They are out there. Lurking in the shadows. Waiting. Hoping for a chance to get the better of the unsuspecting Christian. Ready to jump out and rip you to shreds intellectually speaking. Or maybe just to give one a good laugh as was the case in my most recent discussion in Twitter concerning the Galileo incident and Contraception. Enjoy!
Initially it all began when I posted a link to a blog post from Mark Shea. Be warned! If you dare post anything disparaging non-belief, they immediately come out of the shadows!
Really? When has an atheist threatened to kill you if you didn't stop believing? RT @mecath: Scratch an Atheist, Find a Funda..MeCatholic
"My vas pokhoronim!” <--Transliterated as 'We will bury you!'Rich'N'Stuck
Sorry, not interested in the vas deferens of pokemon. <---Obviously, he didn't get the reference. :)!(now he CC's some other atheist, we'll call him Noah Little) Rich'N'Stuck
By his own blog he shows that he replied with an ad hominem attack on the atheist's reading comprehension.MeCatholic
Right, so not a fundamentalist. Thanks for playing.Noah Little
So the atheist asked you if you don't think OT morality was bad and you reply with ad hominem and he's now a fundy.Noah Little
Where in your blog do you indicate the atheist brought up Hitler and said OT is ok with holocaust?(Here he mistakes my blog for Mark's. Still I did have a conversation recently with an atheist on the matter so I continued)MeCatholic
The atheist I asked held to the so-called OT morality finding nothing wrong with Hitler's killing of Jews. So, a fundie.Noah Little
Did this fundie atheist ever personally endorse killing Jews? Because then I would agree he's a fundie.MeCatholic
Yes. He had the honesty to follow his thought to its logical conclusions.(Am I making some headway?)Noah Little
Actually, I retract my prev statement of the atheist being fundie if he endorses holocaust because...Fundamentalist means taking a position to an extreme. Extreme atheism would not call for the deaths of ppl. He might be a fundie in a antisemitic sense, but not as an atheist.(Apparently not! HAHAHA!)MeCatholic
Except that the holocaust also included non-Jews. My atheist friend had problems with neither. He had the honesty to follow his thought to its logical conclusions.(That was a cold moment for me. This friend of mine was nonchalant about the holocaust. We haven't spoken since except in a professional capacity.)Noah Little
I can't speak for him although your interpretation of his words seems highly dubious.(But, of course! So, let's change the subject!)Noah Little
So what do you think of the OT? Is it not to be taken literally?MeCatholic
Literal? Yes. Literlalistic? No, cf. Dei Verbum and Verbum Domini. The Bible is a collection of wide & varied works.(Here's the part where the atheist tries to show his ignorance of bible hermeneutics. 'Claiming to be wise...')Noah Little
Literal interpretation means in the strictest sense without allegory or metaphor. That's what you believe? MeCatholic
It depends. Again, cf. Dei Verbum and Verbum Domini.Noah Little
I didn't grow up Catholic. Spare me the word of god vs. word of the lord bs. We're talking your own beliefs not RCC.
(In my experience, atheists of this sort haaaaate to have their fragile intellect criticized. He obviously lumps 'RCCs' with Christian fundamentalists, et al. So sad.)MeCatholic
You misunderstand. I was referring to the letters written by council and pope on biblical interpretation.Noah Little
In other words, you reserve the right to pick and choose which passage is literal and which is not?MeCatholic
So long as I deviate not from the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter, then yes. For instance, each and every word of Genesis need not be taken literally. But those facts which are fundamental in Christianity are to be held.Noah Little
Can you give me an example of passages in OT fundamental to Christianity besides prophecy?MeCatholic
"In the beginning God created heaven, and earth." Please explain your understanding of prophecy.Noah Little
Sorry, I didn't word that well. I retract that question.(Retreat! We can't talk about this part! Well, because, we can't! :))Noah Little
So because the Church agrees that Evolution is scientific fact, you agree. But if it reversed it's position, you would too?
(Ah, yes. Good 'ol evolution!)MeCatholic
The Church is not opposed to certain evolution theories. However, if a particular one appears to conflict, the Church will inform.Noah Little
That doesn't make sense. there is only one theory of evolution and it completely conflicts with Genesis creation.(What?! Are you kidding me? He is not aware of more than one theory?! HAHAHA! What does he do? Yep. Change the subject! Let's talk sex.)Noah Little
How does the church interpret what is fundamental to Xianity in the OT? How is gay sex for example in opposition to Xianity?(Now, I am not even stepping down the path to this rabbit hole...)MeCatholic
see further Catechism of Catholic Church...(No response this time. Go figure. I was being baited.)Noah Little
Btw, when was it the Church got around to apologizing to the 17th C scientist? Oh yeah, 1992! Your church apologized and pardoned him, didn't it? Geocentricity was the view of the church. Heliocentricity was heresy.(Oh, goody! Galileo!)MeCatholic
you misunderstand the Galileo incident. Scientist tries his hand at theology and is found wanting.Noah Little
BTW, RCC always opposes science when it conflicts until they can't anymore. Geocentricity, anyone? The church declared heliocentricity as heresy before Galileo made his observation and denied reality for many years after.MeCatholic
The Galileo incident would take more explanation than Twitter has the capacity. Please visit http://bit.ly/I2zEBm
(I point him to a Catholic answers tract which goes to more detail than the limits of Twitter would allow.)Noah Little
:), a Catholic apologist blog? Seriously? Point blank, Galileo, Copernicus showed heliocentricity which refuted the bible.MeCatholic
Typical. Expend as little effort as possible to learning the Catholic side of the matter. You are not interested in dialogue.Noah Little
RCC issued an apology. Usually an apology is an acknowledgment of wrongdoing. MeCatholic
Certainly. But again, it does not then follow that Catholicism is a false religion as you seem to imply.Noah Little
And my point was that RCC called heliocentricity heresy. Independent of whatever Galileo did, they refuted science.MeCatholic
Well then, that does it! Bling! I'm an atheist now. In a tribunal heliocentrism was condemned. Granted. Infallibility of the Pope and the Church remained unscathed.Noah Little
All religion is false, but that's not my point in this. Point is, the church refutes science until it no longer can't.MeCatholic
wow. Two generalizations in one tweet. Congrats.Noah Little
Nah, first one is opinion, second is history. Ex: why does the RCC still insist condoms are bad?(Let us not bother dealing with the logical fallacy, let's (wait for it...) change the subject!)MeCatholic
At least you're honest concerning your first answer. Condoms, in and of themselves are not 'bad'. It is in how they are used.Noah Little
Doesn't the Church officially forbid all forms of contraception?MeCatholic
If there is a deliberate attempt to suppress the procreative part of the sexual act, then yes, cf. Humanae Vitae & natural law.Noah Little
Deliberate attempt to suppress procreation? Wouldn't that include abstinence? You saying we're required to have sex? MeCatholic
You're joking, right? :).Noah Little
A man can't masturbate because he's spilling seed. When a woman menstruates she's losing a valuable ova.MeCatholic
HAHAHAHA! You're killin' me! ROTFL!!!
(enter another dim, a cheerleader for Noah, Sly)Sly Lazy
Don't confuse the poor guy. I'm sure he's a virgin!(I'm the one confused? I'm the one with 8 children! :) Oh, and abstinence = contraception? Masturbation = Menstruation? Really? HAHA!)MeCatholic
BWAHAHAHA! The irony! Oh, heavens! The irony!!!
Oh, boy...I had to end it there. I've wasted enough time and cast enough pearls, so to speak.
Be careful out there, folks. They're everywhere in the Interwebz.