Albert Cipriani

Tenek has the audacity to say “On a more serious note,” and then link to an anti-Catholic Chick comic strip. It’s not even the entire strip, one must pay 14 cents to get the whole laughable deal. I’m wasted on you. Unbelievable, Albert the Traditional Catholic Squandered in the Pig Sty

Angrillori

No, I think Al's saying its because they're the oldest and have the most rules... except for Judaism, of course, which isn't really a religion because at one point in time some of their leaders were killed. Am I getting it right? And except for hinduism, or any other older longer lasting religion because they believe more fantastical stuff apparently....

And about the rules, the good rules count, but the bad rules don't, and the voluminous teachings count, except for the ones made pastorally, because everything done by humans was pastoral, and everything done by humans to create voluminous dogma wasn't pastoral, except the stuff that was bad and Al didn't like and...except...and...except...and...except...and.. .except...

Alright, I think I'm getting the hang of this 'Traditional Catholic' stuff!

PandaJoe

It's easier than that, you just have to squash everyone elses arguments with your arrogance and unsupported assertions.

Tenek

Well why should I believe you over him?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Tenet, you sound so young. Alas. You shouldn't believe anyone over anyone. In the final analysis, no one CAN believe anyone. We are stuck with ourselves. It's enough to be honest with ourselves so that at least whatever it is we believe we can honestly believe it. Believing someone else is automatically disenfranchising you of your beliefs even being your beliefs, let alone them being honest beliefs.

Here's a test, find one statement in your Chick comic strips that isn't an assertion. If you can find one reasoned argument, one infered conclusion, I'll eat all 14 cents worth of your strip. I understand they're printed on high quality paper so it's sure to cause me indigestion. Deal? -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

Tenek

Five letters and nobody ever gets it right. :P

I really don't care for the test. I don't think Jack has a clue. I don't think I have a clue, for that matter, but then I don't claim to have Absolute Truth(tm) either.

I don't buy the ontological argument. I don't buy the design argument. I don't have even close to enough wisdom for the First Cause argument. Everything remotely logical seems to reduce to one of those.

I don't have reason to believe that any god exists. Given such a reason, I wouldn't have any reason to believe that whatever god exists, gives a rat's ass about me, or provides an afterlife, or even interacts with the universe. I note the lack of consistency among various religions, and the lack of a clearly superior one. Morality doesn't require a religion, so if I just do what I think is right, then I don't have to worry about conflicting with religious teachings. If they agree, the doctrine isn't necessary, and if they disagree, the doctrine tends to be a) archaic and b) secularly unsupported.

I've already got one set of prejudices - whatever they are - I don't need another. Believing in God at this point would be run contrary to my (impossibly lofty) goal of leaving the world a better place than it would have been without me, and be intellectually dishonest to boot. So why bother?

Theli

nevermind

Albert Cipriani

Dear Tenek,
I cheated and looked up your profile to confirm your youth. You being as young as I suspected is to your credit. It means you have a reasonable hope to have more time to sort out these issues.

When I was 18 I thought this: Look at me now, I don’t believe that anymore. So there is hope for you, too. Morality requires more than religion, it requires a belief in a personal and perfect God. The bible correctly asserts that all our good works are as filthy rags to God. I assure you that there’s a metaphysical basis for these assertions or I would not hold to them.

But I’m not here to preach, only to argue. And I’ll do neither with you. It’s enough that I share with you that I once shared your attitudes so that you may know as a fact that what you think now need not be the final resting place of your beliefs. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

John Page

Coulda fooled me!

phillip millar

Hello Albert,

The forum seems to have come some way from 'Pascal's wager' but there you go.

There is quite a lot in your response and I'll attempt to reply without being unduly verbose or boring.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Dear Philip,
Anything that the Church does to this temporal world, with or without the pope’s blessing, constitutes a pastoral act,.....This includes the crusades....

Your statement seems to imply it is possible for the Church (as you understand it) to define what is a pastoral act which is not necessarily endorsed by the bishop (shepherd) of Rome and the archbishop (chief shepherd) of the Church. According to this reasoning the Church (which is Christ's body?) may act independently of its head. What does this imply about authority?

You appear to accept that the Crusades were somthing that the the Church did and constituted a pastoral act. There appears to be some tension between this and your statement in the paragraph which follows viz that the church's role was essentially spiritual, the secular powers just did what they did. Does this not infer that with respect to the Crusades the Church merely made a judgement and the secular self appointed crusading armies simply did what they did. In other words the crusading armies were not crusading out of any idealisic motive but was just out for a fight. Nevertheless it was a pastoral act?

I do not for one moment Albert profess to be a biblical scholar, but if my reading of pastoral activities of the Christ and His apostles is correct these activities are not emulated in bloody crusades.

The idea that a SECULAR power would burn or otherwise kill an individual for HERESY appears a conceptual contadiction. Its not a heresy unless the secular power believes it to be so in which case the secular power is no longer secular.

I would respectfully suggest that the reason many people died for heresy at the hand of the secular power is because the secular power was governed by the holy see.


There is no dogma against torture or slavery or holy wars....

If my memory serves me correctly the Christ upon which the doctrine of the Church claims to be based issued the following dogma;

'Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you....'
(Somewhere in Matthew's gospel I understand)

What is dogma if not teaching which forms a basis for the Church whether individually or corporately to regulate their attitudes, values and behaviours?

Sorry if the repsonse is a little long-winded.

Hope you are well.

Phillip