Quote:
Originally Posted by fretelöo
Well, yes of course, if you want to assume the position of someone who needs magisterial affirmation in letter and seal that the child will definitely go to heaven, you're probably out of luck. Then the comments apply I gave in another thread: You argue from a corner you assume/think/wish theists argue from, but they don't. In effect, you get a nice and easy argument - but you end up looking silly. Especially to theists who (I guess) you want to convince.
[snip]
Here we're basically preparing to go in full-on crazy mode again. Everyone (and I mean that quite literally) perfectly undestands what this section is referring to and attempting to exclude: Sects and Cults that keep and recruit followers through massive psychological and/or material dependency and, essentially, tax avoiding schemes.
So there's no reason to even go there if you plan to be referring to catholic infant baptism. If you look into a sunday baptism scene and can't distinguish what you're seeing from what the law is describing, you're again in a scenario where Crackhead Dave wins the rationality contest over Minister Ronald Respectable PhD theol.
Ok, I've argued that by the definition of Oppressive that I provided [
Weighing heavily on the mind or spirits, causing depression or discomfort] that the Catholic church (chosen by me because of their predominance in Ireland where the Act we're discussing was passed into law) is guilty of using 'oppressive psychological manipulation'. I used the concepts of both Original Sin/Baptism and Sin/Confession and the confidence with which the CC tells their followers that condemnation awaits those who have unabsolved sin as my examples of methods by which they've done that.
You don't agree. In fact you think I'm heading for
full-on crazy mode to compare the Catholic church and their actions to the actions of the sects and cults we all really know that Section 4 was referring to.
Ok, I guess we're done.
