If you honestly don’t see a difference between the sadness one might feel watching their child graduate high school, and the sadness one might feel watching them being eaten alive by bone cancer, then I’m not sure there’s much else I can do for you here.I was crying in sadness, Simon.
Well, that’s a problem, then, if you can’t see the error in Rev. Fred Phelps’ church’s position:Right and wrong according to whom?
I think you’re demonstrating an inability to think in the abstract here.If you honestly don’t see a difference between the sadness one might feel watching their child graduate high school, and the sadness one might feel watching them being eaten alive by bone cancer, then I’m not sure there’s much else I can do for you here.
Those “unpalatable Catholic standards” seem rather cosmetic, though. Obviously, for some people, they are deal-breakers.I can give you a whole list of unpalatable Catholic standards that refute your position.
Like I said, I don’t think such a document exists.If you can give some Church document that limns the fact that the Church declares that God commands we rape and pillage, that would be helpful.
Killing, raping, and pillaging took place during the Crusades. The Church deems the Crusades justified.Again, a Church document that justifies killing and rape is warranted.
“This is what we believe. End of story” - this is how I’ve known it so far.There is no such thing as “This is what we believe. End of story” with Catholic apologetics.
I don’t understand what you mean here. I had to look up “recusant” and “recusancy” but I’m not sure what this has to do with me.Ah. So is it true then that your mind is made up? This statement seems to affirm that you are actually recusant to any apologia?
I’ve already demonstrated my ability to think in the abstract. Even if you grant that heaven exists, it doesn’t remove the philosophical problem of apparently needless suffering. All you can do is dismiss it on the faith-based assumption that we’re all too dumb to understand it now, but that, one day, it will all be explained to us.I think you’re demonstrating an inability to think in the abstract here.
Point is: just because someone cries at a graduation, while knowing that her child is still going to be happy in college, doesn’t mean that she really believes COLLEGE DOESN’T ACTUALLY EXIST.
If you can see how that could be true, then extrapolate that to a person mourning her child’s diagnosis. She, too, can be sad, while also believing in heaven.
QED
Killing, raping, pillaging and much worse (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden) occurred and, in fact, was perpetrated by the allies in World War II, it isn’t a weak position to still deem WWII as justified.Killing, raping, and pillaging took place during the Crusades. The Church deems the Crusades justified.
Understood.Those are mundane matters that you list there. For those I have only provisional belief or provisional trust.
Understood.And no, again, I never said I reject them. I am just not convinced by them.
Then your point is refuted by these Catholics who leave the Church over this issue.Those “unpalatable Catholic standards” seem rather cosmetic, though. Obviously, for some people, they are deal-breakers.
Then you are mistaking what Catholics do with what the Catholic Church teaches.Like I said, I don’t think such a document exists.
Really?My point was that if CC doctrine is true, then it cannot be proven.
It’s not that my mind would be made up. It’s that I have simply lost hope that Catholics will ever treat me any better than they have thus far. That in their view, I will never be a real person, but always something less, like a thing. I have no hope that even if I formally convert, I will ever have any Catholic friends, or even just friendly acquaintances.Ah. So is it true then that your mind is made up? This statement seems to affirm that you are actually recusant to any apologia?
Personally, I may disapprove of Phelps’ position – but what does that matter?Well, that’s a problem, then, if you can’t see the error in Rev. Fred Phelps’ church’s position:
Never said it wasn’t justified.Killing, raping, pillaging and much worse (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden) occurred and, in fact, was perpetrated by the allies in World War II, it isn’t a weak position to still deem WWII as justified.
Are you a Philosopher, Lucy? You are using philosophical arguments here.If the CC is the one who gets to set the terms, then it will undoubtedly set them to its own advantage. It’s not going to shoot itself in the foot, is it, by declaring standards that itself cannot live up to.
No, but I’m sure Catholics will find a way to defend it. They did so with the Crusades, or pretty much any other mean thing they were involved in.
Just curious, are you a Historian?Obviously it doesn’t state such, but it tends to find a way to justify it. The CC in Europe has a bloody history, and seems to be perfectly allright about it.
Of course, you could retract the above.Because I think that my not being Catholic disqualifies me from using Catholic arguments against Catholics.
Sure. But I think that is a weak line of reasoning. Although, do continue if you think you have a good point!Understood.
Do you provisionally believe that Jesus walked on this earth 2000 years ago and had disciples who claim he died and resurrected?
I have in my mind an abstract idea of what the ideal church of God would be like. And in an abstract and idealized way, the Catholic Church matches this idea.There is no recusancy to the possibility that the Church has authority?
It’s not clear how the Catholic Church can be clearly separated or different from its members.Then you are mistaking what Catholics do with what the Catholic Church teaches.
It may be an inaccurate image that I present, but it’s not like I know better.It’s a straw man argument you’ve presented, Lucy.
I never argued that it was wrong.If you want to argue that the Church was wrong, then you need t provide documentation that the Church taught wrong things, by providing magisterial and doctrinal teachings of such.
It is incontrovertible that Catholics are sinners.
???That in no way damages the credibility of the CC.
To me, the fitting analogy is that of the obese doctor telling his obese patients to lose weight. Such a doctor’s advice may be true and well-meant, but it surely isn’t convincing to the patients.Just as it would be foolish to reject a physician solely because her clients are obese–because they don’t follow her recommendations, it’s similarly foolish to reject the CC solely because her members are sinners, and are not following her recommendations.
True. You couldn’t do that.Personally, I may disapprove of Phelps’ position – but what does that matter?
I can’t prove that God doesn’t hate homosexuals.
This was about the nature of a system that contextualizes the person asking the question within the system.My point was that if CC doctrine is true, then it cannot be proven.
If a system contextualizes the person asking a question about said system, then said person cannot prove anything about the system; other than make statements that are self-referential to the system.
We can’t prove that, say, Jesus is divine?I didn’t say that, I don’t know how you got to this.Why do you say that? Have you looked at the arguments proving his divinity?
I have no idea how one would go about proving Jesus’ divinity. Other than in a circular manner.
No, because in my mind, group dynamics trump doctrine. That putative Catholic is a member, and I am not; therefore, in Catholic matters, her opinion automatically counts for more than mine, even if hers is nominally in conflict with the CC doctrine.If this putative Catholic tells you: well, since you are NOT Catholic you can’t tell me that…
you can dismiss that with the absurdity it deserves.
Take the example of the physician again.How can that be?
I don’t understand this at all!
It just means someone who is resistant to logic and reason.I had to look up “recusant” and “recusancy” but I’m not sure what this has to do with me.
No, this is what you are concluding that I am concluding. And you’re not reading what I said.Take the example of the physician again.
She gives advice to her obese clients. They don’t take it.
How does that make the physician or her advice wrong?
You are looking at obese clients and concluding: the physician and her advice is bad.
And you are the arbiter of logic and reason and I owe it to you to accept you as an authority over myself?It just means someone who is resistant to logic and reason.
Kind of a fundamentalist mindset: no way am I going to be convinced arms folded stubbornly.
Example: a patient reads all the studies that says that smoking is bad, and says, “I don’t care what the science says. I think that smoking is healthy!”
Well, then I’m not recusant, or you’re thinking too highly of yourself.That’s being recusant.
No, I don’t subscribe to trivialism.True. You couldn’t do that.
But the point remains: if there is no arbiter of truth, then anyone can say anything and it is true because he says it is?
But such a state of affairs can potentially change the nature of the relationship between the two, if the relationship is to continue: it changes it from being a hierarchical one (with the adviser being above the advisee), to them being peers.A sinful person telling others not to sin is not convincing, is not inspiring. While his admonition may be true and well-meant, it is not convincing.
That is all.
And no, from that it doesn’t follow that the best thing to do is to continue sinning, or that the situation is hopeless or some such.
There is no “foreknowledge” with God. To God, everything appears in the Eternal Now.I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned the Christian God’s attribute of omniscience. He knows everything throughout eternity. This leaves the uncomfortable question: Having the foreknowledge that a child would die horribly, why would he still create them?
Our knowledge and actions can have no impact on this, or that creator is not omniscient.
John