[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Ah, there is only one way to do it. But you cannot be ordained to the Holy Orders as married…I bet your really confused now…
So why not allow all priests to get married after they’re ordained?
What do you care if they get married or not? [/quote]
Answer the question. If some are allowed, why not all?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Lol. Maybe you should stick with subjects you actually know something about…Wiki doesn’t count. That’s all I’m going to say on this, since the discussion is verging into personal attacks.[/quote]
Considering Maslow hand-picked the prototypes for his model, he could’ve used a statistics or even basic science course or two.
And you’re a homosexual on posting on a thread about homosexuality, it’s all personal to you.
You mean straw man and we all live like this to one degree or another. Thus, the practical irrelevance and largely theoretical nature of Maslow’s Hierarchy. If you believed Maslow to be impractical, why did you bring his ideas up as a guide?
And my point, again, is that Maslow has only a tangential influence on human behavior and it largely irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Additionally, the Catholic Church doesn’t force anyone to be celibate. Hell, The Church openly advocates the rhythm method. The Church prefers the celibate for the priesthood much the same way someone would prefer a significant other to be of a particular sexual orientation or other.
Lastly, I’ve held up great scientists who were celibate. Care to put up any world-renowned priests who weren’t celibate? Care to put up someone who has steeped themselves in sex/sexuality and represents a paragon of character, dedication, and drive? Should this be the prototypical ‘married priest’?;
[quote]forlife wrote:
[double post][/quote]
Uh, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are you paying attention to this thread? [/quote]
The point is that people can be interested in issues that don’t directly affect them, based on the values that they hold. Sound familiar?
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Ah, there is only one way to do it. But you cannot be ordained to the Holy Orders as married…I bet your really confused now…
So why not allow all priests to get married after they’re ordained?
What do you care if they get married or not?
Answer the question. If some are allowed, why not all?[/quote]
There is one circumstance in which it happens, but I don’t want to tell you because I am having fun…I am sure Sloth knows…
Riddle me this, there are some priests that are married, but no priest can get married. How?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Are you paying attention to this thread?
The point is that people can be interested in issues that don’t directly affect them, based on the values that they hold. Sound familiar?[/quote]
Not really.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Answer the question. If some are allowed, why not all?[/quote]
Because they choose a different set of rules on the belief that those rules are better than the others.
Why not whine at great length that Hindus should just go ahead and let its adherents eat beef? If some are allowed, why not all?
No one is harmed by application of these voluntary principles. Far from being a “live and let live” advocate, you are an insufferable busybody.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I said that doctrinal disagreements like transsubstantiation have been the cause of conflict, persecution, and bloodshed for as long as religion has been around. Pat’s statement that “we all believe in the same god” is ridiculous, because it ignores these differences and the bloody aftermath of zealots trying to force their religious perspective on others.
[/quote]
This is just bad logic. Specific church doctrine is important, yes, but ultimately is not a fundamental issue that could preclude someone from belief in the same God. Think of more common examples – Conservatives and Liberals in America have very different viewpoints on important doctrines that determine how the country is run. But (all Obama alarmists aside) does it really make sense to say that one group doesn’t believe in the underlying principle of Democracy?
Now we’re on to wars and inquisitions.
[quote]forlife wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
You seem to suggest that transsubstantiation was the catalyst and main issue that brought about the Spanish Inquistion?
I said that doctrinal disagreements like transsubstantiation have been the cause of conflict, persecution, and bloodshed for as long as religion has been around. Pat’s statement that “we all believe in the same god” is ridiculous, because it ignores these differences and the bloody aftermath of zealots trying to force their religious perspective on others.
Examples from the Spanish Inquisition:
Included under heretical propositions were verbal offenses, from outright blasphemy to questionable statements regarding religious beliefs, from issues of sexual morality, to behavior of the clergy. Many were brought to trial for affirming that simple fornication (sex without the explicit aim of procreation) was not a sin, or for doubting different aspects of Christian faith such as Transubstantiation or the virginity of Mary.[/quote]
I’m “elling oh ell”
Here, I can cut and paste, too-- and this is from your “source”:
You’ll need to study more history, but points for effort. Shouldn’t you be arguing against the abuse of power by Governments?? I bet you vote Democrat (ie. for more government intervention in our lives), no?
This is fun.
You ‘said’: [quote]They believe that the communion literally becomes the flesh and blood of Christ. Gross, but that is official church doctrine, and wars have been fought over it. [/quote]
“Wars”. I was asking which ‘wars’ (plural). The Inquisition was a monarchy’s abuse of Church doctrine at its worst. The “Inquisition” was not a war per se.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I’m “elling oh ell”[/quote]
You mean “ell oh elling”.
lulz
[quote]jonnyblaze wrote:
This is just bad logic. Specific church doctrine is important, yes, but ultimately is not a fundamental issue that could preclude someone from belief in the same God.[/quote]
You’re forgetting that many of these believers have prayed about their specific belief system, and have received confirmation from “god” that their beliefs are actually true. Take a step back and ask the bigger question:
If “god” told them something was true when in fact it wasn’t, what does that tell you about “god”?
[quote]forlife wrote:
jonnyblaze wrote:
This is just bad logic. Specific church doctrine is important, yes, but ultimately is not a fundamental issue that could preclude someone from belief in the same God.
You’re forgetting that many of these believers have prayed about their specific belief system, and have received confirmation from “god” that their beliefs are actually true. Take a step back and ask the bigger question:
If “god” told them something was true when in fact it wasn’t, what does that tell you about “god”?[/quote]
Boy, you are reaching.
Who did God lie to? What was the lie? One needs specifics if one is going call God a liar.
[quote]forlife wrote:
jonnyblaze wrote:
This is just bad logic. Specific church doctrine is important, yes, but ultimately is not a fundamental issue that could preclude someone from belief in the same God.
You’re forgetting that many of these believers have prayed about their specific belief system, and have received confirmation from “god” that their beliefs are actually true. Take a step back and ask the bigger question:
If “god” told them something was true when in fact it wasn’t, what does that tell you about “god”?[/quote]
I also have to ask when this instance happened specifically.
Here’s an example from my own religion:
I was promised that if I read the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart and real intent, that god would tell me whether or not it was true. So I read it, sincerely prayed about it, and experienced the most overwhelming spiritual confirmation that it was true. It was a very powerful, undeniable experience. God told me that Joseph Smith was a true prophet who translated the Book of Mormon through divine inspiration.
How do you explain my spiritual experience?
As a Catholic, you’ll readily dismiss my spiritual experience as the product of my own mind. What you don’t understand is that your own spiritual experiences are subject to the same scrutiny.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Here’s an example from my own religion:
I was promised that if I read the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart and real intent, that god would tell me whether or not it was true. So I read it, sincerely prayed about it, and experienced the most overwhelming spiritual confirmation that it was true. It was a very powerful, undeniable experience. God told me that Joseph Smith was a true prophet who translated the Book of Mormon through divine inspiration.
How do you explain my spiritual experience?
As a Catholic, you’ll readily dismiss my spiritual experience as the product of my own mind. What you don’t understand is that your own spiritual experiences are subject to the same scrutiny.[/quote]
You’re right, I do dismiss it. And, I know you apply the same scrutiny to mine. Hence, I’m Catholic, and you’re not.
Edit: But, seriously, you’re going all over the place in this thread. There was a running joke for a while concerning Lixy’s interjecting the Iraq war into damn near every thread. No matter how remote (even, nonexistent) the connection, it was almost a certainty he’d turn the thread into a discussion about the Iraq war. So, the joke was that when someone started a thread, about any topic, someone would reply “Iraq war!” You’re starting to remind me of this.
[quote]forlife wrote:
jonnyblaze wrote:
This is just bad logic. Specific church doctrine is important, yes, but ultimately is not a fundamental issue that could preclude someone from belief in the same God.
You’re forgetting that many of these believers have prayed about their specific belief system, and have received confirmation from “god” that their beliefs are actually true. Take a step back and ask the bigger question:
If “god” told them something was true when in fact it wasn’t, what does that tell you about “god”?[/quote]
Honestly, it tells me a lot more about people than much about God. It is people who have made false claims throughout history based on erroneous claims of God telling them something directly. And it is also people who have in good faith tried to teach truthful doctrines and gotten mixed up along the way. The Catholic Church, for its part, has made relatively few claims of infallibility in its teaching and only when the pope is specifically speaking ex cathedra.
I’d like to see some specific examples though of where God has supposedly confirmed conflicting beliefs, if in fact you can cite any?
I apply the same scrutiny to your beliefs that I apply to my own beliefs. Don’t you think it is less than honest for you not to do the same?
How can you explain my experience, and why do you think you’re immune to the same bias? You use emotionality and skewed rationality to justify your particular religious beliefs, just as I did.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Here’s an example from my own religion:
I was promised that if I read the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart and real intent, that god would tell me whether or not it was true. So I read it, sincerely prayed about it, and experienced the most overwhelming spiritual confirmation that it was true. It was a very powerful, undeniable experience. God told me that Joseph Smith was a true prophet who translated the Book of Mormon through divine inspiration.
How do you explain my spiritual experience?
As a Catholic, you’ll readily dismiss my spiritual experience as the product of my own mind. What you don’t understand is that your own spiritual experiences are subject to the same scrutiny.[/quote]
By reading the book yourself, and not having a human capable of manipulation, deceit, betrayal, and motivated by ulterior motives, you are able to bi-pass the inferiority of the middle man and connect with God directly. This is why I like to interact with God myself rather than have other people and their interpretations get in the way.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I apply the same scrutiny to your beliefs that I apply to my own beliefs. Don’t you think it is less than honest for you not to do the same?
How can you explain my experience, and why do you think you’re immune to the same bias? You use emotionality and skewed rationality to justify your particular religious beliefs, just as I did.[/quote]
I don’t try to explain your experience, that’s your task. For all I know, you made it up to make your case seem stronger.
Edit: Where did I say I was immune from the bias of others? Obviously not everyone is Christian, nor Catholic. I simply don’t care.