(June 23, 2015 at 2:54 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I know that this is yall's belief, which is why I was so confused by Neim's objection at me saying it was not inherently immoral.

I don't know how I can have an honest, conducive discussion if I get reprimanded every time I ask for clarification. ;-)

I'm not objecting you saying it's not inherently immoral. Nothing is inherently immoral.

I'm objecting your view that the forced marriage between Joseph and Mary is a-ok. And also your hypocrisy in calling yourself a moral objectivist.

And would you drop the persecution complex.

(June 22, 2015 at 10:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: That's not what Christopher Hitchens said. But whatever.

It may have escaped your notice but I am not Christopher Hitchens. Maybe it's something of an alien concept for you but I don't necessarily have to agree lock-step with everything said by other people, even if they are or were atheists. It's not as though we revere our 'leaders', such as they are, merely because they happen to be prominent. They're not our popes or anything so silly.

However, feel free to give the actual quote of what the Hitch said.

(June 23, 2015 at 3:44 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 10:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: That's not what Christopher Hitchens said. But whatever.

It may have escaped your notice but I am not Christopher Hitchens. Maybe it's something of an alien concept for you but I don't necessarily have to agree lock-step with everything said by other people, even if they are or were atheists. It's not as though we revere our 'leaders', such as they are, merely because they happen to be prominent. They're not our popes or anything so silly.

However, feel free to give the actual quote of what the Hitch said.

Thinking by yourself is an alien concept to them. It's group think and towing the party line or oblivion.

That's interesting about Catholics denying James is the brother of Jesus. Interesting because the earliest and most often touted extra biblical source confirming even the slightest hint of Jesus actually being a historical figure relies on James being his brother (Josephus). Despite the massive forgery therein, there is a second mention of "Jesus" via his brother which seems to be considered genuine. It's loose and far from makes the whole case, but it's the best they have and the Catholics apparently have jettisoned it unless I'm missing something.

(June 23, 2015 at 3:05 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 2:54 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I know that this is yall's belief, which is why I was so confused by Neim's objection at me saying it was not inherently immoral.

I don't know how I can have an honest, conducive discussion if I get reprimanded every time I ask for clarification. ;-)

Reprimanded? Jeezus in a clamshell...

CL apparently feels that some of us, likely me, are being condescending, mean and rude.

I'm not going to apologize for finding forced marriages with children appalling. I don't know what rude or mean things I've said and personally, I find telling people that god has mercy for them pretty fucking condescending too.

This passive aggressive persecution complex is seriously getting on my nerves. I'm going to quit this thread before I lash out and say something I would regret.

(June 22, 2015 at 10:40 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No, peer review?

Well, let's see...

First, the theologian must be in accord with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Unless the Pope overrides it, as he did with Natural Family Planning methods such as the Creighton which fully conflict with the principles expounded within Casti Connubi amongst other encyclicals.

The Orthodox Church draws from the same sacred tradition base as you do for much of its history and finds no reason to condemn contraception so that's out the window too.

Quote:Randy Carson
Then, there are the writings of the Early Church Fathers which must be considered.

Only when it suits you, the Catholic Church regularly rejects works from the Church fathers. Take Tertullian's, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4 and Jeromes Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 for instance. They hold practices such as new converts drinking milk and forbidding them to bathe for a week as sacred tradition. What about the awkward ones like telling people not to kneel during prayer? I don't think even the Catholic Church denies the historical prayer position from art and historical sources was stood upright with arms raised upwards.

I didn't observe any of these "sacred traditons which take on the weight of written law" according to Tertullian in the same work noted above when I last attended a Catholic Baptismal Mass.

Quote:Then, there are 2,000 years of theology from the Scholastics such as Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, etc which must be considered.

Again, only when it suits you. Thomas Aquinas held it was a glorious thing to slay a heretic before he could "infect the rest" according to the Summa (ST II-II, q. 64, a. 2) and yet I don't observe Catholics slaughtering anyone here who refuses to repent and convert to Catholicism. It's apparently their Christian duty to defend the word of God isn't it?

Quote:Then, there are living theologians who may or may not agree with a given position.

What? You mean like when Leo XIII decided all by himself against the will of his theological advisors that Anglicans didn't have valid orders?

Theologians are pointless in Catholicism, their opinion is worth fuck all unless they are the Pope.

Quote:Then, there is the Magisterium of the Church of the Church which may be exercised through an Ecumenical Council called to settle a matter of dispute.

Which again the Pope can overrule on a whim as he has at several points in history.

Quote:Finally, there is the Pope himself who may agree or disagree and pass judgment on the basis of his own authority.

So the Pope can peer review himself? "Hmm....I don't think I've got enough statues of half naked men on this balcony...Only fitting I have another".

Very fair. Why did the Catholic Church bother torturing a confession of heresy out of Savonarola when they could just ask him to "review" himself and ask if he's a heretic or not?

Oh wait...They did that with Honorius the heretic Pope. More than a little awkward don't you think?

I'm not trying to be awkward Randy, it's true. The Pope inists throughout history he has no other master or authority but God himself. Lets not pretend he's not an autocrat now, if you argue with the Pope today you get excommunicated formally like the We are Church leaders, if you did it even a few hundred years ago you'd be killed.

Real scientific review methodology being applied there. As aggressive as Hitchens was I don't believe I've ever seen him plant an axe in the base of anyones neck for disagreeing with him which many Popes have done.

@ Neimenovic: I agree. She said earlier that she finds foul language offensive. To reiterate the point I made then, I find the foul opinions expressed in 'standard' language far more offensive.

(June 22, 2015 at 10:30 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

Quote:An entry for the year 782 in the Royal Frankish Annals records that, after Charlemagne lost two envoys, four counts, and around 20 nobles in battle with the Saxons, Charlemagne responded by massacring 4,500 rebelling Saxons near what is now Verden. Regarding this massacre, the entry reads:

When he heard this, the Lord King Charles rushed to the place with all the Franks that he could gather on short notice and advanced to where the Aller flows into the Weser. Then all the Saxons came together again, submitted to the authority of the Lord King, and surrendered the evildoers who were chiefly responsible for this revolt to be put to death—four thousand and five hundred of them. This sentence was carried out. Widukind was not among them since he had fled to Nordmannia. When he had finished this business, the Lord King returned to Francia.[1]

There was a rebellion.
Some of Charlemagne's homies were killed in the uprising.

They rebelled because they didn't want to convert to Catholicism but were being forced to, as the Chinese were being forced to assimilate into the Japanese Empire.

Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Cherrypicking at it's finest

Quote:Charlemagne exacted revenge.

Nice bit of moral relativism there

Quote:I'm not convinced the comparison to the Japanese army is justified, but if you say so...

The only difference is Charlemange was Catholic and Hirohito was the leader of a rival religion; who interestingly himself also claimed to be the direct mouthpiece of God/Amaterasu Okami and infallibility. Only difference there is his religion is older than Catholicism by 663 years (taking 33AD as the starting date of Catholicism, which I know the Orthodox would whine about).

(June 22, 2015 at 10:30 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: There was a rebellion.
Some of Charlemagne's homies were killed in the uprising.
Charlemagne exacted revenge.

I'm not convinced the comparison to the Japanese army is justified, but if you say so...

The comparison is valid. First, if Charlemagne hadn't conquered the Saxons there would have been no need for rebellions. The Saxons didn't ask for him to invade in 772 and to destroy their holy sites. I'm not going as far as to say, spreading the word was the major reason, but it was a reason. Nearly 30 years of constant war ensued, by all accounts as brutal as the 30 years war some 800 years later.

What you say is purely a revisionist standpoint.

(June 23, 2015 at 6:35 am)Stimbo Wrote: @ Neimenovic: I agree. She said earlier that she finds foul language offensive. To reiterate the point I made then, I find the foul opinions expressed in 'standard' language far more offensive.

It's what is so infuriating about them puritans - sure, you can say the most bigoted and hateful stuff, how some people are lesser humans or everyone deserves to be tortured forever, as long as you don't say "damn" or "shit". That's the most important issue, obviously. Because God doesn't like it I suppose.