(Ron) Catholic sexual ethics

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 11:17 PM 4/2/98 -0600, Maniacie wrote:

>> The percentage is nowhere near 1. The percentage is not much

>> higher than that of the general population. The point is that

>> Catholicism *reduces*, not *eliminates*, immorality. The only

>> way it could prevent immorality is for God to will it that way

>> which would remove free will, an impossibility for God. God

>> tells people what He wants them to do, not what they must do.



>Err...  I don't understand...  if "Catholicism *reduces*, not

>*eliminates*, immorality" then WHY is the percentage "not much higher

>than that of the general population"!?  You would think that the

>percentage would be lower and not greater than the average population

>("not much greater than the population" = greater than the population in

>this language).


Err... you sure as hell don't understand all right but at least
you admitted it. Let's take it step by step.

1. Catholicism reduces, not eliminates immorality. What this
means is that the teachings of the Church do not prevent all
immorality. This means that the immorality that would otherwise
occur without Catholicism is reduced.

2. Next step. The percentage is not much higher than that of
the general population. What this refers to is the specific
instance of Catholic priests, and not to the general case 
mentioned in step one, which applies to ALL Catholics. Which
would of course include priests, which then in turn means
that there is a reduction, not an elimination, of immorality
among priests compared to what there would have been without
Catholic teachings.

3. Next step. Getting to the point where you leaped erroneously.
The percentage found in Catholic priests is not much higher
than found in the general population. What this means is that,
although more priests engage in these activities slightly more
than the average, still Catholic teachings reduce it from what
it would have otherwise been.

4. Conclusion. You missed the whole fucking point. The point
is that moral commandments reduce but don't eliminate immorality.
You confused both the term reduction and what it was being applied
to and the three different groups involved, Catholics, priests,
and the general population.

It was certainly not good writing on my part, but then I'm
answering hundreds of these things a day. It should have been
divided into two paragraphs, with the first two sentences in
one. The topic changes midstream.


>> People are atheists as reactions against their own personal

>> experiences with religion. Many can't understand it and they

>> fear and dislike things they can't understand.



>False and hasty generalization.  If you were omniscient then you could

>make such a claim about atheist. People can also be atheist if they have

>never heard of a notion of God.


All generalizations are false but this one was not hasty. This
was not in any sense a "claim". And no, no one who has never
heard of God can be an atheist. Absolutely flat out impossible.
Atheism is the firm conviction that there is no God. A person
who had never heard of the notion of God could not possibly be
convinced that God was nonexistent. You cannot possibly be
firmly convinced that the species on Alpha Centauri with eight
sexes divides by budding if you know nothing of the notion of
that species.  Atheism is an active religion in opposition to
God. Agnosticism, the rational choice, is what you find when
a person has no notion of God.


>People who live in glass houses...

>

>> And you people imagine you're "arguing" with some "logic"!


Yes, it's fortunate that I live in a stone castle and refuse
to play the silly game of logic, and see that all arguments
are only over the meanings of words having nothing to do
with reality.

Dick Jones

• Previous message: Postings Like This Cause the Suspicion
• Next message: It's You, Ron
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]