Catholicism: One step forward, Two steps back

[Lek]

Relative to which of his predecessors?  The pope's in the 17th century?  The Vatican has longed maintained the stance of 'hate the sin love the sinner', and go to endless lengths to make sure people know it's God's evaluation of gays and atheists, not their own.  Tossing on a former FOX News PR guy (not a joke, Francis had a FOX News PR guy hired specifically for his papacy) doesn't make a difference to me.

I don't want to keep us in agreement for too long F&F.  I think you're wrong about saying that it's not their evaluation.  As christians, they are already committed to agreeing with God's evaluation.  "Hate the sin and love the sinner" has been Jesus' stance from the beginning.  Pope Francis is trying to convey the message more clearly from the church that God loves atheists and homosexuals.

[robvalue]

God loves us, but he will annihilate our souls (at best) if we don't submit to him, even in the absence of any evidence he even exists.

I prefer people who love me for who I am, who don't think themselves above me, and who aren't too scared to even show up and say hi.

[abaris]

I still have less of a problem with the Catholics than with the countless denominations running rampant.

The reason for that is simple. The man with the funny hat calls the shots and you pretty much know what you get when dealing with Catholics. It's not that simple with evangelical pastors. Each of them pretty much propagates his own brand of madness. And you never know which of their followers, who contaminate politics, is horny for some Armageddon action.

[Iroscato]

God loves atheists and homosexuals.

And yet, your book teaches that such people will burn in hell forever, by his decree. Your god is an angry alcoholic dad who takes out his frustrations on his kids, and I tire of theists trying to defend him. That's before we even get to the part about him not actually existing.

[Lek]

I still have less of a problem with the Catholics than with the countless denominations running rampant.

The reason for that is simple. The man with the funny hat calls the shots and you pretty much know what you get when dealing with Catholics. It's not that simple with evangelical pastors. Each of them pretty much propagates his own brand of madness. And you never know which of their followers, who contaminate politics, is horny for some Armageddon action.

Talk about crazy evangelicals. I got permanently banned from the "Catholic Answers" forum. Even they didn't want me!

[robvalue]

That's the problem when all your claims are unfalisifiable. Anyone can make anything up, and it's no "less true" than anything else, as far as we can test. It can also be defended in exactly the same flawed way, the argument from ignorance.

I gotta write about unfalsifiability on my website. I invite any theist to examine their religious beliefs. Write them all out, every important belief. Now see how many of these are unfalsifiable (cannot be proved wrong, at least by our current understanding). It will most likely be all of them. If there are any left which are (humanly) falsifiable, then let's have them.

Lek: I'd take that as a badge of honour, getting banned from a crazy place. I've never been there, but for them to ban you, they must be full on nuts.

[Minimalist]

Did you say something wrong, Lek?

[abaris]

Talk about crazy evangelicals.  I got permanently banned from the "Catholic Answers" forum.  Even they didn't want me!

That's the problem when you're dealing in absolutes. Tolerance is pretty much out of the window.

[Pizza]

I still have less of a problem with the Catholics than with the countless denominations running rampant.

The reason for that is simple. The man with the funny hat calls the shots and you pretty much know what you get when dealing with Catholics. It's not that simple with evangelical pastors. Each of them pretty much propagates his own brand of madness. And you never know which of their followers, who contaminate politics, is horny for some Armageddon action.

When have Catholics ever obeyed the Pope?

That's the problem when all your claims are unfalisifiable. Anyone can make anything up, and it's no "less true" than anything else, as far as we can test. It can also be defended in exactly the same flawed way, the argument from ignorance.

I gotta write about unfalsifiability on my website. I invite any theist to examine their religious beliefs. Write them all out, every important belief. Now see how many of these are unfalsifiable (cannot be proved wrong, at least by our current understanding). It will most likely be all of them. If there are any left which are (humanly) falsifiable, then let's have them.

I've never understood the point of making claims that aren't testable in someway. How did they even come to their conclusions in the first place then?

Lek: I'd take that as a badge of honour, getting banned from a crazy place. I've never been there, but for them to ban you, they must be full on nuts.

I imagine he said: "Hello, I'm not a Catholic."

[Lek]

Did you say something wrong, Lek?

I guess I had spent too much time in this freewheeling forum. Though I was nice about it, I pressed hard about the man-made rules, regulations and laws that catholics were commanded to follow that were not mentioned in the bible. The reason they gave for banning me was "anti-catholic trolling". The participants were generally gracious, and were open to discussion, but there were probably a couple who complained to the moderators. I was pretty upset that I didn't get a chance to tell them that I'm not anti-catholic. I'd give them about five minutes before they banned you Mini.