Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Many dictators like to call themselves Democratic...but they're not.(Correct, there never has been)
ok, fine, but this is moot in the debate
if our modern values are not democratic then we are looking for the origins of those non-democratic values, not discussing the origins of philosophical democracy (as, in your view, they are not modern values)
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Let me guess im one of them?
Very much so.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yes just as I thought. Serioulsy are you trying to be annoying unpurpose? Get this into your thick head. I am not trying to demean Christanity the point of bringing up The Crusades was not to make the religon look bad but was to create a balanced view that the religion had done GOOD AND BAD JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. If your going to make assumptions about what posters are trying to say at least don't sound like an arrogant dick it makes you look an even bigger dick....oh and this isn't the first time you've done this.
Until someone claims that Christianity is an unassailable universal font of good there is no reason to bring up an argument about how it isn't perfect unless you are doing it as an attack. For exactly the same reason if someone is arguing about the color of toads there is no reason to mention that they're never bright blue.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Hell I even explained this to you and even tried to confirm what you thought I was trying to say but you couldn't even be bothered to respond to the post and like you didn't ahve the balls to admit that you completely and totally misintepreted what I was trying to say.
Clever, no one's ever tried backpedaling and personal attacks to defend themselves before. You'll go far.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Very much so.Until someone claims that Christianity is an unassailable universal font of good there is no reason to bring up an argument about how it isn't perfect unless you are doing it as an attack. For exactly the same reason if someone is arguing about the color of toads there is no reason to mention that they're never bright blue.
Clever, no one's ever tried backpedaling and personal attacks to defend themselves before. You'll go far.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Why are you being so aggressive to people who don't agree with your points?
Its not that simple its not an issue of him simply disagreeing with my point of view. What hes doing is trolling.
He keeps accusing me of trying to demean Christanity, ive explained to him politely thats not what im trying to do and carries on accusing me of trying to do it.
Furthermore he did the same thing to Digi, accusing him of trying to demean religon and trying to make atheism look better. Digi explained to him poltely thats not what hes trying to but he still carried accussing him. Not only that he does it in other threads as well.. Basically he an an obnoxious **** who misinterprets what people say so he can get his rocks off lecturing them.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because he knows that being angry is the only thing he has left to use.
This time he was quoted though, and has been reported.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Its not that simple its not an issue of him simply disagreeing with my point of view. What hes doing is trolling.He keeps accusing me of trying to demean Christanity, ive explained to him politely thats not what im trying to do and carries on accusing me of trying to do it.
Furthermore he did the same thing to Digi, accusing him of trying to demean religon and trying to make atheism look better. Digi explained to him poltely thats not what hes trying to but he still carried accussing him. Not only that he does it in other threads as well.. Basically he an an obnoxious **** who misinterprets what people say so he can get his rocks off lecturing them.
Well, from my experience with you this is often your tactics, I think your a bully to be honest.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because he knows that being angry is the only thing he has left to use.
Can anybody else see this BS
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Thats the second time ive seen him post abuse then edit it...
So what I was going to change my mind and try to be polite.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
This time he was quoted though, and has been reported.
LOL did you even read what I said?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavWell, from my experience with you this is often your tactics, I think your a bully to be honest.
Oh don't give me that crap. I explained why I flipped out last time and I even apologised...you probably didn't see the post.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
He keeps accusing me of trying to demean Christanity
Well the other option is you being clinically retarded so I felt it was polite.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
ive explained to him politely thats not what im trying to do and carries on accusing me of trying to do it.
You certainly haven't seemed polite to me.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Furthermore he did the same thing to Digi, accusing him of trying to demean religon and trying to make atheism look better. Digi explained to him poltely thats not what hes trying to but he still carried accussing him. Not only that he does it in other threads as well.. Basically he an an obnoxious **** who misinterprets what people say so he can get his rocks off lecturing them.
And you have a tendency to bring up a random point, declare it supports your claims and then cry when someone calls you on it.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Can anybody else see this BSSo what I was going to change my mind and try to be polite.
LOL did you even read what I said?
Oh don't give me that crap. I explained why I flipped out last time and I even apologised...you probably didn't see the post.
I'm not getting into this debate. Let us assume good faith, and as the thread starter I would like to politely ask you to return to the topic at hand.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well the other option is you being clinically retarded so I felt it was polite.You certainly haven't seemed polite to me.
And you have a tendency to bring up a random point, declare it supports your claims and then cry when someone calls you on it.
Anybody else see this BS? Anybody?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I'm not getting into this debate. Let us assume good faith, and as the thread starter I would like to politely ask you to return to the topic at hand.
Can anybody else see this? How Sym is insulting me and hes accusing me of being a bully and then all of a sudden he wants to return to the topic at hand. He doesnt want me to defend myself....he just wants to get back on topic.. 😏 No doubt if I don't get back on topic he'll report me again.
Re: Church before state.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?
In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.
Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?
I would say, no. Faith is not a sufficient basis for breaking the law. A Roman Catholic might reasonably be obligated to try to have the law changed but not simply break it because the Pope says so.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Both of you, these sort of arguments should be taken to PM.Let us return to the topic at hand, I ask again.
Im not taking anything to PM. Dont accuse me of shit and then decide you dont want to talk about it. Anyway I think im done here. Yeah and don't try to suddenly have a go at Sym after I pointed out what hes done. Hell If I hadn't complained about it you wouldn't have said a god damn thing.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would say, no. Faith is not a sufficient basis for breaking the law. A Roman Catholic might reasonably be obligated to try to have the law changed but not simply break it because the Pope says so.
So, what moral force should bind a person to the laws of their state?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So, what moral force should bind a person to the laws of their state?
None.
The law of the state should be followed mainly on principles of reason. Things that are inherently morally charged might reasonably have basis in personal morality but most laws should not have anything to do with moral binding.