What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

We are a group of people who like to debate so yes, as long as the conversation is interesting, we will keep have the discussion and it will branch out into many different directions.  This forum is not for everyone. You need a thick skin. Most of the atheists on this site have no desire to evangelize you so there is no need to hide behind niceness to win you to our cause. If you aren't used to it, that kind of honesty can be disconcerting for some people.

After 10 years elsewhere, I can dish it out as well as take it. That's not my point.

The classic evasion maneuver when one of your objections is being answered a little to well, is to simply move on to the next item on your "Reasons why Catholicism / Christianity is wrong" list.

Apparently, I'm not very good at hiding behind "niceness", either. Rhythm has been telling me about how my "ministry" here is failing.

[Catholic_Lady]

Mike-

I'm interested in what atheists think, and I would have no problem with you posting passages from Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins as you think appropriate. As I said to Nestor in the Gary Habermas Q & A thread, I would LOVE to go hear a good debate between Ehrman and a skilled Christian representative.

So I'm disappointed to see you speaking so disdainfully of my posting of snippets from the Catechism. Presumably, you are interested in hearing what Christians (Catholics specifically) think on a given topic, and if the Catechism presents a point of view more eloquently and accurately than I might do on my own, why the objections?

Of course, if you aren't interested in a discussion with Catholics about these things, why bother reading these threads at all?

I am interested in what Catholics think. I am not interested in what the Catholic Church thinks you should think. The disdain comes from the idea that it is so difficult for you to form your own ideas as part of a conversation. Being in the moment and present within a discussion seems to be very difficult for you. Hence your prepared Word documents and your incredulity and sheer inability to cope when someone doesn't follow your expectations. (Hence the AIDS example, which you conveniently dropped) And so, instead of succinctly telling us in your own words what you believe, you copypasta half of the catechism.

But what if what we think is that the Church holds the answers? And that the Catechism can do a better job of putting it into words than we can? I'd also like to point out that there have been times here where I've said something about what the Church teaches and have been told by another member that I am wrong about what the Church teaches. So I went ahead and linked to the catechism in order to prove that what I just said really is in line with Church teaching.

I am sorry you feel as though we have done a poor job of sharing our thoughts and beliefs. I'll own it and say that indeed I do have a hard time putting things into words a lot of times.

[Mr.wizard]

He is god right? The same guy from the old testament? The same old testament that not only endorses slavery but gives specific instruction on it?

See posts 1325 & 1334.

Ya I see them, they don't answer my questions.

[Randy Carson]

Another mature response. ^  Sheesh...I feel like I'm in high school again.

I'm not defending anything. I'm explaining it...and why it is not as black and white as you anti-christers seem to believe. The Israelites were a stubborn, stiff-necked people. Here are a few assessments from various points in Israel's history:

• Exodus 32:9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people.
  
• Nehemiah 9:16 “But they, our ancestors, became arrogant and stiff-necked, and they did not obey your commands.
  
• Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
  

From Moses to Nehemiah to Stephen...you can see what God was dealing with. Consequently, God had to bring the Israelites along slowly...forming His people little by little...weaning them away from false gods and other beliefs and customs.

Here's a classic from Jesus:

Matthew 19
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “[b]Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Catch that?

Moses permitted the people to divorce but Jesus commanded us to step up our game.

Same with slavery. It was permitted, but now it's not. We've been molded by God.[/b]

What you just posted in bold has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, another dishonest attempt to avoid the point. You tried to accuse people of misrepresenting slavery of the bible while leaving out a huge portion of it and trying to downplay it. Your not trying to explain it because if you where you would not have left out a lot of the really heinous parts, what you are trying to do is downplay the atrocities commanded by your pathetic holy book.

Why is it that every time YOU fail to understand or agree with me, I'm being dishonest. Maybe you're just being stupid.

What I quoted from Jesus is an EXAMPLE of the way that He took something that WAS permitted in the OT (like divorce) and said, in effect, "Okay, this is no longer acceptable."

IOW, God turned the screws of the clamps a little tighter to bring His people more closely in line with His will.

Do you know what it means to train a vine? It requires patience and pruning; otherwise, the vine will break.

[SteelCurtain]

But what if what we think is that the Church holds the answers? And that the Catechism can do a better job of putting it into words than we can? I'd also like to point out that there have been times here where I've said something about what the Church teaches and have been told by another member that I am wrong about what the Church teaches. So I went ahead and linked to the catechism in order to prove that what I just said really is in line with Church teaching.

I am sorry you feel as though we have done a poor job of sharing our thoughts and beliefs. I'll own it and say that indeed I do have a hard time putting things into words a lot of times.

You guys seem to not grasp the difference between these two ideas.

This is okay:
C_L: "I believe x and y and z because this, that, and the other thing."

Atheist: "Well that's wrong, the church teaches b and c and d."

C_L: "Nuh uh. See this portion of the catechism:

Snippet of the catechism or other document that supports your original point.

http://www.linktocatechismpage.com"

This isn't:
"This is what I believe:

ten pages of Catechism.

"

[rexbeccarox]

I am interested in what Catholics think. I am not interested in what the Catholic Church thinks you should think. The disdain comes from the idea that it is so difficult for you to form your own ideas as part of a conversation. Being in the moment and present within a discussion seems to be very difficult for you. Hence your prepared Word documents and your incredulity and sheer inability to cope when someone doesn't follow your expectations. (Hence the AIDS example, which you conveniently dropped) And so, instead of succinctly telling us in your own words what you believe, you copypasta half of the catechism.

But what if what we think is that the Church holds the answers? And that the Catechism can do a better job of putting it into words than we can? I'd also like to point out that there have been times here where I've said something about what the Church teaches and have been told by another member that I am wrong about what the Church teaches. So I went ahead and linked to the catechism in order to prove that what I just said really is in line with Church teaching.

I am sorry you feel as though we have done a poor job of sharing our thoughts and beliefs. I'll own it and say that indeed I do have a hard time putting things into words a lot of times.

If you think the catechism explains it better than you can, there's no reason to be here as it's a discussion forum.  No one here wants to read the catechism word-for-word, or we would just look up the catechism.  If you feel you're right about it, and someone else is wrong, it's fine to quote the part you're referring to, but you have to add to the discussion by presenting your own thoughts.  I have no complaints with you on that; you are doing fine, save for the couple of times we've had to let you know.  You haven't gotten into any official trouble over it, and you're doing just fine, even if the majority disagrees with your conclusions.

[Mr.wizard]

What you just posted in bold has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, another dishonest attempt to avoid the point. You tried to accuse people of misrepresenting slavery of the bible while leaving out a huge portion of it and trying to downplay it. Your not trying to explain it because if you where you would not have left out a lot of the really heinous parts, what you are trying to do is downplay the atrocities commanded by your pathetic holy book.

Why is it that every time YOU fail to understand or agree with me, I'm being dishonest. Maybe you're just being stupid.

What I quoted from Jesus is an EXAMPLE of the way that He took something that WAS permitted in the OT (like divorce) and said, in effect, "Okay, this is no longer acceptable."

IOW, God turned the screws of the clamps a little tighter to bring His people more closely in line with His will.

Do you know what it means to train a vine? It requires patience and pruning; otherwise, the vine will break.

Ya its an example of what jesus said about divorce, but he didn't say anything about slavery! Your example is stupid! Then by your own logic jesus  must of been ok with slavery if he didnt change it. I don't care about training a vine, dumb analogies are not going convince me that enslaving people, killing people, torturing people and raining genocide on people was some great training tool to make people treat each other better, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd also like to point out that there have been times here where I've said something about what the Church teaches and have been told by another member that I am wrong about what the Church teaches.

Because you were  and -are-....as the catechism (among other -cited- examples, such as ecumenical council and a fucking pope..no less..) explained...ironically. If you think that the church or the catechism or the pope explain things better.....then why do you not defer to their unambigous and -infallible- explanations, and why bitch and moan when someone shows you that you have misunderstood, or been entirely ignorant -of- those unambiguous, infallible, and (according to you) much better explanations? Hell, probably ought to thank a guy...looking out for your immortal soul.......

[Randy Carson]

You imply a dichotomy where none exists. I agree with all teachings of the Catholic Church.

Okay. Fuck off then. We have all the links to the catechism. When we have a question as to what you think, we'll search it up. No reason for you to be here.

Utter stupidity. Are you ever embarrassed by some of the nonsense you write?

Quoting a passage from Ehrman or Craig is simply grist for the mill. If I didn't want to discuss with you, I could just watch YouTube videos of Hitchens, Harris, or Krauss.

Rubbish. The fact that I have some of MY thoughts put down in Word is because I have been doing this a very, very long time. Why reinvent the wheel?

Case in point...Spacetime joined the forum a few days ago. Same arguments, different day. How foolish is it to type my fingers off telling him in different words what I have already told you and others.

My very point. It's obvious when you do it. It's shitty forum etiquette. You've been asked to stop. And then you wonder why everyone you encounter has the same response to you.

Heh...what you want is for me to stop giving good answers to bad questions.

Now, let's be honest: you anti-christers (hey, that has a ring to it) do something similar...instead of even bothering to post AT ALL (which is what I do), you simply say, "Look, asshole, this has all been discussed before. Do a search in the forum and stop wasting everyone's time."

Wow. THAT makes for great discussion, doesn't it? But I'm given that kind of response frequently...especially when I was newer here.

Maybe you are happy to have the same discussion over and over, but a lot of us aren't.

Then don't post. Sheesh, how hard is that?

We're here for discussion, and when Christians come in here and want to have the same conversation we've had 100 times before, acting like it's completely new information for all of us and playing the "gotcha" game, you'd be happy if we all trotted out the old Word files and posted pages at each other? What kind of twisted version of discussion are you interested in? So if you want to see our responses to the very same questions you are asking, search it up. If you want to spin off a thread from a response, by all means go ahead.

First, I'm the new guy. How do I know what you have and haven't discussed before? Second, so what if we are making the same arguments that have been made a hundred times before? Ever play chess? Think you're inventing something that Grand Masters haven't considered?

I'm developing MY skills as a player while simultaneously challenging yours. That's why we play the game, Mike.

rexbeccarox has. Twice.

And let's not kid one another: CL's avatar has got more than a few of the guys here dialing the aggression in their responses to her way, way down.

I did not say she hasn't been speedbumped or sent unofficial warnings. I said I hadn't had to. How many times were you PM'ed your first week? How many times did we have to explain our rules here? How many times were you publicly adamant that we are doing it wrong and we should play by your rules instead?

A lot. Because I didn't initially understand the 30/30 rule. Later, it was because you guys have posted a 30/30 Exception, but you don't allow newbies to actually invoke it. So, I waited it out. CL will do the same.

Also, are you implying that we didn't know that Catholic_Lady was a woman before she posted her avatar? Or are you just attracted to her and projecting like you usually do?

Another mature response. Really, when you get mad, you ought to log off instead of posting.

If it is your opinion that I'm following the teaching of the Catholic Church at a whole new level, then I am honored. I would disagree, but thank you.

I am implying that you are shitty at this. You have presented us with a Catholic automaton who will repeat catechism and prepared dialogue on demand, and thence have done more for atheism on these boards in the last month or so than anyone in a while.

Spoken like someone who would like nothing more than to see fewer, solid Catholic answers posted in his atheist haven.

As if you would be MORE likely to consider Catholicism if I were silent. Really? I don't think so. But it was a nice try, Mike.

[Catholic_Lady]

Like I said, though He didn't specifically address slavery, He told us "love your enemy," and "love your neighbor as yourself."

He probably didn't specifically address rape either, as well as other specific things. But like slavery, I think that's a given... considering his commandment to love.

I don't think any honest person could read the entire life of Jesus and come out of it with the take way that He condones enslaving people.

He is god right? The same guy from the old testament? The same old testament that not only endorses slavery but gives specific instruction on it?

I have addressed this several times. But I can see how you may have missed it.

Yes, He was the same God. But we have to remember that the bible was not written by the hand of God. It was written by man. And though these men were all inspired by God, they are still men and not God. I good way to think of it is that the bible represents God, but does so through the filter of man. It is not completely perfect. It is not infallible. It was not directly written by God.

Once Jesus (who is God) came we were able to gain a better understanding of God. And He debunked a number of things from the OT, namely the stoning of adulterers and the law "an eye for an eye" which He addressed specifically.

Hope that helps.