Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Quote:Funny that. You guys toasted lots of people and look where it got you Smile

Christendom lasted for 1400 years. That seems like a success to me.

Quote:Fear is not an effective means of social control, not only that, it doesn't make you right, it means that you suck.

That's a lie. Every country throughout the history of mankind has always used fear to keep people in line. The murderer doesn't 'not' murder because he likes his government, he doesn't do it because he's afraid of what will happen to him if he does.
Quote:If the only way you can get people to agree that you're right is by killing your detractors, if you're *that scared* of reasoned argument, you pretty much gotta know that your stuff is all smoke and mirrors.

The heretics that the Inquisition saw fit to execute, were anything but 'reasonable'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 04:56 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 04:40 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 12:54 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "No, it's not good for the heretics, it's good for people 'other' than the heretics, since it prevents them from becoming heretics."

PP, do you know what a logical fallacy is? This quote from you is a classic logical fallacy. It's known as the argumentum ad baculum....

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick"), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "Might Makes Right" fallacy.

A fallacious argument based on argumentum ad baculum generally proceeds as follows:

If x accepts P as true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is not true.
This form of argument is an informal fallacy, because the attack Q may not necessarily reveal anything about the truth value of the premise P. This fallacy has been identified since the Middle Ages by many philosophers. This is a special case of argumentum ad consequentiam, or "appeal to consequences".

I hope there weren't too many big words or concepts in there for you.

When did I ever say that might makes right? You're pretty confused here. Might never makes right, but might has the power to enforce what's right.

"When did I ever say that might makes right?"

right here...

"No, it's not good for the heretics, it's good for people 'other' than the heretics, since it prevents them from becoming heretics."

You were referring to violence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 04:58 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 01:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  PS: Bonus question Petrov: *Why* is it perfectly OK to ignore the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself, to turn the other cheek and to love your enemies in favour of killing heretics? What allows people to explicitly go against the very words of Christ and still call themselves Christian. How dare anyone, even the Pope, subvert the gospel?

You're coming across pretty goddamn hypocritical standing there justifying religious killing when your own deity told you clearly not to.

Oh, it's not that I don't care about them (the heretics), but I care about everyone else too. If one heretic needs to be executed to prevent a hundred more from becoming heretics, then that would be the case. If the heretic can actually just be shown the error of his ways, then I would be against any form of execution. Also because a Christian is supposed to be just, and they frankly deserve the punishment as well.

Oh, and on that topic, the Greek word translated "love" in the New Testament has nothing to do with personal sentimentality anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 05:01 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 01:20 AM)morondog Wrote:  PS PS: I've come across protestants who condemn various practices as 'heretical'. I'd be interested to know how you decide who's the heretic?

Evidence and theological validity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 05:02 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 04:47 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 04:34 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Disagreeing with it is, in itself, insane.

Alright, let's suppose you are right.

So are you saying that it's morally justifiable to kill insane people simply for being insane?

Nah, I basically just said that because Tartarus keeps using this 'insane' thing, all the while, claiming to be a "free-thinker".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 05:04 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 05:01 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 01:20 AM)morondog Wrote:  PS PS: I've come across protestants who condemn various practices as 'heretical'. I'd be interested to know how you decide who's the heretic?

Evidence and theological validity.
LOL! Polar opposites, those. "Theological validity" is an oxymoronic concept; you and everyone else defines it as they see fit. It is an entirely subjective notion with constantly moving goalposts.

Unlike evidence, which is based on actual facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
12-03-2015, 05:06 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 04:52 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
Quote:Funny that. You guys toasted lots of people and look where it got you Smile

Christendom lasted for 1400 years. That seems like a success to me.

Quote:Fear is not an effective means of social control, not only that, it doesn't make you right, it means that you suck.

That's a lie. Every country throughout the history of mankind has always used fear to keep people in line. The murderer doesn't 'not' murder because he likes his government, he doesn't do it because he's afraid of what will happen to him if he does.
Quote:If the only way you can get people to agree that you're right is by killing your detractors, if you're *that scared* of reasoned argument, you pretty much gotta know that your stuff is all smoke and mirrors.

The heretics that the Inquisition saw fit to execute, were anything but 'reasonable'.

"Christendom lasted for 1400 years. That seems like a success to me."

You're giving your game away here. You don't care about the health and happiness of people, you're more concerned about the power of the Vatican. The irony of this is, as I've already pointed out, that the Vatican is in fact controlling you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
12-03-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 04:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 04:40 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  When did I ever say that might makes right? You're pretty confused here. Might never makes right, but might has the power to enforce what's right.

"When did I ever say that might makes right?"

right here...

"No, it's not good for the heretics, it's good for people 'other' than the heretics, since it prevents them from becoming heretics."

You were referring to violence.

No, "Might makes right" would be if I said something like "Catholicism is true, because I said so, and I'm stronger than you.". That's not it. Catholicism is the truth no matter how you enforce, or whether you enforce it at all. The Inquisitions were just a way of legally enforcing that truth, in other words, as I just said: Might doesn't make right, but might enforces what's right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 05:02 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 04:47 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Alright, let's suppose you are right.

So are you saying that it's morally justifiable to kill insane people simply for being insane?

Nah, I basically just said that because Tartarus keeps using this 'insane' thing, all the while, claiming to be a "free-thinker".

So it would be morally justifiable to execute me to prevent me from influencing others from becoming heretics?

Why do people that deviate from the supposed true teachings you approve of such a threat to warrant being killed? I thought you were supposed to save people through spreading the "good news," not eliminating the opposition via force.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
12-03-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 05:06 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 04:52 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Christendom lasted for 1400 years. That seems like a success to me.


That's a lie. Every country throughout the history of mankind has always used fear to keep people in line. The murderer doesn't 'not' murder because he likes his government, he doesn't do it because he's afraid of what will happen to him if he does.

The heretics that the Inquisition saw fit to execute, were anything but 'reasonable'.

"Christendom lasted for 1400 years. That seems like a success to me."

You're giving your game away here. You don't care about the health and happiness of people, you're more concerned about the power of the Vatican. The irony of this is, as I've already pointed out, that the Vatican is in fact controlling you.

People usually measure the success of things like empires by how long their lifespan is. I thought that's what he meant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: