God is not dead!

[inocente]

Our Lord wants you to know the truth about yourself

Post 1 of 4.

So now you’re the Lord’s avenging angel, directed personally to put me back on the path of righteousness. By repeatedly calling me a bigot. By repeatedly spewing personal remarks. By not posting on topic. All the reasons why that other thread got closed. Building the kingdom of God one step at a time with your ego.

You first called me a bigot in post #40. My next three posts contain everything I posted until then. Show me explicitly where I was a bigot so I, the moderator and everyone else can see the evidence. If you have a case then I’ll apologize. Otherwise you’ll apologize. Fair?

But remember we all know what the word bigot means, we all know it’s a very strong word, it’s defamatory, denigrating, libelous, slanderous. By my count you’ve used it against me seven times. So leave aside vague accusations and word smithing, they’re not going to cut it. Evidence, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that I deserve to be called a bigot. Go over every post I’ve ever made on CAF if you need. Build your case before Christ.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

CII, PR, John21652 – sorry, I’m not carrying on until this is cleared up.

 

[inocente]

2 of 4

No, scientists are deliriously happy to talk about it. And no, energy doesn’t appear to be increasing, it’s conjectured that the total sum of energy in the universe is, always was, and always will be exactly zero.

In any case it seems a bit weird to use science to argue against science. I mean, if you equate science with atheism does your use of conservation laws and red-shift mean you’re posting as a theist or atheist? Now that would probably quality as existential angst.

How we interpret scientific results is up to us, there’s no agenda. The whole reason why it works is to follow the evidence – the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But then why some folk want to think that physical truths deny spiritual truths has always gone straight over my head.

Yes, religion is failing badly, but of course that’s got nothing at all to do with religionists.

That’s what I meant, it is the fault of religionists – maybe I should have used a instead of a . But religionists always blame the rest of the world, nothing’s ever their fault. See, you just did it too dude, as if the RCC is completely powerless to change anything.

Leaving aside turf wars, in Spain there’s no ready alternative to Catholicism but people still don’t go to church. I think it goes way deeper, all this warring against science and modernity puts religion in a self-imposed bubble, but of course that’s nothing to do with religionists.

As a self-described Catholic and a person of some caliber, are you having me on here CII?

How is it possible for something as squishy as modernity to war against religion? Globalization, education, democracy, freedom of speech, longer life spans – these are dark conspiracies warring against religion? Religionists losing such a war deserve to lose, big-time.

Teresa said God never changes, and the previous line says everything passes, not everything is set in stone. Spiritual needs can’t die. If organized religions don’t meet those needs they can change or they can dig in their heels and cry in their beer, turning away even more by being downright glum and antagonistic.

What do these helpless frozen defeatists want then? Oopsie-daisy diddums, did nasty modernity make you cry? Come back in your nice cozy bubble where nothing bad ever happens, oh no it doesn’t! no it doesn’t! There there, go beddy-byes, etc. etc.

 

[inocente]

3 of 4

Curse this democratic form of government - if only you had some way to get your politicians elected.

Agreed, that’s the job of a couple of other posters here.

Then you’re not helpless against modernity after all. Hallelujah, the saints be praised!

But, now hang on un momento here:

catholicsforchoice.org/topics/abortion/default.asp
condoms4life.org/home.htm
dignityusa.org/

So when you say common decency, who gets to decide?

Nope. Common sense says there’s mutual consent and no harm. Common decency says don’t pick on minorities. They pay their taxes, they contribute to society, they’re as Good As You. What’s not to like?

How about leaving innocent folk alone and going after drug dealers instead, or would that be indecent and an outrage against common sense?

You done switched back into helpless bubble mode. What 'cha saying – people only get to vote if they vote for you?

 

[inocente]

4 of 4

In Spain, once one of the most fiercely Catholic countries, LGBT union has been legal for 6 years. The RCC campaigned against but two thirds of the people approved the change.

Malta had a referendum just this Sunday to decide whether to remain the only country in the Western hemisphere where divorce is illegal. 95% are Catholic, 72% turned out, the RCC campaigned against change and again the RCC lost.

Meanwhile the average age of priests in Spain is over 63, in some areas 72. It seems recruitment is problematic because men unreasonably want a family, which they can have in any other job. And what’s this? In the United States 40 years ago, there was one priest for every 772 Catholics, now it is one per 1,603. In 1970, there were 8,000 students in US seminaries, today it is around 1,300. - independent.co.uk/opinion/faith/as-priest-numbers-fall-even-catholic-spain-is-not-immune-to-a-crisis-of-faith-1839313.html

What’s that phrase again about noodling around while Rome burns?

Heterosexuals are now immune to AIDS? Condoms are a sensible way to reduce STDs, sent from God as it were. Oh :doh2: forgot they’re also depraved and disordered.

Love the use of loaded words like perverts and sodomy. You’re going to install a camera in every bedroom to catch out consenting adults? That wouldn’t be just a little bit perverse?

Exactly, how dare women want equal rights, how dare anyone free the slaves, these serfs are far too big for their boots. Or else that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. – Señor Abraham Lincoln

*There is no damage to marriage or to the family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. Rather, these citizens now have the ability to organize their lives according to marital and familial norms and demands. There is no threat to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law recognizes and values marriage.

Aware that some people and institutions * profoundly disagree with this legal change, I wish to say that like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will not generate bad results, that its only consequence will be to avoid senseless suffering of human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society.

In any case, I wish to express my deep respect to those people and institutions, and I also want to ask for the same respect for all of those who approve of this law. To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs. – Presidente José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, 2005**

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...de_Day_and_Same-Sex_Marriage_Law_in_Spain.jpg
Gay pride, 2005, celebrating same sex marriage law. Just to rub it in, the banner reads “SECULAR STATE!” Yea! Power to the people!
inocente;7926464:

I really like that! Couldn’t find it on google, is it your own?

If you mean gay marriage then yes of course, I’d have thought that’s blindingly obvious from previous posts.

Why do you use this loaded KJV word “sodomite”? Are you referring to inhabitants of Sodom or to shrine prostitutes? Why not use words by which people define themselves?

I’ve no idea what other Baptists think, it’s never been discussed. We don’t have a hierarchy sending down instructions from on high, we’re not political lobbyists, we’re Christians, free to make up our own minds. That’s kind of central to Baptists, btw.

Incest is often destructive and is genetically unwise, so no. Polygamy is the norm in some cultures but wouldn’t meet the conditions for the sacrament in a Baptist church. I’ve never really thought on it but personally one wife for life is just about right.

Why should I care? Is that the best argument you’ve got bro, lots of people kept slaves so we should too, we’re forever trapped by the past?

But you ignore my point again. Do Catholics debate important things like keeping kids off drugs, reducing teenage pregnancies, the shortage of priests, the future of the Church? On CAF at least they’re far more interested in sideshows, gay marriage being a perennial favorite.

Spain has one of the most liberal LGBT policies in the world and the RCC is dying on its feet here. But look at this Unesco report (pdf)

on the well-being of children (first table, page 2). Spain near the top, US and UK at the bottom. Now look at the whole table. Is there any correlation between well-being and religion? Don’t look like it to me.

Face it bro, God isn’t dead but is all but irrelevant until Christians leave their nice cozy bubbles and rejoin the real world.

Que? What’s AIDS got to do with the price of paella? Que? Que?

Ah, the old “if you don’t want anyone to call you names you must get in my cozy bubble” argument.

I know Americans are poor at geography, but really dude, Europe isn’t somewhere between Alabama and Georgia.

At water baptism over here on our own continent

we accept Jesus is Lord. That’s it. Hard to grasp I know but we don’t swear allegiance to the star spangled banner or to give up our God-given conscience or anything else.

 

[PRmerger]

Post 1 of 4.

So now you’re the Lord’s avenging angel, directed personally to put me back on the path of righteousness. By repeatedly calling me a bigot. By repeatedly spewing personal remarks. By not posting on topic. All the reasons why that other thread got closed. Building the kingdom of God one step at a time with your ego.

You first called me a bigot in post #40. My next three posts contain everything I posted until then. Show me explicitly where I was a bigot so I, the moderator and everyone else can see the evidence. If you have a case then I’ll apologize. Otherwise you’ll apologize. Fair?

But remember we all know what the word bigot means, we all know it’s a very strong word, it’s defamatory, denigrating, libelous, slanderous. By my count you’ve used it against me seven times. So leave aside vague accusations and word smithing, they’re not going to cut it. Evidence, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that I deserve to be called a bigot. Go over every post I’ve ever made on CAF if you need. Build your case before Christ.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

CII, PR, John21652 – sorry, I’m not carrying on until this is cleared up.

Sheesh, inocente!

I will clear this up:

[SIGN1]Based on my pridian dialogues with him I will loudly and proudly proclaim that inocente is NOT a bigot.[/sign1]

I am a minority here in the US yet I would feel quite comfortable sitting down to dinner with him at my table, quite satisfied that there was no bigotry present.

Now, can we please continue the discussion?

 

[inocente]

On that vein, I would like to profess, “With all due respect, I believe that Catholicism is big enough to address both.” There need not be an either/or, or an “instead”. The Church in general, and we in particular here on the CAFs, are quite capable of addressing both.

Sure, and it would be nice if that happened. That’s my point - from what I see both on CAF and in real life, all too often you get side-tracked. I know far more than anyone should about Galileo and popes, yet am not sure anything at all is being done to reverse the trend in places like Spain and Ireland, if so it must be a BIG secret. The unwritten rule seems to be that the more relevant a subject is to real life the less it should be discussed.

This is a nebulous reference. What’s a “turf war” as it pertains to CAFs discussions on Catholicism?

turf war: a dispute between gangs over territory, a struggle for power or control.

You must have lived an innocent, care-free existence. It’s when Protestants/Catholics say Catholics/Protestants are not True Christians™ because of X. Or Christians/Atheists say Atheists/Christians are evil because of Y. Or one Catholic labels another Catholic a cafeteria, whatever that supposed to mean (I think ooh, oooo, can I be a cafeteria too?)

This petty business of trying to form alliances by stereotyping others, like cliques of teenagers. If Adam and Eve taught us one thing it’s there’s one humanity. To me, by definition, anyone who can’t see that hasn’t got the first clue about Christ. It’s one of the ways of killing God softly (trying to stay on-topic).

It *sounds *like an excuse to back away from any discussion in which you have no rebuttal. You can always say, “Ah, PR, I told you ‘I don’t go in for turf wars’, remember?”

No, what I mean (methinks you already know ) is many people use labels to stereotype others as if that’s an argument. After twelve months on CAF I’m a materialist, relativist, atheist, deist (awarded just last week), bigoted (awarded just this week), etc., etc.

Like with the very trenchant point I made in which I pointed out the illogic of your proclamation that your type of Christians are “free to make up their own minds”. Nonsense! You wouldn’t allow Fred Phelps to preach at your church. Of that I am certain.

Had to look him up, and of course not.

No not illogical, we’re not free to worship the devil or anything, that’s kind of understood, but no one has authority over us, everything is voluntary. We don’t have any creed, everyone is morally free, free to interpret the Bible (don’t start on that again ).

There are plenty of Catholics on CAF who don’t agree with various aspects of the RCC’s sexual ethics either. Are they not free to make up their own minds, are they also nonsense?

 

[inocente]

Sheesh, inocente!

I will clear this up:

[SIGN1]Based on my pridian dialogues with him I will loudly and proudly proclaim that inocente is NOT a bigot.[/sign1]

I am a minority here in the US yet I would feel quite comfortable sitting down to dinner with him at my table, quite satisfied that there was no bigotry present.

Now, can we please continue the discussion?

OK then, thanks but rave isn’t off the hook, not by a long way, he has some explaining to do. Maybe one day he’ll play nice, don’t seem much point being mean to each other just for the sake of it, etc, etc, (I could go on for some time here).

Several people have told me to put him on something called an ignore list, which I mention purely because it drives him crazy whenever anyone brings it up .

Shouting with big fonts looks mighty cool though .

 

[inocente]

On that vein, I would like to profess, “With all due respect, I believe that Catholicism is big enough to address both.” There need not be an either/or, or an “instead”. The Church in general, and we in particular here on the CAFs, are quite capable of addressing both.

Sure, and it would be nice if that happened. But from what I see both on CAF and in real life, all too often you get side-tracked. I know far more than anyone should about Galileo and popes, yet am not sure anything at all is being done to reverse the trend in places like Spain and Ireland, if so it must be a BIG secret. The unwritten rule seems to be that the more relevant a subject is to real life the less it should be discussed.

This is a nebulous reference. What’s a “turf war” as it pertains to CAFs discussions on Catholicism?

turf war: a dispute between gangs over territory, a struggle for power or control.

You must have lived an innocent, care-free existence. It’s when Protestants/Catholics say Catholics/Protestants are not True Christians™ because of X. Or Christians/Atheists say Atheists/Christians are evil because of Y. Or one Catholic labels another Catholic a cafeteria, whatever that’s supposed to mean (I think ooh, oooo, can I be a cafeteria too?)

This petty business of stereotyping others, like cliques of teenagers. To me, by definition anyone who can’t see that we’re one humanity hasn’t got the first clue about Christ. It’s one of the ways of killing God softly (trying to stay on-topic).

It *sounds *like an excuse to back away from any discussion in which you have no rebuttal. You can always say, “Ah, PR, I told you ‘I don’t go in for turf wars’, remember?”

No, what I mean (methinks you already know ) is many people use labels to stereotype others as if that’s an argument. After twelve months on CAF I’m a materialist, relativist, atheist, deist (awarded just last week), bigoted (awarded just this week), etc., etc.

Like with the very trenchant point I made in which I pointed out the illogic of your proclamation that your type of Christians are “free to make up their own minds”. Nonsense! You wouldn’t allow Fred Phelps to preach at your church. Of that I am certain.

Had to look him up, and of course not.

No not illogical, we’re not free to worship the devil or anything, that’s kind of understood, but no one has authority over us, everything is voluntary. We don’t have any creed, everyone is morally free, free to interpret the Bible (don’t start on that again ).

There are plenty of Catholics on CAF who don’t agree with various aspects of the RCC’s sexual ethics either. Are they not free to make up their own minds, are they also nonsense?

 

[Poustinia]

In any case it seems a bit weird to use science to argue against science.

But this is what you just did.

And no, energy doesn’t appear to be increasing, it’s conjectured that the total sum of energy in the universe is, always was, and always will be exactly zero.

This is a diversionary tactic used to deflect focusing on the truth and also to set the rules of the discussion at the outset. The rule: You can use science to argue science, but I cannot. It also indicates that you are not willing to listen to natural law arguments.

But then why some folk want to think that physical truths deny spiritual truths has always gone straight over my head.

Conversely, spiritual truths cannot deny physical truths. Catholics believe that truth is known by natural reason unaided by faith and by divine revelation, and these cannot conflict with each other because both have their source in God.

• You accept only divine revelation as the only source of truth.
• You fail to learn from natural law arguments.
• You don’t quote scripture; a Baptist who is trolling for converts from Catholicism would.

Disciple- “The punishment of liars is that other people no longer believe them.”
Wise One- “It’s worse still. Liars can longer believe other people. Do you know why?”

So I ask you: Are you Muslim?

1. • Do you reject Islam so as to live in the freedom of being God’s child?
   • Do you reject the allurements of Islam, and refuse to be mastered by Allah?
   • Do you reject Islam and all its works and empty promises?
   • Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?
   • Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
   • Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of the saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting?
   A Baptist (or most Christian denominations) would have no problem answering “I do” to these questions.
   
   :ehhoustinia

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

I hear you calling a lot of Catholics bigots on the subject of same sex marriage. I didn’t hear you also calling your fellow Baptists in the Southern Baptist convention a lot of bigots. Did I miss that post?

sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128

 

[Betterave]

Sheesh, inocente!

I will clear this up:

[SIGN1]Based on my pridian dialogues with him I will loudly and proudly proclaim that inocente is NOT a bigot.[/sign1]

I am a minority here in the US yet I would feel quite comfortable sitting down to dinner with him at my table, quite satisfied that there was no bigotry present.

Now, can we please continue the discussion?

So you make a claim: “inocente is not a bigot.” In this context you can only mean: “inocente’s patterns of behavior displayed in his posts here are not bigoted - and you who think otherwise are wrong.”* That’s just a claim. Now is it true? I think it’s obviously not, so let’s get clear first of all: what do you think ‘bigotry’ means? And how can you in good conscience simply ignore all of the reasons I have adduced and proclaim that I am wrong, when that in itself is classic bigoted behavior (stubborn intolerance towards beliefs or opinions that differ from your own)? If you want to disagree with me, I’m fine with that; but please don’t do so in a bigoted way. Consider my reasons and reply to them. inocente is a bigot, because he, like you in this instance, consistently simply ignores the reasons presented against his position and introduces all sorts of idiotic, irrelevant, dishonest insinuations about things like geocentrism.

*Please, PLEASE note that this thread is not about inocente being a bigot. It is necessary to discuss his bigotry, however, because as long as it goes unchecked, it will be impossible to have any kind of intelligent discussion of his claims about the real subject of this thread and so he will simply continue to make them. I do hope you understand that.

 

[Windfish]

Gotta agree with Betterave, here. All my interactions with inocente have been dead-ends and weird. Not that I dislike the guy, though.

 

[Betterave]

Post 1 of 4.

So now you’re the Lord’s avenging angel, directed personally to put me back on the path of righteousness.

No. That’s completely absurd. Only a bigot could say something so stupidly absurd. (Call this exhibit 1.)

By repeatedly calling me a bigot.

No, you’re again clinging to your own opinion and ignoring what I have done here. (Bigotry exhibit 2.)

By repeatedly spewing personal remarks.

My remarks have always been about your remarks. You continue to insist on ignoring this. (Exhibit 3.)

By not posting on topic.

Again, clinging to your opinion, refusing to ground your accusation, despite my having rejected this claim. (Exhibit 4.)

All the reasons why that other thread got closed. Building the kingdom of God one step at a time with your ego.

More irrelevant ad hominem commentary in the service of ignoring my claims. (Exhibit 5.)

You first called me a bigot in post #40. My next three posts contain everything I posted until then. Show me explicitly where I was a bigot so I, the moderator and everyone else can see the evidence. If you have a case then I’ll apologize. Otherwise you’ll apologize. Fair?

That’s not really fair. I have always indicated the grounds for my charge against your posting behavior here. It would be ‘fair’ if you took those charges seriously in the first place and responded to them without me having to repeat myself. That you have not done so is again evidence for my charge.

But remember we all know what the word bigot means, we all know it’s a very strong word, it’s defamatory, denigrating, libelous, slanderous. By my count you’ve used it against me seven times. So leave aside vague accusations and word smithing, they’re not going to cut it. Evidence, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that I deserve to be called a bigot. Go over every post I’ve ever made on CAF if you need. Build your case before Christ.

That’s idiotic, inocente. The word bigot is a strong word, but it certainly isn’t libelous. If a spade is a spade, honest people call it a spade. ‘Bigotry’ is just a word used to refer to someone like yourself who is obstinately attached to his own opinions and intolerant of the views of others.

[BTW, it is rather silly for you to ask me to review all of your posts on CAF. I have already given you plenty of explanations. You just need to start *listening to them - i.e., stop behaving in a bigoted way!]

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

I am always glad to do so. And you should really LISTEN UP OR SHUT UP.

I don’t point out your bigotry because I don’t like you or something; I do it because your bigotry makes intelligent discussion (not to mention apprehension of the truth) impossible, and I’d really like to be able to have some intelligent discussion that has a chance of helping us towards a better understanding of the truth.

 

[Betterave]

Maybe one day he’ll play nice, don’t seem much point being mean to each other just for the sake of it, etc, etc, (I could go on for some time here).

Exhibit 6.

Several people have told me to put him on something called an ignore list, which I mention purely because it drives him crazy whenever anyone brings it up .

Exhibit 7.

If you don’t understand how any of these comments constitute bigotry, please just say and I’ll be happy to explain.

 

[Betterave]

I am sure we all aware of CONDUCT RULE #1: “Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language.” (Hopefully everyone is also aware of Rule #5: “Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board” and Rule #6: “Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief and practice.”)

There are certain posters who seem to think that pointing out that someone’s remarks are dishonest or irrational or bigoted constitutes a personal attack or is uncharitable. And this interpretation of the rule would imply that when someone makes these kinds of remarks - dishonest or irrational or bigoted - it is against the rules to point it out. But seriously: what kind of a ‘philosophy’ forum would that be? And what kind of people would be in favor of that kind of rule??

 

[inocente]

But this is what you just did.

Didn’t understand, sorry.

You started this thread ten days ago and haven’t posted on it since. Why now? Why to me? Do you smell blood, is this a pack instinct or something?

This is a diversionary tactic used to deflect focusing on the truth and also to set the rules of the discussion at the outset. The rule: You can use science to argue science, but I cannot. It also indicates that you are not willing to listen to natural law arguments.

I simply pointed out that it’s false to say the expansion of the universe means its mass and energy are increasing. If you think I’m wrong, by all means cite some sources.

So I ask you: Are you Muslim?

Instead of trying to be a clever cloggs, you can find out from my posts over the last twelve months that I’m not a bigot or trying to convert anyone or a liar, and so on. You just click my name at the top of this post, choose “find all posts”, and then you read any you like at random. I’ve made around 1,400 so there’s plenty to choose from.

I can’t really do the same as you’ve not made many posts, but you obviously can’t possibly be an troll with Catholic on your profile.

Don’t forget the sticky: “It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs”.

 

[inocente]

inocente

I hear you calling a lot of Catholics bigots on the subject of same sex marriage. I didn’t hear you also calling your fellow Baptists in the Southern Baptist convention a lot of bigots. Did I miss that post?

sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128

I already told you, I’m not in the US, I don’t know anything about these southern baptists. Look up some history dude.

I’ve never called anyone a bigot. Quote the post. Put up or shut up.

Incidentally I’m not laughing CII.

 

[inocente]

Gotta agree with Betterave, here. All my interactions with inocente have been dead-ends and weird. Not that I dislike the guy, though.

I don’t even remember you. Is the whole world and his dog turning up for blood now?

 

[inocente]

But seriously: what kind of a ‘philosophy’ forum would that be?

All your “exhibits” are after you first called me a bigot. In other words you have no evidence why you called me a bigot, you called me a bigot without any cause whatsoever, and you’ve repeated it several times since without any cause.

Sent to the mod:

Sorry to bother you.

Betterave has called me a bigot several times. He’s failed to provide a shred of evidence and has failed to apologize.

The stickies say “Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited". I can’t imagine anything more derogatory, baiting and inflammatory. This is supposed to be a Christian forum.

Please take action, whatever you think best.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
I already told you, I’m not in the US, I don’t know anything about these southern baptists. Look up some history dude.**

You identify yourself as a Baptist but don’t cite the formal position of any Baptist group on same sex marriage. You slam Catholics for their morals on same sex marriage, but when it is pointed out to you that the Southern Baptist Convention declares itself against same sex marriage, you ask me to read some history?

Why not cite any Baptist group anywhere in the world that endorses same sex marriage?

Or don’t you read any history?