News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

I'm Catholic, let me have it!

Started by Vercingetorix, March 23, 2014, 01:59:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mermaid

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 08:45:20 PM
A pedophile is an adult that is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, that means under age 11. Over 95% of abuser priests targeted adolescent boys, not prepubescent girls, so "pedophile" is an incorrect definition in the first place.
Oh, well in that case, party on!
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

the_antithesis

Man, I really don't give a shit about catholicism. I think arguing finer. points of dogma to be a pointless waste of time.

Stop wasting our time and tell us what this fucking god thing you're talking about is.

Poison Tree

The John Jay report has issues with methodology, not the least of which was arbitrarily setting the age of puberty at 11, while the generally accepted age is 13 for boys and 12-13 for girls. If we use the John Jay reports data, 47.2% of victims were age 12 or under, with an additional 12.8% at age 13. Even looking at only those age 10 or younger gets 22.6% of victims. So, unless the 5% who were "pedophile priests" were far more active than the other 95%, the numbers still don't add up--for what it is worth I've seen two versions of this claim (one saying 5% of priests fit the pedophile definition, the other saying 5% of victims were 10 or under) a lot on the internet, but can't find the claim in the John Jay report itself; maybe it is in some versions and not others?

Not that abusing 14 year-olds is suddenly ok because it is not "pedophilia"
"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches" Voltaire�s Candide

stromboli

The Catholic Church is centuries old. It has been doing things the same way for that long. You can find abuses in any country, from the separation of children from unwed mothers involuntarily in Ireland, to mass extinctions and slavery of Native Americans in the New World, to forced relocation and reeducation of thousands of Indian children in Canada. In the case of Canada, other churches were involved as well. It was a systematic destruction of a native culture.

http://voices.yahoo.com/not-just-another-forced-relocation-canadian-holocaust-6891020.html

Plu

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 06:33:56 PM
I've seen this Hitchslap! Theatrics, celebrity parade, not that impressed. I like Hitchens in general... as an orator, and debater, but I didn't care for this debate. I'm working on those numbers johan... I know they're here somewhere...

Shame. It seemed many in the audience were swayed by it. A lot of people changed their minds after that debate, apparently.

Also there's 300,000 teachers in California of which about half are elementary, so you'd need to compensate the number a bit more.

Also I wouldn't exactly trust the numbers brought out by the same people who stand accused of protecting pedophiles. That seems a little suspicious.

Jason78

Quote from: Vercingetorix on March 24, 2014, 08:45:20 PM
Over 95% of abuser priests targeted adolescent boys, not prepubescent girls, so "pedophile" is an incorrect definition in the first place.

They shouldn't be targeting anybody!
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

wavecollapse

catholic church apologist? are you and EVIL apologist to ???

AllPurposeAtheist

Man, cut the shit and stop making excuses for accepting bullshit in your life. If you want to buy the bull that's fine,  I'm pretty sure nobody really gives a rats ass. If you're truly interested in learning about the real world then fine. Learn it, but knock off the "but I'm brainwashed" innocent act.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

leo

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 25, 2014, 11:06:53 AM
Man, cut the shit and stop making excuses for accepting bullshit in your life. If you want to buy the bull that's fine,  I'm pretty sure nobody really gives a rats ass. If you're truly interested in learning about the real world then fine. Learn it, but knock off the "but I'm brainwashed" innocent act.
He should convert to toothfairysm the true religion.
Religion is Bullshit  . The winner of the last person to post wins thread .

AllPurposeAtheist

Leo, Leo, Leo...if I told you once I told you a thousand times, it's Toothfairianism and it's the ONE true religion.  lol
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Solitary

#85
Welcome aboard Vercingetorix! You wear your religion like a band of honor, and ask what's wrong with it, and want us to tell you. It's based on primitive superstitious nonsense by men who never had a clue about what reality is and magical Neanderthal thinking, which takes away free thought, that's what wrong with it. I'm married to a Catholic. Solitary

For those that don't know: Vercingetorix was the best known, and perhaps the most able, leader of the Gallic opposition to Caesar during the Gallic War of 58-51 B.C. He came to prominence at the start of the Great Gallic Revolt in 52 B.C., when he was given the supreme command of the Gallic army, and for most of the year he managed to hold together a powerful alliance of Gallic tribes.

Vercingetorix was the son of Celtillus, an Arvernian nobleman who according to Caesar had once 'held the supremacy of entire Gaul', but had been killed by his fellow Gauls when they discovered that he wanted to become king of a united Gaul. At the start of the revolt Vercingetorix attempted to raise the Arverni, but he was expelled from Gergorvia, their capital, by a group of noblemen led by his uncle Gobanitio. This was only a temporary setback, for Vercingetorix was able to gather together a large force of his own followers. The nobles were overthrown and Vercingetorix was acclaimed as king of the Arverni.

His first move was to sent ambassadors out to neighbouring tribe, and he soon had the Senones, Parisii, Pictones, Cadurci, Turones, Anlerei, Lemovice and the tribes of the northern and north-western coasts attached to his cause, in addition to the Carnutes, who had started the revolt. Vercingetorix was appointed the supreme commander of the newly united Gallic army.
At the start of the revolt Vercingetorix was in a strong position. Caesar was in Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy), while his army was in northern Gaul. The previous two revolts had taken place in the north west and north east of Gaul, while the south and centre had remained quiet. As a result the Roman Province of Transalpine Gaul was poorly defended. Vercingetorix sent part of his army south to attack the Ruteni, on the border of the Roman Province, in the hope that this would prevent Caesar from moving north. At the same time he led the rest of his army north to attack the Bituriges. They called on the Aedui for assistance, but when the Audean army turned back at the Loire the Bituriges joined the revolt.

Caesar soon disrupted Vercingetorix's plans. After organising the defences of the Province he led a small force across the Cevennes Mountains, into Vercingetorix's homeland. Vercingetorix was forced to move south to counter Caesar, who then slipped away to the east, collected more troops and then crossed Aeduan territory to reach his legions in the north.
Vercingetorix's next move was an attack on the Boii town of Gorgobina, apparently in the hope that this would force Caesar to pull their legions out of their winter quarters. Gorgobina had been settled by the Boii in 58 B.C. and was effectively under Caesar's protection, so the plan worked, but perhaps not with the eventual results that Vercingetorix had hoped for. The Romans advanced south towards Gorgobina, capturing Vellaunodunum and Cenabum (Orleans) on the way, before attacking Noviodunum. Vercingetorix abandoned the siege of Gorgobina and moved towards the Romans in an attempt to prevent the fall of the town, but by the time his advance guard came within sight of the place it had already surrendered to the Romans. The sight of the Gallic cavalry convinced some of the townspeople to renew their resistance, but the Romans won a cavalry engagement outside the town, and the surrender was completed.

Caesar now took the initiative, moving to attack the important Bituriges town of Avaricum. Vercingetorix wanted to adopt a scorched earth policy and attempt to prevent the Romans from gaining supplies or winning victories. The Bituriges agreed to destroy most of their towns but eventually persuaded Vercingetorix to let then defend Avaricum. Vercingetorix camped fifteen miles from the town, and attempted to destroy any Roman foraging parties that strayed too far from the town. When the Romans had nearly completed their siege works he moved his camp closer to the town, but an attempt to ambush a Roman foraging party failed after the Romans learnt of the plan.

While Vercingetorix was away from the army Caesar led his legions out of the siege works and offered battle, but the Gauls were leaderless and the two armies were separated by a swamp that discouraged attack. Eventually Caesar returned to his camp to continue the siege. On his return to the Gallic camp Vercingetorix was accused of treason, on the grounds that he had deliberately moved the Gauls into a vulnerable position and then left them without a leader. Vercingetorix demonstrated his unusual ability to maintain a coalition of different Gallic tribes, making a speech that completely restored his authority.
The almost inevitable fall of Avaricum and the massacre that followed further enhanced his reputation as the only leader who had predicted this outcome to the siege. It was soon be even further enhanced when he became the only Gallic leader to actually defeat Caesar, or at least prevent him from achieving one of his objectives. The end of the siege of Avaricum came at the start of the spring of 52 B.C. Caesar decided to split his army in two. Four legions were sent north while he led six to attack Gergovia. Once again Vercingetorix agreed to take part in the defence of a town, and placed his camps on the hills that surrounded the place.

The successful defence of Gergovia wasn't actually due to any particular action on Vercingetorix's part. The Aedui, Rome's most loyal allies in Gaul, were finally on the brink of joining the revolt. Caesar managed to foil a plot to subvert an Aeduan army that was heading towards Gergovia, but realised that he would have to abandon the siege and move north to reunite his army before he was overwhelmed. After an attempt to save face by attacking the Gallic camp ended in an embarrassing defeat on the town walls Caesar moved away to the north, foiled for the first time.

Soon after this the Aedui came out in open revolt. Despite being complete newcomers they immediately claimed the leadership of the revolt, but at a council held at Bibracte everyone voted in favour of retaining Vercingetorix as commander.
Having been confirmed in his authority Vercingetorix decided to renew the attack on the Roman Province. Caesar was forced to react to this, leading his newly reunited army east through the territory of the Lingones towards that of the Sequani, from where he could easily have moved into the province. Vercingetorix decided to attack the Romans while they were on the march, in an attempt to inflict a defeat on them that would prevent Caesar from simply returning north with more troops once he had restored the situation in the south.

The resulting battle of the Vingeanne ended as a clear Roman victory. The Gauls were forced to retreat west with the Romans following close behind, until they reached the fortified town of Alesia, where Vercingetorix took shelter. This was a dramatic change from his policy at every earlier stage of the war, when he had made sure that he was never trapped inside a besieged town. Vercingetorix's last move before the Roman siege lines were completed was to send his cavalry away from Alesia with orders to gather a relief army.

The siege of Alesia turned into the decisive battle of the war. A massive Gallic relief army was eventually gathered, forcing Caesar to build a double line of defences â€" one looking in towards the town and one looking out towards the relief force. With Vercingetorix trapped inside the city the relief effort was poorly organised. Caesar was able to defeat the first two attempts to break the siege with some ease.

The final attack was more serious. The Gauls outside the town attacked a camp on the northern side of the town, where the Romans lines were disrupted by a steep hill. Vercingetorix was able to see that this attack was underway and ordered a sally from within the walls. The Romans found themselves attacked from both sides at once, but Caesar was able to cope with the situation and eventually both attacks failed.

The relief army suffered heavy casualties in this third attack, and on the day after the battle it scattered. When this became known inside the town Vercingetorix realised that the last chance of victory had gone, and he decided to surrender to Caesar instead of prolonging the siege. According to Plutarch Vercingetorix put on his best armour, rode around Caesar, then got off his horse, took off his armour and sat at Caesar's feet until he was led away.

Caesar's own account of the surrender is less dramatic, and has Vercingetorix turned over by the other Gallic chiefs in Alesia.

After his surrender Vercingetorix was taken to Rome where he was kept prisoner until Caesar was able to celebrate his triumph for the Gallic War. The civil war delayed this until 45 B.C., and so Vercingetorix survived for seven years after his surrender at Alesia, before being executed after the triumph.

While other Gallic leaders, most notably Ambiorix, who was never captured, or Commius of the Atrebates, who eventually established a kingdom in southern Britain, played an equally major part in the Gallic resistance, it was Vercingetorix who was remembered, as the leader of the most powerful alliance of Gallic tribes that Caesar ever faced.

The Gallic War , Julius Caesar. One of the great works of western civilisation. Caesar was an almost unique example of a great general who was also a great writer. The Gallic War is a first hand account of Caesar's conquest of Gaul, written at the time to explain and justify his actions.
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

AllPurposeAtheist

I can't believe I read that whole wall of text. Interesting though.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Vercingetorix

Quote from: Poison Tree on March 24, 2014, 09:51:10 PM
The John Jay report has issues with methodology, not the least of which was arbitrarily setting the age of puberty at 11, while the generally accepted age is 13 for boys and 12-13 for girls. If we use the John Jay reports data, 47.2% of victims were age 12 or under, with an additional 12.8% at age 13. Even looking at only those age 10 or younger gets 22.6% of victims. So, unless the 5% who were "pedophile priests" were far more active than the other 95%, the numbers still don't add up--for what it is worth I've seen two versions of this claim (one saying 5% of priests fit the pedophile definition, the other saying 5% of victims were 10 or under) a lot on the internet, but can't find the claim in the John Jay report itself; maybe it is in some versions and not others?

Not that abusing 14 year-olds is suddenly ok because it is not "pedophilia"

as to your paragraph... okay, at least we have a little less to disagree about. On your summary statement; obviously... I don't think anyone could agree more.

Quote from: Plu on March 25, 2014, 04:33:52 AM
Shame. It seemed many in the audience were swayed by it. A lot of people changed their minds after that debate, apparently.

Also there's 300,000 teachers in California of which about half are elementary, so you'd need to compensate the number a bit more.

Also I wouldn't exactly trust the numbers brought out by the same people who stand accused of protecting pedophiles. That seems a little suspicious.

They were swayed... by shouting, and by celebrity. I didn't mention the number of teachers... I never insinuated that there was one accusation per teacher, the point is that legal action is taken in about 800 of the thousands of cases that are brought to the attention of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing each year. Again, all the numbers, including from the CCTC, and the CDCP are completely credible.

Quote from: Jason78 on March 25, 2014, 06:07:28 AM
They shouldn't be targeting anybody!

Absolutely agree.

Quote from: wavecollapse on March 25, 2014, 10:34:30 AM
catholic church apologist? are you and EVIL apologist to ???


No

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 25, 2014, 11:06:53 AM
Man, cut the shit and stop making excuses for accepting bullshit in your life. If you want to buy the bull that's fine,  I'm pretty sure nobody really gives a rats ass. If you're truly interested in learning about the real world then fine. Learn it, but knock off the "but I'm brainwashed" innocent act.

One of my foremost joys is learning about the world... we could talk about that...

@solitary, I was very glad to read your "wall of text," very interesting. I've learned more about Vercingetorix's campaign from you than from anywhere else so far. I think the train of thought we're moving to is "free thought," I believe I have it, and I believe I do no injury to the Church at all by having it...

Vercingetorix

In the midst of all this, let me propose a question. What is the opinion of either this community or these individuals on the objectivity of morality? I ask this because of a debate I saw between William Lane Craig, and Sam Harris. First of all let us get on the same page, let us speak in terms of modern day Catholicism (because it's MY question lol.) This is to avoid the mention of the westboro baptist church, and the ancient Church whose supposed evils are so often espoused here, and the modern day individual failings of a far too large number of priests. I wish to avoid these specific items because they are not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church even if they are directly related to Christianity or more specifically, Catholicism in some way. Does anyone here think that the teachings of the Church and the potential objectivity of atheistic morality will/can converge at some point? Even though their ideas on God won't.

PickelledEggs

There is no atheistic morality or Christian/Catholic/Muslim/etc morality. Only morality.

The teachings of the Catholic church will converge with morality when it (like other religions) stops telling people how to live their lives. It kind of defeats the purpose of religion, but that is the problem with religion in the first place. People as a whole know what is right and what's wrong. When a religion of any kind, even the catholic church, tells people what is good and what is bad especially when it forces people to try to be anything other than human, that is where you have problems and it's not moral to do that. Catholic morality... isn't.