Just wanted to point out that the numbers daily are in the millions, not thousands.
Wonderful post. Thanks.
Catholic Church… My name is Scott Plaid. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Actually, if we’re finding quotes for Scott_plaid, I suspect that Inigo Montoya is not the character I’d choose as a source.
I think Scott_ would do better uttering:
“If I’m wrong–and I’m never wrong…”
Or, possibly,
“Never go in against a Cecilian, when ignorance is on the line. Hahahahahaha” ::: clump :::
or, probably,
“Inconceivable.”
Awesome. The heathens hate when we do that!
For an encore, tell him Jesus loves him and watch his head explode!
I do not think that word is spelled how you think it is spelled. Sicilian - as in someone from the lump of land that is the football to Italy’s boot.
waits for someone to spot another occurrence of Gaudere’s Law
WHOOSH!!!
Uhh, I think **Grace ** got it.
On a more specific note, Scott-Plaid’s ancestors must have been extremely “narrow” bunch.
Given the number of deaths attributal to atheist, protestant, hindu, and even Buddhist teachings, I think we can assume that no human religion except total apathy is “safe”. And total apathy rarely confins itself merely to religion, leading to other problems.
How do you figure?
Ummm. . . please tell me what specifically “is the exact opposite of what most christians say about atheists”. That the church has produced nothing good? That there might be individual atheists who are good people, but that is in spite of . . . uh . . . of their not-church?
Could you be more specific, please?
Or more coherent?
Anything?
Is it at all possible that this tr… oublesome individual will teach his pony another trick? :dubious:
To get all this whooshing out of the way (it’s knocking over my antique cans, dagnabbit! Darn kids…):
“Sicilian” refers to someone or something from or regarding Sicily, as Grace aptly pointed out. This is also what the original line from the movie is about.
“Cecilian” is a riff on being a Doper, i.e a follower of Cecil.
Ha ha! Teh funny.
Now where’s my burrito?
No burrito for you, lno. It’s so hot even you can’t eat it.
Besides, I saw a Catholic Atheist take it when you guys weren’t looking.
fraid’ not. While I do believe that the entire history of the church is just one big clusterfuck after another, I don’t feel the pressing need to state anything more than to look a history book, or at one of the sites that you get when yougoogle christianity +victims.
Also, I thought it would be nice to see who would show up when I posted an anti-christian thread. I understand this site is for the pupose of sharing opinions, being silly and seeing the other side’s point of view, however, I don’t see how history can support the other side of the argument I have hardly made. I suppose given this fact I will simply try and stay out of religion if I join the SDMB.
I am glad all you guys are having fun, though.
I’ll see your Romero (whose titular character was censured by the Church for his reforms) and raise you a Magdalene Sisters and The Boys of St. Vincent’s. The Catholic church as an insitution is utterly morally bankrupt, and is concenred only with maintaining its temporal power.
And that “asshole” sure shows that you are filled with the Hokly Spirit. I find it hilarious that you Christians act so superior and holy, yet at the first provocation or contradiction, you spew venom in complete defiance of Jesus’s example that you profess to follow. This is one of the many reasons I have such contempt for you pious hypocrites.
Or As Bill Hicks put it:
I’d be glad to debate it with you, as would a lot of other dopers, I suspect, but I think you just need to be more precise in your arguments. I mean, there’s no argument that Christianity, and more precisely Catholicism, has been responsible for a lot of bad stuff throughout history, but if you’re claiming nothing positive has come out of it, I’d strongly disagree with that. If nothing else, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is really pretty. Just click on the panels and you’ll see.
http://sun.science.wayne.edu/~mcogan/Humanities/Sistine/Panels/index.html
I’m not saying that the Sistine Chapel justifies all the bad stuff done in Christianity throughout history. Obviously, it doesn’t. I’m not even saying the good stuff outweighs the bad. That’s a subject for debate. But when you say that nothing good has ever come from Christianity, that’s kind of a silly argument. Even if you just want to look at terms of social progress, education in the middle ages was kept alive by the Catholic church, and modern universities, and the whole concept of the “liberal arts” comes from Catholicism. Both the abolitionist movement and the black civil rights movement in this country was dominated by religious groups.
I think the subject is just too broad to make any specific statement on. I mean, you’re talking about a 2000 year old, worldwide, diverse religious family. If you’re going to discuss Christianity as a whole, you have to take into account enormous diversity, from evangelical missionaries in modern day Sudan, to the inhabitants of a 16th century mission in Mexico, to Calvinist Enlightenment scholars in 17th century Uterecht, to Catholic samurai in warring-states era Kyushu, to 5th century Armenian monks.
If you want to narrow the scope of your debate a little, I think you’ll get a much better response, and a lot less joking and derision.
(and you still haven’t told me what the congregationalist minister and the crusader chonicler did that was so horrible. 
)
The justification of slavery also came from the bible. And the druids had universities before the christians took over England Some of the buildings were turned into monastaries. Sure, so the druids also killed people, but so did many other religions. I am not saying it was right, but thye didn’t do it for as long a period of time as the christians. As for texts being keep alive during the middle ages. What can I say? It is plainly and simply true. And who do you supposed caused the dark ages? The church.
I feel the same way when I hear someone saying that society must be improved, and then ignores the very idea that the long history of christianity might have anything to do with the problems of todays world.
No can do. I believe the whole system is rotten to the core, and must be tackled head on. If I was to simply handle catholic chaplains in Hitler’s army, or early christian prosecution of rivals, or conquest justified by Divine Right, then I risk people believing that I think modern catholicism is ok.
I am surprised you didn’t google them.
He wrote the books listed above and is quoted as proposing “to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial means to purchase and train large packs of dogs ‘to hunt Indians as they do bears’”
as you said earlier, he was a Congregationalist. A group that would not exist if not for catholisism. As for the crusader chronicler, if you gave his name I could find out. However I do not see who of the list I have provided on post 49 of the last thread you are referring to.
This isn’t going to be another one of those bullshit tit-for-tat arguments again, is it gobear? The OP isn’t arguing that the Catholic Church has put itself in the red on the morality scale by performing more immoral actions than moral actions - the OP is arguing that the Catholic Church has put itself in the red by performing NO moral actions. Ever. That’s patently false, and you know it - you admitted it well enough in the first clause of your post. The fact that **scott_plaid ** refused to acknowledge the various citations and examples set forth above expose his complete inability or unwillingness to consider them is what is now on trial, not the Catholic Church.
gobear, I’m not sure what your specific problem is, and I don’t have my DSM IV handy, so I’ll address what I see in your post with regard to me and to my Church.
First, I did call Scott_plaid an asshole. His comments- basically, “I don’t like the Catholic Church, I have no cites as for exactly why, but I don’t- and I don’t see how anyone can disagree with me,” brand him as such.
Does that make me a bad Christian? Absolutely, unequivocally, not. It would make me a bad Christian if I hated him for his views. It would make me a bad Christian if I were violent with him because of his views. But it doesn’t make me a bad Christian to call a spade a spade. In your very own quotes, you quote Jesus as calling the scribes and Pharisees much, much worse than “asshole,” yet you’re calling me un-Christian for my negative description of Scott_plaid?
And I certainly don’t act so “spiritual and holy.” And I certainly don’t pretend that I am without sin. It is un-Christian to do so. I am a flawed, imperfect being, and I take Christ as my example in an attempt to do good in this world despite my shortcomings. When I fall short of this ideal, which I do often, I am repentant and do my best to change. But I don’t think you’d ever catch me of all people making any claims to holiness.
So many of “you non-Christians” get upset when we resist your flaming, as if we were supposed to sit there and patiently absorb all your taunts. Christ didn’t instruct us to be milquetoasts. “Turn the other cheek” is not an instruction to ignore self-preservation- it is an exhortation to continue giving your fellow man a chance to demonstrate his goodness. Have I given up on Scott_plaid? Let’s just say that no one is irredeemable, but there are some I’d bet on more readily than others when it comes to redemption.
Christ was human. He lost his temper on a number of occasions. He called hypocrites just that: hypocrites. He called liars just that: liars. Scott_plaid is making sweeping negative characterizations that he refuses to defend for the stated purpose of having FUN. Last I checked, that was not only a direct violation of the Ninth Commandment, but also in direct contradiction to Christ’s commandments, and even the atheists’ “harm no one.” I think I also read something in the SDMB policies about it.
Now, on to your own statement, gobear, and I’ll keep this simple:
(emphasis mine)
Then explain the hospitals, hospices, universities, and outreach programs.
Sure, there are priests who molest children. Sure, there are priests who embezzle. Sure, there are members of the clergy who have embraced pride or money as motivation. And there have been people who covered for them. Yes, these people are of the Church. But these people are not the Church.
Just as there are plenty of homosexual child predators, pornographers, and perverts within the homosexual demographic, and just because there are plenty of gluttons and slovenly people among the overweight community, and just because there are plenty of overreactionary bleating idiots among the online-posting community, that doesn’t mean that every overweight homosexual onilne poster is a porno-peddling, KFC-guzzling, shrill-shrill-Betty either.
The aberrations do not define the group, gobear, and it is irresponsible and beneath the intellect you have displayed to suggest that they do.