Catholic Church I pit you. (not catholic dopers, however.)

The BBQ Pit
41

Oh, I’m not supporting the OP–he’s an idiot. But Happy Scrappy Hero Pup’s response of “La la la, I can’t hear you, the Catholic Church is great” needed to be answered. In particular, this piece of nonsense:

could not go unchallenged. When the Catholic Church is an accessory to shielding pedophiles, it’s just a “stumble” that doesn’t count as a definition, but feeding orphans does. That’s a steaming load of crap. And I’m not convinced that the Catholic Church’s charitable deeds are necessarily beneficial, as in the example of Mother Teresa’s refusal to give painkillers to the patients in her care and refusing to give them lifesaving treatment focusing only on their death and baptizing them as Catholics without regard to their own faiths. (Of course, when she became ill, Mother Teresa went to the best clinins in the US and Europe.)

42

Missed me by a couple of seconds, pal.
I’ve never said the Catholic Church is “great.”

I’ve never defended its role in allowing scandal to continue by enabling the perpetrators or by covering for them.
In fact, I condemn them.

But for you to say “utterly morally bankrupt,” that’s garbage and you know it.
If you want to pick a fight with me, pick a better one than this.

43

They didn’t need to justify slavery. It had existed among all societies everywhere for millenia. There was no reason to stop, except that certain Christian groups started to question its morality. That was the sole reason, really. Economic arguments helped, but were not terribly good at persuading people.

:dubious: I’d really like to see a serious cite to back this one up. The druids, properly speaking, were wiped out by the Romans arriving in England. They were not known for their great learning or advanced sciences. The Romans considered Brittania to be a muddy backwater populate by ignorant barbarians, which it was. They were not known for advanced stonework either, and built little more than wooden palisades as far as public works went. Christianity came afterward, and spread throughout much of lower England.

  1. The so-called Dark Ages were actually a period of growth in technology and knowledge. Engineering as well as farm technology advanced noticably during the period. What was lost was the scientific mindset, but this was not particualrly prevelant anywhere, not even in the much-lauded Arab world.

  2. The Dark ages were caused a by a fundamental crisis of power in Rome. Rome fell because it had become inefficient and lost the loyalty of its legions. This caused the “Dark Ages” because Rome stopped being the center of trade in the Western world. Without Rome to unite them, the peoples that now lived from Spain to Constantinople had no reason to stay together. At best, you’d have to argue that Christianity was a fundamental cause of that weaknening, which is probably not true. The Roman economy died painful death without Christian influence.

And then you’d have to argue that the “Dark Ages” really were a bad thing overall, which is not obvious. Good luck.

44

Actually, you are right. I made an inflammatory post in order to have all those who disagree with me in one room, so that I could burn it down. Ha Ha Ha! However, now that Captain Amazing and some others are sounding more reasonable, I feel like posting a few “the harm outweighs the good” posts.

Also, since I have begun to write this post I see some people have posted messages stating that good christians don’t attack people. One of them has said that it is true, but that jesus also said something about being aggressive. He might have said both things, but I find it to be much more likely that writers put words in the mouth of this “jesus”.

45

Hold on there, hoss. First of all, while one justification of slavery came from the bible, non Christians have also held slaves, and there were plenty of justifications made for slavery that weren’t religious based. And the fact that Christianity could both be used to justify and condemn slavery shows you’re dealing with a good deal of diversity here. As for the druids, while they had an educational system, like all societies do, the modern university system is descended from the Christian universities of the middle ages and rennaisance.

As for the church causing the “dark ages”, that’s Gibbon’s argument, but I don’t think it’s the best reason. I’d put the blame more on overexpansion, corruption, barbarian incursion, and big differences in weath between west and east. Why do you think that Christianity caused the Dark ages

I’m not denying that it does. What I’m saying is that you need to focus on specific problems. Just giving some sort of scattershot “Christianity is responsible for everything bad” argument doesn’t convince anyone.

I don’t think people will say that you think modern catholicism is ok. But if you focus on specific issues, they can actually be debated, and discussed. If you make the kinds of statements you’re making, they don’t lend themselves to debate or honest discussion.

Well, first of all, when he suggested that dogs be used to hunt Indians, did he mean it as for genocide, or in war? There’s sort of a moral difference there. Also, did he make that argument because he was Christian, or was he a Christian who made that argument? Your not claming that any immoral action or belief held by any Christian is the fault of the Catholic Church, are you? And the chronicler I’m talking about is Fulcher of Chartres, who you mentioned in that other thread (and who does report of the crusaders doing some pretty bad things).

46

No. Slavery simply existed in nearly all societies throughout most of history. It was never “justified” in the bible.
Now, in the U.S., there were a few people who attempted to use the story of Noah and Ham to rationalize the enslavement of blacks after slavery was condemned by various Christian groups in the middle to late 18th century, but they were only grasping at straws to use quote mining from a religious source to counter opposition from a separate religious source. No “justification” involved.
(And, given the small number of Catholics in the U.S. at the time and the mild persecution they were suffering, they had nothing to do with that issue, anyway.)

Your druid “information” is mostly drawn from New Age revisionists with little bearing on reality. (This is not to say that the druids were uneducated, but your claims are exaggerated.)

The notion that the Catholic Church “caused” the “dark ages” propagates legends that were manufactured by anti-Catholic historians in the 19th century. That you would repeat such drivel is further evidence that you need to study a lot more history before you dance in here spewing errors along with bad spelling and incoherent syntax.
Rome fell because it did not have a viable infrastructure to maintain an empire while it was overrun by successive migrations of pre-literate peoples with no vested interest in maintaining the imperial infrastructure. Had it attempted to integrate Western Europe into a cohesive nation rather than simply controlling it by edicts and armies, it might have been able to either repel or assimilate the barbarians, much as the (church dominated) Eastern Empire was able to do throughout the so-called “dark ages.” To the extent that Western Europe degenerated, it was simply a failure of secular infrastructure.

47

Nice ad hominem. Very Christ-like of you.

Again, typical. Caught redhanded violating Jesus’s clear commands, you use the “not perfect, just forgiven” escape clause, revealing that your faith is naught but Antinomianism revived.

Sorry, pal, but the Bible clearly says that insulting people who insult you is wrong. Now I personally applaud you standing up for yourself, but then I’m a Hell-bound sinner.

I didn’t say they didn’t exist, but per the example of the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, these so-called charities were often anything but charitable.

I could grant your analogy if we were talking merely about individual acts–no rational person can hold an institution guilty of the sins committed by a few members–but these acts were covered up by the Church itself, by the cardinals and bishops who protected the pedophiles and shuffled them to different parishes without warning the parents of their victims.

Moreover, gluttony and slovenliness are not crimes,–pedophilia, kidnapping, and child abuse are, and the Chruch itself at the highest levels connived at those crimes.

When the people running the group aid and abet the “aberrations,” then I submit that, yes, they do define the group’s organization.

I’m not blaming the individual Catholics, but I definitely blame the priests, the bishops, the cardinals, and the Pope himself, all of whom knew what was happening and did nothing to protect the peopole who were in their care.

48

“Not perfect, just forgiven?”

Hardly.

I am imperfect, yes. Forgiveness, on the other hand, is contingent upon repentance, a necessary part of which is desire to change.

When it comes to calling Scott_plaid an asshole, I am unforgiven. I am unforgiven because I am unrepentant. I am unrepentant because using an accurate descriptor for someone is not a sin. What Scott_plaid did was an asshole thing to do, and I call him an asshole for it. I’m not insulting him, I’m describing him. It would be wrong of me to call him “good” when he is not.

Am I angry with him? It’d be immature of me to be angry with him. I’m certainly disappointed in him, but when I go home tonight, this isn’t going to keep me awake.

But remember this: Jesus had no problem calling a spade a spade. Jesus had no problem rebuking those sophists and one-quote wonders who attempted to trick him. And I have no problem following his example there either.

As for your other points, gobear, my sticking point with you is “utterly.” To make an absolute statement about the Church is ridiculous. To say that everyone up to and including the Pope knew… cite?
Dislike the Catholic Church all you want to, gobear, Scott_plaid, and others. I have my own problems with it. But I choose to express my faith within that community, and I choose to work to make that community stronger in Christ as I try to be.

But anyway, this isn’t a defense of the Church. This is refutation of Scott_plaid’s idiot statement.
You’re at least with me on that, yes?

You want to open a thread devoted to disputing the balance of the “scales of the soul” of the Catholic Church as an organization? Go right ahead, and I will gladly participate. I’ll even make it a priority.

You want to open a thread indicting me as a poor Christian? Go right ahead, and I will defend myself and my Christianity and my Catholicism as best I can.
But let’s stop adding pages to this moron’s post- it gives the false impression that he’s interested in debate.

49

And there you have me. Certainly, I can show that major figures in the Chruch knew (Cardinal Law, for example), but I can’t prove that they all did, (although I’m convicned that is so. If the Pope didn’t know during his entire career that this went on, then he must have been exceptionally dim.)

And that’s commendable. I would prefer that humanity abandon religion and belief in the supernatural, but we are not ready to take that step. If you are doing your best to improve your corner of the world through your faith, I can’t argue with that.

Absolutely, He’s a clueless uneducated dipshit who posts nonsense.

You want to open a thread devoted to disputing the balance of the “scales of the soul” of the Catholic Church as an organization? Go right ahead, and I will gladly participate. I’ll even make it a priority.

You want to open a thread indicting me as a poor Christian? Go right ahead, and I will defend myself and my Christianity and my Catholicism as best I can.
But let’s stop adding pages to this moron’s post- it gives the false impression that he’s interested in debate.
[/QUOTE]

Done.

50

Ok, 3rd try. Even shorter this time. My computer is huccuping. I don’t see myself debating this. That is why it is in the pit. You can. I started a thread called The Balance of the “Scales of the Soul” of the Catholic Church

Feel free to dabate there. I won’t as I am going away for the weekend. Even after that, I will not post in it unless asked to.

51

Maybe you should just spend your time painting quarters red, if your message is “I hate Catholics, 'cuz they’re evil.” At least then I would understand what you’re trying to say. You make less sense every time I see a new post. (Starting a GD in order not to post in it?)

52

gg

It wasn’t the Catholich Church, Voltaire and specially Gibbons, (not that you read them), blamed the church and the barbarians for the destruction of the Roman Empire, and the dark ages.-
The truth is, as usual, more complicated. Spengler would tell you that Rome fell because it was it’s time to die, Marx would blame the capitalist pigs; myself I like Toynbee’s imput, (although I admit he is as partial to the church as Gibbons is against it), Rome’s empire was the last stage, (universal state), of a society that had killed itself. His argument is that after achieving economic unity, the greek-roman society failed to achieve political unity, the result: The Peloponesian war in which the greeks managed to comit suicide. Rome peace was a peace of exhaustion, the empire was an artificial entity without a single spark of viality left.
Rome was destined to fail, the church simply replaced the burocracy, (in a much reduced sphere), with it’s own and it actually managed to put some order in the chaos, that’s the reason why the church was all powerfull in the middle ages, no on likes chaos and in a disordered world only the church represented unity and order.
You say that nothing good ever came out of the church, the only way you can say that is if you are an illiterate moron:
First of all the church won where rome failed. It managed to convert the barbarians woh afterwards were it’s biggest defenders.
The church preserved a lot of the ancient world art, literature, science, and law. Afterwards, 13 century in Italy and 14 to 15 everywhere else in europe, that knowledge was the material with which the renaissence was built.
Recently if it weren`t because of the influence of the church Chile and Argentina would have waged a war in 1978.
To conclude in the way things are finished in the pit I’ll only add: FUCK YOU!!!

53

Ok my post should begin with a quote and finish with FUCK YOU. I am sorry, I messed up with the code.

54

None of my worshippers have killed anyone. Don’t plan to have them start either, though I make no promises (I’m not an omniscient god).

55

Even if it hadn’t been immediately locked, I don’t think anybody was going to ask. In fact I feel pretty sure nobody’s ever going to ask you to post at all.

56

“… later, when I was hanging from the tree…”

57

Whoosh or not, I sincerely meant it…it was not a jab.

58

Fair enough. It should be notied that most of the worshippers of most of the major prophets were usually fairly well-behaved, at least until after the master dies. Then its off to partying and killing the heathens. Sad to say it, but it’s just human nature.

59

Aww, come on guys!

What could be better than a religious institution that says I create life every seven seconds?

Nothing that’s what, not even “a nice MLT, a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, when the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They’re so perky, I love that.” :slight_smile: