Personally, I think the Vatican just got used to Spain always being there whenever the Church needed a free army. Like for driving the Islamic Empire out of Europe. Or the conquest of the New World. Or attempting to retake England from those 'heretical' Protestants. And now the Vatican needs a free army on the political front to protect them from societal changes.
Except this time Spain isn't jumping at the Pope's command. The Pope's gonna be blaming society and secularism. It's safer for the Vatican to blame society than to recognize that every empire falls.
Seriously, though, comparing modern secularism to the Spanish Civil War? Just how strong is that sacramental wine anyway?
This will not end well...
Here you go.
Hmm. Interesting words from el papa. Your thoughts on the matter, CJ?
ignorant comments therein caused my sigh.Pointing out that the leader of an organization which has a track record like this organization does wrt morality (to pick just -one- recent example - the pedophile scandal) shouldn't be lambasting others over morality isn't ignorant.
Christ, himself, said "remove the beam from your own eye before you remove the mote from another's".
The irrefutable -fact- is that the Catholic church is corrupt - extremely corrupt - and has long since lost any pretense of being a moral guide.
It should stop drawing attention to itself until it cleans it's own house.
Isn't this an example of the classical "argumentum ad hominem"?
|
Here you go.Hmm. Interesting words from el papa. Your thoughts on the matter, CJ?
Don't feed the trolls.
Good advice CJ. I will comply.
Don't feed the trolls.Here you go.Hmm. Interesting words from el papa. Your thoughts on the matter, CJ?
Can I quote you on that? :-D
Isn't this an example of the classical "argumentum ad hominem"?
Yes...and no. While it is clearly an attack levelled at the speaker, rather than the content of his message, it is directly related to the issue at hand. I don't think calling someone's credibility into question is the same as a random personal attack, though it certainly isn't the strongest argument.
Of course, since the speaker in question claims divine inspiration, anyone actually making any of the strong arguments against his message is invariably tarred and feathered as intolerant (or as "aggressively secular," so to speak).
Neat setup; I think I'll found a religion. :P
|
|
Can I quote you on that? :-DDon't feed the trolls.Here you go.Hmm. Interesting words from el papa. Your thoughts on the matter, CJ?
Yes please do.
|
|
Isn't this an example of the classical "argumentum ad hominem"?Yes...and no. While it is clearly an attack levelled at the speaker, rather than the content of his message, it is directly related to the issue at hand. I don't think calling someone's credibility into question is the same as a random personal attack, though it certainly isn't the strongest argument.
Of course, since the speaker in question claims divine inspiration, anyone actually making any of the strong arguments against his message is invariably tarred and feathered as intolerant (or as "aggressively secular," so to speak).
Neat setup; I think I'll found a religion. :P
Since when?
|
Since when?Isn't this an example of the classical "argumentum ad hominem"?Yes...and no. While it is clearly an attack levelled at the speaker, rather than the content of his message, it is directly related to the issue at hand. I don't think calling someone's credibility into question is the same as a random personal attack, though it certainly isn't the strongest argument.
Of course, since the speaker in question claims divine inspiration, anyone actually making any of the strong arguments against his message is invariably tarred and feathered as intolerant (or as "aggressively secular," so to speak).
Neat setup; I think I'll found a religion. :P
I think that was an assumption based on the mans position title CJ. He's supposed to be the leader of gods church, and his representative here on earth, so by extension everyone assumes his edicts must be divinely inspired.
I object to the Pope's "aggressive superstitionalism".
What the pope did was lambast a country over it's morality. That's the very definition of an ad hominem. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. What makes matters worse, is that the Pope was lambasting Spain over things which are very moral (Spain had legalized gay marriage, for example).Isn't this an example of the classical "argumentum ad hominem"?ignorant comments therein caused my sigh.Pointing out that the leader of an organization which has a track record like this organization does wrt morality (to pick just -one- recent example - the pedophile scandal) shouldn't be lambasting others over morality isn't ignorant.
Christ, himself, said "remove the beam from your own eye before you remove the mote from another's".
The irrefutable -fact- is that the Catholic church is corrupt - extremely corrupt - and has long since lost any pretense of being a moral guide.
It should stop drawing attention to itself until it cleans it's own house.
So is the argument flawed or is it the person speaking it? You seem to have an issue with the catholic church based on its own failings, but those issues are not relevant to this particular issue. Bring them in as if they invalidate the argument is a flawed thought process. The arguments themselves may be flawed, but they are not so simply because the ones making them have their own failings.
In other words, if another group brought up these issues and that other group didn't have the failings that the catholic church has, would that suddenly make the arguments valid?
Pointing out hypocrisy isn't an ad hominem; it's an accurate criticism of a message which, in this case, implicitly stands on the morality of the speaker and the organization he represents.
If the President of the U.S. calls out China's unreasonable military aggression, it is an accurate criticism to point out the U.S.'s similar failings in this area.
When PETA speaks out against callousness and cruelty, it is accurate to point out their own insensitivities and failures.
And when the Pope speaks on morality, noting the RCC's disgusting conduct is reasonable.
Since when?Isn't this an example of the classical "argumentum ad hominem"?Yes...and no. While it is clearly an attack levelled at the speaker, rather than the content of his message, it is directly related to the issue at hand. I don't think calling someone's credibility into question is the same as a random personal attack, though it certainly isn't the strongest argument.
Of course, since the speaker in question claims divine inspiration, anyone actually making any of the strong arguments against his message is invariably tarred and feathered as intolerant (or as "aggressively secular," so to speak).
Neat setup; I think I'll found a religion. :P
Officially? Since 1870, though I gather the technical term is "divine revelation" rather than "divine inspiration."
Speaking of ad hominem, is this the part where you dismiss Wikipedia? :P
Things you should know about Spain and The Catholic Church.
The government gives an important ammount of money to religious organizations, The Catholic Church gets most of it. That money come from taxes, obviously.
Each citizen, when doing the tax declaration, can mark an "X" in certain place, in that case the Church gets even more money (if you don't mark that "X" the state still gives some money to religious organizations).
Now, you can see what's the problem with "secularism" for The Pope. Less people marking that "X" means less resources.
Furthermore there are Catholic schools that get funds from the state. Less children going to those schools means less money.
To make things worse many people is leaving The Catholic Church and going to churchs of other christian organizations.
I can't deny that Spaniards aren't very happy with The Catholic Church , maybe because it supported the dictatorship, maybe there are other reasons, however the country is tolerant with any religion.
Aggresive secularism? The Pope should elaborate, he won't do because he can't, there are no reasons to support those claims. He just has got an agenda, as everyone.
An interesting point. Spain's history with the Catholic Church is an intriguing one. I would suggest others examine it before posting from the hip on this issue.
|
|
Since when?Isn't this an example of the classical "argumentum ad hominem"?Yes...and no. While it is clearly an attack levelled at the speaker, rather than the content of his message, it is directly related to the issue at hand. I don't think calling someone's credibility into question is the same as a random personal attack, though it certainly isn't the strongest argument.
Of course, since the speaker in question claims divine inspiration, anyone actually making any of the strong arguments against his message is invariably tarred and feathered as intolerant (or as "aggressively secular," so to speak).
Neat setup; I think I'll found a religion. :P
Officially? Since 1870, though I gather the technical term is "divine revelation" rather than "divine inspiration."
** spoiler omitted **
LMAO.... rather encourage you to actually read it.
You're surprised? The guy's the Pope. He tells people to have unprotected sex when they can hardly feed themselves, let alone the kids.
He's the head of the catholic church. This is tame compared what they used to do to people who didn't agree with them.
Just ignore the guy. And tell your politicians to do the same.
And personally, I think aggressive secularism is a most laudable goal.
Especially if it leads to stuff like governments allowing gays to marry and not treat them like they should be shunned and then killed.
The government gives an important ammount of money to religious organizations, The Catholic Church gets most of it. That money come from taxes, obviously.Each citizen, when doing the tax declaration, can mark an "X" in certain place, in that case the Church gets even more money (if you don't mark that "X" the state still gives some money to religious organizations).
In Germany, we have a church tax. Only people who are official members of the church pay that.
I don't. :)
First of all, while I really like that Iesus guy the the stuff he was said to preach (like tolerance, which is great; the emphasis on forgiveness instead of condemnation from the get go; and considering the spirit of the law, not just the letter, which means he wants rules lawyers to change their ways :)), but the Catholic Church doesn't seem to get the message.
I'm not too much of a fan of that other cheek thing, but I can see it. Would be nice if that really worked.
Plus, I want a faith, a moral compass. Not a club with membership fees, or a subscription. :D
LMAO.... rather encourage you to actually read it.Since when?Isn't this an example of the classical "argumentum ad hominem"?Yes...and no. While it is clearly an attack levelled at the speaker, rather than the content of his message, it is directly related to the issue at hand. I don't think calling someone's credibility into question is the same as a random personal attack, though it certainly isn't the strongest argument.
Of course, since the speaker in question claims divine inspiration, anyone actually making any of the strong arguments against his message is invariably tarred and feathered as intolerant (or as "aggressively secular," so to speak).
Neat setup; I think I'll found a religion. :P
Officially? Since 1870, though I gather the technical term is "divine revelation" rather than "divine inspiration."
** spoiler omitted **
I did, and I encourage anyone else who cares to do the same.
|
|
LMAO.... rather encourage you to actually read it.Since when?Isn't this an example of the classical "argumentum ad hominem"?Yes...and no. While it is clearly an attack levelled at the speaker, rather than the content of his message, it is directly related to the issue at hand. I don't think calling someone's credibility into question is the same as a random personal attack, though it certainly isn't the strongest argument.
Of course, since the speaker in question claims divine inspiration, anyone actually making any of the strong arguments against his message is invariably tarred and feathered as intolerant (or as "aggressively secular," so to speak).
Neat setup; I think I'll found a religion. :P
Officially? Since 1870, though I gather the technical term is "divine revelation" rather than "divine inspiration."
** spoiler omitted **
I did, and I encourage anyone else who cares to do the same.
It is incorrect to hold that doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare....
and it goes on to say
For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are officially ex cathedra, because the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility.In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions, that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis although not an ex cathedra teaching ...
So JPII never claimed nor has it ever been claimed that he did or even said anything that was Divinely Inspired and Benedict has never done it either. In fact only once in the last 60 years has anyone claimed, maybe that it has been.
So yes please read the article.
As a former Roman Catholic and someone strongly anti-Pope, even I would rather not open yet another contentious bile- and venom-filled outlet here. C'mon people, I thought this site was for the civil discussion of RPGs and gaming?! We're better than this and there are far more-suitable online places for this thread. which. will. not. end. well.
Adieu, thread!
Society's been changing fast enough, there's enough strife between different sects, the Vatican is having issues with keeping their flock, hows about another antipope? Historically, having their cardinals split into different arguing sects seems to get things done. There hasn't been a good antipope since before the protestant reformation.
|
C'mon people, I thought this site was for the civil discussion of RPGs and gaming?!
I'm sorry, but you appear to have accidentally wandered into the Off-Topic Discussions. The gaming stuff is up thataway.
*sigh*
...I mean-- I like chocolate milk!
Society's been changing fast enough, there's enough strife between different sects, the Vatican is having issues with keeping their flock, hows about another antipope? Historically, having their cardinals split into different arguing sects seems to get things done. There hasn't been a good antipope since before the protestant reformation.End-time Christians have been chomping at the bit for an antipope to show up. If we're going to do it, let's go all the way. Let's put "666" on his hat and have all his followers get RFD chips in their palms and foreheads!
Antipopes are fairly common these days. Not that one would expect the end-time obsessives to know that kind of thing.
"I'm the pope. I'm ten times the Pope. I'm sixty times the Pope." - Charles Manson
Antipopes are fairly common these days. Not that one would expect the end-time obsessives to know that kind of thing.Society's been changing fast enough, there's enough strife between different sects, the Vatican is having issues with keeping their flock, hows about another antipope? Historically, having their cardinals split into different arguing sects seems to get things done. There hasn't been a good antipope since before the protestant reformation.End-time Christians have been chomping at the bit for an antipope to show up. If we're going to do it, let's go all the way. Let's put "666" on his hat and have all his followers get RFD chips in their palms and foreheads!To be fair to the end timers, not nearly enough of these antipopes are driving clown cars, wearing dreses, and spreading hate like the real pope.
I want to make a rule - all future antipopes must wear funny hats!
Like a beer hat with straws......
"I'm the pope. I'm ten times the Pope. I'm sixty times the Pope." - Charles Manson
Crazy SOB must have had one hell of a tall hat.
To be fair to the end timers, not nearly enough of these antipopes are driving clown cars, wearing dreses, and spreading hate like the real pope.I want to make a rule - all future antipopes must wear funny hats!
I'm sure it's only because clown cars, dresses, and fancy hats are expensive. Do you know how many children have to starve in Africa to afford the Pope's haberdasher? It's got to be in the thousands. Then just think how much it has to cost to heat all those giant buildings.