Corolinth wrote:
Farther wrote:
However, may I point out that unless I overlooked something here, Talya's first post in this thread was to talk about that "stupid bint", Mother Teresa. Sounds to me like a victim crying out for help.
You may, but by that metric, aren't Christian anti-abortionists who call pro-abortionists "baby killers" and "murderers" also victims crying for help?
First of all, the comparison is not accurate. "stupid bint" is really nothing mroe than expression of childish dislike. "Murderer" and "Baby killer" are accusations of specific wrongdoings. That is not to say those accusations are of any merit but the fact remains that they are serious accusations as opposed to simple flailing about.
Quote:
I mean, certainly we can make these judgments and then come up with arguments to support them, but let's think about this a little harder. Why is it that there must be something wrong with the critic simply because the object of their criticism is a religious figure that we are told to believe is sacred and holy? The Catholic church has been waging a war against all forms of birth control and still is today. That is undeniable. They are also rather notorious for "deathbed conversions," a practice which is rather shady when you think about it. Imagine if I proclaimed myself to be the greatest lover of all time. Through my penis, you will find truth and sexual epiphany, and you may know this to be fact based on the total number of women I slept with. Yet close examination revealed a large number of these women to be emotionally unstable and suffering from self esteem issues. Am I truly the next Casanova, or do I just prey the insecure to sate my own lust for flesh? The Catholic church claims that you may know their worth through the number of souls they own, yet so many of those souls that they claim are deathbed "converts" who can not confirm or deny the Vatican's claim. Moreover, even if it is true that they converted, it is worth noting that great quantities of the elderly (that population most likely to be on a deathbed) are often not in full possession of their mental faculties.
No one has said that anything is wrong with the critic because the subject is sacred and holy. In fact, most of us are not Catholic and do not accept that Catholic saints are necessarily either. The fact that the Catholic church is "waging war" against birth control is hardly much of a cricticism, and in fact reveals the overemphasis on the desire and right to **** claimed by nonCatholic critics who take huge offense at the idea that other people might want to follow a faith that simply advocates self control because they do not want to exercise such self control themselves.
Again, the fact is that while abstinence-only education may be ineffective it is hardly some tragedy or pox upon the world. In many places, it is vastly superior to the idiocy that is espoused by other locals such as "rape a virgin and be cured of AIDS".
As for your absurd claims about deathbed conversions, your own lack of belief or doubt is not evidence. No proof is owed to you or anyone else. It is not evidence of any problem whatsoever that people are choosing to beleive something you do not.
Quote:
It is worth pointing out that even if you are Catholic, only the Pope is infallible. Mother Theresa had her flaws, and is not above scrutiny or criticism. Furthermore, even the notion that the Pope is infallible is complete rubbish, and it is fortunate that I am not Catholic because otherwise it would be a sin for me to espouse such an idea. We in North America sometimes forget how flawed the Catholic church really is, because very few of our Catholics are particularly devout. It is entirely possible that, had the previous Pope not been a genuine paragon of humanity, we may not even have Catholics in the United States or Canada. The Vatican's stance on birth control was driving North American Catholics to apostasy in quite large numbers, and it is a testament to John Paul II's character and intelligence that he was able to reverse that trend. It is widely held that North American Catholics accepted the Vatican position on birth control not out of faith, but because they respected John Paul II's intelligence and judgment.
It is also worth pointing out that no one has claimed Mother Teresa is infallible, but regardless, "stupid bint" is not a meaningful cricticism. Even if we assume it is a cricticism over her advocacy of abstienece, that in itself speaks to the excessive focus on sexual matters of the critics.
We do not "forget how flawed the Catholic Church is" at all, rather we simply do not fined it necessary to exaggerate those flaws, nor try to dismiss any cricticism of the criciticisms as "apologism". a claim really no different than Monty's ranting that the only people claiming global warming was not happening were "global warming deniers". Aside fromt he fact that there is no word "apologism" in the dictionary, "apologetics" means the defense of Christianity. This is simply circular argument claiming that defense of Christianity is self evidently wrong because it is defense of Christiantity, or the Catholic church as the case may be.
Quote:
It is worth noting that John Paul II was not without his flaws, and moreover, the vast majority of Catholic figures are distinctly not John Paul II.
Your continual pointing out that Catholics, the Catholic church, or various Catholic figures have flaws only indicates your insistence on holding those entities to a standard of perfection. Aside from the absurdity and hypocrisy of holding any human or institution to such a standard, the common claim is that they don't live up to their own ideas. Like with "apologism", well duh. That's the
entire point of being a Christian. Any cricticism of Christianity or Christians for failing to live up to their own ideals ignores a basic tenet of the faith in order to attack a strawman of it.
Quote:
I would also remind you that while the Catholic church has on numerous occasions expressed a willingness to admit it has erred, such admissions ring rather hollow when individuals responsible for such errors are canonized as saints. This may seem like a small thing until you consider that from the perspective of those outside the Catholic church, a saint appears very much the same as a pagan god.
And it matters how it appears to those outside the Church exactly why? Or whether people responsible for error are canonized as Saints exactly why? The church's criteria for canonization should be how it appears to noncatholics? It seems like a small thing because it is a small thing unless you're a noncatholic who thinks the Catholic church's job is to earn his approval.
Quote:
Now, due to the commandments offered in Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Catholics can not actually call their saints gods, but their treatment is not all too terribly different from the Norse treatment of Baldur or Thor, with God merely taking the role of Odin.
Wild oversimplification is a great rhetorical tool, but ultimately not very impressive.
Quote:
We like to think that the Catholic church has come a long way, and yet they have deified one of the men responsible for Galileo's heresy trials. This would sound like a minor quibble, except that Robert Bellarmine was so elevated in 1930, well after the Catholic church became aware that they were unquestionably in the wrong for having condemned Galileo. This is, of course, assuming you actually think the Catholic church believes itself capable of error. It is difficult to take an institution seriously when the organization expresses regret for grievous offenses it has committed out of one side of its mouth, whilst the other side proclaims the men and women responsible for said offenses to be gods.
It becomes difficult to take a person seriously int heir cricticism when they continue to apply a standard of perfection to an organization. It becomes doubly so when they totally ignore historical record in order to focus only on a conveniently oversimplified version of events. Galileo was not able to substantiate his theory at the time, yet he insisted on making pronouncements on theological matters. His theories contained errors such as predicting half as many tides as actually occur. The Catholic church was scientifically wrong to condemn Galileo, but no one could have know that at the time because a powersful enough telescope was not available for some years. They were wrong by modern standards to exercise judicial authority over Galileo but that is an absurd complaint given that expecting them to leap forward in terms of social thought is, at best, unrealistic. Even in a modern sense, they would certainly not be incorrect to excommunicate or otherwise sanction Galileo in terms of his standing as a church member for pronouncing on the interpretation of Scripture contrary to what the Church taught.
Finally, no one was proclaimed a "god", your strawman of the status of Saints notwithstanding, and in any case, it is complete nonsense to assume that those canonized should be defined exclusively by that event.
Quote:
Since I mentioned Galileo, I want you to consider the sort of judgment an organization shows when it will imprison and torture someone for daring to state that the sun, and not the Earth, is the center of the universe, but will shelter and protect a child rapist from the law.
And yet, these events occured centuries apart and attempting to condemn the organization as it currently exists, especially when phrasing it in such a way as to imply it is doing both at the same time, is disingenuous.
Quote:
It's not as if the Catholic church suddenly ceased any and all morally reprehensible activity three centuries ago.
It is, however, the case that just because you call something morally reprehensible does not mean it is, and that cricticism is doubly absurd from people who loudly proclaim the irrelevance of morality of any sort. It is also the case that for a huge organization to avoid "any and all morally reprehensible activity" is an absurd demand especially since everyone will have a different definition. This claim is even more suspect in light of the fact that some people consider the existence of the Catholic church or its beliefs inherently morally reprehensible and so it would be impossible for it to stop by any means excpet self-destruction. Intolerance and bigotry attempting to clothe itself in a veneer of moral rectitude.
Quote:
When Martin Luther left and kicked off the Protestant Reformation, the main grievance was the sale of indulgences.
Attempting to paint this as an issue of the Catholic church in general highlights only your ignorance. A basic reading of the 95 theses clearly shows that Luther's beef was with what was happening in Germany, and that he beleived the Pope was not aware of what was being done and would be upset if he were. It should not be at all surprising that in an era lacking communiction beyond horse-carried messages that situational awareness in Rome would be poor, but that's easily ignored when we need an excuse to hammer the Catholic church, now, isn't it?
Quote:
Today, it's condoms and child rapists.
Again, wild exaggeration. The existance of problems in the Church does not somehow condemn it as an organization. Every organization on the planet would be condemend. Some might praise such a state of affairs, but then there is no reason to single out the cAtholic church, and in any case, this indicates nothing more than the childishness of the viewpoint holder who evidently thinks organizations should vanish simply to appease them.
Quote:
Any "good works" performed by the organization is nothing more than a bid to buy back public support and regain the political capital that they have historically enjoyed.
Completely subjective and unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.
Quote:
This is not to say that individual members of the church are incapable of being decent, upstanding human beings. The majority of them are, but quite frankly, that does not distinguish Catholicism from other competing philosophies and religions.
A pitiful attempt at a cricticism. Exactly why should the Catholic church be expected to distinguish itself? Why should we accept your utterly subjective claim that it does not?
Quote:
The Catholics do not have a monopoly on "good people."
So?
Quote:
Meanwhile, as a collective they get themselves into scandal after scandal. Why should their priesthood be immune to criticism?
No one said it should. However, the cricticism itself should not be immune from cricticism, nor should people find it necessary to bring it up when discussing other issues relevant to Catholicism.
Quote:
The idea that Mother Theresa was not the generous, charitable woman so many of us assumed her to be is not new.
So what? It's not necessarily accurate either, and no good reason to think it is accurate has been given. Focusing excessively on sexual issues certainly is not convincing.
Quote:
The case that she was merely a political opportunist who used the facade of charity as a front to con donors out of money to fund the spread of her religious ideology has been made several times.
Based on very little actual reason.
Quote:
Taly simply happens to think that some of those arguments might have some merit. That is not the same as being a victim, nor is it the same as having a grudge against religion (although it may serve as a root cause for such a grudge).
So what? Taly is no more immune from Cricticism than Mother Theresa is.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
