Priest killed in Church attack in France

[Atlantis]

Source: BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36892785)

A priest has been killed in an attack by two armed men at his church in a suburb of Rouen in northern France. The attackers entered the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray during Mass, taking the priest, Fr Jacques Hamel, 84, and four other people hostage. Police later surrounded the church and French TV said shots were fired. Both hostage-takers are now dead. President Francois Hollande said the men claimed to be from so-called Islamic State (IS).
Speaking in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, he said the attackers had committed a "cowardly assassination" and France would fight IS "by all means".

[Exocet]

I am waiting for those that will say 'muslims are the first victims'.

[Ghaem]

I am waiting for those that will say 'muslims are the first victims'.

Definitely the number of non-Muslims killed by ISIS is not even comparable with number of Muslims killed by ISIS in Middle East. So yes, Muslims are the first victims.

[Jinglebottom]

the men claimed to be from so-called Islamic State (IS).
Quelle surprise.

[Stronk Serb]

And letting in hordes of migrants who cannot be checked because most of them threw away their documents will seem a better idea now. Saudi Arabia has the most responsibility for acceoting the refugees because of their export of Wahabbism all over the Sunni Muslim world.

[sqishy]

If a perpetrator claims to be from IS, it does not mean the perpetrator necessarily is from IS.

If IS claims an attack, it does not mean that they necessarily did it.


The jumping to conclusions going on by some here is disappointing, to be euphemistic, regardless of who actually did it. There is more to the 'realm of terrorism' than IS, we're not in a James Bond movie where there is one perfect villain taking all the blame.


This week has tired me, with the trains of confirmation biases and rhetoric flying into the air.


Did you know there was a knife attack in Japan?

"It must be MUSLIM TERRORI-"

...oh wait, it wasn't.

[Jinglebottom]

Did you know there was a knife attack in Japan?

"It must be MUSLIM TERRORI-"

...oh wait, it wasn't.
To be fair, Islam is a tiny minority religion in Japan, which is one of the most homogeneous societies in the world, and Japan hasn't imported thousands of refugees from the Middle East, so the chances of it being an Islamic terror attack are slim to none. The perpetrator of the stabbings was a former employee (the exact motivation for the attack remains unknown).

[sqishy]

To be fair, Islam is a tiny minority religion in Japan, which is one of the most homogeneous societies in the world, and Japan hasn't imported thousands of refugees from the Middle East, so the chances of it being an Islamic terror attack are slim to none. The perpetrator of the stabbings was a former employee (the exact motivation for the attack remains unknown).

I recognise that, nevertheless I have already seen comparisons.

[PlasmaHam]

Sure, not every attack is done by Muslims. No one is claiming that. I doubt that Muslim ideology is behind a good portion of attacks. The difference is that the other attacks are usually because of mental illness, lone wolf, or small localized groups. ISIS and Muslims are the only group doing these attacks in such a large scale.

To better explain, lets say that you are looking at a chart showing the robberies in your town last year. Most of them are done by individuals with wildly different stolen items. But a significant minority of robberies last year were for a specific item. For the sake of the discussion, lets say that the item was motorcycle parts. The years before last, their were extremely few motorcycle part robberies, so something must have happened over the last year. Knowing that, you look through the records and see that last year, the state motorcycle gang came and decided to settle down in your town. They have a bad history, but over the last couple years they claimed that they have changed, and most people decide to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe them. But the correlation between the rise of motorcycle part robberies and the arrival of the motorcycle gang suggests something different.

There have been a few gang members caught trying to steal motorcycle parts, but they were disavowed by the gang, claiming that they had no relations to the attempted thief. The gang claims that since only a few of their members are committing these acts, and that others are doing robberies too; that they are just innocent bystanders who just happens to have an unusual amount of crime connected to them, yet people believe them.

(This isn't a perfect representation, don't go nit-picking through my story trying to find some sort of flaw inside. It is kinda hard to convert international terrorism into local robberies without some imperfections)

[Vlerchan]

To better explain, lets say that you are looking at a chart showing the murders in your town last year. Most of them are done by individuals with wildly different weapons. But a significant minority of murders last year were with a specific item. For the sake of the discussion, lets say that the item was guns. The years before last, their were extremely few gun murders, so something must have happened over the last year. Knowing that, you look through the records and see that last year, that a few dozen gun-owners came and decided to settle down in your town. They have a bad history, but over the last couple years they claimed that they have changed, and most people decide to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe them. But the correlation between the rise of gun murders and the arrival of the gun-owners suggests something different.

There have been a few gun-owners caught trying to murder with guns, but they were disavowed by the others, claiming that they had no relations to the attempted murder. The others claims that since only a few of their members are committing these acts, and that others are doing murders too; that they are just innocent bystanders who just happens to have an unusual amount of crime connected to their recreational activity of choice, yet people believe them.

---

Spoiler: In both cases I believe the issue is that of incentives and can be regulated without prohibition.

[Judean Zealot]

In both cases I believe the issue is that of incentives and can be regulated without prohibition.

The problem is that this particular issue seems to have remarkable resistance toward de-incentivisation, insofar as money is concerned.

[Living For Love]

Maybe this terrorist act will change the minds of those who think only Jews and Muslims are the victims of violence, hatred and discrimination.

[Sailor Mars]

Saw this on the news :/ Fuckin horrible...

[PlasmaHam]

Maybe this terrorist act will change the minds of those who think only Jews and Muslims are the victims of violence, hatred and discrimination.

Nah, people are still going to believe the obvious isn't happening. As for Jews, Antisemitism is actually on the rise in the US. Jews are probably the most persecuted Western religion today. Yet Jews are seen as the attackers and Muslims as the victims in most conflicts.

I commend France for actually saying they plan to deal with ISIS. I doubt it will happen anytime soon, but at least there is progress.

[Jinglebottom]

Anyone who believes Christians aren't persecuted anywhere should take a look at their situation in most Muslim countries (Syria, Iraq and Egypt just to name a few). North Korea gets a special mention too.

[Cygnus]

Pretty much the world right now.
https://i.imgur.com/6NfmQ.jpg

Someday we'll learn to be tolerant, but that day is definitely not today.

[sqishy]

Someday we'll learn to be tolerant, but that day is definitely not today.

Preferably such a day will not happen after some needed mass destruction and death.

[Ghaem]

Preferably such a day will not happen after some needed mass destruction and death.

Greed blinds even the most sightful eyes.

[PlasmaHam]

Preferably such a day will not happen after some needed mass destruction and death.

WWIII for the win!!!

Ironically, that is basically what Christian doctrine teaches about the end times.

[sqishy]

Greed blinds even the most sightful eyes.

A great capacity for manipulation and harm.


WWIII for the win!!!

Ironically, that is basically what Christian doctrine teaches about the end times.

How fitting.

[Living For Love]

WWIII for the win!!!

Ironically, that is basically what Christian doctrine teaches about the end times.
Not the death and mass destruction you're probably thinking, though.

[PlasmaHam]

Not the death and mass destruction you're probably thinking, though.

I know, it just seemed like too much of a coincidence not to include. I could go in a big long discussion about Revelations, but this is not the place. Sometimes though, it is better to burn down the house and start from scratch than it is to keep on doing repairs.

[Vlerchan]

The problem is that this particular issue seems to have remarkable resistance toward de-incentivisation, insofar as money is concerned.
I spoke too broadly in the last post. With regards to refugees arriving in Europe, I have always preferred allowing them to emigrate to charter cities set up on uninhabited Greek islands (not sure if you have read my posts there, I can find them if you want). The issue of second- and third-generation immigrants, legal citizens, who too often embrace an Islamist ideology, is a whole lot more difficult: and I agree that cash won't be enough.

Anyone who believes Christians aren't persecuted anywhere should take a look at their situation in most Muslim countries (Syria, Iraq and Egypt just to name a few). North Korea gets a special mention too.
When you hear someone claim that Christians can't be discriminated against - this isn't usually the claim, but let us move one step at a time - such claims tend to presume the structural privilege of that religion. No-one would argue that Sunni Muslims are opposed in Saudi Arabia, just like it might be claimed they are in France.

[Jinglebottom]

When you hear someone claim that Christians can't be discriminated against - this isn't usually the claim, but let us move one step at a time - such claims tend to presume the structural privilege of that religion. No-one would argue that Sunni Muslims are opposed in Saudi Arabia, just like it might be claimed they are in France.
So when people claim that "Christians can't be discriminated against", they actually mean "Christians can't be discriminated against in the Western world (where Christianity is the major religion)"? Because I suppose that's true to some extent.

[Vlerchan]

So when people claim that "Christians can't be discriminated against", they actually mean "Christians can't be discriminated against in the Western world (where Christianity is the major religion)"?
More-or-less. People in the West don't tend to consider that the things outside of the West exists to a greater extent than can be sympathised with. I find that we never quite shook off our colonial mindset*.

In general, the argument requires the social force - whether that's Christianity, Islam, Whiteness, Maleness, etc. - be hegemonic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony), insofar it possess structural power. The framing of the debate in this manner results in only structural issues being politically-meaningful (which, I happen to agree with).

---

* One thing I have considered as of late is that the liberal reluctance to shame Muslims for sex-baaed crimes, is based on viewing them as less than intellectual equals - Muslims being borne outside of civilisation, and there decisions being less capable of carrying their true moral consequences as a result.

Sort of like how you'd treat a child.

[PlasmaHam]

---

* One thing I have considered as of late is that the liberal reluctance to shame Muslims for sex-baaed crimes, is based on viewing them as less than intellectual equals - Muslims being borne outside of civilisation, and there decisions being less capable of carrying their true moral consequences as a result.

Sort of like how you'd treat a child.

That statement might not go well with some people...

[DriveAlive]

More-or-less. People in the West don't tend to consider that the things outside of the West exists to a greater extent than can be sympathised with. I find that we never quite shook off our colonial mindset*.

In general, the argument requires the social force - whether that's Christianity, Islam, Whiteness, Maleness, etc. - be hegemonic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony), insofar it possess structural power. The framing of the debate in this manner results in only structural issues being politically-meaningful (which, I happen to agree with).

---

* One thing I have considered as of late is that the liberal reluctance to shame Muslims for sex-baaed crimes, is based on viewing them as less than intellectual equals - Muslims being borne outside of civilisation, and there decisions being less capable of carrying their true moral consequences as a result.

Sort of like how you'd treat a child.

The white man's burden...

[Judean Zealot]

One thing I have considered as of late is that the liberal reluctance to shame Muslims for sex-baaed crimes, is based on viewing them as less than intellectual equals - Muslims being borne outside of civilisation, and there decisions being less capable of carrying their true moral consequences as a result.

What's bizarre about the whole deal is that these same people encourage the perpetuation of these primitive cultures, and condemn all criticism of them as colonialist (which it is, of course, but that's beside the the point).

It is my humanism above all else which drives me towards support of a Kipling-esque project of actively promoting western culture and thought in the underdeveloped world via political means (sans the nihilism and hedonism, of course).

------

Yes, I agree with your stated charter city plans; I was referring to those who are reasonably absorbed into their respective societies and yet still tend rather disturbingly towards radicalisation.

[Jinglebottom]

* One thing I have considered as of late is that the liberal reluctance to shame Muslims for sex-baaed crimes, is based on viewing them as less than intellectual equals - Muslims being borne outside of civilisation, and there decisions being less capable of carrying their true moral consequences as a result.

Sort of like how you'd treat a child.
That does indeed explain why some liberals refuse to acknowledge the barbaric behavior that some of them display, all while going through hoops to provide excuses and explanations for it - how we're somehow supposed to "tolerate" it because "it's their culture/traditions/norms etc."

[dxcxdzv]

Hm.
What's weird is that in the recent attacks (in France at least) some of the killers or related were in the records of intelligence and anti-terrorist services.

[Leprous]

I am waiting for those that will say 'muslims are the first victims'.

You do like blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a minority don't you?

[PlasmaHam]

You do like blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a minority don't you?

He wasn't blaming an entire group of people in his post. No one with a right mind is going out there and saying that all Muslims are terrorists and need to be eradicated. What I am saying, and I am sure what most others are saying as well, is that the Muslim faith does produce a higher amount of terrorists, and that to keep accepting these "refugees" is just going to produce more of these horrific incidents.

[Leprous]

He wasn't blaming an entire group of people in his post. No one with a right mind is going out there and saying that all Muslims are terrorists and need to be eradicated. What I am saying, and I am sure what most others are saying as well, is that the Muslim faith does produce a higher amount of terrorists, and that to keep accepting these "refugees" is just going to produce more of these horrific incidents.

He kinda is in his posts though. And it does, it really does. But remember Christian terrorism has been a thing too a long time ago. It is just that Islam has the most.

[PlasmaHam]

He kinda is in his posts though. And it does, it really does. But remember Christian terrorism has been a thing too a long time ago. It is just that Islam has the most.

The thing is, and you admit it, that you don't see Christian terrorists on the scale that you see Islamic. Christians are living in pretty good harmony with other religions. I live in the heart of American Christianity, you don't see religious based attacks here. Switch over to European countries and cities with rising Muslim populations. There is a huge difference.

[Leprous]

The thing is, and you admit it, that you don't see Christian terrorists on the scale that you see Islamic. Christians are living in pretty good harmony with other religions. I live in the heart of American Christianity, you don't see religious based attacks here. Switch over to European countries and cities with rising Muslim populations. There is a huge difference.

There are still Christians that hate on other religions though. However it is a minority. Europe has a problem. Belgium is a prime example of this. They are not all bad people though, but a minority is.

[Uniquemind]

The difference to me is that differences among different branches of the Christian faith, have grown up in Western societies that have for the most part, divorced the legal concept of Earthly law, and separated it from Religious law/customs.


That hasn't happened to the same degree in the Middle East, nor in the Islamic faith.

In addition the Islamic faith has not had a "reformation" in the same way that the Christianity had in Martin Luther's day.

[PlasmaHam]

The difference to me is that differences among different branches of the Christian faith, have grown up in Western societies that have for the most part, divorced the legal concept of Earthly law, and separated it from Religious law/customs.


Agreed, but I will say there is more than just developmental differences. Islamic teachings advocate for a joint church/state, while Christian doctrine disavows it.

[Judean Zealot]

Agreed, but I will say there is more than just developmental differences. Islamic teachings advocate for a joint church/state, while Christian doctrine disavows it.

Putting aside the Catholic Church's historical attempts to control the civil governments of Europe, the Protestant ideal as well was Calvinist Geneva or Puritan Plymouth. It's only when they lost the influence that we see this revisionism of a Protestant separation of church and state. That originated with the Deists, sworn enemies of the church.

[Arkansasguy]

Source: BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36892785)

A priest has been killed in an attack by two armed men at his church in a suburb of Rouen in northern France. The attackers entered the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray during Mass, taking the priest, Fr Jacques Hamel, 84, and four other people hostage. Police later surrounded the church and French TV said shots were fired. Both hostage-takers are now dead. President Francois Hollande said the men claimed to be from so-called Islamic State (IS).
Speaking in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, he said the attackers had committed a "cowardly assassination" and France would fight IS "by all means".

Another Christian martyred by the Islamic barbarians.

Jews are probably the most persecuted Western religion today.

It's amazing. We have a thread about a group of Muslims murdering a Catholic priest, and some people immediately want to start going on about how put upon the Jews supposedly are.

Agreed, but I will say there is more than just developmental differences. Islamic teachings advocate for a joint church/state, while Christian doctrine disavows it.

That's historically unfounded.

The problem with union of Islam and state isn't that the state adopts a coherent world view (as opposed to an incoherent world view such as secularism), but that it adopts a false world view.

[Ghaem]

Paraxiom, Looking the posts above, Guess Ignorance Never Dies.

[sqishy]

The problem with union of Islam and state isn't that the state adopts a coherent world view (as opposed to an incoherent world view such as secularism), but that it adopts a false world view.

(I know I ask a lot of questions, but most of them are only literally meant for knowing what you mean, without meaning anything else.)

What is the false world view?

[Secularism as an incoherent worldview is of great relevance to the 'Religion' thread in ROTW, if you want to expand on that there.]


Looking the posts above, Guess Ignorance Never Dies.

As in you see great ignorance in perception of Islam?

[Ghaem]

As in you see great ignorance in perception of Islam?

Great Ignorance.

[sqishy]

Great Ignorance.

Indeed.

[Arkansasguy]

(I know I ask a lot of questions, but most of them are only literally meant for knowing what you mean, without meaning anything else.)

What is the false world view?

In the specific example given, Islam.

[Secularism as an incoherent worldview is of great relevance to the 'Religion' thread in ROTW, if you want to expand on that there.][/QUOTE]

Not really. I'm not asserting that atheism is incoherent, but rather that secularism (the idea that the state should refrain from making judgments on religious questions) is incoherent, because it is itself a judgment on a religious question.

[sqishy]

In the specific example given, Islam.

Yes, what is the view?

[Taking the liberty to direct the other response you gave to the 'Religion' thread in ROTW.]

[Judean Zealot]

Yes, what is the view?

That Muhammad is God's apostle and a state ought to be run in accordance with his teachings?

[sqishy]

That Muhammad is God's apostle and a state ought to be run in accordance with his teachings?

If that is it overall, alright then (thanks for the reply).


(I don't know a lot about many many things, so you don't need to assume I know that.)

[Arkansasguy]

Yes, what is the view?

[Taking the liberty to direct the other response you gave to the 'Religion' thread in ROTW.]

What JZ said.

[PlasmaHam]

It's amazing. We have a thread about a group of Muslims murdering a Catholic priest, and some people immediately want to start going on about how put upon the Jews supposedly are.



That's historically unfounded.

The problem with union of Islam and state isn't that the state adopts a coherent world view (as opposed to an incoherent world view such as secularism), but that it adopts a false world view.

The rising antisemitism is caused by Islamic expansion, it seems relevant to the discussion at hand. Studies have shown that per-population the Jews are the most attacked religious group in the United States. That just shows that these Muslim terrorists are not only targetting Christians, but also jews.

It is historically unfounded, but from a theological standpoint it is true. Numerous verses in the Bible (Give onto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's, We fight not against flesh and blood, etc) point towards a church system not bound to the nations of the Earth. Catholics have a history of twisting Christian doctrines, they aren't exactly the purest domination in the world.

The world view of the Muslims, is that the rest of the world has fallen from Allah, and that they are tasked with returning the world to Islam. The best way to do that is to unite the world under Muslim law. In their eyes, they are the saviors of the world.

[PlasmaHam]

Putting aside the Catholic Church's historical attempts to control the civil governments of Europe, the Protestant ideal as well was Calvinist Geneva or Puritan Plymouth. It's only when they lost the influence that we see this revisionism of a Protestant separation of church and state. That originated with the Deists, sworn enemies of the church.

Catholics and some other early denominations were not exactly the pinnacle of Biblical living. Basing the whole of Christianity on one or two denominations does not work. I'm a Baptist, and I like to look at Baptist history. For hundreds if not thousands of years, Baptists were probably the most hated branch of Christianity, as they rejected infant baptistism, which in the eyes of Catholics and other early denominations was heresy. Three times they had the chance to become a state church, yet they always refused, citing Bible verses like Mark 12:17, John 18:36 , 1 John 5:19 and others to show that God does not want an Earthly kingdom, for his is in Heaven.

Sorry for the rant, Christian history is an interest of mine.

[Judean Zealot]

PlasmaHam

The question, of course, is what the respective realms of Caesar and God are? Augustine seems quite clear that crafting social policy is in the realm of the ecclesiastical. The verse is referring to the more religiously ambiguous notion of taxation; it is a recognition of civil government's right within its competency.

[PlasmaHam]

Judean Zealot

Interesting conversation, I could go into it some more, but this is starting to get off-topic. I will just say that union of Church and State never goes well, and history shows that. Modern Christians know that, yet the Muslim world view is that of a united Muslim nation that rules the Earth. There is clearly a greater motive for Muslims to want to do religious conquests than Christians. Maybe we can debate the theological substance behind it at a later time.

[Judean Zealot]

Judean Zealot

Interesting conversation, I could go into it some more, but this is starting to get off-topic. I will just say that union of Church and State never goes well, and history shows that. Modern Christians know that, yet the Muslim world view is that of a united Muslim nation that rules the Earth. There is clearly a greater motive for Muslims to want to do religious conquests than Christians. Maybe we can debate the theological substance behind it at a later time.

These threads are made to go off topic :P.

But I'll let Arkansasguy take this over, he has more of a dog in this fight than I do.

[Arkansasguy]

The rising antisemitism is caused by Islamic expansion, it seems relevant to the discussion at hand.

Completely anecdotal but I've seen European Jews claim that antisemitism is on the rise in Europe because Europeans resent them for encouraging the importation of "refugees".

I highly suspect that attempting to make common cause between Jews and Christians against Muslims is a fool's errand.

Studies have shown that per-population the Jews are the most attacked religious group in the United States.

Source?

That just shows that these Muslim terrorists are not only targetting Christians, but also jews.

Which is pertinent because?

It is historically unfounded, but from a theological standpoint it is true. Numerous verses in the Bible (Give onto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's, We fight not against flesh and blood, etc) point towards a church system not bound to the nations of the Earth.

That the Earth is not bound by me, does not mean that the converse is also true. Ecclesiastical privilege does not imply state secularism. In fact the two are opposed, since in order for the state to recognize in the Church a right to independence, it must recognize the Church as a concert entity (I'm assuming you don't believe that any entity claiming to be a church should be allowed to do anything it wants without civil repercussions).

Catholics have a history of twisting Christian doctrines, they aren't exactly the purest domination in the world.

A priori, Catholics are the purest sect of Christianity in the world. If the apostles and their successors were incapable of figuring out what Jesus "really meant", then there's no way a bunch of wannabes living thousands of years after the fact could.

[sqishy]

A priori Catholics are the purest sect of Christianity in the world. If the apostles and their successors were incapable of figuring out what Jesus "really meant", then there's no way a bunch of wannabes living thousands of years after the fact could.

'A priori Catholics'?

[Arkansasguy]

'A priori Catholics'?

A priori, Catholics are . . .

[PlasmaHam]

A priori, Catholics are . . .

I literally have no idea what group you are talking about. My knowledge of Catholic History and its various groups is not very good.

[Dalcourt]

"a priori" is a figure of speech...he corrected the sentence inserting the comma...

[Leprous]

Arkansasguy Might I ask if you hate all Muslims or just the extremists? Confused by the way you put it in your post. "Muslim barbarians"

[Arkansasguy]

I literally have no idea what group you are talking about. My knowledge of Catholic History and its various groups is not very good.

I'm talking about Catholics.

Google "a priori", and figure out how commas are used in the English language.

[Leprous]

I'm talking about Catholics.

Google "a priori", and figure out how commas are used in the English language.

Or you can stop bashing on someone for their use of commas and stick to the topic.

[PlasmaHam]

I'm talking about Catholics.

Google "a priori", and figure out how commas are used in the English language.

Can you please just explain?

[sqishy]

[was trying to say something but now it means nothing]

[Dalcourt]

Arkansasguy: sorryto butt in but otherwise this thread gives me physical pain to read

a priori
A Latin phrase meaning from the previous, used to mean deduced or known to be true.

[PlasmaHam]

a priori
A Latin phrase meaning from the previous, used to mean deduced or known to be true.

Thank you, but that still doesn't really answer my question in regards to what is a priori Catholic.
Arkansasguy Are you talking about Catholics as a whole? A certain Catholic sect? A variation of Catholicism? I really have no idea what you are talking about. Like Paraxiom said, please fully explain what you are talking about.

[sqishy]

Arkansasguy: sorryto butt in but otherwise this thread gives me physical pain to read

a priori
A Latin phrase meaning from the previous, used to mean deduced or known to be true.

A priori knowledge: knowledge whose justification is independent of experience of the world / experience in general. As example, it is argued by some that "2+2=6" is false, but also a priori.

[PlasmaHam]

A priori knowledge: knowledge whose justification is independent of experience of the world / experience in general. As example, it is argued by some that "2+2=6" is false, but also a priori.

Thanks, that makes sense

I don't see how a religious group based on priori knowledge is the purest of that religion. The Bible is pretty cut and dry on most things regarding Christianity. From what I've read and Paraxiom's definition, it seems that priori Catholics basically make stuff up as they go along, instead of depending on the Bible.

Of course, I could be interpreting that wrong. I am just guessing here. I wouldn't have to be guessing if the person who brought up priori Catholics would just give the explanation!

[Dalcourt]

guys you are thinking way too complicated on this one I'm afraid...just forget about this a priori thing...just read it again in the whole context and keep in mind that there should be a comma between a priori and Catholics...
I really don't see what more explanation it needs,sorry

[sqishy]

guys you are thinking way too complicated on this one I'm afraid...just forget about this a priori thing...just read it again in the whole context and keep in mind that there should be a comma between a priori and Catholics...
I really don't see what more explanation it needs,sorry

I'm going to walk into a brick wall, perhaps literally.

Arkansasguy Judean Zealot

*delayed reaction*

You're both completely right here. I apologise for that.

PlasmaHam

Editing those posts because they now mean nothing.
Peanut_

My one point of defence is that he did not edit the first mention of 'A priori, Catholics are ...', so I kept looking there when you said my reaction is overblown (which it still is).



Google "a priori", and figure out how commas are used in the English language.

Figure out to edit a post itself.


You were saying then that Catholics are the purest Christian sect in the world, by how much a priori reasoning they have.

[PlasmaHam]

Well, I am rather annoyed right now. So, all he is saying is that Catholics are the purest form of Christianity because of their priori knowledge. I could debate that claim, but right now I am just annoyed that I spent so much time for basically nothing.

Well, the only good thing that came out of this is that we learned a new word. But I'm still annoyed.

[sqishy]

Well, I am rather annoyed right now. So, all he is saying is that Catholics are the purest form of Christianity because of their priori knowledge. I could debate that claim, but right now I am just annoyed that I spent so much time for basically nothing.

Well, the only good thing that came out of this is that we learned a new word. But I'm still annoyed.

I'm guessing that he sees Catholicism as having the most a priori reasoning out of all Christianity.

The time was not spent for nothing, it made sense before realising the mistake.

Makes ROTW funny sometimes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(Past two days here have been eventful.)

[Judean Zealot]

I'm banging my head against the wall here. It's really not so complicated.

[Arkansasguy]

For goodness sakes, it's basic English.

Based only on prior consideration (without needing to get into the various arguments about justification or the sacraments or whatever), it is apparent that Catholics (the sect of Christiaintiy founded by Christ) are a purer form of Christianity than those sects founded at later dates.

[PlasmaHam]

For goodness sakes, it's basic English.

Technically it was a Latin...


Based only on prior consideration (without needing to get into the various arguments about justification or the sacraments or whatever), it is apparent that Catholics (the sect of Christiaintiy founded by Christ) are a purer form of Christianity than those sects founded at later dates.

You said it yourself. Based on a priori standpoint, Catholicism would seem to be the purest of the Christian denominations, but life doesn't work that way. Just because you're the oldest doesn't mean you are the purest. When you get into those various arguments you skipped across, you realize that Catholicism isn't the purest.

Also, Biblical and historical evidence does not point towards a Catholic church or Catholic-like church until long after Jesus' resurrection. The numerous errors which lead to the Catholic church took considerable time to set in.

If you want to continue this, maybe we should start a ROTW thread. I'll be more than happy to go indepth on the subject there. This will likely evolve into a full blown debate with me anyway, so we might as well make it one. Plus, I don't really like arguing over Catholicism in a thread talking about a Catholic priest's death.

[Judean Zealot]

For goodness sakes, it's basic English.

Based only on prior consideration (without needing to get into the various arguments about justification or the sacraments or whatever), it is apparent that Catholics (the sect of Christiaintiy founded by Christ) are a purer form of Christianity than those sects founded at later dates.

Organisationally, perhaps, but the challenge is countering the Non-Chalcedonian Churches or the Arians who really have had a presence from the Council of Nicaea onwards. The argument would be that the Roman Church drifted away from the pure teachings - bear in mind that then it was only a couple of centuries after Jesus, and it took time for a decentralised church to actually formulate a coherent set of doctrines.

[Leprous]

Can someone tell me how this is about Islamic terror? I don't even want to read up with the Priori stuff.

[Judean Zealot]

Can someone tell me how this is about Islamic terror? I don't even want to read up with the Priori stuff.

Do we have to stick to that (rather dull) topic? I mean, the fact that there was a Catholic Church at all is part of the story, isn't it?

[Leprous]

Do we have to stick to that (rather dull) topic? I mean, the fact that there was a Catholic Church at all is part of the story, isn't it?

True but is this about the Islamic terror or not? Just asked for someone to update me.

[Judean Zealot]

True but is this about the Islamic terror or not? Just asked for someone to update me.

It isn't.

[sqishy]

I'm banging my head against the wall here. It's really not so complicated.

It isn't complicated. It's misunderstood in an unusual turn of events.

I'm suppose to be banging my head, instead of you doing so.


For goodness sakes, it's basic English.

It is indeed. Doesn't take that away from it though.

The power of the , in changing meaning.



Based only on prior consideration (without needing to get into the various arguments about justification or the sacraments or whatever), it is apparent that Catholics (the sect of Christiaintiy founded by Christ) are a purer form of Christianity than those sects founded at later dates.

The Special One

To the The ultimate schismatic thread we go.

[Flapjack]

This is so sad:(

[Ghaem]

Alright. What is going on in this thread?

[PlasmaHam]

Alright. What is going on in this thread?

We got into a discussion about the various Christian denominations and which one was actually right. IDK how we got to that, but eventually that split off into its own thread.

Basically this post got into how Catholicism was wrong, and trying to figure out the definition of a non-existent group. If you want to see a more civilized version of this thread, check out The ultimate schismatic thread on the ROTW. Pretty interesting, you might learn a thing or two.

[Ghaem]

PlasmaHam, Thanks.