Ask a Catholic

[Randy Carson]

I'm still smarting over his little Robin Williams jibe. The guy was a far greater gift to humanity than any poisonous doctrine. Randy is a thoroughly unpleasant little man who seems to oblivious to how much he's hurting his own cause.

I have never discussed Robin Williams' situation in this or any other forum. I only mentioned his name in passing as a common cultural reference to suicide resulting from depression.

---

Is your report button broken? Or do you want me to do it for you? All our deliberations over alleged Rule violations are conducted in private. Is there some reason I have to pilloried in public?

As you wish. I "report" you from from here on out.

And I can understand why you prefer this...because you are a troll who adds no value to the discussion...any discussion...that I have seen thus far.

So, you troll publicly, but you want reporting of the frequency of your trolling to be dealt with privately. 

No wonder. I'd be embarrassed, too, if I were a grown man behaving as badly as you do, Stimbo.

[ignore]

[pocaracas]

Good.
Now that all that nastiness is out of our system, let's carry on.
Randy, had you been born somewhere else in the world, like... say... India... do you think you'd believe in the same thing you do?

[Iroscato]

There's not much I can say. You're cynical, fatalistic, and sound like you're only a one bad day at work away from becoming the next Robin Williams.

Charming, I'm sure you'll agree. Post #44 on this thread.

[Cyberman]

As you wish. I "report" you from from here on out.

And I can understand why you prefer this...because you are a troll who adds no value to the discussion...any discussion...that I have seen thus far.

So, you troll publicly, but you want reporting of the frequency of your trolling to be dealt with privately. 

No wonder. I'd be embarrassed, too, if I were a grown man behaving as badly as you do, Stimbo.

[ignore]

That's fine, I'm not required to care what a faceless stranger on the internet thinks of me. However, you will accede to whatever the Staff decisions may be on your reports. You see, whatever your opinions are, when it comes to interpreting and implementing the forum Rules it's up to the Staff to determine if the accusation is valid or not.

[Randy Carson]

There's not much I can say. You're cynical, fatalistic, and sound like you're only a one bad day at work away from becoming the next Robin Williams.

Charming, I'm sure you'll agree. Post #44 on this thread.

Ah. You are correct. Kudos.

I have modified post #391 to reflect what I meant to say more accurately. I do regret the error.

---

As you wish. I "report" you from from here on out.

And I can understand why you prefer this...because you are a troll who adds no value to the discussion...any discussion...that I have seen thus far.

So, you troll publicly, but you want reporting of the frequency of your trolling to be dealt with privately. 

No wonder. I'd be embarrassed, too, if I were a grown man behaving as badly as you do, Stimbo.

[ignore]

That's fine, I'm not required to care what a faceless stranger on the internet thinks of me. However, you will accede to whatever the Staff decisions may be on your reports. You see, whatever your opinions are, when it comes to interpreting and implementing the forum Rules it's up to the Staff to determine if the accusation is valid or not.

Of course. Why would anyone expect anything else?

[Simon Moon]

Good.
Now that all that nastiness is out of our system, let's carry on.
Randy, had you been born somewhere else in the world, like... say... India... do you think you'd believe in the same thing you do?

Yes, Randy.

Please answer.

[Randy Carson]

Good.
Now that all that nastiness is out of our system, let's carry on.
Randy, had you been born somewhere else in the world, like... say... India... do you think you'd believe in the same thing you do?

Good.
Now that all that nastiness is out of our system, let's carry on.
Randy, had you been born somewhere else in the world, like... say... India... do you think you'd believe in the same thing you do?

Yes, Randy.

Please answer.

The idea that “religion is just a product of geography” sounds like a great argument for atheism. Initially.

However, just because someone is born in a place where they fail to discover the right answer about life’s important questions does not mean there is no right answer. This goes for any kind of truth claim. For example:
 
• If you were born in the year 1715 instead of 2015, you would probably have supported the enslavement of native Africans.
• If you were born in 2015 BC, you probably would have denied that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
• If you were born in modern North Korea, you probably would believe that democracy is evil.
 
But none of these facts proves that slavery is moral, that the sun revolves around the Earth or that dictators are a great idea. All they prove is that large numbers of people can be wrong.
 
For all of our political, scientific and ethical beliefs, we would say that even if other people disagree with them, and do not live in places that teach these beliefs as truths, that does not mean these beliefs are false. We can put forward rational arguments to defend these beliefs and then say that those other cultures who disagree are simply mistaken.
 
If we can do this for disputed ethical, scientific and political beliefs, then why not say we can put forward rational arguments for religious beliefs that are not universally believed but nonetheless true?

[pocaracas]

---

Good.
Now that all that nastiness is out of our system, let's carry on.
Randy, had you been born somewhere else in the world, like... say... India... do you think you'd believe in the same thing you do?

Yes, Randy.

Please answer.

The idea that “religion is just a product of geography” sounds like a great argument for atheism. Initially.

However, just because someone is born in a place where they fail to discover the right answer about life’s important questions does not mean there is no right answer. This goes for any kind of truth claim. For example:
 
• If you were born in the year 1715 instead of 2015, you would probably have supported the enslavement of native Africans.
• If you were born in 2015 BC, you probably would have denied that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
• If you were born in modern North Korea, you probably would believe that democracy is evil.
 
But none of these facts proves that slavery is moral, that the sun revolves around the Earth or that dictators are a great idea. All they prove is that large numbers of people can be wrong.
 
For all of our political, scientific and ethical beliefs, we would say that even if other people disagree with them, and do not live in places that teach these beliefs as truths, that does not mean these beliefs are false. We can put forward rational arguments to defend these beliefs and then say that those other cultures who disagree are simply mistaken.
 

---

If we can do this for disputed ethical, scientific and political beliefs, then why not say we can put forward rational arguments for religious beliefs that are not universally believed but nonetheless true?

I know I asked this before, but you seem to have missed it: define truth.

How would you know that a particular set of beliefs is true... or rather, because that makes no sense at all, how would you know that what a particular religion claims is the truth?

[Iroscato]

2200 years ago or so, the religion of Rome would've been accepted as 'true' by the vast majority of people. Main reason being, it was the dominant power in the world at the time, and could damn well back up those beliefs with a few legions of soldiers to come and smash your windows in and do unspeakable things to your bottom.
Guess what? Despite its immense military power and wealth, Rome fell. As did the religion of the Aztec Empire, as did the religion of Egypt, as did the religion of ancient Greece and so on ad infinitum.
So will the Catholic faith fall, the last remnants of Constantinople, lost to the relentless juggernaut that is time. Inevitably it will be replaced by another form of lunacy, only with a fair fewer people believing in it, if the general decline of religion is to be factored in.

[Randy Carson]

I know I asked this before, but you seem to have missed it: define truth.

How would you know that a particular set of beliefs is true... or rather, because that makes no sense at all, how would you know that what a particular religion claims is the truth?

By the grace of God.

Make your point, poca. There are lots of posts I need to respond to...

---

2200 years ago or so, the religion of Rome would've been accepted as 'true' by the vast majority of people. Main reason being, it was the dominant power in the world at the time, and could damn well back up those beliefs with a few legions of soldiers to come and smash your windows in and do unspeakable things to your bottom.
Guess what? Despite its immense military power and wealth, Rome fell. As did the religion of the Aztec Empire, as did the religion of Egypt, as did the religion of ancient Greece and so on ad infinitum.
So will the Catholic faith fall, the last remnants of Constantinople, lost to the relentless juggernaut that is time. Inevitably it will be replaced by another form of lunacy, only with a fair fewer people believing in it, if the general decline of religion is to be factored in.

The existence of the graveyard of the gods does not prove that Christianity will one day rest there.

Just because some conceptions of God are fictional, how does that prove that all conceptions of God are fiction?