Catholics vs. Hitler [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Peter666

01-29-2007, 10:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate this forum, the reason of why catholics arent at the same level as Hitler its obvisouly because catholics have also done good stuff, and somehow someway we have a debate about who was worse hitler or the church during the inquisition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I grant you the catholic church has done both good things and bad things.

Now what exactly was the catholic church's excuse for all the bad things?

P.S. Hitler was a catholic his whole life and his anti-semitism came from the church.

[/ QUOTE ]

The stupidity and ignorance in this thread is astounding. Hitler was an apostate and murdered influential Catholics while assuming power (eg. Englebert Dolfuss, Dr. Erich Klausner).

Incidentally, this is what a pretty smart agnostic Jew had to say about the Church in Nazi Germany:

“[As a]lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly”

Albert Einstein, Time Magazine December 1940.

hashi92

01-29-2007, 11:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The OP question is "they did the same bad thing, why dont they have the same reputation" my answer is " even thought they did the same bad thing, catholics have also done good things." [/quote

So if hitler started a charity after he rid the world of jews it would be alright. he would no longer be the most evil man in the world.

valenzuela

01-29-2007, 11:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So if hitler started a charity after he rid the world of jews it would be alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

no it wouldnt, I never posted that the inquisition was alright because the church did good stuff afterwards.

[ QUOTE ]
he would no longer be the most evil man in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the charity was as big as the catholic church of course he wouldnt be the most evil man in the world.

hashi92

01-29-2007, 11:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if hitler started a charity after he rid the world of jews it would be alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

no it wouldnt, I never posted that the inquisition was alright because the church did good stuff afterwards.

[ QUOTE ]
he would no longer be the most evil man in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the charity was as big as the catholic church of course he wouldnt be the most evil man in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the lives of millions mean nothing as long as good eventually comes from it.

valenzuela

01-29-2007, 11:51 PM

The fact that I say that Hitler wouldnt be as bad if he had created a good charity does not imply that the lives of millions mean nothing as long as good eventually comes from it.

hashi92

01-29-2007, 11:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I say that Hitler wouldnt be as bad if he had created a good charity does not imply that the lives of millions mean nothing as long as good eventually comes from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you have no ill will towards the church for killing thousands of innocent people. Your basically saying if someone brutally raped and killed your mom and than dedicated his whole life to doing good you would forgive him and put him on a pedastal for all to worship.

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 12:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So you have no ill will towards the church for killing thousands of innocent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say such thing?

[ QUOTE ]
Your basically saying if someone brutally raped and killed your mom and than dedicated his whole life to doing good you would forgive him and put him on a pedastal for all to worship.

[/ QUOTE ]

This part of youre post is just weak.
First mistake you are playing the emotion card. You are comparing a situation in which an unknown was harmed and an unknown was helped to a situation in which my mom was harmed and an unknow was helped. Im sure you would have good feelings toward someone who brutally killed someone and then saved youre mothers life.
The other mistake in youre post is somehow assuming that not being as bad as hitler means that we have to put in on a pedestal for all of us to worship.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 12:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you have no ill will towards the church for killing thousands of innocent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say such thing?

you seem to be defending the church which leads me to believe this.

[ QUOTE ]
Your basically saying if someone brutally raped and killed your mom and than dedicated his whole life to doing good you would forgive him and put him on a pedastal for all to worship.

[/ QUOTE ]

p

eople do worship and put the church on a pedestal. they did murder thousands of people didnt they

This part of youre post is just weak.
First mistake you are playing the emotion card. You are comparing a situation in which an unknown was harmed and an unknown was helped to a situation in which my mom was harmed and an unknow was helped. Im sure you would have good feelings toward someone who brutally killed someone and then saved youre mothers life.
The other mistake in youre post is somehow assuming that not being as bad as hitler means that we have to put in on a pedestal for all of us to worship.

[/ QUOTE ]

A life is a life i just used your mom to prove a point. A murder is a murder it shouldnt matter if you know the person or not. If your saying it only matters when emotions are in affect than you are a hypocrit. I would be thankful for a murderer saving someone i new but i wouldnt put them on a pedestal.

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 12:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you seem to be defending the church which leads me to believe this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Im not defending the church, Im just saying the church aint as bad as hitler. Bush isnt as bad as Hitler but that doesnt mean I think Bush is good or anything.

[ QUOTE ]
A murder is a murder it shouldnt matter if you know the person or not

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it should.
If Joe murders a random person I will be pissed at Joe for about 30 seconds, if Joe murders my sister Im going to hate him all my life.

[ QUOTE ]
If your saying it only matters when emotions are in affect than you are a hypocrit

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Plus Im saying it should matter less if its someone I dont know not that it shouldnt matter at all.

[ QUOTE ]
I would be thankful for a murderer saving someone i new but i wouldnt put them on a pedestal.

[/ QUOTE ]

thankful = good feelings.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 12:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you seem to be defending the church which leads me to believe this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Im not defending the church, Im just saying the church aint as bad as hitler. Bush isnt as bad as Hitler but that doesnt mean I think Bush is good or anything.

[ QUOTE ]
A murder is a murder it shouldnt matter if you know the person or not

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it should.
If Joe murders a random person I will be pissed at Joe for about 30 seconds, if Joe murders my sister Im going to hate him all my life.

[ QUOTE ]
If your saying it only matters when emotions are in affect than you are a hypocrit

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Plus Im saying it should matter less if its someone I dont know not that it shouldnt matter at all.

[ QUOTE ]
I would be thankful for a murderer saving someone i new but i wouldnt put them on a pedestal.

[/ QUOTE ]

thankful = good feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the church was never painted as the bad guy. It was just oops they interpreted the bible wrong hee heee .

hashi92

01-30-2007, 12:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The OP question is "they did the same bad thing, why dont they have the same reputation" my answer is " even thought they did the same bad thing, catholics have also done good things."

[/ QUOTE ]

Just becuase they did goog things doesnt make their crimes any better than what the nazis did. both brutally murdered and killed for their own ideals.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 12:45 AM

Im sure if hitler succeeded in his plan the text books of today would paint a different picture of him. he would be the hero of the arian race and all the killings he did would be for the greater good.

T_Money

01-30-2007, 12:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Im sure if hitler succeeded in his plan the text books of today would paint a different picture of him. he would be the hero of the arian race and all the killings he did would be for the greater good.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I missed the part where the textbooks of today pain the inquisition as being for the greater good. Listen man, this whole thread sounds like the whining of some 14 year old who is mad that his mom makes him go to church. Why do you think some of the very intelligent "religion haters" arent in here defending you? It's because this is stupid.

Curtrosity

01-30-2007, 12:52 AM

Catholics vs Hitler...

Catholics are still a plague on this earth and Hitler isn't.

Holla!

IronUnkind

01-30-2007, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think some of the very intelligent "religion haters" arent in here defending you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Too busy comparing religion and rape?

thylacine

01-30-2007, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate this forum, the reason of why catholics arent at the same level as Hitler its obvisouly because catholics have also done good stuff, and somehow someway we have a debate about who was worse hitler or the church during the inquisition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I grant you the catholic church has done both good things and bad things.

Now what exactly was the catholic church's excuse for all the bad things?

P.S. Hitler was a catholic his whole life and his anti-semitism came from the church.

[/ QUOTE ]

The stupidity and ignorance in this thread is astounding. Hitler was an apostate and murdered influential Catholics while assuming power (eg. Englebert Dolfuss, Dr. Erich Klausner).

Incidentally, this is what a pretty smart agnostic Jew had to say about the Church in Nazi Germany:

“[As a]lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly”

Albert Einstein, Time Magazine December 1940.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler was a catholic his whole life and his anti-semitism came from the church. There is overwhelming evidence for this. Nothing good can come from the coverup and denial by the church and its followers. Your response is the classic response of a person who refuses to come to terms with the extreme evil that is at the very core of religion, with the inquisition and the holocaust being just two of many examples.

T_Money

01-30-2007, 01:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Hitler was a catholic his whole life and his anti-semitism came from the church. There is overwhelming evidence for this. Nothing good can come from the coverup and denial by the church and its followers. Your response is the classic response of a person who refuses to come to terms with the extreme evil that is at the very core of religion, with the inquisition and the holocaust being just two of many examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

First and foremost, evil is at the core of men, not christianity. Yes, the catholic church has a dark history. Do you want a cookie for figuring that out? So does America. Next, you do realize that some theories of the evolution of the human are based that races evolved seperate of each other and therefore some races are superior to others, right? Is this bigotry and racism, so does that mean that the evolution is evil?

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 01:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP question is "they did the same bad thing, why dont they have the same reputation" my answer is " even thought they did the same bad thing, catholics have also done good things."

[/ QUOTE ]

Just becuase they did goog things doesnt make their crimes any better than what the nazis did. both brutally murdered and killed for their own ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

we are now officially discussing in circles.

OK we have person A and person B.
Person A does an horrible thing.
Person B does and horrible thing but also does a good thing afterwards.
Person A is a bad person
Person B is also a bad person but not as bad as person A
Please tell me you got it.
Btw im conceding a lot of points just for the sake of the debate( im conceding that the church is a bad insitution, im comparing an insitution that have changed the people that run them to a person, im also ignoring that the insititutions made the harm hundreds of years ago)

arahant

01-30-2007, 05:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP question is "they did the same bad thing, why dont they have the same reputation" my answer is " even thought they did the same bad thing, catholics have also done good things."

[/ QUOTE ]

Just becuase they did goog things doesnt make their crimes any better than what the nazis did. both brutally murdered and killed for their own ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

we are now officially discussing in circles.

OK we have person A and person B.
Person A does an horrible thing.
Person B does and horrible thing but also does a good thing afterwards.
Person A is a bad person
Person B is also a bad person but not as bad as person A
Please tell me you got it.
Btw im conceding a lot of points just for the sake of the debate( im conceding that the church is a bad insitution, im comparing an insitution that have changed the people that run them to a person, im also ignoring that the insititutions made the harm hundreds of years ago)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, but you're completely ignoring the possibility that the Nazis were better than the Catholic Church.

I look at it more like:
Both the church and and the Nazis killed Jews.
The church was complicit in genocide during the holocaust, but probably killed some Jews outside that period, too.
To the best of my knowledge Nazis didn't molest children.
Nazis are gone, but the Pope is still spouting [censored], and is arguably responsible for a great deal of AIDs deaths in Africa, generations of ignorance, misogynistic behavior, the spread of the genes of less intelligent catholics, and frankly, the latest pope is a bit of a prick.

Hitler, on the other hand, pulled America out of the great depression, gave us a sense of honor, advanced nuclear science and aerodynamics, and gave us the greatest rhetorical device of all time ("yeah, that's what the NAZIS would say!!").

Frankly, I don't see how it's even close.

IronUnkind

01-30-2007, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler was a catholic his whole life and his anti-semitism came from the church. There is overwhelming evidence for this. Nothing good can come from the coverup and denial by the church and its followers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler remained a nominal catholic, but his religious beliefs are a matter of controversy, as there is also overwhelming evidence that he despised much of Christianity. You are also misrepresenting the evidence with respect to the source of his anti-semitism. Read Daniel Gasman.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 02:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im sure if hitler succeeded in his plan the text books of today would paint a different picture of him. he would be the hero of the arian race and all the killings he did would be for the greater good.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I missed the part where the textbooks of today pain the inquisition as being for the greater good. Listen man, this whole thread sounds like the whining of some 14 year old who is mad that his mom makes him go to church. Why do you think some of the very intelligent "religion haters" arent in here defending you? It's because this is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Text books dont demonize the inquistion. The people who were involved were exonerated because they were doing the will of God.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 02:26 PM

hashi92

01-30-2007, 02:36 PM

T_Money

01-30-2007, 02:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

my point is how do you know A would not have done the same good deeds as B. A failed and commited suicide therefore you can only guess what would have happened. But know power can continue to be evil without an external force rising up to stop it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy [censored]. The church isn't a person, it's an institution. Many colleges segregated black and white, and then the policy changed because they realized it was racist. Does this mean that all colleges who had segregation are still racist. Not to mention the fact that not a single person who was involved in carrying out the evils of the inquisition are still participating in the church.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

my point is how do you know A would not have done the same good deeds as B. A failed and commited suicide therefore you can only guess what would have happened. But know power can continue to be evil without an external force rising up to stop it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy [censored]. The church isn't a person, it's an institution. Many colleges segregated black and white, and then the policy changed because they realized it was racist. Does this mean that all colleges who had segregation are still racist. Not to mention the fact that not a single person who was involved in carrying out the evils of the inquisition are still participating in the church.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because colleges are not segregated anymore doesnt mean that some of them are not racially biased.

vhawk01

01-30-2007, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
basically hitler was trying to do the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conversion was not an option in Auschwitz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor during the Inquisition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you have stretched this thing enough. The Inquisition was quite unlike Auschwitz, and Hitler's regime was far more monstrous than Savonarola's. It's not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

By numbers? Otherwise, I don't see how you can say this.

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP question is "they did the same bad thing, why dont they have the same reputation" my answer is " even thought they did the same bad thing, catholics have also done good things."

[/ QUOTE ]

Just becuase they did goog things doesnt make their crimes any better than what the nazis did. both brutally murdered and killed for their own ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

we are now officially discussing in circles.

OK we have person A and person B.
Person A does an horrible thing.
Person B does and horrible thing but also does a good thing afterwards.
Person A is a bad person
Person B is also a bad person but not as bad as person A
Please tell me you got it.
Btw im conceding a lot of points just for the sake of the debate( im conceding that the church is a bad insitution, im comparing an insitution that have changed the people that run them to a person, im also ignoring that the insititutions made the harm hundreds of years ago)

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay how about if Charles Manson became a teacher. Would you feel good about him teaching your kids. How about if he became an ordained priest. What if he realized all of his crimes were a mistake and he wanted to dedicate his life to doing good. Would you feel comfortable with him preaching at your church.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im an atheist.

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the Pope is still spouting [censored], and is arguably responsible for a great deal of AIDs deaths in Africa

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain how this is so.

[ QUOTE ]
generations of ignorance

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to a jesuit high school. My two sister are studying on a catholic university( which happens to be the best in Chile along with the state university)

[ QUOTE ]
misogynistic behavior

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also blame this on Aristoteles.... But anyway what have you done to stop the misognystic behaviour.

[ QUOTE ]
the spread of the genes of less intelligent catholics

[/ QUOTE ]

this part of youre post is just scary.

ps: I may or may not have been leveled.

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 03:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
my point is how do you know A would not have done the same good deeds as B

[/ QUOTE ]

He didnt because he chose to commit suicide.

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 03:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im sure if hitler succeeded in his plan the text books of today would paint a different picture of him. he would be the hero of the arian race and all the killings he did would be for the greater good.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I missed the part where the textbooks of today pain the inquisition as being for the greater good. Listen man, this whole thread sounds like the whining of some 14 year old who is mad that his mom makes him go to church. Why do you think some of the very intelligent "religion haters" arent in here defending you? It's because this is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Text books dont demonize the inquistion. The people who were involved were exonerated because they were doing the will of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your text books suck. Everyone accepts the inquisition was really, really bad

Stu Pidasso

01-30-2007, 03:38 PM

thylacine

01-30-2007, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

First and foremost, evil is at the core of men, not christianity. ..........

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is a dangerous belief. It is important to realise that religion itself intrinsically has an evil content.

kurto

01-30-2007, 03:50 PM

I'm anti-religion but I have to step in here. I have to agree that I've never seen anyone frame the Inquisition as anything except an atrocity.

luckyme

01-30-2007, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The catoholic church would not exist today if it werent for its violent past. The crusades and witch hunts. In medival times the catholic church basically killed everyone who would not convert. So why is the catholic church so highly regarded now. why dont they have the same evil reputation that hitler does. basically hitler was trying to do the same thing. if he was sucessful maybe he would have created a religon that is as highly regarded as the catholic church. I do not condone in any way what hitler did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Hashi

Everything you have said is wrong. I'd like to see you back up one claim.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably need to more specific. Here's some of his claims which you claim are all wrong.
1) there is a catholic church today.
2)It had a violent past.
3) there were crusades.
4) there were witch hunts
5) medieval 'convert or be killed' was the base position.
6) the catholic church is highly regarded today
7) hitler was trying to impose his beliefs by force.
8) he doesn't condone what hitler did.
9) hitler may have started a religion.

All are wrong? There are some overstated, but some are right. 6 is questionable, for example.

luckyme

kurto

01-30-2007, 03:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

First and foremost, evil is at the core of men, not christianity. ..........

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is a dangerous belief. It is important to realise that religion itself intrinsically has an evil content.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agree with this. (Though I hate the term 'evil') Religion can certainly be an expression of what we're calling 'evil.'

If a religion preaches that one must kill non-believers to save your soul... how could one follow that religion without doing works that an outsider would deem 'evil?'

When a believer acts violently towards others because they beleive with all their heart what their religion commands them, and they believe they are acting MORALLY within the confines of their religion -- is that 'man' evil at its core?

If a Christian Scientist watches their kid die because their religion says medicine is wrong... are they evil? Are they foolish? Is there no blame for the teachings of their religion?

If someone believes a person of another religion is following a Satan like figure and they represent a danger to the immortal soul of their family and kill them... are they evil in their heart for following the tenants of their faith?

hashi92

01-30-2007, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im sure if hitler succeeded in his plan the text books of today would paint a different picture of him. he would be the hero of the arian race and all the killings he did would be for the greater good.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I missed the part where the textbooks of today pain the inquisition as being for the greater good. Listen man, this whole thread sounds like the whining of some 14 year old who is mad that his mom makes him go to church. Why do you think some of the very intelligent "religion haters" arent in here defending you? It's because this is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Text books dont demonize the inquistion. The people who were involved were exonerated because they were doing the will of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your text books suck. Everyone accepts the inquisition was really, really bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Text books basically say what happened in the inquisition you are making the interpretation that it is bad. an example of text books painting a bad picture is when they say pearl harbor was a day of infamy.

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The catoholic church would not exist today if it werent for its violent past. The crusades and witch hunts. In medival times the catholic church basically killed everyone who would not convert. So why is the catholic church so highly regarded now. why dont they have the same evil reputation that hitler does. basically hitler was trying to do the same thing. if he was sucessful maybe he would have created a religon that is as highly regarded as the catholic church. I do not condone in any way what hitler did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Hashi

Everything you have said is wrong. I'd like to see you back up one claim.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably need to more specific. Here's some of his claims which you claim are all wrong.
1) there is a catholic church today.
2)It had a violent past.
3) there were crusades.
4) there were witch hunts
5) medieval 'convert or be killed' was the base position.
6) the catholic church is highly regarded today
7) hitler was trying to impose his beliefs by force.
8) he doesn't condone what hitler did.
9) hitler may have started a religion.

All are wrong? There are some overstated, but some are right. 6 is questionable, for example.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP said that the church would not exist today if it hadnt been for its violent past, witch hunts and crusades.
He said 1 is a result of 2,3 & 4. The OP has a causality effect between the 4 facts, while in youre post you just list the 4 facts as independent.

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im sure if hitler succeeded in his plan the text books of today would paint a different picture of him. he would be the hero of the arian race and all the killings he did would be for the greater good.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I missed the part where the textbooks of today pain the inquisition as being for the greater good. Listen man, this whole thread sounds like the whining of some 14 year old who is mad that his mom makes him go to church. Why do you think some of the very intelligent "religion haters" arent in here defending you? It's because this is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Text books dont demonize the inquistion. The people who were involved were exonerated because they were doing the will of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your text books suck. Everyone accepts the inquisition was really, really bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Text books basically say what happened in the inquisition you are making the interpretation that it is bad. an example of text books painting a bad picture is when they say pearl harbor was a day of infamy.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're 14, right?

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 04:05 PM

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 04:11 PM

OP should read this article (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dalin.html) by Rabbi David Dalin about Pope Pius XII.

OP should also realize that no one from the Inquistion days is still alive in the Catholic Church and that no one praises those actions.

Brenner Hayes

01-30-2007, 04:20 PM

Valenzuela,

The Pope is directly responsible for possibly millions of AIDS deaths in Africa. For many Africans, there is no other education that they get on birth control and sexually transmitted disease control than what they are taught by Catholic leaders. When they say it is a sin to wear a condom, guess what? The Africans don't wear a condom. (Same goes for many people in other countries even if they get some secular education to balance out the Catholic immorality) I hope I don't have to go on any further and explain the cause and effect relationship between not wearing condoms and AIDS, do I? (By the way, I can almost guarantee you that the Catholic Church will finally come around at some point and allow condoms in order to spare more AIDS victims. Unfortunately, it will be millions and millions of dead people too late. Just like they always eventually come around on scientific matters after they've thwarted desperately needed progress for years, decades, or centuries.)

And how about their opposition to stem cell research? They are one of the most politically influential organizations in the world. The Pope giving stem cell research a thumbs up or thumbs down could literally speed up or slow down progress toward a breakthrough by a matter of months, years, or maybe even decades. Even if it was just months, that could potentially add up to millions of lives over the world that could otherwise be saved. Just about every good thing the Catholic Church does could easily be done without them. For most of the bad stuff, like being anti-condom in an AIDS infected country, you probably need something that defies all scientific logic like religion.

Plus there is no way that any organization in America could have ever covered up such a widespread epidemic of child molestation in America except if it had the political and societal insulation that religion has masterfully persuaded everyone that it should get. Imagine if Wal-Mart had molested thousands of kids. How long do you think that would have been tolerated?

The great thing about Hitler is that at least he's dead now and can't continue killing any more people.

Stu Pidasso

01-30-2007, 04:21 PM

These are the claims I was referring too

[ QUOTE ]
The catoholic church would not exist today if it werent for its violent past.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In medival times the catholic church basically killed everyone who would not convert.

[/ QUOTE ]

and to paraphrase...The Catholic Church and Hitler have/had the same goals.

Stu

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 04:33 PM

Brenner,

If the catholic church wasnt in Africa would AIDS slow down?? Because one thing is the church not helping and another thing is harming. The church is simply not helping, I would like some studies that show that the church is responsible for the AIDS expansion( instead of simply not stoping it).

Also,it sounds like you want the church to simply agree with everything you think its correct. Stem cell research is at least debatable.

I concede that the kid molestation is awful, but however you are completely missing the good stuff the church does.
I see the good stuff the church does in my country and if you want I can write a HUGE post about it.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OP should read this article (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dalin.html) by Rabbi David Dalin about Pope Pius XII.

OP should also realize that no one from the Inquistion days is still alive in the Catholic Church and that no one praises those actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The church tortured and killed thousands of people why is it they are not villanized like hitler. There are former nazis out there who have been hunted down even though they are living moral and productive lives. They werent forgiven for their past.

kurto

01-30-2007, 05:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Brenner,

If the catholic church wasnt in Africa would AIDS slow down?? Because one thing is the church not helping and another thing is harming. The church is simply not helping, I would like some studies that show that the church is responsible for the AIDS expansion( instead of simply not stoping it).

Also,it sounds like you want the church to simply agree with everything you think its correct. Stem cell research is at least debatable.

I concede that the kid molestation is awful, but however you are completely missing the good stuff the church does.
I see the good stuff the church does in my country and if you want I can write a HUGE post about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

One might argue that the church is obstructing help. Teaching Africans not to use birth control which would likely help things would seem to be a modern 'evil' (if you will.)

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP should read this article (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dalin.html) by Rabbi David Dalin about Pope Pius XII.

OP should also realize that no one from the Inquistion days is still alive in the Catholic Church and that no one praises those actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The church tortured and killed thousands of people why is it they are not villanized like hitler. There are former nazis out there who have been hunted down even though they are living moral and productive lives. They werent forgiven for their past.

[/ QUOTE ]
"The Church" didn't kill anyone. People who belonged to the Catholic church killed people. Nazis who have been sought after are real people, not abstractions. Do you understand the difference?

hashi92

01-30-2007, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP should read this article (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dalin.html) by Rabbi David Dalin about Pope Pius XII.

OP should also realize that no one from the Inquistion days is still alive in the Catholic Church and that no one praises those actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The church tortured and killed thousands of people why is it they are not villanized like hitler. There are former nazis out there who have been hunted down even though they are living moral and productive lives. They werent forgiven for their past.

[/ QUOTE ]
"The Church" didn't kill anyone. People who belonged to the Catholic church killed people. Nazis who have been sought after are real people, not abstractions. Do you understand the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see dont see anything in texts codmening the popes who gave to orders to do these things.

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brenner,

If the catholic church wasnt in Africa would AIDS slow down?? Because one thing is the church not helping and another thing is harming. The church is simply not helping, I would like some studies that show that the church is responsible for the AIDS expansion( instead of simply not stoping it).

Also,it sounds like you want the church to simply agree with everything you think its correct. Stem cell research is at least debatable.

I concede that the kid molestation is awful, but however you are completely missing the good stuff the church does.
I see the good stuff the church does in my country and if you want I can write a HUGE post about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

One might argue that the church is obstructing help. Teaching Africans not to use birth control which would likely help things would seem to be a modern 'evil' (if you will.)

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just "don't use birth control". If you pick and choose what advice you'll follow, bad things might happen. If those who are being taught not to use birth control also ignore the "don't have pre-marital sex" part, is that really the Catholic Church's fault?

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP should read this article (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dalin.html) by Rabbi David Dalin about Pope Pius XII.

OP should also realize that no one from the Inquistion days is still alive in the Catholic Church and that no one praises those actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The church tortured and killed thousands of people why is it they are not villanized like hitler. There are former nazis out there who have been hunted down even though they are living moral and productive lives. They werent forgiven for their past.

[/ QUOTE ]
"The Church" didn't kill anyone. People who belonged to the Catholic church killed people. Nazis who have been sought after are real people, not abstractions. Do you understand the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see dont see anything in texts codmening the popes who gave to orders to do these things.

[/ QUOTE ]
It helps if you actually read textbooks.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 05:20 PM

The basic premise of my post is

the church did terrible things. I think the torturing and killing by the church was worse than what hitler did. It may have been numerically less but it was worst.

Why isnt the catholic church demonized like hitler.

If you say because they do so much good now. Thats fine.
Than there should be no death penalty or life sentences for inmates who are trully sorry and want to devote there life to good.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 05:22 PM

your basically saying everyone deserves a second chance. which could lead to charles manson teaching your kids history.

kurto

01-30-2007, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's not just "don't use birth control". If you pick and choose what advice you'll follow, bad things might happen. If those who are being taught not to use birth control also ignore the "don't have pre-marital sex" part, is that really the Catholic Church's fault?

[/ QUOTE ]

But 'not having pre-marital' sex (1) is unrealistic and against human nature (2) doesn't help if they don't listen to that part.... let's say a man cheats on his wife. He has an affair, doesn't use a condom because he hasn't been taught about them and realize he could protect himself... and he now spreads AIDS to his wife (I use this example since I recall a story where this was actually happening)...

Imagine now that the Church taught abstinance as "plan A" AND to use birth control if you don't follow "plan A."

How REVOLUTIONARY. How REALISTIC. Think of the potential lives saved!

hashi92

01-30-2007, 05:26 PM

If hitler was alive and did things similar to what the church is doing now would you be able to forive him of his crimes.

dknightx

01-30-2007, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise of my post is

the church did terrible things. I think the torturing and killing by the church was worse than what hitler did. It may have been numerically less but it was worst.

Why isnt the catholic church demonized like hitler.

If you say because they do so much good now. Thats fine.
Than there should be no death penalty or life sentences for inmates who are trully sorry and want to devote there life to good.

[/ QUOTE ]

the church can't kill anyone.

Brenner Hayes

01-30-2007, 05:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the catholic church wasnt in Africa would AIDS slow down?? Because one thing is the church not helping and another thing is harming. The church is simply not helping

[/ QUOTE ] Telling someone with AIDS or at risk for AIDS to not wear a condom is like telling doctors to stop giving children the vaccines for Small Pox and Polio. Not helping is hurting!

[ QUOTE ]
Stem cell research is at least debatable.

[/ QUOTE ] This I gotta hear. Imagine that I'm driving a trash truck and I've just picked up a batch of in vitro discards from a fertility clinic. I'm on my way to a dumpsite and some scientists flag down my truck. They ask me if they can tinker around with my trash a little, look at stuff under microscopes, they even promise not to clone any of the embryos. They say this could potentially save or improve billions of lives. Now please give me a debatable argument as to why I should refuse that is not a complete stretch and is without the poison of religion informing your debate.

[ QUOTE ]
you are completely missing the good stuff the church does

[/ QUOTE ] I admitted that they do good stuff. I just believe that you could do all the good stuff without the bad stuff that stems from bogus messages sent from an imaginary superdaddy. How about if the Catholic Church said that starting tomorrow they were just going to be an outfit that organizes good deeds. They'll meet every Sunday for 15 minutes of Oprah style inspirational messages and then spend the rest of the hour or more building homes for the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, cleaning up the community, visiting the lonely, caring for the sick, donating blood, etc. We could even sing campfire type songs as we work. Everyone would bond, help others, and feel good. Plus, any group leaders who can't keep their zippers zipped get kicked out of the club immediately. The way I see it this would provide much better results. No god required. Hell, I'd even sign up and join you arm in arm every weekend. We don't need fairy tales that spit out half good advice(love your neighbor) and half bad(being gay is a crime, don't treat your slaves too badly). We just need good people to band together. Jettison all the gibberish and I'm in! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

hashi92

01-30-2007, 05:31 PM

terrorist are evil
the catholic church was just doing Gods will

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 05:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise of my post is

the church did terrible things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your premise sucks because the church is not a person that can act.

[ QUOTE ]
Why isnt the catholic church demonized like hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]
The church can't act and those who did bad things in the past are not alive anymore. Those who did order bad things, are not looked upon well by history.

I understand what you're trying to do. You want to demonize an organization for the sins of those who once belonged to it a long, long time ago because of your anti-christian views. Most intelligent people here can see your silly attempts for what they are.

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But 'not having pre-marital' sex (1) is unrealistic

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not.

[ QUOTE ]
(2) doesn't help if they don't listen to that part.... let's say a man cheats on his wife. He has an affair, doesn't use a condom because he hasn't been taught about them and realize he could protect himself... and he now spreads AIDS to his wife (I use this example since I recall a story where this was actually happening)...

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, should have listened to that other Christian teaching of not committing adultery. Funny how listening to God can help protect you.... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine now that the Church taught abstinance as "plan A" AND to use birth control if you don't follow "plan A."

[/ QUOTE ]
If they don't want to listen to the church on subject A, why would they listen on subject B? Why is it the Church's responsibility to poo-poo sin?

hashi92

01-30-2007, 05:44 PM

Im just trying to faciltate some contructive debate. I just dont understand why Group A is treated differently from Group B.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise of my post is

the church did terrible things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your premise sucks because the church is not a person that can act.

[ QUOTE ]
Why isnt the catholic church demonized like hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]
The church can't act and those who did bad things in the past are not alive anymore. Those who did order bad things, are not looked upon well by history.

I understand what you're trying to do. You want to demonize an organization for the sins of those who once belonged to it a long, long time ago because of your anti-christian views. Most intelligent people here can see your silly attempts for what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

its like mel gibson was a good director but now that he is a jew hater hes a bad director

Stu Pidasso

01-30-2007, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Imagine now that the Church taught abstinance as "plan A" AND to use birth control if you don't follow "plan A."

How REVOLUTIONARY. How REALISTIC. Think of the potential lives saved!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Kurto

Should we tell criminals that they should not burglarize peoples homes because its wrong and the home owner might kill them. Then in the next breath say that if they are going to burlarize homes anyways they should wear bullet proof vests?

The Catholic Church is telling people that it is a sin to have pre-martital sex and by doing so they might also get AIDS. They have no obligation to tell people to use condoms. Kurto, your rationale is bunk.

The real issue is wether the church should be teaching that permaritial sex and the use of birth control are sins.

Stu

T_Money

01-30-2007, 05:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Im just trying to faciltate some contructive debate. I just dont understand why Group A is treated differently from Group B.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was actually just kidding in my first post when I said you sound like some 14 year old whining about having to go to church. In actuality (and considering the number 92 at the end of your name) it seems you probably are some 14 or 15 year old whining about having to go to church. And your premise is f'ing DUMB! Comparing a group of men who did evil things to people who are now part of an organization that has recognized the "wrongness" of the actions of its members hundreds of years ago, is nothing more than a very lame attempt to villify(sp?) the church. And frankly you fail miserably. No [censored] textbooks don't say "and oh yeah, the inquisition was very morally wrong." Nor do they say "Oh yeah, the holocaust should be very morally wrong to you." Why? because that's not the point of a textbook. It's just to inform the person of what happened.

kurto

01-30-2007, 06:01 PM

hashi92

01-30-2007, 06:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise of my post is

the church did terrible things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your premise sucks because the church is not a person that can act.

[ QUOTE ]
Why isnt the catholic church demonized like hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]
The church can't act and those who did bad things in the past are not alive anymore. Those who did order bad things, are not looked upon well by history.

I understand what you're trying to do. You want to demonize an organization for the sins of those who once belonged to it a long, long time ago because of your anti-christian views. Most intelligent people here can see your silly attempts for what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way thats a whole century of people following Gods will incorrectly.

kurto

01-30-2007, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of human history contradicts what you're saying but whatever. Arbitrary denial works well for you so go with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, should have listened to that other Christian teaching of not committing adultery. Funny how listening to God can help protect you....

[/ QUOTE ]

God isn't protecting anyone. Notice- the wife didn't commit adultery. If her husband comitted adultery and got used protection properly... her life likely would still be spared.

[ QUOTE ]
If they don't want to listen to the church on subject A, why would they listen on subject B? Why is it the Church's responsibility to poo-poo sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly... I'm sorry I got involved. Didn't realize I was discussing with a person who uses "faith based logic."

Its just not interesting listening to people start with ludicrous illogical premises try to argue their point.

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Im just trying to faciltate some contructive debate. I just dont understand why Group A is treated differently from Group B.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, constructive debate. You started off comparing one man (Hitler) to an entire organization (the Catholic Church) based on actions of those who were part of the church hundreds of years ago. No one is defending the popes who authorized crusades and inquistions. If there were people defending them, you might have a legitimate point. But since there isn't, your argument is moot.

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise of my post is

the church did terrible things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your premise sucks because the church is not a person that can act.

[ QUOTE ]
Why isnt the catholic church demonized like hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]
The church can't act and those who did bad things in the past are not alive anymore. Those who did order bad things, are not looked upon well by history.

I understand what you're trying to do. You want to demonize an organization for the sins of those who once belonged to it a long, long time ago because of your anti-christian views. Most intelligent people here can see your silly attempts for what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

An organization is an entity and it can act.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it can't.

luckyme

01-30-2007, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]

An organization is an entity and it can act.

[/ QUOTE ]

The organization can even pay fines or compensation for the actions taken by the corporation.
Judge, what action does XY corp have to take?
It has to pay a fine and build two houses.
( More acts to compensate for prior acts).

luckyme

kurto

01-30-2007, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Kurto

Should we tell criminals that they should not burglarize peoples homes because its wrong and the home owner might kill them. Then in the next breath say that if they are going to burlarize homes anyways they should wear bullet proof vests?

The Catholic Church is telling people that it is a sin to have pre-martital sex and by doing so they might also get AIDS. They have no obligation to tell people to use condoms. Kurto, your rationale is bunk.

The real issue is wether the church should be teaching that permaritial sex and the use of birth control are sins.

[/ QUOTE ]

2+2 really is the forum for bad analogies.

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic Church is telling people that it is a sin to have pre-martital sex and by doing so they might also get AIDS. They have no obligation to tell people to use condoms. Kurto, your rationale is bunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying if the Church wants to stop the spread of AIDS (which I'm pretty certain they've said as much)... if they were really interested in results they would teach people about condoms. "Hey, we think that you should practice abstinence. But listen, AIDS will kill you. If you aren't going to listen to us about the abstinence thing... please, at the very least, wear a condom."

There have been studies done on abstinence programs and the results are almost always the same. Abstinence does not work.

If the church is concerned about the spread of AIDS, and they are aware that abstinence WHILE A NOBLE GOAL IN THEIR EYES, doesn't work, then they should teach whatever else does work.

Let's use the married man example. Let's say you know that there's a decent chance a married man is going to cheat. Even if you tell him he shouldn't, there's a good chance he will. (remember, these are different cultures which may not have the same ideas about monogamy as Western cultures) But there's a decent chance that he IS concerned about AIDS and would likely use a condom if he knew about it and it was available. If he has an affair... there is a decent chance he gets AIDS and gives it to his wife.

Now if you want to help him and his wife... is the right thing to give him as much information about what can save him and his wife or only teach abstinence?

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Most of human history contradicts what you're saying but whatever. Arbitrary denial works well for you so go with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it simply not possible to wait till marriage? How is it that so many people have done so? It might not be "easy", but it's certainly not unrealistic.

[ QUOTE ]
Notice- the wife didn't commit adultery. If her husband comitted adultery and got used protection properly... her life likely would still be spared.

[/ QUOTE ]
I said listening can help, not listening means you are invincible. The condom the guy used could have broken and he still could have gotten an STD because of his adultery.

kurto

01-30-2007, 06:21 PM

more arbitary denial.

Fun.

Organization-
[ QUOTE ]
a group of persons organized for some end or work; association

[/ QUOTE ]

Act
[ QUOTE ]
1. anything done, being done, or to be done; deed; performance: a heroic act.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...
an organization can do 'work'... weird how an organization can accomplish that without "acting."

kurto

01-30-2007, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is it simply not possible to wait till marriage? How is it that so many people have done so? It might not be "easy", but it's certainly not unrealistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many people? In the history of humanity... what percentage of people waited until marriage and remained monogamous? And what are you basing your claims on?

What percentage of people do you guess live up to that now?

[ QUOTE ]
I said listening can help, not listening means you are invincible. The condom the guy used could have broken and he still could have gotten an STD because of his adultery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it could have broke. Or, MORE LIKELY, since most condoms don't break, it could have saved their lives.

There is a very high probability that if Africans were taught about condoms and given them access to them, that lives would be saved. Do you agree with this?

dknightx

01-30-2007, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise of my post is

the church did terrible things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your premise sucks because the church is not a person that can act.

[ QUOTE ]
Why isnt the catholic church demonized like hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]
The church can't act and those who did bad things in the past are not alive anymore. Those who did order bad things, are not looked upon well by history.

I understand what you're trying to do. You want to demonize an organization for the sins of those who once belonged to it a long, long time ago because of your anti-christian views. Most intelligent people here can see your silly attempts for what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

its like mel gibson was a good director but now that he is a jew hater hes a bad person

[/ QUOTE ]

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 06:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
an organization can do 'work'... weird how an organization can accomplish that without "acting."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, people within an organization do work.

And you say I think illogically... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

kurto

01-30-2007, 06:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
an organization can do 'work'... weird how an organization can accomplish that without "acting."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, people within an organization do work.

And you say I think illogically... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever. The courts disagree. Reference books disagree. Not much point in arguing with someone who decides that words mean things different then everyone else.

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 06:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How many people? In the history of humanity... what percentage of people waited until marriage and remained monogamous?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea. I'd guess millions, but it'd be just that, a guess. It doesn't matter what the number is, only that it's possible. If it's possible and the only thing stopping someone is the choices they make, then it's not unrealistic as you claimed.

[ QUOTE ]

There is a very high probability that if Africans were taught about condoms and given them access to them, that lives would be saved. Do you agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. Go teach them if that's what you believe. I won't stop you.

kurto

01-30-2007, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea. I'd guess millions, but it'd be just that, a guess. It doesn't matter what the number is, only that it's possible. If it's possible and the only thing stopping someone is the choices they make, then it's not unrealistic as you claimed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Millions? Out of the hundreds of billions of people who have lived on this earth you think MILLIONS of people managed abstinence? its not unnatural at all then.

And it does matter what the number is. We're trying to determine what's natural and realistic. Just because something is possible doesn't make it realistic.

[ QUOTE ]

There is a very high probability that if Africans were taught about condoms and given them access to them, that lives would be saved. Do you agree with this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps. Go teach them if that's what you believe. I won't stop you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps? What a cop out. You can't answer definitely? You can't look at the well tested performance of condoms and make a confident prediction on whether or not introducing condoms to Africa would likely save lives?

And what I'm teaching them is not the point. My question was, if you are honestly concerned with saving lives and helping to slow the spread of AIDS, wouldn't the rational thing to do considering all we know is to teach birth control too? A simple yes or no.

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 06:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
an organization can do 'work'... weird how an organization can accomplish that without "acting."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, people within an organization do work.

And you say I think illogically... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever. The courts disagree. Reference books disagree. Not much point in arguing with someone who decides that words mean things different then everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
If a judge says something, it's therefore true? If a reference book prints it, it's true?

Maybe you should try using your brain and realizing that an abstract thing like an organization can't "act". Only people within an organization can act.

For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

bunny

01-30-2007, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps? What a cop out. You can't answer definitely? You can't look at the well tested performance of condoms and make a confident prediction on whether or not introducing condoms to Africa would likely save lives?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see it kinda like this: we could feed everyone on earth if we just stole food from people who had extra and gave it to those who didn't. But I think stealing is wrong and there are better ways to feed people than stealing from others.

[ QUOTE ]
My question was, if you are honestly concerned with saving lives and helping to slow the spread of AIDS, wouldn't the rational thing to do considering all we know is to teach birth control too? A simple yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]
If all you care about is whether they can have sex as much as they want, then yes, teaching them birth control probably would help them avoid AIDS. I don't just want to save their physical life though.

Also keep in mind that I'm not Catholic.

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just people who act. Those people might tell other people what to do and then those other people act as well, but the abstraction doesn't "act".

kurto

01-30-2007, 07:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If a judge says something, it's therefore true? If a reference book prints it, it's true?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Obviously if a dictionary says a word means something it isn't true. Whatever YOU believe is right and everyone else is wrong.

Others foolish believe that words have meaning. You know better.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should try using your brain and realizing that an abstract thing like an organization can't "act". Only people within an organization can act.

[/ QUOTE ] And a baseball team doesn't win a game. The people playing win it. My company doesn't put out a product, the people do it. A church doesn't teach, its people do. You're so right.

I think it would be helpful when you have discussions that you define what words and ideas mean in your world so that people realize using the reference point that everyone else has is meaningless when conversing with you. It would probably save people a lot of time.

bunny

01-30-2007, 07:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just people who act. Those people might tell other people what to do and then those other people act as well, but the abstraction doesn't "act".

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand the problem with allowing the word act to apply to organisations. If my partner and I both agree to buy the block of land next door, would you object to me claiming our partnership had bought the land? Legally, that would be true, since the partnership would have control of the asset (neither of us would individually be able to make any decisions regarding it) and it seems everyone would know what was going on, so where's the problem?

kurto

01-30-2007, 07:14 PM

So once again you failed to answer the questions. No surprise.

[ QUOTE ]
If all you care about is whether they can have sex as much as they want, then yes, teaching them birth control probably would help them avoid AIDS. I don't just want to save their physical life though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not concerned about if they have sex as much as they want. No one but you is framing the issue that way. The issue was WHAT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO STEM THE SPREAD OF AIDS AND SAVE LIVES. We agree that this is not YOUR concern.

vhawk01

01-30-2007, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise of my post is

the church did terrible things. I think the torturing and killing by the church was worse than what hitler did. It may have been numerically less but it was worst.

Why isnt the catholic church demonized like hitler.

If you say because they do so much good now. Thats fine.
Than there should be no death penalty or life sentences for inmates who are trully sorry and want to devote there life to good.

[/ QUOTE ]

the church can't kill anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The church can't help anyone, but that doesn't seem to slow down people who claim that the Catholic Church is responsible for X amount of good and charity, etc.

vhawk01

01-30-2007, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise of my post is

the church did terrible things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your premise sucks because the church is not a person that can act.

[ QUOTE ]
Why isnt the catholic church demonized like hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]
The church can't act and those who did bad things in the past are not alive anymore. Those who did order bad things, are not looked upon well by history.

I understand what you're trying to do. You want to demonize an organization for the sins of those who once belonged to it a long, long time ago because of your anti-christian views. Most intelligent people here can see your silly attempts for what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet Catholics are allowed to do the opposite, praise the organization for the actions of those who are now dead?

vhawk01

01-30-2007, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many people? In the history of humanity... what percentage of people waited until marriage and remained monogamous?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea. I'd guess millions, but it'd be just that, a guess. It doesn't matter what the number is, only that it's possible. If it's possible and the only thing stopping someone is the choices they make, then it's not unrealistic as you claimed.

[ QUOTE ]

There is a very high probability that if Africans were taught about condoms and given them access to them, that lives would be saved. Do you agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. Go teach them if that's what you believe. I won't stop you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, YOU won't stop him. The Catholic Church has already done a pretty good job of that, by driving home the belief that condoms are a sin.

Your next argument is going to be, if this belief that condoms are a sin is so convincing and ingrained in these people, why isn't the belief that pre-marital sex is a sin likewise ingrained? Answer: Not sure, but it is certainly the case. Probably has something to do with the incredibly strong biological drive to have sex, and the non-existent biological drive to use condoms, it might not, but it really doesn't matter. The Catholic Church tried to impose two beliefs that are extremely dangerous in sub-Saharan Africa UNLESS they are BOTH followed, and they did so without any regard for how likely it was that BOTH would be followed. If both beliefs were followed, plenty of good would have been done, but the Church is to blame for not considering how absurdly unlikely it was that both would be followed. They never have been anywhere else, why would they be in sub-Saharan Africa?

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 07:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously if a dictionary says a word means something it isn't true. Whatever YOU believe is right and everyone else is wrong.

Others foolish believe that words have meaning. You know better.

[/ QUOTE ]
The dictionary definitions didn't help your case. You made a jump from an organization being made up of people who work towards a goal and the idea that it is the organization and not the people who are acting.

[ QUOTE ]
And a baseball team doesn't win a game. The people playing win it. My company doesn't put out a product, the people do it. A church doesn't teach, its people do. You're so right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're starting to get it. I know it's probably tough since we're used to referring to organizations as acting.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be helpful when you have discussions that you define what words and ideas mean in your world so that people realize using the reference point that everyone else has is meaningless when conversing with you. It would probably save people a lot of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not redefining anything. I'm just not using the shorthand we sometimes get used to saying when we refer to action by large groups of people. When we talk about "action" only actual, animate objects can perform them. An organization is essentially an abstraction. It is inanimate and therefore cannot act. People within organizations act. Is this really so hard to grasp?

vhawk01

01-30-2007, 07:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps? What a cop out. You can't answer definitely? You can't look at the well tested performance of condoms and make a confident prediction on whether or not introducing condoms to Africa would likely save lives?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see it kinda like this: we could feed everyone on earth if we just stole food from people who had extra and gave it to those who didn't. But I think stealing is wrong and there are better ways to feed people than stealing from others.

[ QUOTE ]
My question was, if you are honestly concerned with saving lives and helping to slow the spread of AIDS, wouldn't the rational thing to do considering all we know is to teach birth control too? A simple yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]
If all you care about is whether they can have sex as much as they want, then yes, teaching them birth control probably would help them avoid AIDS. I don't just want to save their physical life though.

Also keep in mind that I'm not Catholic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just? JUST?!?! You don't JUST want to save their physical life? You apparently don't want to save their physical life AT ALL. Which I suppose is a perfectly reasonable position when you place no value on the physical life and infinite value on some afterlife. Perfect example of about 5 recent threads in this forum.

vhawk01

01-30-2007, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously if a dictionary says a word means something it isn't true. Whatever YOU believe is right and everyone else is wrong.

Others foolish believe that words have meaning. You know better.

[/ QUOTE ]
The dictionary definitions didn't help your case. You made a jump from an organization being made up of people who work towards a goal and the idea that it is the organization and not the people who are acting.

[ QUOTE ]
And a baseball team doesn't win a game. The people playing win it. My company doesn't put out a product, the people do it. A church doesn't teach, its people do. You're so right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're starting to get it. I know it's probably tough since we're used to referring to organizations as acting.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be helpful when you have discussions that you define what words and ideas mean in your world so that people realize using the reference point that everyone else has is meaningless when conversing with you. It would probably save people a lot of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not redefining anything. I'm just not using the shorthand we sometimes get used to saying when we refer to action by large groups of people. When we talk about "action" only actual, animate objects can perform them. An organization is essentially an abstraction. It is inanimate and therefore cannot act. People within organizations act. Is this really so hard to grasp?

[/ QUOTE ]

I love semantical debates, but this is an exceptionally meaningless one. In some usages of the word 'act,' you are obviously correct. But those are NOT the usages people have in mind when they say things like "The Yankees won today." They mean the group of people who all share the common property of being 'Yankees' accomplished a victory. So, when we say the Church did something, we mean that the group of people who share the property of being a part of the Church did that thing. No one really thinks an abstract concept tightened up its laces and went to work. Seriously, you seem to be intentionally refusing to understand words in their common context.

vhawk01

01-30-2007, 07:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just people who act. Those people might tell other people what to do and then those other people act as well, but the abstraction doesn't "act".

[/ QUOTE ]

This means that things like 'the Church' are completely meaningless. Every single person in the church acts at his own behalf and his own whim and has nothing to do with the others in the group?

Of course not. The reason we say the Church acts is because it implicitly states a bunch of things we all agree on:

People who chose to associate with the group acted.

The actions of these people can be attributed to some shared property of all members of the group.

Any people who join the group are likely to embrace and encourage said actions.

These are all implied in the phrase "The Church helps millions of people worldwide."

thylacine

01-30-2007, 07:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brenner,

If the catholic church wasnt in Africa would AIDS slow down?? Because one thing is the church not helping and another thing is harming. The church is simply not helping, I would like some studies that show that the church is responsible for the AIDS expansion( instead of simply not stoping it).

Also,it sounds like you want the church to simply agree with everything you think its correct. Stem cell research is at least debatable.

I concede that the kid molestation is awful, but however you are completely missing the good stuff the church does.
I see the good stuff the church does in my country and if you want I can write a HUGE post about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

One might argue that the church is obstructing help. Teaching Africans not to use birth control which would likely help things would seem to be a modern 'evil' (if you will.)

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just "don't use birth control". If you pick and choose what advice you'll follow, bad things might happen. If those who are being taught not to use birth control also ignore the "don't have pre-marital sex" part, is that really the Catholic Church's fault?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is really the Catholic Church's fault!

Do you see why?

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 07:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, YOU won't stop him. The Catholic Church has already done a pretty good job of that, by driving home the belief that condoms are a sin.

Your next argument is going to be, if this belief that condoms are a sin is so convincing and ingrained in these people, why isn't the belief that pre-marital sex is a sin likewise ingrained? Answer: Not sure, but it is certainly the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's certainly a good question. Another interesting question might be why the Catholic "indoctrination" has helped to spread AIDS in Africa, but hasn't killed millions of other Catholics around the world. It's not like Africa is the only place where they teach this. Is AIDS raging out of control in many of the heavily Catholic countries in South America? (serious question because I don't know) Do we even know if it's the Catholic Africans that AIDS is harming the most? Catholicism isn't the only religion in Africa.

I think there's far more to this then what some of you are simplifying it down to.

thylacine

01-30-2007, 07:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

the church can't kill anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they can and they do.

Do you see why?

John21

01-30-2007, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying if the Church wants to stop the spread of AIDS (which I'm pretty certain they've said as much)... if they were really interested in results they would teach people about condoms. "Hey, we think that you should practice abstinence. But listen, AIDS will kill you. If you aren't going to listen to us about the abstinence thing... please, at the very least, wear a condom."

[/ QUOTE ]

Kurto,

I don't know if you're not ignoring a ground-state. If the Church did absolutely nothing over there, are you saying the people would be better off? I'm not talking about just the abstinence part, but the food, schooling, etc… they provide. So I guess taking their entire participation as a whole - do you think those people would be better off without the Church being there?

I guess what I'm saying is if I thought the people would be better on the whole without the Church there, I'd conclude that what the Church is doing is bad. But if I felt that the people were benefiting on the whole by the Church's presence, I'd conclude what they're doing is good. So if you conclude the latter, are you saying the Church isn't as good as they could be?

FWIW: I don't really know enough about what's going on over there to say if they're doing good or bad, but I personally have no problem with handing out condoms.

vhawk01

01-30-2007, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, YOU won't stop him. The Catholic Church has already done a pretty good job of that, by driving home the belief that condoms are a sin.

Your next argument is going to be, if this belief that condoms are a sin is so convincing and ingrained in these people, why isn't the belief that pre-marital sex is a sin likewise ingrained? Answer: Not sure, but it is certainly the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's certainly a good question. Another interesting question might be why the Catholic "indoctrination" has helped to spread AIDS in Africa, but hasn't killed millions of other Catholics around the world. It's not like Africa is the only place where they teach this. Is AIDS raging out of control in many of the heavily Catholic countries in South America? (serious question because I don't know) Do we even know if it's the Catholic Africans that AIDS is harming the most? Catholicism isn't the only religion in Africa.

I think there's far more to this then what some of you are simplifying it down to.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is epidemiology, there needs to be a certain threshold before an epidemic can spread. The epidemic of AIDS in Africa probably would have occurred without the intervention of the Catholic Church, and CERTAINLY without Western intervention (how would they have ever found out about condoms?) but combating the spread would be FAR easier without the intervention of the Catholic Church.

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But those are NOT the usages people have in mind when they say things like "The Yankees won today." They mean the group of people who all share the common property of being 'Yankees' accomplished a victory.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand why people say these things. I'm just saying that this is only useful as a shorthand generalization and not useful if we are going to be condemning an institution like the Catholic Church for sins of the past, which was the reason this thread was started.

[ QUOTE ]
So, when we say the Church did something, we mean that the group of people who share the property of being a part of the Church did that thing. No one really thinks an abstract concept tightened up its laces and went to work.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we're going to start handing out blame for activities in the past, then the blame should fall on those who took part, not everyone associated with the organization from then till now. Do you not see that that was the purpose of the OP? Do you think he wasn't trying to slander the Church for things done by people in the past? He wants us to view the Catholic Church the way we do Hitler, but Hitler was a man who performed actions while the Catholic Church is a very old institution that is not the same as it was before. Or do you deny that that was his intention?

valenzuela

01-30-2007, 07:53 PM

I think A should be done, however Im too lazy and confortable to do A.
However even though Im too lazy to do A I condem those who dont do A.

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 07:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This means that things like 'the Church' are completely meaningless. Every single person in the church acts at his own behalf and his own whim and has nothing to do with the others in the group?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's meaningless to assign fault to an inanimate object when it is certain people who are really the ones who have caused the damage.

[ QUOTE ]
People who chose to associate with the group acted.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine

[ QUOTE ]
The actions of these people can be attributed to some shared property of all members of the group.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok

[ QUOTE ]
Any people who join the group are likely to embrace and encourage said actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily. Do you think all the Catholics of the days of the Inquistion were fine with such actions? Do you think many Catholics agree with those actions today? This is where such a view of "action" leads you to misplace blame where it is deserved. If we are to use the OP's view of action, those who associate with the Church are just as guilty as those who performed those actions in the past. Do you really think that's a useful view to take? If so, then we need to condemn a hell of a lot more than just the Catholic Church...

BCPVP

01-30-2007, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, YOU won't stop him. The Catholic Church has already done a pretty good job of that, by driving home the belief that condoms are a sin.

Your next argument is going to be, if this belief that condoms are a sin is so convincing and ingrained in these people, why isn't the belief that pre-marital sex is a sin likewise ingrained? Answer: Not sure, but it is certainly the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's certainly a good question. Another interesting question might be why the Catholic "indoctrination" has helped to spread AIDS in Africa, but hasn't killed millions of other Catholics around the world. It's not like Africa is the only place where they teach this. Is AIDS raging out of control in many of the heavily Catholic countries in South America? (serious question because I don't know) Do we even know if it's the Catholic Africans that AIDS is harming the most? Catholicism isn't the only religion in Africa.

I think there's far more to this then what some of you are simplifying it down to.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is epidemiology, there needs to be a certain threshold before an epidemic can spread. The epidemic of AIDS in Africa probably would have occurred without the intervention of the Catholic Church, and CERTAINLY without Western intervention (how would they have ever found out about condoms?) but combating the spread would be FAR easier without the intervention of the Catholic Church.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you know for certain that AIDS has a higher incidence among African Catholics? If the rate is the same or lower, the argument that the Church is at all responsible falls apart.

bunny

01-30-2007, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know for certain that AIDS has a higher incidence among African Catholics? If the rate is the same or lower, the argument that the Church is at all responsible falls apart.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesnt follow. If the decision makers are influenced by catholicism (whether catholics or not) and consequently condoms are not available to the non-catholics - then responsibility can still rest with the policy makers in the catholic church (if that terminology is preferable to you?) even though catholics may be faring better thanks to no-sex-before-marriage proscriptions.

John21

01-30-2007, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The catoholic church would not exist today if it werent for its violent past. The crusades and witch hunts. In medival times the catholic church basically killed everyone who would not convert. So why is the catholic church so highly regarded now. why dont they have the same evil reputation that hitler does. basically hitler was trying to do the same thing. if he was sucessful maybe he would have created a religon that is as highly regarded as the catholic church. I do not condone in any way what hitler did.

[/ QUOTE ]

The United States would not exist today if it werent for its violent past. The Revolutionary/Civil/Spanish American Wars, American/Mexican Indian conquests. In the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the United States basically killed everyone who would not convert. So why is the United States so highly regarded now. why dont they have the same evil reputation that hitler does. basically hitler was trying to do the same thing. if he was sucessful maybe he would have created a nation that is as highly regarded as the United States. I do not condone in any way what hitler did.

I think the answer has several factors;
a)The winner writes history.
b)The good guys always win.
c)Institutions change/evolve
d)Considering all the above - it's history and not really applicable to the present.

Mickey Brausch

01-30-2007, 09:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler was a catholic his whole life and his anti-semitism came from the church. There is overwhelming evidence for this.

[/ QUOTE ]Then I'm sure it would be very easy for you to provide some kind of evidence for your preposterous claim. You are very, very wrong in this.

The level of ignorance exhibited in this thread is astounding. And it's disheartening that the ignorance concerns historical events that are both very well known and relatively recent; not some distant, obscure or disputed events.

May the Lord have mercy on us...

Mickey Brausch

01-30-2007, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is important to realise that religion itself intrinsically has an evil content.

[/ QUOTE ]And as a confirmed, card-carrying agnostic/atheist I'm telling you that, with all due respect, that is a profoundly ignorant and vapid statement.

I would suggest to anyone who paints with such a large brush, to study more the history of philosophy. Man's quest for answers and his need for order in the chaos of the cosmos first found refuge in the construct of religion. Mocking religion and its history (which is as violent as Man himself, no more and no less) is like today's cell phone trendies mocking yesterday's telegraph machine.

Mickey Brausch

vhawk01

01-30-2007, 09:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But those are NOT the usages people have in mind when they say things like "The Yankees won today." They mean the group of people who all share the common property of being 'Yankees' accomplished a victory.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand why people say these things. I'm just saying that this is only useful as a shorthand generalization and not useful if we are going to be condemning an institution like the Catholic Church for sins of the past, which was the reason this thread was started.

[ QUOTE ]
So, when we say the Church did something, we mean that the group of people who share the property of being a part of the Church did that thing. No one really thinks an abstract concept tightened up its laces and went to work.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we're going to start handing out blame for activities in the past, then the blame should fall on those who took part, not everyone associated with the organization from then till now. Do you not see that that was the purpose of the OP? Do you think he wasn't trying to slander the Church for things done by people in the past? He wants us to view the Catholic Church the way we do Hitler, but Hitler was a man who performed actions while the Catholic Church is a very old institution that is not the same as it was before. Or do you deny that that was his intention?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. People join an organization because they share its ideals, and they should be held accountable for the history and actions of those ideals. Its silly to say that the Inquisition is Timothy McDermott's (like my stereotypical fake Catholic?) fault, but he chose to join an organization that has a history, positive and negative, and so he shares in the responsibility. By being part of that organization he is reaping the benefits of the actions of those who were a part of that group previously, so it is only fair.

vhawk01

01-30-2007, 09:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hitler was a catholic his whole life and his anti-semitism came from the church. There is overwhelming evidence for this.

[/ QUOTE ]Then I'm sure it would be very easy for you to provide some kind of evidence for your preposterous claim. You are very, very wrong in this.

The level of ignorance exhibited in this thread is astounding. And it's disheartening that the ignorance concerns historical events that are both very well known and relatively recent; not some distant, obscure or disputed events.

May the Lord have mercy on us...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am still waiting on you to explain to me why the Inquisition was no match for the Holocaust. If sheer numbers is your metric, then I certainly agree. But I am not sure I can think of any other metric to which the same applies.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 10:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The catoholic church would not exist today if it werent for its violent past. The crusades and witch hunts. In medival times the catholic church basically killed everyone who would not convert. So why is the catholic church so highly regarded now. why dont they have the same evil reputation that hitler does. basically hitler was trying to do the same thing. if he was sucessful maybe he would have created a religon that is as highly regarded as the catholic church. I do not condone in any way what hitler did.

[/ QUOTE ]

The United States would not exist today if it werent for its violent past. The Revolutionary/Civil/Spanish American Wars, American/Mexican Indian conquests. In the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the United States basically killed everyone who would not convert. So why is the United States so highly regarded now. why dont they have the same evil reputation that hitler does. basically hitler was trying to do the same thing. if he was sucessful maybe he would have created a nation that is as highly regarded as the United States. I do not condone in any way what hitler did.

I think the answer has several factors;
a)The winner writes history.
b)The good guys always win.
c)Institutions change/evolve
d)Considering all the above - it's history and not really applicable to the present.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with both a and c. In some regions of the world the united states is hated just as much as hitler. the recent terrorist attacks are proof of this. The United States did do wrong to the indians and they half heartedly tried to compensate for it. But in no way did they commit mass genocide for some ideal or religous belief.

hashi92

01-30-2007, 10:38 PM

Basically the only answer so far is that the catholic church does good and that is why it doesn't share the same reputation as Hitler. This is a good point but what if Hitler were alive and did the same good deeds as the church would he be forgiven. I am reposting this question because nobody responded when i first posted it. What if i created a drug ring and used all the money to fight AIDS in africa would that make me a good person. Eventually i woudld go legit but to get seed money i would destroy the lives of millions.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Its silly to say that the Inquisition is Timothy McDermott's (like my stereotypical fake Catholic?) fault, but he chose to join an organization that has a history, positive and negative, and so he shares in the responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
Shares responsibility for what? If he is not at fault, the organization is not the same, and there are different people running it with different ideologies from those in the past, what possible responsibility could he have for anything?

[ QUOTE ]
By being part of that organization he is reaping the benefits of the actions of those who were a part of that group previously, so it is only fair.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is useless for assigning any kind of "responsibility" because every group of people that congregate together because of shared ideas that has ever existed has likely had bad apples that have done terrible things. If that's the case, of what use is this doling out of "responsibility" (quotes because the implication seems clear to me that you mean some type of blame or shame)?

I happen to believe that you are responsible for your actions, not the actions of other people. You may be able to influence their decisions, but ultimately the action must be performed by that person and they should accept responsibility for it. If that's not how you view responsiblity, I'd like to hear how you define responsibility so that it has any meaning.

vhawk01

01-31-2007, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its silly to say that the Inquisition is Timothy McDermott's (like my stereotypical fake Catholic?) fault, but he chose to join an organization that has a history, positive and negative, and so he shares in the responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
Shares responsibility for what? If he is not at fault, the organization is not the same, and there are different people running it with different ideologies from those in the past, what possible responsibility could he have for anything?

[ QUOTE ]
By being part of that organization he is reaping the benefits of the actions of those who were a part of that group previously, so it is only fair.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is useless for assigning any kind of "responsibility" because every group of people that congregate together because of shared ideas that has ever existed has likely had bad apples that have done terrible things. If that's the case, of what use is this doling out of "responsibility" (quotes because the implication seems clear to me that you mean some type of blame or shame)?

I happen to believe that you are responsible for your actions, not the actions of other people. You may be able to influence their decisions, but ultimately the action must be performed by that person and they should accept responsibility for it. If that's not how you view responsiblity, I'd like to hear how you define responsibility so that it has any meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

And his actions were to join an organization that has a history of horrible misdeeds. Perhaps responsibility was the wrong word, but he certainly cannot lay claim to the great things his organization does without acknowledging the horrible. If he thinks he can balance the two and come out in the black, thats fine, but its an argument he has to make, at least to himself.

You are right, though, The only action that ALL Catholics can be responsible for is joining an organization that has fostered misdeeds, AND good deeds, in the past.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 12:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a good point but what if Hitler were alive and did the same good deeds as the church would he be forgiven.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hitler would be responsible for all the terrible things he did, no matter what he did afterwards. Those responsible for committing atrocities in the Catholic Church should also be responsible for their actions. Hitler is not an institution or abstraction. He is a person who could and did act. The Catholic Church is an institution and an abstraction and can therefore not act and so can not be responsible for actions; those within the Church can. Understand?

[ QUOTE ]
What if i created a drug ring and used all the money to fight AIDS in africa would that make me a good person. Eventually i woudld go legit but to get seed money i would destroy the lives of millions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Might come as a shock to you, but if you sell drugs to people, I don't have a problem as long as you do so non-violently.

kurto

01-31-2007, 12:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No, YOU won't stop him. The Catholic Church has already done a pretty good job of that, by driving home the belief that condoms are a sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember... according to him the Catholic Church doesn't do anything.

Skoob

01-31-2007, 12:28 AM

I haven't read every post - skimmed many. I apologize if these have been pointed out already.

The OP contends that the catholic church murdered those who did not convert during the inquisition. This is not true. Alleged satanists/witches were killed for their sins. Being of another faith did not get you killed. This was done in the name of penance. Those who would admit their sins were given a quick death.

During the era of the inquisition, the killing was believed by the governing bodies to be just and was not illegal. Hitlers actions violated international law. Such laws didn't exist in the middle ages. That's why Hitler and his cronies were convicted of war crimes and hung and the Pope way back when was not.

Granted, both the inquisition and the holocaust were the result of fear. The inquisition started with the plague because someone needed to be blamed for all the death. And Hitler blamed the Jews for what happened with the treaty of Versailles.

Other than the above, the only other similarities are that many people died that should not have.

The OP argument could be made for every war, for either side, with the same logic. It's too broad.

You may well have asked, "unjust death is wrong so why is not every single person who was directly or indirectly involved with any unjust death(s) held to an equal standard?"

Edit: Grammar!

vhawk01

01-31-2007, 12:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read every post - skimmed many. I apologize if these have been pointed out already.

The OP contends that the catholic church murdered those who did not convert during the inquisition. This is not true. Alleged satanists/witches were killed for their sins. Being of another faith did not get you killed. This was done in the name of penance. Those who would admit their sins were given a quick death.

During the era of the inquisition, the killing was believed by the governing bodies to be just and was not illegal. Hitlers actions violated international law. Such laws didn't exist in the middle ages. That's why Hitler and his cronies were convicted of war crimes and hung and the Pope way back when was not.

Granted, both the inquisition and the holocaust were the result of fear. The inquisition started with the plague because someone needed to be blamed for all the death. And Hitler blamed the Jews for what happened with the treaty of Versailles.

Other than the above, the only other similarities are that many people died that should not have.

The OP argument could be made for every war, for either side, with the same logic. It's too broad.

You may well have asked, "unjust death is wrong so why is not every single person who was directly or indirectly involved with any unjust death(s) held to an equal standard?"

Edit: Grammar!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its important to note that it seems very likely that there never were any satanists OR witches during this period, and nearly all of those who were killed were simply heretics or good, practicing Christians who had some property.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 01:28 AM

Just to bang this drum a little harder...

Hitler is a "who". He is a person who can be responsible for his actions. The Catholic Church is a "what". It is not a person. If it is not a person, how can "it" be "responsible" for actions?

vhawk01

01-31-2007, 01:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just to bang this drum a little harder...

Hitler is a "who". He is a person who can be responsible for his actions. The Catholic Church is a "what". It is not a person. If it is not a person, how can "it" be "responsible" for actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are sort of question-begging aren't you? Its you who is asserting that only 'who's' can be responsible for their actions.

hashi92

01-31-2007, 02:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read every post - skimmed many. I apologize if these have been pointed out already.

The OP contends that the catholic church murdered those who did not convert during the inquisition. This is not true. Alleged satanists/witches were killed for their sins. Being of another faith did not get you killed. This was done in the name of penance. Those who would admit their sins were given a quick death.

During the era of the inquisition, the killing was believed by the governing bodies to be just and was not illegal. Hitlers actions violated international law. Such laws didn't exist in the middle ages. That's why Hitler and his cronies were convicted of war crimes and hung and the Pope way back when was not.

Granted, both the inquisition and the holocaust were the result of fear. The inquisition started with the plague because someone needed to be blamed for all the death. And Hitler blamed the Jews for what happened with the treaty of Versailles.

Other than the above, the only other similarities are that many people died that should not have.

The OP argument could be made for every war, for either side, with the same logic. It's too broad.

You may well have asked, "unjust death is wrong so why is not every single person who was directly or indirectly involved with any unjust death(s) held to an equal standard?"

Edit: Grammar!

[/ QUOTE ]

i tried to state this earlier that in text books the inquisition was not portrayed as bad but i was blasted as being ignorant. by todays standards these acts are unacceptable hence my comparison. People were tortured until they recanted or died. The crusades were led against muslims and jews. everytime europe conquered a new land they converted the people to there religon. The indians and hawaiians are examples.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 02:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to bang this drum a little harder...

Hitler is a "who". He is a person who can be responsible for his actions. The Catholic Church is a "what". It is not a person. If it is not a person, how can "it" be "responsible" for actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are sort of question-begging aren't you? Its you who is asserting that only 'who's' can be responsible for their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does it make grammatical sense to ask "Who is the Catholic Church?" or "What is Hitler?"? Explain how you would hold a "what" responsible/accountable without holding "whos" responsible/accountable. If you cannot, then it is the "whos" we should be looking at when we assign responsiblity, not the "what".

luckyme

01-31-2007, 02:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
how you would hold a "what" responsible/accountable without holding "whos" responsible/accountable. If you cannot, then it is the "whos" we should be looking at when we assign responsiblity, not the "what".

[/ QUOTE ]

When we withhold aid to a nation, 'sanctions'. When the company pays a fine but the directors or execs don't. When a religion is denied tax exemption for violations. endless really.

luckyme

vhawk01

01-31-2007, 02:58 AM

bunny

01-31-2007, 03:03 AM

Hi BCPVP, any chance of an answer to this (reposted from earlier)?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just people who act. Those people might tell other people what to do and then those other people act as well, but the abstraction doesn't "act".

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand the problem with allowing the word act to apply to organisations. If my partner and I both agree to buy the block of land next door, would you object to me claiming our partnership had bought the land? Legally, that would be true, since the partnership would have control of the asset (neither of us would individually be able to make any decisions regarding it) and it seems everyone would know what was going on, so where's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 03:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how you would hold a "what" responsible/accountable without holding "whos" responsible/accountable. If you cannot, then it is the "whos" we should be looking at when we assign responsiblity, not the "what".

[/ QUOTE ]

When we withhold aid to a nation, 'sanctions'. When the company pays a fine but the directors or execs don't. When a religion is denied tax exemption for violations. endless really.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Every one of those examples involves "whos" (specifically the people who are a part of those organizations) being acted against. Perhaps I should put it the way Nielso did once (think it was Nielso); show me a picture of your family without showing me any individual members. An impossible task. You cannot act against an organization without acting against individual people. That we give names to groups of people and sometimes personify them in our speech is for convenience sake so that we don't list off every member of the organization that we happen to be talking about at the moment.

How does this relate to the Catholic Church? Well I ask who exactly are we holding responsible for events such as the Crusades and Inquisitions? If you respond with "The Catholic Church" then I'd like to know "who" or "what" is the Catholic Church. These are important questions if we're going to be swinging the moral judgement hammer.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi BCPVP, any chance of an answer to this (reposted from earlier)?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just people who act. Those people might tell other people what to do and then those other people act as well, but the abstraction doesn't "act".

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand the problem with allowing the word act to apply to organisations. If my partner and I both agree to buy the block of land next door, would you object to me claiming our partnership had bought the land? Legally, that would be true, since the partnership would have control of the asset (neither of us would individually be able to make any decisions regarding it) and it seems everyone would know what was going on, so where's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not that I have a huge problem with using the name of your partnership this way for convenience's sake so that I don't have to constantly refer to each of you by name.

To demonstrate my point a little better (I hope), say you and your partner bought this land so you could fire machine guns in every which direction. Someone driving along the road is killed by the gun fire. Who would the town be mad at and decide to prosecute, Bunny's Guns or you and your partner? They prosecute you and your partner, of course, for your actions. The government didn't put Enron on trial, they put people like Kenneth Lay on trial. The law recognizes that it is not the "business" that shot the person, it was you and your partner. And if we should be mad at you and your partner for your actions, should we be mad at the janitor who vacuums the floors in your office headquarters in a different town? Do you agree that it would be slander if I went around calling this janitor a murderer because we works at your company? This is why it's important to know exactly who we're assigning blame/responsiblity to. It matters.

bunny

01-31-2007, 03:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi BCPVP, any chance of an answer to this (reposted from earlier)?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just people who act. Those people might tell other people what to do and then those other people act as well, but the abstraction doesn't "act".

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand the problem with allowing the word act to apply to organisations. If my partner and I both agree to buy the block of land next door, would you object to me claiming our partnership had bought the land? Legally, that would be true, since the partnership would have control of the asset (neither of us would individually be able to make any decisions regarding it) and it seems everyone would know what was going on, so where's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not that I have a huge problem with using the name of your partnership this way for convenience's sake so that I don't have to constantly refer to each of you by name.

To demonstrate my point a little better (I hope), say you and your partner bought this land so you could fire machine guns in every which direction. Someone driving along the road is killed by the gun fire. Who would the town be mad at and decide to prosecute, Bunny's Guns or you and your partner? They prosecute you and your partner, of course, for your actions. The government didn't put Enron on trial, they put people like Kenneth Lay on trial. The law recognizes that it is not the "business" that shot the person, it was you and your partner. And if we should be mad at you and your partner for your actions, should we be mad at the janitor who vacuums the floors in your office headquarters in a different town? Do you agree that it would be slander if I went around calling this janitor a murderer because we works at your company? This is why it's important to know exactly who we're assigning blame/responsiblity to. It matters.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand where you're coming from, but I think it is unneccary to forbid artificial entities from acting. In your shooting example, me and my partner are guilty because we did it (not the partnership). To continue the example, if our business polluted the local river it is the business that would be held accountable. Similarly in your enron example - the individuals who lied and distorted the figures were prosecuted. If Enron had committed a crime (which it may have - through publishing something defamatory in a brochure perhaps, or a pollution example again) then it is the company that would be held accountable and the company that would be blamed for the act.

It is true that the constituents of a body may also act - this in itself doesnt preclude the entity from acting.

thylacine

01-31-2007, 03:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
.................
Every one of those examples involves "whos" (specifically the people who are a part of those organizations) being acted against. Perhaps I should put it the way Nielso did once (think it was Nielso); show me a picture of your family without showing me any individual members. An impossible task. You cannot act against an organization without acting against individual people. That we give names to groups of people and sometimes personify them in our speech is for convenience sake so that we don't list off every member of the organization that we happen to be talking about at the moment.

How does this relate to the Catholic Church? Well I ask who exactly are we holding responsible for events such as the Crusades and Inquisitions? If you respond with "The Catholic Church" then I'd like to know "who" or "what" is the Catholic Church. These are important questions if we're going to be swinging the moral judgement hammer.

[/ QUOTE ]

BCPVP, I know you're not really typing these posts! It's really your cells doing it right?

/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif
/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif
/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif
/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif
/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif
/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif
/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif
/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 03:45 AM

I figured it was only a matter of time till someone tried the reducto ad absurdum card, but while reducing action to the level of cells may tells us things about biology, it doesn't help us understand human action at all and it certainly doesn't much help us start making moral judgements. In any event, my brain tells my fingers what to type. My feet have no "responsibility" for what my fingers are doing right now.

thylacine

01-31-2007, 03:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I figured it was only a matter of time till someone tried the reducto ad absurdum card, but while reducing action to the level of cells may tells us things about biology, it doesn't help us understand human action at all and it certainly doesn't much help us start making moral judgements. In any event, my brain tells my fingers what to type. My feet have no "responsibility" for what my fingers are doing right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're defending your cells, the same way as you're defending your church. You are very loyal.

BTW get an eduction and find out what reductio ad absurdum means (and how to spell it).

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 03:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I figured it was only a matter of time till someone tried the reducto ad absurdum card, but while reducing action to the level of cells may tells us things about biology, it doesn't help us understand human action at all and it certainly doesn't much help us start making moral judgements. In any event, my brain tells my fingers what to type. My feet have no "responsibility" for what my fingers are doing right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're defending your cells, the same way as you're defending your church. You are very loyal.

BTW get an eduction and find out what reductio ad absurdum means (and how to spell it).

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not "my" church. I'm not Catholic.

I'll take the ad hominems as a sign that you've run out of arguments. Good night.

hashi92

01-31-2007, 04:08 AM

When the cowboys win a football game are we talking about the team or the players. i think both.

hashi92

01-31-2007, 04:10 AM

If it makes you feel better change catholic church to catholic people and hitler to nazis people.

thylacine

01-31-2007, 04:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I figured it was only a matter of time till someone tried the reducto ad absurdum card, but while reducing action to the level of cells may tells us things about biology, it doesn't help us understand human action at all and it certainly doesn't much help us start making moral judgements. In any event, my brain tells my fingers what to type. My feet have no "responsibility" for what my fingers are doing right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're defending your cells, the same way as you're defending your church. You are very loyal.

BTW get an eduction and find out what reductio ad absurdum means (and how to spell it).

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not "my" church. I'm not Catholic.

I'll take the ad hominems as a sign that you've run out of arguments. Good night.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take the ad hominems as a sign that you've realized that you never had any legitimate arguments in the first place. Goodbye.

BTW The church, and all its memes, appreciate your attempted assistance.

hashi92

01-31-2007, 04:28 AM

I have come to the conclusion that the reason the catholic church is not demonized is because faith is blind. Faith will not let people admit that the catholic church was founded with extreme violence. I take it as no surprise because the bible is filled with examples of God commiting mass killings in the name of the greater good. He flooded the earth and rained fire and brimstone on sodom. Even in revelations everyone will die except the chosen. God and the church can do all these killings and get off scott free.

luckyme

01-31-2007, 04:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The government didn't put Enron on trial, they put people like Kenneth Lay on trial. The law recognizes that it is not the "business" that shot the person, it was you and your partner

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the law also takes the opposite position. Please do us all a favor and open a newspaper. There is a reasonable chance you'll find a report of a corporation being penalized for it's action, usually fined.
The Kentucky school system is doing a terrible job educating the chillin, could you please send me a photo of the system in case he shows up in my town.
There is concern that a law sitting on the books that requires disclosure of sources could stifle whistleblowers. Is that law blond or brunette.
Democracy is said to cause an increase in productivity, could you send him over here?
These aren't intended to be bang-on, simply to illustrate that systems of all kinds have properties that don't exist at the level of their individual components. You seem unaware of the concept of emergent properties, you may enjoy reading GED ( Godel, Escher and Bach), all-time great book.

luckyme

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 05:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When the cowboys win a football game are we talking about the team or the players. i think both.

[/ QUOTE ]
But when you say "the cowboys", do you mean the entire organization of the Dallas Cowboys from the President to the team to the guy who sweeps the stands after the game or are you talking about a subset of that organization? Probably the latter. Team members that play for the Dallas Cowboys won the game. Sometimes we might even point out individual efforts that were particularly helpful and some that weren't so helpful or even detrimental. Say the team lost. How are we to analyze what went wrong if we don't look at the individual level? You would be stuck with simply "the Cowboys lost" and couldn't glean much meaning from it. If you start analyzing each individual teammates play, like whether the receivers were running their routes correctly, linemen were blocking correctly, running backs and quarterbacks were making good reads as to the holes in the defense, then you might begin to see what's being done wrong. Remaining at the organizational level tells us nothing. Make sense?

[ QUOTE ]
If it makes you feel better change catholic church to catholic people and hitler to nazis people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it does because at least now you're trying to compare apples to apples instead of a red oak tree to the Yosemite National Park. Now we can start talking about actions and finding fault with those actions because we have people and not abstractions.

So let's go with that. Are you saying that all the catholics of the inquisition/crusades are as responsible as the nazis of the 1940's? Only some? Exactly who are you laying blame at the feet of?

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 05:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the law also takes the opposite position.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, the government didn't try Kenneth Lay and sentence him to prison? I'm imagining that happened? Or the government where you bought this land that you turned into a hazard and killed someone wouldn't try you and your partner for manslaughter? They would try the company? Would they sentence the company to prison?

[ QUOTE ]
The Kentucky school system is doing a terrible job educating the chillin, could you please send me a photo of the system in case he shows up in my town.

[/ QUOTE ]
The system might be bad, but the curriculum needs to be taught. The book isn't going to sprout legs and a mouth and start speaking. Teachers act by teaching and if what they're teaching isn't working or is false, then is that not the partly the faults of the teachers and those who devised the curriculum?

I'm amazed that this is so difficult to understand. Have you people just never heard of personification (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personification)? Do you really think that if someone says "the moonlight danced over the waves" that there are actually rays of moonlight doing the macarena on the ocean?

luckyme

01-31-2007, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
They would try the company?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES ! Now you're getting it. The company will be fined or forced to pay restitution or whatever other action the court decides is warranted because of the ACTIONS the corporation took or didn't take. Have you actually never read a newspaper report of these cases or TV news?
It's not necessary that a specific person(s) in an system is responsible although if their actions are clear enough that can happen also ( as in the Ken Lay case you cited).

Complex systems can cause things that no one of their parts can, that's the nature of complex systems. The joke a poster made about your cells was to remind you that you are a complex system but your individual parts are not equivalent to you.
Today the catholic church has been found guilty of causing harm and had to pay restitution for various actions ( in canada, for damage it caused to kids in residential schools, for example). If there were a court system capable of taking them on after the Inquisition it would be 'the church' that would be found guilty ( as well as some individuals).

Germany had to pay restitution after WWI ( one of the background causes of WWII).

luckyme

luckyme

01-31-2007, 11:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Have you people just never heard of personification? Do you really think that if someone says "the moonlight danced over the waves" that there are actually rays of moonlight doing the macarena on the ocean?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you add "....and it caused the sailor to misjudge the rocks." then you'll understand.
Attributing 'dancing' to the moonlight is personification ( or close enough anyway). Attributing 'causation' to the moonlight isn't.
Causation is not only a human attribute. Lightning can cause fire. Personification occurs when it is a human attribute that is conferred.
'Democracy is good' is not personification. Every person in the country could be bad and democracy could still be good. The goodness exists at the level of the system not at the level of the individual.
Goverments, school systems, corporations, churchs are higher level systems, they can have attributes that their parts don't.

luckyme

hashi92

01-31-2007, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When the cowboys win a football game are we talking about the team or the players. i think both.

[/ QUOTE ]
But when you say "the cowboys", do you mean the entire organization of the Dallas Cowboys from the President to the team to the guy who sweeps the stands after the game or are you talking about a subset of that organization? Probably the latter. Team members that play for the Dallas Cowboys won the game. Sometimes we might even point out individual efforts that were particularly helpful and some that weren't so helpful or even detrimental. Say the team lost. How are we to analyze what went wrong if we don't look at the individual level? You would be stuck with simply "the Cowboys lost" and couldn't glean much meaning from it. If you start analyzing each individual teammates play, like whether the receivers were running their routes correctly, linemen were blocking correctly, running backs and quarterbacks were making good reads as to the holes in the defense, then you might begin to see what's being done wrong. Remaining at the organizational level tells us nothing. Make sense?

[ QUOTE ]
If it makes you feel better change catholic church to catholic people and hitler to nazis people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it does because at least now you're trying to compare apples to apples instead of a red oak tree to the Yosemite National Park. Now we can start talking about actions and finding fault with those actions because we have people and not abstractions.

So let's go with that. Are you saying that all the catholics of the inquisition/crusades are as responsible as the nazis of the 1940's? Only some? Exactly who are you laying blame at the feet of?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 12:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Causation is not only a human attribute. Lightning can cause fire. Personification occurs when it is a human attribute that is conferred.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the type of human attribute I'm referring to is one of purposeful action. There's no purpose in a lightning strike. The lightning can't "choose" to strike here or there. Because it can't choose, it seems pretty meaningless to try and "judge" the morality of the lightning. Same goes for other things of nature. Since this whole thread was started in order to compare the morality of the actions of those in the Catholic Church with those of Hitler, I think it's an important distinction.

Can we at least agree on that?

[ QUOTE ]
'Democracy is good' is not personification. Every person in the country could be bad and democracy could still be good. The goodness exists at the level of the system not at the level of the individual.
Goverments, school systems, corporations, churchs are higher level systems, they can have attributes that their parts don't.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Democracy is good" is not a statement of action (unless you're going to nit be about the verb "is"). If you were to say "The history of Democracy shows that it is a good system", then it would make sense to begin by judging the actions of those elected through democracy, would it not? How can you judge the "goodness" or "badness" of a system without judging the individual actions perfomed by those within the system?

I just happen to disagree that any higher level of organization takes on characteristics that aren't attributable to the indiviudals who form that organization and have seen little evidence from guys like you as to why we should assume such characteristics exist.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best, there's a very indirect benefit that the janitor provides. But when we talk about the "Cowboys losing last week," we are usually talking about just certain members of that organization. Would you fault the janitor for Romo not holding onto the ball during the field goal? Would you fault Steve from accounting if T.O. drops a pass? No, you trace back actions that help and those that don't to winning the game. The actions of the janitor merely play a small role in keeping the organization operating. To extrapolate to the Catholic Church, they might be like a parishoner or maybe a priest in a small town. The actions committed by "the Catholic Church" can and should be traced to those who took those actions. So it would be right to say Pope Urban II deserves at least some part of the blame/responsibility for the Crusades. And we can begin to assign blame to individuals who followed through on Urban's edicts and so on. I think to just leave all the blame at the organization level obscures the issue and those who deserve more blame than others get off easy while those who don't deserve much or any blame are probably not receiving fair treatment. Would you agree with that?

[ QUOTE ]
if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that you know of the crime and that you have some reasonable option for intervening. Obviously if you are unaware of the crime happening, it would be unfair to blame you for not stopping it. And if the only way you could prevent the crime was to have Superman-like speed, it would also be unreasonable to blame you for not interfering. My contention is that you cannot blame everyone who belonged to the Catholic Church at the time of these atrocities for their occurance and that it is certain individuals are responsible and should receive the brunt of your anger.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 01:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
YES ! Now you're getting it. The company will be fined or forced to pay restitution or whatever other action the court decides is warranted because of the ACTIONS the corporation took or didn't take. Have you actually never read a newspaper report of these cases or TV news?

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you heard of negligent homicide? That's a criminal offense punishable . We're past fines at that point.

[ QUOTE ]
Complex systems can cause things that no one of their parts can, that's the nature of complex systems. The joke a poster made about your cells was to remind you that you are a complex system but your individual parts are not equivalent to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
The joke that other poster made was irrelevant to my or the OP's point. You can't morally judge the cells in my fingers because they don't have a choice in whether I type or not. Just as you can't morally judge the lightning bolt for hitting your house.

That is really my whole point for this thread. You can't morally judge any action but purposeful action and purposeful action is performed by individuals. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism) a wiki article that describes the type of individualism that I'm talking about. I didn't just make this stuff up for the purposes of exonerating the actions of those in the Church for past actions.

hashi92

01-31-2007, 01:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best, there's a very indirect benefit that the janitor provides. But when we talk about the "Cowboys losing last week," we are usually talking about just certain members of that organization. Would you fault the janitor for Romo not holding onto the ball during the field goal? Would you fault Steve from accounting if T.O. drops a pass? No, you trace back actions that help and those that don't to winning the game. The actions of the janitor merely play a small role in keeping the organization operating. To extrapolate to the Catholic Church, they might be like a parishoner or maybe a priest in a small town. The actions committed by "the Catholic Church" can and should be traced to those who took those actions. So it would be right to say Pope Urban II deserves at least some part of the blame/responsibility for the Crusades. And we can begin to assign blame to individuals who followed through on Urban's edicts and so on. I think to just leave all the blame at the organization level obscures the issue and those who deserve more blame than others get off easy while those who don't deserve much or any blame are probably not receiving fair treatment. Would you agree with that?

[ QUOTE ]
if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that you know of the crime and that you have some reasonable option for intervening. Obviously if you are unaware of the crime happening, it would be unfair to blame you for not stopping it. And if the only way you could prevent the crime was to have Superman-like speed, it would also be unreasonable to blame you for not interfering. My contention is that you cannot blame everyone who belonged to the Catholic Church at the time of these atrocities for their occurance and that it is certain individuals are responsible and should receive the brunt of your anger.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who disagreed with the church could have started a revolt to stop the wrong doing. The majority of the church at time believed they were doing right. The rest were probally tortured and killed. Only a small majority sat there and felt it was wrong and did nothing. Like i said faith blinds you.

hashi92

01-31-2007, 01:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best, there's a very indirect benefit that the janitor provides. But when we talk about the "Cowboys losing last week," we are usually talking about just certain members of that organization. Would you fault the janitor for Romo not holding onto the ball during the field goal? Would you fault Steve from accounting if T.O. drops a pass? No, you trace back actions that help and those that don't to winning the game. The actions of the janitor merely play a small role in keeping the organization operating. To extrapolate to the Catholic Church, they might be like a parishoner or maybe a priest in a small town. The actions committed by "the Catholic Church" can and should be traced to those who took those actions. So it would be right to say Pope Urban II deserves at least some part of the blame/responsibility for the Crusades. And we can begin to assign blame to individuals who followed through on Urban's edicts and so on. I think to just leave all the blame at the organization level obscures the issue and those who deserve more blame than others get off easy while those who don't deserve much or any blame are probably not receiving fair treatment. Would you agree with that?

[ QUOTE ]
if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that you know of the crime and that you have some reasonable option for intervening. Obviously if you are unaware of the crime happening, it would be unfair to blame you for not stopping it. And if the only way you could prevent the crime was to have Superman-like speed, it would also be unreasonable to blame you for not interfering. My contention is that you cannot blame everyone who belonged to the Catholic Church at the time of these atrocities for their occurance and that it is certain individuals are responsible and should receive the brunt of your anger.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your admiting here the individuals can be included under the cowboys term. Even the janitor no matter how minor his role is.

jeffnc

01-31-2007, 01:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I hate this forum, the reason of why catholics arent at the same level as Hitler its obvisouly because catholics have also done good stuff, and somehow someway we have a debate about who was worse hitler or the church during the inquisition.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to imply Hitler didn't do good things. This is an interesting point when people call him "pure evil". He was not that by any means. That's part of why he was so dangerous.

Pure evil is quite simple to deal with (not always easy, but simple.) It's part-evil that's so nasty. Hitler did lots of nice things for lots of people. (Kind of like the Catholic Church). He improved the lives of many Germans during some bad times. He also did plenty of bad things, but if you ignore all the good things he did, you won't be able to recognize the next Hitler.

As for the Catholic Church being "highly regarded" - that's pretty debatable. It's powerful, and rich, certainly. (Very "christian" attributes, eh?) But it's only high regarded by a relative minority of dogmatic hypocrites in the world.

luckyme

01-31-2007, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
YES ! Now you're getting it. The company will be fined or forced to pay restitution or whatever other action the court decides is warranted because of the ACTIONS the corporation took or didn't take. Have you actually never read a newspaper report of these cases or TV news?

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you heard of negligent homicide? That's a criminal offense punishable . We're past fines at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are the fines not a penalty? imposed on a corporation ( or a church in some cases) because they are held responsible?
I was disputing your claim that organizations can't be held responsible, charged and convicted when in fact that is happening every day at many levels and with all types. What the penalty is doesn't change that responsibility was assigned. When I get a fine it's because I was held responsible.

Organizations can have attributes that are not a personification. The Boy Scouts can be homophobic without having any homophobic members.

luckyme

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 01:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best, there's a very indirect benefit that the janitor provides. But when we talk about the "Cowboys losing last week," we are usually talking about just certain members of that organization. Would you fault the janitor for Romo not holding onto the ball during the field goal? Would you fault Steve from accounting if T.O. drops a pass? No, you trace back actions that help and those that don't to winning the game. The actions of the janitor merely play a small role in keeping the organization operating. To extrapolate to the Catholic Church, they might be like a parishoner or maybe a priest in a small town. The actions committed by "the Catholic Church" can and should be traced to those who took those actions. So it would be right to say Pope Urban II deserves at least some part of the blame/responsibility for the Crusades. And we can begin to assign blame to individuals who followed through on Urban's edicts and so on. I think to just leave all the blame at the organization level obscures the issue and those who deserve more blame than others get off easy while those who don't deserve much or any blame are probably not receiving fair treatment. Would you agree with that?

[ QUOTE ]
if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that you know of the crime and that you have some reasonable option for intervening. Obviously if you are unaware of the crime happening, it would be unfair to blame you for not stopping it. And if the only way you could prevent the crime was to have Superman-like speed, it would also be unreasonable to blame you for not interfering. My contention is that you cannot blame everyone who belonged to the Catholic Church at the time of these atrocities for their occurance and that it is certain individuals are responsible and should receive the brunt of your anger.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your admiting here the individuals can be included under the cowboys term. Even the janitor no matter how minor his role is.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have never contended that an individual cannot be included in a group. My point that I think I've been banging pretty hard is that if we are to analyze a group, staying only at the group level without reducing down to the individual gives us no meaning and no way to tell what is being done wrong or what is being done right. How are you to analyze the actions of a game that was lost if you cannot reduce down? If the Cowboys lose, does that mean that every individual that works for the Cowboys is equally responsible for the loss? Or are some more responsible than others?

dknightx

01-31-2007, 02:04 PM

hashi, expounding on your "dallas cowboys" example, let's say that from 1950-1960, the dallas cowboys were a disappointing 1-100, they were the worst team in the league by a LARGE margin. I think it is safe to call the 1950-1960 cowboys "losers".

However, by the late 1990s, they had won 10 consecutive superbowls.

Now in the year 2007 (after 7-8 years of mediocrity), do we call the Dallas Cowboys, "losers", "winners", or "just ok"?

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best, there's a very indirect benefit that the janitor provides. But when we talk about the "Cowboys losing last week," we are usually talking about just certain members of that organization. Would you fault the janitor for Romo not holding onto the ball during the field goal? Would you fault Steve from accounting if T.O. drops a pass? No, you trace back actions that help and those that don't to winning the game. The actions of the janitor merely play a small role in keeping the organization operating. To extrapolate to the Catholic Church, they might be like a parishoner or maybe a priest in a small town. The actions committed by "the Catholic Church" can and should be traced to those who took those actions. So it would be right to say Pope Urban II deserves at least some part of the blame/responsibility for the Crusades. And we can begin to assign blame to individuals who followed through on Urban's edicts and so on. I think to just leave all the blame at the organization level obscures the issue and those who deserve more blame than others get off easy while those who don't deserve much or any blame are probably not receiving fair treatment. Would you agree with that?

[ QUOTE ]
if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that you know of the crime and that you have some reasonable option for intervening. Obviously if you are unaware of the crime happening, it would be unfair to blame you for not stopping it. And if the only way you could prevent the crime was to have Superman-like speed, it would also be unreasonable to blame you for not interfering. My contention is that you cannot blame everyone who belonged to the Catholic Church at the time of these atrocities for their occurance and that it is certain individuals are responsible and should receive the brunt of your anger.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who disagreed with the church could have started a revolt to stop the wrong doing. The majority of the church at time believed they were doing right. The rest were probally tortured and killed. Only a small majority sat there and felt it was wrong and did nothing. Like i said faith blinds you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that there can be evil where good men do nothing to prevent more evil. But let's be honest. You weren't just condemning the Catholic Church of the Crusades/Inquistion. Your OP clearly was trying to condemn the present Catholic Church for the sins committed by other people. But if that's the standard we are to hold people to, anyone who ever had an ancestor who did something wrong should be condemned. I disagree with such a sentiment. I feel you should be responsible for your actions. So even the people who stayed silent while Urban II ordered the Crusades are responsible in part because of their action of doing nothing. The idea that we should condemn the present set of people for the actions of those in the past should lead us to condemn essentially every nation that has ever existed because that nation probably hurt other people. And I ask of what use is such condemnation then?

vhawk01

01-31-2007, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
hashi, expounding on your "dallas cowboys" example, let's say that from 1950-1960, the dallas cowboys were a disappointing 1-100, they were the worst team in the league by a LARGE margin. I think it is safe to call the 1950-1960 cowboys "losers".

However, by the late 1990s, they had won 10 consecutive superbowls.

Now in the year 2007 (after 7-8 years of mediocrity), do we call the Dallas Cowboys, "losers", "winners", or "just ok"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, net they are above average. If you want to argue that the Catholic Church won more Super Bowls than it lost, that is exactly the type of debate we COULD have been having in this thread all along.

kurto

01-31-2007, 03:02 PM

I'm still puzzled by BCPVPs inability to perceive a group as a viable entity.

As others have pointed out, the actions of a group are often different then the actions of any individual.

If the KKK develops a philosophy, meets as a group to create a strategy and all the people work together to enact that strategy.... that "organization" is acting. Certainly individuals are acting withing that organization. But the organization is ALSO working.

The KKK can enact a campaign of terror. Not simply the members, but the group as a whole is greater and different then the sole actions of individuals. It is completely appropriate to talk about and be critical of the the actions of the organization.

dknightx

01-31-2007, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still puzzled by BCPVPs inability to perceive a group as a viable entity.

As others have pointed out, the actions of a group are often different then the actions of any individual.

If the KKK develops a philosophy, meets as a group to create a strategy and all the people work together to enact that strategy.... that "organization" is acting. Certainly individuals are acting withing that organization. But the organization is ALSO working.

The KKK can enact a campaign of terror. Not simply the members, but the group as a whole is greater and different then the sole actions of individuals. It is completely appropriate to talk about and be critical of the the actions of the organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

right, but what if there are some members who call themselves members of the KKK, yet do not agree with or follow the philosophy that was developed by the majority/those in power. Do we still group those people with those who are doing wrong?

What if many years after the ones who developed the "bad" philosophy have died, the KKK has now developed a more peaceful and loving philosophy. Do we continue to condemn the CURRENT KKK, or do we (be reasonable) and condemn the KKK of the past?

I believe that is what BCPVP is trying to say ...

luckyme

01-31-2007, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What if many years after the ones who developed the "bad" philosophy have died, the KKK has now developed a more peaceful and loving philosophy. Do we continue to condemn the CURRENT KKK, or do we (be reasonable) and condemn the KKK of the past?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring statute of limitation issues - If we found a 100 year old guy that was harmed by the KKK in 1915, could he sue the current KKK and have damages awarded? ( assuming no members of the 1915 roster are still involved).

luckyme

vhawk01

01-31-2007, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still puzzled by BCPVPs inability to perceive a group as a viable entity.

As others have pointed out, the actions of a group are often different then the actions of any individual.

If the KKK develops a philosophy, meets as a group to create a strategy and all the people work together to enact that strategy.... that "organization" is acting. Certainly individuals are acting withing that organization. But the organization is ALSO working.

The KKK can enact a campaign of terror. Not simply the members, but the group as a whole is greater and different then the sole actions of individuals. It is completely appropriate to talk about and be critical of the the actions of the organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

right, but what if there are some members who call themselves members of the KKK, yet do not agree with or follow the philosophy that was developed by the majority/those in power. Do we still group those people with those who are doing wrong?

What if many years after the ones who developed the "bad" philosophy have died, the KKK has now developed a more peaceful and loving philosophy. Do we continue to condemn the CURRENT KKK, or do we (be reasonable) and condemn the KKK of the past?

I believe that is what BCPVP is trying to say ...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking two different questions. Lets go back to your Cowboys analogy. Do we need to know (or care) about what the 70's Cowboys were like in order to assess the quality of THIS year's team? Of course not, it might be helpful but it might be misleading. Either way, this years team stands on its own merits. And this question really can be asked about the sum total contribution of some number of team members, whether they be players, owners, whatever.

But thats not what we are asking. We are asking about the net history of the Cowboys FRANCHISE. Clearly this is a question about a group that supercedes the individuals in that group. There are NO individuals who are responsible for the net history of the Cowboys franchise, so it makes no sense to speak about individuals. The history is a history of an entity, influenced at different times by different individuals.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 04:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out, the actions of a group are often different then the actions of any individual.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, no one has pointed out an "action" performed by a group that is not performed by individuals of the group. I know because I've been reading the thread. People have given examples where they employ personification, but that's all it is; simply humans attributing human characteristics to non-human things. From the wiki on personification:
"Personification is also widely used by individuals and mass media outlets when describing the actions of governments or corporations. Such as, "U.S. Defends Sale of Ports Company to Arab Nation" [1] or "Microsoft embarrassed one final time over SP2". [2] Personification is frequently employed in media headlines and cartoons."

Personification may be useful as a figure of speech, but you have to realize that's all it is.

hashi92

01-31-2007, 06:03 PM

If Hitlers great great grandson was running for the United States Presidency what are the chances that this person would be elected. This person would have the ideal qualifications.

kurto

01-31-2007, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
right, but what if there are some members who call themselves members of the KKK, yet do not agree with or follow the philosophy that was developed by the majority/those in power. Do we still group those people with those who are doing wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any reason why you can't talk about a group in one context and talk about individuals within a group in another.

(for the example) You can correctly say that the KKK acted in a certain way even if 100% of the people affiliated with the KKK weren't involved.

[ QUOTE ]
What if many years after the ones who developed the "bad" philosophy have died, the KKK has now developed a more peaceful and loving philosophy. Do we continue to condemn the CURRENT KKK, or do we (be reasonable) and condemn the KKK of the past?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are essentially not the same group. You can judge an organization at different times. There are different levels that you can judge an organization.

Can you hold every member of the catholic church today with what happened during the inquisition? Of course not. Was the inquisition perpetrated by the Catholic Church. Of course it was. It was the direct consequence of a decision made by its governing body, based on its philosophies and enacted by the organization. Does that mean the organization cannot change over time? Of course not.

Though I believe The OP is arguing that the organization has consistantly done things to deserve contempt. (I'm not agreeing or disputing... just observing)

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 06:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason why you can't talk about a group in one context and talk about individuals within a group in another.

(for the example) You can correctly say that the KKK acted in a certain way even if 100% of the people affiliated with the KKK weren't involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguments are easy if you just assume your conclusion. I've yet to hear of a good reason why we should be judging the organization based on a figure of speech.

kurto

01-31-2007, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason why you can't talk about a group in one context and talk about individuals within a group in another.

(for the example) You can correctly say that the KKK acted in a certain way even if 100% of the people affiliated with the KKK weren't involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguments are easy if you just assume your conclusion. I've yet to hear of a good reason why we should be judging the organization based on a figure of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you're the only person who doesn't agree that a group or organization is capable of action.

I've said before that debating with people who define their own truths are rathar difficult to debate with. Countless examples (practical, legal, etc.) have been offered none of which you've satisfactorily countered.

I really don't see the point. You're arguing using defintions that only you seem to agree.

bunny

01-31-2007, 06:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason why you can't talk about a group in one context and talk about individuals within a group in another.

(for the example) You can correctly say that the KKK acted in a certain way even if 100% of the people affiliated with the KKK weren't involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguments are easy if you just assume your conclusion. I've yet to hear of a good reason why we should be judging the organization based on a figure of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about luckyme's homophobic boy scouts example? If the organisation has a whole bunch of homophobic rules, yet all it's members are not homophobic - if somebody felt aggrieved at being excluded who should they blame? This seems to me a good reason to blame the organisation as it stops people doing bad things by hiding in a group.

Another reason would be that we allow organisations to own assets and to enter into legally binding contracts (which are not binding on their individual members). If we are not going to grant them the ability to act, how do they buy the assets? Or how do they reach agreements with other entities?

hashi92

01-31-2007, 07:34 PM

BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

hashi92

01-31-2007, 08:02 PM

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 08:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I take it you're the only person who doesn't agree that a group or organization is capable of action.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your reading skills must be poor. I've already mentioned that this is not something I made up. The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism), again.

[ QUOTE ]
You're arguing using defintions that only you seem to agree.

[/ QUOTE ]
ORLY? Which definitions are you troubled by? Are you certain it's not you who is redefining things like "action" through personification to suite your argument? Because that's what you and others have been doing for much of this thread.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How about luckyme's homophobic boy scouts example?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, must have missed it in the sea of responses here.

[ QUOTE ]
If the organisation has a whole bunch of homophobic rules, yet all it's members are not homophobic - if somebody felt aggrieved at being excluded who should they blame? This seems to me a good reason to blame the organisation as it stops people doing bad things by hiding in a group.

[/ QUOTE ]
"People doing". That's individual action. Someone must be enforcing these rules if a potential boy scout/scout leader is feeling aggreived. The person enforcing those rules is the actor. If no one enforced these rules, nobody would be aggreived. This might lead off on a tangent because my views on the right of association might be a bit different than some here.

But like I said before, I think that by blaming an organization instead of the individuals, you are actually doing the opposite of what you claim; namely not allowing people to hide within the group. Keeping with the Catholic Church example, I think that by blaming the Church for the scandals involving child abuse reduces the blame we should be putting on the person who abused the children and those who covered it up. It at least partially absolves people of responsibility for their actions because they can hide behind the group and simply blame "it" for their problems.

[ QUOTE ]
Another reason would be that we allow organisations to own assets and to enter into legally binding contracts (which are not binding on their individual members). If we are not going to grant them the ability to act, how do they buy the assets? Or how do they reach agreements with other entities?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why this can't be done with agreements with whoever accepts responsibility to act on the rest of the company's behalf on certain matters. Maybe it's the president or CEO or whatever. The company chooses their representative and he/she can perform those actions. And if in casual conversation we were to simply say "Pepsi is buying Dr. Pepper", that can be forgiven as simply a figure of speech meant to simply life so we don't have to know exactly who is repsonsible for exactly what decisions. If we start getting into nitty gritty details, I don't think it's that unreasonable that we actually look at the individuals who are actually capable of action. This is especially true if we're going to start doing things like judging the morality of a certain action.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 09:06 PM

Since definitions seem to be tripping some up, let me ask this: who or what exactly is the Catholic Church. Is it a "who"? Is it a "what"? Both? Neither?

hashi92

01-31-2007, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly we are having casual conversation. were not splittng atoms here. im glad you finally see the light.

BCPVP

01-31-2007, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly we are having casual conversation. were not splittng atoms here. im glad you finally see the light.

[/ QUOTE ]
Casual conversation, is it now? I thought it was supposed to be serious debate that you were trying inspire. If it's the latter, then we better start breaking out our nuclear reactors. If not, then I'd like to know what the purpose of your OP was? What do you want us to do if we agree the Church, and not individual people, is responsible for things like the Crusades? It seemed pretty clear to me that you want us to stigmatize the Church the way Hitler is stimatized, which means you believe we should be "punishing" it for actions in the past. Is that what you want?

Taraz

01-31-2007, 09:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But like I said before, I think that by blaming an organization instead of the individuals, you are actually doing the opposite of what you claim; namely not allowing people to hide within the group. Keeping with the Catholic Church example, I think that by blaming the Church for the scandals involving child abuse reduces the blame we should be putting on the person who abused the children and those who covered it up. It at least partially absolves people of responsibility for their actions because they can hide behind the group and simply blame "it" for their problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to apply that what I'm about to say applies to the church specifically, but I think this kind of ignores the fact that lots of problems are systemic in nature. A lot of times the whole power structure would make otherwise "good" people do "bad" things. Look up Stanley Millgram's experiments and/or Zimbardo's prison study if you don't understand what I'm talking about.

I know that you will probably say that it is the fault of the person in charge, but often the organizational structure can induce people to do some pretty terrible things.

hashi92

01-31-2007, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly we are having casual conversation. were not splittng atoms here. im glad you finally see the light.

[/ QUOTE ]
Casual conversation, is it now? I thought it was supposed to be serious debate that you were trying inspire. If it's the latter, then we better start breaking out our nuclear reactors. If not, then I'd like to know what the purpose of your OP was? What do you want us to do if we agree the Church, and not individual people, is responsible for things like the Crusades? It seemed pretty clear to me that you want us to stigmatize the Church the way Hitler is stimatized, which means you believe we should be "punishing" it for actions in the past. Is that what you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

i just had a thought and wanted to see what other people had to say. the church does do good things but isnt it ironic that it is founded on so much violence and lies. Without this evil period in the churches life it would be a totally different organization. I didnt come to the conclusion that the reason the church gets off the hook because faith is blind until after half way through this post.

bunny

01-31-2007, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why this can't be done with agreements with whoever accepts responsibility to act on the rest of the company's behalf on certain matters. Maybe it's the president or CEO or whatever. The company chooses their representative and he/she can perform those actions. And if in casual conversation we were to simply say "Pepsi is buying Dr. Pepper", that can be forgiven as simply a figure of speech meant to simply life so we don't have to know exactly who is repsonsible for exactly what decisions. If we start getting into nitty gritty details, I don't think it's that unreasonable that we actually look at the individuals who are actually capable of action. This is especially true if we're going to start doing things like judging the morality of a certain action.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see that you could phrase everything differently and reduce the discussion to individual people. I just dont see the advantage. I have no problem saying coke owns a factory and I have no problem saying they are expanding their market share or advertising or being sued or any other action (some of which are good, some bad). What advantage is there in not adhering to the conventions of everyday language?

BCPVP

02-01-2007, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why this can't be done with agreements with whoever accepts responsibility to act on the rest of the company's behalf on certain matters. Maybe it's the president or CEO or whatever. The company chooses their representative and he/she can perform those actions. And if in casual conversation we were to simply say "Pepsi is buying Dr. Pepper", that can be forgiven as simply a figure of speech meant to simply life so we don't have to know exactly who is repsonsible for exactly what decisions. If we start getting into nitty gritty details, I don't think it's that unreasonable that we actually look at the individuals who are actually capable of action. This is especially true if we're going to start doing things like judging the morality of a certain action.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see that you could phrase everything differently and reduce the discussion to individual people. I just dont see the advantage. I have no problem saying coke owns a factory and I have no problem saying they are expanding their market share or advertising or being sued or any other action (some of which are good, some bad). What advantage is there in not adhering to the conventions of everyday language?

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like I've explained the disadvantages several times, but I'll give it one more go. I also don't have a problem with people saying "Coke owns a factory in Anytown, USA". In that case, we're not doing much serious analyzing of behavior and action. But when you start trying to make comparisons between an organization and an individual, especially when you want to do something like assign responsibility for actions, I think the organizational level is insufficient. I don't think anyone here has any disagreement with the statement "Not every Catholic was involved with the Crusades/Inquistions." Maybe not even every church official. If that's the case, then the comparisons of the Catholic Church to Hitler is a sweeping overgeneralization and is misplacing responsibility. And I think that when you misplace the responsibility, you blame people who deserve less or no blame more and blame people who do deserve blame less. If that's so, then we should be looking at an individual level.

May I turn the question around? What advantages do we have in making comparisons between a person and an organization that we don't have by comparing individuals to individuals (apples to apples)?

BCPVP

02-01-2007, 01:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly we are having casual conversation. were not splittng atoms here. im glad you finally see the light.

[/ QUOTE ]
Casual conversation, is it now? I thought it was supposed to be serious debate that you were trying inspire. If it's the latter, then we better start breaking out our nuclear reactors. If not, then I'd like to know what the purpose of your OP was? What do you want us to do if we agree the Church, and not individual people, is responsible for things like the Crusades? It seemed pretty clear to me that you want us to stigmatize the Church the way Hitler is stimatized, which means you believe we should be "punishing" it for actions in the past. Is that what you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

i just had a thought and wanted to see what other people had to say. the church does do good things but isnt it ironic that it is founded on so much violence and lies. Without this evil period in the churches life it would be a totally different organization. I didnt come to the conclusion that the reason the church gets off the hook because faith is blind until after half way through this post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you still persist with the claim that anyone is "letting anyone off the hook" with regards to past atrocities? I'm certainly not in favor of letting anyone who was responsible for those atrocities off the hook. I just don't condemn everyone for the sins of one or two or twenty men nor do I try to condemn the current batch for the sins of those in the past.

vhawk01

02-01-2007, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why this can't be done with agreements with whoever accepts responsibility to act on the rest of the company's behalf on certain matters. Maybe it's the president or CEO or whatever. The company chooses their representative and he/she can perform those actions. And if in casual conversation we were to simply say "Pepsi is buying Dr. Pepper", that can be forgiven as simply a figure of speech meant to simply life so we don't have to know exactly who is repsonsible for exactly what decisions. If we start getting into nitty gritty details, I don't think it's that unreasonable that we actually look at the individuals who are actually capable of action. This is especially true if we're going to start doing things like judging the morality of a certain action.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see that you could phrase everything differently and reduce the discussion to individual people. I just dont see the advantage. I have no problem saying coke owns a factory and I have no problem saying they are expanding their market share or advertising or being sued or any other action (some of which are good, some bad). What advantage is there in not adhering to the conventions of everyday language?

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like I've explained the disadvantages several times, but I'll give it one more go. I also don't have a problem with people saying "Coke owns a factory in Anytown, USA". In that case, we're not doing much serious analyzing of behavior and action. But when you start trying to make comparisons between an organization and an individual, especially when you want to do something like assign responsibility for actions, I think the organizational level is insufficient. I don't think anyone here has any disagreement with the statement "Not every Catholic was involved with the Crusades/Inquistions." Maybe not even every church official. If that's the case, then the comparisons of the Catholic Church to Hitler is a sweeping overgeneralization and is misplacing responsibility. And I think that when you misplace the responsibility, you blame people who deserve less or no blame more and blame people who do deserve blame less. If that's so, then we should be looking at an individual level.

May I turn the question around? What advantages do we have in making comparisons between a person and an organization that we don't have by comparing individuals to individuals (apples to apples)?

[/ QUOTE ]

The advantage is that it allows us to consider actions that were taken by people BECAUSE they belonged to a certain group that never would have been taken otherwise. The group itself bears some responsibility, and it simply cannot be divided or segregated entirely to individuals.

hashi92

02-01-2007, 02:10 AM

I would like to clear up some points that keep on repeating.

The Catholic Church is highly regarded. It is one of the major religons of the world.

The Catholic Church is a group that has one ideal and view. It is not a collaboration of views it is one view one ideal. America would be an example of many individuals with different views. Therefore you can say the Catholic Church killed. There probally were some people who disagreed with the church but they were the minority. If the majority of people think the same they should all be held responsible.

When i use Hitler i mean Hitler his ideals and his followers. I could use nazi's but it doesnt impart the same effect.

Lastly like i said before we are not splitting atoms here we are just having a friendly debate. The outcome doesnt have to result in any earth shattering revelations.

BCPVP

02-01-2007, 02:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The advantage is that it allows us to consider actions that were taken by people BECAUSE they belonged to a certain group that never would have been taken otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds close, but you can still remain at the individual level. Any person who takes an action that was influenced by other people from the same organization can still have their action traced to those that influenced them. I don't object to referencing certain policies of an organization as being influential. Those policies were written by people, which is, you guessed it, more individual action. Even granting that this is an advantage, how does it apply to atrocities committed by the Catholic Church? There's no foundation for such atrocities within the New Testament, at least not in the one I have (which is different than a Catholic New Testment. Perhaps Jesus's instructions for waging war are in the books that were left out of the Lutheran bible...). So your advantage is of not an advantage with the OP's comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
The group itself bears some responsibility, and it simply cannot be divided or segregated entirely to individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]
But why? Why does "the group" bear responsibility? Why can't actions be traced to individuals? No one has provided a remotely satisfactory answer for this question nor has anyone even really tackled answering the question of who or what the Catholic Church is. Many of you have just assumed the conclusion that "the group bears responsibility".

hashi92

02-01-2007, 02:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly we are having casual conversation. were not splittng atoms here. im glad you finally see the light.

[/ QUOTE ]
Casual conversation, is it now? I thought it was supposed to be serious debate that you were trying inspire. If it's the latter, then we better start breaking out our nuclear reactors. If not, then I'd like to know what the purpose of your OP was? What do you want us to do if we agree the Church, and not individual people, is responsible for things like the Crusades? It seemed pretty clear to me that you want us to stigmatize the Church the way Hitler is stimatized, which means you believe we should be "punishing" it for actions in the past. Is that what you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

i just had a thought and wanted to see what other people had to say. the church does do good things but isnt it ironic that it is founded on so much violence and lies. Without this evil period in the churches life it would be a totally different organization. I didnt come to the conclusion that the reason the church gets off the hook because faith is blind until after half way through this post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you still persist with the claim that anyone is "letting anyone off the hook" with regards to past atrocities? I'm certainly not in favor of letting anyone who was responsible for those atrocities off the hook. I just don't condemn everyone for the sins of one or two or twenty men nor do I try to condemn the current batch for the sins of those in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you replace Catholic Church with Iraq i dont think we would be arguing about anything. Like i said before since God is involved everyone is blind. Nobody would elect hitlers great great great grandson as president because he carries the hitler name and legacy. he would not be able to escape from his past. I would never be able to forgive hitler in my lifetime no matter how much good he did.

BCPVP

02-01-2007, 02:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic Church is highly regarded. It is one of the major religons of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
This will probably seem like a nit, but I think it might go to highlight your misunderstandings about this whole thing. The Catholic Church is not a religion. Catholicism is a major religion. So are you blaming the Catholic Church or Catholicism?

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic Church is a group that has one ideal and view. It is not a collaboration of views it is one view one ideal. America would be an example of many individuals with different views.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know if you can go that far. Certainly there are some Catholic officials and priests who have differing views on things, even if they're minor. They are not a hive mind.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore you can say the Catholic Church killed.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've made a huge leap without any logical reasons to back you up. And you are still falling into the trap of personification.

[ QUOTE ]
There probally were some people who disagreed with the church but they were the minority. If the majority of people think the same they should all be held responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if we accept this, which I don't, does that mean that "they" should be responsible for all time? Only a certain "they" during a certain time? You have to be more specific.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly like i said before we are not splitting atoms here we are just having a friendly debate. The outcome doesnt have to result in any earth shattering revelations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think most people can see through this smokescreen attempt. It should be fairly obvious to people what your intention was with your OP. You wanted to slander people who belong to the Catholic Church now as being the equivalent of Nazis because of actions of some in the past.

luckyme

02-01-2007, 02:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But when you start trying to make comparisons between an organization and an individual, especially when you want to do something like assign responsibility for actions, I think the organizational level is insufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also the other way around. The difficulty seems to be that you do not allow a discussion of causation without intent attached and in that sense you want to take it to an individual level. But in systems, things can be caused totally contrary to the intent of individuals because of the nature of the system. Any individual in it does not need to know the outcome the system is producing and it's possible for the system to be producing an outcome contrary to the intent or desires of the individuals.

An analogy - The situation of selfish genes that create a giant system that produces altruistic actions can't be reversed to claim that it's the genes that are altruistic. The altruism exists only at the holistic level not at the reductionist level of the selfish gene.

Churches, governments, teams, family groups all can have characteristics that cause things to occur that don't transfer in act or intent down to the individuals involved. It may, it may even be more common that it does, but it's not a necessity. It is correct to refer to 'cause' at the holistic level if that's where it occurs, even if moral culpability may sit at a lower individual level if it exists anywhere. It is not letting the individuals off the hook for any actions if they are guilty but that doesn't mean the cause has been properly identified at their level either.

Events occur on many different levels and there is no valid claim that one specific level is THE true level.

luckyme

BCPVP

02-01-2007, 02:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly we are having casual conversation. were not splittng atoms here. im glad you finally see the light.

[/ QUOTE ]
Casual conversation, is it now? I thought it was supposed to be serious debate that you were trying inspire. If it's the latter, then we better start breaking out our nuclear reactors. If not, then I'd like to know what the purpose of your OP was? What do you want us to do if we agree the Church, and not individual people, is responsible for things like the Crusades? It seemed pretty clear to me that you want us to stigmatize the Church the way Hitler is stimatized, which means you believe we should be "punishing" it for actions in the past. Is that what you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

i just had a thought and wanted to see what other people had to say. the church does do good things but isnt it ironic that it is founded on so much violence and lies. Without this evil period in the churches life it would be a totally different organization. I didnt come to the conclusion that the reason the church gets off the hook because faith is blind until after half way through this post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you still persist with the claim that anyone is "letting anyone off the hook" with regards to past atrocities? I'm certainly not in favor of letting anyone who was responsible for those atrocities off the hook. I just don't condemn everyone for the sins of one or two or twenty men nor do I try to condemn the current batch for the sins of those in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you replace Catholic Church with Iraq i dont think we would be arguing about anything. Like i said before since God is involved everyone is blind. Nobody would elect hitlers great great great grandson as president because he carries the hitler name and legacy. he would not be able to escape from his past. I would never be able to forgive hitler in my lifetime no matter how much good he did.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I could forgive Hitler either. Nor am I sure I could forgive Pope Urban II for starting the Crusades or Pope Innocent IV (ha!) for authorizing torture during the medieval inquistions. But I would be wrong to blame all Catholics now for the crimes of people they never knew or met or could have had any meaningful relationship with. Apparently you subscribe to some "sins of the father" belief system, which I'd say makes you worse than many of the religions you so despise.

luckyme

02-01-2007, 02:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But I would be wrong to blame all Catholics now for the crimes of people they never knew or met or could have had any meaningful relationship with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't your argument that we can't hold the church up as the cause of the inquisition? It's you that insists on transferring the churches responsibility to the individuals. Then you want to say we can't blame the individuals of today. HECK, we've been trying to convince you that a good chunk of the blame of yesterday didn't belong to individuals but to the nature of a major religious system.
You're blending the good parts of our argument with the bad parts of yours .. and then blaming us :-)))

luckyme

bunny

02-01-2007, 02:50 AM

Thanks. I am clearly arguing at cross purposes in that I agree comparing Hitler to The Church is silly. I still think entities can act (following luckyme, I think the critical part of an "act" is cause, not that it must be planned by a sentient being).

I agree that comparing an individual human and an abstract entity persisting over hundreds of years doesnt make much sense. I just dont think the difference is that one can act and the other cant.

BCPVP

02-01-2007, 03:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I would be wrong to blame all Catholics now for the crimes of people they never knew or met or could have had any meaningful relationship with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't your argument that we can't hold the church up as the cause of the inquisition? It's you that insists on transferring the churches responsibility to the individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you guys are the ones committing this fallacy of personifying an abstraction as being capable of action. No one has yet provided any clear reason for why such personification is justified or helpful and I've mentioned half a dozen times why it is not helpful, particularly when trying to assign blame.

[ QUOTE ]
HECK, we've been trying to convince you that a good chunk of the blame of yesterday didn't belong to individuals but to the nature of a major religious system.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it is the "nature" of Catholicism (which is a new charge, the OP and most of you guys have been talking about the Catholic Church specifically, not Catholicism) to cause men to form Inquisitions and go on Crusades, how come we don't see that now? And if we don't see that now because the "nature"/policies/whatever you want to call it have changed, what good is there with blaming a "new" institution?

I feel I've just run into the wall of ignorance that many of you anti-theists have erected in which anything even smacking of relgion is and always will be wrong. I don't know how much I feel like repeating myself anymore. If you are actually interested in methodological individualism, you can read the wiki I posted as well as google around. Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises (especially things like praxeology) would be good starts.

hashi92

02-01-2007, 03:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly we are having casual conversation. were not splittng atoms here. im glad you finally see the light.

[/ QUOTE ]
Casual conversation, is it now? I thought it was supposed to be serious debate that you were trying inspire. If it's the latter, then we better start breaking out our nuclear reactors. If not, then I'd like to know what the purpose of your OP was? What do you want us to do if we agree the Church, and not individual people, is responsible for things like the Crusades? It seemed pretty clear to me that you want us to stigmatize the Church the way Hitler is stimatized, which means you believe we should be "punishing" it for actions in the past. Is that what you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

i just had a thought and wanted to see what other people had to say. the church does do good things but isnt it ironic that it is founded on so much violence and lies. Without this evil period in the churches life it would be a totally different organization. I didnt come to the conclusion that the reason the church gets off the hook because faith is blind until after half way through this post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you still persist with the claim that anyone is "letting anyone off the hook" with regards to past atrocities? I'm certainly not in favor of letting anyone who was responsible for those atrocities off the hook. I just don't condemn everyone for the sins of one or two or twenty men nor do I try to condemn the current batch for the sins of those in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you replace Catholic Church with Iraq i dont think we would be arguing about anything. Like i said before since God is involved everyone is blind. Nobody would elect hitlers great great great grandson as president because he carries the hitler name and legacy. he would not be able to escape from his past. I would never be able to forgive hitler in my lifetime no matter how much good he did.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I could forgive Hitler either. Nor am I sure I could forgive Pope Urban II for starting the Crusades or Pope Innocent IV (ha!) for authorizing torture during the medieval inquistions. But I would be wrong to blame all Catholics now for the crimes of people they never knew or met or could have had any meaningful relationship with. Apparently you subscribe to some "sins of the father" belief system, which I'd say makes you worse than many of the religions you so despise.

[/ QUOTE ]

im not trying to slander the church now. i have said repeated times in this post that i think the church does basically good things now. my point is that most people do not forget past events. Presidential candidates are destroyed because of their past. If a presidential candidate had a history of his family belonging to the KKK what do you think his chances of being elected are. you keep on saying that the past should be forgotten but in todays world its not so easily done. The churches past is forgotten like i said for the millionth time because faith is blind. you keep on tiptoeing around my main point. your using semantics to break down my arguments but you know exactly what my point is. I have stated earlier this is just a friendly debate. Im not trying to paint a picture of anything. im just discussing ideas.

BCPVP

02-01-2007, 03:20 AM

Posts like these should illustrate why I'm a bit frustrated. You will not once find in this thread anything written by me that intelligent people could construe as saying "the past should be forgotten" especially since I have several times stated the exact opposite. That one sentence proves that either you can't understand what people write and probably have no business being on a poker website (least of all the philosophy section of the site) or that you never cared about "friendly debate" and have no problem with lying about what I've said in order to bash the Catholic Church.

You are flat out wrong when you say that the atrocities committed by those in the Catholic Church are forgotten. They haven't been forgotten. You were wrong when you stipulated this in your OP, you were wrong early in the thread when it was pointed out to you and you are still wrong now. Repeating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.

Seriosly done now.

hashi92

02-01-2007, 03:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Posts like these should illustrate why I'm a bit frustrated. You will not once find in this thread anything written by me that intelligent people could construe as saying "the past should be forgotten" especially since I have several times stated the exact opposite. That one sentence proves that either you can't understand what people write and probably have no business being on a poker website (least of all the philosophy section of the site) or that you never cared about "friendly debate" and have no problem with lying about what I've said in order to bash the Catholic Church.

You are flat out wrong when you say that the atrocities committed by those in the Catholic Church are forgotten. They haven't been forgotten. You were wrong when you stipulated this in your OP, you were wrong early in the thread when it was pointed out to you and you are still wrong now. Repeating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.

Seriosly done now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that we do background checks on people before hiring them. It is because we do not want to hire people with criminal records. Why is this. Didnt the person serve the time for his crime. didnt the person make amends. why should it matter that he committed a crime in the past. but in our society today we are held accountable for our past. if people know you have a criminal past they will always be weary of you.

You keep on saying that Pope is the one who sould get the blame. well the Pope is the church. He calls all the shots. So if the Pope did wrong the whole church did wrong. If the people felt that the Pope was doing wrong they would have removed him.

would you feel comfortable recieving charity from me if you knew that the source of the charity was from drug money.

hashi92

02-01-2007, 03:54 AM

Quote:
But I would be wrong to blame all Catholics now for the crimes of people they never knew or met or could have had any meaningful relationship with.

I never blamed the catholics of today for the crimes of the past. please show me were i stated this.

hashi92

02-01-2007, 04:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Posts like these should illustrate why I'm a bit frustrated. You will not once find in this thread anything written by me that intelligent people could construe as saying "the past should be forgotten" especially since I have several times stated the exact opposite. That one sentence proves that either you can't understand what people write and probably have no business being on a poker website (least of all the philosophy section of the site) or that you never cared about "friendly debate" and have no problem with lying about what I've said in order to bash the Catholic Church.

You are flat out wrong when you say that the atrocities committed by those in the Catholic Church are forgotten. They haven't been forgotten. You were wrong when you stipulated this in your OP, you were wrong early in the thread when it was pointed out to you and you are still wrong now. Repeating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.

Seriosly done now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may not have forgotten but most of the people in the catholic church today do not even think twice about its evil past. You're not even catholic so how can you state your opinion as the opinion of all catholics. This stuff is never mentioned in sermons its basically swept under the rug.