Should the Pope be tried for genocide?

[joekgamer]

I don't need to explain why that argument is less than convincing.

 

Well, I for one can't see why, so could you explain it?

 

I'm struggling to find a charitable way to describe the absurdity of that statement.

 

How is it absurd?

 

You have a very strange understanding of human nature; if that was instinctive then our biochemistry would reflect it. The desire to have multiple partners doesn't come from our instinct, it comes from our will.

 

What makes you think this? Behavioral studies have shown it.

 

ROTFLMAO! The effectiveness of a course of action is not to be judged based on whether or not it's followed? What a load of nonsense!

 

How so? the effectiveness of a course of action is based on how well it works, not how many people follow it. Everyone in the world could be following an inefficient course of action at the same time.

 

What makes you think that you have a sufficient background in philosophy or Christian theology to qualify yourself to make such statements?

 

What makes you think he doesn't?

[chilehed]

Oh, I get it: correlation equals causation, people are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant, and poverty prevents people from being free moral agents.

I don't need to explain why that argument is less than convincing.

Well, I for one can't see why, so could you explain it?

"Correlation equals causation" is the *** hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

"People are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant" is an ad hominem argument that also begs the question by presupposing that Christianity is not true. I could just as easily say that people are atheists because they’re ignorant, with the same lack of validity.

 

"Poverty prevents people from being free moral agents" is not worthy of any response.

 

I'm struggling to find a charitable way to describe the absurdity of that statement.

How is it absurd?

It’s like saying that a woman tolerates infidelity who kicks her husband out of the house unless and until he stops it, admits it to her, feels sorrow in his soul and destestation of it, and firmly resolves to not do it ever again.

 

You have a very strange understanding of human nature; if that was instinctive then our biochemistry would reflect it. The desire to have multiple partners doesn't come from our instinct, it comes from our will.

What makes you think this? Behavioral studies have shown it.

So you say. I’d be very interested in seeing a valid study that manages to distinquish between what we do out of instinct, out of will, and out of a pathologic psychological condition.

 

Humans have a very strong hormonal interaction which results in the pair imprinting to each other.

 

 

How so? the effectiveness of a course of action is based on how well it works, not how many people follow it. Everyone in the world could be following an inefficient course of action at the same time.

That’s like saying you can evaluate the performance of a car without having anyone start the engine and drive it. It’s an absurd position, especially since it’s a given that you won’t get a sexually transmitted disease if you follow Church teaching.

 

 

To the Christian, physical health and long life is important only in that it increase the likelihood a soul being saved. In their view, a short, unhealthy life followed by an eternity in paradise is preferable to a long, healthy one followed by the death of body and soul, or worse, eternal torture in hell.

What makes you think that you have a sufficient background in philosophy or Christian theology to qualify yourself to make such statements?

What makes you think he doesn't?

Because he says things that make it obvious that he has only a shallow understanding of Catholic theology. That comment was actually more like gnostic thought.

[joekgamer]

"Correlation equals causation" is the *** hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

How so? Could you point out where in the post this was?

 

"People are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant" is an ad hominem argument that also begs the question by presupposing that Christianity is not true. I could just as easily say that people are atheists because they’re ignorant, with the same lack of validity.

 

That was not his argument. This is:

poverty leads to poor education, poor education to acceptance of Catholic dogma, the acceptance of Catholic dogma to lower use of condoms, and lower use of condoms to increased transmission of diseases such as HIV/AIDS

 

How is that an ad hominiem attack?

 

.

"Poverty prevents people from being free moral agents" is not worthy of any response.

 

1) People do what they can to try to make their lives better (even if it doesn't)

2) See this part of the above-quoted post:

poverty leads to poor education, poor education to acceptance of Catholic dogma

 

It’s like saying that a woman tolerates infidelity who kicks her husband out of the house unless and until he stops it, admits it to her, feels sorrow in his soul and destestation of it, and firmly resolves to not do it ever again.

 

...And then goes and does it again, because, hey, they're just words, right?

 

That’s like saying you can evaluate the performance of a car without having anyone start the engine and drive it.

 

You can. By looking at each of the component parts, you can calculate the performance of the car.

 

It’s an absurd position, especially since it’s a given that you won’t get a sexually transmitted disease if you follow Church teaching.

 

Very few (if any) people have that kind of willpower to do so.

[chilehed]

How so? Could you point out where in the post this was?

...The prevalence of membership in the Catholic Church correlates strongly with poverty, which correlates with poor education. So to say that the assertion that that poverty leads to poor education, poor education to acceptance of Catholic dogma, the acceptance of Catholic dogma to lower use of condoms, and lower use of condoms to increased transmission of diseases such as HIV/AIDS “certainly can’t explain the HIV epidemic in Africa” is, I think, either wittingly or unwittingly disingenuous.

By definition this is the *** hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And, in fact, what it means is "People are Catholic because they're poor and ignorant”.

 

...And then goes and does it again, because, hey, they're just words, right?

What part of “feels sorrow in his soul and destestation of it, and firmly resolves to not do it ever again” is unclear to you?

 

Your understanding of Catholic teaching is extremely poor.

 

Very few (if any) people have that kind of willpower to do so.

I know many people who do. There’s nothing unique about them.

 

As I’ve said repeatedly, this is a problem of the will. People will not adhere to common sense (which is what the teaching of the Church is), therefore they get sexually transmitted diseases.

 

You’re claiming that the fact that people get diseases who refuse to abstain from behaviors which transmit those diseases, proves that teaching that one should abstain from those behaviors is a cause of the epidemic. That’s not merely silly, it’s insane.

 

I’ll say it again: it’s incoherent to say that people who ignore the teaching of the Catholic Church are observing it.

[Southtown]

"...And do not call anyone on earth 'father,'..." --Matt 23:8-9

http://www.remnantofgod.org/beastword.htm

 

"Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?

For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

But he answered and said unto them,

'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God

by your tradition?'" -- Matt 15:2-3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism

 

First 15 minutes at least, pleeeeez.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2662031810327980639