S
Seeker2010
Guest
You’re not questioning my dogmas. You’re questioning my methods of arguing my case, and not addressing my points in the least. Until and unless you do, consider both our cases rested.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Betterave
Guest
That’s a fair question. Here’s the relevance, slight though it be: Most people approach this issue from a very irrational perspective based purely on their own prejudices and ignoring any reason-giving. For example, larkin’s comment:This is what is known as hijacking a thread. How does seeker2010’s demand for definitive empirical proof of the existence of God and the validity of Catholicism relate to the issue how Catholics can or should address the issue of gay marriage?
Probably because the Catholic argument against gay marriage ultimate resides on the foundational claim that the Catholic teachings on this are the absolute truth. If this is finally the buttress, what else can one do except ask, “How is this true?”
Seeker’s approach is very much in the same genre. He completely invents his own version of what the Catholic faith is and how it relates to reason then ignores all of the reasons given and dismisses them as irrational dogma simply because they are consonant with the Catholic faith. The main challenge in this debate is convincing people like Seeker and larkin that this kind of “poisoning the well” is dishonest and irrational, despite the fact that it is perfectly normal and accepted in mainstream journalistic/entertainment/academic/political culture.
That is rather “incidental.”Incidentally, let me say that I have been quite pleased with the diversity of opinion from both Catholics and non Catholics on this issue.
B
Betterave
Guest
What do you mean by “methods of arguing your case”?You’re not questioning my dogmas. You’re questioning my methods of arguing my case, and not addressing my points in the least. Until and unless you do, consider both our cases rested.
What do you mean by “your points (dogmas)”?
Are these logically independent? (I think not, in which case your distinction here is nonsense; but feel free to try to prove me wrong!)
S
Seeker2010
Guest
I’ll be the first to admit there’s more that I DON’T know about Catholicism than there is that I do. That said, have I ever said anything that is incorrect? Have I misrepresented any aspect of it?He completely invents his own version of what the Catholic faith is and how it relates to reason then ignores all of the reasons given and dismisses them as irrational dogma simply because they are consonant with the Catholic faith.
I don’t reject anything for being irrational for the sole reason that it is Catholic dogma. Rather, I look at ANY religious tenant and ask WHY. My experience with Catholics has mostly been that the answer is ‘Because we said so.’, or ‘Because the Bible/Catechism/Church says so.’, and from time to time even ‘Because God says so.’ My position is that any man who claims to speak for God had best have something to backup that claim, otherwise I dismiss it out of hand, and anyone who is NOT speaking for God had best not tell me how to live my life. Believe me, living in NYC and riding the subway on a fairly regular basis, I run into folks ALL THE TIME who claim they are speaking for God, and 99.9999% of them are complete whack jobs.
So it has occurred to me that if the real people I meet in the real world who claim to speak for God are, in fact, nut cases, what, if anything, does that say about those who have penned the religious texts that have been ascribed to God? Absent compelling information to backup their claims, of which to date I have seen none, I have to wonder if they, too, are nutjobs.
I’ve been exposed to no information that would imply otherwise.
L
larkin31
Guest
Actually, most often here I find that folks do NOT state it this way, but rather try to dress their belief up in other attempts at logic and empiricism that do not hold up to scrutiny. Or, when I state that their position is based upon the foundational belief that what their Bible and their Church says is true is therefore true, I often get denials!I’ll be the first to admit there’s more that I DON’T know about Catholicism than there is that I do. That said, have I ever said anything that is incorrect? Have I misrepresented any aspect of it?
I don’t reject anything for being irrational for the sole reason that it is Catholic dogma. Rather, I look at ANY religious tenant and ask WHY. My experience with Catholics has mostly been that the answer is ‘Because we said so.’, or ‘Because the Bible/Catechism/Church says so.’, and from time to time even ‘Because God says so.’ …
M
mcteague
Guest
Your explaination of relevance is valid, but it could of course apply to almost any topic in these forumsThat is rather “incidental.”
This is a fair criticism of my word choice. I was going to reply more, but I don’t want to do what I suggested you were doing, I may start a different thread
B
Betterave
Guest
YES, OF COURSE YOU HAVE! Constantly, dude! God love ya! lol!I’ll be the first to admit there’s more that I DON’T know about Catholicism than there is that I do. That said, have I ever said anything that is incorrect? Have I misrepresented any aspect of it?
The more important issue is that you have to have some systematic approach of trying to pursue ‘intellectual virtue’ and this means you have to be willing to examine and radically alter your irrational, dogmatic approach to the whole question of attempting to understand complex questions about things like the nature of religion, God, the Catholic Church, love, gay marriage, etc. You’ll never get anywhere without developing some rigorous procedures for formulating and critiquing the hundreds of competing claims that come up in these kinds of debates - and if you don’t like that, too bad! - you’ll just never get anywhere (not by the use of reason anyway - maybe you’ll get lucky and God will speak to you directly, but probably He won’t)!
B
Betterave
Guest
Gee, I wonder why? lol! I mentioned ‘poisoning the well’ already - I suggest you look this term up if you’re not familiar with it, look at how you constantly use this strategy, then ask yourself if you really want to continue to make such transparently intellectually dishonest comments.Actually, most often here I find that folks do NOT state it this way, but rather try to dress their belief up in other attempts at logic and empiricism that do not hold up to scrutiny. Or, when I state that their position is based upon the foundational belief that what their Bible and their Church says is true is therefore true, I often get denials!
B
Betterave
Guest
You’ve got that right!Your explaination of relevance is valid, but it could of course apply to almost any topic in these forums
S
Seeker2010
Guest
Really? When? What did I say what was wrong? By all means, please, correct me.YES, OF COURSE YOU HAVE! Constantly, dude! God love ya! lol!
Your problem is that you’re arguing from the position that you are right, and anyone who questions you is not only wrong, but is an idiot for questioning your position in the first place. You refuse to defend it because it needs no defense and anyone who questions it is wrong by definition.
I am happy for you that you have such strong faith, but it doesn’t really make for good debate or discussion.
B
Betterave
Guest
Seeker,Really? When? What did I say what was wrong? By all means, please, correct me.
When have you said anything that was NOT wrong?
Your problem is that you’re arguing from the position that you are right, and anyone who questions you is not only wrong, but is an idiot for questioning your position in the first place. You refuse to defend it because it needs no defense and anyone who questions it is wrong by definition.
I am happy for you that you have such strong faith, but it doesn’t really make for good debate or discussion.
Every time you make a claim you need to ask yourself: do I know this/how do I know this? Take this, for example:
Your problem is that you’re arguing from the position that you are right, and anyone who questions you is not only wrong, but is an idiot for questioning your position in the first place. You refuse to defend it because it needs no defense and anyone who questions it is wrong by definition.
Did you ask yourself those questions, or did this just sound like a feel-good assertion to you, so you said it? I’d really like to know… but you don’t like answering questions, do you? You don’t like having to examine the rational grounds of your own position, do you? (btw, that’s natural - it really is difficult to really question oneself, but it is necessary if you seek the truth)
You are not an idiot for questioning my position; you’re only an idiot insofar as you refuse to question your own, and insofar as you refuse to defend your own, or to let me defend mine, by refusing to answer my questions about your position.
…then, for the kicker, you make a stupid claim like “according to you anyone who questions your position is wrong by definition.” That’s completely ridiculous and if you honestly believe that (do you??) then sorry, but I’m afraid I’ll have to think you are an idiot. (There are *worse *things you could be, so it’s not all bad, but still…)
M
mcteague
Guest
I am compelled to point out that although that debate is relevant and important, you have to be careful that who you are debating does not turn it into something of a strawman.You’ve got that right!
Reminds me of when I was a freshman in university. I was taking introduction to political philosophy. On the first day the professor presented his syllabus. A fairly standard mix of Montesque, federalist papers and other stuff. He then asked if any of us thought any changes should be made. Saying he wanted to foster debate. Everyone else hid under their desks. But being young, foolish, and naive, I took the bait and suggested we also study some rather minor people. I think I was a big Kropotkin fan at the time.
Anyway he just proceeded to beat me like a dog for the next ten minutes. You see at that age I had no tools or ammunition with which to battle. He had a doctorate, thirty years experience as professor, and was chairman of the philosophy department. I am not sure what he proved other than big people can beat up smaller people.
I don’t mean to suggest that seeker is quite as helpless as I was. But you don’t want to conclude that any particular debate on this or another issue is conclussive. It might not be a fair fight
J
JDaniel
Guest
Ed:The jury is not still out. The Catholic Medical Association tells us homosexuals are not born that way. Some believe or state they were born that way.
God bless,
Ed
Yes, I know. But, I was covering my tail, since I didn’t stay awake all night and some new, absurd finding might have surfaced as I slept! I know that genetic research and experiments have been ongoing for approximately 100 years, yet no evidence of a genetic connection. I had a gay friend in college who informed me of that. He knew it was a choice, albeit not the same kind as choosing what soda to consume.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Mcteague;This is what is known as hijacking a thread. How does seeker2010’s demand for definitive empirical proof of the existence of God and the validity of Catholicism relate to the issue how Catholics can or should address the issue of gay marriage?
Incidentally, let me say that I have been quite pleased with the diversity of opinion from both Catholics and non Catholics on this issue.
You are obliged to ask them to stop the hijack. If they don’t, contact the mod. They can take it to another thread, or, start a new one.
God bless,
jd
M
mcteague
Guest
If people think the current discussion has strayed to far from the original thread please say so. Or you can send me a personal message. I don’t think the people currently debating are unreasonable. They would probably be more than willing to start a separate thread.Mcteague;
You are obliged to ask them to stop the hijack. If they don’t, contact the mod. They can take it to another thread, or, start a new one.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Oh my Lord, YES!I’ll be the first to admit there’s more that I DON’T know about Catholicism than there is that I do. That said, have I ever said anything that is incorrect? Have I misrepresented any aspect of it?
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
What church?There are plenty of couples that have no desire, or ability, to produce offspring and are absolutely NOT OPEN to life yet the church offers them everything mentioned above.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
But, Marc, they want to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. They want to force Catholic doctors to distribute birth control and perform abortions. Give the government an inch and they want a whole lot more. Secular society is not much different, even though it’s only a minority of them holding the guns to our heads, so to speak.I’m sure that’s a distinct possibility. But as long as they don’t force Catholics to issue gay “marriages”, I don’t care.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Seeker:It seems that declaration may have been a bit premature. This is in Spanish, you may need a translator, but if the story is true, it blows the miracle artifact theory completely out of the water: sectas.org/Secciones_Especiales/canonizacion/guadalupana.htm
A couple of pages back, I asked you three simple questions. They had nothing to do with berating your argument style, so, they should be easy to answer.
God bless,
jd
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
Any.What church?
God bless,
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.