Cradle of Fish Posted April 12, 2010 #76 Share Posted April 12, 2010 I hope this happens. And I hope Dawkins and Hitch get knighted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.B. Posted April 12, 2010 #77 Share Posted April 12, 2010 No, it is not necessary to be excommunicated to be no longer considered a Catholic. I sincerely doubt the existence of some iteration of a master list with all "registered" Catholics on it. No, you're not a Catholic anymore, by any stretch of definition. You have, by your own admission, moved on. So, insofar as you have done so, you're not a Catholic anymore. It would be computerized, and yes, they would have one. At the very least, they'd have a master list of all their churches/parishes, which would link them to a list of every member of the parish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhomphaia Posted April 12, 2010 #78 Share Posted April 12, 2010 No, it is not necessary to be excommunicated to be no longer considered a Catholic. I sincerely doubt the existence of some iteration of a master list with all "registered" Catholics on it. No, you're not a Catholic anymore, by any stretch of definition. You have, by your own admission, moved on. So, insofar as you have done so, you're not a Catholic anymore. Actually, you are both right. If someone is on 'the list' they are Catholic in the eyes of the Church until shown otherwise. If they do not worship or follow the faith, then they are not Catholics in practice. This is where the term 'practicing Catholic' comes from, it is a person who actively worships. A 'non-practicing Catholic' would be someone like Expand, who does not follow or worship, but are still considered a member of the Church by the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted April 12, 2010 #79 Share Posted April 12, 2010 No, it is not necessary to be excommunicated to be no longer considered a Catholic. I sincerely doubt the existence of some iteration of a master list with all "registered" Catholics on it. No, you're not a Catholic anymore, by any stretch of definition. You have, by your own admission, moved on. So, insofar as you have done so, you're not a Catholic anymore. i have nothing left except and you should know, it takes a lot for me to /facepalm someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted April 12, 2010 #80 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Actually, you are both right. If someone is on 'the list' they are Catholic in the eyes of the Church until shown otherwise. If they do not worship or follow the faith, then they are not Catholics in practice. This is where the term 'practicing Catholic' comes from, it is a person who actively worships. A 'non-practicing Catholic' would be someone like Expand, who does not follow or worship, but are still considered a member of the Church by the Church. i have already explained to him the difference between 'personal' and 'official' definitions of a catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.B. Posted April 12, 2010 #81 Share Posted April 12, 2010 i have nothing left except and you should know, it takes a lot for me to /facepalm someone. My God, I never thought of facepalming that way. I am totally going to try that next time I'm around one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhomphaia Posted April 12, 2010 #82 Share Posted April 12, 2010 My God, I never thought of facepalming that way. I am totally going to try that next time I'm around one! I know, I saved the pic. I sort of collect good demotivationals I find and that is clearly one that deserves to be in my folder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.B. Posted April 12, 2010 #83 Share Posted April 12, 2010 I know, I saved the pic. I sort of collect good demotivationals I find and that is clearly one that deserves to be in my folder. Agreed. This thread's topic would have a much better chance of happening if the two main people pushing it through were Catholic, instead of a couple of world reknowned, alternately loved and hated, Atheist "shock jocks" - I only say that because they're fairly blunt and violent in what they say. I happen to agree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.AKUMA. Posted April 12, 2010 #84 Share Posted April 12, 2010 the pope is proberbley a paedophile too just he knows how to cover his tracks better than the rest of his child molesting gang, not to mention he's an ex Nazi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted April 13, 2010 #85 Share Posted April 13, 2010 i have already explained to him the difference between 'personal' and 'official' definitions of a catholic. Yes, you have. And I've explained those definitions back to you. There's obviously a failure to communicate/understand here. So, yes, there's something going wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindMessiah Posted April 13, 2010 #86 Share Posted April 13, 2010 you were arguing an incorrect point and you obviously did not move on. the link i used from wiki was extremely relevant because it helps show that you were incorrect. No? And we weren't talking about excommunication. We were talking about personal decisions. So, the link from wiki did nothing to prove anything about that... This is like watching Miles try to explain time travel to Hurley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cradle of Fish Posted April 13, 2010 #87 Share Posted April 13, 2010 the pope is proberbley a paedophile too just he knows how to cover his tracks better than the rest of his child molesting gang, not to mention he's an ex Nazi Why is that an issue? The Vatican has more blood on its hands than the Nazis if you consider their history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted April 13, 2010 #88 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Why is that an issue? The Vatican has more blood on its hands than the Nazis if you consider their history. Of course its an issue, seeing as he has fresh blood on his hands instead of hundreds of years old blood passed into his hands from predecessors. But i heard of a conspriacy today that the pope and all the vatican priests are Masons as the Masons planned to take over the catholic church over 100 years ago and finally succeeded about 30-40 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindMessiah Posted April 13, 2010 #89 Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) Of course its an issue, seeing as he has fresh blood on his hands instead of hundreds of years old blood passed into his hands from predecessors. But i heard of a conspriacy today that the pope and all the vatican priests are Masons as the Masons planned to take over the catholic church over 100 years ago and finally succeeded about 30-40 years ago. I heard the other day that the Masons are running this website and that you're the anti-Christ. I just figured I'd believe it. I mean, why not? It's kind of fishy that your last post was 616, the number of the Beast. Edited April 13, 2010 by BlindMessiah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted April 13, 2010 #90 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Yes, you have. And I've explained those definitions back to you. There's obviously a failure to communicate/understand here. So, yes, there's something going wrong here. **Back on Topic. Socrates, drop it.** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudo Intellectual Posted April 13, 2010 #91 Share Posted April 13, 2010 They want to arrest the Pope...? I thought Atheists were supposed to be rational and logical, unlike those stupid Christians? Those two give irreligious people a bad name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted April 13, 2010 #92 Share Posted April 13, 2010 What isn't rational or logical about it? It is an opportunity for Dawkins to kill several birds with one stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudo Intellectual Posted April 13, 2010 #93 Share Posted April 13, 2010 This will go nowhere. They know this. The only reason(s) they're calling for the Pope's arrest is: 1) Publicity 2) Giving their Atheist followers something new to be excited about. 3) Sticking it to Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted April 13, 2010 #94 Share Posted April 13, 2010 This is like watching Miles try to explain time travel to Hurley. awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted April 13, 2010 #95 Share Posted April 13, 2010 This will go nowhere. They know this. The only reason(s) they're calling for the Pope's arrest is: 1) Publicity 2) Giving their Atheist followers something new to be excited about. 3) Sticking it to Christians. You left out the law. He covered up a crime and a disgusting crime at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaoszerg Posted April 13, 2010 #96 Share Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) Do I want to see the pope arrested for covering stuff up - yes Do I think Dawkins is trying to do this for that reason - No Edited April 13, 2010 by chaoszerg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramys Posted April 13, 2010 #97 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Do I want to see the pope arrested for covering stuff up - yes Do I think Dawkins is trying to do this for that reason - No i so agree, the pope is an accessory to child molestation and dawkins is doing the right thing but for the wrong reasons, he just wants his name down in history as Religion 0, Atheism 1 and he is going to make it worse for atheists the world over that want nothing to do with religion and would rather stay out of it, and also dont require proof as they have there own beliefs just like me lol, he is making this a bit personal when it should be more about what the pope has covered up and let happen in his charge. if the vatican is its own soveriegn state then it should obide by international law, and as the capitol of the vaticans religion and state they aint showing very good use of commandments and morality, proper punishment should be laid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted April 13, 2010 #98 Share Posted April 13, 2010 The church shouldn't have waited to be called out. They should have come clean right off the get go or someone within the church should have exposed it. They have brought this on themselves. It would have been better if it wasn't Dawkins or Hitch that did this but hey it's done and I'm glad this is getting the attention it deserves now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted April 13, 2010 #99 Share Posted April 13, 2010 This will go nowhere. They know this. The only reason(s) they're calling for the Pope's arrest is: 1) Publicity 2) Giving their Atheist followers something new to be excited about. 3) Sticking it to Christians. So? Why would the intent have any affect on the outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted April 14, 2010 #100 Share Posted April 14, 2010 **Back on Topic. Socrates, drop it.** Yes sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now