'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

[frobert]

This is a rather curious standard for immorality.

“It’s ok to restrain a child for a medical procedure but not for a religious one.”

Why is it ok for a doctor to order you to do this, but not a priest?

How weird!

And inconsistent!

Reread my original post. I did not claim that it is unethical for a priest to perform an exorcism. I asked how do you determine the competence of the exorcist.

Below are two interesting articles one from a Freudian viewpoint and a second from an ethical point of view by an Episcopal priest. While each views exorcisms differently they are not inconsistent with each other and both are quite kind as to the ethics of exorcism.

Twenty-first century exorcisms

Exorcism: A psychiatric viewpoint

 

[frobert]

Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[frobert]

You mean these questions: “Which brings up the questions of how is an exorcism is authorized by the CC and what training must the exorcist have”?

Look it up on Google.

Excellent suggestion. I have and I believe that anyone considering an exorcism for their should use google.

 

[PRmerger]

Reread my original post. I did not claim that it is unethical for a priest to perform an exorcism.

Then you added a nonsequitur.

The original discussion revolved around whether being a Believer could make someone do something immoral by following one’s beliefs.

The example of an exorcism was presented, and, it appears, what was considered immoral, peculiarly, was that it was wrong to restrain someone.

I find that standard to be a bit puzzling.

It appears that restraining someone isn’t always wrong–for example, in the case of someone needing to be immunized against her will, or having an IV inserted against her will. In fact, a parent may assist in restraining her very own child (!)and no one would think this is immoral! In fact, if a parent *doesn’t *restrain her child it might be considered immoral–allowing the child to rule the roost, so to speak.

I asked how do you determine the competence of the exorcist.

I trust in the hierarchy to make those determinations.

Just like I do for a lot of things–such as determining the competence of the pilot who’s flying me to my destination, or the engineer who constructed the bridge I’m driving over.

I use the same trust in the system that you do, yes?

 

[frobert]

Then you added a nonsequitur.

The original discussion revolved around whether being a Believer could make someone do something immoral by following one’s beliefs.

The example of an exorcism was presented, and, it appears, what was considered immoral, peculiarly, was that it was wrong to restrain someone.

I find that standard to be a bit puzzling.

It appears that restraining someone isn’t always wrong–for example, in the case of someone needing to be immunized against her will, or having an IV inserted against her will. In fact, a parent may assist in restraining her very own child (!)and no one would think this is immoral! In fact, if a parent *doesn’t *restrain her child it might be considered immoral–allowing the child to rule the roost, so to speak.

I trust in the hierarchy to make those determinations.

Just like I do for a lot of things–such as determining the competence of the pilot who’s flying me to my destination, or the engineer who constructed the bridge I’m driving over.

I use the same trust in the system that you do, yes?

I went back to my post and you are correct that I opined how one can derive the morality of an exorcism from the conditions of exorcism, not necessarily a believer but anyone including a believer so I don’t believe it was a non sequitur. Even though, if you thought it was a non sequitur and raised an objection at the beginning of the our discussion I would have not continued along the lines I did.

I may not hold the same beliefs as you do regarding ethics but I respect your belief in your Church.

I am happy that we agree on some things.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

PRmerger, instead of replying to each bit from your questions and comments in post 101 here’s the gist.

In everything we do throughout the day we have to assess what positive and negative consequences will come about and those that may come about.

Let’s start with immunization shots for a child. We can be certain of the positive consequences. There is a range of possible negative consequences from an “ouchie” that the kid doesn’t mind to keeping the child still while shots are delivered. It’s clear by all standards the positive consequences far outweigh even the worst of the negative ones.

Now let’s go with something a little more serious, the IV example you gave. As you noted it is possible that it could take hours for an IV but that’s far and away a very rare occurrence. It’s usually something that takes minutes. The negative consequences are likely to be more severe than that of immunization of a child. The positive consequences are higher as well, not because the disease immunization isn’t important, but because the scenarios that call for an IV tend to be more pressing and often can’t be delayed. An important factor in judging the positive consequences is to look at the history of success in applying IVs. And just like with immunizations it’s clear that when done by a medical professional that the positive consequences far outweigh the negative ones.

Next up let’s take a look at rabies shots, specifically the ones before relatively recent innovations. Originally it required a series of painful shots to the abdomen. If there was a potential that a person was infected all efforts would be made to find the dog involved and test it for rabies before administrating the shots. The negative consequences of those shots is more than that of immunization or applying an IV. But if the dog can not be found then the shots would be administered because the potential positive consequences in that situation outweigh the definite negative ones. And as with the other examples we can look at results of rabies shots when judging their worth.

Finally we come to exorcisms. You have serious downplayed the negative consequences of undergoing an exorcism, let alone 13. As I stated, exorcisms are said to last hours even days (partially because of the notion that not completing the ceremony will lead the demon to invade the exorcist). Your response is that sometimes an IV can take hours. That is very much an outlier whereas exorcisms lasting hours is the norm. Combined with being tied down and you have serious trauma (which has caused some subjects to die or to attempt suicide). I have never heard of anyone trying to kill themselves over an IV. When determining the positive consequences of an exorcism advocates would say that saving a person’s soul and removing a demonic presence would be quite positive. Yet we can’t just take that on face value. We have no credible history of demonic presences being removed or even existing. Not only that but we have quite a history of those being exorcised having a more grounded explanation. There’s no way we can say that the positive consequences can equal the negative ones based on all of this information.

You were asking what the cutoff point of how many minutes (or hours) before an act is immoral. That’s not how it works. The greater the possible negative consequences the greater care one must take in deciding where to do or not do something.

So we have to question whether the priest was moral or not in putting that girl through 13 exorcisms. We know the girl had an ailment and so did the priest. He had no evidence to show this girl was possessed. I’m sure the priest knows the history of misapplied exorcisms that have done harm to those strapped to their beds. What was going through his mind after the 1st exorcism? Or the 6th? Or the 12th? This was an ordeal and he pressed on, sure that his fanciful notion of demons in bodies was true that he was willing to harm a young girl with anorexia. Knowing what the priest knew I feel secure in calling his repeated, hurtful, and careless acts immoral.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Well, yeah. That’s the logical conclusion.

It only makes sense if you couch the term law as something being handed down to a people. Some laws are natural ones, like the physical laws. Social laws can derive naturally too.

Then that means there’s no obligation to acting morally.

It is no more beneficial to stay away from bad actions than it is to staying away from spicy foods.

It’s a preference.

We’ve been down this road. I’ve been down this road with several of the other posters on this thread. As a species develops some pass on their genes and some don’t. The ones who have traits that benefit the group living together have a better chance of being passed on then ones that harm said group. Eventually those positive traits are so ingrained in us that they form our morals. It’s so common to have believers think that non-believers MUST work in a hyper-individualistic inhuman manner, yet that’s simply not what occurs.

Not sure what your point is that the Bible mentions unicorns?

It was really just an aside to show what kind of silliness can come from the side that thinks that non-believers lack truth.

Again, this is begging the question.

The fact that we tried to fill in some answers with demons does NOT mean: therefore demons don’t exist.

Absolutely correct. There are some things that by their nature or how they are defined we can not disprove them. I had an interesting conversation with a gentleman a few months back regarding whether the brain can function without the soul. He gave a diagram that (was supposed to have) shown how the soul interacts with the mind and body. All of this was neither provable nor unprovable. I responded back to him proposing that if the soul interacts with the body that it does so by first sending a signal to the moon and then back to the body. My proposal was also neither provable nor unprovable. He said that there was no reason to add this extra part regarding the moon, and I told him that we have equally no reason to this extra part called the soul.

In short, while we can never rule out demons we have no evidence of their existence. Our world works without there being demons and we have never shown them to exist. We have no evidence that when medics would drill holes into people skulls to release evil spirits that this isn’t what really happened.
There are all sorts of things that we can’t say definitely don’t exist. But it’s not a coincidence as we understand more about how the body works and how the mind works that we see less claims of things like demonic presence.

Well, sure. Some things that were attributed to demons were not actually caused by demons.

Which is why I asked if you could give me an example of something that wasn’t attributed to demons that later was found to be caused by demons.

But be careful you don’t fall into the Science of the Gaps error. “Science is going to explain in the future all the things we can’t understand now” is a very, er…religious paradigm.

Quite true, but this is where we look back at our history and play the odds. What gap in knowledge has EVER been filled by a supernatural reason as opposed to a natural one. None.

How many gaps in knowledge have ever been filled by a natural reason as opposed to a supernatural one. Millions? Billions?

This is not to say that there won’t ever be a supernatural explanation for something in the future, but to be intellectually honest we need to first check all natural options before all supernatural ones.

And bringing it back to the sub-topic at hand, a doctor had already found that the girl in the exorcism story was anorexic. The priest (seemingly holding a hammer and everything looking like nails) descends upon the family to tell them that their girl is possessed.

I can point to times where a person was mistakenly put through an exorcism when the actual ailment (if there was one) was not supernatural. Surely you can show things the other way around where a person was thought to have a normal ailment but it was concluded that the problem was a demon.

I probably could but it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

I know backing up your assertions is not your strong suit but I’d be very interested to see you show evidence of demons.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Would you agree with God here that those performing homosexual acts should be put to death?

That’s not what God says.

What?! It is exactly what God says. Show us how one is to interpret “'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” to say they are not to be put to death. Back up your assertion.

God gave us the Church: He who hears you hears Me.

What if the Church and God disagree, who wins?

The OT punishments were similar to God dealing with toddlers with a spanking. Today, He disciplines us differently.

I’m not sure how you deal with toddlers, but if you’re trying to analogize death with a spanking then maybe I don’t want to know.

Well, you’ve made quite a few assumptions about Catholicism that are quite uninformed (lately, the fact that we get our morality from the Bible. That belongs in a fundamentalist forum, NOT in a Catholic forum. We don’t view the Bible as our moral handbook.)

But you do view everything in the Bible as true in either a literal or non-literal sense. As much as you would like to just ignore those passages that I’ve mentioned and so many other ones in the Bible that advocate immorality and evil, you can’t. You do believe God is absolutely good and moral, correct?
And yet here he is dehumanizing slaves. An explanation is required by the Catechism itself, and it’s one you are unable and/or unwilling to provide.

It’s no coincidence that those passages I keep bringing up aren’t read in either the daily or Sunday masses. They are incredibly embarrassing.

I’m still waiting for you to tell me how Exodus 21:21 and Leviticus 25:44-46, in which God is quoted as saying that slaves as property, can be interpreted to mean that God does not say slaves are property.

Because we look to the Church to interpret the Bible.

You made a statement that God does not consider slaves as property, despite those passages directly saying that he does. As I explained to you the Church says that each passage in scripture can be read in one of four ways – one literal and three non-literal. I have not found anything from the Church which explains how one logically reads those passages that I mentioned in such a way so as to say God says slaves are not property.

This is your assertion and it’s time to back it up. I’m asking you to do even the slightest bit of research to show how what you said is correct. As I noted in an earlier post different christians can read things in different ways (like with Preterism and Futurism). You now must show why we are not to take those passages at face value. Saying that you follow the Chruch’s interpretation without explaining it or even providing a simple link referencing said interpretation is simply not enough. Either make your case or we’ll have to assume that God says slaves are property, which goes all the way back to my statement as to the trouble with a believer’s morals when their deity is immoral.

This reference, like the references to slavery in the NT, concerns feudal slavery. Not racial slavery.

Slavery in NT times was quite a different animal than the barbaric slavery of the 19th century.

This old gag? The thing that made the enslavement of Africans so terrible wasn’t the fact that the slaves were decided by race but that they were slaves at all. Slavery prior to that in which God, the Bible, and the Church all said eternal slavery was fine for non-Jews and later non-Christians isn’t better because it’s faith-based as opposed to race-based. The act of slavery itself is immoral. I love topics this because it makes people in the 21st century have to justify the atrocities of slavery by saying their brand of slavery isn’t as bad as others (even though the differences are minor at best). Nothing can get a Christian to defend moral relativism as fast as the topic of slavery.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Amen to the above!

You see the above statement as something objectionable?

Absolutely. The statement I quoted says that those who are freed from slavery should not give accusations or testify against the Church in criminal cases. If the Church has done something criminal then the Church says they should just shut up. This also applies to Jews, non-Christians, and the wrong type of Christians (“heretics”). Of course I find it objectionable. People should be able to speak to the truth.

The rest of the quotes you cite are rather benign statements addressing how slaves should be treated–and it seems that the Church is arguing rather eloquently that they be treated as HUMAN BEINGS with rights.

Did they have the right to leave after being captured? Of course not, so they were property and their rights were minor and limited within the confines of being a sub-person forced to serve those that would deny them freedom.

Regarding point 2 of the Council of Toledo, the Church is saying that even when they are no longer slaves they must serve the Church for the rest of their lives. Why can’t the Church let someone simply be free? If the freed person wants to stay he can stay and if the person wants to leave and do something else he should be able to do that. That’s what a good person would do.

Regarding point 3, the Church said they owned slaves fulfilling your request for something in writing from the Church that they endorsed slavery. Owning them is quite an endorsement. Of course now you’re trying to differentiate between super bad racial slavery and super awesome good Christian slavery.

You’re trying to tell me that when the Synod of Melif says that wives of clerics could be enslaved to ensure celibacy is a benign statement that treats them as human beings? Absurd. Absolutely absurd.

There is NO ENDORSEMENT, EVER, by the Church that slavery, referring to the savage and brutal system we endured in the 17th-19th centuries in the US, was a good thing.

No matter how many capital letters you use this most certainly is an endorsement of slavery. Possessing another person is slavery, period. If you want to say that slavery as outlined by the Church was a bit nicer than the kind in the U.S. doesn’t mean that it wasn’t slavery and that wasn’t incredibly wrong. And to call it “a good thing” is a disgusting mockery of the most basic human will.

Well, it should be discounted because you are using your 21st century lenses here.

Perpetual servitude was a feudal reference, not a reference to the barbaric and savage system we think of today when we think of slavery.

Another assertion that isn’t backed up? I’m as shocked as Captain Renault in Casablanca.

Probably not at that time. But certainly later she did.

Yes, as I noted in Vatican II – a mere few hundred years later. You even brought up two instances where the Chruch could have said something but then capitulated to the kings of Spain and Portugal. By backing down it showed no spine and no morals and is responsible in part for the evil that was perpetrated in the name of king and God.

In legal documents there are no such things as “throwaway lines”

LOL! Of course there are.
I guarantee you that every single page in something like this has a line or two that any lawyer would dismiss.

Your legal knowledge is on par with your religious knowledge. Give an example where a line or two in a legal document was dismissed as being a throwaway line and not something for all parties involved to concern themselves with. Remember the passage in Dum Diversas is giving a length of punishment, absolutely no different than a court stating that guilt of a crime requires a life sentence. If you murder someone can you tell the judge, “25 to life was a throwaway line”? Back up your assertion that legal documents are filled with throwaway lines.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think it’s quite trenchant that it doesn’t mention buying and selling and human trafficking. For isn’t that what we’re discussing here?

It talks very specifically about how to acquire slaves and how God and Church give the thumbs-up in doing so. That’s what we’re discussing here.

Not feudalism, taking goods and lands (which are, of course, the bailiwick of the political realm), and the invasion of countries.

And I ask again, when these slavers took people as well as goods and lands, what was the response of the Church? It wasn’t a denouncement of such acts.

I don’t think anyone was proposing that they were.

It was mostly a point that this CAF user that you quoted may not have thoroughly read Dum Diversas if he’s got the wrong country.

No, but, of course, that’s not what the pope said.

That’s absolutely what he said. Show where the pope restricted the actions that the king and his forces could do other than not targeting Christians. There are no other restrictions.

You have to look at the universe of discourse. And when we see the audience, we see to whom this text is directed.

Another example of the text says that but it reeeeeeally means this.

Servitude. Indentured servitude. Feudalism.

NOT racial slavery.

You do know that indentured servitude was a real thing right. It was a way to trade service to pay off a debt. What is the debt that a non-Christian owes when an Iberian comes upon them? It wasn’t to make up for a crime, because the only crime committed was assuming that they were dealing with compassionate people.

He is dealing with the Israelites as we would deal with toddlers. Using harsher language until the time when reason and persuasion can be utilized.

Where were the Israelites when God spoke to them and gave them the rules in Exodus 20 through 24? They were in the desert having escaped Egypt. This was the perfect starting point to tell the Hebrews what was right and what was wrong. But you seem to be saying (and I’ve heard apologists say this) that God told them to do slavery the right way because he couldn’t have them just not enslave people from the get go. In that speech in Exodus God give a whole bunch of laws to his people that left no room for deviation and were completely unique to them. Yet God can’t tell his people to not own people. To not sell your daughters into slavery. To not blackmail your Hebrew slaves to serve forever by holding their families hostage. Most importantly to not beat them and certain to not hit them so hard that they die a day later.

We as humans don’t teach our children the wrong thing and then later teach them the right thing. Slavery is wrong. Selling children is wrong. Killing people (including slaves) is wrong. Yet God thinks differently.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I didn’t say that.

In fact, I said just the opposite.
(forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12864143&postcount=67)

This is a keeper! I asked if those passages were literal where God is quoted as saying that slaves were property. You said in the post you quoted that the people thought of slaves as property. Let me put these arguments side-by-side to demonstrate the problem:

Me: God says slaves are property. Are those passages literally true?
You: Yes, it’s literally true that the people of that time said that slaves were property.

You changed the subject of the matter.

And remember the reason I brought up those passages was because I had initially asked two questions: What to do if your deity says/does something immoral and what to do if your church says/does something immoral. Those passages showed that the deity had said something immoral. In fact, you responded that you would not accept that as a writing showing the deity or the church to be immoral.

1. Would you agree that calling a slave property is immoral?
2. Would you agree that in the passages of the Bible I listed God is quoted as saying that slaves are property?
3. Would you agree that if those passages are literally true that based on 1 and 2 that God acted immorally in those instances?
4. Would you agree that if those passages are not literally true that the Catholic church believes they are true in one of three non-literal senses as outlined by the Catechism and as I earlier explained to you?
5. Would you agree that if those passages are not literal there must be a way to demonstrate how they are to be read that is cogent based on the fact that those passages like smack dab in the middle of other literal passages?
6. Would you agree that if those passages are not literal there must be a way to demonstrate that this non-literal reading should be chosen over a literal reading?
7. Would you agree that if those passages are not literal that the non-literal reading must show God in a positive light lest it show God to be as immoral as the literal reading does?

All that being said, please either tell all of us whether those two passages stating that God (not the people) said that slaves were property are literal or not. If they are literal then expain how a believer can have a moral foundation when its deity is immoral. If the passages are not literal then please describe a cogent, cohesive, and moral reading of those passage or link to something from the Church that does so. Back up your assertions.

I find this to be a peculiar comment.

The turth hurts.

Imagine if you were in dialogue with a 6000 year old earther. She presents arguments which ostensibly support her position. You refute them.

Then she responds with, “I know the modus operandi of evolution apolotists is to ignore those things that counter the desired narrative”…you would respond, how?

Most likely you’d say: I ignore data which is irrelevant, wrong or fictional.

Right?

What I would do is point to those items to which the young earther was ignoring and ask to explain how such items align with his or her hypothesis. Most imporantly I would ask that person to back up his or her assertions. Young earthers have a long history of ignoring evidence contrary to their position

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

All that considered I would say I’ve demonstrated a greater understanding of Catholicism.

http://media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif

I must congratulate you. I didn’t think it would take you this long to start pulling out the animated GIFs. I know you will go to them as a thread goes on and your arguments are torn apart.

You don’t feel I know much about Catholicism. You told frobert that you were a knowledgeable Catholic, but from what I’ve seen that’s an informed ability.

However, is it possible for someone to leave the Church because he wasn’t properly catechized?

Yes?

Absolutely. That’s why I said that the problem is when an apologist assumes that all people that leave the Catholic faith do so due to poor catechesis. That cannard of if a person disagrees with the Church and leaves it’s because of poor catechesis comes up quite often on EWTN radio programs like The Journey Home and Catholic Answers Live.

And when someone, an ex-Catholic, demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of Catholicism, is it logical to conclude his abysmal knowledge is due to a lack of education in the faith?

Please point to where I have misstated an understanding of Catholicism. There are numerous points where I’ve pointed out where the Church has done wrong but it was never over a misunderstanding nor a misstating of doctrine or the like.

Yes?

QED.

You are so completely confident that your pile of utterly unsubstantiated statements cobbled together is so strong an argument as to how much you know and how little I know that you ended your verbal flourish with QED.

Brava! Brava!

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1233928590_citizen kane clapping.gif

(Not only are my arguments far better but so are my animated GIFs )

 

[cena]

What?! It is exactly what God says. Show us how one is to interpret “'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” to say they are not to be put to death. Back up your assertion.

What if the Church and God disagree, who wins?

I’m not sure how you deal with toddlers, but if you’re trying to analogize death with a spanking then maybe I don’t want to know.

But you do view everything in the Bible as true in either a literal or non-literal sense. As much as you would like to just ignore those passages that I’ve mentioned and so many other ones in the Bible that advocate immorality and evil, you can’t. You do believe God is absolutely good and moral, correct?
And yet here he is dehumanizing slaves. An explanation is required by the Catechism itself, and it’s one you are unable and/or unwilling to provide.

It’s no coincidence that those passages I keep bringing up aren’t read in either the daily or Sunday masses. They are incredibly embarrassing.

You made a statement that God does not consider slaves as property, despite those passages directly saying that he does. As I explained to you the Church says that each passage in scripture can be read in one of four ways – one literal and three non-literal. I have not found anything from the Church which explains how one logically reads those passages that I mentioned in such a way so as to say God says slaves are not property.

This is your assertion and it’s time to back it up. I’m asking you to do even the slightest bit of research to show how what you said is correct. As I noted in an earlier post different christians can read things in different ways (like with Preterism and Futurism). You now must show why we are not to take those passages at face value. Saying that you follow the Chruch’s interpretation without explaining it or even providing a simple link referencing said interpretation is simply not enough. Either make your case or we’ll have to assume that God says slaves are property, which goes all the way back to my statement as to the trouble with a believer’s morals when their deity is immoral.

This old gag? The thing that made the enslavement of Africans so terrible wasn’t the fact that the slaves were decided by race but that they were slaves at all. Slavery prior to that in which God, the Bible, and the Church all said eternal slavery was fine for non-Jews and later non-Christians isn’t better because it’s faith-based as opposed to race-based. The act of slavery itself is immoral. I love topics this because it makes people in the 21st century have to justify the atrocities of slavery by saying their brand of slavery isn’t as bad as others (even though the differences are minor at best). Nothing can get a Christian to defend moral relativism as fast as the topic of slavery.

The punishments don’t apply in the New Covenant. Jesus saved a woman from getting the death penalty for adultery from one of those laws. The law to not commit adultery still applies, but the punishment does not
Edit: clarity

 

[PRmerger]

What?! It is exactly what God says.

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

Please, Mike, note what forum you have joined. It is called Catholic Answers. NOT Fundamentalist Bible Answers.

We do not glean our beliefs from a book, no matter how holy.

Our beliefs come from Christ, through His Body, the Catholic Church.

And this is what Christ says, regarding homosexuality:

usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/homosexual-inclination-guidelines-page-set.cfm

 

[frobert]

PRmerger, instead of replying to each bit from your questions and comments in post 101 here’s the gist.

So we have to question whether the priest was moral or not in putting that girl through 13 exorcisms. We know the girl had an ailment and so did the priest. He had no evidence to show this girl was possessed. I’m sure the priest knows the history of misapplied exorcisms that have done harm to those strapped to their beds. What was going through his mind after the 1st exorcism? Or the 6th? Or the 12th? This was an ordeal and he pressed on, sure that his fanciful notion of demons in bodies was true that he was willing to harm a young girl with anorexia. Knowing what the priest knew I feel secure in calling his repeated, hurtful, and careless acts immoral.

Mike, I admire your skill and knowledge as well as your stamina.

In case you missed it. PR told me that she trusts in the hierarchy of the church to make determinations about the competency of the exorcist and if I want to know out they make such determinations to do a Google search.

 

[PRmerger]

I must congratulate you. I didn’t think it would take you this long to start pulling out the animated GIFs. I know you will go to them as a thread goes on and your arguments are torn apart.

No, Mike.

I appeal to them based on my mood, if I have a GIF that’s appropriate to the discussion, how much time I have to search for a new one, as well as if I believe that poster will receive it with the intention with which it is delivered.



And just to provide some evidence to refute your assertion, here’s just a few threads where I offered a GIF, irrespective of whether my arguments were “torn apart”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10430546
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10458921#post10458921
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10460676&postcount=688
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10468769#post10468769

Incidentally, I see that you visited my Profile Page. That makes me smile.

But I don’t think it’s wise to think you can distill any kind of psychological assessment of me, my posting style and when I post GIFS by looking at a Profile Page.

 

[PRmerger]

(Not only are my arguments far better but so are my animated GIFs )

Oh, honey, don’t even try to compete with me. My inventory of GIFs will utterly slaughter any competition.

Quit now, friend.

You:



Me:

http://www.gurl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/serena-checking-phone.gif

 

[PRmerger]

Please point to where I have misstated an understanding of Catholicism.

Well, the main one in this thread has been your repeated appeal to Scripture as our source of doctrine and morality.

And here’s something:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9914903&postcount=15

I don’t have a problem with posing a question regarding Catholicism. None of us knows everything about Catholicism.

But since you asked, I’m presenting some examples of your dismal education in Catholicism.

More:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10391070&postcount=130
(Specifically your assertion that the Church teaches that marriage should be between 1 man and 500 wives and 500 concubines)

And here you are affirming exactly what I’ve been saying all this time!

Mike_from_NJ:

I’m not sure what the level of education people get today from Catholic education, but if it’s anything like the CCD classes I had 30 years ago then it isn’t much. We never had to learn the 10 commandments, the Hail Mary, or any of the terms you listed. Heck, it wasn’t until well after my confirmation did I know that Catholicism was a subset of christianity (I’d always thought the terms were completely interchangable). We did draw and sing songs a lot though.

QED.

Again.

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t feel I know much about Catholicism. You told frobert that you were a knowledgeable Catholic, but from what I’ve seen that’s an informed ability.

I acknowledge when valid errors have been pointed out to me.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4138325&postcount=36
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4763918&postcount=164
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5128433&postcount=198

But the majority of what I post is quite informed, and consonant with the faith, given once for all, to the saints.

Yep. When you do the math, it turns out that my errors are .00448275 of my posts.

Pretty good statistics, don’t you think?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s why I said that the problem is when an apologist assumes that all people that leave the Catholic faith do so due to poor catechesis.

Would you agree that it’s also a problem when a poster (you) assumes that it’s ONLY based on assumptions that another poster (me) has concluded that the poster has an abysmal knowledge of the Catholic faith?

Yep, I know the above is a convoluted sentence.

So I’ll rephrase: we should agree that it’s generally wrong to make assumptions without any evidence to support these assumptions.

Incidentally, I would like to offer this, again, because it’s…well…

Mike_from_NJ:

I’m not sure what the level of education people get today from Catholic education, but if it’s anything like the CCD classes I had 30 years ago then it isn’t much. We never had to learn the 10 commandments, the Hail Mary, or any of the terms you listed. Heck, it wasn’t until well after my confirmation did I know that Catholicism was a subset of christianity (I’d always thought the terms were completely interchangable). We did draw and sing songs a lot though.