I am holier than thou
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2013, 06:47 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2013 09:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 07:17 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 05:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Jebus never "instituted" *holy orders*. Just RC brainwashed nonsense. The office of "priest" existed for thousands of years, INCLUDING authentically in the OT. Most cultures have priests. The gospels say NOTHING, about a new priesthood. Neither did the founder of Paulianity/Christianity, (Saul of Tarsus), The JEWS, who were the first Christians NEVER said there was a NEW priesthood, including in their interactions in Acts with the JEWISH High Priest. Jebus did not "receive" anything from anyone, if HE WAS GOD, (himself). .... obviously. More made up bs, from someone who is pretending to know what he's talking about. As I pointed out elsewhere, there was no such thing as a (Greek) "ecclesia" in Jebus' day, so to assert that he "gave the keys to the kingdom" to anyone, (much less a "church", is simply crap. (It's also not one of the authentic "quotes" that the Jesus Seminar/Biblical scholars agrees he actually said), and if it WAS important why is it, it does NOT appear in the first Christian writings ? Anyone who says "powers", which were cooked up by humans, "passed" from corrupt evil human (pope with mistresses and children and gay lovers), to corrupt evil human, (more attempted "proof by assertion", BTW), is simply delusional, and mentally ill. Whoever this excube-who-gave-away-his-brain, obviously NEEDS this garbage or his little world falls apart. Not only (as Chas proved above) does he NOT know his own cult, he doesn't even know his own catechism. In his initial post he posited he was of a higher moral status. In fact his catechism has 3 requirements for mortal sin. Any honest atheist, who sincerely and honestly is trying to live up to what she/he believes is the truth, obviously meets NONE of the catechism's requirements for sin at all, much less "mortal" sin, (as HIS NEW POPE has recently agreed with, and re-affirmed). Too bad excube-who-gave-away-his-brain never paid attention in his high school Moral Theology class, (assuming he ever even took one or read anything about it).
He gets an "F" in Catholic Studies. He does get a D- in fiction writing though, (attempted, but not very creative). Tongue
I continue to wonder why atheists have to teach beliebers about their cults, and why we know more about them than they do ?
So where does your authority come from to make all these claims without a thimbles worth of supporting documentation. Truly your post is like taking the top off your head and pouring out every first thought that comes out of your brain without even thinking what you are saying. You make the wildest claims and think that they most certainly are right because YOU thought of them out of your own inflated head. What arrogance.
You and others accuse me and say "where is your authority" then you howl down the authority I espouse with no authority whatsoever and with the biggest set of vacuous statements that any man could assemble in 5 minutes.

So, let me get this straight. First you do what Jebus told you NOT to do, and came here, and proudly announced your moral superiority, which clearly you are completely convinced of. Ever heard of "humility" ? Obviously not YOUR strong suit. Are you going to confess your sin of pride this week ?

Now, you create a scandal with your ignorance, and call the Catechism of the RCC not "a thimble'sfull of documentation" ? Another sin to confess ?
I GAVE you documentation, which you didn't bother to check out. So, NOW you change the standard to "documentation needed", for us, and yours is "faith" and "infallibility" alone ? Well, Mr. Double Standard Catholic, nice try. Obviously you never read your Catechism, or listened to the new Pope. Didn't he tell you today that mercy above all is necessary ? Or are you more Catholic than the Pope ? Are you an Old Catholic ?

But, thanks for the obvious attempted deflection. Read the Catechism : # 1859 : "Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. (1734)". I see you never read it. No atheist who sincerely thinks honestly what they think, meets those criteria. None of them. So, obviously YOU can't argue from authority, if you clearly don't even know your own cult's moral theology.

There is no "4000 years" of Hebrew/Christian history. Just more proof of your ignorance of History.
Next time, REFUTE THE ARGUMENTS, specifically. If you can't, can't you call in someone who had 6th Grade Religion class, and actually passed it ?

What causes this mental illness, I wonder, (called "faith") when human adults NEED to reference "absolutes", (like this new fangled Roman Church's "infallibility" they cooked up, and "promulgated" in the 1880's for the first time, even while maintaining they are the cult based on "scripture and tradition") ?

No one here buys that your Professional Pedophile Protector Organization has ANY authority. Nor have you established any, that has any credibility here.
When they said "send in the clowns", you really shouldn't have taken it literally. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 08:10 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2013 06:14 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: I am holier than thou
wow. A longer post coming up...just need to formulate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 12:45 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 07:51 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Warning:
Epic post coming up... Don't start reading if you only have the attention span of Hughsie or Ferdie.


(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  No Father would be so inane as to answer this way to a genuine question of his son.
...
No I don't think you are lying, I just think you are quite addled on this point.

You accuse my father of being "inane" and me of being "addled".
I can assure that it is quite the reverse, but then, he is 92 Laughat

I was using the 'blue sky' example as a rhetorical device but as it appears that you are unfamiliar with the concept of how to encourage 'critical thinking' I will elaborate further.

Firstly, an apology...

(17-09-2013 11:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  You are making a mockery of the parenting skills of christian parents.
No Christian parent I have heard of has presented their religion to their children in this manner.

It's true, I was. I confess. But only for comedic effect.
I would hope that no parent would use that technique and I certainly didn't mean to imply that you do.

However, I am well aware that priests ('spiritual' teachers) did and do use that approach.
I have comforted many young ladies who have been racked with guilt because of the myth of hell-fire... 2 x Irish girlfriends and Filipinas too numerous to mention.

You know how the old 'drama triangle' goes, you play 'rescuer' to their 'victim' with the church as 'persecutor' and one thing leads to another. Big Grin Cool

So, to elaborate...

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
Your parents taught you what the colour blue was. They taught you what the sky was, long before it occurred to you to ask why the sky was blue. Its ridiculous to suggest that teachers do not convey knowledge of facts about the way things are.
...

Actually, no.
I observed that the sky was blue. No one specifically told me.
I heard the words 'blue' and 'sky' long before I could speak.

Oddly enough, I remember these conversations at home much more vividly than any lesson at my church school.

So I will give you a fuller transcript to help you understand i.e. a less off-the-cuff comedic response.

DLJ: Dad, why is the sky blue?
Dad: Is it?
DLJ: Um, well yes, I looks blue to me.
Dad: Is it always blue?
DLJ: Well, no, only in the day time.
Dad: So why do you think that is?
DLJ: Not sure. Something to do with the sun?
Dad: Go on...
DLJ: Um, ok, well at dawn and dusk we get pinks and reds and at night we can see stars. Does that mean there is no sky at night time?
Dad: Smile Not quite but you are on the right lines. You have noticed that we have a colour to the sky when the sun is around but at night there is an absence of colour. Why do you think that is?
DLJ: Is it something to do with the same reason we get different colours in a rainbow?
Dad: You might have something there. Do you know how a rainbow works?
DLJ: I think so. It's about light reflected through water.
Dad: Actually the word is 'refracted'. Have you heard of that before?
DLJ: No.
Dad: Ok, go and look that up and get back to me.
Note: No internet back then but we had a vast array of encyclopedias etc. as both my parents were professional educators.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  No Father would be so inane as to answer this way to a genuine question of his son. That is avoiding the question and is truly one of the worst teaching styles I have ever heard advocated.

Thus, far from being 'inane', though he probably didn't know it at the time, my father was using a technique that, coincidentally, I will be teaching my class tomorrow: The 5 Whys. This is now an internationally recognised 'best practice' technique for Problem Management.

Certainly, it is avoiding a 'direct' answer but there is no long term value in the direct answer... y'know... give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  We teach our children that God loves us.

You see... there is an assumption in that statement i.e. that there is a god or indeed that there is only one god.
Man has invented countless gods and due to what you refer to as 'the worst teaching styles I have ever heard advocated", I learned to research the origins of these assumptions i.e. animism and agency.
And looking at the evolution of these various gods, it became obvious that 'love' was not a common factor. This in fact is a quite recent adaptation.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
But we also teach children that if they take drugs they can destroy their lives. We warn of the dangers of venereal disease, unwanted pregnancy, potentially abusive partners, danger of jail if they break the law etc.

Here is your parenting style
DLJ: Dad, why are some drugs illegal?
Dad: Good question, son. What do you think is the best way to find out the answer to that?

What a joke.

We explain what some of the drugs are, what impacts they have on the body and the mind, how lives, relationship, health etc can be damaged by the effects of the drugs. We explain how the government have passed laws making it illegal and imposing serious consequences on users and drug pushers.
In short we teach our children.
...

That strikes me as preaching not teaching.

I do recall this conversation, if not verbatim, and it involved:

DLJ: Dad, why are some drugs illegal?
Dad: Good question, son. Firstly, what do you mean when you say "drugs"?
...
The conversation covered the definition of 'drugs' vs. 'chemicals;
what impacts they have on the body and the mind (as you said);
the societal influences that determine whether something should be restricted, by whom and to whom;
the types of societies that would decree something to be harmful or not i.e. US prohibition vs native American poison rituals;
the cultural / spiritual / religious / superstitious roots of these societies;
the vested interest groups that would lobby for legality / illegality i.e. the US timber merchants, petroleum-based synthetic textiles manufactures etc.
http://www.hemphasis.net/History/history.htm
etc. etc.
I think you get the picture by now... encouragement to look more deeply into interconnected topics to get a full picture of how the world works.

Always avoiding a "because it is" statement and encouraging "why is it" questions.


(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  In the same way when our children ask "Why is adultery a sin"
Dad explains how adultery damages the sacred bond between husband and wife, how it can lead to men raising children which are not their own, how it arouses destructive jealousies and feelings of intense betrayal, how women found with children conceived in adultery often abort the babies, how venereal diseases can enter the marriage and infect the innocent spouse, how marriages can break down and leave the family in poverty and the children get shuffled between the parents often growing up without their fathers etc. And so we explain that for all these reasons God, the great and ultimate lawmaker has made a law to prohibit adultery and ascribed a penalty for those who engage in it.
That is called education. That is called teaching.

It's not called indoctrination, its called teaching and education. It's called raising children in a good path. It is a parents right and duty to teach their children.
...

Well, I guess it is a right, sadly for parents to indoctrinate their children.
And it is indoctrination.
You also, again, make the assumption that there is an external, supervising, supernatural entity for which there is no evidence.

It would be 'teaching' if you covered (as was covered in my family):
Societies where more than one wife was encouraged (you will find that in the bible and the quran too).
How different animal societies behave i.e.
Monogamy: One male and one female have an exclusive mating relationship. The term "pair bonding" often implies this.
Polygamy: Three types are recognized:
- Polygyny (the most common polygamous mating system in vertebrates so far studied): One male has an exclusive relationship with two or more females
- Polyandry: One female has an exclusive relationship with two or more males
- Polygynandry: where two or more males have an exclusive relationship with two or more females; the numbers of males and females need not be equal, and in vertebrate species studied so far, the number of males is usually less.
Promiscuity: A member of one sex within the social group mates with any member of the opposite sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
My children are not quivering wrecks unable to function because of their terror of hell.
...

I am relieved to hear it.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The fear of hell is not for the righteous who have God's favour and who are in a state of grace. The fear of hell is for sinners, who are committing sins and are not seeking God.
...

Sorry, but that is just white noise to me.


Thanks for reading.

Well, quite clearly your problem here DLJ is that your heathen parents raised you to be an insightful and inquisitive free-thinker with an emphasis on how to think. This is clearly all wrong. Your parents did you a disservice by not telling you what to think, and that what you should think should be dictated by God and/or the Pope. 'God/Pope said it, I believe it, that's good enough for me' is all anybody really needs in life and to guarantee their avoidance of Hell; and you don't want to burn in Hell now do you?

[/sarcasm]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-09-2013, 01:20 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
Evo,
Does Hell have hot Asian chicks?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 01:25 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 01:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Evo,
Does Hell have hot Asian chicks?
Being that they're burning, I'm sure they're quite hot.

You can lead a theist to reason, but, you cannot make him think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NoSkyDaddy's post
20-09-2013, 02:04 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 01:25 AM)NoSkyDaddy Wrote:  
(20-09-2013 01:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Evo,
Does Hell have hot Asian chicks?
Being that they're burning, I'm sure they're quite hot.

Excellent. Smoking hot... my favourite.

Sign me up for the Hell party.

Drooling

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 02:18 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 01:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Evo,
Does Hell have hot Asian chicks?

I don't know. Are they covered in Sriracha? Evil_monster

[Image: header.png]
[Image: 1.png]
[Image: 2.png]
[Image: 3.png]
[Image: 4.png]


I love the Dune reference in the middle there. Big Grin

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-09-2013, 02:35 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 02:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-09-2013 01:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Evo,
Does Hell have hot Asian chicks?

I don't know. Are they covered in Sriracha? Evil_monster

[Image: header.png]
[Image: 1.png]
[Image: 2.png]
[Image: 3.png]
[Image: 4.png]


I love the Dune reference in the middle there. Big Grin

I believe you mean Fight Club not Dune.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 02:54 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 02:35 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(20-09-2013 02:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I don't know. Are they covered in Sriracha? Evil_monster

[Image: header.png]
[Image: 1.png]
[Image: 2.png]
[Image: 3.png]
[Image: 4.png]


I love the Dune reference in the middle there. Big Grin

I believe you mean Fight Club not Dune.

Dammit, you are right. I was thinking of the Litany Against Fear from the Bene Gesserit in Dune. Looks like my neurons need a tune up... Weeping

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 03:03 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
^^^
just thought you were referring to Spice.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: