivial.” I called other differences “peripheral,” and then explicitly spelled out what they were peripheral to.
“I don’t think the decision of whether to take a man’s life is trivial, you apparently do.”
That statement is not even remotely honest. You know, if I had to resort to misrepresenting an opponent’s position, I’d be rethinking my own.
“If you cannot agree on such important matters, you should not be allowed to establish an authoritarian government that decides these matters on the authority of your interpretation of God’s will.”
And there you just repeat previously debunked crapola, as though the past several notes were never posted.
1. An “authoritarian government,” eh? Like America had from 1789 through, say, 1963? That sort of authoritarian government? That’s what you oppose so bitterly?
2. Who is this “you” you’re talking about? Christians? So, because some Christians are deluded on the matter of capital punishment, Christians should be denied all voice in government? Is that your position? That makes a lot of sense, especially in view of the fact that all people other than Christians are in complete agreement on all issues. It is, after all, only the interference of Christians that impedes our march to a perfect world.
3. Since when has perfect agreement on all issues been a requirement for participation by any group in politics? Who imposed this requirement? Are the democrats disqualified because some of them want God driven from the public square and a few don’t? Are the Republicans disqualified because some of them advocate baby killing and others don’t?
4. Despite the statements of JPII, it remains Catholic Doctrine that capital punishment is moral and allowed to governments. The work of Satan in leading *some* Catholics astray on *some* issues does not change the fact that there is a coherent, cohesive Catholic interpretation of Divine Revelation, nor that all Christian sects are in agreement with the core elements thereof. This is an entirely appropriate platform from which to lobby for legislation.
Your problem is that you have vices to protect. You don’t want any vices banned, because you’re afraid that they’ll be coming after yours next. That is not an appropriate platform from which to lobby for legislation.
Sorry, didn't realize that according to your standards of debate "Wrong again" is considered a reasoned argument.
An “authoritarian government,” eh? Like America had from 1789 through, say, 1963?
Just as with the legal oppression of blacks, our laws have gotten better with regards to oppression of those who do not share your interpretation of God's will, or even share your religion.
So, because some Christians are deluded on the matter of capital punishment
What you fail to realize is that "some Christians" can include you. OTOH, maybe you're right, and maybe it's time to yet again try to rid the world of these Christians who don't get it right. Then you'll all agree -- until you start splitting again.
Since when has perfect agreement on all issues been a requirement for participation by any group in politics?
You claim ultimate authority, not of the will of the people, but of the will of God.
Despite the statements of JPII, it remains Catholic Doctrine that capital punishment is moral and allowed to governments.
And that it should be a last resort and tempered with mercy so much that the position of the Catholic Church is that none of the executions we perform are just. Just because capital punishment is moral doesn't mean its application is always moral.
The work of Satan in leading *some* Catholics astray on *some* issues
And it never occurs to you that you may be one of those people astray.
Your problem is that you have vices to protect.
Wrong again. I participate in none of the vices mentioned. I personally don't approve of any of them. I am even on your side on the issue of capital punishment. Our difference lies in the fact that you are authoritarian and would ban that which you don't like, while I am for liberty.
Freedom also means freedom to do stupid things, just as freedom of speech is a worthless concept unless we allow speech we don't like.
You, not me, made the argument that the ONLY reason to rebel is if you are unable to worship as you wish. If you wish to be a pacifist, thats fine. Its dumb, but its your choice. Just don't expect everyone else to go along with you.
I’ve got two similar debates going on two different threads, so if I mix up you with someone else, please forgive me. It’s early and I’m still waiting on coffee.
“Sorry, didn’t realize that according to your standards of debate “Wrong again” is considered a reasoned argument.”
Sorry, didn’t realize that for some reason you haven’t been reading the reasoned arguments I’ve been making.
“Just as with the legal oppression of blacks, our laws have gotten better with regards to oppression of those who do not share your interpretation of God’s will, or even share your religion.”
No, not “just as” with the oppression of blacks. That was a righteous cause – although everything that was done about it was done wrong, and the left exploited it to harm us during the cold war. However, none of the changes that have ensued – women’s rights, sodomite rights, etc. – have been improvements. Our laws have gotten worse – unimaginably, possibly fatally worse.
“What you fail to realize is that “some Christians” can include you.”
That is a very dishonest ploy. It tries to establish a false dichotomy, forcing one either to deny that he is subject to the same vicissitudes as other humans, or else deny that the truth of the matter at hand is discoverable with certainty. IOW, it’s nothing more sophisticated than another adolescent George Carlin gotcha.
As John Stuart Mill wrote, “There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life.” When God says something, it constitutes assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life. The fact that Satan immediately jumps and tries to twist the meaning doesn’t change that at all.
There are theological and philosophical methods for maintaining consistency – that is, for ensuring that interpretations do not contradict that which we know to be true – while at the same time incorporating new knowledge. It is, therefore, quite possible to discover that one has been wrong about slavery, without in any way needing to reexamine doctrine on sodomy. It is only the oversimplifications of the untaught that make any change or advance seem to impeach all other tenets. And that is where you come in.
When the subject is, say, capital punishment, and you trot out that tired old “What you fail to realize is that ‘some Christians’ can include you” ploy, you place yourself in the position of a flat-earther telling an astrophysicist that he could be wrong, the earth might really be flat.
Well, no, the earth is not flat, and JPII contradicted God’s clearly expressed will on capital punishment. Both of those things are facts of the same magnitude. This is not an “advance.” It is a distortion produced by Satan’s exploitation of the compassion of an empathetic man.
“OTOH, maybe you’re right, and maybe it’s time to yet again try to rid the world of these Christians who don’t get it right.”
More dishonesty. You are dragging this discussion down to depths usually seen only on leftist boards. There is no support for your accusation that I advocate “ridding the world of these Christians who don’t get it right.” Your statement is a lie, born of malice, and you knew it was a lie when you uttered it.
“Since when has perfect agreement on all issues been a requirement for participation by any group in politics?”
“You claim ultimate authority, not of the will of the people, but of the will of God.”
Even if your statement made any sense, it wouldn’t be a reply to my question. You said Christians should have no voice because they lack perfect unanimity in all things. Since when is that a requirement?
That said, I claim no authority whatsoever. That is wholly and solely your own paranoid fantasy. I claim only the same right to persuade that everyone else enjoys. This notion you have that Christians want to institute minutely controlling theocracies a la “1984” is just Satan’s husky voice whispering in your ear.
“And that it should be a last resort and tempered with mercy so much that the position of the Catholic Church is that none of the executions we perform are just.”
Sorry, you’re talking through your hat again. That is not the position of the Catholic Church. It is the position of many of the Modernist heretics, but that does not make it the Church’s position.
“Just because capital punishment is moral doesn’t mean its application is always moral.”
Is anything *always* anything? If that is your criterion, you might as well just lie down and die.
“And it never occurs to you that you may be one of those people astray.”
Same dishonest ploy as above. Once again, this ploy tries to establish a false dichotomy, forcing one either to deny that he is subject to the same vicissitudes as other humans, or else deny that the truth of the matter at hand is discoverable with certainty. The underlying assumption is that it is impossible to accept both human fallibility and the certainty of Divine Revelation. As support, you point to the fact that Satan and our own corrupt spirituality lead us astray. Your conclusion is that because people are sometimes mistaken, we must always assume a high probability that they are mistaken about anything and everything. We must never admit that anything is discoverable with certainty.
Apply that logic to science, and see how far you get. It’s intellectual gibberish.
“Wrong again. I participate in none of the vices mentioned.”
The key word there being “mentioned.”
“Our difference lies in the fact that you are authoritarian and would ban that which you don’t like, while I am for liberty.”
And once again you try to reduce the judgment criteria to nothing more than my own personal preferences. No Moses, no Ten Commandments, no Proverbs, no Ecclesiastes, no Maccabees, no Hillel, no Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, no Passion and Death, no Resurrection, no assistance from the Holy Spirit, no Saints, no Augustine, no Aquinas, no doctors of the Church, no intellectual work product of the greatest minds in history…
Nope. None of that exists, or ever has. This is entirely a matter of my own unsupported personal preferences, mere whimsy.
“Freedom also means freedom to do stupid things”
To a point. Taking that as far as legalizing sodomite porn is not merely stupid, it is insane and evil.
The real point here, though, is that we are only arguing about where the line is to be drawn, not about whether a line should be drawn at all. This is shown by your agreement that child molesting should be prohibited. That is a line.
Nonetheless, you consistently try to paint all this as a binary dichotomy, me yes and you no. You do this in an unwarranted attempt to annex moral high ground to which you have no entitlement. You call me “authoritarian” when the only difference is that you are willing to tolerate more evil than I. You’re not willing to tolerate *all* evil. Even you draw the line at legalization of buggering little boys.
But because I draw the line to exclude more evil things than you do, you think yourself morally superior. You think that I am not “for liberty” while you are, that I am “authoritarian” in drawing the line over here, while you are wonderfully tolerant and angelic for drawing the line over there.
The reality is that you draw the line over there because you are deceived about the nature and consequences of the evil things you tolerate, that’s all. There’s no more validity to your positions than that.
I’m pretty tired of this, so why don’t you just go polish your halo for a while? Take the last word, if you like.
“You haven’t answered these questions. Do we punish idol worhip? Would you force stores to close on Sunday? Do we throw Hindus in jail for having more than one god? And what happens if I don’t honor my mother and father?”
Those are not questions. Those are character slurs disguised as questions, just like CNN whipped on the Republican candidates the other night.
Your suggestion that any of those questions need answers is as misguided as it is insulting. Who do you imagine you’re dealing with?
“You, not me, made the argument that the ONLY reason to rebel is if you are unable to worship as you wish.”
That wasn’t me.
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.