Will we survive religion?

[chrisb]

Midrath, you haven’t commented on the point that I made–the people of “the Crusades” are not “the people of today”.

You condemn them according to ‘today’s’ standards. And that is wrong. Because we view ‘fighting to safeguard religious beliefs’ as being ‘unnecessary’ (because we personally appear to be in no danger, or because we believe that we do not ‘need’ to use physical weapons, for example) does not mean that the people in the time of the Crusades were not in danger, or did not need to use weapons.

Yes, there were crusades that for reasons ‘outside’ of religion did not go well, or where individuals or even large groups were guilty of egregious evil. That is to be deprecated. . .

but do you really, truly understand the consequences to the world if the Crusaders had not gone up against the Muslims who had already overrun the **previously **Christian nations to spread their religion, with the sword; these countries having converted earlier to Christianity most emphatically not through the sword.

Do you truly understand the worldview and the mindset even of somebody from the 19th century (which is far closer to the present day). . .what his or her life was in all facets? I don’t think you do. Far less would you understand the mindset of somebody from the 12th century. It’s easy to pick one or two of the more prominent figures (a king or a pope) and imput all sorts of ‘theoretical’ reasons as to his actions, and find them ‘wanting’ according to our oh-so-enlightened times.

Well, that king and that pope would be horrified beyond belief at the idea that a country would permit unborn children to be aborted at the rate of millions.

Let’s not be so hasty to find people living in a very dangerous age without all our ‘advantages’ to be the ‘horrible nasty Christian meanies’ while patting ourselves on the back for our tolerance etc.

So we’re not out there sacking a castle. We’re not even out there deciding that, hey, we might as well bring home some loot for the wife and kids, right?

Instead we have murdered millions of innocent children who never were a threat to us. Never tried to harm us. And you know what? We aren’t murdering them in the name of religion even. We’re murdering them in the name of our convenience. Our ‘choice’.

Impressive!

 

[Mirdath]

The Scriptural record is proof of documentation of the historical invasion of the Canaanites by the Israelites.

Are you asking me for proof of documentation from the Canaanites themselves?

Yes, I did ask you for exactly that. I stated that the Torah is not an unbiased historical document and that I would like to see histories from the other side – histories which include the knowledge you claim they had that the Israelite God was coming to punish them.

I can assure you that these cities within these areas described within the Scriptures were real cities. Archeological discoveries over the last 150 years or so have continued to vindicate the Scriptural record for these places as having been real places.

But see, that’s the thing-- no evidence is ever enough for some people.

Nobody’s disputing Jericho’s existence. Ai’s totally out of place, but I believe the theory now is that it’s a typo for another city that’s nearer. Close enough not to quibble.

The Scriptures were vindicated, however, when Hittite monuments were discovered in the 1870s at Carchemish on the Euphrates River in Syria. Later, in 1906, excavations at Boghazkoy in Turkey uncovered thousands of Hittite documents-- a massive library of thousands of tablets. These tablets showed that the Hittite language was an early relative of the Indo-European languages by the way.

Any of those tablets say ‘oh no, the Jews are coming and their God is going to kick us out!’ ?

However, contrary to what was believed…

Religious people build temples. Not news. Not relevant here either

Nonetheless, there are many examples like this where critics for a long time claimed the Scriptural record was inaccurate-- only to be proven wrong with further archeological evidence which confirmed the Scriptual record. If you do a search on the internet, I’m sure you can find many examples of this. And if you’re really serious about finding the truth, then I suggest you start digging and stop making claims like this…

I have dug and I have found that many of the places mentioned in the bible actually existed, that some of the people mentioned in it actually lived, and that some of the major events related actually occurred. I was most surprised to learn that Rome in fact did have an empire stretching across Europe. A good thing since I’d visited it a few years before!

Really. I’ve never claimed otherwise. I said the bible is biased, not that it’s a complete fabrication of a fantasy-land that bears no resemblance to Earth.

So why the hell do I have to whatever he asks me to do even though he insults me in the process?

The burden of proof is on you. I hold to the position that the Canaanites had no reason to believe a god they considered false would eradicate them – a negative logical stance. You assert otherwise – a positive logical stance. The burden of proof is on the positive.

And really, relax a little, it’s bad for your blood pressure. I’m not swearing, I’m not claiming I’m being persecuted under the guise of debate – just calm down, hm?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You lash out that he claims you are misrepresenting the Catholic Church, but you fail to actually respond to the questions, as has been pointed out.

But I have responded to the questions.

Have you seen how many questions are being asked?

Do you realize how long I’ve been sitting here tonight just repsondeding to all the questions that have been asked so far?

How am I supposed to answer every single question that being asked? I’ve got a family you know.

Just because I haven’t answered all the questions doesn’t mean I don’t have an answer for them…so don’t give me this BS about not answering questions-- and then making more innuendo that I can’t answer them.

Oneiron:

Now it’s on the line for you to defend yourself and you back out claiming that Mirdath is using logical fallacies when you yourself used them throughout.

Logical fallacies?

Grrr!

No. I am not ‘on the line’ to answer anything until you start to listen to what I’m actually saying and start showing some respect in the process.

Mirdath has insisted that Christ would never advocate any kind of violence whatsoever, not even in the name of justified self-defence. I displayed where that was wrong. The Scriptures do not agree with that assertion at all. The Catholic Church certainly doesn’t either. I’ve pointed toward numerous examples of this.

This is Mirdath’s ideas about Christ that he’s projecting onto the Catholic faith-- and he’s saying that I’m wrong when I claim that Christ allowed us to defend ourselves, that I’m in error when explaining something that Catholicism actually does teach.

I’m not wrong about this though.

Mirdath has also insisted that entering heaven is not a painful process, that modern day Catholicism has abandonned this belief. I displayed where that was wrong. The Scriptures do not agree with that assertion at all. The Catholic Church certainly doesn’t either. I’ve pointed toward numerous examples of this.

This is Mirdath’s ideas about entering heaven that he’s projecting onto the Catholic faith-- and he’s saying that I’m wrong when I claim that entering heaven is a painful process for many, that I’m in error when explaining something that Catholicism actually does teach.

I’m not wrong about this either.

Mirdath has also insisted that I’m talking about some kind of relativism regarding salvation, that modern day Catholicism does not teach that there is the potential for salvation for those outside the Church. I displayed where that was wrong. The Scriptures do not agree with that assertion at all. The Catholic Church certainly doesn’t either. I’ve pointed toward numerous examples of this.

This is Mirdath’s ideas about salvation that he’s projecting onto the Catholic faith-- and he’s saying that I’m being a relativist when I claim that the Catholic Church teaches that there may be extraordinary graces available to those outside the Church, that I’m in error when explaining something that Catholicism actually does teach.

But I’m not wrong about this either.

Mirdath has been wrong about a lot of points regarding what Catholicism teaches-- and yet he has the nerve to argue with these loaded questions that I’m distorting the teachings of the Catholic Church?

What exactly do I have to prove at this point?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Further, and this especially ticks me off, you continue to misquote what we say, take it out of context, or omit words when you read it, because what I write and what you argue against are not the same thing.

How have I misquoted anything?

Oneiron:

And kudos for not responding when someone has a good point, just drop the issue and move to another one, I mean there’s so gosh darn many of em.

Wow. Yeah, I get it.

And you don’t think you’re labelling me at all with this?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

If you’ll take the time to reread Oneiron’s ‘ignorant heathen’ post, you might see that he was asking you to explain your beliefs as if to an ignorant heathen. Come off it already.

What I’m saying is that by doing that he’s, first of, lablling heathens as ignorant. As someone who’s read up a lot on ecumenical dialogue, I can assure you that many of them are not ignorant-- and I take offense to that.

Second of all, by asking me to do that, he’s basically labelling me in a such a way so that if I respond, then I’m going to be ‘talking down’ to him as if he were a simpleton who cannot grasp what I’m actually explaining. I’ve never said that about him-- and I’ve done my best to respond fairly despite what he’s said against me about blathering, etc…

He’s not setting a good precedent for dialogue here Mirdath. Neither are you.

Mirdath:

Dictionaries, definitions, common usage of words.

None of which actually agree with what you’re claiming. The descriptions provided could apply to anything-- and do not by neccessity apply strictly to those willing to murder in order to further their cause.

Mirdath:

So why have you consistently chosen to berate me for a definition when you yourself admit its accuracy and I explicitly say I’m talking about pitchfork-wielding mobs?

How have I berated you?!?

Does disagree mean berate?

And as far as some teachings regaridng the Catholic Church were concerned, you were wrong.

Mirdath:

I have said time and time again that my use of the term specified those who are dangerous, not the merely devout – whom I spoke of separately from the ‘blrmfzl’, if you prefer that word.

Then how about the words murderer, or sadist, or without conscience?

Sounds like pretty good descriptions of the words you’re looking for to me.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

continued

Mirdath:

I offered – I asked you a few times to provide your own term. You didn’t, so I continued using the best words that are to my knowledge extant in the English language. If you have such a big problem with that, why didn’t you suggest an alternate that would leave nothing unclear?

Because we were trying to get you to understand why we thought your usage of the word fanatic was not acceptable. Instead of listening to us, you just ignored why we disagreed and continued to use it anyway.

We’re making it fairly clear that fanatic is not acceptable.

Mirdath:

If a definition cannot be tied down what good is it? I’ve been quite liberal in my offers to you to provide a better term or a better definition. However, the terms ‘fanatic’ and ‘zealot’ do not merely conjure up images in the popular imagination of people quietly going to church every Sunday, but of people inspired by their belief and their own mental instability to acts any rational person would consider horrifying.

It might do that for you and Oneiron. It doesn’t do that for us though.

The word muderer or sadist might be more appropriate.

Mirdath:

They have the will; all that remains is the means.

Everybody has the will, fanatic or not. You don’t have to be a fanatic or extremist to murder and torture people. You have to have no conscience.

More often than not, however, the ‘fanatics’ and ‘extremists’ of religion, political ideologies, and dangerous cult-like followings often disguise their lack of consciousness toward their fellow man in the form of the religion, political ideology, and dangerous cult-like following they adhere too.

I myself feel that there are 100’s of millions of good and noble Muslims in the world, many of whom have no intention of hurting their fellow man. It’s those who have no conscience who are able to do the things they do in the name of their religion. Fanaticism and extremism are not necessarilly required.

Mirdath:

Personally? How? Are you calling yourself a fanatic?

What? No.

Mirdath:

You may be right if so – but until I see you burning something down I will call you devout, as I have other deeply devoted people who were not menaces to others.

What on earth are you talking about now?

Mirdath:

There are harmless devotees of religion. Fanaticism implies the will to harm for it.

No. Fanaticism does not automatically imply the will to harm for something. It can also mean just doing things for religion that are just plain bizarre and yet non-lethal.

For example, I can think of some hermits in the past who I would consider to be fanatics of their religion. They neither bathed or ate, often living off away from people, excluded by themselves in their quest for holiness. One actually sat on a pillar most of his life. These people were fanatics about the faith and yet they had no desire to hurt anybody.

Don’t you see what we’re getting at?

Why can’t you see this?

Mirdath:

I’ve seen people here apply the label ‘extremist’ to themselves so I won’t comment on that, except to note why I didn’t use that term instead.

Yes. And that may be honorable.

But I’m sure they have no intentions of mudering for their faith, do you? Think about it. Seriously. Do you think they have intentions of mudering for their faith?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I did, many times. I said I would use those terms for that concept in the absence of a better. I’m not going to write all that out every time; not only is it insulting to the intelligence of people who can read both my points and my little notes of what I mean beforehand, it’s just a pain.

How about criminals?

What causes crime in the world today?

We’re really talking about crimes against humanity here, aren’t we?

Mirdath:

In my mind, in Oneiron’s mind, in the popular imagination since the development of Latin (fanatic) and the first century AD (‘zealots’ were originally a Jewish terrorist sect…well, whaddaya know?). They are accepted definitions and sources have been provided for them.

So are these…
Proverbs 23:17:

Do not let your heart envy sinners, but always be zealous for the fear of the LORD.

Acts 21:20:

When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.”

Romans 10:2:

For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.

Galatians 1:14:

I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Galatians 4:18:

It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you.

See how Paul says he was extremely zealous back when he was persecuting Christians and how, later on, he said it is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good?

Not all zeal is bad.

Mirdath:

Sure, it isn’t the only way it might happen – where’s that ‘will we survive science?’ thread you were talking about starting? I’ll be there with bells on.

But I have no intention of actually starting that thread, and you should know this. The question was asked rhetorically knowing full well that science is not the cause of death, or murder or rape-- it’s people without a conscience who use science for this end, indiscriminately mass producing weapons for profit with absolutely no regard for the people who will inevitably be murdered or killed by these weapons.

This is no different from people without a conscience who use religion, political ideologies, and cult-like practices as an excuse to cause death, murder, and rape.

Mirdath:

Petty diatribes against dictionaries are not ‘logic’ or rhetoric.

Then produce a definition we can all accept, and we can move on from there.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes, I did ask you for exactly that. I stated that the Torah is not an unbiased historical document and that I would like to see histories from the other side – histories which include the knowledge you claim they had that the Israelite God was coming to punish them.

The let me ask you a simple question:

Where do most Biblical historians, including many conservative Biblical scholars, believe the Israelites adopted many of their ideas and practices about God from?

Do a search and tell me what you find. I think you already know the answer to this one.

Mirdath:

And really, relax a little, it’s bad for your blood pressure. I’m not swearing, I’m not claiming I’m being persecuted under the guise of debate – just calm down, hm?

Sure. When you actually apologize for lobbing those loaded questions at me.

Are you saying they weren’t loaded questions?

 

[nby]

Historical opinions do differ. And I don’t need to go back 2,000 years to see proof of child sacrifice. It is happening today, only they use explosives instead of bronze statues.

That’s in other cultures. The child sacrifice in Western cultures is abortion which is an act done in the name of secularism.

 

[Valke2]

That’s in other cultures. The child sacrifice in Western cultures is abortion which is an act done in the name of secularism.

The child sacrifice I was referring to was suicide bombers. Since the topic of this thread is “will we survive religion?”, not “will we survive western culture.” As for abortion, it is about as secular as murder, meaning that people of all religions seem to partake it in.

 

[Mirdath]

I’m not even going to answer your claims of my ignoring you, Ex, since you seem to be pretty selective about your reading of my posts. Guess you’ll just have to deal with it on your own.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

What I’m saying is that by doing that he’s, first of, lablling heathens as ignorant. As someone who’s read up a lot on ecumenical dialogue, I can assure you that many of them are not ignorant-- and I take offense to that.

No he is not. He is asking you to answer his questions in simple terms as you would to a child or to someone not in the Church who does not have a good grasp of its history and teachings – or, if you’re a little more flippant about it, an ignorant heathen. He is not labeling anyone with the possible exception of himself. It’s a legitimate figure of speech, it’s not a serious insult to anyone, and would it really hurt you so much to try and clarify things for him if he can’t understand you?

As someone who IS technically a heathen, I can assure you I’m not ignorant either

None of which actually agree with what you’re claiming. The descriptions provided could apply to anything-- and do not by neccessity apply strictly to those willing to murder in order to further their cause.

dictionary.com:

fa·nat·ic /fəˈnætɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuh-nat-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.
   –adjective
2. fanatical.
   [Origin: 1515–25; < L fānāticus pertaining to a temple, inspired by orgiastic rites, frantic, equiv. to fān(um) temple + -āticus, equiv. to -āt(us) -ate1 + -icus -ic]

—Synonyms 1. enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. Fanatic, zealot, militant, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. Fanatic and zealot both suggest excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief. Fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic. Zealot, only slightly less unfavorable in implication than fanatic, implies single-minded partisanship: a tireless zealot for tax reform.

---

zeal·ot /ˈzɛlət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[zel-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

1. a person who shows zeal.
2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.
3. (initial capital letter) a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.
   [Origin: 1530–40; earlier zelote < LL zélōtés < Gk zéltés, equiv. to zélō- (var. s. of zéloûn to be zealous; see zeal) + -tés agent suffix]

—Synonyms 2. extremist, crank, bigot. See fanatic.

How about that? Come on, this is a vanishingly minor grammatical point you’re simply unwilling to concede so we can have a discussion over something other than semantics. I am not wrong in my use of the terms and until you can provide other words please get over it and move on.

How have I berated you?!?

Oh, I don’t know, cursed at me, threatened me, called me ignorant, accused me of poor, twisted rhetoric, selectively read my posts and cherrypicked points to complain about, and scolded me for using words as they are commonly defined?

Then how about the words murderer, or sadist, or without conscience?

Good try, but those won’t do. A murderer is not always motivated by religion. A sadist either is someone who just has a kinky sex life, or again is not always motivated by religion. Someone without conscience is a sociopath – that person cannot be motivated by religion as, in his eyes, his actions are always excused. A sociopath is an incredible danger in his own right, but that’s not the kind of person we’re talking about.

 

[junvir]

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that no religion has a monoply on absolute truth; that our scriptures are flawed, human documents; and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Any religous system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

People are willing to die for beliefs that have as much evidence to support them as we have to support the belief that Zeus exists. In fact, people would rather kill or die their own set of stories than to acknowledge that their neighbors stories are just as “true.”

This has led to disasterous results in the past. In a nuclear age, it can only lead to the annihilation of civilization, unless things change.
If that doesn’t change, we’re doomed.

 

[Mirdath]

We’re making it fairly clear that fanatic is not acceptable.

Then give me a better word. This offer has stood for pages.

Everybody has the will, fanatic or not. You don’t have to be a fanatic or extremist to murder and torture people. You have to have no conscience.

Oh, you can have a conscience and do all that too. And in the cases of fanatics (hey, you’re using my word!) conscience doesn’t even matter – it’s the blind belief that all others are inferior and deserve what evil happens to them for not following the same religion.

I myself feel that there are 100’s of millions of good and noble Muslims in the world, many of whom have no intention of hurting their fellow man. It’s those who have no conscience who are able to do the things they do in the name of their religion. Fanaticism and extremism are not necessarilly required.

Those with no conscience act in their own name, not in that of their religion.

For example, I can think of some hermits in the past who I would consider to be fanatics of their religion. They neither bathed or ate, often living off away from people, excluded by themselves in their quest for holiness. One actually sat on a pillar most of his life. These people were fanatics about the faith and yet they had no desire to hurt anybody.

And I would call them devout, possibly a little unbalanced but as hermits they weren’t exactly able to spread the word by fire and the sword – and since they willingly chose the hermit’s path, I will not call them fanatics.

But I’m sure they have no intentions of mudering for their faith, do you? Think about it. Seriously. Do you think they have intentions of mudering for their faith?

That’s the point I was making in my explanation of why I was not going to use the term. Context helps, doesn’t it?

I have better things to do than argue this with someone who is completely unwilling to compromise. Either give me a better word to use, if one exists (which I doubt) or stop taking me to task over it. I won’t even ask you to concede the point – just stop.

 

[Mirdath]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

How about criminals?

What causes crime in the world today?

We’re really talking about crimes against humanity here, aren’t we?

They’re criminals. Are you trying to get more irrelevant here?

So are these…[concordance of the word ‘zealous’]

First off, note the word is zealous, not zealot. Zealot was originally used as a proper name for a group of militant Jewish terrorists in the first century, and that’s how it entered common parlance. Zealous is an adjective that probably applied to them but was not their name.

Not all zeal is bad.

Never said it was, I just said zealots – ie, people so consumed by it as to commit violence in the name of their faith – are.

But I have no intention of actually starting that thread, and you should know this. The question was asked rhetorically knowing full well that science is not the cause of death, or murder or rape-- it’s people without a conscience who use science for this end, indiscriminately mass producing weapons for profit with absolutely no regard for the people who will inevitably be murdered or killed by these weapons.

I have to say, if you can ignore vast swathes of my posts and selectively drop or include the word ‘not’ in various places I think I’m within my rights to call your sarcastic bluffs.

Where do most Biblical historians, including many conservative Biblical scholars, believe the Israelites adopted many of their ideas and practices about God from?

Old tribal religions, YHWH was the war-god who gradually became supreme. Or at least that’s how I remember reading it.

Sure. When you actually apologize for lobbing those loaded questions at me.

Are you saying they weren’t loaded questions?

Soo, you stopped… oh never mind

Yeah, a few of them are loaded for bear. I don’t believe in being oh-so-serious all the time and I was hoping for the argumentative equivalent of a Looney Tunes character stepping on a rake. Sorry

 

[Valke2]

I think that we should limit the talk about fanatics to only 20 more pages. After that, people may begin to lose interest.

 

[Mirdath]

I think that we should limit the talk about fanatics to only 20 more pages. After that, people may begin to lose interest.

They’re a very interesting topic but quibbling about definitions only goes so far. Apologies for my part in taking over the thread

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Since when are the fundamental tenets of Jesus the Christ’s moral teachings irrelevant to a Catholic?

I didn’t say that the fundamental tenets of Jesus Christ’s moral teachings were irrelevant to a Catholic.

I said, since I quoted you and modified your words to display this, that the things you believe are fundamental tenets of Jesus Christ’s moral teachings are irrelevant to a Catholic.

More to the point, I’m saying that your conflating of Jesus’ actions when he was betrayed are irrelevant to your claims that Jesus’ was always expecting us to be martyrs– something which you’ve claimed is the only true way one can understand the Catholic understanding of Jesus’s actions after his resurrection.

It came back to this claim you made here…

Not yours, perhaps? Maybe even the actual standards of the Catholic Church which you’re misrepresenting here?

…

And it shows how Jesus himself accepted violence done to him without retaliation, even to the point of death. Aren’t Christians supposed to emulate Jesus, or are you conveniently skipping the parts that’d be hard for you?

Remember this stuff you tried to pull before?

In other words, you’re claiming that I’m misrepresenting the Church’s teachings (which are Christ’s words through the Church) that it is wrong to defend oneself against violence.

You’ve quoted a specific sacramental event in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and attempted to super-impose it over the entirety of Catholic thought in order to claim anyone who defends themselves against violence is actually going against what the Catholic Church (and Christ though his Catholic Church) actually teaches.

So don’t give me this stuff Mirdath.

You were very much attempting to malign my words against what the Church actually teaches. So long as you continue to insist that I’ve done this, I’m going to keep drilling you back to this point until you actually apologize for what you did or else give up this tactic entirely.

It is most certainly within my right to defend my reputation as a Catholic. If you don’t like it, then stop lobbing the claims you made against me.

If you don’t actually agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, then just come out and say so.

But at least take the time to realize that what you believe are fundamental tenets of Jesus Christ’s moral teachings may be entirely irrelevant to a Catholic who actually explains Jesus Christ’s moral teachings according to what Catholicism actually teaches.

There is nothing within Catholicism which claims that fairly defending oneself against violence is evil. Catholicism only states that being willing to give one’s life for the faith is the greater good that one can choose between two good choices of self-sacrifice or self-defence.

This is like the distinction between marriage and celibacy within Catholicism. There is nothing within Catholicism which claims that marriage between two non-divorced Catholics is evil. Catholicism only states that being willing to live a celibate life for the faith is the greater good that one can choose between two good choices of celibacy or marriage.

More to the point, don’t attempt to malign the reputation of those who are debating you in the process by essentially claiming that the person you’re speaking with is claiming something that goes against what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

It’s a deceptive way to debate and I’m calling you on it.

 

[Mirdath]

I said, since I quoted you and modified your words to display this, that the things you believe are fundamental tenets of Jesus Christ’s moral teachings are irrelevant to a Catholic.

And the things which I believe are fundamental tenets of Jesus the Christ’s moral teachings (as I stated way back then) are ‘love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself’. Are you saying that’s irrelevant to a Catholic?

More to the point, I’m saying that your conflating of Jesus’ actions when he was betrayed are irrelevant to your claims that Jesus’ was always expecting us to be martyrs– something which you’ve claimed is the only true way one can understand the Catholic understanding of Jesus’s actions after his resurrection.

I never said he expected his followers to be martyred. However, if you are going to live your lives in imitation of the Christ, shouldn’t you expect that and make your peace with it as he did?

In other words, you’re claiming that I’m misrepresenting the Church’s teachings (which are Christ’s words through the Church) that it is wrong to defend oneself against violence.

Again, in imitatio Christi? You are to take up your cross and follow him, not to try to strike down those who would put it on you as Peter cut off the slave’s ear.

You were very much attempting to malign my words against what the Church actually teaches. So long as you continue to insist that I’ve done this, I’m going to keep drilling you back to this point until you actually apologize for what you did or else give up this tactic entirely.

Go for it. I, however, prefer to move on and actually carry out a discussion instead of constantly defending myself against diatribes. I am answering you; I have no need of repeating myself later.

If you don’t actually agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, then just come out and say so.

I agree with many of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not agree with many of the teachings of the people who claim to follow him, both Catholic and otherwise. I have said this many times.

But at least take the time to realize that what you believe are fundamental tenets of Jesus Christ’s moral teachings may be entirely irrelevant to a Catholic who actually explains Jesus Christ’s moral teachings according to what Catholicism actually teaches.

‘Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself’? That’s what I said I thought were the Christ’s fundamental teachings – and considering he himself said so in the gospels, I think I have plenty of reason to think that. Are those commandments then somehow different from what the Church actually teaches? If so, please, enlighten me.

There is nothing within Catholicism which claims that fairly defending oneself against violence is evil. Catholicism only states that being willing to give one’s life for the faith is the greater good that one can choose between two good choices of self-sacrifice or self-defence.

As I’ve said, I believe self-defense in exactly appropriate measure is morally neutral. As to what the Church teaches, here:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 3:2:2:5:2263:

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.

ibid:2264:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

‘Lawful’ does not translate to ‘good’, only ‘permissible’.

More to the point, don’t attempt to malign the reputation of those who are debating you in the process by essentially claiming that the person you’re speaking with is claiming something that goes against what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

It’s a deceptive way to debate and I’m calling you on it.

I’m not allowed to point out when I see what might be an error and ask if it is one? Are you seriously claiming that I should only be permitted to debate while rhetorically crippled? Am I that difficult for you?

I have not been deceptive. I have defined my terms, clearly stated my arguments, cited my sources, and defended myself from attacks, and generally argued in good faith; faith that you would actually make an attempt to understand me, faith that you would try to debate on equal and civil terms without swearing at me, calling me ignorant, dragging in irrelevant nonsense, or declaring part or all of my points invalid by fiat. Apparently I was mistaken, and for that and that alone I am sorry.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m not even going to answer your claims of my ignoring you, Ex, since you seem to be pretty selective about your reading of my posts. Guess you’ll just have to deal with it on your own.

So I guess this admission indicates you really are ignoring parts of what I’ve said, right?

Or is this yet another example of your perception of me reading more into your words than you actually meant?

Whatever.

Yes. Now I’ve had enough and I really am being sarcastic .

Mirdath:

No he is not. He is asking you to answer his questions in simple terms as you would to a child or to someone not in the Church who does not have a good grasp of its history and teachings – or, if you’re a little more flippant about it, an ignorant heathen.

But I’m not the one who used the term ‘ignorant heathen’! He did! So don’t go accusing me of being flippant for using this term! I’m the one who’s arguing that heathen are not by definition ignorant, remember?

And if he’s asking me to answer his questions in simple terms as I would to a child or to someone not in the Church who does not have a good grasp of its history and teachings, **THEN HE CAN COME OUT AND SAY THIS! **

But, nooooooooooooooo.

Instead of saying something like, “Mr. Ex Nihilo, I really don’t understand what you mean. Could you explain this in more simple terms so that I could understand it better?” he actually said this…

Oneiron:

So much blather and you still haven’t explain what realtively Absolute means so I can know what Absolutely relative means. You’ve simply established that they’re opposites and that the devil is Absolutely relative. I get that part. Treat me like an ignorant heathen and actually explain it to me instead of reiterating the same point over and over without thought.

Take a good look at that post Mirdath.

Then look at this…

Oneiron:

And you have this thing for thinking we non-Christians believe you think us all heathens. I told you to treat me like one, and explain it to me. Stop taking my words and making it sound like I have some anti-Christian agenda.

Then stop asking people to treat you like an ignorant heathen Oneiron. And stop making it sould as if I’m trying to make you look as if you have an anti-Christian agenda.

I’m the one who’s arguing that heathen are not by definition ignorant, remember?

Take a good look at those posts above Mirdath and tell me what he hasn’t projected on me with these words? Please tell me if I’m reading too much into his words here.

Mirdath:

He is not labeling anyone with the possible exception of himself. It’s a legitimate figure of speech, it’s not a serious insult to anyone, and would it really hurt you so much to try and clarify things for him if he can’t understand you?

Would it really be too much trouble to say, “Mr. Ex Nihilo, I really don’t understand what you mean. Could you explain this in more simple terms so that I could understand it better?”

You don’t think stating something like he said above isn’t highly insulting to someone who is actually engaged in fair ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue?

You don’t think that others on this multi-cultural section of this forum might take offence to to the phrase ‘ignorant heathen’?

As someone who IS technically a heathen, I can assure you I’m not ignorant either

But why would you have to assure me of this if I never claimed you were one to begin with?

See how, now, you are taking the opportunity, jokingly or not, to make it sound as if I needed your assuarance of this?

I never said you were an ignorant heathen though, did I?

What I did say, however, was that your inability to actually formulate coherent thoughts concerning Catholic doctrines really does shine through repeatedly.

And whenever you attempt to rudely malign my own reputation as a Catholic and claim that I’m misrepresenting the actual standards of the Catholic Church, I am going to bluntly remind you that you really do not actually understand what the Church actually teaches.

I’ve done this repeatedly within this thread.

You have insisted that Christ would never advocate any kind of violence whatsoever, not even in the name of justified self-defence. I displayed where that was wrong.

You have also insisted that entering heaven is not a painful process, that modern day Catholicism has abandonned this belief. I displayed where that was wrong too.

You have also insisted that I’m talking about some kind of relativism regarding salvation, that modern day Catholicism does not teach that there is the potential for salvation for those outside the Church via extraordinary graces. But I’ve displayed where that was wrong too.

 

[Oneiron]

I’m beginning to think my sense of humor should have gone with some emoticons, much as I hate to use them. Lighten up man, I was insulting myself, not implying you thuoght I was an ignorant heathen, and I also apologized for it knowing I had been to brash when I wrote it.

Also, just give me a few minutes and I’ll point out several times where you misquote, misread, or otherwise spoke for us.