Pope reaffirms ban on women priests - Page 38

AngryAtheist8 · #**556** May 3, '12, 2:33 pm

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Yes, yes, I know the metaphysical theory.
But in practice, somebody has to actually write the laws and interpret the doctrines, and whoever does that is effectively in charge.

Now who is effectively in charge?
Because I was under the impression that it was the Pope and other Bishops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

God is in charge.

That is not a meaningful answer to my question.
It would be like if I asked who was present during a particular Mass and you kept just repeating God, God, God, God.

**JharekCarnelian** · #**557** May 3, '12, 2:35 pm

Our answers are never going to fit your paradigm AA. And if you asked me who was present during a particular Mass and I answered God it would be a perfectly reasonable answer for a number of reasons.

1)God is present in all places.

2) Christ is specifically present in the Eucharist at a Mass.

**Tantum ergo** · #**558** May 3, '12, 2:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Yes, yes, I know the metaphysical theory.
But in practice, somebody has to actually write the laws and interpret the doctrines, and whoever does that is effectively in charge.

Now who is effectively in charge?
Because I was under the impression that it was the Pope and other Bishops.

That is not a meaningful answer to my question.
It would be like if I asked who was present during a particular Mass and you kept just repeating God, God, God, God.

Yes it is.

I'm sorry that you don't LIKE the answer because you personally don't believe in God. We do.

Gee, it's like we keep giving you an answer and you just keep on saying, "I won't accept it, I won't accept it, I won't accept it. "

**PRmerger** · #**559** May 3, '12, 3:48 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

A fact based criticism.
You're doing better Lochias

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Angry.

A better response would have been, "Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I did learn that in 3rd grade, but I slipped up."

Especially since you have claimed you would do as much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Moreover, if I make a grammar error and someone points it out, of course I would correct myself.

Lochias · #**560** May 3, '12, 3:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Of course.
For instance, do you really think that privates are as important as generals in an army?
The answer is (or at least should be) obvious.

You're missing the point.
Generals make the decisions, and their harder to replace, therefore a general is much more important than a private.

I again invite you to go and be laughed out of a general's office over this idea. One could technically say that the engine of a car is more important than its parts, but one screw coming loose can spell doom for the whole thing.

Do you really, really think that generals view their soldiers as less important than they are?

Lochias · #**561** May 3, '12, 4:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Angry.

A better response would have been, "Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I did learn that in 3rd grade, but I slipped up."

Especially since you have claimed you would do as much.

There is very little evidence thus far to substantiate any of AA's claims.

Armyvet007 · #**562** May 3, '12, 4:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Of course.
For instance, do you really think that privates are as important as generals in an army?
The answer is (or at least should be) obvious.

You're missing the point.
Generals make the decisions, and their harder to replace, therefore a general is much more important than a private.

Generals aren't that hard to replace. General dies, his 2nd in command takes over, G1 orders a new general [yeah orders like a piece of equipment], new general arrives, gets a battle hand off from the 2nd in command. The military is a machine, it would be kinda stupid to design it to fall apart if 1 piece [the general] breaks.

Also, generals don't make the important decisions. That would be the leader on the ground. No plan survives contact.

AngryAtheist8 · #**563** May 3, '12, 6:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Angry.

A better response would have been, "Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I did learn that in 3rd grade, but I slipped up."

Especially since you have claimed you would do as much.

Lochias has been trying to have a flame war with me.
I was merely returning (to a small extent) the 'courtesy' he had shown me

Besides, I was genuinely amused by the fact that it took him that long to come up with something I had actually done wrong considering how long he's been badmouthing me in this thread.

Moreover sarcasm is used by powerful people all the time.

AngryAtheist8 · #**564** May 3, '12, 6:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lochias

There is very little evidence thus far to substantiate any of AA's claims.

Wrong.

Unlike the vast majority of people at CAF, I frequently use evidence and sources to back up my claims (the post below is an example from this thread), as my posting history at this forum shows.

I would like it if you used a bit more fact based commentary Lochias, it would be a pleasant change from your apparent M.O.

Apr 24, '12, 5:09 pm
AngryAtheist8
Regular Member Join Date: October 7, 2010
Posts: 3,319
Religion: Agnostic

Re: Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tantum ergo
Strawman.

YOU are the one claiming that the Church has labeled areas of life that it 'admits it has no authority over TEACHING OR OTHERWISE and people should just do their own thing'.

You made the claim with no support. You just throw the words out there as though by your stating them they are inerrant fact.

And if we tried going piece by piece even with statements from the Catechism about lawful government etc., you would pull some kind of example that you would say 'proves' your point. Argumentum ad infinitum.

Uh-uh, nope. We aren't going to play the game.

When you start making actual specific statements which you can back up with proven facts, and not just throw out broad generalizations and unsupported assertions, we'll be happy to have a dialogue, but why should anybody here give you a bully pulpit for your strawman arguments which you attempt to pass off as Church teaching???

Strawman

Hardly.

What could be a more purely secular matter than Economics, yet the Pope feels it is his place to set the guidlines for this aspect of life too.

Here's a link to an article on the subject:
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/on...c_justice.html

**PRmerger** · #**565** May 3, '12, 6:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Moreover sarcasm is used by powerful people all the time.

And it's a demonstration that this powerful person is weak and cannot refute the argument proposed.

Surely you know that even people in power can be weak, right?

AngryAtheist8 · #**566** May 3, '12, 7:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

And it's a demonstration that this powerful person is weak and cannot refute the argument proposed.

Surely you know that even people in power can be weak, right?

Actually people frequently use sarcasm simply to be mean, or because they are in a situation where they feel that they must at least observe pseudo-politeness.
Moreover, many very sarcastic people think that their behavior is funny (such as Jerry Seinfeld).

To be honest I used to think Seinfeld was funny too.

**PRmerger** · #**567** May 3, '12, 7:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Actually people frequently use sarcasm simply to be mean,

Well, I don't think that applied to you here.

Quote:

or because they are in a situation where they feel that they must at least observe pseudo-politeness.

Or this one.

Quote:

Moreover, many very sarcastic people think that their behavior is funny (such as Jerry Seinfeld).

As I don't know if you think your sarcasm is funny, I'll defer this one. But my guess is that you didn't do it to be funny.

No. I think I was right the first time. It was the protest of the weak.

AngryAtheist8 · #**568** May 3, '12, 8:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Well, I don't think that applied to you here.

Or this one.

As I don't know if you think your sarcasm is funny, I'll defer this one. But my guess is that you didn't do it to be funny.

No. I think I was right the first time. It was the protest of the weak.

I am actually a relatively sarcastic and snarky person, although I am not as bad as my Dad (who I got it from).

Lochias · #**569** May 3, '12, 8:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Wrong.

Unlike the vast majority of people at CAF, I frequently use evidence and sources to back up my claims (the post below is an example from this thread), as my posting history at this forum shows.

I would like it if you used a bit more fact based commentary Lochias, it would be a pleasant change from your apparent M.O.

Your "evidence" hasn't won anyone over yet. So, either you're the lone, shining light in a sea of misinformation and darkness...or, your "evidence" is bunk. I know which one my money's on.

And, yes, I'm sure you'd like a lot of things. I like a great many things, too.

AngryAtheist8 · #**570** May 3, '12, 10:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lochias

Your "evidence" hasn't won anyone over yet. So, either you're the lone, shining light in a sea of misinformation and darkness...or, your "evidence" is bunk. I know which one my money's on.
And, yes, I'm sure you'd like a lot of things. I like a great many things, too.

Coming from someone who doesn't use evidence to back up his arguments at all, that means very little.