Vatican Embassy Protestor

[Rev. Rye]

I'll respond to your images, but first, I have to say this: IMGFIT is your friend. If you're going to post hi-res photos, use this code.

Case in point:

PHP Code:

[imgfit]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Nighthawks_by_Edward_Hopper_1942.jpg[/imgfit] 


The original is 6000 pixels wide. Fortunately, thanks to IMGFIT, that isn't a problem.

That said, It's nice to see someone protesting the Vatican. It's a shame his website design seem to be stuck in the nineties.

[Purplundy]

*Cough* Galileo *Cough*

*Cough* Everything to do with the Virgin Mary *Cough*

*Cough* Implausibility of the Resurrection *Cough*

I could go on...

Geocentrism was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. It was just an opinion that it held for a time. Never in that time period did it wield its infallibility.
And, if the Catholic Church professes that a supernatural being exists, why would virgin birth and resurrection be off limits to it?

---

Matthew 10:34-35

34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
35 "For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

Luke 12:51-52

51 "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division."
52 "For from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three"

Sounds like a fallible human being said these things.

Is there something morally wrong with being a controversial figure? Like Martin Luther King?
Don't atheism and homosexuality set family members against one another?

---

The Pope's selection of Cardinals is covered by Papal infallibility otherwise the Cardinals couldn't be empowered to select the Pope.

So you've noted that your 'evidence' contains no mention of infallibility.
The pope is selected by a vote. That's it. Perfectly fallible.
The pope is infallible because he is the pope. No matter who he is. There is not a breed of infallible white male Italians that the cardinals need to discover.

Like when the articles of faith regarding unbaptised babies & Limbo were retracted.

Interesting. Can you back that up with a link or a quote or something?

[StealthySkeptic]

The Catholic Church sure acted like it, though. And besides, if a body was inspired by a deity, you would think they would LITERALLY NEVER BE WRONG ON ANYTHING.

You would think, for instance, that maybe its sacred scripture would not contain a verse that is explicitly set up so that people will come into conflict because one person was Christian and the others would not. You would think that maybe everybody would be unified and happy and loving?

And yet the Cardinals claim their vote is "inspired by the Holy Spirit." Pfft.

[Purplundy]

The Catholic Church is run by people trying to help other people find goodness in their lives. There isn't a divine force that prevents them from making bad decisions.

And Jesus wasn't trying to get people to not like him or each other. He simply said that that is what would happen. It happens all the time. Sometimes, you commit to a belief at the cost of a unified community.

[StealthySkeptic]

The Catholic Church is run by people trying to help other people find goodness in their lives. There isn't a divine force that prevents them from making bad decisions.

And Jesus wasn't trying to get people to not like him or each other. He simply said that that is what would happen. It happens all the time. Sometimes, you commit to a belief at the cost of a unified community.

Again, all that proves to me is that the Catholic Church is not the Holy Spirit infused institution that it claims to be. Otherwise it would never make a mistake.

[Purplundy]

Well, then…OK.
Technically, the Holy Spirit's suposed to be in all of us…and I just misspelled 'supposed'—shit, my religion's a lie.

[Esquilax]

And, if the Catholic Church professes that a supernatural being exists, why would virgin birth and resurrection be off limits to it?

I don't suppose "lack of evidential support" would count as a reason to you?

Don't atheism and homosexuality set family members against one another?

Never by design: the tensions that arise there are due to the pre-existing bigotry of others in the family who are set against their atheist and gay family because they dare to exist and admit their atheism/homosexuality. It'd be blaming the victim to state that because others are baselessly bigoted that's somehow the fault of the people experiencing that bigotry themselves.

So you've noted that your 'evidence' contains no mention of infallibility.
The pope is selected by a vote. That's it. Perfectly fallible.
The pope is infallible because he is the pope. No matter who he is. There is not a breed of infallible white male Italians that the cardinals need to discover.

What are you even trying to say here? The pope is infallible because he's the pope, but since the pope is selected by fallible cardinals, therefore he... isn't infallible? Pick a line and stick with it.

[Purplundy]

And, if the Catholic Church professes that a supernatural being exists, why would virgin birth and resurrection be off limits to it?

I don't suppose "lack of evidential support" would count as a reason to you?

Actually, the question was about its plausibilty, not whether or not it happened.

Don't atheism and homosexuality set family members against one another?

Never by design.

With regards to the original question, are you suggesting that Jesus' dividing the Jewish community WAS by design? That he was trying to get people to disagree with him?

The pope is infallible because he is the pope. No matter who he is.

What are you even trying to say here?

The crux of the issue seems to be that you weren't following the conversation.
No matter WHO is elected to be the pope, that person gets papal infallibility.

[Esquilax]

Actually, the question was about its plausibilty, not whether or not it happened.

Surely you must recognize that the latter is a great indicator of the former. I get that you're talking about the consistency of a belief framework, and that given the acceptance of other supernatural phenomena, it's not that great a leap to begin accepting more, but "why not?" isn't a reason in itself. Each claim can actually be approached on its own, and just because resurrections and virgin births are consistent with a worldview featuring magic, doesn't mean there is reasonable justification for bolting those claims onto the initial magic claim. Frankly, given the circuitous absurdity of the motivation behind the Jesus story, one could easily provide an argument as to why the existence of the kind of god the Catholics believe should make the virgin birth and resurrection narrative of the new testament less plausible and not more.

That kind of god would be smarter than that.

With regards to the original question, are you suggesting that Jesus' dividing the Jewish community WAS by design? That he was trying to get people to disagree with him?

Given the actual words stated in the bible... yes, division was on Jesus' agenda.

The crux of the issue seems to be that you weren't following the conversation.
No matter WHO is elected to be the pope, that person gets papal infallibility.

So is the pope infallible or not? Your position seems to be that he turns it on and off like a tap, but how the hell does that work? If he's elected by fallible humans alone, as you indicated, then how does he suddenly become infallible? Or is this just infallibility by fiat assertion?

I understand what you're saying, it just baffles me as to how that works.

[StealthySkeptic]

Well, then…OK.
Technically, the Holy Spirit's suposed to be in all of us…and I just misspelled 'supposed'—shit, my religion's a lie.

YOU don't claim to be infallible in certain circumstances, head for the escape hatch of mystical inspiration when criticized, or ignore the factual and scientific errors that have been made over the centuries, as the Catholic Church seems to be.