Albert Cipriani

Dear Wyzaard,


I see. And depressed, hopeless, cynical, fallacious, pompous, illogical or logical thinking can't result in bad actions? Aren't all types of thinking, as Kant said, incipient actions? Even your insipid thought is incipient action... it maintains your catatonic state regarding religious issues.



Because reason does not apply and if you don't choose, you are pretending. Either we die and experience nothing else or we die and experience something else. No other alternative is possible. Reason recommends neither possibility. Ergo, why not let hope dictate our belief?

If you hope to experience something else after you die, why not allow yourself to believe you will? If you hope to experience nothing else after you die, why not allow yourself to believe you will? The only position that's irrational is the one most atheists maintain: they hope their death is not their end, but they dare not believe that their death is not their end. Cowards!

You assert:


What's even more idiotic is the opposite, what you are doing: you're not thinking and not acting on information that you do not have WHEN YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT THAT INFORMATION CANNOT BE HAD.

Thank God you're not a cub scout leader of a pack lost in the forest. For you think that it is idiotic to act on information you don't have.




I said my theistic hopes are a balm for my chaffing, not a means of denying the chaffing. If I denied my pain, why would I admit my need for a balm? You, on the other foot in your mouth, are projecting your own irrational denial onto me.

You are the one who in the face of the question of life after death or death after death, pretend to "admit multiple possibilities." Yeah, we could become half alive or 3/4's alive after death or perhaps not just dead but like really really dead compared to some of those cub scouts who would only be dead dead. Yes, the possibilities are endless... for a person who doesn't have the guts to face the two horns of a dilemma.

But I'm the "pathetic" one, you say. Admitting one's pain and hoping for relief is honest. Pretending one is not in pain and denying oneself hope in relief, now THAT'S pathetic. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

Albert Cipriani

Dear Sindwinder,
You say,


Yeah. Contradictions are over-rated. I was a juror in a murder trial. The defense's closing argument, tore apart the star eyewitness's testimony, enumerating her 32 contradictions. Didnt phase me a bit. Her story was as believable as her contradictions were irrelevant. We convicted.

It's a function of computer stupidity that no allowance is made for contradiction. We are smarter than that. So we can know what someone meant even when they don't say what they mean. We can recognize someone's face even tho the hair is parted in a contradictory fashion. So, why model yourself after our intellectual inferiors? Why insist on truth without contradictions when life and experience and high level brain functioning informs us that most contradictions are merely apparent?

You disingenuously remonstrate:


The operative word is "tangible." God, of course, is not tangible. Ergo, no shred of tangible evidence can be provided you. 'Tis a pity your standards are so low.

You're equipped with a brain capable of so much more than the tangible. Yet, like a pig rooting for truffles, you stubbornly insist upon the only type of evidence that can't be found. -- Sadly, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Rimstalker,
It was big of you to admit that you were wrong. Most people don't do that. Most people are too busy proving other people wrong to admit that they're wrong. Your admission increases my respect for you.

I've been wrong on this board twice. Once when arguing God's nature with SingleDad. Once in arguing for God's un-free will with, I think, Datheron. In both threads, I thanked my opponent for bequeathing upon me a favor I was unable to bequeath upon them -- the intellectual means to change my mind.

It's an awesome feat to change our own mind, let alone to change someone else's mind, like turning a battleship around with tugboats. I hope that I and others are able to continue to change my mind until the day I die. Changing our mind is as important as changing our diapers once was. We're born monsters. A lifetime of mind changing is the only antidote.

You ask:


No. All popes, starting with the first, St. Peter, just like all people that have ever lived, met with God's displeasure ("For all have sinned and fall short of God's glory"). That's not reason enough for God to kill us.

In the case of the Catholic Church, the logic goes like this:
1) Since God is perfect, what He does is perfect.
2) What God did was found the perfect Catholic Church as a representation of Himself in the world.
3) Ergo, the Catholic Church is perfect.
4) Ergo, the Catholic Church must remain indefectible.
5) A contradiction in Church dogma or morals constitutes a defect in the Church.
6) Imperfect men become imperfect Popes who have the authority to contradict Church dogma and morals.
7) Ergo, God will prevent, through grace or death, imperfect popes from making His Church imperfect.

A logical objection can be raised against the second conclusion, line #4, as follows:
1) God created a perfect representation of Himself in the form of Adam and Eve.
2) Yet Adam and Eve were not indefectible.
3) Ergo, the Church is not indefectible.

However, the premise, line #1, is flawed in that it equivocates "perfect."

Adam and Eve were physically, morally, and spiritually perfect. These perfections did not need to be maintained by God for Adam and Eve to fulfill their Divine directive "increase and multiply and subdue the earth."

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is only intellectually perfect. Its perfection resides in her charism to dispense truth and sanctification to all men until Doomsday. If God did not maintain her Divine constitution by disallowing contradiction, she could not fulfill her Divine directive to teach and sanctify.

Simply stated, Adam and Eve did not need to be morally perfect to breed. The Catholic Church does need to be intellectually perfect to teach. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Panta Pei

Albert, though you avoid my posts like the proverbial plague, I must have your “traditional catholic” perspective on a biblical issue.

You wrote:

“Adam and Eve were physically, morally, and spiritually perfect.”

Please explain how a perfect being, without knowledge of good and evil, can commit or even perceive that they may commit an evil act or sin. If they manage to do so due to “beguilement”, should a being without knowledge and intent be held accountable or even punished?

Also, is lying wrong or even sinful?

If so, please attempt to resolve:

Gen 2:16-17 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

With:

Gen 3:4-5 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

In this fable, please provide for us what occurred in the day they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, how long they are said to have lived and which character lied and which was truthful.

For extra credit, indicate which character was specifically ordered not to eat of the tree and why a punishment would be in order for one who was not given the order.

Thanks in advance,

Steve, the mild mannered human

sidewinder

Albert: Yeah yeah, I know your god is beyond all comprehension, understanding, perception, etc. I've heard it all before. But how about just some evidence in the natural world that your god exists? Not theories or philosophies but just actual proof.

rainbow walking

This is a stray man. If uniqueness qualifies as truth, then that pink orbiting rhino Rainbow Walking keeps getting stomped with by you guys would qualify as the most true religion.

rw: Taking pot shots at me again, are we Albert?

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Albert Cipriani

Ah Rainbow,
I'm just fun'n you. You do get hit a lot by that pink rhino argument of theirs and it strikes my funny bone. No ill-intent intended.

We've got to hang together or we'll get hung out to dry. So buck up. Pack away that violin-playing icon. And let's kick some butt here... or at least avoid getting kicked around by a pink rhino stampede. – Cheers, Albert

rainbow walking

rw: Ha...good deal Lucille. By the way, the only way I can function is to the sound of music. I promise not to pull my violin on you again if you promise not to encourage the hounds of Basquerville. I just got that pink rhino corraled for the evening.

wyzaard

A:
I see. And depressed, hopeless, cynical, fallacious, pompous, illogical or logical thinking can't result in bad actions?

Wyz:
I didn't say they didn't; however, at least you have something to work with.

A:
Aren't all types of thinking, as Kant said, incipient actions?

Wyz:
Ugh... can't you read his epistemology and NOT his deontology? Acting on the verifiable is immensely prefernable to acting on the impossible.

A:
Even your insipid thought is incipient action... it maintains your catatonic state regarding religious issues.

Wyz:
You have not shown that these issues ARE issues. Catatonia my ass.

A:
Because reason does not apply and if you don't choose, you are pretending.

Wyz:
You're pretnding by choosing to believe something on no basis! What are you on?

A:
Either we die and experience nothing else or we die and experience something else. No other alternative is possible. Reason recommends neither possibility. Ergo, why not let hope dictate our belief?

Wyz:
WHICH hope? WHICH of the INFINITE POSSIBLE METAPHYSICAL WORLDS do I choose, of which I may or may not treat seriously in this life? False dichotomies...

A:
If you hope to experience something else after you die, why not allow yourself to believe you will? If you hope to experience nothing else after you die, why not allow yourself to believe you will?

Wyz:
Because I don't like pretending, nor do I want to think and act on the baseless promise of one afterlife of another, considering I could act in ANY fashion depending on which one I choose to revere.

A:
The only position that's irrational is the one most atheists maintain:

Wyz:
Generalization.

A:
they hope their death is not their end, but they dare not believe that their death is not their end. Cowards!

Wyz:
No, honest. To make theistic excuses is to be cowardly.

NOTE: I misworded last time. Let me clarify.

"You are thinking and acting on information that you CANNOT have. This is idiotic."

Better?

A:
What's even more idiotic is the opposite, what you are doing: you're not thinking and not acting on
information that you do not have WHEN YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT THAT INFORMATION CANNOT BE HAD.

Wyz:
Exactly. Questions concerning the afterlife are peudo-questions. Carnap wins again. Yee-hah!

A:
Thank God you're not a cub scout leader of a pack lost in the forest. For you think that it is idiotic to act on information you don't have.

Wyz:
CANNOT have. If I was lost in the forest, I would not only know if I was lost at some point, but I also know methods for becoming unlost. However, there appears to be no such methodology when it comes to the metaphysical; how would I know if I am even lost, much less what to do? Why should I believe anyone elses directions?

A:
I said my theistic hopes are a balm for my chaffing, not a means of denying the chaffing.

Wyz:
Then smoke some opium, junkie.

A:
If I denied my pain, why would I admit my need for a balm? You, on the other foot in your mouth, are projecting your own irrational denial onto me.

Wyz:
And... what am I denying? The PAIN? What pain? Stop placing your presuppositions on me; without justification, it's babbling.

A:
You are the one who in the face of the question of life after death or death after death, pretend to "admit multiple possibilities."

Wyz:
This isn't pertending; I admit possibilities exist, but I see no reason to believe in any one. As there are infinite possibilities, all unverifiable, no sound reason exists to make claims or commit actions based on PEUDO-ANSWERS to PEUDO-QUESTIONS.

A:
Yeah, we could become half alive or 3/4's alive after death or perhaps not just dead but like really really dead compared to some of those cub scouts who would only be dead dead.

Wyz:
Fluffery.

A:
Yes, the possibilities are endless... for a person who doesn't have the guts to face the two horns of a dilemma.

Wyz:
WHAT two horns? What would a Buddhist say about this, being one who hopes for NO afterlife?

A:
But I'm the "pathetic" one, you say. Admitting one's pain and hoping for relief is honest.

Wyz:
WHAT pain, and who says relief exists? MORE fluffery.

A:
Pretending one is not in pain and denying oneself hope in relief, now THAT'S pathetic.

Wyz:
Pidgionholing does not create for you a salient point, I'm afraid. All it does is confuse matters, espessially when ANY religion could use your 'points'.

Ridiculous.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Brother Barry Bgponder,
We need to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate your cornbread recipe. I suspect control substances, for it has made you far too blasé.

"Might as well share and smile as life goes on a while"??? This is not the stuff of inspiration. These are the lyrics of self-absorption.

Shake out of your slumbers. Get a grip, man. We're talking death. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in another western ("Unforgiven")


This is heady stuff you can't spread a smily face over like soft butter over warm cornbread!

Religion is the human response to death. Maybe it is the wrong response. But ANY response is preferable to NO response, which in your cornbread induced stupor, sums up the only response you're able to muster, that is, none at all!

Do you recall that 19th century poem: "Life is real, life is earnest."? Well I think it's an English mistranslation of the English that should read: "Death is real, death is earnest." It's not sufficient to acknowledge that we are mortal and then live our lives as if we are not. Some of our actions need to be religious to address the fact of our fallen mortal condition.

If we had not sinned through Adam and Eve, if we were not damaged goods born under a death sentence, there would be no religions. Religions of the world are the body casts and iron lungs in which we've incased ourselves in order to tend to the universally fatal epidemic of Original Sin.

So of course, there's malpractice. Yes, bad medicine makes the rounds. But I'll take my chances in the corrupt under-funded hospital wards run by drunk doctors than pretend that I'm not stricken by my fallen condition.

I prefer the stench here on the inside facing up to what exists than tip-toeing through the tulips with you atheists on the outside trying to smell the roses and merely enjoy the moment ignoring that tomorrow we die. Sincerely Abstaining from Cornbread, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>