E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
I mistook a temporary lull for a permanent one. Seems my coda let right in to the next chart. Fine by me.
It’s also worth mentioning that to compare the Inquisition to various atrocities committed regularly by royalty at the time — who had absolute power over the lives of the peasants — puts a rosier light on the Inquisition itself, not that this changes the absolute moral wrong of the Inquisition. While it was the civil authorities which insisted on torture more often than not, a weak will is the excuse of Pontius Pilate.
Incidentally, can you from experience say that atheist parents have raised an atheist child who has anything like the religious morality you carry from your childhood?
Evil in the world is pretty well explained by current belief, if that’s what you refer to.
Notably, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” epitomizes the flaw in humanity’s capacity to judge the truth or morality of something all by its lonesome.
Ignoring what happened in mainland Europe, the American colonies were founded on and had several parties and interest groups dedicated to attacking the Catholic menace through such exaggerations, and several distortions from the era of virulent hatred continue today. Most recently, presidential candidate Al Smith lost the election because of his Catholic faith, and Kennedy — let’s ignore his morals, instead look at his stated faith — was saved the same fate because of a single, well-timed speech in Texas and the voting habits of Chicago graveyards. Know-Nothings, the heavy argument against Virginia’s eventual position on religious freedom, the necessity of Maryland’s establishment as a Catholic colony… the list goes on.
We deplore the actions as they are, and exaggeration falsely makes them worse. We, therefore, fight both with an intensity appropriate for the charge. Exaggerations are far more numerous, unfortunately. Unfortunate, of course, only in the sense that it creates one more exaggeration to deal with.
For example, the following statement:
I have never known the poor to be swindled out of their money through the Catholic Church, especially because the Church has never stated that as a requirement to salvation, unlike several Protestant faith and that Hubbard man’s cult. Indeed, if you’re going to break it down monetarily, consider food drives and clothing drives and that Christmas tree with presents described on paper ornaments, the poorest who give nothing get much, and those who give little get more than their money’s worth. Ignoring the rightness of the charity — defeats the purpose of charity, but a useful position in pragmatic argument — the poor get items worth more than the money they might tithe to the Church.
You also ignore the grateful way in which such goods are traded. Goodwill among neighbors is priceless.
The third charge is laid out above.
As regards to the charge that a survey says 30 percent of priests are homosexual: Assuming the survey is accurate and not an invention of clever hands on a keyboard, it is hardly surprising, considering the Church’s teaching that both priests and homosexuals should be celibate. If anything, gay priests are a natural fit.
The question of personhood has advanced in lockstep with the science. Was there any way for the naked eyes of the 12th century to perceive the blastula?
As I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, the Inquisition was under the immediate authority of the local bishops or a similar level of the heirarchy who most immediately decided the severity of the search. While the Inquisition itself was directly informed by religious belief, the severity of it boiled down to local hatreds, and in Spain this was especially terrible because of the painful encounters with the Saracens, and in France the Cathars. Again, however, the Church Militant is hardly infallible.
It’s also worth mentioning that to compare the Inquisition to various atrocities committed regularly by royalty at the time — who had absolute power over the lives of the peasants — puts a rosier light on the Inquisition itself, not that this changes the absolute moral wrong of the Inquisition. While it was the civil authorities which insisted on torture more often than not, a weak will is the excuse of Pontius Pilate.
Current practice of most branches of Christianity is to evangelize through example, as I know you’re aware.
Has your life improved since then? If so, on what scale? I ask this nonconfrontationally, simply out of curiosity.
Incidentally, can you from experience say that atheist parents have raised an atheist child who has anything like the religious morality you carry from your childhood?
Given that the moral reasoning for religion and one of the central teachings of it is the fallibility of man — i.e., ignoring the believers throughout history who ignore moral teaching — what is this evidence you mention?
Evil in the world is pretty well explained by current belief, if that’s what you refer to.
Notably, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” epitomizes the flaw in humanity’s capacity to judge the truth or morality of something all by its lonesome.
We don’t defend the atrocities. We attack the exaggeration of the atrocities, just as you might attack the exaggerations against atheists earlier in the thread — bunk like “we’ll all be anarchistic mass murderers if the atheists win.”
Ignoring what happened in mainland Europe, the American colonies were founded on and had several parties and interest groups dedicated to attacking the Catholic menace through such exaggerations, and several distortions from the era of virulent hatred continue today. Most recently, presidential candidate Al Smith lost the election because of his Catholic faith, and Kennedy — let’s ignore his morals, instead look at his stated faith — was saved the same fate because of a single, well-timed speech in Texas and the voting habits of Chicago graveyards. Know-Nothings, the heavy argument against Virginia’s eventual position on religious freedom, the necessity of Maryland’s establishment as a Catholic colony… the list goes on.
We deplore the actions as they are, and exaggeration falsely makes them worse. We, therefore, fight both with an intensity appropriate for the charge. Exaggerations are far more numerous, unfortunately. Unfortunate, of course, only in the sense that it creates one more exaggeration to deal with.
For example, the following statement:
Burning people alive was practice even before the Inquisition, and in such regions as it was popular frowned on by the local ecclesiastic authorities until, finally, they kowtowed to the man in charge.
I have never known the poor to be swindled out of their money through the Catholic Church, especially because the Church has never stated that as a requirement to salvation, unlike several Protestant faith and that Hubbard man’s cult. Indeed, if you’re going to break it down monetarily, consider food drives and clothing drives and that Christmas tree with presents described on paper ornaments, the poorest who give nothing get much, and those who give little get more than their money’s worth. Ignoring the rightness of the charity — defeats the purpose of charity, but a useful position in pragmatic argument — the poor get items worth more than the money they might tithe to the Church.
You also ignore the grateful way in which such goods are traded. Goodwill among neighbors is priceless.
The third charge is laid out above.
As regards to the charge that a survey says 30 percent of priests are homosexual: Assuming the survey is accurate and not an invention of clever hands on a keyboard, it is hardly surprising, considering the Church’s teaching that both priests and homosexuals should be celibate. If anything, gay priests are a natural fit.
