Nice! Open with an insult. Hope that doesn’t backfire on you as people read it.
Pointing out the fact that you stated the obvious doesn’t amount to an insult. However, if you wish to feign insult, that’s your perogative.
Oops. Wrong once again. Read your history including the comments on religion by Jefferson. Take a peek at the Constitution.
Oops to you too. I never mentioned the Constitution.
Actually you don’t know my religion. Tell me how you know it since I have not divulged it.
You are easy to see through. You let bits and pieces slip through.
The Catholic Church is full of moral relativism.
Well, you made that up!
It must be, because everything it teaches is interpreted by man.
Interpretation does not necessarily lead to relativism. Your position is contrary.
You may assert that there is moral immutability, but you can only strive to comprehend it. You are human.
That’s very true. Well done. There is hope for you yet!
We have seen that with your bigotry and untruths in other threads.
Well, I’m sure that when you are exposed to new ideas and to true moral thinking it must come as a shock to someone so steeped in humanist relativism.
There have not been “countless millenia” of philosophical thinking,
That depends on how well you can count. Of course, I assumed you wouldn’t be able to count very well, so I wrote metaphorically.
Thank you for pointing this out. I was misusing the word.
If that’s the case, the intended meaning of your entire response must be faulty too.
Be careful though about comparing Catholicism to Communism or Marxism
. I see the problem. You are not reading posts properly. It was you who made the link between Catholicism, Communism and Marxism. I queried you on this and posed a question.
All of them are religions in the sense that they have a god. In Catholicism’s case, the god is supernatural
.So, are you saying Karl Marx is a ‘God’? I have never heard that said before!
We all know that religion only works when there is faith. If you want to rely on a logical argument alone, then you just equated Catholicism with Communism.
No you did. See your post. Go back and read carefully.
I disagree with you on that. (Obviously I am teasing you. I don’t doubt your faith, but I am amused by your mental gymnastics)
You’ll learn to keep up one day.
Don’t quit your day job, if the alternative is to do something which requires logic. However, to concede your point,
You criticise my logic, yet concede my point?! Obviously my logic is irresistable to you, or else you are easily swayed.
I meant to say that the Christians who fall into this class, but if it was stated that all Christians do, then I did not state my position clearly enough. The rest of what you say is tripe.
Obviously if you are now going to change the intent of what you wrote, admitting that you did not state your position clearly, then you need to apologise for leading a reader astray rather than say they respond with ‘tripe’. You need to have clarity in your thinking if you expect others to answer to your satisfaction. We aren’t mind readers, you know.
To confine oneself to an ideology does not require intellectual rigor. I agree that intellectual rigor, or more accurately intellectual activity, is required to defend some belief systems.
You state that confining oneself to an ideology does not require intellectual rigor, yet you then state that intellectual rigor is required to defend a belief system, obviously some of which are ideologies. Your imprecision is on display again.
But I don’t think that is what you meant. Perhaps we are splitting hairs over semantics.
Now you are resorting to conjecture.
It would have been more precise for me to say that intellectual courage may be lacking among those who will cling there beliefs in spite of objective contradictory evidence.
Thank you for the self admitted imprecision.
My biggest objection to your point of view stems from our differing views of history.
. If you wish to get near to the truth, we may have to show you a better way.
You claim that being outside of the norm requires intellectual lethargy. I would say that Jesus, Gandhi, MLK and many others directly contradict your view.
I wrote that moral terpitude, as described by you, would be outside “the community norm”. Moral terpitude, as stated by you in in
post #72, comes from intellectual lethargy.
… I don’t think that Jesus was intellectually lethargic.
You really are misreading what you respond to and forgetting what you wrote earlier. If Jesus was not intellectually lethargic, then according to what you wrote in post #72, he was dangerous and closed minded. I suggest to you that history tells us otherwise.
Nice try, but this is a cheap shot. I did not use the word “secular”. Without trying to actually understand what I am saying, you cast me into one of your convenient bigot boxes. I understand your desire to get on your soapbox, but don’t put words in my mouth.
Well it was rather obvious that your understanding of humanism was rather poor, despite admitting to a humanist bias. Biased reasoning is notoriously misleading. You had to have been referring to secular humanism, or else your post made no sense at all. After all, you referred to “the modern Church” and by defintion you had to be referring to secular humanism. In light of this, you must now admit that my “shot” wasn’t 'cheap".
And your paranoia about the media is unfounded.
You are projecting here, I’d suggest. I have no fear of the media and I certainly never mentioned it.
) of Paedagog that stands out in his reply to John in the above post-the rest of his rantings are not worth requoting----
