Catholic Social Teaching

Originally posted by Conrau K
If you teach at a Catholic school, you will need to understand a fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism: Catholics do not consider faith as the acceptance of nonsensical doctrines. The doctrine of "one nature and three people" was developed out of an attempt to rationalise the Trinity. Historically, it was not taking it as a faith, but ...[text shortened]... who perform different acts. They clones are different persons, but they share the same nature.

I will not teach at a Catholic school. I'm applying to be a student at a Catholic university.

Originally posted by Conrau K
If you teach at a Catholic school, you will need to understand a fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism: Catholics do not consider faith as the acceptance of nonsensical doctrines. The doctrine of "one nature and three people" was developed out of an attempt to rationalise the Trinity. Historically, it was not taking it as a faith, but ...[text shortened]... who perform different acts. They clones are different persons, but they share the same nature.

So God's a sort of hive mind then?

Even polytheists agree that different gods share the 'god nature'. They don't think they all have the same personality though. Is that it? Three bodies with one mind and personality, and he chooses the body that is most appropriate for his current mood? Thus, when God's really pissed, he has the Jesus-body go to bed while he focusses on the Father. When he doesn't want to meddle too directly but still wants to meddle, he puts the Father away and focusses on the Spirit, etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I will not teach at a Catholic school. I'm applying to be a student at a Catholic university.

My mistake. Still it is an important distinction to know.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
So God's a sort of hive mind then?

Even polytheists agree that different gods share the 'god nature'. They don't think they all have the same personality though. Is that it? Three bodies with one mind and personality, and he chooses the body that is most appropriate for his current mood? Thus, when God's really pissed, he has the Jesus-body go to rectly but still wants to meddle, he puts the Father away and focusses on the Spirit, etc.

Even polytheists agree that different gods share the 'god nature'. They don't think they all have the same personality though. Is that it? Three bodies with one mind and personality, and he chooses the body that is most appropriate for his current mood?

I am not sure. I do not think that the mind is the same as one's nature. In some schools of theology, the Father is the creator, the Son is the knowledge of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and Son. They of the same nature, but they are different persons, according to the Aquinian definitions of nature and person. Nature means something closer to "substance" or "essence" - not necessarily mind.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]There's no way an organization with that kind of power and wealth is going to be transparent. Especially an organization with the history of the Church.

As I have explained, I reject your use of the term "church" as incoherent. The people who initiated the crusades are not the same people who concealed abuses; the individual dioceses which moved a ...[text shortened]... t you post pretty much in an effort to hone your skills for a class or something.[/b]

WTF?[/b]

I have no interest in playing academic games. Someday you'll come to understand that academia and truth have a pretty wide gulf between them. Good luck with school.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I have no interest in playing academic games. Someday you'll come to understand that academia and truth have a pretty wide gulf between them. Good luck with school.

I have no idea what you are talking about. But it does sound like a good strategy to avoid conceding a loss.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have no idea what you are talking about. But it does sound like a good strategy to avoid conceding a loss.

It's apparent that you have no idea what I'm talking about. In your world it's about "winning" and "losing". It's about demonstrating proficiency in the skills you've been taught, as you've been taught them. It's a game. A game not played at a very high level. After you've been away from it long enough, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's apparent that you have no idea what I'm talking about. In your world it's about "winning" and "losing". It's about demonstrating proficiency in the skills you've been taught, as you've been taught them. It's a game. A game not played at a very high level. After you've been away from it long enough, you'll know what I'm talking about.

No; you made an outrageous claim that the Catholic Church oppresses people via the system, maintains its power/financial base. I have advanced several arguments as to why this is not the case. You then fixated on the abuse scandal (even though I said I did not want to engage in apologetics for the Church). And now, after even your claims about the abuse-scandal have been discredited, you raise this bizarere ad hominem. I think your bigotry is unreasonable and I have called you out on it. No game - you should admit that you are a bigot or just ignorant.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like usual your post is filled with lies, half-truths, distortions, etc. You've shown time and again that truth is all but ignored in KM's world.

You're arguments are childish. And like a willful child, there's little point in explaining anything to you.

I don't know that there's much sadder than a fool with confidence.

Always , always statements , no arguments. You talk like a fundie who sees no need to back up his position , your only need is to denigrate those who do not share the "faith". This is why you rarely respond with anything vaguely logical or well constructed , you show now interest in learning from anyone. Of course if you already know the "truth" why listen or even bother with an argument??

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You pose no challenge - only the babblings of a buffoon.

Your pride continues to get the better of you.

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

Do you have any idea of how utterly and completely arrogant you come across to others?

To say I "pose no challenge" is an easy cop out to deceive yourself into believing this. And who knows , you might be right , but only one of us is prepared to test this out.

I would be quite happy to meet you in a open public debate which would be judged by neutral observers as to whose argument held most water. The problem is you wouldn't show up and you would announce a false victory anonymously on utube the day after.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No; you made an outrageous claim that the Catholic Church oppresses people via the system, maintains its power/financial base. I have advanced several arguments as to why this is not the case. You then fixated on the abuse scandal (even though I said I did not want to engage in apologetics for the Church). And now, after even your claims about the abuse-sca ...[text shortened]... d I have called you out on it. No game - you should admit that you are a bigot or just ignorant.

Ouch ! Conrau , you have challenged him!!!!! I will save ToO some time so he won't have to post...

"You are a fool and blind to the truth , I hope some day you will see past your ego and embrace the words of Jesus blah blah blah......the truth will set you free...."

(you probably know the rest )

Originally posted by Conrau K
No; you made an outrageous claim that the Catholic Church oppresses people via the system, maintains its power/financial base. I have advanced several arguments as to why this is not the case. You then fixated on the abuse scandal (even though I said I did not want to engage in apologetics for the Church). And now, after even your claims about the abuse-sca ...[text shortened]... d I have called you out on it. No game - you should admit that you are a bigot or just ignorant.

You seem unaware or unwilling to accept the fact that the actual workings of an organization is rarely the same as what is published. This is especially true of large, powerful and wealthy organizations. All the more so with organizations that have a long running history of corruption. I think your naivete is unreasonable and I called you out on it. And so it goes...

BTW, read your post. How is that not an ad hominem? What's up with that?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you have any idea of how utterly and completely arrogant you come across to others?

To say I "pose no challenge" is an easy cop out to deceive yourself into believing this. And who knows , you might be right , but only one of us is prepared to test this out.

I would be quite happy to meet you in a open public debate which would be judged by n ...[text shortened]... u wouldn't show up and you would announce a false victory anonymously on utube the day after.

What part of "I'm not interested in debating anything with you" don't you understand? Yet you continue to follow me around trying to engage in debate. So I give you my reasons for not wanting to debate with you. And you still persist. And the accusations fly. This has been going on for some time now. I don't know how else to tell you this other than to tell you. This has been going on for months now. And yet you still persist. How dense can one person actually be?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What part of "I'm not interested in debating anything with you" don't you understand? Yet you continue to follow me around trying to engage in debate. So I give you my reasons for not wanting to debate with you. And you still persist. And the accusations fly. This has been going on for some time now. I don't know how else to tell you this other than to te ...[text shortened]... n going on for months now. And yet you still persist. How dense can one person actually be?

Which I translate as " That's it mate , you've found me out and I don't like it , it's my ball and I'm of home with it. "

Don't you think it's significant that you seem interested in debating but there's always a point where you back off. This point is always when a direct challenge is given to test out your position. Your bluff is called and you refuse to turn over your cards because it's just better to walk from the table.

Not only do you not have the truth , you also have limited self knowledge.

(BTW - If I am honest , I do follow you around on occasions hoping to pick a fight because I want the real truth of Jesus to be explored from behind your fake version . However , at least I have the honesty to admit this. I think you will find you have jumped threads recently yourself and followed me around , yes?)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Which I translate as " That's it mate , you've found me out and I don't like it , it's my ball and I'm of home with it. "

Don't you think it's significant that you seem interested in debating but there's always a point where you back off. This point is always when a direct challenge is given to test out your position. Your bluff is called and you able.

Not only do you not have the truth , you also have limited self knowledge.

My position is simple. The words of Jesus support salvation through righteousness.

The only "challenge" that you've presented boils down to you believe otherwise largely based on the words of Paul.

You have a seriously distorted view of reality.

"God is omniscient and God isn't omniscient."

You've convinced me that you actually believe that. It's not inconsistent with much of the rest of your belief system.

Is there any point in trying to have a rational discussion with someone who is so deluded that he actually believes that?