Kathleen Sebelius to Speak at Georgetown Commencement Ceremony
In what can only be interpreted as a direct challenge to America’s Catholic bishops, Georgetown University has announced that “pro->choice” Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and lead architect of the Obama >administration’s assault on religious freedom through the HHS contraception mandate, has been invited to speak at one of Georgetown’s >several commencement ceremonies. Via Fr. Z
Ho hum. Not exactly surprising and in fact I should have expected exactly such silliness. Considering the recent invite and speech by Sandra Fluke this is just par for the course. Of course it makes perfect sense for a woman barred from receiving Communion (until she hopefully repents) to give a commencement speech at a Jesuit institution. Remember this is the same university that covered the IHS monogram sign for the President when he spoke there.
So I am not exactly outraged? No, saddened by the continue decline of a Catholic university – certainly, but dissent is so boring and predictable.
So will Cardinal Wuerl speak out about this? Unlikely based on his previous silences on scandalous invites in his jurisdiction. No doubt Georgetown would ignore any such criticism by their bishop just as Notre Dame did, but it needs to be said anyway.
In the meantime the Cardinal Newman Society has a petition concerning this http://www.georgetownscandal.com/
I don’t understand why Judas gets such a bad rap from Christians, wasn’t Jesus being killed part of your god’s plan? Shouldn’t Jesus have given himself up to the authorities anyway? He wanted to be killed so he could save the world from himself in regular god form?
>assault on religious freedom through the HHS contraception mandate,
I’m still not seeing how medical insurance companies covering the cost of medication prevents you or even impacts your relgion.
It stops you from going to church and saying prayers and performing rituals?
Concerning your questions:
Judas was certainly acting as part of God’s plan, a plan that would not have been necessary btw had we not rejected His grace and origninal plan for us by sin. That’s different than saying that God commanded or required Judas to betray Christ, for Judas, as we all do, had free will, and did not have to betray Our Lord anymore than any of us have to sin. Judas’ biggest sin was not being complicit in the muder of an innocent man..it was despairing of God’s mercy by failing to repent and then taking his own life, and the Catholic Church clearly teaches that we are all as guilty as Judas in Christ’s death and will have the same eternal fate if we choose to reject the redemptive grace offered to us that flows from His death on the Cross.
Second question: Jesus did voluntary give Himself up to the authorities and submit to His execution and Passion. That’s what made His Sacrifice so meritorious…it was done out of complete and perfect love and obedience to the will of His Father.
Your third question is simple incoherent…can’t answer that one because I am not clear as to what you are asking.
Regarding the HHS mandate….medical insurance coverage per se is not an “assault on religious freedom”. REQUIRING under penalty of law, that every insurer or consumer of insurance to participate in plans that must offer services they consider immoral, seems like a pretty obvious governmental violation of
conscience. It doesn’t stop anyone from going to church or saying prayers.
Now a question for you: how would you feel if Romney were elected, and his administration simply by fiat, required that everyone employer MUST be closed Sunday mornings so their employees can go to church? Even atheist employers.
One more question: are triangles real?
Jeff: Comparing Sibelius to Judas may not be a totally fair assessment. Judas betrayed Jesus all the time pretending to be a friend, true, but remember Peter also betrayed Jesus, not once but three times. The difference between the two betrayals is that Peter sought forgiveness, and atoned for the triple betrayal by thrice confirming his love for Christ.
Judas betrayed Jesus, and yet when he grieved what he had done, he did not trust in God’s forgiveness, but rather hanged himself because he judged himself unworthy to be forgiven. He refused to even ask for forgiveness, not because he didn’t think he did anything wrong but because he thought himself unworthy.
I think as Christians and Catholics we forget that it isn’t sin alone that condemns us, but refusal to seek and accept God’s forgiveness.
Sibelius doesn’t consider herself unworthy of forgiveness, rather it appears she merely thinks it is unnecessary.
Concerning your questions:
>Judas was certainly acting as part of God’s plan,
So then he was good guy?
>a plan that would not have been necessary btw had we not rejected His grace and
I don’t remember rejecting anything so I’m not sure why you say “we”.
> origninal plan for us by sin.
So your god’s plan didn’t work and it’s our fault? Um isn’t your god like omnipotent and perfect? How could something like that fail?
>That’s different than saying that God commanded or required Judas to betray Christ, for Judas, as we all do, had free will, and did not have to betray Our Lord anymore than any of us have to sin.
I’m not sure it is but let’s say Judas kept him big mouth shut, then Jesus wouldn’t have been crucified? What difference would that have made?
> Judas’ biggest sin was not being complicit in the muder of an innocent man.
Murder? Again, I thought Jesus was supposed to be “sacrificed” so how can that be a murder? Also since Jesus came back to life it can’t be a murder, murder victims don’t come back.
> and the Catholic Church clearly teaches that we are all as guilty as Judas in Christ’s death
Yes and that is a crazy thing to teach.
> and will have the same eternal fate if we choose to reject the redemptive grace offered to us that flows from His death on the Cross.
I know! If we don’t believe in your god and love it it will torture us forever and ever! It’s a shame your god made itself so unbelievable.
>Second question: Jesus did voluntary give Himself up to the authorities and submit to His execution and Passion.
I thought it was because of Judas?
>That’s what made His Sacrifice so meritorious…it was done out of complete and perfect love and obedience to the will of His Father.
What sacrifice? Jesus comes back to life three days later than flies off to Heaven right? So what did he lose? A long weekend? Wow. I did that once because of a bottle of tequila where’s my praise?
>Your third question is simple incoherent…can’t answer that one because I am not clear as to what you are asking.
Hmm, okay, Jesus is called a “savior” because he saved everyone from your god / his father / his own wrath right? Essentially he “sacrificed” himself to himself so he wouldn’t be wrathful to his own creation for behaving exactly as he knew it was going to behave / he “designed” it to behave.
That was the plan right? And so Jesus needed to die a violent death because… um not really sure why a god needs anything but whatever.
So what was the point of all that?
>”. REQUIRING under penalty of law, that every insurer or consumer of insurance to participate in plans that must offer services they consider immoral, seems like a pretty obvious governmental violation of conscience.
So government money goes to the death penalty and war, two immoral practices yes? At least the Vatican says so and yet I don’t hear any complaining about that.
And how does someone doing something you don’t like that doesn’t affect you or anyone else touch your conscious? Is it just that it’s “your” money? Is money some sort of conductor of morality?
And tell me, what is worse, taking a pill that prevents the egg from being fertilized or having an abortions?
>It doesn’t stop anyone from going to church or saying prayers.
Agreed! So it in no way interferes with your religion or your belief in it so “assault” is clearly hyperbole.
>how would you feel if Romney were elected, and his administration simply by fiat, required that everyone employer MUST be closed Sunday mornings so their employees can go to church? Even atheist employers.
I would laugh and laugh because such a thing would be so unConstitutional it would even make Antonin Scalia blanche.
You understand that difference here? No one is being forced to do anything other than insurance companies to provide full medical coverage which is what one would expect with a health care plan. Picking and choosing who gets what because you don’t like them having sex for reasons that you don’t approve of is certainly not grounds to deny it.
>One more question: are triangles real?
Yes. Please expand on this, it sounds interesting.
(((One more question: are triangles real?)))
ChronicSinner! “I” was talking to one of sinner vic’s cells and as a matter of spiritual reality fact, these, “I” mean this cell even knows “ONE” of Victor’s so called 3% “Jesus’ Cells” and they say that “IT” depends on what angle you’re looking at “IT” from. Look we Victor’s 97% reality cells would appreciate “IT” if you would simply leave Jack, “I” mean salvage alone and besides his name is not even Jack, “IT” is Dick and you’ve guessed “IT” I found this out from another of Victor’s cells whom we’ve purchased from “ONE” of Victor’s so called 3% “Jesus Cells who is NOW working for U>S (usual sinners).
ChronicSinner! You’re probably asking yourself what does sinner vic know that our 97% + spiritual reality cells don’t know and “We’re NOT Quiet sure yet” but listen, we don’t need to be a transhuministic rocket scientist to figure out that if you took those 3%- cells of Victor’s spiritual reality body cells, you couldn’t make a mustard seed out of “IT” so as far as majority Jesus cells are concerned, Victor is worth nothing and you should ignore Jack, I mean salvage, NO! NO! I mean Dick.
Look here critical sinner, you’ve got to stop putting words in my mouth otherwise me, myself and i will have sent “Frank and Charlie” to have a good talk with you in your dream some eternal day.
What’s that you say? How can “I” prove that salvage’s name is really Dick? Easy! I just asked an angel from “ONE” of Victor’s 7% French Holy Angel church that his dad helped build in 1954 and these angels are NOW incharge. Why are they incharge?
sssssssssssssSlow “IT” down a bit cause we don’t want to go off on a spiritual reality Tangent cause if we do, Victor’s 3% – cells told U>S that we must tie his flesh down with chains blessed by His Holiness Papa so please slow “IT” down somewhat CAUSE REALITY WILL NOT CO-OPERATE AT THIS TIME!
Anyway! Where was “I”? Ha yes! Long story short, Victor’s brother’ angel succeeded into getting his societies’ lost angel cells permission, who are NOW incharge cause the aliens gods said so, to let him try a little Euthanasia on Joe for the second time and longer story short, “ONE” of Saint Bernard’s angel cells who owned the church at that time said a Mass for him and as far as this dog of Victor’s Hotel of Fools imaginary cells was concerned, Judas did nothing wrong and has been forgiven also NOW.
What did “IT” cost society to accept such things. Long story short, Saint Bernard promised “Rota” that if there were any male and or females that were gays in his church, he would marry these fruits with his blessing but “The Church” or should we say Victor’s 7% imaginary Angel Cells of his good bishop had no choice but to have society sentence him and sell off his reminder.
What you saying? They put his “Jesus Cells in jail!! No! No! Not that kind of a sentence, “IT” was a God sentence, you know “The Word made flesh” well in this case, “IT” was “The sentence made flesh” which came from the NOW gods who are incharge of this world and speak for “Jesus” and were told to tell U>S (usual sinners) that………..
That will be enough sinner vic before you have me committed again!
Gee Victor! You’re no fun! “I” was on a role and just about to rock and besides “I” was going to put UP some of your “Jesus Cells” UP for the night! See my three nails! 🙂
Anyway Victor! Remember when you told a guy that he looked just like the “Jesus” on the cross at your “French Holy Angel Church” and he replied like a good politician with another question: Did you check to make sure that “IT” was really him? 🙂
sinner vic you know as well as I do that he simply asked me in reality if “I” checked his peter and he called “IT” a dick in order to make sure that “IT” was really him. Look if truth me known, there’s a LOT more to this Dick that meets the “I’s”, “I” mean the eyes. Long story short, my so called “jesus cells just don’t care to talk about “IT” right NOW? If ya know what is mean? 🙁
What is a triangle? How is it real? BTW…since insurance companies are comprised of people, how is it constitutional to make them provide services that violate their consciences? Also, the Vatican has never declared that war or the death penalty are immoral…they can certainly be used in immoral contexts, but they are not immoral per se…one last question, based upon atheism, how can you claim that something is immoral?
>What is a triangle?
A triangle is one of the basic shapes of geometry: a polygon with three corners or vertices and three sides or edges which are line segments. A triangle with vertices A, B, and C is denoted \triangle ABC. – Wikipedia
>How is it real?
The same way everything that is real is real, you can see them, hold them, describe them, use them. They make sense as all real things do.
>since insurance companies are comprised of people, how is it constitutional to make them provide services that violate their consciences?
Well first I’m still confused how it violates anyone’s conscious what people who aren’t them do with their own bodies and we are talking about insurance companies that already cover the medication. This isn’t anything new, it’s just been in the last little while that the Bishops started shrieking about it. It’s pretty obvious that the motivation is political, it distracts from the health care reform.
But if you have staff that wants their contraception covered than you as a company should provide insurance that does so. It’s part of the compensation for working there.
Let’s say I work at a place that doesn’t like me going to strip clubs and spending the money I earn so they tell me I can no longer do so. Would that be okay?
>Also, the Vatican has never declared that war or the death penalty are immoral…
One of the things I find funniest about theists is how they pick and choose what bits of their religion to fervently believe in and others they view as optional. How they themselves decide this is a bit of a mystery.
The Vatican is very much against it:
For over two decades the international community has pursued the issue of restricting and abolishing the death penalty. The need for a moratorium on the death penalty is gaining momentum, as is reflected in the recent resolution adopted by the Commission on Human Rights ( 1999/61 ) of 28 April 1999. The Holy See Delegation welcomes the initiative for a resolution, under item 116a, on the reduction and possible abolition of the death penalty, and expresses its appreciation to all who contributed to this initiative.
>, based upon atheism, how can you claim that something is immoral?
Atheism means there are no such things as gods, it’s a refutation of a claim. it makes no comment on morality, science or anything else, just that there are no such things as gods so based upon it I can only say that there are no such things as gods.
And if you want to tell me your religion is a source of morality than I say you are ignorant about both the Bible and the Vatican beyond its position on the death penalty. History both ancient and recent show it to have the morals of a Tijuana pimp.
Wuerl is not on our side. It’s been clear from day one.
So by the definition of a triangle that you provided, it is a 2 dimensional polygon with 3 straight line segments that intersect and have angles that sum up to 180 degrees. You also define something that is real as having the quality that it can be held. Since a triangle is 2 dimensional, how can you hold it?
The Church has never precluded the death penalty in its 2000 year history, and hence, it never can completely do so now, your link above not withstanding. That’s not picking and choosing…that’s just the facts. It is both Scripturally sanctioned and sanctioned by Tradtion. It’s use may be frowned upon by some in the Church hierarchy, but none other than our current Pope has stated as recently as 2004 that Catholics of equal moral standing can have different views when considering the application of the death penalty….it’s a prudential judgement in other words. As far as war, the Church fully recongnizes that there are times when war is justified, which is why we have such a thing as a “Just War Doctrine”.
As far as the HHS mandate scenario, you are starting to worry me…you state that an employer can not tell you how you should spend your money on the one hand, but on the other, it is OK for the state to dictate how a practicing Catholic must spend theirs when it comes to paying for someone else’s abortion or birth control. That’s simply the flip side of your coin and you can’t have it both ways. If the state can tell me how I must spend my money, then certainly it’s not a stretch to say that an employer could tell you how not to spend yours.
Anyway, enough of that…let’s concentrate on the triangle questions, please.
Oops…almost forgot…I reserve the right to “pimp” you some more on atheism and the ability to make any moral pronouncemnts based strictly upon it.
The Church has never precluded the death penalty in its 2000 year history
November 30, 2011 – Today “Pope Benedict XVI voiced support Wednesday for political actions around the world aimed at eliminating the death penalty, reflecting his stance as an opponent of capital punishment,” noted an Associated Press article – “Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty.”
>That’s not picking and choosing…that’s just the facts.
Which apparently the Pope is unaware of.
Are you sure you’re not picking and choosing here?
>but none other than our current Pope has stated as recently as 2004 that Catholics of
During his 26 years as leader of the Roman Catholic Church, the late Pope John Paul II frequently called for an end to the death penalty. Among his statements on this issue were the following:
“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
Are you sure you know what you’re talking about? I think you choose to ignore anything that contradicts what you would like to be true.
> the state to dictate how a practicing Catholic must spend theirs when it comes to paying for someone else’s abortion or birth control.
They’re not spending their money on anything but their own insurance so if they don’t want birth control they don’t have to have it. You on the other hand want to take that choice away from other people who don’t think as you do.
And somehow that is an attack on YOUR freedom.
>Anyway, enough of that…let’s concentrate on the triangle questions, please.
Yeah, triangle are real, if you truly think you can’t hold one than order a pizza and see if you can’t figure that out.
Oh and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, was that a “just war” approved by the Vatican? Do you agree with what they said about it?
And do you know what the Vatican said about the American Revolution?
(((Oops…almost forgot…I reserve the right to “pimp” you some more on atheism and the ability to make any moral pronouncemnts based strictly upon it.)))
Listen here ChronicSinner under who’s authority do you reserve this right to “pimp” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimp
As gods of The Twenty First century we have the right to ask ya! Are you a Canadian and do you live in Ontario Canada. As gods, we also need to know if you are male and or female because if you are female then you would be called a Mad Ham and not a “pimp” or is that a madam? Anyway! “IT” doesn’t matter cause we gods must know these things cause as gods we want to make sure that you don’t fall into a big hairy trap which HSUS: Lawyers In Cages NOW call “”Catch 22” situation, where prostitutes face a good news-bad news scenario: prostitution is legal, but it is illegal to practice “IT” in Canada. Butt then again if you claim and can prove that you are a true Atheist, “IT” can be made a LOT easier butt you’ll have to take my word for “IT” and as gods of The Twenty First Century, we can’t lie. Can we?
We gods of Victor’s 97% reality spiritual body + NOW cells call “IT” the way we see “IT” and these so called -3% Jesus cells see “IT” differently. Back then about 2012 human years ago, this “Jesus” kept “IT” simple to understand for His Time and place: For example; He said, I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower, in other words, The Father of Jesus was a Good Old Dad and if “The Triangle” could speak, “IT” would tell you that there’s only “Three sides” to His Vineyard. On the other hand, we gods say that we are the twenty first century true cell gods and Victor 97% cells take orders from U>S. (usual sinners), “I” mean our alien godly cells who has her own Mother Ship.
This so called “Jesus” only had a few followers at the end and basically told his aposles that they had already been pruned because of the words that He spoke to them. Long story short, we gods must speak in longer sentences NOW cause we’re in Victor’s so called vineyard and there’s a awful LOT of branches, I mean cells to be prunned if ya know what we gods mean?
This Jesus would say stuff like; Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. …. Butt gods of the twentieth century, we simply say, what goes around comes around and if you won’t listen to the mother ship, well your cells might just run into a few unexpected virus and whose going to protect them without our med he sin to cure “IT”?
This Jesus would say other stuff like, I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. …. Like most true atheist who would call him gay, we gods agree that these so called 3% Jesus cells of Victor G.O.D do talk a LOT and end UP saying exactly the same thing over and over again. Right ChronicSinner?
This Jesus also said that anyone who does not remain in HIM will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned. ….See what “I” mean, Come on NOW, what else would a vineyard worker do with dead branches?
Personally speaking, we gods like “IT” when Jesus said; If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. ….Victor are your imaginary cells listening cause we gods own about 93% of your vineyard so can we make a deal? Let’s talk about the fun we have in store for ya!
Listen Victor when your so called “Jesus” said words like; By this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. …..Trust U>S gods Victor, we won’t make any of your spiritual gay cells work that hard in our vineyards, “I” mean our alien gods mother ship vineyard and remember you all have free will so what do your cell…….
sinner vic! WILL YA EVER LEARN? 🙂
A triangle results from the the intersection of 3 lines, which are by definition planar constructs, and are hence 2 dimensional. There is no need to get snotty about it…I’m just going off the definition you provided, which btw, I agree with. Hence, a piece of pizza is not a triangle, since it has 3 dimensions and not 2. It is “triangular”, but not a triangle. Again, I ask you, can you hold a triangle? And if you can not, does that mean it is not real?
Once we finish with our discussion about the reality of triangles and the metaphysical implications that flow from it, I promise to answer your questions about the Iraq war and the American Revolution.
>It is “triangular”, but not a triangle.
It is a triangle and a triangle is only 2 dimensional when it’s represented as 2 dimensional. Triangles are real both in math and the “real world” as are squares, spheres and every other geometric shape.
See the top of a shark for an example of it happening in nature.
There are no metaphysical implications from triangles and even if there were that doesn’t change gods not having any basis in reality, yours in particular.
And look at that, you skipping over the whole death penalty thing, you were shown to be wrong and rather than acknowledge or even defend you just whistle past.
And that sums up how theism survives, pretending things are one way when they’re clearly another.
>Oops…almost forgot…I reserve the right to “pimp” you some more on atheism
I don’t think you know how to use the term “pimp” as a verb.
>and the ability to make any moral pronouncemnts based strictly upon it.
Once again. Atheism has nothing to do with morality, why don’t you understand that? Once again it is a grotesque hypocrisy and or ignorance to declare religion to be some sort of moral fount.
I do not derive my morality from atheism anymore than I get water from my living room lamp.
First let me state, that I think triangles or triangularity is objectively real, so I agree with you.
But where in your defintion does it say that they can have 3 dimensions, such as a shark’s dorsal fin has? Again. by your definition, a triangle is planar and 2 dimensional, but yet you claim that it can be 3 dimensional simply by fiat, although that does not fit the definition of triangle. Are you saying then that a triangle can have differing definitions? That sounds like the very thing you accuse me of doing in regards to Catholic teaching and the death penalty. If it can be 3 dimensional by fiat, then can it have 4 sides by fiat? Three more questions for this installment: is a 2 dimensional triangle (which is how you originally defined it) objectively real, and if so, then is it material or immaterial, and is what constitutes a triangle the same everywhere and all times in the universe?
Again…I promise to let you “pimp” me all you want about Catholic social teaching concerning war and the death penalty once we finish with triangles…swear to God…ooops I mean, swear to Darwin.
So… because a triangle can be two or three dimensional the three dimensional one isn’t real and that’s why when the Popes of the last two generations say that the Vatican is against the death penalty what they really meant was that the Vatican wasn’t against the death penalty.
>God…ooops I mean, swear to Darwin.
Ha! Ha! Yes! I think Darwin is a god!
Hey you know the difference between your god and Darwin? Your god claimed that all of the animals were made a the same time and Darwin thought that was completely wrong.
Guess who turned out to be right?
Of course to be fair Darwin does have the the advantage of being real.
Why is everyone feeding the troll?
A triange, by your definition, can not be three dimensional. A 3 dimensional “triangle” would have 9 sides and 18 angles which violates your initial (and correct) defintion. So, no, a 3 dimensional triangle is as non-sensical as a square circle, according to YOUR DEFINITION, WHICH AGAIN IS CORRECT.
So, so far we have established this much:
1. You believe that Triangles are objectively real which means they exist universally, have a unique nature, and are independent of the human mind
2. And, again, by your definition, are 2 dimensional (at least sometimes) and hence can not exist MATERIALLY in a 4 dimensional universe.
Is that an accurate assesment of what you and I agree upon, salvage?
>hence can not exist MATERIALLY in a 4 dimensional universe.
I assume you mean time as the fourth dimension?
So because we can draw three lines together and that those lines remain unaffected by time your god is real?
Look, whatever point you’re trying to belabour here can be applied to any other god.
See that’s the problem with these rhetorical slights of hand that theists try to pull to “prove” that their god can’t be impossible because other seemingly impossible things exist. You apply it to your god and I’ll just apply it to Zeus or Allah or the Jewish version of your god.
In short If you can say your god is a possibility than you have to admit that all the other 1,000s of gods are equally possible.
But you won’t because YOURS has to be the only one otherwise none of it makes sense.
Of course it doesn’t make sense in anyway because gods rarely do. The one in the Bible especially.
That’s the other stumbling block to reality for your religion; your god is a lunatic and a liar.
I mean it sent bears to eat children for making fun of a bald guy. Weak.
I simply asked you what you believe about a triangle. Certainly, for an atheist, who prides himself on his intellect so much that he has the courage to come onto a Catholic website to trash our Faith and blaspheme our God because we a mere simpletons because we believe in God….certainly having you answer some simple questions about a thing that any elementary school kid is familiar with should not be too much to ask.
Specifically, is a triangle real? You said yes. What is it…you said a 2 dimensional thing. Therefore by extension, based upon your input, it MUST exist in our 4 dimensional reality as an immaterial entity. Would you agree with that statement, salvage? Yes or no.
“Your god claimed that all of the animals were made a the same time”
God never claimed any such thing. The author of the book of Genesis didn’t either unless one is a modern fundamentalist reader of the Scripture.
>I simply asked you what you believe about a triangle.
And I told you but my answer didn’t fit with whatever you’re trying to do so you keep on trying to make it. Typical theism.
> the courage to come onto a Catholic website
Courage! Wow, no, this doesn’t take anything of the sort.
>to trash our Faith and blaspheme our God
That would be the faith and god that declares that because I don’t believe in it I will be thrown into a lake of fire to be tortured forever and ever?
Tell me, why shouldn’t I take great offense and umbrage at such a thing?
>because we a mere simpletons because we believe in God….
No, believing in theism doesn’t make you a simpleton, it’s more a delusion, you ignore the dichotomy and ill logic because of the benefits of faith.
>certainly having you answer some simple questions about a thing that any elementary school kid is familiar with should not be too much to ask.
Again I did answer it and even a child could tell you that yes, they can be two dimensional and yes they can be three dimensional just a square, circle and every other shape in geometry.
> exist in our 4 dimensional reality as an immaterial entity. Would you agree with that statement, salvage? Yes or no.
No, it’s not “immaterial” not even slightly. Immaterial things do not exist.
I do wish you’d get to wherever you’re going with this.
>God never claimed any such thing. The author of the book of Genesis didn’t either unless one is a modern fundamentalist reader of the Scripture.
Ah, once again pick and choose which bits of the Bible to take literally and what bits to not so much.
Your god claimed to have made all the animals in one day and we know that is simply not true. In fact your god started off with bacteria and let that slosh around for a billion years then it was just sea life for a few hundred thousand years then land critters then various cycles of animals that were nothing like us then dinosaurs and then in just the last few tics of the cosmic second hand; humans.
Curious that your god skipped over 3.4 billion years, it’s almost like it had no idea any of that had happened! Weird!
Unless Genesis is really just another creation myth that every brand of theism starts with? See that makes sense because the primitive cultures had no idea of that stuff, they could only write what they knew which, granted, was not a whole lot.
You state that triangles are real. You define them as 2 dimensional objects, which by definition, can not exist in a MATERIAL way in a 4D universe…hence it must be IMMATERIAL. But, you then state that “immaterial” things do not exist. Are you sure triangles are real?
A little parting advice, btw…it’s never a good idea to underestimate your audience by stating that it doesn’t take courage to interact with them, because if you are correct, then there is no honor in your interaction with them, and if you are wrong, then you may just look like a fool afterwards. Think about it…I know that may be asking a lot, since the concept of a triangle seems to give you so much difficulty, but I think there may be some hope for you.
> Are you sure triangles are real?
As sure as I am that your god is not.
> and if you are wrong, then you may just look like a fool afterwards.
There is no foolishness in being wrong, it’s when you refuse to learn that there is a problem.
For instance, what have you learned about the death penalty and your religion? Who is right? You for supporting it or your last two Popes for opposing it?
Or will you be a theist and make a conscious decision to ignore anything that suggests you are wrong?
>I know that may be asking a lot, since the concept of a triangle seems to give you so much difficulty, but I think there may be some hope for you.
So since triangles are immaterial that means that immaterial things exist therefore Jesus!
Can I apply that line of reasoning to Zeus? Dragons? Fairies? How about the Aztec gods?
See here’s another thing for you to learn, when you set out to prove that reality is mushy, that is you can shape it into anything you like then you have to accept everything that is immaterial is material, Does that sound sensible to you?
You are correct. Triangles are real and they are immaterial. They have an essence, which is the definition you provided. That essence manifests in our material world in an immaterial way when we use triangles or triangularity to build things, fly planes, navigate the globe, measure distances, and ponder pizza or shark fins. I applaud you for your ability to accept this, particularly since you are an atheist, that something that is immaterial can indeed be real, universal, and independent of the human mind for its existence and its nature.
We Catholics believe in God. When you strip away all of the theological and religious teaching, what that merely means for us Catholics, is what we deduce from logic and observations of the material reality around us, to arrive at the nature of God. It is the legacy we Catholics inherit from Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas. Simply put, God is real, immaterial, universal, independent of the human mind, and has an essence. Thus, if it is possible for a triangle to have those qualities and exist, then certainly it is not unreasonable for there to be a supreme intellect that also can have those qualities. As an atheist, you are free to reject that, but certainly you must admit that it is not unreasonable to hold to that belief. That’s all I was trying to arrive at with our dialogue. That belief in God is reasonable.
Thanks for participating, and may God bless you.
>When you strip away all of the theological and religious teaching,
Ah yes, the “Take away all the stuff that doesn’t make sense about my god and then you have to agree that my god is real!” dodge.
Sorry but belief in the supernatural, no matter how nebulous your try and make it is still deeply silly in this day and age.
Gods aren’t real things in general and yours obviously isn’t in specific because nothing it ever did makes the slightest bit of sense.
Once again, explain to me how your god sacrificing itself to itself (in the form of a three day coma) so it would be wrathful at its creation for behaving exactly as it knew it was going to behave / made it to behave makes any kind of sense?
Please, don’t talk about love or all the other balderdash distractions from my actual question.
What does the “day and age” have to do with reason and truth. I simply asked you to consider whether it is reasonable to postulate the existence of an entity that is immaterial, universal, and real. You have already admitted that triangles, which have all those qualities, are real…why is it unreasonable that a supernatural being could be real? I stripped away the theological and religious aspects not because I don’t believe them, but simply to demonstrate that arriving at the conclusion of the existence of God can be arrived at purely based upon reason and logic independent of any religious creed. That’s what Aquinas and others did.
If the conclusions logically flow from the premises then you must either accept them or refute them by pointing out another alternative that is more logically sound based upon the evidence and the premises. This you have failed to do with the triangle scenario. All you do is put up straw men and then proceed to knock them down. I used your answers and your definition to demonstrate that it is not unreasonable to believe in the existence of God. Instead, you blather on some like fire and brimstone preacher with a leather Bible in his hand! You bring up the death penalty, the Crucifixion, etc. I stick to geometry and philiosphy. Indeed, you talk about religion more than I do, and I am a Traditional Catholic! Are you sure you’re really an atheist….you sure do seem to have a big obsession with God?
>What does the “day and age” have to do with reason and truth.
Because we have the proven tools to find reason and truth that a mere 300 years ago no one could even begin to imagine. Heck even 50 years ago.
>I simply asked you to consider whether it is reasonable to postulate the existence of an entity that is immaterial, universal, and real.
I replied that is it not, if something is immaterial it’s not real, no, a two dimensional triangle is real.
>why is it unreasonable that a supernatural being could be real?
Look up the meaning of “supernatural” and you’ll have your answer.
>of the existence of God can be arrived at purely based upon reason and logic independent of any religious creed.
And if it could why do you think it would be your god? Why not one of the others?
>That’s what Aquinas and others did.
Yes as did his Muslim, Jewish, Aztec, Greek, Roman, Persian, Babylonian and other counterparts.
You understand that your god isn’t the only one people have every claimed real right?
> Instead, you blather on some like fire and brimstone preacher with a leather Bible in his hand!
Ha! Ha! Yes! I am the religious one! The one who doesn’t think gods are real and I’m oh so ranting about it!
> You bring up the death penalty, the Crucifixion, etc.
Ha! Ha! Yes! I bring them up with no context or point at all!
So that would be you’re not going to explain how your god’s sacrificing itself to itself makes any sort of sense?
>I stick to geometry and philiosphy.
Yes, by declaring that because two dimensional triangles do no exist in three dimensions your god is real!
It is geometry and I suppose a species of philosophy but still nonsensical alas.
>Indeed, you talk about religion more than I do, and I am a Traditional Catholic! Are you sure you’re really an atheist….you sure do seem to have a big obsession with God?
Ha! Ha! Yes! My commenting on blog posts about religion means I’m obsessed with your god!
The ways you twist to avoid answering my questions and points, it’s a wonder you don’t get whiplash.
A Catholic University should not invite a “Catholic” who is for killing babies in the womb to a commencement ceremony. However, invite her to a forum to discuss her views which are in opposition to Catholic teaching and how she can still call herself Catholic.