OK let's imagine the Catholic church disbands. What should they do with the properties etc they own. Keep them? Sell them? Use the proceeds to help the poor?

They can't keep them, since they wouldn't exist. What happens to the holdings of any disbanded organisation?

Giving the proceeds of any sales to the poor or needy because the organization is being dissolved and it would be a shame to simply waste them is in no way comparable to using them to try to cynically buy forgiveness, if that's part of whatever point you're planning to make?

The buildings could be re-purposed or demolished (perhaps some kept for cultural and historical reasons in the same way that Greek and Roman temples have been preserved) and the materials reused, the vaults opened and the wealth distributed and the libraries opened to the public. I don't know about you but I'd very much like to see what information the protected Vatican libraries and collections contain. It's yet another issue that I have with that organisation, why they won't let people access that information? What are they hiding?


You can describe it like that but it's not that, it's also not a very impressive argument or style but you know that about yourself I'm sure. I'm quite calm and I'm simply standing back and seeing the catholic church for what it is, quite unfit for purpose, in fact it's historically been a bit of a disaster hasn't it. Not being a believer makes this much easier to see unbiased, I feel no loyalty and can judge them objectively. Buddhism, by comparison, has handled itself almost impeccably.

I've long felt that true believers don't need the trappings anyway, you can worship on your own in your front room just as meaningfully as in a gaudy, blinged up cathedral. In fact, I have more respect for that type of theist.

If you have something that you think could change my mind about the CC or would refine my view, I'd love to hear it, that's the open minded and willing to learn bit. In the meantime, what I've learned throughout my life has led me to the position I currently hold.

It depends upon how it was disbanded. You know... local laws and such. Was it bankrupt or did it simply close? Etc. Things that are obvious to anyone who takes 5 minutes to think before posting (and 5 minutes is a generous amount of time -- really, 30 seconds is plenty).

Plus, you're open minded and willing to learn and never reek of intellectual dishonesty ever.

lol. I'd better not use question marks any more then then in case you continue to believe that they mean that I don't actually have any answers and trip over your own feet in your haste to mock and deride me.



Seriously, c'mon dude....


Of course. Perhaps you could explain how the Catholic church continually gets forgiven for it's behaviour? I genuinely don't understand it. Do you think this financial act of contrition will achieve the desired result?

These two questions aren't rhetorical...

It seems apparent that you haven't forgiven the Catholic church for anything it has ever done in its history, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

But the real answer is that it's the same reason as every other institution. Do you think the US should be dissolved because of slavery? Or dropping the bomb? Or for prolonged occupational forces in other countries? What standard are you *ACTUALLY* attempting to apply here? Why does the government continue to exist? Should it?

Then you must be genuinely dense or intellectual incapable of contextualizing information.

I don't know. That's up to society at large to decide.

Once again you're betraying an education courtesy of Dan Brown books. The Vatican Library is a public library, open to anyone. It's recently started to digitize its books to give scholarship access to it w/out having to travel to Rome. See, for example here.

What you're likely referring to are the Vatican Secret Archives. Apart from the fact that they are "the central repository for all of the acts promulgated by the Holy See", i.e. documents of the church, by the church for the church, for which no "obligation" to disclosure exists (just as you're not obligated to disclose your diary), these are also not closed to the public:

One of my Church History profs was engaged in a DFG-funded project on the Vatican Index, another happy trope for the conspiratory theorists.

Get a clue.

Unfortunately the final say so isn't down to me.

Wah? If you're talking about Democracy here and the acts of individual governments, they're two separate and different things Aaron, governments are regularly dissolved because of their failures and the loss of trust that endgenders. If you want to suggest that the leadership of the Catholic church be subject to election by the public, that they be answerable for their failing (lying and corruption etc etc) by being voted out of office, I'm all for that. However, that's not what's happening is it.

The leadership of the catholic church are self appointed in the role of spiritual guidance, something that I consider them unfit to do. They have repeatedly demonstrated behaviour that would see any government voted out of office and yet people still put their trust in them.

Mmm yes, and society at large includes hundreds of millions of Catholics who apparently can forgive the Catholic church any sin and just continue to regard them as an authority that they should be subservient to and take guidance from.

I must be dense, so I'll ask you again, can you explain it to me? Will this latest monumental screw up simply be water under the bridge in a few years? Are we so easily bought off?

Heh, out of that post of, let's face it, pretty strongly worded condemnations, this is what you pick to debunk? Says it all really. And I forgot to add the attempted cover up of the widespread child abuse.

Nothing in there that you'd disagree with then?

You're a Catholic right? Whatever your personal philosophy, you identify with the catholic church. Perhaps you can tell me how it is that they are continually forgiven their (IMO unforgivable) failings?

Agree. Basically, that you don't know what you're talking about and I do. And, that I chose to debunk the stuff that's obviously wrong (as opposed to the stuff that's just tendentious and naive), as one should, if one strives for truth and further understanding. Something, if I recall, you claim to be aiming for. But I guess we all - including you - gradually come to agree that this is just something you say. Which is, basically, why you're back on ignore. It's to much of a life-wasting proposition to engage you. You've had a good run there for a time, but the recent weeks have just been one giant facepalm.jpg.

Shame, I thought you had a shot at explaining it to me. Shame also about the ignore but there's too much troll in you to keep me on ignore, I'll be seeing you again at some point.

True. But your attitude is clearly one of absolute unforgiveness. As neeel has pointed out, religion has a special place in your heart of hatred. Why?

I'm really curious how you're separating out "Democracy" (the US government) and "Acts of individual governments" (by the US government) here.

And to say that governments are "regularly" dissolved is a little bit of a stretch, in the same way that you used the word "regularly" to describe the science/religion conflict (I believe this was in the now infamous Thales of Miletus was persecuted by Christians thread).

I have no clue what you're talking about. Are the only governments that are "dissolved" the ones that are democratic? Your point of view here is very confused.

What's amazing here is how blind you are to the uneven-handedness of your analysis.

The US government is not regularly dissolved. And if you think that changing presidents is anything like that, you've as clueless about politics as you are about most of the things you post about.

If you were to take an even-handed approach, you would accuse the US government of dropping the bomb, and engaging in surveillance, and slavery, and virtually every other ill committed by the government and hold the government as a whole accountable and call for its dissolution. But you don't do that. Why not? It's because you basically hate religion, and your hatred blinds you to anything that could remotely resemble an unbiased perspective.

I think it's HILARIOUS that you try to say to yourself that as a non-believer that it's easier for you to be unbiased.

Ummmmm... yeah... how long did you spend thinking before you made this comment? Clearly, the Catholics are blind followers of the leadership:

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/...?storyid=18768

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2832598.html

Clearly, Catholics are mindless sheep who think that the Catholic church can do and is doing nothing wrong. All they do is listen and follow.

So, being dense is a matter of not being able to understand simple things. Such as straight-forward answers to your questions. It's highly ironic because the first sentence of your post here seems to affirm that you know exactly what I said.

You can lead a horse to water...

'Absolute'? I love how you criticise me for stuff like that then go right ahead and do it yourself.

'Heart of hatred', awesome hyperbole, see above.

See if you can ask the question in a more reasonable manner and I'll have a stab at answering it.

No, that much is clear and I really can't be bothered to explain something so simple to you. Governments are clearly more answerable for their actions than the Catholic leadership, I think you're being obtuse now, maybe it's a level, I dunno... go for it if it is.

These are somewhat simplistic but possibly contain a kernel of truth, can you elaborate? Why do Catholics tolerate the behaviour of the Catholic church leadership? Refer to my post listing some of the CC's failings if you need to understand what it is that would need tolerating.

Nah. Neeel has already asked it, and (unless I missed it) you didn't answer it.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...2&postcount=35

And in your reply, you just skipped over it:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=37

So I already know you aren't going to answer the question.

"Clearly" -- Good research.

http://catholicreview.org/blogs/fert...t-can-we-learn

I should note that this is the Catholic Church in America, not the global Catholic church. 30 million former Catholics in America. That's a lot of people walking away.

So... I have no idea what you're railing against.

I already asked you, twice I think , and fairly nicely. You either didnt see it, or chose not to answer. I would be interested to know why too.

I'm thinking about all the things I've said while I've been posting here on this forum and I'm a little bemused that you don't seem to know why I feel strongly about religion. Has your astounding memory for the smallest detail of my previous comments suddenly failed you? Do you really not remember the arguments?


Governments are elected, by the public, for a short defined term of office. If they lose the confidence of the voting public, they lose the next election. Are you suggesting that the hierarchy of the Catholic church are answerable for their failings in the same way? Of course not. Clearly not.


And I don't know how you can have no idea. I see an institution that historically has claimed to be the instrument of God's Grace, servants of god, that takes the role of spiritual and moral guide, but is guilty of corruption, murder, torture, child sexual abuse, lies, political manipulations, the breaking of vows, cover ups, greed and hypocrisy (there's more but I'll stick for now to the ones that I don't think you can contend) and I wonder. I wonder that the church still has any credibility at all. I wonder that anyone still identifies with such an organisation.

It literally beggars belief. What would it take to actually bring down the catholic church?

So, you're not going to answer the question.

You clearly don't have a systems-level understanding of government. And you're also focused on democratic forms of government. Once again, your viewpoint suffers from the problem of being overly selective. In order for it to work, you need to turn a blind eye to all the ways in which you're wrong.

See? You're talking about something different. You're talking about dissolution. Going back to your government analogy, it's like you're expecting that the US government should be dissolved because of its past errors.

You've also continued to demonstrate that you have no room for forgiveness of the Catholic church in particular. Yes, it is guilty of those things. But it is also responsible for huge amounts of good in the world throughout history. So an unevenhandednesss in your perspective is (unsurprisingly) causing you to have an unfairly negative view. Which brings us back to the question at the top of this post, which you haven't answered.

My answer is 'read back over all my posts', or, view all threads started by me (you know, net-negative, child abuse, indoctrination, crimes against humanity, the religious paradigm that hinders our progress etc etc etc, that you're very well aware of).

Frankly I'm bemused that you keep asking, what's it to you?

Ah I see the problem, I say 'government' and you hear 'the democratic institution of government' where what I meant was 'the party currently in power' (often referred to as 'the government') and really, for all that I may have used a misnomer it really didn't take much brain power to figure out what I meant having read what I was saying (you know, since the actual institution of government can't get voted out of office....).

Someone of your intellect should be easily capable of that tiny intuition so I think I'm just getting Aaroned again. My lack of specificity combined with your stunning levels of pedantry, a recipe for one misunderstanding after another, which kinda sums up our exchanges.

I've already pointed out many times that I believe that the good would be done, and is done, without the church. Religions seem to try to write off great amounts of the harm that they cause by claiming charitable work but against it but a) I think it's often used as a recruitment/marketing opportunity and b) the are plenty of secular societies performing good purely for the sake of it rather than 'in the name' of something or other.

I'm uncertain what it would take for me to feel any level of forgiveness for the CC, that's true, but it's because of hundreds and hundreds of years of very non-trivial mistakes and completely unacceptable behaviour. There's a limit Aaron and they reached it a long time ago IMO, which is why I keep asking, what would it take for the current followers to abandon the CC? Seriously, what depths of depravity, immorality and crime does the CC have to stoop to (that they haven't already) before you, for example, would completely disown them and also wish for their dissolution? Would the Pope himself have to turn out to be guilty of an awful crime? Oh, wait.....

You're not answering the question. Besides, most of those positions have been thoroughly vetted here and your logical standing on them is, at best, extremely tenuous, and at worst, exhibiting the highest levels of intellectual farce.

Clearly, approaching you from a logical, reasoned perspective has no influence on your beliefs, despite your claims to the contrary. This is evident to all posters, theist and atheist alike. The level of disdain you have specifically for the Catholic church is beyond reason.

So I'll ask you again in neeeel's words:

He asked nicely. If you won't answer me, why don't you answer him?

Right. And so your analogy makes no sense. Your analogy only works if you narrow your focus to a specific form of government and even further focus your perspective to treat each distinct set of elected officials as separate governments. Anyone with even the vaguest sense of politics knows that this isn't an accurate perspective of how government works.

If you were to be even-handed in your analysis, you would treat each Pope as a distinct leader, so that every time there's a new Pope, you'd start over. But that's not what you're doing. So you're once again staring down a failed analogy.

You believe that. But you believe a lot of things. I care less and less about what you believe since your beliefs explores the depths of ignorance and insanity. I care more and more about what you're able to demonstrate using reason. You can assert whatever you want. But if it just comes down to you repeating to yourself "I believe that..." then I don't see any reason why I should see your perspective as persuasive.

As I've said:

And you were mad at me when I said that the first time. Why not own up to your unforgiveness in the first place if that's how you really feel? Also, it's very hard to comprehend how you can feel such levels of unforgiveness for things that happened hundreds of years before your birth. Why do these things touch you so personally that you can't forgive something that's centuries in the past?

I've already shown you that the current generation of American Catholics have abandoned the Catholic church in large numbers. Proportionally, that would be something like 100 million Americans leaving the country over any of the large number of failures of the US government over the years (which, I should add, are even more expansive than those you could list for the Catholic church as the government touches far more corners of American society). So I have no idea what you're complaining about.

Ummmm... I don't own the Catholic church in the first place. I don't wish for their dissolution any more than I wish for the dissolution of the US government, despite the various problems and that they have. Similarly, I don't wish for the dissolution of banks which have caused huge economic turmoil and whose leaders have not been properly prosecuted for their crimes.

Your call for dissolution sounds more like vengeance than justice.

the catholic church doesn't need to dissolve...all the child molesters and their enablers should just do the right thing and kill themselves, and the rest will work its self out.

Can you see your own pedantry when it's happening? I'm just curious.

This conversation isn't going anywhere. Time to move on.

FYP

Answer the question.

Don't really, that was just ironic humour.

No really. Answer the questions that have been asked.

If you're going to grab a tongue-in-cheek comment and say "LOOK YOU PEDANT!" and use that as your backdoor to avoid confronting your intellectual problems, you're really desperate for an exit because I think it means you can see how badly your position holds up, but you're afraid to admit it.

Ah ha ha! Almost word for word the post I suspected was coming at some point. That's really funny.