A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2013, 10:30 AM
RE: A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
@ Chas
Nothing you stated their was actually contrary to my post. I will apologize however as I mixed up some things. Yes the death camps didn't start till 1942 not 1943 as I had said, also the document that the church sent out " Mit Brennender (not brenner, again my bad) sorge" actually occurred in 1937 not 1948 as I had said. The only piece of information that I was not aware of in your post was the incredibly high rate of death in concentration camps (although I wonder what the rate was before the war) as well as the fact that significant imprisonment of Jews did not start until I believe 1938 with assassination of a German official by a Jew.

The fact that Germany used concentration camps was not that big of a deal at the time since both the US and Great Britain used them before the war and Canada and the US used them during the war. so who could the church support if everyone is doing it. Even if they condemned the practice it is still important to have at least some political allies.

As I said the Church pulled its support in 1937 so I think they are removed from most guilt. I mean why wouldn't the church support a "simple person who truly loved his fellow man" as William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada's longest reigning prime minister, put it.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 10:39 AM
RE: A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
(28-05-2013 12:53 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I know you think I am "ranting" about this, and you probably think I'm exaggerating the evils of the Vatican. I seriously don't think I am. I have read the history. I've read their statements from the last 800 years , and , apart from the odd idea from Vatican 2 in the 1960's, they have always been all about propping up their own power and wealth. They have been out of touch with society at large. I see barely no humanitarian work. Their wealth is obscene. Yet they still strut around telling people how to live their lives, and still milk the market for all it is worth, while raping the children.

The Vatican has been and is, the most evil (large) organization in the world. There is no doubt about that in my mind.

The fact that they still have some credibility in today's world appalls me. It's like a battered wife going back to the violent husband who's still sexually abusing the children.

I never did (or would) suggest that you are being hard on the Catholic Church -- only on the pope. He may "represent" the church in much the same way that Richard Dawkins' "represents" atheists, but I'd never expect Dawkins to apologize for things that other atheists did historically. Neither would you.

I understand your anger with the Catholic Church, and you haven't even touched on many of the things that anger me about it (such as the Inquisition, which was largely a campaign to steal land by accusing those who owned it of false crimes) but I think it's more productive to aim our anger at those who are responsible for the things that anger us.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
(27-05-2013 07:58 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  @fstratzero

Quote:Canadian theists are often as bad as our States counterparts.

Hey I'm not bad because I'm a theist, I'm bad because I'm a philosopher.Tongue

Quote:You don't get it. What the Catholic church does in one place doesn't mean the entire church gets off scott free.

Unfortunately the abuse in the sates is one of the few particularly well documented inquires into the sex abuse scandal. So that is all I can really base my arguments off of.

Quote:Paying money to avoid justice is bribery by definition. If they continue to hide these criminals they will have to dole out money until every pedophile stops molesting, or dies. The churches argument against gay marriage is hypocritical as alter boys are the churches favorite target.

I was replying to Mark regarding his argument that the church give money to those affected. And was trying to argue that the church has given 2.6 billion to the victims in the US alone.

Quote:The Crusades shouldn't be justified by one Kings cry for help

Why not?

Quote:The Catholic version of natural law is:

The Catholic Church understands human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the non-physical (or soul perhaps), and that the two are inextricably linked. Humans are capable of discerning the difference between good and evil because they have a conscience. There are many manifestations of the good that we can pursue. Some, like procreation, are common to other animals, while others, like the pursuit of truth, are inclinations peculiar to the capacities of human beings.

Which is completely different from Natural Law as atheists understand it.

Thomas Hobbes version

As used by Thomas Hobbes in his treatises Leviathan and De Cive, natural law is "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may best be preserved."

Natural Law as we understand it in the modern sense:

A physical law or scientific law, according to the Oxford English dictionary, "is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

What I was trying to point out here is that the church isn't the only group to have the concept that things have Natures. I tried to differentiate them simply by stating that the Catholic church believes that a things Nature comes from without meanwhile most atheistic or deistic philosophies would say that it comes from within the thing. I understand that different philosophers are going to have there own definitions however this is a very basic separation, sorry for the confusion.

Well thanks for giving up the natural law argument.

However the reason why one kings plea for help doesn't justify the crusades was because there were seven major ones. All conducted for different religious meanings.

Too bad your argument that people in the states were paid off doesn't do anything to stop, prevent, treat, cure, or help those who are victims or those who are the perpetrators. The problem is world wide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catho...by_country

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
(28-05-2013 10:01 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  @ FullCircle

Quote:You do realize that Simplicio (Italian play on word simpleton to allude that the Church was a Simpleton) was a madeup character that he concocted in his Dialogue that represented the Church so he could tell of his astronomical observations in a very circumspect and clever way without committing heresy and being burned at the stake?

Yes that was the point I was trying to make in my post. Galileo asked to do a dialogue, The Pope encouraged him to do so, under the condition that he does not present the theory as truth and that he include his (pope Urban VIII) favorite arguments within the dialogue. What does Galileo do? He writes a dialogue which leaves no doubt as to what the stance of the author his and puts the Popes arguments into the mouth of Simplicio.

Quote:I am astounded at your characterization of Galileo, the only possible explanation is that you haven't read his works and contributions to science or have read them but didn't understand them

You are very correct I have never read the Dialogue and I have no intention of reading it. I am not an astronomer, I most likely would not understand anything in it, so why read it. My opinions on Galileo are based entirely upon what I have read on Wikipedia and other sources. So I apologize if what I said is wrong, (And from further reading I seem to have been wrong about the sunspots). Also I have nothing to say about his other contributions as I know little about them, but in truth they don't particularly matter in this discussion as when I called him an idiot I was referring to his actions during the Galileo affair. I'm sure he was an excellent philosopher and scientist.

A man can be very intelligent and yet still be an idiot. it is difficult to think of an equivalent since worldly powers have very little control over science these days but it is almost as if I approached Obama regarding say healthcare, and he told me to write an even argument which included some of his favourite arguments. I then proceed to call the proponent of the healthcare bill "the Niggardly Man" while shooting down each of his arguments. Do you really think he is going to be that happy with me.

That is why he was an idiot, he alienated his chief supporters who had the power to pardon him. He alienated many of the other scientific minds of the time by deriding and more or less ignoring the Tychian system, which was becoming more popular amongst scientists. He also didn't account for the stellar parallax. so he kind of put himself there out on his own. And always remember its not what you know but who you know.

You'll have to forgive me if I stop taking anything you say seriously. The reasons are simple, you argue points without bothering to understand them and casually say you have no interest in reading about them (I posted a free hyperlink to the Dialogue ).
You say your opinions on Galileo are entirely based on Wikipedia, and yet some of the very quotes I posted on my previous response were taken directly from Wikipedia!

So far you have backtracked on quite a few of your statements and have had to clarify several others. And now you accuse GG of not taking into account the stellar parallax Weeping , you are unbelievable. It wasn't that he didn't understand the concept but rather that with the rudememtary telescopes of the time it was not measurable and it wouldn't be for another 275 years FFS!

You're just winging it here aren't you? Consider

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
28-05-2013, 04:18 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2013 06:24 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
(28-05-2013 10:39 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(28-05-2013 12:53 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I know you think I am "ranting" about this, and you probably think I'm exaggerating the evils of the Vatican. I seriously don't think I am. I have read the history. I've read their statements from the last 800 years , and , apart from the odd idea from Vatican 2 in the 1960's, they have always been all about propping up their own power and wealth. They have been out of touch with society at large. I see barely no humanitarian work. Their wealth is obscene. Yet they still strut around telling people how to live their lives, and still milk the market for all it is worth, while raping the children.

The Vatican has been and is, the most evil (large) organization in the world. There is no doubt about that in my mind.

The fact that they still have some credibility in today's world appalls me. It's like a battered wife going back to the violent husband who's still sexually abusing the children.

I never did (or would) suggest that you are being hard on the Catholic Church -- only on the pope. He may "represent" the church in much the same way that Richard Dawkins' "represents" atheists, but I'd never expect Dawkins to apologize for things that other atheists did historically. Neither would you.

I understand your anger with the Catholic Church, and you haven't even touched on many of the things that anger me about it (such as the Inquisition, which was largely a campaign to steal land by accusing those who owned it of false crimes) but I think it's more productive to aim our anger at those who are responsible for the things that anger us.

Hey Starcrash, you and I are batting for the same team. I hear that.

If I met the pope, I would be civil and have a beer with him.

The fact is, as head of the Vatican, he should be treated as such, and I'm trying to highlight the fact humanity has been abused...physically, psychologically and economically by this juggernaut of a corporation. It's wrong that they get airplay, it's wrong that they try to lecture people, and it's wrong that they're not paying for past sins.

It doesn't make much difference if he is personally likeable. So what? To date he's done nothing I'm aware of to stop the sexual abuse by priests, known pedophiles, in 3rd world countries. He is, therefore, still protecting pedophiles, and he knows it. That's the sort of issue he should be confronted with.

Rather than sorting out real issues, he's passing patronising commentary on who and who isn't going to get into heaven! WTF?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 06:47 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2013 06:55 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
(28-05-2013 10:30 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  @ Chas
Nothing you stated their was actually contrary to my post. I will apologize however as I mixed up some things. Yes the death camps didn't start till 1942 not 1943 as I had said, also the document that the church sent out " Mit Brennender (not brenner, again my bad) sorge" actually occurred in 1937 not 1948 as I had said. The only piece of information that I was not aware of in your post was the incredibly high rate of death in concentration camps (although I wonder what the rate was before the war) as well as the fact that significant imprisonment of Jews did not start until I believe 1938 with assassination of a German official by a Jew.

The fact that Germany used concentration camps was not that big of a deal at the time since both the US and Great Britain used them before the war and Canada and the US used them during the war. so who could the church support if everyone is doing it. Even if they condemned the practice it is still important to have at least some political allies.

As I said the Church pulled its support in 1937 so I think they are removed from most guilt. I mean why wouldn't the church support a "simple person who truly loved his fellow man" as William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada's longest reigning prime minister, put it.

Re..."The fact that Germany used concentration camps was not that big of a deal"
Statements like this are unacceptable. I needn't even say why...it is that obvious.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
28-05-2013, 06:54 PM
RE: A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
(28-05-2013 10:30 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  @ Chas
Nothing you stated their was actually contrary to my post. I will apologize however as I mixed up some things. Yes the death camps didn't start till 1942 not 1943 as I had said, also the document that the church sent out " Mit Brennender (not brenner, again my bad) sorge" actually occurred in 1937 not 1948 as I had said. The only piece of information that I was not aware of in your post was the incredibly high rate of death in concentration camps (although I wonder what the rate was before the war) as well as the fact that significant imprisonment of Jews did not start until I believe 1938 with assassination of a German official by a Jew.

The fact that Germany used concentration camps was not that big of a deal at the time since both the US and Great Britain used them before the war and Canada and the US used them during the war. so who could the church support if everyone is doing it. Even if they condemned the practice it is still important to have at least some political allies.

As I said the Church pulled its support in 1937 so I think they are removed from most guilt. I mean why wouldn't the church support a "simple person who truly loved his fellow man" as William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada's longest reigning prime minister, put it.

Also, this..."I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic"
is immoral. You are a homophobe, and I'm calling you out for it. I think I speak for most people on this forum in doing so.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
29-05-2013, 06:42 PM
RE: A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
@frstratzero

Quote:Well thanks for giving up the natural law argument.

Not entirely sure what you mean by giving up the Natural Law argument.

Quote:However the reason why one kings plea for help doesn't justify the crusades was because there were seven major ones. All conducted for different religious meanings.

Well the second crusade was for the fall of Edessa and the next six were to try and reclaim Jerusalem. I consider those to be just in terms of a reason to go. The Albigensian crusade and the various Prussian crusades are a little harder to justify, so I will concede that some people could be upset by those. I do think the reconquista was mostly just however.

Quote:Too bad your argument that people in the states were paid off doesn't do anything to stop, prevent, treat, cure, or help those who are victims or those who are the perpetrators. The problem is world wide.

All I'm saying is that Mark said he wanted the church to give money to those affected and I'm saying they have, that's all. Unfortunately not every country has a John Jay report and I have no intention of spending hundreds of hours to see what the church has done in each country. so it's the best I got. I know money has been paid in Canada and Ireland (although Ireland could use more).

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2013, 07:16 PM
RE: A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
@ Full Circle

Quote:You'll have to forgive me if I stop taking anything you say seriously. The reasons are simple, you argue points without bothering to understand them and casually say you have no interest in reading about them (I posted a free hyperlink to the Dialogue ).

What I said is that I will most likely not understand the Dialogue as I am not a physician nor an astronomer and I really have no interest in either physics or astronomy. And what I am arguing has very little to do with his astronomy or his physics. I am arguing his politics (ability to deal with people not his political view point). It might help my argument if I were to read his dialogue and see how poorly he portrayed Simplicio. However I am also not knowledgeable in renaissance writing styles so I would have trouble understanding how much of an insult Simplicio was. SO it really would have very little effect upon my argument if I were to read his Dialogue.

Also the link you gave me was for his dialogue on the two new sciences not on the two chief systems. I started reading it and it took me a half an hour to realize that this didn't seem to be leading towards astronomy.

Quote:And now you accuse GG of not taking into account the stellar parallax , you are unbelievable. It wasn't that he didn't understand the concept but rather that with the rudememtary telescopes of the time it was not measurable and it wouldn't be for another 275 years FFS!

I never said he didn't understand it I thought he didn't account for it, which I admit I was wrong, he apparently talks about it on the Third day. What confused me was in the wikipedia article it says he did not account for the Tychian model which would have been defended using the stellar parallax. My bad. I am also aware that it would not have been measurable until the 19th century.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2013, 07:29 PM
RE: A Message to the Vatican...FUCK YOU!
@MarkFulton

Quote:Re..."The fact that Germany used concentration camps was not that big of a deal"
Statements like this are unacceptable. I needn't even say why...it is that obvious.

Thank you for cutting my sentence in half. There is little difference between a concentration camp and a POW camp except that one holds soldiers and one holds other people. Remember the original concentration camps in Germany were for political prisoners like communists. The Vatican was hugely against communism, much more then fascism, so I could see them turning a bit of a blind eye. Especially when there were several times were the prisoners were released. Again I say why do you think that the fact that Germany had concentration camps would be a reason for the Vatican to pull their support from Germany. The Vatican still supports the US despite the fact that they used concentration camps during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So please tell me why this statement is unacceptable, I really don't see why.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: