Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 4:09 PM
330 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,511 Year: 29,117/21,208 Month: 1,183/1,847 Week: 106/452 Day: 106/115 Hour: 2/14

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Author Topic:   Catholics are making it up.
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 256 of 321 (770859)
10-14-2015 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
10-14-2015 5:55 PM


You are obviously ignorant of the whole range of doctrines of the RCC

As are you. You made the claims, they have been challenged. How do you propose we resolve the stalemate? My suggestion is that the person making the specific and positive claim (ie., you) should provide evidence to support your position. After all, my only option is to present the whole range of doctrines of the RCC to you and say 'there you go, its not there' At which point you'll agree or say - what about the bit where it says '...'. And then we'd be in the same position as if you had provided the evidence for your claims in the first place.

They will call their own doctrines blasphemous if necessary at any given time, then weasel around to defending them later.

Yeah, that's common to all religions I think.

However, it's all apparent anyway if you know what it all really means.

Please reveal where I can learn this occult knowledge.

For instance, "vicar of Christ" literally means "substitute for Christ" which is as good as calling him the Antichrist by biblical standards.

First of all - 'for' and 'of' are not substitutable.

A literal translation in your words with be 'substitute of Christ'. Which doesn't make sense. Then again, literal translations can be pretty stupid - just ask Google. Substitute is a good word, but it's not quite right. For a start, substitute is also a Latin word. Vicarius and substitutus are similar words, but not perfect synonyms. You've taken the meaning of substitute 'to replace' and gone to a crazy place with it including substituting two words entirely without reason to bolster your point.

Vicarious is different. For instance, one might assign a slave to do everything another slave commands them. This would make a slave's slave. Not a replacement slave. There are still two slaves. This would not be servus substitutus (or whatever the right Latin would be) it would be servus vicarius.

Are you a governor with too many duties? Have you tried appointing a vicarius praetoris or 'deputy governor / vice-president'.

Maybe you are a deity who wants a way to communicate information to his Creation without going through the fuss of incarnating or appearing in clouds etc? Why not appoint a Vicarius Filii Dei or Representative for the Son of God. Don't know if that's the right phrase? Try Vicarius Christi! Or Representative of Christ.

Because that's how the word actually gets used by the Latin people that came up with this stuff, rather than how someone with a translation dictionary might do it.

It's a substitute only in the sense that 'instead of talking to the governor or the usual slave or god....you are talking to me acting on the behalf in their place'. Not in the sense of 'I am substituting rice for wheat in my diet and Madden for Tebow in my time travel fantasy league'.

I haven't even remotely changed your mind have I?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicarius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 5:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5264
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 257 of 321 (770875)
10-15-2015 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
10-14-2015 2:54 PM


Golly gee, Tangle, don't you know the Pope is the rightful ruler of this world, according to RCC official doctrine? He's "God on earth," don't you know?

God knows I'm not a defender of the corruption that is the Catholic church, but it doesn't claim that the pope is either the rightful ruler of the world or God on earth. They do claim that the pope is God's representative on earth though, handed down from Peter. But they also say that of all Catholic bishops and priests too acting locally - it's just that the Pope is boss.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 10-14-2015 2:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 10-15-2015 4:58 AM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26783
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 258 of 321 (770877)
10-15-2015 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Tangle
10-15-2015 3:08 AM


It claims exactly what I said, it's officially on the books. Just because I don't have the time or I'm not good at locating the source of my information* doesn't mean I'm wrong about it. You could consider I'm right because I have no reason to make it up but of course you won't. Even what you admit they say pretty much says the same thing, and it ought to be recognized to be anything but Christian even to have a "representative of God on earth" or a "boss" of Christ's people who is not Christ himself.

*It may be in John Dowling's History of Romanism which is among a dozen books on Romanism I have stacked on my kitchen table so I'll check later. Or actually I think Dowling may be online.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Tangle, posted 10-15-2015 3:08 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Tangle, posted 10-15-2015 6:16 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 260 by Modulous, posted 10-15-2015 7:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5264
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 259 of 321 (770879)
10-15-2015 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
10-15-2015 4:58 AM


Faith writes:

It claims exactly what I said, it's officially on the books.

If it's officially on the books, it should be very easy to find.

Just because I don't have the time or I'm not good at locating the of my information* doesn't mean I'm wrong about it.

The first rule of journalism is "consider your source." You are THE most unreliable source of information on this board. Your default position here is wrong; wrong about almost everything you've ever written about. So you'll have to assume that without backing up your claims me and probably everyone else here is not going to take them at face value.

Having said that, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so - stop me if you've heard this one before - so let's see your evidence; what do these official books say?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 10-15-2015 4:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 260 of 321 (770921)
10-15-2015 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
10-15-2015 4:58 AM


It claims exactly what I said, it's officially on the books.

Actually it is as I say: it is officially not on the books.

Just because I don't have the time or I'm not good at locating the source of my information* doesn't mean I'm wrong about it.

Nullius in verba.

You could consider I'm right because I have no reason to make it up but of course you won't.

You have every reason to make it up. You hate Catholicism and you want others to hate it too. You spread that Tares and Wheat nonsense which was full of obvious lies - so I think my experience is persuasive that you seem highly motivated to make stuff up, and are quite adept at misremembering or exaggerating based on your own prejudices and half remembered things you read somewhere once.

Even what you admit they say pretty much says the same thing, and it ought to be recognized to be anything but Christian even to have a "representative of God on earth"

I don't see why it isn't Christian. The religion has examples within itself of people being the conduit for the word of God. Like Moses. God spoke to Moses, Moses spoke to Abram and Abram spoke to the people. Vicariousness was all over the religion from the outset!

or a "boss" of Christ's people who is not Christ himself.

He is 'boss' of Catholic bishops in the sense that he is the top of a hierarchical structure. If this is not Christian then I'd like to point you back at your old pal James I.

Here is an approximation of his Christian church, and the Church of England today:

God -> Crown -> Monarch -> Archbishop of Canterbury -> Other Archbishops -> Bishops / Suffragens -> Dean / subdean -> Rector / Vicar -> Deacons / Curates

A hierarchy with an absolute boss. I expect that although the American churches typically don't recognize a monarch they would still, assuming there is more than one church, have somebody assuming a leadership role. Someone to make final decisions on disciplinary matters, disputes, budget expenditure, broad direction of the churches policies and articles of faith. A boss. I'd be surprised if your church was immune to such a thing.

So I can't see how it could be construed by you as being in some way unChristian. It's obviously not something unique to churches. All organisations have a tendency towards certain types of hierarchy. It's kind a universal human way of organising and cooperating.

*It may be in John Dowling's History of Romanism which is among a dozen books on Romanism I have stacked on my kitchen table so I'll check later. Or actually I think Dowling may be online.

Yes, I believe it is. However, it is not official Catholic Dogma. It is instead a 19th Century attack on Catholicism by a baptist minister. If that's where you read it - it does not constitute sufficient evidence for your case. Anybody can write anything they like, after all the book you are referencing was published about a decade before On the Origin of Species. We both think one of these books has dubious merit, so just because someone got it published doesn't mean anything right?

What you need to do is look at Catholic texts and pronouncements, especially papal ones. If the beliefs you believe are part of the dogma exist 'officially on the books' you should look to the official books of the religion. Not relatively obscure Victorian texts written by a leader of a rival religious sect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 10-15-2015 4:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5264
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 261 of 321 (771053)
10-18-2015 12:33 PM


Making saints up
I see that our dear pope has exploited the PR opportunity of his family conclave by creating a couple of new saints - the parents of a saint he made earlier.

I know I disagree that Catholics claim the pope is god on earth, but this kind of act would add some evidence to it.

Their miracle was apparently in praying for a miracle.

On March 18, Francis said the pair had performed a miracle by curing a Spanish baby called Carmen. Born prematurely and risking a brain hemorrhage, her parents prayed for the Martins' intercession and the infant survived.

I reckon if I hung around a hospital for a week or so, laying on hands, I'd perform a few miracle cures too.

And grown-ups actually believe this stuff.

http://www.interaksyon.com/...aint-therese-the-little-flower


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by vimesey, posted 10-19-2015 6:16 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 263 by Blue Jay, posted 10-19-2015 11:17 AM Tangle has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 262 of 321 (771058)
10-19-2015 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Tangle
10-18-2015 12:33 PM


Re: Making saints up
.

Edited by vimesey, : Deleted - got the dramatis personae wrong.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Tangle, posted 10-18-2015 12:33 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 263 of 321 (771064)
10-19-2015 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Tangle
10-18-2015 12:33 PM


Re: Making saints up
Hi, Tangle.

Tangle writes:

I see that our dear pope has exploited the PR opportunity of his family conclave by creating a couple of new saints - the parents of a saint he made earlier.

I don't know anything about the history here, but according to your article, it was a different pope (Pius XI, back in 1925) who made the daughter a saint.

Tangle writes:

Their miracle was apparently in praying for a miracle.

Are you sure you read that right? The parents prayed, the Martins (allegedly) interceded, the children got better, and the Martins were made saints.

Tangle writes:

I reckon if I hung around a hospital for a week or so, laying on hands, I'd perform a few miracle cures too.

Perhaps. But, could you do it over 100 years after your death? That's what the Martins are alleged to have done.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Tangle, posted 10-18-2015 12:33 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Tangle, posted 10-19-2015 12:07 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5264
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 264 of 321 (771066)
10-19-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Blue Jay
10-19-2015 11:17 AM


Re: Making saints up
Without further research I'm prepared to concede every point you make. If everything you say is spot on true it's still bat-shit, goon-ball bonkers - if not more so. Which is MY point.

But millions (billions?) believe this stuff as though it was actually true. And these puddled men will emerge shortly and declare on how they think families should behave and we're supposed to take them seriously? We can only hope that all their prayers provide them with a bit of pragmatic, human intuition so that they can abandon some of their more damaging and dangerous ideas. Fat chance.

It utterly baffles me.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Blue Jay, posted 10-19-2015 11:17 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ringo, posted 10-19-2015 12:41 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 266 by DrJones*, posted 10-19-2015 12:42 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 270 by Blue Jay, posted 10-19-2015 1:05 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14002
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 265 of 321 (771067)
10-19-2015 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Tangle
10-19-2015 12:07 PM


Re: Making saints up
Tangle writes:

... and we're supposed to take them seriously?


No, "we" aren't supposed to take them seriously. Believers are supposed to take them seriously (one brand of believers, anyway). "We" are not required to get "our" knickers in a twist about it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Tangle, posted 10-19-2015 12:07 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Tangle, posted 10-19-2015 12:47 PM ringo has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1683
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004


Message 266 of 321 (771069)
10-19-2015 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Tangle
10-19-2015 12:07 PM


Re: Making saints up
But millions (billions?) believe this stuff as though it was actually true.

Is this your first time encountering the phenomena known as "religion"?


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Tangle, posted 10-19-2015 12:07 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Tangle, posted 10-19-2015 1:00 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5264
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 267 of 321 (771070)
10-19-2015 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ringo
10-19-2015 12:41 PM


Re: Making saints up
Ringo writes:

No, "we" aren't supposed to take them seriously. Believers are supposed to take them seriously (one brand of believers, anyway).

Right... best not let them try to influence anybody that matters then.

Pope Francis electrifies Congress with speech laying out bold vision for US

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ringo, posted 10-19-2015 12:41 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by ringo, posted 10-19-2015 1:02 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5264
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 268 of 321 (771071)
10-19-2015 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by DrJones*
10-19-2015 12:42 PM


Re: Making saints up
Dr Jones writes:

Is this your first time encountering the phenomena known as "religion"?

If it was, I couldn't be more amazed. Each new absurdity takes me by surprise.

It seems the majority have become anaesthetised to this utter tripe and just allow it to go on unremarked. It simply doesn't surprise when a man in a white dress and a pointy hat claims to have made a saint apparently.

But it doesn't harm to point out how utterly bonkers this is occasionally does it? - particularly on a board dedicated to discussing such matters.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by DrJones*, posted 10-19-2015 12:42 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14002
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 269 of 321 (771072)
10-19-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Tangle
10-19-2015 12:47 PM


Re: Making saints up
Tangle writes:

Right... best not let them try to influence anybody that matters then.


Millions of people vote for conservatives. That has much more serious consequences and I take it much more seriously.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Tangle, posted 10-19-2015 12:47 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Tangle, posted 10-19-2015 1:34 PM ringo has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 270 of 321 (771073)
10-19-2015 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Tangle
10-19-2015 12:07 PM


Re: Making saints up
Hi, Tangle.

Tangle writes:

If everything you say is spot on true it's still bat-shit, goon-ball bonkers - if not more so. Which is MY point.

Having been raised without the slightest inkling of how Catholicism works, the whole idea of saints seems weird to me. But, I wouldn't go so far as to call it "crazy": I think there's a least a modicum of internal consistency to the story you shared.

But, I have to agree with you about the notion of "miracles." There's no end of people out there claiming that God healed their child when the doctors said there was no chance. To me, the most reasonable conclusion is that some error was made in either assessing, presenting or interpreting what the child's "chances" were. All the "miracle" healing stories from the past involve people being suddenly raised to perfect health from their deathbeds: but nowadays, most medical miracles seem to involve a few days of bed rest with an IV drip in addition to the prayers of loved ones.

I remember being taught about alleged miracles that happened in the early parts of Mormon history, such as the miracle of the gulls. As a kid, I was taught that in 1848 (the Mormons' first year in Utah), a huge flock of gulls miraculously appeared out of nowhere to save the Mormons' first harvest from swarms of crickets, and everyone praised God for His greatness.

Of course, despite being very prolific diary-writers, the early Mormons seem to have meticulously avoided leaving any firsthand attestations of the alleged miracle, preferring to instead let it be gradually mythologized over the pulpit a few decades later.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Tangle, posted 10-19-2015 12:07 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 10-20-2015 1:24 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017