Majormd, if I may point out one thing - Otto was simply expressing his opinion, and I don’t think he was expressing it in a particularly antagonistic way. You can take or leave his opinion as you see fit, and it doesn’t necessarily have to challenge your core belief system. I mean, I agree with him that Christianity, as a religious institution, is a bunch of bunk and hooey, but that doesn’t mean I discount it as a legitimate belief system for other people. Similarly, a lot of people say the same thing about my church, but as long as it is at the very least accepted as a viable option for a belief system, well, call it what you want - I can handle it (mostly). Even more to the point, you are free to believe what you believe, and I am free to believe what I do. Goodness knows I’ve been called much, much worse than a nutjob or lunatic simply for not being Christian, and usually just for being gay, but I’ve learned to be thick-skinned about it - they’re just words, and more importantly, they’re just someone else’s opinion, which really has no relevance to me or my life or my beliefs unless I choose to let them have relevance.
Should we all be a little more tolerant of each other, despite what we may think of each other? Absolutely. Would I be offended if someone called my religion a bunch of nutjobs? Probably (and they have). But although I wouldn’t have chosen Otto’s way of expressing himself, I don’t really think he crossed any lines that have deserved such an attack.
You got a cite for that? Yeah, I think “blind hatred” is one reason some people are against it; another is homophobia; another may be a legitimate but, IMHO, misguided belief in the things they actually say about “protecting marriage” and all that crap.
Yup, I read your post, sounds like another Christian-bash:
So your attack was on Christians specifically, and not on any other religious group, and you blame them, and only them (in this post, at any rate) for the current legal ban on gay marriages. I must have missed where the Muslims came out supporting it, and the Jews, and where it is legal and accepted in non-predominantly-Christian countries around the world. Maybe you could provide us with information showing where in the world non-Christians have accepted and legalized gay marriage, so that we understand that it is in fact a “Christian” phenomenon and no other variable affects it.
:::yawn::: I’m done discussing the tangential issues. I’ve stated why I think my statements are appropriate to the thread and my esteemed opponent has stated the basis for his disagreement, so rather than have the thread degenerate further I’m taking a step back from it.
So, what if the Pope went crazy, assuming that he isn’t already? The cardinals would lock him away until he died and pick a new, presumably less crazy one.
Okay, let me put it this way. If Catholic and Protestant churches officially supported gay marriage, would it be legal in the U.S? Of course it would. I’m blaming Christians because they’re the only significant obstacle in THIS country. If I was in India or Africa, perhaps I’d be whining about some other group, but I’m not.
On all the gay marriage threads on this board, the only two arguments people have against it are that it’s against the Christian religion and some nonsense about having to change the dictionary for the homosexuals. The only people on this board I have seen come out against gay marriage are Christian. Maybe it’s different in real life, but I don’t know that many intelligent people to engage in debates IRL, so I’m just going by what I see here.
Windows 95: 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can’t stand for 1 bit of competition.
I’ve seen threads hijacked before, but this is ridiculous.
Now… No Vo Da Da and justwannano-
As a Catholic of the Byzantine Rite, I feel that I have a duty to set the two of you straight. The Catholic Church was the original Christian Church, although I think it took a century or two for anyone to actually get around to applying the label “Catholic.” Catholic beliefs and practices can be traced back to the first century, although they certainly weren’t as elaborate as they are now. All other Christian denominations, including the Eastern Orthodox churches, had their origins in the Catholic Church. The Greek Orthodox church split with Rome in 1054, for reasons that had more to do with politics than religion.
Now, is everyone finished insulting each other, talking about gay marriage, and washing their naughty bits with Pope Soap on a Rope?
Good. The OP brings up an interesting question. I agree with the posters who stated that the Curia would simply shield the Holy Father from the public, should he show signs of, um, diminished mental capacity. Although, as Freedom stated, poison has been used in the past…
Now, if the Pope were to go off his rocker and start spouting Gnosticism or Arianism or some other such heresy… to tell you the truth, I think poison would be the most likely means of putting a stop to him. I don’t think the Catholic Church has a procedure in place for deposing a Pope. But I don’t think anything like that is likely to happen. In one thousand, nine hundred sixty seven years of Church history, the See of St. Peter (that’s Rome, for all you heathen) is the only patriarchate that has never fallen into heresy. One of the fundamental tenets of Catholic belief is that God protects His Church from error.
The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.
See, here’s the Christian-bashing again. Hey NeutronDud, go back and read the headlines about Prop 22. The Mormons were also big backers of that legislation.
The word heathen originally meant “dwellers on the heath”, in other words, country folk. In ancient times, and in some parts of the world, even to the present day, country folk were generally not as well educated as city dwellers, who had greater access to things like universities, libraries, and, after the invention of the printing press, books. They were also frequently ignorant of what was going on in the cities, and frequently didn’t give a damn, as they had more important things to worry about, such as, will locusts eat the crops again this year, and why are all of my cattle dying of hoof and mouth disease, while my neighbor’s cattle seem perfectly healthy.
By extension, I use the term “heathen” as shorthand to describe those who are ignorant of the doctrines and terminology of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and it was not intended as an insult. But I might as well have typed out “those who are ignorant of the doctrines and terminology of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
It would have saved me the time and effort of having to write a whole 'nother post.
A pox on you, heathen.
The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.
I missed 'em both (I blame Gaudere for being on vacation and not catching it when I missed it ). Obviously, both of these are insults and neither of these are acceptable in Great Debates.
Remember, folks, the only perfect person around here is Cecil. If you see something you think we missed, please e-mail either Gaudere or I (or better yet, both).
My appologies to Cecil The Board Moderators and all who abide here.
The comment seemed appropriate at the time.
It was not in my opinion as bad as the obvious insult of otto. My first comment that he lacked understanding was obviously not correct. he just didn’t give a damn.
I forgot the Mormons when I made my post. Their influence, however, is only on a very small area of the country.
But I mean, really, come on pashley! Is that the only argument that you can muster up? That I’m “Christian-bashing?” Can I critisize your religion in ANY way that wouldn’t be “Christian-bashing?” In the OP, I asked a question about your faith and I was bashing. Then I say that maybe, just maybe because 80% of the people in this country are Christian and the Christian religion doesn’t like gays, that their religion has some influence on the law. And I’m bashing. And don’t think I don’t see the irony in the source of oppression complaining that THEY are opressed themselves! Give me a break.
As far as I can tell, you’re the only one actually bashing anyone, what with the name-calling and all. Calling me NeutronDud really DOES make your argument that much more convincing, you know?
If you can not answer a man’s argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names.
–Elbert Hubbard
The Mormons aren’t Christians? News to them, I’m sure.
Because of course you had no possible idea that anyone could ever take your use of the word “heathen” as an insult, because it’s never been used as such, and words don’t change in meaning from their origins 800 years ago…sheesh.
And Sue? Sorry about misidentifying you as a male. It really makes no difference to me what your sex is but I didn’t feel like clicking back a screen to double-check on whether you’d identified yourself.
That’s what I thought too, Otto. But then I really hardly know a damn thing about religion, so I figured this Christian guy would know more than I do about this type of thing. I guess I was wrong. Or rather he was wrong.
If you can not answer a man’s argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names.
–Elbert Hubbard
Well, despite your learned etymology of the word, when someone uses the word “heathen” in today’s context, it seems very obvious that person is looking far down his nose at someone else.
Sure, you can ask questions, but is it necessary to have a negative tone?
When discussing anyones’ religion, tactfulness is called for.
And as far as the Mormons, being Christians, yes, technically, they are, however, it’s safe to say that non-mormon Christians don’t believe that Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith.
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
He’s got a point there, Pash - you’ve said some pretty nasty, nasty things about others on this board, and didn’t seem to care much if it offended people (I’m thinking specifically of your little “joke” in one of the gay threds).
