darth_ender

I hope not.  Sorry if it's my fault.  I'll post a screenshot of what I am seeing.

I don't think you need to apologize.  It's what I'm talking about.  Instead of "Ask[ing] the member of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church," too many are telling you that you are wrong for believing what you do.  I wish I could find my reply to this, as I know I made one somewhere.  I talked about why we believe that sex is intended to be between man and woman.  It was concise but well put, IMHO, and I think I said it in such a way that it was understood not to be hateful but rather logical.  I feel there is far too much criticism being put in the wrong threads.  Duracell created a thread to debate the merits of such beliefs, and I think such would be best discussed there.

K-7h

S-6h

K-6i

On to hopefully more pleasant topics, I'd love to read your next move :)

Fine.  I appreciate the compliment.  I am thoroughly convinced that he was (is, since I've yet to read anything from him that has convinced me otherwise) a jerk.  Perhaps I shouldn't have given him his own thread.  Perhaps I shouldn't start whole new threads to call out people when they're being weird or stupid.  Perhaps a general thread of who I think is stupid is in order.  In any case, if someone wants to bash a religion, we have the majority of Off Topic for that, including threads devoted to such topics.  If he or any of you want to simply cast blame on any church or religion, instead of taking the thread devoted to creating more understanding to do so, find one of the other threads and mess around there.  I really think it is rude to do that in any of the threads we have started for peaceful discussion.

@ray_afraid, I do appreciate your soft answers when I snapped at you.  If you read this, I apologize for snapping.  You are right, it's probably worse to start a thread specifically devoted to it.  For the record, you don't really know me that well, and your comment that such is my character sure compounded the problem.  Get to know me better before making such statements.

TV's Frink said:

Link, please?  I feel like you may be exaggerating.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Ask-the-member-of-the-Latin-Rite-of-the-Roman-Catholic-Church-AKA-Interrogate-the-Catholic/post/677508/#TopicPost677508

 http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Ask-the-member-of-the-Latin-Rite-of-the-Roman-Catholic-Church-AKA-Interrogate-the-Catholic/post/677713/#TopicPost677713

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Ask-the-member-of-the-Latin-Rite-of-the-Roman-Catholic-Church-AKA-Interrogate-the-Catholic/post/677769/#TopicPost677769

Yeah, I'm just exaggerating.  He wasn't that bad.  Sheesh.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

If he is genuinely furious over the activities of the organisation in the thread title why is it wrong to launch idiotic attacks at it?

Detailed empirically concise posts may serve his position better but everyone here has farted into a thread dropped a stench of their opinion and farted out again leaving us all debating as to the merits of lighting a match.

If you discovered that someone was a member of some organisation that had gone out of their way to make money out of crime, cover up child abuse facilitated by the traditions of the institution : discouraged poor people from using a proven method for reducing the fatalities of sexually transmitted epidemic and also a proven method of managing family sizes beyond aborting existing fetuses ; while politically lobbying against other groups of people who happen to believe different things (all this after a history of torture, murder and repression) but wasn't the Catholic church, I assume you would make a very detailed account as to why you might think membership of such an organisation might be less than optimal.

I imagine other people would would just ejaculate.

Using the word "Church" or "Religion" seems to be assumed to be a shield against criticism. Shields however often make convenient targets.

 I don't even have a clue what you are talking about.  It's not the first time.

I'll try again.

If someone you happened across claimed membership of a far Right or Left hate group or a crime syndicate which did work for charity but he only joined for the charity club I imagine you would write a long detailed explanation as to why this wasn't a good idea but some people would just shout about how stupid it was.

Call it a Religion and it a wall goes up. Look at the confidence act that is Scientology. When it was a self help technique people didn't take it too seriously but when people started to notice the intimidation and law breaking it suddenly became a religion and got tax breaks.

 The Catholic Church is not a hate group, any more than the Pride Alliance is a hate group.  Did you know that Mormon chapels and temples were vandalized by gay support groups a few years ago?  We may have advocated legislation against gay marriage, but never took part in such acts.  But do I call such groups hate groups?  Nope.  I think there are passionate, impulsive members who do stupid things.

There are groups with a dark history (like the UK or US or even independent Scotland, for instance), and who have taken part in bad things.  But they have also done good things.  I am proud to be American.  I am not proud of every aspect, but I'm proud to be American.  If someone called most Americans racist, slave-owning, imperialists, I might take umbrage.  I've never owned a slave.  I've never advocated for imperialism.  I abhor racism.  But I am American, through and through.

How can saying that if I'm part of an organization that has done bad things, but has also done good things, especially if you refer mostly to its recent history and the majority of its members, that my organization is just plain evil, that I'm evil for joining, for calling most of my members evil?  How is that fair.  We've had this discussion before, and you rush to the defense of Muslims, but never to Catholics.  Who has really had the honor of doing more evil?  Yet you point out the good in the Muslims (as well you should, since most are indeed good).  Why is the Catholic Church as a whole evil?

Why is it so hard for folks to even consider that at the very minimum they could have kept this aspect of the discussion of the Catholic Church in a different thread?  RicOlie_2 clearly wanted to keep that thread civil and share his beliefs.  But instead you guys felt it was necessary to tear down his belief system based on the actions of a few.

You don't have to defend everything about Catholicism.  But if I started badmouthing Muslims, saying they all (or most) were backwards, worshiped the Devil, and were terrorists, how might you react?  Would you at least encourage me to be fair?

On the other side, if Mrebo were saying something unfair, generalizing about Democrats or something else, or if Vladius (the only self-confessed Mormon other than myself on this board I'm aware of, though I know of two others who'd rather remain anonymous) started speaking badly about Southern Baptists, do you think I wouldn't stand up for the Baptists or the Democrats?  If the criticism were legitimate, I wouldn't have a problem (though I'd encourage, forcefully if necessary, a better tone that would promote discussion if they were typing in such a crass manner as HotRod).  But HotRod was not accurate, not fair, and spoke in an extremely disrespectful manner.  You don't have to like many of the things the Catholic Church has done, many of their teachings, many of the actions of individuals, but to brand all Catholics the way he has is the very definition of bigotry and stereotyping.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Eh, I think I'll just enjoy my Sunday instead.

 interesting that you choose to enjoy your day instead of going after those were rude in the thread about Catholic doctrine, yet  you still choose to go after Darth_Ender.  

It's not worth my time.

 yet going after Darth_Ender was?

 Yes.  He made this thread.  He also uses analogies I'm not a fan of.

This coming from the guy offended by someone selling a Glock in Tucson a few months after Gabby Giffords was shot.  On the other hand, he's a fan of every other insensitive "call out" thread I've made, it seems.  Weird.  You don't have to like my analogies.  No analogy is perfect.  But I'm surprised you're a fan of the crap said about Catholics.  Look, I'm obviously not Catholic, but those comments were uncalled for.  You don't like my analogies but put up with that.  Nice, Frink.

Bingowings said:

Stop accusing me of playing Devil's advocaat. The Devil isn't in the Bible either.

 I thought this was kind of a weird statement.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/devil

Bingowings said:

If he is genuinely furious over the activities of the organisation in the thread title why is it wrong to launch idiotic attacks at it?

Detailed empirically concise posts may serve his position better but everyone here has farted into a thread dropped a stench of their opinion and farted out again leaving us all debating as to the merits of lighting a match.

If you discovered that someone was a member of some organisation that had gone out of their way to make money out of crime, cover up child abuse facilitated by the traditions of the institution : discouraged poor people from using a proven method for reducing the fatalities of sexually transmitted epidemic and also a proven method of managing family sizes beyond aborting existing fetuses ; while politically lobbying against other groups of people who happen to believe different things (all this after a history of torture, murder and repression) but wasn't the Catholic church, I assume you would make a very detailed account as to why you might think membership of such an organisation might be less than optimal.

I imagine other people would would just ejaculate.

Using the word "Church" or "Religion" seems to be assumed to be a shield against criticism. Shields however often make convenient targets.

 I don't even have a clue what you are talking about.  It's not the first time.

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

I do not agree that what the church did was understandable in any way.  You can't cover that up and claim to be a moral authority at the same time.

Have you ever lied to your kids about something because you thought the truth would do more harm than good?

Covering something up ultimately does more harm to a cause anyway.

If you have lied to your kids, you probably realized then that this statement is absolutely true once they discovered the truth.  Yes, it ultimately does more harm than good.  Covering up just kicks the can down the road.  The Boy Scouts of America, an agency very devoted to the teaching of moral values, has done the same thing.  I still respect the good it does in spite of covering up abuse cases.

Of course I've lied to my kids for their greater good.  I can't believe you would equate the two.  Care to explain what good it ultimately did the church?  If you were molested by a priest who had been transferred instead of exposed, what good would you see in it?

I understand the desire to protect religion and the institutions that use religion, but don't be so blinded by loyalty.  No good could have possibly come from protecting child molesters.  To compare it to telling white lies to your own children is just plain ridiculous.

 I don't want to start splitting up your quote, so I'll try to answer in one paragraph.  First, I didn't equate the two.  I drew an analogy.  That is not at all equating, and in fact that is the point.  It is a situation that draws on similar justification, but often the scale and nature are very different.

Second, I took the liberty to bold your statement and underline my own in the above quote.  You will see that I am agreeing with you.  It was wrong.  Horribly wrong.  But I can see why it was a difficult decision, and why they chose what they did, even though they were wrong to do so.

Third, now that you know what I was doing (drawing an analogy) and that I was agreeing with you (lying was bad in this case), you can see that I was simply making the point that sometimes people lie because they think (even if they are wrong) that protecting the lie might do less harm than exposing the truth.  I hope you get it.

Now, while you're still in the mood to point out the flaws in my logic, I'd love to see a response to other people's rude statements in a thread devoted to teaching about Catholic doctrine and not bashing the whole Church based on the actions of a minority of priests.  Be fair-minded and don't just criticize those who defend the Church in spite of those actions.  I have criticized Republicans and Mormons for when they were wrong.

HotRod said:

Wow. A thread about me!! I'm honoured. 

But would you care to explain why I'm a hypocrite, bigot and a jerk?

No, I'll let you think about their definitions, and think if you were acting the part.

i have my opinion about the church. deal with it. 

They cover up way too much.  Too much. 

 This is called a legitimate criticism.  They do cover up too much.  I wholeheartedly agree.

Calling the majority of the priesthood kiddie F-ers...not a legitimate criticism.  That's called a fallacy.  Condemning the whole church for the actions of some of their priesthood...another fallacy.

Yet the non-believers come to your defense and not mine.  What did I do?  I made a thread calling you out for being something that, guess what, you were being.  You were deliberately derailing and screwing up a thread that was intended to enlighten.  Unless I haven't read it yet, I didn't see Frink or Bingo or Dominic tell you to knock it off.  But I point it out openly, and suddenly I'm the bad guy.

What about derailing a civil discussion with idiotic attacks?

Forgive me all, I admit that I've been a bit cranky over the past few days, but this is ridiculous.  I love how everyone jumps down my throat for calling someone out, yet no one stands up to HotRod.  Ray_afraid, as usual, reads almost nothing about the topic, reads the first post (as he did in my abortion thread), and shares his ignorant opinions without context (only knowing that it disagrees with his worldview, then bolts, not to be heard from again on that topic.  I kid you not when I say I'm sick of liberal crap where they only attack those on whom it is permissible.  If I were known to be irreverent, then would I be justified in starting new threads, hmmmm?  I guess I am, since I "seem to be like this all the time.  Count me in on the "Going away for a while" thread as well.

Oh, it's only bad if it's a new thread?  That's kind of silly too, don't you think?

Thanks ray.  I'm not a big fan of yours either.  What exactly qualifies as being a justifiable jerk and what doesn't.  You've made rude comments to me on numerous occasions.

Yeah, Dawkins tore everything down by asserting something without any evidence and attacking a singer who is no scholar on the topic.

I'm curious why Jaitea is sorry for Brandon for two reasons.  What are those reasons?

TV's Frink said:

I do not agree that what the church did was understandable in any way.  You can't cover that up and claim to be a moral authority at the same time.

Have you ever lied to your kids about something because you thought the truth would do more harm than good?

Covering something up ultimately does more harm to a cause anyway.

If you have lied to your kids, you probably realized then that this statement is absolutely true once they discovered the truth.  Yes, it ultimately does more harm than good.  Covering up just kicks the can down the road.  The Boy Scouts of America, an agency very devoted to the teaching of moral values, has done the same thing.  I still respect the good it does in spite of covering up abuse cases.

While that has indeed happened, it wasn't for the sake of protecting the individuals themselves, but to protect the church's reputation.  Look at how folks view the Catholic Church because of the actions of a minority of priests.  Now folks associate that with the whole priesthood.  I'm not saying hiding such things was right at all, but when the actions of a few could damage the faith of millions, you can see why the leadership might be inclined to hide it.  They feel it might be for the greater good.  Look at my recent contribution to the Mormon thread about blacks and the priesthood.  How long has that gone unaddressed?  Really, it's a difficult topic, a sad one.  Many reasons have been given for it.  But in the end, my Church has admitted that racism motivated the institution of the policy.  Why couldn't they admit that sooner.  Because it is difficult to admit that early leadership was wrong about something, as it damages the faith of some.  I am of the opinion that if someone's faith is too weak to handle such things, then they don't have sufficient faith anyhow, but one can see why churches hide darker aspects when they are trying to protect their general membership.

As for this thread accomplishing anything, I do feel HodRod softened his tone in his last post.  Maybe I'm wrong about this thread altogether.  Folks have called me out for my errors before, and it's changed my perspective.  It might do some good, but we shall see.

Obama sucks.

The Church has never endorsed the molestation of young boys.  I can understand if you say that its teachings regarding marriage and celibacy lead to that inevitable end, but as it is strongly prohibited along with homosexuality, it does not qualify as institutionalized hypocrisy.  You may accurately call it foolishness, but not hypocrisy.

And I've yet to read something kind from HodRod, so I'm convinced his behavior is not occasional.

Yes, I know the Bible says that God created mankind twice.  I know that Bible scholars attribute Genesis 1 to the Elohistic author, and 2 through whatever to the Jehovistic author (or perhaps I have it reversed), and thus the story is inconsistent.  I also understand that perhaps the story might not be literal.  I'm just saying that Warbler is not obliged to take those other tales as of equal weight to his belief in the biblical creation story.