Catholics vs. Hitler

[vhawk01]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ QUOTE ]

the church can't kill anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they can and they do.

Do you see why?

[John21]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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...