Cartoon tribute to Pope John Paul

Originally posted by rwingett
There are many good religious people. But as Catholicism is an inherently vile doctrine, the people who set its tenets and propogate its spread are doing a great disservice to humanity. But I never said the Pope was an evil guy. I merely said he wasn't nearly as good as so many people want to pretend he was.

I never claimed you (or twitehead) said he was "evil" -- I'm merely pointing out that no devoutly religious person (or perhaps it's just Catholicis -- adherents of "an inherently vile doctrine" ) can be a "good" person in your book.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I never claimed you (or twitehead) said he was "evil" -- I'm merely pointing out that no devoutly religious person (or perhaps it's just Catholicis -- adherents of "an inherently vile doctrine" ) can be a "good" person in your book.

They can be good, of course. But that is in spite of their religion and not because of it. There are many good people in the world. Some are religious and some are not. Their goodness is not in any way dependant upon their religiosity.

Traditionally, Catholicism has been my favorite whipping boy. Although its been supplanted by the rise of the evangelicals in recent years. Islam would rank third in the 'axis of evil.'

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm merely pointing out that no devoutly religious person (or perhaps it's just Catholicis -- adherents of "an inherently vile doctrine" ) can be a "good" person in your book.

What's so unusual about that? According to Christianity, no person at all can be good, due to original sin, and hence the need for Christ.

Originally posted by rwingett
They can be good, of course. But that is in spite of their religion and not because of it. ... Traditionally, Catholicism has been my favorite whipping boy...

But if they are faithful, orthodox Catholics then they support and help spread this "inherently vile doctrine" -- so no matter what else they do, they cannot be considered "good".

After all, you wouldn't consider a Nazi-sympathiser who funds the Nazi (or a neo-Nazi) party "good" simply because he recycles, would you?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What's so unusual about that? According to Christianity, no person at all can be good, due to original sin, and hence the need for Christ.

That's Calvinist Christianity you're thinking about, not Catholic Christianity.

EDIT: Besides, you're equivocating between "good" in the sense that it is being used in this discussion (by Rob, twitehead and myself) and the sense that is particular to Christian soteriology.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Besides, you're equivocating between "good" in the sense that it is being used in this discussion (by Rob, twitehead and myself) and the sense that is particular to Christian soteriology.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Christian soteriology started it by usurping the common term to give it a twisted meaning.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Christian soteriology started it by usurping the common term to give it a twisted meaning.

Rubbish. Every field of specialised study uses terms that are used in common parlance in a domain-specific technical sense.

Next you'll be telling me Statistics "usurped" common terms like 'average' and 'variance' to give them a "twisted" meaning.

EDIT: Or mathematics with 'groups' and 'rings'. Or computer science with 'programs'. Or physics with 'field'. Or chemistry with 'reaction'.

Do you want me to go on?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But if they are faithful, orthodox Catholics then they support and help spread this "inherently vile doctrine" -- so no matter what else they do, they cannot be considered "good".

There's a difference between observing a doctrine and actively spreading it (like the plague). I have a certain amount of respect for the Amish in this regard, not because their doctrine is any better than anyone else's (it's not), but because they don't go shoving it down anyone else's throat. If the various christian sects were not evangelical religions, and if they did not proselytize, then I wouldn't care what they did with themselves. If someone, in their religious zeal, just went about their business doing good works, then they'd be deserving a pat on the back every now and then. But when they turn their attention toward converting people, then they're no longer doing good. It's an inverse relationship - the more proselytizing they do, then the less good they do.

There's a difference between words and deeds. So even though Catholic doctrine may call on people to 'spread the word', not everyone does. The degree to which they refrain from doing so is the degree to which their own 'goodness' will not be inhibited by their religion.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


Do you want me to go on?

Please do. You're just making yourself look foolish.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Please do. You're just making yourself look foolish.

*And the good Doctor scurries off when he actually has to make an argument.*

No wonder you had to call yourself 'Debating Champion' (or whatever else it was you called yourself in the thread on bbarr's absence).

Originally posted by lucifershammer


No wonder you had to call yourself 'Debating Champion' (or whatever else it was you called yourself in the thread on bbarr's absence).

I was thus voted by a jury of five of the most intellectually capable people on the site.

Originally posted by rwingett
There's a difference between observing a doctrine and actively spreading it (like the plague). I have a certain amount of respect for the Amish in this regard, not because their doctrine is any better than anyone else's (it's not), but because they don't go shoving it down anyone else's throat. If the various christian sects were not evangelical religions, ...[text shortened]... the degree to which their own 'goodness' will not be inhibited by their religion.

A faithful Catholic, by definition, "spreads the word". He may not get a megaphone and preach at the local park, but even his actions at work would be oriented towards leading others to (the Christian) God. If, in the right context, he speaks openly about his faith and encourages other people to see and "taste" for themselves, then he is evangelising.

You can preach just as effectively (if not more) with your deeds as with your words.

"Preach the Gospel always; if necessary, use words." -- St. Francis of Assissi

Originally posted by rwingett
There's a difference between observing a doctrine and actively spreading it (like the plague). I have a certain amount of respect for the Amish in this regard, not because their doctrine is any better than anyone else's (it's not), but because they don't go shoving it down anyone else's throat. If the various christian sects were not evangelical religions, the degree to which their own 'goodness' will not be inhibited by their religion.

I'm not sure Catholic doctrine "calls on people to 'spread the word'", though it would be expected that a Pope would.

EDIT: I took Rob to be saying that individual lay Catholics had some obligation under RCC doctrine to evangelize by word.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I was thus voted by a jury of five of the most intellectually capable people on the site.

😠

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I was thus voted by a jury of five of the most intellectually capable people on the site.

*It would seem I have ruffled the 'Debating Champion's' heavily preened feathers.*

Well, someone had to be a winner in that 'debate' (though it barely deserves that term).

EDIT: Even with all the third-grade insults, no1 actually debates (i.e. makes an argument based on evidence and rebuts an opponents arguments) to a far greater extent than you do.